RugbyRebels

paddy no 11 wrote:Clutching at straws there Donny - and yes it would be amazing if the oxford vaccine gets approval after phase 3

Just highlighting an interesting article. I'm not trying to bang any drums.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Just highlighting an interesting article. I'm not trying to bang any drums.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Don’t you dare be positive or highlight successes, Donny. We must put ourselves down at every opportunity.

Donny osmond wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Clutching at straws there Donny - and yes it would be amazing if the oxford vaccine gets approval after phase 3

Just highlighting an interesting article. I'm not trying to bang any drums.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Laughable and misleading clickbait headline "The U.K.’s Response to Covid-19 Has Been World-Class", but the article shows some great work done on the biomedical front in the UK - we may well be world class in that area (although I'd be interested to see a global roundup of progress).

morepork wrote:The 14 day thing is based on the incubation period of the virus, not on the density of infected people. It takes an average of 5 days from exposure to onset of symptoms, meaning the virus is unlikely to be shedding material into the respiratory tract until a week or so. The diagnostic requires generating a DNA template of the RNA virus genome before PCR can be run, and this step (reverse transcription) is not particularly efficient/sensitive. If you swab someone before 5 days post-initial exposure there is a risk that there will not be enough material to run the diagnostic reliably. Comprehensive testing requires an initial early test then an additional test somewhere near the end of the 2 week quarantine. That way you can be sure the virus has had enough time to complete multiple lytic cycles and provide enough testable material.

Agreed, the 14 day thing is about the incubation period (although from what you say, a 7 day quarantine with a test at the 5th day would seem to be fully effective).

My point about the density of infected people is that there's little to gain from putting a barrier between two populations with a similar density of infection. You are just as likely to catch the virus while moving around within area A as you are if you travel from A to B and back again. It would be just as effective to erect an artificial barrier between two parts of your own country, or (more practically) begin a mandatory programme of random testing. The time for border controls is when travellers return from countries with a significantly higher infection density.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Clutching at straws there Donny - and yes it would be amazing if the oxford vaccine gets approval after phase 3

Just highlighting an interesting article. I'm not trying to bang any drums.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Laughable and misleading clickbait headline "The U.K.’s Response to Covid-19 Has Been World-Class", but the article shows some great work done on the biomedical front in the UK - we may well be world class in that area (although I'd be interested to see a global roundup of progress).

The thing is, the UK is general excellent at specialist fields. Engineering, science, technology...and I think that was one of the big drivers of the idea the UK could stand alone after Brexit.

They just forgot about the bit about others being able to buy your services seamlessly...

Not that surprising given the numbers and proximity - as long as the transmission remains 1-way..

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/covi ... -in-the-uk

Trumpeting a potential vaccine on a thread where people are stating they cannot get adequate PPE, here and now, is pretty rich.

Donny osmond wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Clutching at straws there Donny - and yes it would be amazing if the oxford vaccine gets approval after phase 3

Just highlighting an interesting article. I'm not trying to bang any drums.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Unlike the author of the article, who, no doubt, was put up to it by Conservative Party Central Office.

They probably genuinely believe that the majority of people cannot distinguish between "the UK's response" and the "response of individuals and organisations within the UK".

They may well be right, of course.

morepork wrote:Trumpeting a potential vaccine on a thread where people are stating they cannot get adequate PPE, here and now, is pretty rich.

To be fair, it's not just the potential vaccine that is trumpeted in the article, but other things too such as the successful trials of dexamethasone.

Apparently South Korea and Australia are to be pitied or condemned or something because Oxford University isn't based there.

ETA: I forgot, it's all down to Brexit, so it was probably Dominic Cummings that got the ad, er I mean article, written.

"Critics of Brexit like to say that it will leave the U.K. as a small country of minor import. Maybe so. In the meantime, the Brits are on track to save the world."

By Christ you people need to invest in some alcohol or marijuana or diazepam or something.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

By Christ you people need to invest in some alcohol or marijuana or diazepam or something.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

You need to lay of the crack pipe.

Donny osmond wrote:By Christ you people need to invest in some alcohol or marijuana or diazepam or something.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I think the author of that puff piece was taking enough of those for all of us.

morepork wrote:Trumpeting a potential vaccine on a thread where people are stating they cannot get adequate PPE, here and now, is pretty rich.

I can get tons of PPE, being as I'm an NHS provider. I just think the guidelines mean a sh*t ton is being wasted to be honest- 1/2 million face masks a year is a load, and we are a relatively small service. Private providers may find it more challenging to get some items- this is what happened in some privately run care homes.

I’ve been actively avoiding the numbers side of all this since it began, but are many currently doing accurate numbers of ‘proportion of people tested (testing positive)’ rather than the total numbers infected?

I’ve no idea if that’s a metric that gets used or not. There may be some reason it’s a terrible idea.

We're expecting a second wave here any minute with people coming home from holiday, but there are worries the government will hush it up to promote their own "we're amazing, look how we've handled the pandemic" concept. I imagine there will be a spike reported in Budapest and blamed on the mayor, and nothing else, because when Fidesz are in control, nothing bad happens.

Saying that, they have definitely got a few things very right. On masks, it's not the individual's responsibility: shops can be fined, and heavily, if anyone is caught not wearing a mask on their premises. So it's in their interest to make sure everyone is wearing one.

Borders are closed again, generally, and while it's frustrating that we have no grandparents to help us over the summer, I understand it.

And the border closing is proactive, not reactive, so kudos for that.

Despite the many terrible things this govt. does, the reaction to covid has been very good in general.

Mikey Brown wrote:I’ve been actively avoiding the numbers side of all this since it began, but are many currently doing accurate numbers of ‘proportion of people tested (testing positive)’ rather than the total numbers infected?

I’ve no idea if that’s a metric that gets used or not. There may be some reason it’s a terrible idea.

That is exactly how rates of infection are quantified.That percentage going up = increased rates of infection.

'proportion of people tested'
....rise in % positive = increase in Rate of infection.

surely this will give some misleading data in a shifting Test approach ( due to resouces, priorities etc)
e.g. only test cases presenting at Hosp--> test cases declaring symptoms--> as above + front line workers--> as above + those in close contact -->...the world and his dog (cat).
Depends what they choose to do with the data I suppose.

Must help mortality rate figures if you hoover up all positives including those who don't get unwell, and this erroneously allows championing of health systems or genetic stock.

morepork wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I’ve been actively avoiding the numbers side of all this since it began, but are many currently doing accurate numbers of ‘proportion of people tested (testing positive)’ rather than the total numbers infected?

I’ve no idea if that’s a metric that gets used or not. There may be some reason it’s a terrible idea.

That is exactly how rates of infection are quantified.That percentage going up = increased rates of infection.

Oh right. I thought there was another factor or two involved in determining ‘rate of infection’. As Galfon says it seems like there would be many different ways to qualify that term.

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I’ve been actively avoiding the numbers side of all this since it began, but are many currently doing accurate numbers of ‘proportion of people tested (testing positive)’ rather than the total numbers infected?

I’ve no idea if that’s a metric that gets used or not. There may be some reason it’s a terrible idea.

That is exactly how rates of infection are quantified.That percentage going up = increased rates of infection.

Oh right. I thought there was another factor or two involved in determining ‘rate of infection’. As Galfon says it seems like there would be many different ways to qualify that term.

It's a quantity. It doesn't need qualification. If you test 1000 people per day on Monday and 100 are positive, and 1000 people on Friday and 5000 are positive, then an increased rate of infection is the only explanation for a 5-fold increase. The simplest explanation is invariably correct.

morepork wrote: If you test 1000 people per day on Monday and 100 are positive, and 1000 people on Friday and 5000 are positive,..

your name must be Jesus!.
we need it going the other way, please Lord.

Galfon wrote:

morepork wrote: If you test 1000 people per day on Monday and 100 are positive, and 1000 people on Friday and 5000 are positive,..

your name must be Jesus!.
we need it going the other way, please Lord.

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote:

morepork wrote: If you test 1000 people per day on Monday and 100 are positive, and 1000 people on Friday and 5000 are positive,..

your name must be Jesus!.
we need it going the other way, please Lord.

The infecting of the 5000.

Fake Gnus.

Some call him Jesus, still others call him Jared.


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07 ... o-thin-air