Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Goat]

Because the testing centres were only doing COVID tests, you'd have to keep them open all the time, and just going to them pretty much defeats the object of telling people to isolate if they think they've got something.

If you are going to have a system that can pick up unknown things (and identify more than one disease) quickly enough, it probably means home visits and lab tests are required (though if its suspected that someone has something for which a quicker test does exist, theres no reason why that test couldn't be used there and then).

More importantly though, this is about making sure we have a system that can do that - just by doing this sort of work, we'd know that the chances are it would pick something up if it got here.

You are on the right track, we need a proper test and trace system.

I just feel yours is very flawed.

 

[BlueToff]

Given a fair wind, yeah, I know, over the next 6 months, and into next year, the vax developments should, (crosses fingers), make this thing similar, but more wider, as how the NHS deal with the annual flu.

Think it was @Tubey , but might have been @tsubaki who posted an all too familier graph thing from 1918, in a vax free world.

Yeah, COVID is here to stay now so we know we have to live with it and we also know that they'll do that like we do with Flu.

I think the point tsubaki makes is that we should have these test, track and trace systems in place because it would prevent deaths from things like flu too.

It's a good idea in principle. I'm just not sure that their suggestion is actually workable in reality.

Maybe we'll see something similar this coming winter.

 

[Wizard]

I can't understand the possible use such a study could bring?

We know the groups who are behind on take-up of the vaccine for various different reasons and we can try to remedy these by changing the way we distribute the vaccine, the places where it's given etc?

You can't do the same by asking people their opinions and the way they vote as 7% more people from various groupings are more likely to take up the invitation to be vaccinated than others from various other groupings - amongst a very limited survey of the thousand or so asked.

The conclusions seem dubious to say the least and the results of little or no use to anybody, what a waste of time and money.

The headline is classic LBC clickbait. But the study was done to work out if there are parts of society that are particularly vaccine hesitant which is a valuable thing to know as it helps to know who to target and how with messages that the vaccine is safe and should be taken. For example it showed that people that don't trust politicians are less likely to take the vaccine. So going after them with a message led by Johnson or Hancock would be a waste of time.

This quote from the guy that led the study sums it up:

“When so much of the UK Government’s lockdown exit strategy rests on successful vaccine roll out, these insights will be of immediate importance to policymakers in both their internal deliberation on policy and their outward facing communication with the public.”

 

[BlueToff]

The latest possible symptoms are now so wide, everyone has had one of them this winter. A headache ffs?? Come on.

Was told by someone who knows, that unless you have one of the classic 3, a test isnt suggested. That was 2 weeks ago mind, so might have changed.

The MD of the company I work 2 days a week for has tested positive.

Fortunately only I go into the office on the days I work and I think only one other person on the other days.

Anyway, she only went for a test on Saturday as she was due to go into hospital for a knee op. She'd had a cold last week (I spoke to her on the phone last Tuesday and you could tell she was bunged up) but literally nothing else.

She's now isolating until Saturday. Feels fine, not had anything over than a cold.

I know there's the 'classic three', but it really does just depend completely on chance it seems. It's nuts.

And none of her family have returned a positive test or shown any symptoms, either, and if she hadn't have been going to the hospital, she wouldn't have even known.

 

[BlueToff]

Yeah, when I hear people describe how they felt, I honestly don't think I've ever had the real flu personally.

Ive had some pretty nasty colds, but nothing that destroyed me like people who talk about the flu had.

My mum had 'real flu' (or, maybe COVID, who knows) last January. Was properly out for the count. I don't think I've ever had it. I've had a bad bug or two, but never been as bad as she was last year.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

Yeah, when I hear people describe how they felt, I honestly don't think I've ever had the real flu personally.

Ive had some pretty nasty colds, but nothing that destroyed me like people who talk about the flu had.

I've only had it once and I was very very weak indeed, literally did well to stand up out of bed and walk to the bathroom. The worst think is other than taking liquids and keeping up with nutrient supplements or drinks there's not much you can do.

It's literally a sleep in lasting weeks were you feel wretched all the time.

Horrible experience.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

The MD of the company I work 2 days a week for has tested positive.

Fortunately only I go into the office on the days I work and I think only one other person on the other days.

Anyway, she only went for a test on Saturday as she was due to go into hospital for a knee op. She'd had a cold last week (I spoke to her on the phone last Tuesday and you could tell she was bunged up) but literally nothing else.

She's now isolating until Saturday. Feels fine, not had anything over than a cold.

I know there's the 'classic three', but it really does just depend completely on chance it seems. It's nuts.

And none of her family have returned a positive test or shown any symptoms, either, and if she hadn't have been going to the hospital, she wouldn't have even known.

Yeah it's so variable and there really are so many factors that affect susceptibility to show symptoms.

For every general rule you think of there are so many exceptions to it, it's hardly worth stating. Inevitably there will be variance around even the more accepted 'normal' danger signs too.

 

[BlueToff]

No. If someone wakes up and feels they've got something worse than the normal cold, they phone up and get someone to come out and test them (and the rest of the household). They all wait for the test results to come back. If those test results indicate something that poses a threat (or something new or unknown) then they isolate. If its not something that poses a threat, then the decision is up to them (so if its just normal flu for instance, they find out its just flu and can then decide what they do with that; if its nothing, they are told its nothing).

This is people taking one or two sick days, when they are sick, and reporting they are sick to the authorities. Their employer should (and would be told to) cover that as they should do any sick day, but for where this isn't possible (self-employed people for example, or gig workers), then yes they should be helped to do that - given that its in the interest of everyone in society that we are able to pick these things up early enough.

If people take the piss with the system then that will show up too - you'll have the same people and/or the same addresses coming up repeatedly. If people lie about having done it, then I'd hope the employer would have some way of confirming whether or not a test has taken place (even if its just ringing up and checking a reference number).

As for whether I think that has any sense of realism - yes, I do. Most people will call 999 if they need help; they'll call 111 or go to the GP / A&E if they need medical help. If that help results in advice to do something, most people will try to do it if they can. People already take sick days from work. We already do most of this, in short - we just need to establish a test, track, trace and isolate system that can work and which people will use.

This isn't about jobs for a second.

You say it's taking one or two days. Which is realistic.

But, you can wake up feeling absolutely awful. Like really, really bad. And then 3 hours later you feel a lot better. And then 12 hours later, fine.

Or, the classic '24-hour bug' - which is a thing, you can just have a day where your body is fighting something.

In that case, how do you convince people that they're not just absolutely wasting their own time, waiting to get a test back for something that they may well already have fought off anyway?

I'm just asking the question. I'm not focusing on the work thing because yes, there is - financially - options available to cover that (in most situations, but not all, as I've mentioned in previous posts).

 

[Chris O'Connor]

The headline is classic LBC clickbait. But the study was done to work out if there are parts of society that are particularly vaccine hesitant which is a valuable thing to know as it helps to know who to target and how with messages that the vaccine is safe and should be taken. For example it showed that people that don't trust politicians are less likely to take the vaccine. So going after them with a message led by Johnson or Hancock would be a waste of time.

This quote from the guy that led the study sums it up:

“When so much of the UK Government’s lockdown exit strategy rests on successful vaccine roll out, these insights will be of immediate importance to policymakers in both their internal deliberation on policy and their outward facing communication with the public.”

Yes although tbf distrust in politicians was one of the many already known factors and steps have been taken to use other ways to get around known problem areas.

Contacting local community leaders and even religious leaders (for example local mosques with the imam telling them) are just two in the recent news.

The bloke had to justify the survey and be onside, which you can see by the positive spin he's trying to put in it. Statistically it's fairly dubious even by sample size to sufficiently break it down into so many subcategories differentiated by as little as seven per cent - to me it seems virtually worthless tbh.

 

[Tubey]

You are on the right track, we need a proper test and trace system.

I just feel yours is very flawed.

Indeed. The word "utopian" is suitable to describe it - a flawless system with a willing populace that ignores the practic reality of the situation.

We'll be screening every respiratory illness in hospitals for COVID in the future and catching variants that way. That's all we need to do.

 

[Wizard]

Yes although tbf distrust in politicians was one of the many already known factors and steps have been taken to use other ways to get around known problem areas.

Contacting local community leaders and even religious leaders (for example local mosques with the imam telling them) are two in the recent news.

I just used that as one example. The study looks at age, gender, ethnicity etc. LBC just made it seem like it was solely politically focused for those delicious clicks

 

[tsubaki]

This isn't about jobs for a second.

You say it's taking one or two days. Which is realistic.

But, you can wake up feeling absolutely awful. Like really, really bad. And then 3 hours later you feel a lot better. And then 12 hours later, fine.

Or, the classic '24-hour bug' - which is a thing, you can just have a day where your body is fighting something.

In that case, how do you convince people that they're not just absolutely wasting their own time, waiting to get a test back for something that they may well already have fought off anyway?

I'm just asking the question. I'm not focusing on the work thing because yes, there is - financially - options available to cover that (in most situations, but not all, as I've mentioned in previous posts).

There will be a lot of that - people feeling like fools for bothering. The vast majority of the results are going to be for things that they (and we) aren't bothered about; indeed most COVID tests were negative even at the heights of the pandemic.

The same phenomenon happens already now when people phone 999 for an ambulance after seeing a car crash, or phone up the cops about an unattended bag, or call the fire brigade after seeing smoke - most of the time it isn't as bad as they think, and whatever it is cleared up and dealt with by people who know what they are doing and can make a proper assessment.

The important thing though is that they report it - if it is bad, then the people who could do something about it get a chance to do something about it in enough time that it might make a difference. That is all we'd need to do with a test and trace system that was working all the time (which it needs to be to be effective), get people in the habit of using it and then when this happens again we might have a chance to stop it.

 

[tsubaki]

Indeed. The word "utopian" is suitable to describe it - a flawless system with a willing populace that ignores the practic reality of the situation.

We'll be screening every respiratory illness in hospitals for COVID in the future and catching variants that way. That's all we need to do.

That would be (and is in most places) one bit of it Tubey, but again if we just do that then we've let whatever it is spread a lot by the time it reaches that point.

COVID-19 had at least a month, probably more like two months before a hospital picked it up. That is not fast enough, as we've all just found - nor is it how we'd ever run a test and trace system in a pandemic. We need to have a system that can pick it up quicker than that.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

I just used that as one example. The study looks at age, gender, ethnicity etc. LBC just made it seem like it was solely politically focused for those delicious clicks

Maybe the aims were too ambitious for such a small sample size of 1200. Obviously very hard to comment properly as ignorant of the detail but it was posted on here with no context and no commentary on its findings - perhaps by someone pleased with the clickbait headline LBC gave - which was definitely a nonsense.

 

[Wizard]

Maybe the aims were too ambitious for such a small sample size of 1200. Obviously very hard to comment properly as ignorant of the detail but it was posted on here with no context and no commentary on its findings - perhaps by someone pleased with the clickbait headline LBC gave - which was definitely a nonsense.

Think the study was designed as a way to see how the vaccine rollout has changed people's views as it was done once in October and again in February with the same people. So you don't necessarily need a huge sample size. Here is an article from Oxford University about the results, with a link to the study.

Major rise in public support for COVID vaccine – Oxford study | University of Oxford

More than three quarters of people in the UK now say they are ’very likely’ to have the vaccine – up from 50% among the same group of survey respondents five months ago –according to a two-wave Oxford University survey published today.

www.ox.ac.uk