Coronavirus Thread

[st albans fox]

52 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Not really, I think this should have been done from the start.

Except we had a capacity of six tests a day back when it mattered ........

[Corky]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Why shouldn't we? I'm sorry but going down the pub and the footy, and not having to wear a sodding mask everywhere are not unreasonable expectations.

I meant more about wearing masks on crowded public transport (which should hopefully reduce colds and coughs from germs spreading). I'd love to go to the football again.

 

I do think there are some things that we could continue such as the above but I want a return to near normality too, any lowering of restrictions would be extremely welcome.

[Paninistickers]

20 minutes ago, Lionator said:

So if all goes well and we get everybody who needs vaccinating vaccinated then we won’t need restrictions.
 

However things aren’t that smooth. Not everyone will get a vaccine for various reasons (probably only 70%) which means it’ll always be in circulation. People in rare instances still get infected despite being previously infected or vaccinated. Therefore there will be some sort of outbreak at some stage, most likely next winter. This does not mean we will end up in complete lockdown, however they may ask people to wear masks in certain places as well as other smaller measures. 
 

Please do not worry. 

Surely everyone who needs a vaccine will have had it by October this year, when the winter flu  (and now covid) season starts its momentum?

 

Those who had the vaccine  but contract it anyway despite immunisation supposedly shouldn't have a severe reaction and not end up in hospital.

 

Those who won't bother with the vaccine are generally those - I.e the young and fit - who aren't expected to get severely ill. 

 

So, i don't see any reason for next winter to require any type of restrictions

[SpacedX]

11 hours ago, RonnieTodger said:

Only just dawned on me that lockdown hair is back and I'll end up looking like one of The Beatles.

 

Ah, but which era?...

 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Not really, I think this should have been done from the start.

That was my point, they should have properly locked down the borders on day one. They didn't even require quarantining on arrival until May 23rd and even then, that didn't come into effect until ****ing June 8th. Useless.

[yorkie1999]

32 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Except we had a capacity of six tests a day back when it mattered ........

Sadly this is true , but now we have the capacity to do 760000 tests per day. Surely the answer is to forget all this waiting for symptoms crap before you go and get tested because in those few days you could be infecting tons of people , as soon as you know someone who is positive, go and get tested. If you’re positive, take action, if you’re not, and I know you get the results in about 24 hours cos my son did isolate till you get the results, and you’re negative, get on with your life. If you’re negative, you’re not asymmetric and you’re not a threat, in fact you’re probably the safest person to be stood next to. That’s the way the nhs, the football, the F1 and even the lorry drivers that were stuck in Kent are dealing with it. 

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

That was my point, they should have properly locked down the borders on day one. They didn't even require quarantining on arrival until May 23rd and even then, that didn't come into effect until ****ing June 8th. Useless.

Thinking back, I’m sure I said when it was kicking off in Italy , we are an island, lock the borders and it can’t get here, but the general consensus was we can’t do that cos of the economy. Well that went well didn’t it.

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Sadly this is true , but now we have the capacity to do 760000 tests per day. Surely the answer is to forget all this waiting for symptoms crap before you go and get tested because in those few days you could be infecting tons of people , as soon as you know someone who is positive, go and get tested. If you’re positive, take action, if you’re not, and I know you get the results in about 24 hours cos my son did isolate till you get the results, and you’re negative, get on with your life. If you’re negative, you’re not asymmetric and you’re not a threat, in fact you’re probably the safest person to be stood next to. That’s the way the nhs, the football, the F1 and even the lorry drivers that were stuck in Kent are dealing with it. 

Thats reasonable except that it can take max 14 days from when you’re with someone infectious before you show symptoms - so that’s up to about twelve days afterwards before you would test positive.  I think the average is 2 to 5 days.  If you think you may have been infected then I would suggest Isolating and waiting  for at least three days before getting tested. if you can manage five that even better!  

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Thats reasonable except that it can take max 14 days from when you’re with someone infectious before you show symptoms - so that’s up to about twelve days afterwards before you would test positive.  I think the average is 2 to 5 days.  If you think you may have been infected then I would suggest Isolating and waiting  for at least three days before getting tested. if you can manage five that even better!  

That was the advice before they could handle 100000’s of test per day so it was obviously the safe thing to do. With a test that’s 98% efficient, if you’re positive, you’re positive but if you’re negative, that’s it. You’re not waiting for it to develop, the virus is either present or it’s not.  I didn’t know this until I read the results email. You are negative at the time of that test, and you have been cleared to go back to work etc. There’s a 2% chance of it being wrong.

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

That was the advice before they could handle 100000’s of test per day so it was obviously the safe thing to do. With a test that’s 98% efficient, if you’re positive, you’re positive but if you’re negative, that’s it. You’re not waiting for it to develop, the virus is either present or it’s not.  I didn’t know this until I read the results email. You are negative at the time of that test, and you have been cleared to go back to work etc. There’s a 2% chance of it being wrong.

Sorry mate but that’s simply not true ...... you’re negative if you’re not infectious. You can still develop the virus and then test positive. Your test is a snapshot in time. The virus can be developing in your body without actually being present to give a positive test.  Several days later you can then be positive.  That’s one of the reasons they didn’t test travellers coming in and why they require you to quarantine even if you’ve tested negative.  It’s the biggest issue we have in trying to control it. 

[AoWW]

Best one today...

 

"I need my 4 kids to be in school during lockdown."

(Me, slightly confused as I know the family well) "oh, have you managed to find a job... are you a keyworker?"

"nah, but I've got a new fella... neither of us work but I'm trying for a baby and we need time without the kids to... well... y'know."

 

I'm not often lost for words. Once I'd explained this really didn't meet the criteria she calmly told me,

"Oh, guess we'll just have to shag in the shed then."

#stayclassy

[foxile5]

4 minutes ago, AoWW said:

Best one today...

 

"I need my 4 kids to be in school during lockdown."

(Me, slightly confused as I know the family well) "oh, have you managed to find a job... are you a keyworker?"

"nah, but I've got a new fella... neither of us work but I'm trying for a baby and we need time without the kids to... well... y'know."

 

I'm not often lost for words. Once I'd explained this really didn't meet the criteria she calmly told me,

"Oh, guess we'll just have to shag in the shed then."

#stayclassy

The mind boggles. 

[yorkie1999]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Sorry mate but that’s simply not true ...... you’re negative if you’re not infectious. You can still develop the virus and then test positive. Your test is a snapshot in time. The virus can be developing in your body without actually being present to give a positive test.  Several days later you can then be positive.  That’s one of the reasons they didn’t test travellers coming in and why they require you to quarantine even if you’ve tested negative.  It’s the biggest issue we have in trying to control it. 

So what’s the point of actually having a test then. What’s the point of a test saying you’re negative but you might be positive.

[Ian Nacho]

Tossers next door had one of their kids girlfriends move in this morning. 

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, Ian Nacho said:

Tossers next door had one of their kids girlfriends move in this morning. 

Is she fit?

[Guest Fktf]

20 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Is she fit?

Bit late to pop down to shed to find out the answer to that..

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Bit late to pop down to shed to find out the answer to that..

With your Kleenex 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

Until about a month ago I was George or John but with a much longer beard.

[Matt]

8 hours ago, Unabomber said:

@Matt do you think we are currently in a lockdown? 

I suppose it’s a case of how blinded and easily led or not you are I guess.

 

[Pliskin]

7 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

Tossers next door had one of their kids girlfriends move in this morning. 

Have you ever seen step brothers? That have some pretty good methods of distracting potential movers. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

Had my lad do an antibody test yesterday to help us make informed decisions about childcare options/limit our guilt about playing the key worker card and keeping him in school, and that confirmed he'd had it.

 

I know it's not news that a lot of cases are asymptomatic, but it does make you ask a lot of questions. Did he give it to us or vice versa? When did he have it? Who else might he have passed it on to? He's not had so much as a cold this year.

 

His sister, bless her, who's been coughing a bit pretty much all year on and off, was too scared about the needle for them to get any blood out but they said in their view it was virtually impossible for her not to have had it, which makes sense but I wish was a bit more conclusive

[st albans fox]

7 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

So what’s the point of actually having a test then. What’s the point of a test saying you’re negative but you might be positive.

It’s better than not knowing at that point in time.  If you’re getting on a flight you have a test prior to going. Best if that’s done as a rapid one before boarding as that means it’s v unlikely you’re going to infect anyone on the flight. Once you get to the other end, chances are you have to isolate for two weeks so if you do develop the virus it won’t matter. 
 

this is what they have failed to get over to people. What is happening is that people are testing positive and their close contacts are immediately getting tested. Many of these will be negative as too soon after possibly being infected.  But they think they are negative and therefore don’t bother to isolate as they should do.  A percentage of these people will become positive and spread it before they get symptoms (they may be asymptomatic). 

 

the govt has plainly failed to get the information out there and we are where we are partly because of this. 

 

 

[Legend_in_blue]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

I suppose it’s a case of how blinded and easily led or not you are I guess.

 

Agree with this.

 

Yesterday morning did not feel like a lockdown when out driving and I doubt this morning will either.

 

Whole place was a ghost town back in March for about 3 weeks.

[Stuntman_Mike]

10 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Agree with this.

 

Yesterday morning did not feel like a lockdown when out driving and I doubt this morning will either.

 

Whole place was a ghost town back in March for about 3 weeks.

I'm a 'key worker' so still out and about and you can see the lockdown message is certainly not getting through as much this time 

Edited 6 January 2021 by Stuntman_Mike

[SpacedX]

42 minutes ago, Stuntman_Mike said:

I'm a 'key worker' so still out and about and you can see the lockdown message is certainly not getting through as much this time 

And yet those flouting it tend to be the ones complaining about the continued imposition of restrictions and hilariously, the UK's poor response to the crisis.