Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Do you really think that would have happened? Every home in England having internet access, even those remote single farms in mountainous areas?

It was just a weak attempt at a vote catcher

 

lol Eh? This isn't Alaska or the Outback. Of course it could have happened. Mountainous areas ffs.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, bmt said:

Sorry if it's been discussed already but just saw that a report has stated the November lockdown was ineffective due to it being leaked early. Journalists need to be held to account for the people who die due to them wanting to be the first to run a story. They should be working in the public interest, not against it.

 

(Not aimed at all journalists obviously)

I don't see what being leaked early has to with it be ineffective.

 

It was ineffective because it wasn't a lockdown, even more so than the current one we're apparently in.

 

This is why we'll not have made much progress, impact or change within the next month and this one will also be largely ineffective, albeit slightly more effective than in November as this one is slightly (only just) more strict.

 

Seems it's all a blame game though, but we've all got our part to play, we've all gotta take a certain responsibility.

 

Unfortunately for that happen and because certain members of public and society can't be trusted a strict lockdown is whats needed or lets not bother at all, neither of which this is and November certainly wasn't.

 

Edited by Matt
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bovril said:

 

Fair enough. I live in East Anglia where people rarely come within two metres of each other anyway. 

Isn't everyone related there anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harrydc said:

Does someone mind explaining to me why we will need restrictions next winter? 

 

 

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. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?...

 

beatles-4.jpg.b401292d4f59c85d82d1ed7b780d9174.jpg5954dfb47d935e2f7806f3901a58773e.jpg.4a10d8e9070728b2e500b60b0a88fdc9.jpg660520_01.thumb.jpg.ad98605fc7e644432d1eca0faac1795c.jpg1517063be28596c60f2682568453f0ed.thumb.jpg.65292db13f0a4ffe75840444ba06d240.jpgmaxresdefault.thumb.jpg.e99061cd3c2fdb355e309de3da8b294b.jpgcard00917_fr.jpg.bc3c109a44bacb5f23a842c6e153a13e.jpgimages.jpg.239fcda6e41bd2972041723d21cce70f.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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!  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...