Coronavirus Thread

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

No disrespect but half your posts seem to be divisive shit you've found on twitter. Why don't you just ignore it or, even better, keep it in twitter. Because I come to foxestalk for a bit of sanity not culture war nonsense. 

 

Wouldn't ignoring it mean its kept in Twitter by default and thus it would actually be even better to ignore it 

[Stivo]

14 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Is that what they actually do? I’d have thought that they deploy the vaccine to a group of people in an area of high infection rates (eg Brazil), and a placebo to a control group in the same area, then compare the infection rates over time of the 2 groups.

You are right. 
 

The results are for a phase 1/2 trial on 1000 people in April and May. The next stage, which has already started, is a very much bigger trial ( phase 3) in the uk, brazil( ie exactly as you suggested) and I think I read South Africa. the results for this will be in November or December.
 

 All the trials use matched control groups with placebos.  The purpose of the phase 1/2 trial was to see whether there were any adverse reactions to the vaccine, whether it generated antibodies against the virus and to consider if a second injection was necessary.  The purpose of the phase 3 trial extends further to trying to prove that it actually protects against catching the disease or at least improves the outcome.  Hence for this trial they are chasing the disease to areas where it is more prevalent.  You need a trial size in an area with sufficient prevalence to ensure that enough people in the two groups get infected to get statistically significant results.

 

Deliberately infecting people with a disease to which there is no cure is viewed as ethically wrong.  There is a case to be made that because of the economic impact and the very very low risk to young people that it should be considered.

[bovril]

8 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Wouldn't ignoring it mean its kept in Twitter by default and thus it would actually be even better to ignore it 

Yeah I realised the contradiction after writing it.

[bovril]

8 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Duly noted. I am working on overcoming my afflictions.

Sorry if I came across as a bit of a woman. It just winds me up. 

[yorkie1999]

10 hours ago, Harrydc said:

I feel a bigger concern In the coming months should be the deaths of people who haven't been able to get vital operations, cancer treatment etc. I feel the worse is yet to come, and it won't even be from Covid... 

But will those deaths be recorded as being related to covid 19. I know someone who's father passed away due to cancer which he'd been struggling with for a few years, yet the hospital wanted to record it as covid-19 being the cause of death after he'd caught it whilst in hospital. 

[Suzie the Fox]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

Sorry if I came across as a bit of a woman. It just winds me up. 

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, Stivo said:

You are right. 
 

The results are for a phase 1/2 trial on 1000 people in April and May. The next stage, which has already started, is a very much bigger trial ( phase 3) in the uk, brazil( ie exactly as you suggested) and I think I read South Africa. the results for this will be in November or December.
 

 All the trials use matched control groups with placebos.  The purpose of the phase 1/2 trial was to see whether there were any adverse reactions to the vaccine, whether it generated antibodies against the virus and to consider if a second injection was necessary.  The purpose of the phase 3 trial extends further to trying to prove that it actually protects against catching the disease or at least improves the outcome.  Hence for this trial they are chasing the disease to areas where it is more prevalent.  You need a trial size in an area with sufficient prevalence to ensure that enough people in the two groups get infected to get statistically significant results.

 

Deliberately infecting people with a disease to which there is no cure is viewed as ethically wrong.  There is a case to be made that because of the economic impact and the very very low risk to young people that it should be considered.

Yes that’s what I thought, Hippocratic oath, etc.
 

I did wonder when there was all the talk about a herd immunity strategy whether it would be better to ask for healthy volunteers in the 20 to 40 age range and inoculate with the minimum live virus dose required to produce an antibody response. Not actually advocating it, but it is far preferable to having random people spreading it in an unknown dosage to possibly vulnerable people.

[foxile5]

11 hours ago, bovril said:

Do you mean salty?

Underrated post, this. 

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

But will those deaths be recorded as being related to covid 19. I know someone who's father passed away due to cancer which he'd been struggling with for a few years, yet the hospital wanted to record it as covid-19 being the cause of death after he'd caught it whilst in hospital. 

Nevertheless these deaths are still as a result of the virus as collateral damage, so the excess deaths figure (which would include this group) is still the best guide to the overall damage inflicted.

Edited 21 July 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Leicester_Loyal]

What about all the extra deaths from cancer and cancelled operations etc? They'll go down as excess deaths, but they've probably been caused by the lockdown and Coronavirus as a whole. When we say 100 people have died of Covid it sounds horrendous, but I'm sure it's around 1.7k people that die in the UK everyday. To me it's like comparing apples and oranges, more depth is required when looking into the death rates (although I could have misunderstood and got it all completely wrong).

[yorkie1999]

17 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

People really do need to start thinking outside the box. Here is a mask I modified earlier that allows me to smoke, drink beer and coffee and even nibble on mc chicken nuggets, all without taking it off.

 

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

People really do need to start thinking outside the box. Here is a mask I modified earlier that allows me to smoke, drink beer and coffee and even nibble on mc chicken nuggets, all without taking it off.

 

your assumption of humour is potentially  misplaced - i  am certain that some of the nob heads will do this and say they are complying with the law - i bet it isn't tightly written

[Innovindil]

Alright guys looking for some advice. My missus has just had a phone call saying she needs to return to work on thursday. She tested positive last wednesday. The manager has said she only needs to isolate for 7 days so she can return. We asked if we needed to take her to Birstall to get tested again to make sure it was safe and she said we didn't need to, and she'd be tested at work in 2 weeks. Is this right?

 

I get not retesting people who are just returning to ordinary jobs but she's going back to a care home. How the hell can you let her back in without knowing 100% it was safe? These old folk are relying on staff to keep them safe ffs.

[WigstonWanderer]

19 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Alright guys looking for some advice. My missus has just had a phone call saying she needs to return to work on thursday. She tested positive last wednesday. The manager has said she only needs to isolate for 7 days so she can return. We asked if we needed to take her to Birstall to get tested again to make sure it was safe and she said we didn't need to, and she'd be tested at work in 2 weeks. Is this right?

 

I get not retesting people who are just returning to ordinary jobs but she's going back to a care home. How the hell can you let her back in without knowing 100% it was safe? These old folk are relying on staff to keep them safe ffs.

No idea on the legalities, but I’d have a word with a newspaper. Fvcking outrageously irresponsible!

Edited 21 July 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Salisbury Fox]

40 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Alright guys looking for some advice. My missus has just had a phone call saying she needs to return to work on thursday. She tested positive last wednesday. The manager has said she only needs to isolate for 7 days so she can return. We asked if we needed to take her to Birstall to get tested again to make sure it was safe and she said we didn't need to, and she'd be tested at work in 2 weeks. Is this right?

 

I get not retesting people who are just returning to ordinary jobs but she's going back to a care home. How the hell can you let her back in without knowing 100% it was safe? These old folk are relying on staff to keep them safe ffs.

My son's girlfriend was given 7 days but if she had a temperature after that she would not be expected to go back to work. That was the advice she was receiving indicating that after 7 days without a temperature she would no longer be infectious

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

My son's girlfriend was given 7 days but if she had a temperature after that she would not be expected to go back to work. That was the advice she was receiving indicating that after 7 days without a temperature she would no longer be infectious

Yup, this is pretty much what has just been said to us. We rang the health people in charge of testing at the care home and they said after the first 7 days of infection if there aren't any symptoms then it's highly unlikely she will will still be infectious.

 

Who knew. 

[stix]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Alright guys looking for some advice. My missus has just had a phone call saying she needs to return to work on thursday. She tested positive last wednesday. The manager has said she only needs to isolate for 7 days so she can return. We asked if we needed to take her to Birstall to get tested again to make sure it was safe and she said we didn't need to, and she'd be tested at work in 2 weeks. Is this right?

 

I get not retesting people who are just returning to ordinary jobs but she's going back to a care home. How the hell can you let her back in without knowing 100% it was safe? These old folk are relying on staff to keep them safe ffs.

I think the 7 days is correct if you’ve tested positive. The 14 days is for the rest of your household I think, as somebody could maybe be infected on day 6 of the infected persons isolation? 
 

On the retest thing, if it’s not out of the way to get to a test site then maybe your wife should get tested again, for her own piece of mind really, knowing that she isn’t going back into her care home with the potential of taking it in with her. 

[don_danbury]

17 hours ago, Harrydc said:

So it's come out that the death figure isn't true. On Sky News today they stated that if you've had Covid, and then died of something completely unrelated months later you will be added to the death toll. Who do we trust? 

you've only just heard this  ?

[brucey]

3 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Alright guys looking for some advice. My missus has just had a phone call saying she needs to return to work on thursday. She tested positive last wednesday. The manager has said she only needs to isolate for 7 days so she can return. We asked if we needed to take her to Birstall to get tested again to make sure it was safe and she said we didn't need to, and she'd be tested at work in 2 weeks. Is this right?

 

I get not retesting people who are just returning to ordinary jobs but she's going back to a care home. How the hell can you let her back in without knowing 100% it was safe? These old folk are relying on staff to keep them safe ffs.

 

2 hours ago, stix said:

I think the 7 days is correct if you’ve tested positive. The 14 days is for the rest of your household I think, as somebody could maybe be infected on day 6 of the infected persons isolation? 
 

On the retest thing, if it’s not out of the way to get to a test site then maybe your wife should get tested again, for her own piece of mind really, knowing that she isn’t going back into her care home with the potential of taking it in with her. 

A lot of people test positive for many weeks (often 3+ weeks) afterwards. Will a positive retest will change the employer’s stance? I think hospitals try and wait for a negative swab before discharging patients to care homes, so if the same applies here, might be worth doing.

 

I’m not sure if we even know what retesting positive means, whether they’re just shedding dead virus or if they are still infective. The official advice seems to be it’s fine after 1 week post positive result, but I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that personally. In the hospital where I work, patients only get moved off the “currently positive” patient list (and its associated PPE implications) after 14 days post positive result.

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Alright guys looking for some advice. My missus has just had a phone call saying she needs to return to work on thursday. She tested positive last wednesday. The manager has said she only needs to isolate for 7 days so she can return. We asked if we needed to take her to Birstall to get tested again to make sure it was safe and she said we didn't need to, and she'd be tested at work in 2 weeks. Is this right?

 

I get not retesting people who are just returning to ordinary jobs but she's going back to a care home. How the hell can you let her back in without knowing 100% it was safe? These old folk are relying on staff to keep them safe ffs.

What’s the point of getting tested at work 2 weeks later if she’s just killed off half of the care home? 😂 

 

For your own piece of mind I’d book another test just to make sure. Although if she’s symptom free she should be fine but you cannot guarantee that, especially with a virus that does potentially transmit asymptomatically. 

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Yup, this is pretty much what has just been said to us. We rang the health people in charge of testing at the care home and they said after the first 7 days of infection if there aren't any symptoms then it's highly unlikely she will will still be infectious.

 

Who knew. 

AFAICT most jurisdictions around the world say that patients can remain infectious for longer. Here in Australia we’re told to self isolate for 14 days. I took this from the cdc.com website:

 

The onset and duration of viral shedding and the period of infectiousness for COVID-19 are not yet known with certainty. Based on current evidence, scientists believe that persons with mild to moderate COVID-19 may shed replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 for up to 10 days following symptom onset, while a small fraction of persons with severe COVID-19, including immunocompromised persons, may shed replication-competent virus for up to 20 days. It is possible that SARS-CoV-2 RNA may be detectable in the upper or lower respiratory tract for weeks after illness onset, similar to infections with MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. However, detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present. Based on existing literature, the incubation period (the time from exposure to development of symptoms) of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses (e.g., MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV) ranges from 2–14 days.

 

The UK seems to be something of an outlier in its recommendations

 

I should have thought that such a sensitive setting isn’t the place to play the probabilities.

Edited 21 July 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[zorro en españa]

4 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Alright guys looking for some advice. My missus has just had a phone call saying she needs to return to work on thursday. She tested positive last wednesday. The manager has said she only needs to isolate for 7 days so she can return. We asked if we needed to take her to Birstall to get tested again to make sure it was safe and she said we didn't need to, and she'd be tested at work in 2 weeks. Is this right?

 

I get not retesting people who are just returning to ordinary jobs but she's going back to a care home. How the hell can you let her back in without knowing 100% it was safe? These old folk are relying on staff to keep them safe ffs.

This is quite an alarming read.  I can only imagine how I would feel if one of my loved ones was in the care home.

 

I offer this, but do realise the difficulties of having to deal with the situation: can your wife explain that she feels particularly uncomfortable about this situation, that should anything happen to any of the residents that she would be devastated, that she would feel much more comfortable about returning when a negative result is confirmed.

 

What is crucially important to the care home is its reputation.  I think it would be wise for them to consider what might come out should this go wrong.  If your wife is in a position to have this constructive dialogue it may well invite them to have a rethink.  So, not threatening but in the interests of everyone: your wife, the residents, the management and the care home.

 

 

[Lionator]

25 minutes ago, zorro en españa said:

This is quite an alarming read.  I can only imagine how I would feel if one of my loved ones was in the care home.

 

I offer this, but do realise the difficulties of having to deal with the situation: can your wife explain that she feels particularly uncomfortable about this situation, that should anything happen to any of the residents that she would be devastated, that she would feel much more comfortable about returning when a negative result is confirmed.

 

What is crucially important to the care home is its reputation.  I think it would be wise for them to consider what might come out should this go wrong.  If your wife is in a position to have this constructive dialogue it may well invite them to have a rethink.  So, not threatening but in the interests of everyone: your wife, the residents, the management and the care home.

 

 

So 110 deaths recorded today, 99 have been in the community aka care homes, that’s basically 90% of all covid deaths now are taking place in care homes. 
 

There’ll be a blame game in years to come but this has been a cataclysmic failure by the government, local councils and care home owners in keeping people safe. 

[Wymsey]

Experts warn the virus might be around for ages.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53488142

[Izzy]

‘We're at a moment of real change in the world of work’

Royal Bank of Scotland's decision to allow 50,000 staff to work from home for the rest of 2020 underlines radical changes in the workplace, experts say.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53484767

 

Gotta say I'm loving this shift in working practices and businesses finally waking up to the fact that people can be trusted to work remotely. I've been banging on about it for years and the only good thing about this pandemic is that it's opened people's eyes to a better way.

 

Keep challenging the norm people!!