Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 20.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

35 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said:

Just shows how we can have different experiences.

The people I know are pretty much all family (young, in their 20s and 30s) acquaintances I have made through working in a number of industries (nearly all men aged between 30 and 50) or people i met back in the days when I did a bit of competitive cycling (all 30 to 50 and if not into fitness now they were 15 years ago)

Most didn't even pass it on to people in their house, or if they did it never showed up either via symptoms or testing.

The other thing to consider with testing is that here, the unknown cases were identified when people presented with symptoms. 
 

As did the 1886 cases. They got a test when they became symptomatic. 

The figures don’t say whether people subsequently go on to being symptomatic. It’s plausible the test is picking them up before that.  
Some of the symptoms are not far off where I am if I’ve had too many beers the night before. So I’m not surprised if people don’t necessarily notice if they don’t usually get particularly ill from things. 
 

Equally, I know people in their early 30s who were wiped out and just about bedridden at home with it. Kids in the same house? Absolutely fine. 
 

There’s a chap I know here who went across for a cancer surgery and was told he couldn’t have it because his lungs showed signs of COVID-like damage. His wife had travelled across and was ill with it when she came back and tested positive but he never noticed any symptoms. He just can’t have the operation now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

I'm guessing they wouldn't have bern paid had they not. 

Probably right, same as here and in uk unless government employee or can work from home, shows the inequality.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gladys said:

Isn't this the use of terminology which leads to misinterpretation and was debated at length months ago?  Calling positive tests 'cases' implies that they are symptomatic, but we have been told many times that there is a high percentage of those positives who actually suffer no symptoms which is why it spreads and why total lockdowns are effective.  

We've been through this several times before.  The very definition of a case is that it tests positive in the lab.  And that is true of every other infectious disease, so they're not going to change things so as to make some people on the internet feel better.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

We've been through this several times before.  The very definition of a case is that it tests positive in the lab.  And that is true of every other infectious disease, so they're not going to change things so as to make some people on the internet feel better.

Whilst that is true, how many other infectious diseases do the UK and we routinely test people for even without any symptoms.

That is why the figures are so skewed.

Personally I only really look at hospital admissions as a measure of who is actually ill and even those figures aren't broken down enough to be useful eg my family friend in Nobles who showed as a COVID case in nobles, who didn't even know they had it until tested and still wouldn't do this day despite no being allegedly recovered.

Edited by horatiotheturd
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said:

Whilst that is true, how many other infectious diseases do the UK and we routinely test people for even without any symptoms.

That is why the figures are so skewed.

Personally I only really look at hospital admissions as a measure of who is actually ill and even those figures aren't broken down enough to be useful eg my family friend in Nobles who showed as a COVID case in nobles, who didn't even know they had it until tested and still wouldn't do this day despite no being allegedly recovered.

You (we) are wasting our time.

Many have made up their minds on how the figures should be extrapolated.

The press report the figures in a way guided by their Government in turn directed by their medical experts.

We all know the way it’s reported is a load of old cobblers. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nom de plume said:

You (we) are wasting our time.

Many have made up their minds on how the figures should be extrapolated.

The press report the figures in a way guided by their Government in turn directed by their medical experts.

We all know the way it’s reported is a load of old cobblers. 

The key thing about reporting covid cases is consistency.  A positive PCR is a hard outcome.  Whether someone is symptomatic or not depends on subjectivity as to what constitutes a significant symptom.  Being admitted to hospital is a bit better, but even that will have some subjectivity depending on capacity - I have heard of people being managed at home being given a pulse oximeter instead of being admitted as the hospital was full.

When it comes to deaths, there will undoubtedly be anomalies - the good old asymptomatic case being run over by a bus being counted, but someone who lingers on ITU for 29 days after testing before dying not - but setting the standard at 'within 28 days of a positive test' at least gives consistency and allows valid comparisons to be made.

It's not perfect, but it's certainly not 'a load of old cobblers'.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wrighty said:

The key thing about reporting covid cases is consistency.  A positive PCR is a hard outcome.  Whether someone is symptomatic or not depends on subjectivity as to what constitutes a significant symptom.  Being admitted to hospital is a bit better, but even that will have some subjectivity depending on capacity - I have heard of people being managed at home being given a pulse oximeter instead of being admitted as the hospital was full.

When it comes to deaths, there will undoubtedly be anomalies - the good old asymptomatic case being run over by a bus being counted, but someone who lingers on ITU for 29 days after testing before dying not - but setting the standard at 'within 28 days of a positive test' at least gives consistency and allows valid comparisons to be made.

It's not perfect, but it's certainly not 'a load of old cobblers'.

I'm trying to process it.

We had 50 'cases' not so long ago. I might be wrong but was it two that were admitted to Nobles but are now out & recovered?

One of them (possibly both) was in for a procedure & tested positive through a routine test.

You'll do well to convince me that we shouldn't be shielding the vulnerable until they are vaccinated whilst the rest of us crack on.

I know it's nauseous, me I mean, churning out the same old drivel to counter balance the same old drivel by the same old protagonists.

The whole thing - Economic armageddon, educational failings, unemployment, families separated, healthcare suspended ... everything, it just doesn't sit right. Just me, I know.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, horatiotheturd said:

Whilst that is true, how many other infectious diseases do the UK and we routinely test people for even without any symptoms.

Chlamydia, Syphilis, HIV, Rubella.............to name a few

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

 

You'll do well to convince me that we shouldn't be shielding the vulnerable until they are vaccinated whilst the rest of us crack on.

You keep saying that, without explaining how the vulnerable shield effectively without everyone connected with them (carers, relatives, co-workers etc) and thus everyone connected to them (relatives of carers, children of co-workers etc ad nauseam) shielding also, such that effectively everyone is shielding i.e. lockdown.

It really is the only way, until such time as we're vaccinated.  Otherwise you end up like the UK - they're shielding the vulnerable while everyone (unofficially at least) just 'cracks on' by ignoring the rules if they feel ok.  Is that what you want?

I agree though to some extent - once your most vulnerable cohorts are covered, let's get on with it.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
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.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...