IOM Covid removing restrictions

[HeliX]

11 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

Eh?

I could pick her up from nobles and then leave her at home and go about my day as normal.

Or she could come home in an ambulance?

Or I could park her car at nobles and she could drive it home, get home, sleep with me and the I could go out?

Yes, but she couldn't go on the bus. I'm not asking what the family members of people in hospital positive with Covid are doing. I'm asking how a Covid positive person can be discharged if they have no-one to take them home.

[Roxanne]

Deleted because it was slightly mean. 

[The Old Git]

1 minute ago, Roxanne said:

Deleted because it was slightly mean. 

Probably deserved though 

[Raffles]

Not sure I understand the logic in asking people who have tested positive from an LFT at home, being asked to go get a PCR test after that. 

Contact tracing has been done away with, why not ask everyone who tests positive on LFT to isolate? What is the point of another test, exposing the staff to the virus etc?

 

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, Raffles said:

Not sure I understand the logic in asking people who have tested positive from an LFT at home, being asked to go get a PCR test after that. 

Contact tracing has been done away with, why not ask everyone who tests positive on LFT to isolate? What is the point of another test, exposing the staff to the virus etc?

 

Has the cessation of contact tracing been announced? 

[Raffles]

No Gladys, it's not been announced. But I have 6 positive close contacts and no-one has been contact traced since friday 16 july. Of the 4 friends who tested positive shortly after that date, none have been even contacted to ask about their potential close contacts. 

[Out of the blue]

16 minutes ago, Raffles said:

Not sure I understand the logic in asking people who have tested positive from an LFT at home, being asked to go get a PCR test after that. 

Contact tracing has been done away with, why not ask everyone who tests positive on LFT to isolate? What is the point of another test, exposing the staff to the virus etc?

 

The LFT test is not accurate enough to justify ten days of isolation without PCR validation.

[Roger Mexico]

10 minutes ago, Raffles said:

Not sure I understand the logic in asking people who have tested positive from an LFT at home, being asked to go get a PCR test after that. 

Contact tracing has been done away with, why not ask everyone who tests positive on LFT to isolate? What is the point of another test, exposing the staff to the virus etc?

Because LFTs are unreliable and it's unfair to make someone isolate just because some crap test gets it wrong.  Though, as I've said before, I reckon the PCRs must be screwed up as well at the moment, probably due to Lab contamination.

[Raffles]

My reading is that LFTs are very reliable when they show a positive result, but not so much when showing a negative.

Personally I would rather do the isolation than go for a pcr! It would seem to make more sense to ask people to isolate and only go for a pcr if they wish to do so. Rather than telling people to go for pcr, if they get a positive lft result. 

[HeliX]

18 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Because LFTs are unreliable and it's unfair to make someone isolate just because some crap test gets it wrong.  Though, as I've said before, I reckon the PCRs must be screwed up as well at the moment, probably due to Lab contamination.

99.9% specificity for LFT isn't it?

Anecdotally, my friends have been taking 10 days iso (and checking positive-ness a few times over that period) if they return a positive LFT rather than bothering to wait for an appointment to get PCR tested. 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

99.9% specificity for LFT isn't it?

Anecdotally, my friends have been taking 10 days iso (and checking positive-ness a few times over that period) if they return a positive LFT rather than bothering to wait for an appointment to get PCR tested. 

I can see that happening more and more.  People aren't going to bother with a PCR plus direction notice and would rather isolate on a LFT, then test through their isolation until they get a negative. 

[BenFairfax]

5 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

 

And it don't work. I fixed the banner, thanks for that, whether agree with message or not good to have some sort of minimal standards. That is why I keep going on about SATS, Ofsted and Ofqual; so next generation do not end up with my gramma. 

[AlanShimmin]

10 minutes ago, BenFairfax said:

And it don't work. I fixed the banner, thanks for that, whether agree with message or not good to have some sort of minimal standards. That is why I keep going on about SATS, Ofsted and Ofqual; so next generation do not end up with my gramma. 

If you want to try and scare people you should be standing in the election 

[Roger Mexico]

6 minutes ago, HeliX said:

99.9% specificity for LFT isn't it?

No.  That's what the propaganda from the company pushing them would have you believe, but the FDA found these to be "false or misleading" and actual issued a recall notice for the test, telling people to "Destroy the tests by placing them in the trash".  Rather than the 99% promised, a PHE analysis in April showed that it was only 82% reliable (ie more than one in six positives were false). 

And of course the real problem is the false negatives.  With self-swabbing it's probably less than 60%.  It's more accurate than that with symptomatic cases (where people probably wouldn't be going to work/school anyway), but that means it even worse with asymptomatic ones.

[wrighty]

56 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Because LFTs are unreliable and it's unfair to make someone isolate just because some crap test gets it wrong.  Though, as I've said before, I reckon the PCRs must be screwed up as well at the moment, probably due to Lab contamination.

BMJ article today - LFT specificity 99.94%, so if it says you’re positive you’re almost certainly positive. It’s sensitivity that is suspect, overall only 40%. So if you’re negative you may be positive!