No idea, but those tested 5 to 14 days brings it to 23%.
It was around the time of the peak though, so very different times.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
No idea, but those tested 5 to 14 days brings it to 23%.
It was around the time of the peak though, so very different times.
- Location
- Somewhere wet & hilly in NW England.
Yes, I read that. Scarily high figure.
Maybe an inevitability of an environment that cannot possibly partition every patient. As the elderly and frail are also mentioned then maybe a similar situation existed in care homes?
There's been a lot of research on care homes. The bigger ones with many staff that work in several different homes it went around like wildfire if it got in in some of them.
My Dad had multiple stays either side of the peak and never caught the virus. Locally as two other posters have said a lot of allied health staff have been given the lab based antibody tests. Many have come back antibody negative. Locally there was the care home worker who was plastered all over national news and came back antibody positive whose mother died and she was pretty upset.
Yes take for example norovirus it's not uncommon for whole ward's to close and a high number to come down with it.
In the big picture it's not a big figure add in it's based at the peak. Over all it's not a surprise without knowing what each patient was suffering and what effect that had over all Infection control. It's hard to see if it was mostly preventable or not.
It's not unknown for patents to go wondering all over the ward particularly if they are confused no matter how hard you try to stop them. Particularly on a night shift with very few staff around. So if they are infected and not yet having signs they can soon spread before you've had a chance to stop them. The fact that it was kept low points to effective basic infection control is able to keep numbers low even at the peck when many areas of the hospital had plenty of other stuff going. Including lack of even basic PPE is all the more to the credit of staff.
Personally I think we need to stop scaremongering.
There is this constant pushing of information that Covid19 is deadly, you must at all costs avoid catching it. That's just nonsense.
The point of lockdown, of masks, of social distancing is to spread and reduce the infection rate. If everyone catches it at the same time, then there won't be enough hospital facilities to help the people who have severe complications from it. The reason for continued control is to balance health resources with the infection rate. Most people who get it won't be badly affected. Those that are badly affected will be treated. Some people will die - just like they do from Flu.
If you are in a high risk group then of course you want to avoid it. Just like you probably want to avoid Flu. Until there is an effective treatment or a vaccination however, you can't to anything to lower your own personal risk level.
Masks in school probably won't help the infection rate or spread. Pupils will be constantly touching them, taking them off, putting them on. Most masks prevent you spreading infection rather than you catching an infection. It's going to be problematic anyway. Schools can't differentiate between a winter cold and Covid19 for example. What happens when little Jonny is sent in with a streaming cold and cough? Does the whole school close just in case?
It's more important to study the effects and react quickly and appropriately. If school x reopens and Covid instance rapidly increases amongst families at School X then school X needs to be closed whilst the infection pocket is controlled and until the infection rate lowers. If all schools open and there is a correlation with infection rate, then different steps need to be taken. There should already be data from reopening year 6,10,12 and reception last term. It needs to be used.
There is this constant pushing of information that Covid19 is deadly, you must at all costs avoid catching it. That's just nonsense.
The point of lockdown, of masks, of social distancing is to spread and reduce the infection rate. If everyone catches it at the same time, then there won't be enough hospital facilities to help the people who have severe complications from it. The reason for continued control is to balance health resources with the infection rate. Most people who get it won't be badly affected. Those that are badly affected will be treated. Some people will die - just like they do from Flu.
If you are in a high risk group then of course you want to avoid it. Just like you probably want to avoid Flu. Until there is an effective treatment or a vaccination however, you can't to anything to lower your own personal risk level.
Masks in school probably won't help the infection rate or spread. Pupils will be constantly touching them, taking them off, putting them on. Most masks prevent you spreading infection rather than you catching an infection. It's going to be problematic anyway. Schools can't differentiate between a winter cold and Covid19 for example. What happens when little Jonny is sent in with a streaming cold and cough? Does the whole school close just in case?
It's more important to study the effects and react quickly and appropriately. If school x reopens and Covid instance rapidly increases amongst families at School X then school X needs to be closed whilst the infection pocket is controlled and until the infection rate lowers. If all schools open and there is a correlation with infection rate, then different steps need to be taken. There should already be data from reopening year 6,10,12 and reception last term. It needs to be used.
roubaixtuesday
self serving virtue signaller
There is, it seems to me, actually no government strategy on this at all.
Some countries (Scotland, NZ, China) have a strategy to eliminate the virus.
Some (Germany) seem to aim to minimise deaths by keeping levels very low through track and trace, but don't aim for elimination.
The US seems, as far as can be elucidated, to have the strategy you suggest, to let it rip up to but not beyond the point of healthcare overwhelm, and accept the deaths that go with that.
Our strategy is entirely unclear to me, or, I suspect, anyone else. To muddle on until a vaccine is available perhaps.
Given the totally balls up of our track and trace plus the lack of testing we continued to to muddle on with for mouths.
I can't see us having anything detailed enough for the peck as guide for how a totally open up of school will have.
Mask use in schools is totally sensible and practical. The mass public don't need to bother too much about clinical standards when using them. So no need to become over fixed by it. It's better to have a dirty mask then no mask at all. In the same way as using a hanky twice is better then no hanky. Mass face coverings is for total different aim of source control not prevention. Even WHO that are not the quickest to catch up are now support using them in schools.
Growing evidence point's to them have some protective benefit to the wearer it wont stop it but will reduce the viral load. In the example of a school take someone who lives in multi occupancy home. With an at risk gran due to being diabetic a kid get's covid at school but was using a mask. It won't stop the gran getting it.But will help to reduce the about they get exposed to and in turn help reduce it's effects.
I can't see us having anything detailed enough for the peck as guide for how a totally open up of school will have.
Mask use in schools is totally sensible and practical. The mass public don't need to bother too much about clinical standards when using them. So no need to become over fixed by it. It's better to have a dirty mask then no mask at all. In the same way as using a hanky twice is better then no hanky. Mass face coverings is for total different aim of source control not prevention. Even WHO that are not the quickest to catch up are now support using them in schools.
Growing evidence point's to them have some protective benefit to the wearer it wont stop it but will reduce the viral load. In the example of a school take someone who lives in multi occupancy home. With an at risk gran due to being diabetic a kid get's covid at school but was using a mask. It won't stop the gran getting it.But will help to reduce the about they get exposed to and in turn help reduce it's effects.
I think they are still holding onto the age old strap line of "it will all over by Christmas" But as when they've used it in past they don't say which one.
And then there is the question of whether elimination of the virus is even possible:-
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30633-2/fulltext
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30633-2/fulltext
kingrollo
Guru
Just as an aside and not wishing start a mask debate. But I have a holiday to Portugal in October. I am asthmatic so need to be careful - what sort of mask would be best for the flight. I realise I'm talking marginal gains. Any recommendations for specific masks welcomed. I Google n95 masks but then get masks which don't appear n95 complaint....cheers all.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
the only info I have seen suggests that you should avoid masks with valves as they won't stop you spreading the infection to other people. in terms of not catching Covid, I don't think that there is much difference in masks as so many other membranes (e.g. your eyes) are exposed to any stray droplets. The idea of the mask is mostly to stop you spreading rather to prevent you catching,
N95 is the American standard.
Get an FFP2 if you can get hold of that (leaving FFP3s for others). An FFP1 is fine, there tends to be a lot of variation in fit though.
Not recommending you wear one for 2+ hours straight, they are not pleasant for stints of time. Get the most comfortable. My cotton ones can be worn way longer than an FFP1.
As has been said on the whole clinical grade ones are best avoided if your not use to wearing them for any length of time. Cotton ones are on the whole more comfortable.Plus if it's reusable you've always got one just a quick wash in hot soapy water and you your ready to go again. One less thing to worry about when you're away. I'd go for ones with pleats like the surgical ones they are easier and give you leeway to adjust them. You may have to try a few before you can get one that suits you. I'd also say get use to wearing it for a few hours at a time before you go. See what other's in your situation recommend. I think Asthma Uk have some information about which ones to try. Many who have some sort of breathing issue find they can manage wearing some sort of covering. As for one's with a valve even the government understands they are a bad idea and don't recommend them either.
Tanis8472
Guru
Yet Hancock was seen using the valve ones.
