Coronavirus outbreak

[classic33]

@SkipdiverJohn, question regarding the people who have said they will not be tested under any circumstances, unless they have the virus. How will they know for certain, without being tested?

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

What I said is they won't isolate unless they have the virus. That means either they get a positive test result or they feel unwell with the sort of symptoms associated with the virus.
If they feel ok, and they haven't had a positive test result, they aren't going to isolate no matter what.

 

[classic33]

What I said is they won't isolate unless they have the virus. That means either they get a positive test result or they feel unwell with the sort of symptoms associated with the virus.
If they feel ok, and they haven't had a positive test result, they aren't going to isolate no matter what.

Not quite
"I know several people who are not going to get tested or isolate under any circumstances apart from if they get the virus and it makes them too unwell to physically be able to go about their normal routines."

Without being tested for it, they'll never be certain they have it, so they won't be tested.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Put it like this, they are not going to travel a considerable distance to get tested at their own expense and in their own time, so the only way they will take a test is either the postal kits or if the tester comes to them. If you have virus symptoms and feel ill, you probably have it or something else that's nasty.
All those of you who spend a lot of time virtue signalling and/or criticising those who don't buy in to the notion that their whole lives should revolve around the latest government guidelines, need to realise that for a significant proportion of the population the coronavirus outbreak is simply not high up their list of priorities.

 

[classic33]

Put it like this, they are not going to travel a considerable distance to get tested at their own expense and in their own time, so the only way they will take a test is either the postal kits or if the tester comes to them. If you have virus symptoms and feel ill, you probably have it or something else that's nasty.
All those of you who spend a lot of time virtue signalling and/or criticising those who don't buy in to the notion that their whole lives should revolve around the latest government guidelines, need to realise that for a significant proportion of the population the coronavirus outbreak is simply not high up their list of priorities.

Maybe time to hit them in the pockets then.

It's not high up on my list of priorities either. However, they sooner we get this dealt with, the sooner those conditions that are higher up on my list of priorities can be treated.

The sooner those who say they'll not comply with the law realise all they are doing is dragging the whole thing out, making returning to "normal' for many folk harder.
Top of my list is to start receiving the medical treatment required for conditions I can do nothing about. But people like me don't seem to figure too high for some. It's a Victorian attitude, that needs leaving back in Victorian times.

 

[mjr]

not expecting 50 people to lose two weeks wages just because one or two of them might have the virus - but the authorities can't be bothered to make the effort to find out which ones actually have it and which ones don't.

1. They won't lose income totally and are eligible for sick pay or benefits. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronav...u-cannot-work-because-of-coronavirus-covid-19

2. sadly, the govt is being even less inclined to work out who's got it, with Hancock on BBC News this morning to discourage asymptomatic testing.

3. The Hancock, MP for Newmarket, presented by Tattersall's, avoided criticising the Doncaster racing meeting which is starting today before the PM gives details of the new partial relocking, despite the objections of Doncaster's mayor.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Bad news everywhere this morning.

Particularly for those like me who are hoping for an early vaccine:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-hold-due-to-adverse-reaction-in-participant

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_monitoring_committee

Whilst not necessarily bad news for the vaccine (they may not even know if the subject was on active or placebo yet) it's almost certainly bad news for the timeline, unless they've already recruited enough subjects to get the event rate needed soon anyway.

Fingers crossed.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

If you want isolation to work, it has to be targeted at those who have actually been tested and proved to be an infection risk,

This will not work, because of incubation periods, as I explained above.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

It's OK. Problem solved. We can stop worrying.

Govt is relaunching it's slogan.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...087b90a299057c#block-5f5863148f087b90a299057c

Phew.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Given how often it's been mentioned, maybe it's time to do what they did during 1918-1920.

Wonder how people would react if police responded in similar fashion over the non wearing of face masks?


"Now as then, public health interventions are the first line of defense against an epidemic in the absence of a vaccine. These measures include closing schools, shops, and restaurants; placing restrictions on transportation; mandating social distancing, and banning public gatherings.

Of course, getting citizens to comply with such orders is another story: In 1918, a San Francisco health officer shot three people when one refused to wear a mandatory face mask. In Arizona, police handed out $10 fines for those caught without the protective gear."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/

Were the San Francisco offenders black?

 

[fossyant]

Local infection rates have rocketed again since schools gone back - looked at the figures last night and we've gone from 7 to over 40 per 100,000 in the space of days - our area is still one of the lowest in Greater Manchester, but this isn't going the right way.

 

[Flick of the Elbow]

Local infection rates have rocketed again since schools gone back - looked at the figures last night and we've gone from 7 to over 40 per 100,000 in the space of days - our area is still one of the lowest in Greater Manchester, but this isn't going the right way.

Ours in Edinburgh are the same, a few weeks ago we were stable at around 16 infections per week, now we are at 16 per day. And the universities have only just started returning, the potential they have for increasing rates is huge, far worse than schools. We will see their effect in the coming weeks.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Local infection rates have rocketed again since schools gone back

And, worryingly, it's almost certainly too early for the schools to be the cause.

So further hikes in the rate of increase can reasonably be expected.

 

[marinyork]

Limit of six in England for the foreseeable future, possibly till Christmas according to Hancock.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

possibly till Christmas

All over by then