Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

I just saw on the BBC that in Wales and Mr Gethin said that 42,000 people had been tested and 11,000 tests proved positive.
This means something like a quarter of the population appears to have the virus. clearly not all of those a critically ill or even hospitalised so is this figure actually a good thing in disguise?
The other factor is that the people being tested are in high risk circumstances but until testing they may still have infected others not i not at high risk.
Does it tend to prove that the vast majority of people get it only mildly and also does it mean that with far more people getting it and recovering without hospitalisation that more and more will have the antibodies which (hopefully) will prevent them getting it again and there there will be fewer people from whom we can then catch it?
The number seems high but is it a good thing in the long term or a bad thing?
Any thoughts?

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Coronavirus update

I just saw on the BBC that in Wales and Mr Gethin said that 42,000 people had been tested and 11,000 tests proved positive. This means something like a quarter of the population appears to have the virus.....

Don't be daft.

[City123]

Re: Coronavirus update

For ‘widely touted’ read ‘inaccurately and wrongly speculated’.

Not entirely

Sunak - "Until the end of July there will be no changes whatsoever, then from August to October the scheme will continue".

How widely the idea was reported would also imply that the government allowed the press to release the news, saw the negative reaction, and decided against it

[Croesy Blue]

Re: Coronavirus update

I just saw on the BBC that in Wales and Mr Gethin said that 42,000 people had been tested and 11,000 tests proved positive.
This means something like a quarter of the population appears to have the virus. clearly not all of those a critically ill or even hospitalised so is this figure actually a good thing in disguise?
The other factor is that the people being tested are in high risk circumstances but until testing they may still have infected others not i not at high risk.
Does it tend to prove that the vast majority of people get it only mildly and also does it mean that with far more people getting it and recovering without hospitalisation that more and more will have the antibodies which (hopefully) will prevent them getting it again and there there will be fewer people from whom we can then catch it?
The number seems high but is it a good thing in the long term or a bad thing?
Any thoughts?

I don’t think that means that a quarter of people have it or had it. It just means they’ve tested people that are expected to have it or are high risk and a quarter of them have it. I don’t think it tells you a lot tbh.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

Don't be daft.

lol but I just wonder if they can use that figure to project the probable infection across the board. 25% of those tested have it and as I said they are in what are rated as high risk, but can the clinicians/advisors use that figure to look at the whole population?
If (as they now appear to think) someone whop has had it cannot get it again, at least in the short term there will gradually be less and less of the population at risk. I was just wondering if the can work out the probably time line to a point where they consider it under complete control

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Coronavirus update

lol but I just wonder if they can use that figure to project the probable infection across the board. 25% of those tested have it and as I said they are in what are rated as high risk, but can the clinicians/advisors use that figure to look at the whole population?

I'm pretty sure the 42,000 in Wales who have been tested will have been health workers, care workers, the emergency services, people in hospital, people in care homes, etc. And I suspect a significant percentage of those people will have had to be displaying symptoms in order to get tested in the first place.

Random members of the public with no symptoms haven't been tested. Therefore, the figures you quoted are highly unlikely to be in any way accurate as regards the general population.

[J R Hartley]

Re: Coronavirus update

It's going to very uncertain from July, once businesses are expected to contribute they will have absolutely no reason to keep those they deem easy to replace on the books.

On the flip side it might give some businesses / employees the mudge they need to get off their arse and start looking further than their nose.

[J R Hartley]

Re: Coronavirus update

He's a new boy, so he's got no baggage which helps him, but I agree - from what I've seen so far, he does have an air of authority which to my, admittedly biased, eyes, his Cabinet colleagues tend to lack and he looks a future leader of the party, and probably the country, currently.

Good news that the furlough scheme is to be extended - I would think the extension comes with the hope that it will not cost as much in the next four months as it has in its first two.

I think people are over-egging Shunaks appeal as a future leader. Hes the one cabinet member giving out good news at the moment, hes not had the difficult ride off the people and the media that his colleagues have had.

Yes, hes articulating better than his colleagues, christ thats not difficult, but hes not under the same scrutiny.

[tell it like it is]

Re: Coronavirus update

Chancellor has just announced that furlough scheme is to be extended to October.

Same terms until end of June. More flexibility allowing some part term working, employers to share some of the cost but employees will still get 80% up to £2,500. I'm saying this from memory so don't take it as gospel.

More detail to be published later.

I think it is generally recognised that Sunak has been probably the most impressive member of the cabinet during the crisis ( not difficulty I know some of you will say!!).

Would not be at all surprised to see a changing of the guard in the next couple of years with Boris stepping down (possibly following a heavy hint from the men in grey suits) and Sunak moving up.

Can't be true.

Media, left all saying it was going o be cut to 60%... surely they didn't lie for political capital?

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

I'm pretty sure the 42,000 in Wales who have been tested will have been health workers, care workers, the emergency services, people in hospital, people in care homes, etc. And I suspect a significant percentage of those people will have had to be displaying symptoms in order to get tested in the first place.

Random members of the public with no symptoms haven't been tested. Therefore, the figures you quoted are highly unlikely to be in any way accurate as regards the general population.

Yes I acknowledged they would be in high risk occupations, it is just that it still seems high.

[tell it like it is]

Re: Coronavirus update

I'm pretty sure the 42,000 in Wales who have been tested will have been health workers, care workers, the emergency services, people in hospital, people in care homes, etc. And I suspect a significant percentage of those people will have had to be displaying symptoms in order to get tested in the first place.

Random members of the public with no symptoms haven't been tested. Therefore, the figures you quoted are highly unlikely to be in any way accurate as regards the general population.

Unless they are Piers Morgan, an "essential worker" who got a test with no symptoms and a result the next day. Or Idris Elba, another "essential worker".

[tell it like it is]

Re: Coronavirus update

Yes I acknowledged they would be in high risk occupations, it is just that it still sems high.

Yet there are higher risk occupations than NHS.

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Coronavirus update

Unless they are Piers Morgan, an "essential worker" who got a test with no symptoms and a result the next day. Or Idris Elba, another "essential worker".

Those well-known Welsh residents Piers Morgan and Idris Elba?

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

Yet there are higher risk occupations than NHS.

What I read was not that, but that there were higher rates of infection in other occupations. The reason given was that although NHS workers are in high risk environments that have a higher level of protection generally than people in other risk occupations.
the arcticle I read actually suggested that the infection rate amongst NHS workers is about the same percentage as in the general population.

[Croesy Blue]

Re: Coronavirus update

Yet there are higher risk occupations than NHS.

I don't think there are many occupations that have higher risk of infection tbh.