Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: Coronavirus update

Perhaps only perhaps less people being tested as less have symptoms.

What, you think that there is some correlation between the number of people who apply for a test because they or contacts show symptoms and the number of tests that prove positive?

Can't see how you are going to persuade anyone with that logic!

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

What, you think that there is some correlation between the number of people who apply for a test because they or contacts show symptoms and the number of tests that prove positive?

Can't see how you are going to persuade anyone with that logic!

Shirley if the percentage of people testing that show positive results stays fairly constant then if there are less tests there should be correspondingly less positives, and if more tests then more positives. At least that's what I understood from hilts' post
That is why the have always caveated the number of positives going up with as statement to the effect of "but we are testing far more people"

[blue matt]

Re: Coronavirus update

anyone know the current turn around time for tests ? ? ?

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: Coronavirus update

Shirley if the percentage of people testing that show positive results stays fairly constant then if there are less tests there should be correspondingly less positives, and if more tests then more positives. At least that's what I understood from hilts' post
That is why the have always caveated the number of positives going up with as statement to the effect of "but we are testing far more people"

I just took it from the other perspective. If there is not much virus around then not many people apply for tests. If there is an increase in the virus then lots more people are likely to get tested and the number of tests goes up. If the presence of the virus has increased then those tests show more people positive.

When it gets under control then the number of people requiring tests and the the number showing positive goes down.

I could be pissing in the wind I guess?

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

anyone know the current turn around time for tests ? ? ?

My boy had a postal test. Asked for it on Friday, got it in the post on Saturday, mailed it off on Monday evening (you're supposed to post it as close to post collection time as possible)and got the result on Wed afternoon by text and e-mail. .......and he hasn't got any credit history
Tests at testing stations take about 24-36 hrs normally I believe.

[blue matt]

Re: Coronavirus update

My boy had a postal test. Asked for it on Friday, got it in the post on Saturday, mailed it off on Monday evening (you're supposed to post it as close to post collection time as possible)and got the result on Wed afternoon by text and e-mail. .......and he hasn't got any credit history
Tests at testing stations take about 24-36 hrs normally I believe.

cheers , they were at the testing stations

Hope your boy is ok

[lardy]

Re: Coronavirus update

The ons numbers are based on a sample and then given as an overall figure for the population, but daily test results are actual numbers.
The point I was trying to make about the more who have it the less it will infect in the short term was that although x number have tested positive in the last week/month or whatever there were others testing positive before that so overall there must be more people all the time who have gained some form of immunity, however short lived (They say it deteriorates after about 6 months).

What I'd like to know is what percentage of people testing positive never need hospital treatment and whether this figure is going up or down as a percentage of positive tests,

I would imagine that the number of people who have it would need to be way way way above the current numbers before you start seeing that effect.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Coronavirus update

I would imagine that the number of people who have it would need to be way way way above the current numbers before you start seeing that effect.

Exactly, using the street I live on as an example, there are about eighty terraced houses on it and it's exactly the sort of place where you could imagine the virus taking a hold of. Assuming those eighty houses have three people living in them on average, it means that something like 120 people would have needed to have had the virus to approach the sort of situation being talked about here. As far as I know, sis people on my street have had the virus and, in each case, it's been two people in one house, so three houses out of eighty and six people out of two hundred and forty which, more or less, ties in with the figures given by Rjk earlier about 3 per cent having had the virus. So, the figures for my street appear pretty typical, therefore, to suggest that RCT is getting to a position where something like herd immunity would kick in is clearly not true.

[Rjk]

Re: Coronavirus update

Exactly, using the street I live on as an example, there are about eighty terraced houses on it and it's exactly the sort of place where you could imagine the virus taking a hold of. Assuming those eighty houses have three people living in them on average, it means that something like 120 people would have needed to have had the virus to approach the sort of situation being talked about here. As far as I know, sis people on my street have had the virus and, in each case, it's been two people in one house, so three houses out of eighty and six people out of two hundred and forty which, more or less, ties in with the figures given by Rjk earlier about 3 per cent having had the virus. So, the figures for my street appear pretty typical, therefore, to suggest that RCT is getting to a position where something like herd immunity would kick in is clearly not true.

I heard a virology expert on the radio a few weeks ago saying that the whole concept of "herd immunity" without a vaccine is a fallacy.
There isn't an example of a virus like this one naturally reaching a saturation point in the population anywhere.

[Rjk]

Re: Coronavirus update

Popped into Sainsburys this morning, and there was notably a lack of anyone in the newly opened non-essential goods aisles.
Perhaps people weren't that desperate for some tea-lights and a new jug after all.

[Croesy Blue]

Re: Coronavirus update

I heard a virology expert on the radio a few weeks ago saying that the whole concept of "herd immunity" without a vaccine is a fallacy.
There isn't an example of a virus like this one naturally reaching a saturation point in the population anywhere.

I think even if Herd Immunity was possible just from contracting the virus you would need at least 80% of the population infected in order to achieve it. Which would lead to a massive number of deaths.

I think Covid doesn't produce long lasting anti-bodies so they're not even sure you're immune to it for very long anyway ~ 6 months.

I'm no expert though and I don't understand if T-cells generated by covid would lead to immunity.

[Croesy Blue]

Re: Coronavirus update

Popped into Sainsburys this morning, and there was notably a lack of anyone in the newly opened non-essential goods aisles.
Perhaps people weren't that desperate for some tea-lights and a new jug after all.

Yeah that was all people whinging for the sake of whinging really wasn't it. It was only for 17 days anyway ffs.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

All I'm saying is the more people who have had it or who now have it, then the less people there are who can still catch it (given that re-infection seems to have happened extremely rarely).
So if the overall infection rate stays at 3% of the population then every day someone tests positive it reduces other peoples likelihood of catching it.
If added together the number of people who have it or had it is increasing that also must limit the number of people who can still catch it.

[Croesy Blue]

Re: Coronavirus update

All I'm saying is the more people who have had it or who now have it, then the less people there are who can still catch it (given that re-infection seems to have happened extremely rarely).
So if the overall infection rate stays at 3% of the population then every day someone tests positive it reduces other peoples likelihood of catching it.
If added together the number of people who have it or had it is increasing that also must limit the number of people who can still catch it.

I think the problems with that is it still appears to be a small % of the population that have been infected even with the high numbers.

And reinfection does appear to be possible after a certain time period so isn't really a solution.