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!
Printable View
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"
anyone know the current turn around time for tests ? ? ?
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?
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 :biggrin:
Tests at testing stations take about 24-36 hrs normally I believe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
90 per cent effective so they say
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54873105
That would be unbelievable and brilliant news if it becomes a reality.
I thought it would be many years if ever that something like that could be produced
Lets hope.🙏
Very busy in Cardiff city centre today my wife tells me....like Christmas Eve!