| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:00 - Mar 18 with 755 views | hampstead_blue |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 08:28 - Mar 18 by DanTheMan |
Looking back through what the Chief Medical Officer says, that indeed seems to be the problem.
At yesterday’s daily coronavirus briefing, Professor Whitty indicated the testing of healthcare workers was a key priority “once we have the capacity to do this”.
So it sounds like there is a policy of them getting tested as a matter of priority but this has not materialised into a plan or any action, which is frustrating. |
Thanks. Missed that among the deafening noise of everything else.
It's so hard to judge who and when different people should/or not be tested.
I'm with the scientists, although, I did hear that David Icke might be having a press conference today about this.....Maybe I'm wrong, delusional, slightly in need of a run. Who knows. |  |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
|  |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:02 - Mar 18 with 755 views | WeWereZombies |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 09:39 - Mar 18 by Pinewoodblue |
This is my go to place for latest figures. You can get a greater analysis for the main countries that are likely to be of interest.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
The deaths figure in the guardian article is wrong should be . 71 not 60 |
I have just checked Public Health England's dashboard on their website and the numbers in The Guardian article are borne out by this, so I will (in this instance) trust our Government's figures above an online website of unknown provenance. If you don't mind.
You seem determined to debunk a perfectly reasonable article, perhaps you should reflect on the impression this can bring to your better posting efforts as being suspect as well. |  |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:07 - Mar 18 with 739 views | DanTheMan |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:00 - Mar 18 by hampstead_blue |
Thanks. Missed that among the deafening noise of everything else.
It's so hard to judge who and when different people should/or not be tested.
I'm with the scientists, although, I did hear that David Icke might be having a press conference today about this.....Maybe I'm wrong, delusional, slightly in need of a run. Who knows. |
Didn't take too long for these people to start crawling out the woodwork with whatever it is they have to sell this time. Saw Alex Jones got smacked down for selling toothpaste that could apparently kill the coronavirus because of course it can. |  |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:11 - Mar 18 with 732 views | StokieBlue |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 07:50 - Mar 18 by Herbivore |
There's lots of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Our lack of testing is a huge problem. |
Agree that the lack of testing is a problem but it's far from a UK-centric problem. We are actually right up there with the most tests globally.
It's still far, far too little as you say.
Testing and then informed preemptive isolation works as SK have proven (fingers crossed).
SB |  | | |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:18 - Mar 18 with 716 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 09:59 - Mar 18 by Bugs |
I really can't understand why people can't comprehend this. I'm thick as dog sh!t and can understand this.
The government repose to this has been dreadful, far too much ambiguity, not telling us what we should do, but maybe, perhaps, you shouldn't go to pubs and clubs.....but BJ will still go. WTF!
That this has fallen on Boris Johnson's is a disaster for the UK, out of all the PM's or even leaders of the opposition in the last 40 years, he is bottom of the list on who you would want to lead our country in a global crisis. He brings new meaning to the word incompetent. [Post edited 18 Mar 2020 10:05]
|
They are Libertarian survival of the fittest types....their response makes sense in that context. |  |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:25 - Mar 18 with 714 views | Herbivore |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:11 - Mar 18 by StokieBlue |
Agree that the lack of testing is a problem but it's far from a UK-centric problem. We are actually right up there with the most tests globally.
It's still far, far too little as you say.
Testing and then informed preemptive isolation works as SK have proven (fingers crossed).
SB |
Testing is also important for getting the country back on track at some point. Let's say I get the symptoms of Covid-19 but as someone under 40 with no known underlying health issues I'll probably just confine myself to bed or the sofa for 2-3 days and make a full recovery. 80% or so of people who get it will be in the same boat. Now, the current advice is not to even call 111 unless symptoms persist or become more severe. There won't be any testing.
If I've had Covid-19 then I ought to be immune and can then carry on being a functioning member of society, I can help others without fear of infecting them and can fully re-engage with society when restrictions are slackened. But I can only know I've had it if I'm tested. If I'm not tested then I have to work on the assumption that I might not have had it, since I just don't know. I have to maintain social distancing when needed and will be restricted in ways I don't need to be and that prevent me from making a contribution. Or I could go the other way and assume I've had it if all the symptoms fit and then contribute to the spread down the line.
There will be thousands and eventually millions in the same boat. So for me testing is important as both a means to identify and isolate cases to control the spread AND as a means to ensuring that society can get back to some sort of normal more quickly. Any planning will be made so, so much more effective if we have a better idea of who has actually had the virus. |  |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:29 - Mar 18 with 709 views | StokieBlue |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:25 - Mar 18 by Herbivore |
Testing is also important for getting the country back on track at some point. Let's say I get the symptoms of Covid-19 but as someone under 40 with no known underlying health issues I'll probably just confine myself to bed or the sofa for 2-3 days and make a full recovery. 80% or so of people who get it will be in the same boat. Now, the current advice is not to even call 111 unless symptoms persist or become more severe. There won't be any testing.
If I've had Covid-19 then I ought to be immune and can then carry on being a functioning member of society, I can help others without fear of infecting them and can fully re-engage with society when restrictions are slackened. But I can only know I've had it if I'm tested. If I'm not tested then I have to work on the assumption that I might not have had it, since I just don't know. I have to maintain social distancing when needed and will be restricted in ways I don't need to be and that prevent me from making a contribution. Or I could go the other way and assume I've had it if all the symptoms fit and then contribute to the spread down the line.
There will be thousands and eventually millions in the same boat. So for me testing is important as both a means to identify and isolate cases to control the spread AND as a means to ensuring that society can get back to some sort of normal more quickly. Any planning will be made so, so much more effective if we have a better idea of who has actually had the virus. |
There are moves to address this scenario which you have rightly highlighted.
The current test is slow and expensive and looks at active infections by accelerating the growth of viruses in the sample and then sequencing them in a lab. There are numerous labs putting together and new antibody test which would be much cheaper and quicker and will let you know if you've had Covid-19 and have recovered by looking for Covid-19 antibodies.
Once that is ready then testing for nearly everyone should hopefully be possible.
SB | | | |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:29 - Mar 18 with 705 views | No9 |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:00 - Mar 18 by hampstead_blue |
Thanks. Missed that among the deafening noise of everything else.
It's so hard to judge who and when different people should/or not be tested.
I'm with the scientists, although, I did hear that David Icke might be having a press conference today about this.....Maybe I'm wrong, delusional, slightly in need of a run. Who knows. |
A Dr on the radio this morning stated the hospitals do not have sufficient protective equipment let alone test kits.
The WHO made it clear how testign should be done. I don't know anyone who comprehends the approach the UK is taking |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:40 - Mar 18 with 701 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:02 - Mar 18 by WeWereZombies |
I have just checked Public Health England's dashboard on their website and the numbers in The Guardian article are borne out by this, so I will (in this instance) trust our Government's figures above an online website of unknown provenance. If you don't mind.
You seem determined to debunk a perfectly reasonable article, perhaps you should reflect on the impression this can bring to your better posting efforts as being suspect as well. |
Yesterday the figures for confirmed cases were released before the deaths figures. Total deaths in thr U.K. up to the day before were 57. The figures quoted by Guardian in the article is 60. That was the 57 from the previous days plus new deaths recorded in Wales and Scotland.
When the England deaths were added later the figure rose to 71. |  |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:42 - Mar 18 with 700 views | monytowbray |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:11 - Mar 18 by StokieBlue |
Agree that the lack of testing is a problem but it's far from a UK-centric problem. We are actually right up there with the most tests globally.
It's still far, far too little as you say.
Testing and then informed preemptive isolation works as SK have proven (fingers crossed).
SB |
Yesterday you told me we were one of the top 5 testers and that was fine :S |  |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:47 - Mar 18 with 699 views | StokieBlue |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:42 - Mar 18 by monytowbray |
Yesterday you told me we were one of the top 5 testers and that was fine :S |
Honestly would it be possible for you to stop lying?
I said we were one of the top 5 testers because that is a fact. I never said we shouldn't test more.
SB [Post edited 18 Mar 2020 10:50]
| | | |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:51 - Mar 18 with 686 views | clive_baker |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 07:44 - Mar 18 by DanTheMan |
I thought the Government position was that front line staff were getting tested if they were sick? |
My wife is a nurse and she's been tested, as have a lot of her colleagues over the past couple of weeks. No idea if it's regular enough or whatever, I wouldn't know, but it is happening. |  |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:52 - Mar 18 with 682 views | No9 |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:47 - Mar 18 by StokieBlue |
Honestly would it be possible for you to stop lying?
I said we were one of the top 5 testers because that is a fact. I never said we shouldn't test more.
SB [Post edited 18 Mar 2020 10:50]
|
But SB, that isn't borne out by what our Dr's & medical staff are saying | | | |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:53 - Mar 18 with 679 views | monytowbray |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:47 - Mar 18 by StokieBlue |
Honestly would it be possible for you to stop lying?
I said we were one of the top 5 testers because that is a fact. I never said we shouldn't test more.
SB [Post edited 18 Mar 2020 10:50]
|
Then it really does make your response yesterday look even more odd in regards to the point. | |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:53 - Mar 18 with 680 views | BlueBadger |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:52 - Mar 18 by No9 |
But SB, that isn't borne out by what our Dr's & medical staff are saying |
I don't know any medical staff who think that Stokie is making stuff up... |  |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:54 - Mar 18 with 678 views | WeWereZombies |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:40 - Mar 18 by Pinewoodblue |
Yesterday the figures for confirmed cases were released before the deaths figures. Total deaths in thr U.K. up to the day before were 57. The figures quoted by Guardian in the article is 60. That was the 57 from the previous days plus new deaths recorded in Wales and Scotland.
When the England deaths were added later the figure rose to 71. |
And the figures in the article in The Guardian come straight from a live link to the Public Health England website as far as I can see. You are getting your knickers in a twist over nothing , dear. | |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:55 - Mar 18 with 680 views | monytowbray |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:53 - Mar 18 by BlueBadger |
I don't know any medical staff who think that Stokie is making stuff up... |
My point was more that I said we need to test more yesterday and I was dismissed as we're a top 5 tester in the world.
So I'm sat here like okaaaay... | |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:56 - Mar 18 with 677 views | BlueBadger |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:55 - Mar 18 by monytowbray |
My point was more that I said we need to test more yesterday and I was dismissed as we're a top 5 tester in the world.
So I'm sat here like okaaaay... |
To be honest Callis, you're coming across as someone desperate to find something, anything to flap about right now. | |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:58 - Mar 18 with 668 views | monytowbray |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:56 - Mar 18 by BlueBadger |
To be honest Callis, you're coming across as someone desperate to find something, anything to flap about right now. |
Not really, I'm just seeing the news and flagging what concerns me. As are others.
But I said yesterday the WHO has said we're not testing enough and was dismissed, based on what NHS staff have been saying online in line with WHO advice. Today it seems what I flagged yesterday is getting very different sentiment. | |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:59 - Mar 18 with 667 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:29 - Mar 18 by No9 |
A Dr on the radio this morning stated the hospitals do not have sufficient protective equipment let alone test kits.
The WHO made it clear how testign should be done. I don't know anyone who comprehends the approach the UK is taking |
That is indeed correct. Our local hospital raided the university yesterday for gloves, masks and other protective equipment as they were not able to order any more.
We're not anywhere close to the peak (numbers are still below normal coping capacity I believe) and yet the hospitals don't have basic protective equipment and are not testing staff. That's absolutely bonkers imo, wherever the fault lies. |  |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 11:03 - Mar 18 with 664 views | monytowbray |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 10:59 - Mar 18 by Swansea_Blue |
That is indeed correct. Our local hospital raided the university yesterday for gloves, masks and other protective equipment as they were not able to order any more.
We're not anywhere close to the peak (numbers are still below normal coping capacity I believe) and yet the hospitals don't have basic protective equipment and are not testing staff. That's absolutely bonkers imo, wherever the fault lies. |
It was publicly out there from experts and those working in the NHS sector this was the case since Saturday at the latest.
There's some real head-in-sand attitudes going on right now which aren't going to do us any favours. Trusting those directed us and supporting each other isn't going to be enough to get us over the line if all these glaring holes start to grow with the pandemic. [Post edited 18 Mar 2020 11:03]
| |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 11:07 - Mar 18 with 653 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 08:21 - Mar 18 by hampstead_blue |
The piece mentions testing staff twice.
Do we have enough tests? |
Maybe. Apparently we hae companies making test kits, but they are exporting them as the NHS isn't putting in any/enough orders.
Quite a bizarre situation. | |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 11:09 - Mar 18 with 649 views | monytowbray |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 11:07 - Mar 18 by Swansea_Blue |
Maybe. Apparently we hae companies making test kits, but they are exporting them as the NHS isn't putting in any/enough orders.
Quite a bizarre situation. |
Science though, innit. | |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 11:14 - Mar 18 with 642 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 11:09 - Mar 18 by monytowbray |
Science though, innit. |
You're going to blow a gasket at this rate Callis  | |
| |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 11:22 - Mar 18 with 639 views | monytowbray |
| Anybody know the scientific basis for this policy? on 11:14 - Mar 18 by Swansea_Blue |
You're going to blow a gasket at this rate Callis |
Meh, I've been very stressed and a bit over reactive the last couple of days I admit. It's a stressful time. I'll even admit I've come across as a dick in many regards.
Last night I did a bit of meditation, grounded myself and got some perspective. It's hard when you've spent your life not wanting anyone to suffer yet you've watched 10 years of austerity and global unfairness cause exactly that. It's even harder when you see the impact all that may have on our healthcare system and the government come out on Friday to basically say "Yeah, some of you will die but we're just gonna ignore all the data right now and make up our own rules".
Doesn't change my opinion on the fact there are still some glaring holes in our approach that need addressing ASAP, both virus-wise and economically.
Still can't wrap my head around why I got grief over my testing comment yesterday when reading some of the input on this thread but it doesn't bother me. People gonna people. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
