COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[squirtyflower]

The bbc do anything to put a negative spin on things. Poor jounalism when the country needs considered inteligent positive reporting.

Except they seem to have a real difficulty in highlighting issues that haven’t been resolved after the Welsh Fire-Break.
If that had been England, Kuntisburg would have been all over it.

 

[NeilYoungIsBack]

When they came out of their firebreak the first minister said it's too early to see if it has been effective and they wouldn't no either way for another couple of weeks. I said at the time why the hell did they come out of it if they weren't sure the 17 days was going to be long enough.

The sensible strategy would have been to follow up the national firebreak with targeted measures focused on the areas where rates were still persistently high, such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taff.

Instead, Drakeford relaxed the rules for everybody.

It was obvious from the available Public Health Wales data at the time where rates were still very high. They chose to ignore it.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Actually I think it is Lammy who is lying here.
We opted out the the EU vaccine procurement programme in the summer and hence we can give our own approval before waiting for the EU to give theirs.

Therefore it looks like it’s Lammy is the one trying to make political capital out of it, but he knows this and knows no one will pull him up on it so he can lie with out recourse.

It’s covered here Squirty. The U.K. are covered by the EMA until the end of this year.

Brexit: the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union | European Medicines Agency

www.ema.europa.eu

The opt out we used is not tied to our decision to leave the EU. It must be provision available to states covered by the EMA.

I don’t mind Hancock taking some credit because he’s had a tough gig.

 

[squirtyflower]

It’s covered here Squirty. The U.K. are covered by the EMA until the end of this year.

Brexit: the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union | European Medicines Agency

www.ema.europa.eu

The opt out we used is not tied to our decision to leave the EU. It must be provision available to states covered by the EMA.

I don’t mind Hancock taking some credit because he’s had a tough gig.

As I said, I had read differently.
From what I recall this was covered in a new agreement within the EU in response to the pandemic including funding and sharing of vaccine and not covered by old agreements.

 

[Cityfan]

The other concern I have is that we don't know if vaccines stop the spread as yet. If they do - great! 'Cases' will come down to zero and the government will have a way out, albeit over a long period. If the vaccines do not stop the transmission but do stop people from developing illness, the government will have to change the way they record deaths away from 'died WITH covid particles' or else it is a never ending circle.

It is the folly of labelling perfectly health people who generate a covid positive test on a highly sensitive method as cases. This will be exacerbated by mess testing which with a 1% false positive rate will still show 10,000 cases even if nobody has the virus! Perhaps a move back to testing only those that get ill would become appropriate.

I hope I'm wrong but it will take a shift from the government to a more accurate method of reporting and tracking the effects of covid itself for them to have a way out. My hunch is things will co-incidentally end around the same time as the flu season ends.

JVT on now - really like this guy.

I see no evidence that in this country there has been a false positive rate of anything like 1%
The ONS survey fell to 0.04% in the summer.
In Scotland standard testing on suspected cases
and surveillance of hospital patients fell to 0.1%
As these numbers include both true and false positives, the false positives have to be less.

 

[inbetween]

I see no evidence that in this country there has been a false positive rate of anything like 1%
The ONS survey fell to 0.04% in the summer.
In Scotland standard testing on suspected cases
and surveillance of hospital patients fell to 0.1%
As these numbers include both true and false positives, the false positives have to be less.

The false-positive rate is a very odd statistic for people to obsess over as in terms of public health it's pretty much irrelevant if someone who tests positive actually is positive or not.

With mass-testing it's the false-negative rate that we really want to watch out for. A false-negative rate even around 1% (it's actually estimated higher) would pose a massive risk.

 

[worsleyweb]

Know of 7 who have got it in the last week! All at work. Mental.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I see no evidence that in this country there has been a false positive rate of anything like 1%
The ONS survey fell to 0.04% in the summer.
In Scotland standard testing on suspected cases
and surveillance of hospital patients fell to 0.1%
As these numbers include both true and false positives, the false positives have to be less.

False positives for those who haven't got it are 0.02%.
False negarives for those with symptoms are about 0.2%. False negatives for those who are asymotomatic are possibly as high as 5%.
Which is more problematic?
0.02% according to Covidiots.
Fucking brain dead not just idiotic.

 

[M18CTID]

 

[somapop]

Via that link...tickled me anyway...