Relaxation of Restrictions, Part X Read OP For Mod Warnings

francogarbanzo · 06-04-2021 08:16AM

Antares35 wrote: »

They don't need to bring their entire family to the supermarket. It isn't the eating I have a problem with. Read my post again.

Once people start telling others what they need and don't need, run very fast in the opposite direction.

VonLuck · 06-04-2021 08:21AM

eggy81 wrote: »

They are complied with a lot more than they are in supermarkets

Not true at all.

Boggles · 06-04-2021 08:22AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I know many people saving a fortune on commuting who are praying the lockdown is never lifted because they have a much better work life balance and are saving money, even though it means thousands of others are out of work and struggling to make ends meet.

Really? How many?

Everyone I know is sick to the back teeth with it.

lawred2 · 06-04-2021 08:23AM

Graham wrote: »

+1

I read 30,000+ vaccinated on Good Friday, a new daily record.

Anyone know if that's an official figure?

Does the program continue through the weekend or is it Monday to Friday? Were there vaccinations yesterday?

Penfailed · 06-04-2021 08:45AM

corkonion wrote: »

we live in permanent lockdown

No. We live in temporary lockdown.

El_Duderino 09 · 06-04-2021 08:51AM

walus wrote: »

Oh, so your logic is that you are sick of restrictions and want to have nice Christmas this year, and so to speed up the herd immunisation process you want those for whom covid means a sniffle or two to take a vaccine?

Well good luck with convincing them that your Christmas time should matter to them and that they should take the vaccine they don’t need themselves.

You said we should use science to reach herd immunity and I asked you: “And how do we do that exactly? If herd immunity is estimated to be between about 70-85%, how do we get there without the under 18s?”

copeyhagen · 06-04-2021 09:50AM

walus wrote: »

Yes it did.

didnt know that until now, thats mad:

A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851

kind of makes the main argument of some people that "what if you get it, bring it home unaware and kill old relatives" pretty much obsolete now no?!

gozunda · 06-04-2021 09:54AM

corkonion wrote: »

more tests are LINKED to more positive cases , 3 per cent of those tested were positive

Did you read what was detailed and the article on the current knowledge of that no?

More tests aren't necessarily linked with more cases.

https://www.politico.eu/article/does-more-coronavirus-testing-mean-more-cases/

corkonion wrote: »

why open walk in centers 13 months into a pandemic when new cases are falling, its only to boost positivity rates, theres no other credible explination, i was never a conspiracy theorist, this government are making it difficult to avoiding change

Corkonion - if you had looked it up you'd know that anyone who believe that kinda stuff are indeed conspiracy theorists.

The walk in centres are being put in place to detect asymptomatic cases in areas with already high rates of infection

Sorry you find the whole thing terribly 'boring' ...

Sobit1964 · 06-04-2021 10:11AM

copeyhagen wrote: »

didnt know that until now, thats mad:

A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851

kind of makes the main argument of some people that "what if you get it, bring it home unaware and kill old relatives" pretty much obsolete now no?!

That was a very interesting read, thanks for posting.

gozunda · 06-04-2021 10:19AM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Didn’t the wuhan study conclude that asymptomatic carriers don’t transmit the virus?

This is the same lot who told the WHO that there was no evidence for the P2P spread of Covid at the beginning of the Pandemic. And that there was no need to limit flights from China on the back of that?

Yeah right dont make me laugh...

The 'Wuhan' study is nearly a year old at this stage.

Current research shows that detecting asymptomatic spread is much more difficult than was understood

https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210321/Asymptomatic-individuals-the-biggest-problem-in-COVID-battle.aspx

lawred2 · 06-04-2021 10:40AM

gozunda wrote: »

This is the same lot who told the WHO that there was no evidence for the P2P spread of Covid at the beginning of the Pandemic. And that there was no need to limit flights from China on the back of that?

Yeah right dont make me laugh...

The 'Wuhan' study is nearly a year old at this stage.

Current research shows that detecting asymptomatic spread is much more difficult than was understood

https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210321/Asymptomatic-individuals-the-biggest-problem-in-COVID-battle.aspx

why would that be?

gozunda · 06-04-2021 10:47AM

lawred2 wrote: »

why would that be?

Its detailed in the article linked.

Sobit1964 · 06-04-2021 10:54AM

gozunda wrote: »

Its detailed in the article linked.

Your source looks a bit sketchy - do you have something like the BMJ or some recognised source. I don't really care how a nurse interprets studies that are beyond her training.

lawred2 · 06-04-2021 10:56AM

gozunda wrote: »

Its detailed in the article linked.

Not sure it was detailed really.

Just seemed like a whole lot of "we don't actually know"

gozunda · 06-04-2021 11:13AM

Sobit1964 wrote: »

Your source looks a bit sketchy - do you have something like the BMJ or some recognised source. I don't really care how a nurse interprets studies that are beyond her training.

Sketchy? Well if you think so - however the site linked is a major open-access medical and life science data hub which publishes scientific, medical, and life sciences reviews.

Did you read the article btw? It details several studies including the most recent research

Transmission without symptoms critically contributes to the unabated spread of SARS-CoV-2 and presents a considerable infection prevention challenge. Although asymptomatic individuals appear to be contagious for a shorter period of time and may pose a lower transmission risk, they still pose a substantial public health risk as they are more likely to be out in the community.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6535/1206

gozunda · 06-04-2021 11:16AM

lawred2 wrote: »

Not sure it was detailed really.

Just seemed like a whole lot of "we don't actually know"

Again maybe read what was written ?

Current research shows that detecting asymptomatic spread is much more difficult than was understood

And if you wish to rely on Wuhan study - the research team there "have warned that their findings do not show that the virus can't be passed on by asymptomatic carriers"

"But the research team warn that their findings do not show that the virus can't be passed on by asymptomatic carriers.

Rather, strict non-pharmaceutical interventions such as mask-wearing, hand washing, social distancing and lockdown have helped reduce the virulence of Covid-19.

Rather, strict non-pharmaceutical interventions such as mask-wearing, hand washing, social distancing and lockdown have helped reduce the virulence of Covid-19."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-11/uoea-wms113020.php

eggy81 · 06-04-2021 11:18AM

VonLuck wrote: »

Not true at all.

It is.

timmyntc · 06-04-2021 11:20AM

gozunda wrote: »

This is the same lot who told the WHO that there was no evidence for the P2P spread of Covid at the beginning of the Pandemic. And that there was no need to limit flights from China on the back of that?

Yeah right dont make me laugh...

The 'Wuhan' study is nearly a year old at this stage.

Current research shows that detecting asymptomatic spread is much more difficult than was understood

https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210321/Asymptomatic-individuals-the-biggest-problem-in-COVID-battle.aspx

That article basically says nothing.
The only bit relevant to what you said is that they say:

As much as assessing the prevalence of asymptomatic infections is important, it is vital to determine the risk of secondary transmission. Contact tracing relies on identifying cases involving testing people with symptoms. When a person tests positive for SARS-CoV-2, all contacts will be assessed for potential infection.

However, when it comes to asymptomatic cases, it will be challenging to identify close contacts. Surveillance testing to analyze secondary attack rates, the percentage of cases resulting from one infected person in a group, is very difficult

If you are a close contact, you will be tested regardless of symptoms - as will your contacts and so on. So asymptomatic transmissions are getting picked up for the most part. So that article basically says nothing that applies here.

Boggles · 06-04-2021 11:28AM

timmyntc wrote: »

If you are a close contact, you will be tested regardless of symptoms - as will your contacts and so on. So asymptomatic transmissions are getting picked up for the most part. So that article basically says nothing that applies here.

Not necessarily.

People refusing to reveal close contacts, public health official warns

Covid-19 contact tracers have encountered incidents of people ignoring calls, not disclosing how they may have been infected, or refused to reveal other close contacts, according to a senior official at the Department of Public Health.

Some people may also be denying they are a close contact of a confirmed case “out of fear that the workplace may suffer due to reduction in staff numbers or temporary closure”, warned Dr Mai Mannix, director of Public Health Mid-West in a briefing document sent to politicians on February 17.

Dr Mannix revealed that her team of contact tracers in the Mid-West “encounter challenges” such as “people not answering their phones, reluctance to reveal their close contacts, and occasionally people not wanting to disclose how they may have been exposed to the virus”.

gozunda · 06-04-2021 11:30AM

timmyntc wrote: »

That article basically says nothing.
The only bit relevant to what you said is that they say:

If you are a close contact, you will be tested regardless of symptoms - as will your contacts and so on. So asymptomatic transmissions are getting picked up for the most part. So that article basically says nothing that applies here.

Is the volume low?. The article quite clearly details that current research shows that detecting asymptomatic spread is much more difficult than was understood

The researchers noted in a study published in the journal Science, that asymptomatic cases are those that do not manifest symptoms for the infection duration. In contrast, presymptomatic cases develop symptoms later in the course of infection. These two groups of individuals are crucial drivers of transmission.

Transmission without symptoms poses challenges for identifying the infectious timeline and potential exposures. Further, since they do not know they’re infected, they may likely mingle with others, promoting virus spread. They may also not adhere to masking, distancing, hand hygiene, and staying at home.

And as detailed for anyone wishing to hang their hat on the "Wuhan" study - the following applies ..

But the research team warn that their findings do not show that the virus can't be passed on by asymptomatic carriers.

Rather, strict non-pharmaceutical interventions such as mask-wearing, hand washing, social distancing and lockdown have helped reduce the virulence of Covid-19.

Actually, the existence of asymptomatic cases remains a concern even in Wuhan. It is too early to be complacent, because of the existence of asymptomatic positive cases and high level of susceptibility in residents in Wuhan.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-11/uoea-wms113020.php

As for your claim that "So asymptomatic transmissions are getting picked up for the most part"

That's the issue - they're not. Mainly because many are not being detected. And exactly why mobile walk in testing centres are being deployed in areas with high rates of infection around the country.

robindch · 06-04-2021 11:39AM

Deleted User wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

"Social autism" is a wider concept which includes "autism" as above, but also includes a general inability to feel any social responsibility to help one's neighbours, or a even a more basic wish to avoid doing things which might hurt or kill them.

The irony.

"Irony" doesn't really cover the act of replying honestly and accurately to another poster's query. But what about moaning about a "peddling of fear and worry" while claiming, in the same post, that the lockdown is "a sadistic theft of life"?

Sobit1964 wrote: »

This past year has seen a [...] pervasive and ever present peddling of fear and worry. [...] This lockdown [...] has been a sadistic theft of life [...]

If a poster is aware that they're doing whatever they're moaning about, then that probably would be "irony". Whereas, if the poster isn't aware that they're doing this, then we'd be in the vicinity of "hypocrisy".

robindch · 06-04-2021 11:47AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I just object to the notion that it’s in any way selfish or weak to break the rules and put your own personal well-being first, after a whole year of massive sacrifice and suffering for the benefit of others.

Are you aware that you can pass on the disease to other people and that they can suffer longterm harm or death as a result?

My extended family has had five deaths in the last nine months - three directly, and two indirectly from covid. And of the people who recovered from the initial dose, a number are still suffering from serious and debilitating "long covid" symptoms.

So while I entirely sympathise with your upset at being asked to adhere to basic public health guidelines - I can assure you that we are all heartily sick and tired of them - I don't think it's too much to ask, given that you could pass on the disease to somebody else, and thereby risk giving them a life-changing illness or death.

robindch · 06-04-2021 11:54AM

corkonion wrote: »

[...] this life is currently not worth living.

I'm sincerely sorry to hear that you don't believe your life is worth living and I hope that in a few months time, when there's been a sufficient supply and uptake of the vaccine to make a serious dent in the numbers, that the risk of transmission can be low enough that it's safe for everybody to come out of lockdown. I hope and expect there will be street and house parties like this country has never had and that we can all make up for the tedium or depression of the last year.

corkonion wrote: »

[...] let me choose to take the risk [...]

As in my previous post, unfortunately, while you are entirely and absolutely free to risk your own life as much as you like, you are not free to risk the health and life of the people in your community - because of the risk that you will acquire the disease and pass it on to somebody else. If that risk did not exist, then there would be no need for lockdown. Unfortunately, that risk does exist and it needs to be confronted with due regard for your community and the people you live with, and not just yourself.

normanoffside · 06-04-2021 12:00PM

copeyhagen wrote: »

didnt know that until now, thats mad:

A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851

kind of makes the main argument of some people that "what if you get it, bring it home unaware and kill old relatives" pretty much obsolete now no?!

This is not News though. It’s been known for almost a year. It’s been mentioned in this thread and others multiple time. Even the WHO have said asymptomatic spread is not a thing it and even Gerry Killeen says it to this day, Fauci has also said it.

NPHET and other health agencies in other countries just ignore these studies and push the narrative of Asymptomatic spread is a big issue. It’s more likely people have mild symptoms or are presymptomatic and act like they are completely asymptomatic.

Boggles · 06-04-2021 12:03PM

normanoffside wrote: »

This is not News though. It’s been known for almost a year. It’s been mentioned in this thread and others multiple time. Even the WHO have said asymptomatic spread is not a thing it and even Gerry Killeen says it to this day, Fauci has also said it.

Did he, when?

JRant · 06-04-2021 12:03PM

Boggles wrote: »

Not necessarily.

People refusing to reveal close contacts, public health official warns

Sounds like a lot of mind reading going on there.

Boggles · 06-04-2021 12:04PM

JRant wrote: »

Sounds like a lot of mind reading going on there.

Close contacts refusing to answer calls is mind reading?

Graces7 · 06-04-2021 12:10PM

robindch wrote: »

Are you aware that you can pass on the disease to other people and that they can suffer longterm harm or death as a result?

My extended family has had five deaths in the last nine months - three directly, and two indirectly from covid. And of the people who recovered from the initial dose, a number are still suffering from serious and debilitating "long covid" symptoms.

So while I entirely sympathise with your upset at being asked to adhere to basic public health guidelines - I can assure you that we are all heartily sick and tired of them - I don't think it's too much to ask, given that you could pass on the disease to somebody else, and thereby risk giving them a life-changing illness or death.

My deepest sympathy. My extended family has suffered three covid deaths; the youngest was 26. All healthy and with no underlying health issues. Another has long covid.

NIMAN · 06-04-2021 12:11PM

I'm not big into conspiracies, but I saw an interesting article on the Info website questioning whether it was time to lift outdoor restrictions on dining and sporting activities, as only 0.1% of positive cases were attributed to outdoor transmission.

Now I can't find the piece anywhere on their website.

JRant · 06-04-2021 12:14PM

Boggles wrote: »

Close contacts refusing to answer calls is mind reading?

No but assigning reasons as to why people may not be fully answering questions is.

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part X *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part X Read OP For Mod Warnings