Page 428 of 506

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 3:37 pm
by kempiejon
I was on the NHS website today here's the advice for those at higher risk.

get vaccinated against COVID-19 – find out how to book your COVID-19 vaccine
wait for at least 14 days after you've had your 2nd dose of a COVID-19 vaccine before meeting with people
meet people outside if possible
open doors and windows to let in fresh air if meeting people inside
ask friends and family to take a rapid lateral flow test before visiting you
limit the number of people you meet and avoid crowded places
wear a face covering when it's hard to stay away from other people – particularly indoors or in crowded places
wash your hands with soap and water or use hand sanitiser regularly throughout the day

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavir ... high-risk/

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 5:11 pm
by pje16
GREAT advice above
I wonder if UK gov could start saying, and setting an example by doing the same :roll:

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 5:24 pm
by XFool
pje16 wrote:GREAT advice above
I wonder if UK gov could start saying, and setting an example by doing the same :roll:

Unnecessary!

The latest government science - brought to you by the 'scientist' from the same research group who brought you Brexit - has discovered that the virus is easily vanquished by "conviviality".

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 5:43 pm
by dealtn
pje16 wrote:GREAT advice above
I wonder if UK gov could start saying, and setting an example by doing the same :roll:


They are saying it - hence it being on the NHS website. They may, or may not, be practicising such themselves. It's more likely they don't see themselves individually in the at "higher risk" categories, of course.

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 6:10 pm
by XFool
Interesting...

Without Marc Warner “thousands would be dead”: the physicist who averted a herd immunity disaster in the UK

The Newstatesman

The Faculty CEO played a pivotal role in the UK’s pandemic response, but his links to Dominic Cummings have attracted considerable scrutiny.

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 7:39 pm
by Bouleversee
dealtn wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:"Vaccinated twice, infected once - and still at risk" is the heading of an article in the Sunday Times which you should be able to get if you Google it and which I suggest you all read. The sub-heading is "As new strains appear, the number of people falling ill multiple times has started to increase". Some have had the virus 3 times. I am not convinced that the recent advice from the NHS to the highly clinically vulnerable that they no longer needed to shield was well founded.


Anyone, be they highly critically vulnerable, or not, that are not convinced they no longer need to shield can take the practical option of shielding.


Really? I hadn't thought of that. :roll: Actually, I think many or most of us in that category will have continued to shield as before, as I am doing, even after the booster since it is by no means certain how effective the current jab is on the latest variant and by no means everyone in public places is masked or jabbed, including some of my grandchildren.

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 7:57 pm
by swill453
Whatever happened to the R number? Wasn't it supposed to be important?

Scott.

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 8:38 pm
by Bouleversee
kempiejon wrote:I was on the NHS website today here's the advice for those at higher risk.

get vaccinated against COVID-19 – find out how to book your COVID-19 vaccine
wait for at least 14 days after you've had your 2nd dose of a COVID-19 vaccine before meeting with people
meet people outside if possible
open doors and windows to let in fresh air if meeting people inside
ask friends and family to take a rapid lateral flow test before visiting you
limit the number of people you meet and avoid crowded places
wear a face covering when it's hard to stay away from other people – particularly indoors or in crowded places
wash your hands with soap and water or use hand sanitiser regularly throughout the day

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavir ... high-risk/


The 5 page letter I had from Sajid David, dated 17 Sept., says that shielding advice was paused from lst April 2021 and that since July 19, the clinically extremely vulnerable "have been advised to follow the same advice as everyone else, "whilst potentially thinking about extra precautions you could take to reduce your chance of catching COVID-19." They say that from now on I "will not be advised to shield in the future and we will not be providing specific national guidance for you to follow." So we " should follow the same guidance as everyone else as on the gov.uk/coronavirus website, in addition to any condition specific advice you may have been given by your specialist in recent weeks :lol: As someone with a health condition you might also want to think about extra things you can do to keep yourself and others safe. This could include:

. considering whether you and those you are meeting have been vaccinated - you might want to wait until 14 days after everyone's second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine before being in close contact with others

. considering continuing to practise social distancing if that feels right for you and your friends

. asking friends and family to take a rapid lateral flow antigen test before visiting you

. asking home visitors to wear face coverings

. avoiding crowded places

Sounds remarkably like shielding to me, the difference being that it's voluntary rather than mandatory, and that all support for those who need help (e.g. with shopping) in order to shield has stopped; I see that supermarkets no longer give priority for slots on the advice of govt, not that they ever did in my experience. There is much talk of the vaccines and the protection they afford and we are urged to take a 3rd dose to increase our chance of protection. We still can't go to restaurants or places where people get close to each other and we still can't even have our children and grandchildren round for a meal now it's too cold to leave the doors and windows open. A family Christmas is still likely to present problems. Plus ca change...

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 8:45 pm
by Mike4
swill453 wrote:Whatever happened to the R number? Wasn't it supposed to be important?

Scott.


Probably too high to dare to publish it nowadays.

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 8:48 pm
by Lootman
Mike4 wrote:
swill453 wrote:Whatever happened to the R number? Wasn't it supposed to be important?

Probably too high to dare to publish it nowadays.

I did see a reference to it today in an article I read. But presumably that number has less utility now because the harm caused by each increment in infection is significantly reduced because of vaccination. The relentless focus on the number of infections has become outdated in favour of other metrics that reflect actual harm done.

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 10:41 pm
by vagrantbrain
Mike4 wrote:
swill453 wrote:Whatever happened to the R number? Wasn't it supposed to be important?

Scott.


Probably too high to dare to publish it nowadays.


Well it was certainly on the BBC news last night - estimated to be 1.0-1.1 this week, up from 0.9-1.0 last week.

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 11:04 pm
by Sorcery
vagrantbrain wrote:
Mike4 wrote:
swill453 wrote:Whatever happened to the R number? Wasn't it supposed to be important?

Scott.


Probably too high to dare to publish it nowadays.


Well it was certainly on the BBC news last night - estimated to be 1.0-1.1 this week, up from 0.9-1.0 last week.


On a slightly better note, UK new cases seem to have gone down compared with what the BBC reported the other day of 50+k, at least according to Worldometer.
For today they are showing approximately 40k. It's almost as if whenever a call to shut down, or wear masks gets touted by the media, the numbers go down. One hypothesis is god is a mischievous one. Another is there are people using Covid as an excuse to bunk off and once high numbers gets broadacast the slackers feel guilty. As they should be. :-)

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 24th, 2021, 11:56 pm
by onthemove
Sorcery wrote:
vagrantbrain wrote:
Mike4 wrote:
Probably too high to dare to publish it nowadays.


Well it was certainly on the BBC news last night - estimated to be 1.0-1.1 this week, up from 0.9-1.0 last week.


On a slightly better note, UK new cases seem to have gone down compared with what the BBC reported the other day of 50+k, at least according to Worldometer.
For today they are showing approximately 40k. It's almost as if whenever a call to shut down, or wear masks gets touted by the media, the numbers go down. One hypothesis is god is a mischievous one. Another is there are people using Covid as an excuse to bunk off and once high numbers gets broadacast the slackers feel guilty. As they should be. :-)


Another explanation is the variation is just a random walk, it's just when the random walk steps upwards, some portions of the public and media go into hysterics, yet have a blindspot to when the random walk steps the opposite direction.

Just as an aside, I couldn't help notice on the government dashboard map of cases...

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... -map/cases

... if you look at cities that have previously been associated with high rates of infection, like London, Manchester, Liverpool, Bolton and so on... curiously these now seem to be islands of blue in a sea of surrounding red.

These islands of blue are typically the areas of higher population density, and as mentioned, earlier in the pandemic these were the areas that were previously islands of red in a sea of blue.

Furthermore, in Manchester my experience is that very few are wearing face masks in the supermarkets, however, when I visited relations in another part of the country a few days ago, in a more rural area but that was showing a high number of cases, more people than not were wearing face masks in the supermarkets.

To me, this is potentially indicating that those areas of previously high infection - the cities - are perhaps now reaching some degree of perhaps not herd immunity (scientists don't think that will be reached), but perhaps now a kind of equilibrium of just a.n.other infection.

I've read before in the main stream media, that the WHO consider proven recovery from covid infection as being equivalent to vaccination when it comes to vaccine passports (though I've not managed to find a direct reference on from the WHO themselves), and this article here seems to indicate the science is backing that up...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -infection

That's reporting that infection from covid does provide a similar degree of protection against subsequent infection as the vaccine.

So all those 'irresponsible' youngster catching covid in the manchester halls of residence (and as far as I know, none of them died from it) have probably given themselves a good degree of protection by it. Which is probably now helping limit the rate of spread, helping keep the manchester region in blue rather than red.

So to me, it's looking like the virus transmission in cities is perhaps already peaking out / levelling, as the protection from prior infections is perhaps giving populations in the cities that little bit extra protection that's keeping a lid on the transmission compared to the surrounding areas.

So I think the government are playing it right by not re-introducing restrictions again at this point. I think Keir Starmer, The Guardian and the scientists like these ... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... tion-masks ... just need to chill out a bit, and just wait and see a little longer.

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 25th, 2021, 4:22 am
by look
the good image of the british public health service can cause one problem. The private doctors i expect give more remedies than the public health, they do it even for justify the payment. And as the public health service is considered so good, then less people goes to private doctors.

in general the most people has too much confidence in doctors. The most frequent sin of the doctors is to give remedies to receive compensation or to give remedies with strong colateral effects when there are other manners with less colateral effects. Here is a link for they that trust too much in doctors:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Harold-Shipman

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 25th, 2021, 8:10 am
by dealtn
Bouleversee wrote:
dealtn wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:"Vaccinated twice, infected once - and still at risk" is the heading of an article in the Sunday Times which you should be able to get if you Google it and which I suggest you all read. The sub-heading is "As new strains appear, the number of people falling ill multiple times has started to increase". Some have had the virus 3 times. I am not convinced that the recent advice from the NHS to the highly clinically vulnerable that they no longer needed to shield was well founded.


Anyone, be they highly critically vulnerable, or not, that are not convinced they no longer need to shield can take the practical option of shielding.


Really? I hadn't thought of that. :roll: Actually, I think many or most of us in that category will have continued to shield as before, as I am doing, even after the booster since it is by no means certain how effective the current jab is on the latest variant and by no means everyone in public places is masked or jabbed, including some of my grandchildren.


So you agree personal choice is appropriate and an effective way for individuals to take responsibility for their own risk management then?

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 25th, 2021, 8:42 am
by CryptoPlankton
dealtn wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:
dealtn wrote:
Anyone, be they highly critically vulnerable, or not, that are not convinced they no longer need to shield can take the practical option of shielding.


Really? I hadn't thought of that. :roll: Actually, I think many or most of us in that category will have continued to shield as before, as I am doing, even after the booster since it is by no means certain how effective the current jab is on the latest variant and by no means everyone in public places is masked or jabbed, including some of my grandchildren.


So you agree personal choice is appropriate and an effective way for individuals to take responsibility for their own risk management then?


Good grief, this sort of badgering gets really aggravating to read after a while. What was expressed was "I
am not convinced that the recent advice from the NHS to the highly clinically vulnerable that they no longer needed to shield was well founded." Not everyone has the ability to critically decide for themselves on the best course of action, and many will therefore simply decide to do as advised by the authorities, whether or not that advice is sound. That is a potential concern and what I took from the post. Nothing was said about personal choice and, judging from the reply you got, you clearly missed the point, but still wouldn't let it go.

This site really is becoming hard work... :(

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 25th, 2021, 8:42 am
by XFool
look wrote:the good image of the british public health service can cause one problem. The private doctors i expect give more remedies than the public health, they do it even for justify the payment. And as the public health service is considered so good, then less people goes to private doctors.

in general the most people has too much confidence in doctors. The most frequent sin of the doctors is to give remedies to receive compensation or to give remedies with strong colateral effects when there are other manners with less colateral effects. Here is a link for they that trust too much in doctors:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Harold-Shipman

I don't think Harold Shipman is considered typical of the average GP in the UK!

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 25th, 2021, 9:04 am
by dealtn
CryptoPlankton wrote:
dealtn wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:
Really? I hadn't thought of that. :roll: Actually, I think many or most of us in that category will have continued to shield as before, as I am doing, even after the booster since it is by no means certain how effective the current jab is on the latest variant and by no means everyone in public places is masked or jabbed, including some of my grandchildren.


So you agree personal choice is appropriate and an effective way for individuals to take responsibility for their own risk management then?


Good grief, this sort of badgering gets really aggravating to read after a while. What was expressed was "I
am not convinced that the recent advice from the NHS to the highly clinically vulnerable that they no longer needed to shield was well founded." Not everyone has the ability to critically decide for themselves on the best course of action, and many will therefore simply decide to do as advised by the authorities, whether or not that advice is sound. That is a potential concern and what I took from the post. Nothing was said about personal choice and, judging from the reply you got, you clearly missed the point, but still wouldn't let it go.

This site really is becoming hard work... :(


I agree with you (I think). Personal choice is important, but not everyone is able to be make uninformed choices, so the availability of information is critical in enabling many to do so. What appears to me, at least, is some appear to want a fault free prescriptive set of responses from the authorities to the issues, which is unrealistic, and further wish to criticise those authorities when the guidance given either doesn't match their own view, or in hindsight appears wrong.

In this case the authorities appear to have changed their guidance, presumably on the back of advice taken, and are now providing an opportunity for those you describe as unable to critically decide for themselves to follow this change. They aren't abandoning such people and issuing no guidance.

Boulversee, has an opinion on the soundness, or in this case not, of the change in advice. My view is most people are able to assess for themselves (with the information and guidance available) and take responsibility for their actions. A range of options are available to individuals, and they don't have to follow the "minimum" prescribed protection should they choose to. It is rare (rightly) for authorities to require society, and individuals within it, to adhere to restrictions such as shielding or lockdowns.

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 25th, 2021, 10:41 am
by Gersemi
dealtn wrote:
In this case the authorities appear to have changed their guidance, presumably on the back of advice taken, and are now providing an opportunity for those you describe as unable to critically decide for themselves to follow this change. They aren't abandoning such people and issuing no guidance.

Boulversee, has an opinion on the soundness, or in this case not, of the change in advice. My view is most people are able to assess for themselves (with the information and guidance available) and take responsibility for their actions. A range of options are available to individuals, and they don't have to follow the "minimum" prescribed protection should they choose to. It is rare (rightly) for authorities to require society, and individuals within it, to adhere to restrictions such as shielding or lockdowns.


But some people within the shielding category are workers, now the shielding directive has been withdrawn they have to go back to work and so expose themselves.

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

Posted: October 25th, 2021, 10:55 am
by daveh
Gersemi wrote:
dealtn wrote:
In this case the authorities appear to have changed their guidance, presumably on the back of advice taken, and are now providing an opportunity for those you describe as unable to critically decide for themselves to follow this change. They aren't abandoning such people and issuing no guidance.

Boulversee, has an opinion on the soundness, or in this case not, of the change in advice. My view is most people are able to assess for themselves (with the information and guidance available) and take responsibility for their actions. A range of options are available to individuals, and they don't have to follow the "minimum" prescribed protection should they choose to. It is rare (rightly) for authorities to require society, and individuals within it, to adhere to restrictions such as shielding or lockdowns.


But some people within the shielding category are workers, now the shielding directive has been withdrawn they have to go back to work and so expose themselves.


But your workplace should be taking mitigating measures to reduce the risks (such as mask wearing in communal spaces, extra ventilation, extra cleaning and reduced occupancy) we are. Also your workplace should be extra careful if you personally are at higher risk, we had to fill out a risk assessment when we came back to work and the results of that varied on whether you personally were at higher risk.