CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 8)
Discussion
HoHoHo said:
Just to confirm the JHB interview with Tobias Elwood has not been removed as suggested by some posters.
The individual one has but the day’s radio show has not and he’s still very much there making a t
t of himself.
The individual one has indeed, and the salient point is that it was removed by YouTube as it apparently 'violates YouTube's terms of service'.The individual one has but the day’s radio show has not and he’s still very much there making a t
t of himself.Which begs two questions.
How?
And how asked for it to be removed?
HoHoHo said:
V1nce Fox said:
HoHoHo said:
Just to confirm the JHB interview with Tobias Elwood has not been removed as suggested by some posters.
The individual one has but the day’s radio show has not and he’s still very much there making a tt of himself.
Haven't seen that one, is it recent?The individual one has but the day’s radio show has not and he’s still very much there making a t
t of himself.t-for-brains interview.https://youtu.be/848cd9D3TWY
https://youtu.be/848cd9D3TWY?t=1540
Gadgetmac said:
RickSanchez said:
Shocking behaviour, will scare many half to death
I doubt it. Most sensible people are now used to it and will just moan and groan before settling back into it. I've never met anyone including care home residents who's scared half to death. "Concerned" might be a better description.RickSanchez said:
Gadgetmac said:
RickSanchez said:
Shocking behaviour, will scare many half to death
I doubt it. Most sensible people are now used to it and will just moan and groan before settling back into it. I've never met anyone including care home residents who's scared half to death. "Concerned" might be a better description.
nigelpugh7 said:
Had work to do in Dursley in Gloucester today, so up early abs down the M5 motorway, to be greeted once again by , and i am not exaggerating here, more than 50% of the single occupant cars where the driver is wearing a mask, despite being on his or her own!
Can someone please please explain their logic behind that choice?
And if you wear glasses it is a right pain and can affect your visibility. I have to wear a mask when I have a patient in the back of my car (volunteer for NHS Ambulance service) and the first thing I do once they are out is take the thing off.Can someone please please explain their logic behind that choice?
Really don’t like driving with one on.
I see Sunak cleared off sharpish from London 24 hrs before the lockdown##
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9085725/C...
Which was a perfectly legal thing to do and plenty of the comments in the paper say he did no wrong which is fair enough. Actually he did exactly the same thing that thousands and thousands of other people did the same day and this is what hancock said about them.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9085725/C...
Speaking on Sky’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday, Mr Hancock hit out at people trying to flee the capital last night. Sighing dramatically and shaking his head, he said: ‘This was clearly totally irresponsible behaviour. The Chief Medical Officer (Professor Chris Whitty) was absolutely clear that people should unpack their bags if they have them packed.’
So I wonder what Sunak thinks of his colleague calling him a scumbag, I hope he takes it personally,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9085725/C...
Which was a perfectly legal thing to do and plenty of the comments in the paper say he did no wrong which is fair enough. Actually he did exactly the same thing that thousands and thousands of other people did the same day and this is what hancock said about them.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9085725/C...
Speaking on Sky’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday, Mr Hancock hit out at people trying to flee the capital last night. Sighing dramatically and shaking his head, he said: ‘This was clearly totally irresponsible behaviour. The Chief Medical Officer (Professor Chris Whitty) was absolutely clear that people should unpack their bags if they have them packed.’
So I wonder what Sunak thinks of his colleague calling him a scumbag, I hope he takes it personally,
Boringvolvodriver said:
nigelpugh7 said:
Had work to do in Dursley in Gloucester today, so up early abs down the M5 motorway, to be greeted once again by , and i am not exaggerating here, more than 50% of the single occupant cars where the driver is wearing a mask, despite being on his or her own!
Can someone please please explain their logic behind that choice?
And if you wear glasses it is a right pain and can affect your visibility. I have to wear a mask when I have a patient in the back of my car (volunteer for NHS Ambulance service) and the first thing I do once they are out is take the thing off.Can someone please please explain their logic behind that choice?
Really don’t like driving with one on.
nigelpugh7 said:
Had work to do in Dursley in Gloucester today, so up early abs down the M5 motorway, to be greeted once again by , and i am not exaggerating here, more than 50% of the single occupant cars where the driver is wearing a mask, despite being on his or her own!
Can someone please please explain their logic behind that choice?
Very easily explained! Can someone please please explain their logic behind that choice?
https://youtu.be/6gnwgZli1_Y
Ari said:
"...because my grandfather fought in WWII and I'm trying to be just as brave" 
Got cut off in the end of thread. Hope a repost is ok?
Hard lockdown of care homes for 8 weeks. Including live in care at stupid salaries. Vunerable in the community to shield for 8 weeks. Maybe even encourage transmission amongst the younger end of the age scale?
Very few deaths, and perhaps 30-40% "herd immunity"
Jaglover said:
Well that sounds more plausible.
The elderly who don't require care (either at home or in carehomes) could indeed isolate more effectively. Exactly what my parents were doing during the first lockdown. Getting groceries delivered and walking apart from other people.
This becomes a more feasible strategy for avoiding this part of the vulnerable population being infected the quicker it moves through the rest of the population. Prolonging the outbreak though lockdown is counterproductive in this.
This. In spades.The elderly who don't require care (either at home or in carehomes) could indeed isolate more effectively. Exactly what my parents were doing during the first lockdown. Getting groceries delivered and walking apart from other people.
This becomes a more feasible strategy for avoiding this part of the vulnerable population being infected the quicker it moves through the rest of the population. Prolonging the outbreak though lockdown is counterproductive in this.
Hard lockdown of care homes for 8 weeks. Including live in care at stupid salaries. Vunerable in the community to shield for 8 weeks. Maybe even encourage transmission amongst the younger end of the age scale?
Very few deaths, and perhaps 30-40% "herd immunity"
Has this been posted yet?
Association of tiered restrictions and a second lockdown with COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions in England: a modelling study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/...
Seems to say Tier 2 results in 2% reduction in R, Tier 3 results in 10% reduction
Association of tiered restrictions and a second lockdown with COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions in England: a modelling study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/...
Seems to say Tier 2 results in 2% reduction in R, Tier 3 results in 10% reduction
RickSanchez said:
Has this been posted yet?
Association of tiered restrictions and a second lockdown with COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions in England: a modelling study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/...
Seems to say Tier 2 results in 2% reduction in R, Tier 3 results in 10% reduction
Good news if so, all the talk was tier 2 wouldn't hold R at bay. Which has pretty much been borne out by recent events.Association of tiered restrictions and a second lockdown with COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions in England: a modelling study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/...
Seems to say Tier 2 results in 2% reduction in R, Tier 3 results in 10% reduction
Is it modelling or past results? (Not looked yet)
johnboy1975 said:
RickSanchez said:
Has this been posted yet?
Association of tiered restrictions and a second lockdown with COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions in England: a modelling study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/...
Seems to say Tier 2 results in 2% reduction in R, Tier 3 results in 10% reduction
Good news if so, all the talk was tier 2 wouldn't hold R at bay. Which has pretty much been borne out by recent events.Association of tiered restrictions and a second lockdown with COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions in England: a modelling study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/...
Seems to say Tier 2 results in 2% reduction in R, Tier 3 results in 10% reduction
Is it modelling or past results? (Not looked yet)
Our fitted model captures the observed dynamics of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the first and second waves from March 1, to Oct 13, 2020
Rich888 kindly pointed out that one of the links I posted yesterday that explained how PCR cycle times work got scrambled by the forum software due to certain characters in the address so I have converted it to a tinyurl, let's see if that works better.
Here is the correct link and the document is called
"Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR - A guide for health protection teams"
Page 5 has a simple graph to demonstrate what is meant by PCR cycle times.
As for explaining how PCR works to non-scientists, I was trying to think of an analogy. Imagine how movie studios used to copy a roll of 35mm cinema film. Traditionally I believe you would have a master "negative" roll that would be put up against a blank "positive" roll and light would be shined throughit to make copies for distribution to cinemas. DNA is like someone has laid two film rolls on top of one another, one positive, the other negative, perfectly lined up to the exact frame. Each frame represents a DNA base pair, and each scene in the film represents one gene.
In the broth of chemicals along with the DNA you are looking for, you have two short sequences of film, maybe a dozen frames long, these represent the primers. One is in the "negative" form (so matches a sequence of a dozen frames on the "positive" film). The other is a few minutes later in the scene and is "positive" so matching the negative strand. In a thermal cycler heat forces the two layers apart and the primers float around until they match up precisely with the inverse frames they represent. After that the mixture is cooled down so that an enzyme can copy subsequent frames a bit like a camera, one at a time, stitching them together. As this happens in opposite directions with each primer, after a little while the copying of the negative strand will have reached and overshot where the positive strand was starting to be copied from, and vice versa. At that point, job done, heat up again to free the new films and the process repeats and repeats.
It would be extremely unlikely that you would find the exact same sequence of a dozen frames in two difference movies at the start and end of any scene in the entire film. So even if you picked a random scene from say Star Wars, you would almost certainly not find the exact same frames at the start and end of a scene from Empire Strikes Back, even though the same actors and model spaceships were used in both films. Similarly you take care to ensure your SARS-CoV2 primers don't inadvertently match genes from any of the common cold coronaviruses. For good measure you might well look for and copy three separate scenes from a film, so even if you did inadvertently have a false positive match to one gene, you would discount that unless the others also triggered. So whilst PCR is not a perfect test (there is probably no such thing as a perfect diagnostic test), it is good enough for the purpose here, and doctors are expected to understand the correct use of tests and what their limitations are.
Anyway, back to the telly.....
Here is the correct link and the document is called
"Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR - A guide for health protection teams"
Page 5 has a simple graph to demonstrate what is meant by PCR cycle times.
As for explaining how PCR works to non-scientists, I was trying to think of an analogy. Imagine how movie studios used to copy a roll of 35mm cinema film. Traditionally I believe you would have a master "negative" roll that would be put up against a blank "positive" roll and light would be shined throughit to make copies for distribution to cinemas. DNA is like someone has laid two film rolls on top of one another, one positive, the other negative, perfectly lined up to the exact frame. Each frame represents a DNA base pair, and each scene in the film represents one gene.
In the broth of chemicals along with the DNA you are looking for, you have two short sequences of film, maybe a dozen frames long, these represent the primers. One is in the "negative" form (so matches a sequence of a dozen frames on the "positive" film). The other is a few minutes later in the scene and is "positive" so matching the negative strand. In a thermal cycler heat forces the two layers apart and the primers float around until they match up precisely with the inverse frames they represent. After that the mixture is cooled down so that an enzyme can copy subsequent frames a bit like a camera, one at a time, stitching them together. As this happens in opposite directions with each primer, after a little while the copying of the negative strand will have reached and overshot where the positive strand was starting to be copied from, and vice versa. At that point, job done, heat up again to free the new films and the process repeats and repeats.
It would be extremely unlikely that you would find the exact same sequence of a dozen frames in two difference movies at the start and end of any scene in the entire film. So even if you picked a random scene from say Star Wars, you would almost certainly not find the exact same frames at the start and end of a scene from Empire Strikes Back, even though the same actors and model spaceships were used in both films. Similarly you take care to ensure your SARS-CoV2 primers don't inadvertently match genes from any of the common cold coronaviruses. For good measure you might well look for and copy three separate scenes from a film, so even if you did inadvertently have a false positive match to one gene, you would discount that unless the others also triggered. So whilst PCR is not a perfect test (there is probably no such thing as a perfect diagnostic test), it is good enough for the purpose here, and doctors are expected to understand the correct use of tests and what their limitations are.
Anyway, back to the telly.....
I’ve re-quoted this
Does anyone understand why officials figures only show 50 Covid deaths in week 51?
Does anyone understand why officials figures only show 50 Covid deaths in week 51?
HoHoHo said:
Can anyone please read the following and explain why the number of deaths from Covid according to this official document during week 51 is only 50 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
The page concerned is page 14, image below:
I’m sure I’m being a bit thick but I don’t understand the document.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
The page concerned is page 14, image below:
I’m sure I’m being a bit thick but I don’t understand the document.
Edited by HoHoHo on Thursday 24th December 16:18
Chromegrill said:
Rich888 kindly pointed out that one of the links I posted yesterday that explained how PCR cycle times work got scrambled by the forum software due to certain characters in the address so I have converted it to a tinyurl, let's see if that works better.
Here is the correct link and the document is called
"Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR - A guide for health protection teams"
Page 5 has a simple graph to demonstrate what is meant by PCR cycle times.
I did ask this but perhaps it was missed. this new supposedly very transmissible variant is missing one of the 3 target genes used in the usual PCR test. it has also been suggested that missing one gene is potentially skewing the CT levels so the impression given is because of that the viral loads are higher. if it was rerun without a multiplex PCR but individual gene targeting it would show a more 'normal' CT level/viral load. Here is the correct link and the document is called
"Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR - A guide for health protection teams"
Page 5 has a simple graph to demonstrate what is meant by PCR cycle times.
is that possible?
HoHoHo said:
I’ve re-quoted this
Does anyone understand why officials figures only show 50 Covid deaths in week 51?
I saw this same thing myself the other night but as I wasn’t able to post about it on the best thread (this one), I didn’t.Does anyone understand why officials figures only show 50 Covid deaths in week 51?
HoHoHo said:
Can anyone please read the following and explain why the number of deaths from Covid according to this official document during week 51 is only 50
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
The page concerned is page 14, image below:
I’m sure I’m being a bit thick but I don’t understand the document.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
The page concerned is page 14, image below:
I’m sure I’m being a bit thick but I don’t understand the document.
Edited by HoHoHo on Thursday 24th December 16:18
By the way, it’s 50 cases, not deaths.
My understanding is that for any notifiable disease, of which covid-19 has been since early March, health professionals including GPs have a legal duty to notify PHE. Why then, do we only see 50 of them on that report? I’m super confused.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Thursday 24th December 19:15
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff