Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Seems there will be mass testing for corvid available in a Liverpool pilot scheme, this should tell individuals whether they are corvid positive or negative, which would be helpfull in the case of asymtomatic cases.   However, there appears to be some glaring flaws - 1. Testing is voluntary.    2.  It depends on people who test positive being compliant with isolation rules, which may not happen without some form of supervision.   😷

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the test is negative what guarantee is there that by the time they get the results back the person tested will not have contracted the virus?

but the same applies to every test, apart from the ones that take twelve minutes and they only tell you if you have had it by looking at the antibodies.( as far as i am aware anyhow. and i could be wrong about that without goggling)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what they said on tv today, even if you could test 100% of the population, half would be uncontactable and for those that were, only 25% would stick to the quarantine rules so even mass testing is never going to eliminate it. The biggest problem as I see it is all the secrecy, and human rights that goes with it, because if someone’s infected but chooses not to disclose the fact, then it’s all a bit pointless.

If we could brand everyone who’s infected with a big red cross on their forehead, then it would be easy and we could nail the problem in no time. Why people are so obsessed about privacy on this is beyond me, I mean there’s nothing to be embarrassed about, it’s not like having caught some kind of sexually transmitted disease.

So, my solution would be to make testing every couple of weeks compulsory and anyone testing positive would be issued with a window sticker for their homes that they must by law display. This way friends and neighbours would be able to keep their distance or even monitor that the family are keeping to the rules.

As the old saying goes, “It sounds crazy, but it just might work!”

 

Bill 😊

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bill said:

 

 

So, my solution would be to make testing every couple of weeks compulsory and anyone testing positive would be issued with a window sticker for their homes that they must by law display. This way friends and neighbours would be able to keep their distance or even monitor that the family are keeping to the rules.

As the old saying goes, “It sounds crazy, but it just might work!”

 

Bill 😊

 

Your right Bill

Crazy 🧐

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The glaring omission in the plan for testing the city of Liverpool doesn't seem to include the City Region which has been dragged into the Tier 3 lockdown ,no doubt boosting the allocation of millions of pounds for the Region.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass testing would involve everyone going to mass testing stations and, thereby, increasing the chances of coming into contact with people infected and catching the virus. Think I'll stay at home thanks.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily Asp;  the early testing in the UK was done roadside, so you remain in the relative safety of your car, while they take a swab.   My point is, that if it's voluntary, many won't volunteer and if found to be covid positive, many won't self isolate, thus making the whole process a waste of time.   There has to be a degree of compulsion and enforcement to ensure compliance, not really possible in a liberal, freedom loving democracy.      😷

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Not necessarily Asp;  the early testing in the UK was done roadside, so you remain in the relative safety of your car, while they take a swab.   My point is, that if it's voluntary, many won't volunteer and if found to be covid positive, many won't self isolate, thus making the whole process a waste of time.   There has to be a degree of compulsion and enforcement to ensure compliance, not really possible in a liberal, freedom loving democracy.      😷

Car? What car?

I take your other points and on the face of it I think I'll stay safe at home.

If or when they get a vaccine I'll have it, but only when all the MPs and government advisors have been publicly, and independently verified, vaccinated and a 6 week period has been passed so any adverse effects can be seen. "Form an orderly line, who wants to go first? Mr Johnson? Mr Hancock?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure, but I think they've got a self testing kit, but this wouldn't tell them they've got the right person.  As for the vax queue, like you, I'll delay my enthusiasm until those at the front of the queue have proved it's safe.     😷

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

My wife has a hospital appointment on Saturday, so I had to take her for a pre-op test at a Runcorn drive through. We got the results back in less than 24 hours and as expected it was negative. 

I was chatting with my neighbour about doing this and he said it was a waste of time because the test was only correct 3% of the time. I think I managed to convince him he might have got things a bit wrong but it makes you wonder where they get these sorts of ideas from and what the countries up against.

 

Bill 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill said:

My wife has a hospital appointment on Saturday, so I had to take her for a pre-op test at a Runcorn drive through. We got the results back in less than 24 hours and as expected it was negative. 

I was chatting with my neighbour about doing this and he said it was a waste of time because the test was only correct 3% of the time. I think I managed to convince him he might have got things a bit wrong but it makes you wonder where they get these sorts of ideas from and what the countries up against.

 

Bill 😊

Bill, they get these ideas from denialist egits on Facebook. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Bill, they get these ideas from denialist egits on Facebook. 

Of which there are a quite a few. The problem arises when others repost the tripe they peddle because they want to believe that it is true or at least don't want to use what brains they have to question the validity of the statements.

One that seems to do the rounds is the "i was followed home by (add ethic description) the other night/day/evening" type,which go into great detail and end up with a warning. no mention of reporting it to police, no mention of taking a picture with their smart phone, no ,mention ,if it was a car or van, of noting the number plate down..

I tend to look on those posts as a blatant attempt to stir up racial hatred and i treat them as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where mass testing gets us. OK, it tells us who and how many are positive or negative; but then relies on the positives complying with self isolation, and doesn't ensure that the negatives will pick up the virus at some future point.   Whilst I can see that a screening test would be useful when entering a risk area like a Hospital or Care Home, or even a Country; the result would need to be available before entry is permitted, and would be required on each entry.    :unsure:     😷

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you’re spot on with that assessment Obs although I’d doubt it paints an accurate picture as to what percentage of people have it.

A voluntary test would probably not be taken up by those who think it’s a waste of time and it’s these people who are probably more likely to carry the virus. Conversely, those that are sticking to the rules and believe they’re helping by taking part are less likely to have the virus.

The only way to get accurate numbers would be to select people for testing at random.

 

Bill :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bill said:

I think you’re spot on with that assessment Obs although I’d doubt it paints an accurate picture as to what percentage of people have it.

A voluntary test would probably not be taken up by those who think it’s a waste of time and it’s these people who are probably more likely to carry the virus. Conversely, those that are sticking to the rules and believe they’re helping by taking part are less likely to have the virus.

The only way to get accurate numbers would be to select people for testing at random.

 

Bill :)

 

A couple of huge leaps of logic there Bill. If that were true it would be easy to identify the carriers by just asking everyone if they are willing to be tested - those who aren't willing "MUST" be carriers and should be locked up 🤣🤣🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like not so much "common sense" as you trying to explain something using little or no evidence Bill. There is evidence out there that lockdowns have little or no effect on Covid infections and deaths, but may in fact cause a rise in non-Covid death rates. So it may well be true that the first lockdown was successful in its aim of not allowing the sainted NHS to be overwhelmed, it is doubtful whether it has achieved an overall reduction in Covid deaths. It seems to me that there is a large number of people in this country who are enjoying the lockdowns for some reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asp said "There is evidence out there that lockdowns have little or no effect on Covid infections and deaths, but may in fact cause a rise in non-Covid death rates."

If lockdowns have no effect on Covid infections (and consequently deaths) that would have to be because  people being close together was not a significant transmission vector for the virus. The notion that it is not the principal vector is preposterous and any supposed evidence therefore that lockdowns don't work would probably reduce to people cheating. The suggestion that there is evidence that lockdowns don't work is scientifically illiterate.

The Swedes did lock down in a Swedish way because they value societal cohesion without being compelled in every case. However they still had Local Authority health and safety officers checking social distancing in bars and people worked from home where ever possible. The populace was compliant but not compelled. Here we have people looking for every loophole they can find and the Swedes would no doubt regard that as cheating.

The reviled Whitty was correct in reminding members of the Science and Technology Select Committee that the reduction in health care provision causing a rise in non-Covid deaths is not caused-by lockdown as such but by Covid infecting so many NHS staff that there aren't enough to provide those other services. This situation would not be made better by not locking down because that would result in more NHS worker infections and less staff for both non-Covid and Covid care.

What those who advance these theories are doing is to posit a magic wand that makes Covid go away by pretending that it has no effect on people. They usually do that by suggesting that because 98.6% of people don't die that the problem can be ignored. The reality is that with a debilitating illness of Covid's infectivity there will be swathes of unwell people as well as the inevitable deaths. Protecting the NHS is about reducing the peak number of infected staff not the beds. Putting the dying into a corner and forgetting them does nothing to keep the staff in the NHS or food production  or any other services able to do their jobs. Whitty described the Great Barrington Declaration as scientifically faulty and he was correct, it is just wishful thinking without foundation.

Letting Covid-19 rip does nothing to stop the economy grinding to a halt because of millions of ill people and the issues of handling the large numbers of deaths that would follow. It is true that lock-downs do not reduce the number of deaths in the first instance. However letting it rip with many getting a mild infection only to get a more severe infection later would actually increase the number of total deaths. Modern disease control does not rely on herd immunity by natural infection. The minimum number of total deaths will happen by social distancing reducing contacts to allow herd immunity by vaccine to be imparted and maintained until global levels are reduced. Unfortunately the UK and especially the North-West appear to have a large number of people who do not believe in the notion of society and a shared duty to protect others. That means that we need lockdowns to force the Rt number down when the infection rate gets too high and threatens to disrupt the area's ability to keep going. If the public were more caring the lockdowns would not be needed, so they should not properly be blamed on the government but the citizens around us who fail to exercise sufficient self control. Not knowing the detailed rules is not the problem it is pushing at the limits of the rules in an attempt to by-pass them because of their own feelings of self-importance. 

Sorry for the rant but I am getting fed up of hearing guff, even if it is just for the sake of starting an argument for fun!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Asp, what I was saying was based on what I believe is common sense but if you can’t understand that?

I think if I said to you this banana is yellow, you’d probably ask me to prove that, just to be bloody awkward 😊

If we could carry out a check to test my hypothesis, I’d be willing to stump up any amount of dosh you care to wager on it, but common sense says you won’t do that. 😊

As for the "evidence" that lockdowns don’t work, what you should be saying is bad or partial lockdowns don’t work. Again, using just common sense, if the virus is spread from person to person and we could eliminated all personal contact, then the virus would completely cease to exist.

Obviously in the real world we can’t do that so a balance needs to be struck, but as soon as we do that, the effectiveness starts to go out of the window. Look at how they did things in Wuhan, they locked down brutally and quickly nailed the problem.

 

Bill :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the best method of testing is to post to every home in the country then completed tests can be taken to locally central points ,deposited in bio bins & collected regularly for delivery to an appropriate lab. That would cut down the need for leaving home ,causing traffic jams and/or queueing for possibly hours in British winter weather.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you will get the same outcome of people either taking or not taking notice of the results no matter what test is on offer. Blanket opportunities for testing via letter boxes would give everyone a one time doorstep opportunity to provide samples & provide a more comprehensive result as to how many people are actually infected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2020 at 10:37 AM, Davy51 said:

Well you will get the same outcome of people either taking or not taking notice of the results no matter what test is on offer. Blanket opportunities for testing via letter boxes would give everyone a one time doorstep opportunity to provide samples & provide a more comprehensive result as to how many people are actually infected.

I think the important thing about testing, is the protection of areas of risk, such as Hospitals and Care Homes; this would require a test prior to entry, which would require an instant result and would be repeated at each time of access.  On the broader front, the same should apply to entry into the Country, with tests at Ports and Airports, and the Kent beaches.     😷

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...