[COVID-19] General Discussion

[Umaga's Witness]

Does anyone know how testing works?

For example, if you have caught the virus but haven't shown symptoms yet, how likely is the test to be positive?

 

[Reiser99]

Germany is already seeing a sharp increase in infections after easing lockdown. Unless I've missed it, there still seems to be no clear evidence that people who have been infected are immune or are no longer contagious. Also there is evidence of the virus mutating. Personally I feel like most countries will try to ease and then have to get stricter again as infections begin to increase.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Ireland announced dates with their stepped plan as well didn't they?

Think theirs were way more spread out than BoJos vague suggestions though

Holland have dates as well.

 

[General Melchett]

Germany is already seeing a sharp increase in infections after easing lockdown. Unless I've missed it, there still seems to be no clear evidence that people who have been infected are immune or are no longer contagious. Also there is evidence of the virus mutating. Personally I feel like most countries will try to ease and then have to get stricter again as infections begin to increase.

Germany's lockdown easing wasn't exactly modest. They went from lockdown straight into fully opening up public transport (with people being asked to wear face coverings) and all non essential shops (under 800m2). Perhaps they eased too much too soon.

 

[Which Tyler]

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

COVID has settled one massive debate. Who are really the *****? Cyclists or drivers? It's cyclists, half of the ***** are still on the footpath. If you're a cyclist, I'm not going to be apologetic, you're part of a primarily ******* group!

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

So according to Johnson further easing of the lockdown will depend on the data, except he also gave us dates when they happen. Personally, being cynical about this government in particular, I think the dates will be prime driver, not the data barring a huge flare up in infections.

I think it's important to note that the new rating system will be run by the new "joint biosecurity centre" so that the science is what defines how quickly we lift the lockdown.

That should alleviate any allegation that it's "only the science we like" surely?

 

[Reiser99]

I think it's important to note that the new rating system will be run by the new "joint biosecurity centre" so that the science is what defines how quickly we lift the lockdown.

That should alleviate any allegation that it's "only the science we like" surely?

I hope so, but I still think some of the decisions have been and will be made for political reasons rather than health.

 

[McTallshort]

So can I go fishing?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Does anyone know how testing works?

For example, if you have caught the virus but haven't shown symptoms yet, how likely is the test to be positive?

the test is for the virus not the symptoms, so if you have it it should show as positive even if not showing symptoms,

that's how we know people can be asymptomatic, positive test without symptoms

 

[User1245]

So can I go fishing?

Only if you want people to die
/s

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

So can I go fishing?

Do you really need to?

This is the frustrating thing, never before have people needed explicit simple instructions from the government on how to be sensible.

Don't stick your head in a fire.
Remember to breathe.
Don't play with knives.


Stay aware roughly translates to ---> don't be a ******* idiot.

That's not aimed at you btw cause I know you're joking but I've just noticed it being a problem generally

 

[Umaga's Witness]

the test is for the virus not the symptoms, so if you have it it should show as positive even if not showing symptoms,

that's how we know people can be asymptomatic, positive test without symptoms

That was my thought process but I had two doubts
1. Tests typically can have false negatives, and was wondering in what situations they were more likely for covid tests. For example, in testing urine for infections using the dipstick method, false negatives are very common when the infection isn't very strong. But That is very particular to how that specific test works and what it is testing for.
2. I had a vague memory of reading about covid tests having false negatives. This memory is vague, so it could be plain wrong, given memories often are.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

That was my thought process but I had two doubts
1. Tests typically can have false negatives, and was wondering in what situations they were more likely for covid tests. For example, in testing urine for infections using the dipstick method, false negatives are very common when the infection isn't very strong. But That is very particular to how that specific test works and what it is testing for.
2. I had a vague memory of reading about covid tests having false negatives. This memory is vague, so it could be plain wrong, given memories often are.

im no doc so i cant really answer

i always assume nothing is 100%, wouldn't be surprised if there are some false positives but i would also assume to make a test worth anything it needs to be correct a hell of a lot more often than it is "false positive"

what raises the question?

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

im no doc so i cant really answer

i always assume nothing is 100%, wouldn't be surprised if there are some false positives but i would also assume to make a test worth anything it needs to be correct a hell of a lot more often than it is "false positive"

what raises the question?

I think the WHO came out a couple weeks ago and said that all of the supposed "re infections" they were getting were false positives iirc?

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Do you really need to?

This is the frustrating thing, never before have people needed explicit simple instructions from the government on how to be sensible.

Don't stick your head in a fire.
Remember to breathe.
Don't play with knives.


Stay aware roughly translates to ---> don't be a ******* idiot.

That's not aimed at you btw cause I know you're joking but I've just noticed it being a problem generally

I was thinking about this a while ago and I reckon it's quite important that people do look to the government for advice, for two reasons
1. People are stupid
2. A given approach for this sort of thing won't work unless everyone buys in, so you don't want everyone just having their own interpretations of what to do. You don't want to leave things up to interpretation because success isn't dependent on the average interpretation. For example, if the prevailing wisdom is that people stay 2 metres apart and this is offered as a guideline, not a rule, resulting in people staying two metres apart on average, with some staying 2 mm apart and others 200 metres, this will have a worse outcome compared to everyone staying two metres apart.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

I was thinking about this a while ago and I reckon it's quite important that people do look to the government for advice, for two reasons
1. People are stupid
2. A given approach for this sort of thing won't work unless everyone buys in, so you don't want everyone just having their own interpretations of what to do. You don't want to leave things up to interpretation because success isn't dependent on the average interpretation. For example, if the prevailing wisdom is that people stay 2 metres apart and this is offered as a guideline, not a rule, resulting in people staying two metres apart on average, with some staying 2 mm apart and others 200 metres, this will have a worse outcome compared to everyone staying two metres apart.

Yeah I would tend to agree with that on the whole, I do agree that rules are important.

All I mean is that when the BBC cut to someone asking "can I go and see my elderly mother now" I am constantly puzzled as to whether they are feigning stupidity to make a political jab at the government or whether they are just ignorant as hell... I just don't know

 

[Umaga's Witness]

im no doc so i cant really answer

i always assume nothing is 100%, wouldn't be surprised if there are some false positives but i would also assume to make a test worth anything it needs to be correct a hell of a lot more often than it is "false positive"

what raises the question?

Well, A while back they were considering involving the pacific nations in a new super rugby comp, due to travel restrictions with other countries likely to continue for some time. Then I heard that wales and Scotland touring is not off the cards at this stage. For the former I worried we'd infect the islands, for the latter I worried wales and Scotland would infect us. Then I thought, I guess they could be tested before arriving in the given country. But then I worried about false negatives.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Well, A while back they were considering involving the pacific nations in a new super rugby comp, due to travel restrictions with other countries likely to continue for some time. Then I heard that wales and Scotland touring is not off the cards at this stage. For the former I worried we'd infect the islands, for the latter I worried wales and Scotland would infect us. Then I thought, I guess they could be tested before arriving in the given country. But then I worried about false negatives.

ok, makes sense,

maybe if the squad isolates before the games as well as things like tests. dones't work for the super comp but maybe for one off tests

I think the WHO came out a couple weeks ago and said that all of the supposed "re infections" they were getting were false positives iirc?

so the False positives were people that had tested positive previously? so maybe if squad Members have never tested positive?

 

[ncurd]

Does anyone know how testing works?

For example, if you have caught the virus but haven't shown symptoms yet, how likely is the

On testing in general a positive is extremely likely a positive but there are plenty of false negatives.

As to what they can detect and when, it's all a tad complex. I've seen the graphs and they looking at different things at different time depending on where you could be along in your infection. There's a huge a mount more interpretation than the media makes out.



On elderly relatives I don't think it's one of 'Can I go now' but people are presenting it that way. It's more 'which step is that in' because I couldn't give a duck about restaraunts/cinemas etc.

And yes you can go fishing now from what I heard you can go outside and do whatever as long as you socially distance from people outside your household when you do.


Have to set him not impressed with another speech announcing changes with zero clarity on many areas. (We had the same issue at lockdown with go to with is it's essential travel). Just heard and can people provide clarity the go to work order is now apparently from Wednesday which is not what he said...Starmer bring it up that trying to arrange not using public transport may take longer than 12 hours and they are already back peddling. I can forgive them a little for the lockdown it was more of rush job but they had time to prepare for this, the speech was announced over a week in advance.

Yet people said he did a good job and it was clear and it's media stirring thing up and just use common sense.....nearly lost it with few people last night. I appreciate them being in a tough situation and it being hard work but poor communication....