Coronavirus: General discussion (see opening post for rules)

[Ditto]

When on mechanical ventilation, case severity is at the most severe - at times survival rates weren't good. Figures published today for those on mechanical ventilation are the lowest since early July last year.

[mavhc]

I don't understand the meaning of your antibody question - could you explain? Is it rhetorical? If you know the answer do let us know. Are you talking about antibodies regardless of whether via vaccine or infection?

Have other countries got an equivalent to our ONS sampling survey. Which appears to report infection or vaccine.

 

So to your classroom analogy, suppose a class of 30 children were to get covid. In the main they will all survive and generally have mild symptoms. If they were all vaccinated, the symptoms are likely to be less severe on average. But, if you are the parent of the 1 child that has an extreme reaction as a result of vaccination that results in death, you live with that thereafter. If you are the parent of a child that didn't vaccination and the same outcome happened, it's the same, you live with that thereafter. Whole society numbers don't capture or convey the decision making for individuals, they can however inform the decision making.

 

In the case of 'whole' society, I've no doubt that universal vaccinations would have the most significant benefit the the 'whole'. However, in the scenario where we have had the vaccine roll-out by vulnerability cohorts, and a series of variants, including the current one that seems to infect widely in spite of vaccination, along with, at best, marginal benefits to those in the 5-12 age range (and I accept the wider benefit to elder relatives up to a point) I just feel it is too simplistic to go ahead with a 'vaccinate them all as fast as possible'.

 

Most of those 30 children will infect the people around them, their parents, grandparents, in general cause more problems, and the more people infected the more chances of variants. So now 1 child has infected 100 people. And that's if they didn't mix with any other class at school, which is unlikely.

 

Still 1000 people a week dying and the case rate in children was over 4x the maximum number displayed on the cases by age group graphs on https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation&areaName=England

 

The current solution of don't get vaccinated, go to school, and don't wear masks, is just Pro COVID propaganda.

 

I'm sure a child when asked: Do you accept a 0.0000001% risk of death to help your friend who has a 1% risk of death to not die would be fine with that

[Ditto]

At no point have I suggested "Don't get vaccinated". Suggesting "Pro COVID propaganda" to my engagement in this thread is completely misleading and frankly, is utterly wrong.

[mavhc]

Not aimed at you, more in a London direction

[Koldov]

But let's not cloud everything with facts and figures (or damn statistics)... Because it is really a matter of sociology (social ethics and social dynamics) and altruism.

 

There are things we actually know.

 

It's a virus, it spreads through the usual means (but its spread is predominantly airborne).

 

The spread is mitigated by ventilation, mask wearing, hand-washing, distance (this is obviously common sense).

 

By that logic, the less close contact (in say a small classroom with no mask wearing and poor ventilation) infected person A has with person B, the less likely person B is to contract the virus (again common sense).

 

What is less crystal clear to me is the effectiveness of the vaccine to reduce not just hospitalisation/death, but viral load (as we already see reinfection of previously infected/vaccinated individuals, we cannot say anti-bodies or a vaccine completely stops one becoming infected).

 

However, if the viral load produced from the infection and therefore risk of spread is reduced by being vaccinated, then that should indicate it as the correct thing to do regardless of whether that be a child or an adult. In the early days of the discussion about children being vaccinated, it was widely noted that almost no children suffer very badly from Covid infection. This was given as the reason for not vaccinating, but personal health is only part of the reason for vaccinating against Covid, the other being to prevent onward transmission (interestingly vaccinations such as the MMR is seen as a personal vaccine to help prevent your child getting infected/ill, but it also mitigates spread, as a possibly unwitting effect which is not generally given as a reason to have your child immunised against those diseases).

 

We've all seen the infographic and remember the R number, but now in the case of our particular place of work the initial spreader is more than likely a child (or multiple children) as a vast number of adults (not only being the minority 1:30) will have been vaccinated... But as stated above, previous infection or being vaccinated doesn't protect the adult 100%, so there are 30 potential vectors of infection for them. Let alone the fact that they are all still spreading it between themselves and then back at home to siblings/parents/carers/grand-parents... I'm not aware of their children's age, but notably one or two posters here indicate that although avoiding infection themselves thus far, infection was introduced by means of their children.

 

 

Now, with vaccination apparently playing a large part in lower hospitalisation/death and in any case most of those (if fit and healthy) in the infographic will be OK (and if they were all unvaccinated children 99.9% of them would be anyway), except from possibly one of those at the end of the chain. But imagine the initial infection starter being a child, the next row siblings, the next row parents and the last being immuno-suppressed/unvaccinated for medical reasons or just elderly/susceptible...

 

Having said that, I'm aware of course there are as always mitigating factors (medically speaking) that preclude certain individuals from being able to have the vaccine (as noted in a previous post).

 

I hate to be the one that brings in the old chestnut of 'you could be hit by a bus tomorrow', but risk (vaccine) aversion is simply a personalised (possibly uneducated) risk assessment and fear of individual consequence (which appears to have been proven to be very low). How many of those unwilling to vaccinate their children let them walk/cycle to school, go out to play unsupervised, or do various other things that could 'possibly' have life threatening/altering outcomes?

 

It may be completely unrealistic to expect total altruism as the reason to get vaccinated and I'm sure many people as I have, got vaccinated for mostly personal reasons (with a decent helping of vulnerable Mother-In-Law). People are generally good (and a few are truly selfless), but faced with one's personal issues versus someone else's most people will eventually choose themselves (especially if they feel their life or especially that of their own kin is somehow in peril)... This obviously applies to those both for and against.

 

Against: Nobody in my family is vulnerable and we are all healthy, I don't see any point in putting us at risk from vaccine side-effects!

 

For: I have a vulnerable family member, everybody should get vaccinated to help protect them. Side-effects are less likely than death from Covid!

 

I doubt many arguments will change either the 'for' or the 'against' person's mind...

[LeMarchand]

Old news, but I was shocked to learn that Jim Corr (he of the gorgeous sisters) is an antivax/mask guy and also a 9/11 conspiracy type. Even Jedward are smarter than that! https://news.sky.com/story/jedward-takes-jim-corr-to-task-over-face-masks-12054822

[mavhc]

It's also very unlikely you'd die from diphtheria, hep-b, Haemophilus influenzae type b, polio, tetanus, whooping cough, Rotavirus, meningococcal group B bacteria, pneumonia, but you get vaccinated against them before you're 1/4 of a year old.

[Norphy]

Had PCR tests yesterday. GF tested positive, my test came back inconclusive. Retaking it at lunchtime

 

So that retaken test came back negative, but I’ve been giving myself daily LFTs since I need to to avoid self isolation up here. Today I’m feeling somewhat under the weather and the test came back positive.

 

In the words of the immortal James May:

 

Oh, cock

[Danp]

I'm back into work today, I'm still testing positive, very clear two lines, feel like I've got a cold and tired.

[mavhc]

Why are you back at work if you're ill?

[Ditto]

This weekend just gone is when the gov coronavirus data site doesn't do weekend updates. Fine, but the decision not to continue separating out Sat/Sun seems unnecessary. See https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/whats-new/record/65a19809-ffac-4cf7-b4fd-f1a3dad5cac2. I can not see that it is easier to make the cumulative figures than to keep them separate. It makes interpreting the data just that little bit harder, something a good data analyst would really want to avoid.

[Theblacksheep]

I'm back into work today, I'm still testing positive, very clear two lines, feel like I've got a cold and tired.

 

Have you forgotten the last 2 years?

 

Why are you ill and positive at work?

[Koldov]

I'm back into work today, I'm still testing positive, very clear two lines, feel like I've got a cold and tired.

 

Really?! That's interesting, how many days have you tested positive for?

 

We were given the following advice from the LEA:

 

"If you get COVID symptoms then you should, take a PCR test as soon as possible and stay at home until you get the result. If the test comes back positive then you should remain at home for 5 days from the day you first had the symptoms. If you test negative then you should return to work immediately."

 

I'll have to go and ask the Head for clarification... what happens if you're still testing positive on day 6?

[Boredguy]

Really?! That's interesting, how many days have you tested positive for?

 

We were given the following advice from the LEA:

 

"If you get COVID symptoms then you should, take a PCR test as soon as possible and stay at home until you get the result. If the test comes back positive then you should remain at home for 5 days from the day you first had the symptoms. If you test negative then you should return to work immediately."

 

I'll have to go and ask the Head for clarification... what happens if you're still testing positive on day 6?

 

This is still the flow diagram for tests we've circulated to staff and parents, I assume from Public Health England

[Ditto]

I'm back into work today, I'm still testing positive, very clear two lines, feel like I've got a cold and tired.

I want to avoid jumping to conclusions, could you give a little more background information and context.

[Danp]

Tested positive last Tuesday evening after being in work Monday and Tuesday. I was off Wed-Fri, back in today as I don't have a temperature and it is expected by the school to be in. Another colleague who tested positive on the same evening is back today although she feels fine.

[StevieM]

Current guidance (although no longer law) is to isolate for 10 days. The 'don't have a temperature' is a secondary safeguard after you have tested negative on two consecutive days. It's not an either/or. You are still testing positive and still have symptoms. Therefore, you should be isolating whether school expects you to be in or not.

[Ditto]

Tested positive last Tuesday evening after being in work Monday and Tuesday. I was off Wed-Fri, back in today as I don't have a temperature and it is expected by the school to be in. Another colleague who tested positive on the same evening is back today although she feels fine.

Thanks for that and being open with your situation. Firstly, I think we have to acknowledge it's not illegal. Yet, government advice is still to isolate. Going to https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus, the first few lines recommend isolating at home. Digging further in to the site, it does advise staying at home if you feel unwell which I believe you acknowledged.

I'm not going to tell you what you should do, we all have choices. Besides, to reiterate, it's not illegal. Yet, I think it does need to be acknowledged others are going to think it's wrong and have very strong views. I think your situation is of interest, in part as you are an early example of what is allowed since recent changes. This scenario may well become much more common in the months ahead, and indeed at some point (possibly several years away though), it may become a norm, indistinguishable from how many of us behave with the common cold. One further question if you don't mind. Would you say the 'expectation' from the school is beyond the threshold of being regarded as pressured to go in, or would you say there is an aspect of free will on your part?

[Ditto]

This weekend just gone is when the gov coronavirus data site doesn't do weekend updates. Fine, but the decision not to continue separating out Sat/Sun seems unnecessary. See https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/whats-new/record/65a19809-ffac-4cf7-b4fd-f1a3dad5cac2. I can not see that it is easier to make the cumulative figures than to keep them separate. It makes interpreting the data just that little bit harder, something a good data analyst would really want to avoid.

 

Further to this, now that the graphic has been updated, it look even more ridiculous.

 

 

 

On a positive, the downward trend continues with the lowest published 7 day case average below 400 per 100k for the first time since mid November 2021. Mechanical ventilation numbers are the lowest since June last year.

 

Hospital admissions and total in hospitals numbers continue to fall, but it would be good to see them drop at a faster rate than currently.

[jmak]

Further to this, now that the graphic has been updated, it look even more ridiculous.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]64789[/ATTACH]

 

On a positive, the downward trend continues with the lowest published 7 day case average below 400 per 100k for the first time since mid November 2021. Mechanical ventilation numbers are the lowest since June last year.

 

Hospital admissions and total in hospitals numbers continue to fall, but it would be good to see them drop at a faster rate than currently.

Your file name says it all really...

[Danp]

One further question if you don't mind. Would you say the 'expectation' from the school is beyond the threshold of being regarded as pressured to go in, or would you say there is an aspect of free will on your part?

 

Of course I could have refused to come in, but I know that would have not reflected well on me. With that in mind, I came in. I had a new phone system install booked plus other stuff to catch up on after being away 3 days last week. The whole situation is completely unreasonable, lots of other staff have said that to me but they also know the situation.

 

Edit - During my telephone call on Tuesday night after my positive test, I was asked if I would be in on Thursday as the rules were changing...

 

Also, I do feel this is what is going to happen to more in the future, especially as we go into April and the covid / sick pay changes.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Danp

[Andrew_C]

I think this is the first time the whole forum has been speechless...

[LeMarchand]

I think this is the first time the whole forum has been speechless...

 

Well, we're not supposed to discuss the underlying reasons for the removal of restrictions.

[Ironside]

Well, we're not supposed to discuss the underlying reasons for the removal of restrictions.

 

I mean, I get why the moderators here don't want to clean up the ten millionth "$RulingParty bad" argument but IMO removing politics from a discussion about government schemes just leaves you with nothing to discuss.

 

Anyways,

 

Sorry to hear that Danp, not sure what to say besides get well soon and maybe speak to a line manager about this issue because it seems to me your employer is risking students and staff wellbeing alike with this new policy.

[mavhc]

Which will end up with everyone being ill and therefore off work.

 

This was the problem in the first place, before covid, people coming into work while infectious, infecting everyone else, who go home and infect their elderly parents, who die from the flu.

 

Given we've proven we can work from home when not too ill to work, but too ill to not be infectious, anyone forcing people into work is deliberately infecting people, which is probably illegal.