FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Is testing pointless now?
Is testing pointless now?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"People are still losing lives, because others have infected them. It makes sense to test and prevent others getting the worst outcome. " So how does it end? Surely the "test positive and isolate for 10 days" plan isn't going to be sustainable once furlough goes? | |||
"More money needs to be put into testing, we need a better lateral flow test" definitely lateral flow are useless taken 6 all negative still didn't feel good so had pcr positive . | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? " Low death rates? Where do people get this information? I'm looking at 770 deaths in the 7 days.! 770.... I do tend to agree that testing is pretty much pointless now. Given that little if any actions are taken off the back of it. I'm intrigued why it is people keep banging on about "low death rates" though. Perhaps it's brainwashing of media telling us they are low rather than the ability to assess the numbers for ourselves. I mean if 770 in a week is low.... What does an average week or a high week look like? | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? Low death rates? Where do people get this information? I'm looking at 770 deaths in the 7 days.! 770.... I do tend to agree that testing is pretty much pointless now. Given that little if any actions are taken off the back of it. I'm intrigued why it is people keep banging on about "low death rates" though. Perhaps it's brainwashing of media telling us they are low rather than the ability to assess the numbers for ourselves. I mean if 770 in a week is low.... What does an average week or a high week look like? " You get roughly 300-400 deaths a day during a hard flu epidemic, so 770 a week would be considered low during this current epidemic. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? Low death rates? Where do people get this information? I'm looking at 770 deaths in the 7 days.! 770.... I do tend to agree that testing is pretty much pointless now. Given that little if any actions are taken off the back of it. I'm intrigued why it is people keep banging on about "low death rates" though. Perhaps it's brainwashing of media telling us they are low rather than the ability to assess the numbers for ourselves. I mean if 770 in a week is low.... What does an average week or a high week look like? You get roughly 300-400 deaths a day during a hard flu epidemic, so 770 a week would be considered low during this current epidemic." When was the last time that there was a flu epidemic that affected the entire world and lasted more than 20 months? And yes, 770 a week is relatively low for the current pandemic, but it is only that low at present because of the biggest and most expensive vaccination campaign that has ever been conducted world wide, a massive effort to find infected people and try to reduce the number they spread it to, and large changes in social behaviour. Even so, the death rate IS creeping back up due to the dropping of restrictions over the last few months. In June covid deaths were less than 10 a day, now they are consistently above 100 a day, with no sign of stabilising. | |||
| |||
| |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? Low death rates? Where do people get this information? I'm looking at 770 deaths in the 7 days.! 770.... I do tend to agree that testing is pretty much pointless now. Given that little if any actions are taken off the back of it. I'm intrigued why it is people keep banging on about "low death rates" though. Perhaps it's brainwashing of media telling us they are low rather than the ability to assess the numbers for ourselves. I mean if 770 in a week is low.... What does an average week or a high week look like? You get roughly 300-400 deaths a day during a hard flu epidemic, so 770 a week would be considered low during this current epidemic. When was the last time that there was a flu epidemic that affected the entire world and lasted more than 20 months? And yes, 770 a week is relatively low for the current pandemic, but it is only that low at present because of the biggest and most expensive vaccination campaign that has ever been conducted world wide, a massive effort to find infected people and try to reduce the number they spread it to, and large changes in social behaviour. Even so, the death rate IS creeping back up due to the dropping of restrictions over the last few months. In June covid deaths were less than 10 a day, now they are consistently above 100 a day, with no sign of stabilising." It's endemic and very unlikely to be going away, new variants will arise at some point that escape the vaccine that's part of the reason why deaths were 10 four months ago and a 100 today alpha to delta, delta has escaped the vaccine to some degree, we can't shut down the country forever, we can't shut down the country every time we need a new vaccine for a new variant, catching the virus now will give a degree of protection from a new variant that this vaccine doesn't because the vaccine uses one specific spike protein whereas natural infection has two dozen other proteins. Zero covid was always a pipe dream and forever restrictions are another pipe dream, sooner or later the population was going to revolt. The death rate is creeping up and will continue to do so until an equilibrium can stabilise it's infection. It's a novel virus it could give us 150 deaths a day for the next 150 years and that would be roughly 8% of the population. | |||
"More money needs to be put into testing, we need a better lateral flow test definitely lateral flow are useless taken 6 all negative still didn't feel good so had pcr positive ." You have to take it out of the packet! | |||
| |||
"Testing is definitely needed to keep track on data and variants. I don't think there's a need to worry about high positive cases though at the moment as the link between cases and effects have been mostly broken." Again...I challenge that... The conversion between cases and deaths is lower than a year ago... But the link still exists...its not broken.. That's just media horse shit. Of course.. People don't just drop dead of no reason they die as a result of the infection... | |||
"Testing is definitely needed to keep track on data and variants. I don't think there's a need to worry about high positive cases though at the moment as the link between cases and effects have been mostly broken. Again...I challenge that... The conversion between cases and deaths is lower than a year ago... But the link still exists...its not broken.. That's just media horse shit. Of course.. People don't just drop dead of no reason they die as a result of the infection... " The link was the hospitalisation and death rate at a certain rate between cases and effects. That link of percentages has more or less been broken,ie hospitalisation used to be about 7% now it's less than 1% the death rate was about 0.4% now it's 0.02% or about the same as flu. | |||
| |||
"Testing is definitely needed to keep track on data and variants. I don't think there's a need to worry about high positive cases though at the moment as the link between cases and effects have been mostly broken. Again...I challenge that... The conversion between cases and deaths is lower than a year ago... But the link still exists...its not broken.. That's just media horse shit. Of course.. People don't just drop dead of no reason they die as a result of the infection... " 40k infections. A day 149 deaths a day 820 hospitalisations a day And all increasing at the rate of 10 %.. Yes its certainly lower than the peaks of the last wave in winter.... | |||
"Testing is definitely needed to keep track on data and variants. I don't think there's a need to worry about high positive cases though at the moment as the link between cases and effects have been mostly broken. Again...I challenge that... The conversion between cases and deaths is lower than a year ago... But the link still exists...its not broken.. That's just media horse shit. Of course.. People don't just drop dead of no reason they die as a result of the infection... 40k infections. A day 149 deaths a day 820 hospitalisations a day And all increasing at the rate of 10 %.. Yes its certainly lower than the peaks of the last wave in winter.... " The rolling average is 110 a day and according to the Zoe app which is seen as the most accurate reflection of cases were averaging 58k cases a day, giving you a death of 0.15%. Again I have reiterate how many of that 110 were part of the 2000 a day that were dying anyway, your bound to get infection when in a high epidemic case as we are now. What's the difference in average deaths, I haven't seen that budge in 8 months?. | |||
"Testing is definitely needed to keep track on data and variants. I don't think there's a need to worry about high positive cases though at the moment as the link between cases and effects have been mostly broken. Again...I challenge that... The conversion between cases and deaths is lower than a year ago... But the link still exists...its not broken.. That's just media horse shit. Of course.. People don't just drop dead of no reason they die as a result of the infection... 40k infections. A day 149 deaths a day 820 hospitalisations a day And all increasing at the rate of 10 %.. Yes its certainly lower than the peaks of the last wave in winter.... The rolling average is 110 a day and according to the Zoe app which is seen as the most accurate reflection of cases were averaging 58k cases a day, giving you a death of 0.15%. Again I have reiterate how many of that 110 were part of the 2000 a day that were dying anyway, your bound to get infection when in a high epidemic case as we are now. What's the difference in average deaths, I haven't seen that budge in 8 months?. " Hopefully this answers your question. From ons... If you look at the graph on this link... You can see the weekly deaths increasing away from the 5 year average... In week 22 deaths were below the 5 year average... They have been above 5 year average by an increasing amount since then. Latest figures are for week 32. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending13august2021 The number of deaths registered in England in the week ending 13 August 2021 (Week 32) was 9,705; this was 168 more deaths than the previous week (Week 31) and 14.1% above the five-year average (1,203 more deaths). | |||
| |||
"The benefits to testing is that it helps people to be responsible and not inadvertently spread it around. It's easy to confuse symptoms of covid with other minor illnesses like common cold."  | |||
"The benefits to testing is that it helps people to be responsible and not inadvertently spread it around. It's easy to confuse symptoms of covid with other minor illnesses like common cold. "I remember when if you were ill you made an effort not to spread it around to your work mates, family, friends | |||
"I think September and October will give us more indication of what this winter will hold and potential ways forward." I agree with you. We will continue testing 2/3 times per week. I'm fortunate in that I can work from home and also get sick pay. It's a worry for those who don't have those benefits. I do worry that we're in for a tough winter. Everyone has been through enough already x | |||
| |||
"Lord God Dr Fauci said anything above 28 PCR cycles is pointless, dead nucleotides + false positives. Many labs are doing 32 to 40+ cycles. The difference in 32 cycles to 42 cycles is an amplitude factor of 1024. No doubt mass testing of healthy asymptomatic people is driving a large number of false positives. Even the normie establishment narrative is that 30% of positive 'cases' are asymptomatic. Well how does that work for the deadliest disease in human history." Could you explain that in laymen’s terms? I don’t see how you can call it the worst disease in human history when you compare it to the plaque where nearly a quarter of the population of Europe/(North Africa 75-200 million) was killed or the 20 million that died from Spanish Flu. 4.48 million to date from COVID | |||
| |||
"Lord God Dr Fauci said anything above 28 PCR cycles is pointless, dead nucleotides + false positives. Many labs are doing 32 to 40+ cycles. The difference in 32 cycles to 42 cycles is an amplitude factor of 1024. " This is absolute nonsense and likely copy pasta from a dubious source. Sounds vaguely scientific but this poster has no concept of what happens during a single cycle of PCR never mind 42. Pathetic really. | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? Low death rates? Where do people get this information? I'm looking at 770 deaths in the 7 days.! 770.... I do tend to agree that testing is pretty much pointless now. Given that little if any actions are taken off the back of it. I'm intrigued why it is people keep banging on about "low death rates" though. Perhaps it's brainwashing of media telling us they are low rather than the ability to assess the numbers for ourselves. I mean if 770 in a week is low.... What does an average week or a high week look like? You get roughly 300-400 deaths a day during a hard flu epidemic, so 770 a week would be considered low during this current epidemic. When was the last time that there was a flu epidemic that affected the entire world and lasted more than 20 months? And yes, 770 a week is relatively low for the current pandemic, but it is only that low at present because of the biggest and most expensive vaccination campaign that has ever been conducted world wide, a massive effort to find infected people and try to reduce the number they spread it to, and large changes in social behaviour. Even so, the death rate IS creeping back up due to the dropping of restrictions over the last few months. In June covid deaths were less than 10 a day, now they are consistently above 100 a day, with no sign of stabilising." | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? Low death rates? Where do people get this information? I'm looking at 770 deaths in the 7 days.! 770.... I do tend to agree that testing is pretty much pointless now. Given that little if any actions are taken off the back of it. I'm intrigued why it is people keep banging on about "low death rates" though. Perhaps it's brainwashing of media telling us they are low rather than the ability to assess the numbers for ourselves. I mean if 770 in a week is low.... What does an average week or a high week look like? " ... Agree | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"People are still losing lives, because others have infected them. It makes sense to test and prevent others getting the worst outcome. So how does it end? Surely the "test positive and isolate for 10 days" plan isn't going to be sustainable once furlough goes? " Those people weren't compensated by the furlough scheme. Those infecting others are causing hospitals to have to reduce treatments for other conditions. | |||
| |||
"People are still losing lives, because others have infected them. It makes sense to test and prevent others getting the worst outcome. So how does it end? Surely the "test positive and isolate for 10 days" plan isn't going to be sustainable once furlough goes? Those people weren't compensated by the furlough scheme. Those infecting others are causing hospitals to have to reduce treatments for other conditions. " hospitals are struggling because of the number of NON COVID emergencies at the moment actually, as a result of treatment delays caused by lockdown and peoples disease progression being a lot worse because of delaying seeking medical advice. Hospitals sat empty last year - nobody was struggling in hospital unless you worked in respiratory or critical/intensive care. Literally ALL outpatient clinics were cancelled until late summer. | |||
| |||
"More money needs to be put into testing, we need a better lateral flow test definitely lateral flow are useless taken 6 all negative still didn't feel good so had pcr positive ." it clearly says on everywhere that if you have symptoms dont use a lft , use a pcr x | |||
"Yes dying is shit. 770 deaths a week down to COVID. Wake up. The terminally ill cancer patient with a week to live, gets admitted to hospital, gets tested and kerching she’s positive. Died of COVID. Yes people are dying from this disease just like they are dying from everything else. “The worlds deadliest disease” wake up sugar it’s no where near Do we need to continue testing….. hell yes, people are making millions out of it. Keep the gravy train rolling Lots of people get diagnosed with cancer each year and die. Imagine being given 6months to live and you couldn’t see any relatives or friends. Hmmm that’s fair. Listen, if you want to self isolate forever, please feel free to. Let the normal people who want to live a normal life continue to do so. But I can tell you one thing, smoking still kills more people each year then COVID " spot on and the irony of some of the covid fabspurts who are that intolerant of choice who are smokers and overweight a year and a half on from the start..... | |||
| |||
| |||
"More money needs to be put into testing, we need a better lateral flow test definitely lateral flow are useless taken 6 all negative still didn't feel good so had pcr positive ." I'm different take 3 a week last one positive so waiting on pcr result hoping it a false negative | |||
"I want to know if I'm infected, so I can protect those who aren't vaccinated." I am vaccinated but also have an underlying condition that affects my immune system, those who believe testing and isolating is pointless because it doesn't help anyone are quite simply wrong. I have also had multiple antibody tests as part of an infection study and all are negative, meaning for me the vaccine has thus far been ineffective. Continuing to test and isolate positive cases protects people like me who just like them want to get on with life. As stated by an earlier poster the current upward trend could feasibly lead to 8 percent (as much as 12 in some studies ) of the population dying due to covid. Effectively meaning that around 1 in 10 of everyone you know could die from it. It's easy to say let's forget about it and just move on, I wonder if it was your mother,father,sister,brother or best friend that died would these same people just shrug it off and say it's just part of the acceptable death rate? | |||
"People are still losing lives, because others have infected them. It makes sense to test and prevent others getting the worst outcome. So how does it end? Surely the "test positive and isolate for 10 days" plan isn't going to be sustainable once furlough goes? Those people weren't compensated by the furlough scheme. Those infecting others are causing hospitals to have to reduce treatments for other conditions. hospitals are struggling because of the number of NON COVID emergencies at the moment actually, as a result of treatment delays caused by lockdown and peoples disease progression being a lot worse because of delaying seeking medical advice. Hospitals sat empty last year - nobody was struggling in hospital unless you worked in respiratory or critical/intensive care. Literally ALL outpatient clinics were cancelled until late summer. " England still has massive backlogs of patients, so every extra, preventable infection that could cause many others, is a preventable infection that could require hospitalisation. This is the easier time for hospitals, due to the weather. Building up a greater problem for the NHS, when weather isn't so fortunate, isn't prudent, when we have to cut NHS waiting times and give everyone the treatment that they deserve. The OP, ref testing, is about 1 of the tools that exist to be able to cut hospitalisations - where the unvaxed are over 2 times the burden, to have to be admitted to hospital for severe illness and subsequent potential death. Not everyone feels ready or right to get vaccinated, so the testing service helps them to know of their infection and possibly avoid hospitals having greater admission numbers. We all want the NHS to be able to cope and to reduce the backlog. Nobody wants avoidable deaths. That the testing fiasco has pushed £millions into the hands of the government's friends etc, is just a sordid part of that type of people and who we voted for. | |||
"I want to know if I'm infected, so I can protect those who aren't vaccinated. I am vaccinated but also have an underlying condition that affects my immune system, those who believe testing and isolating is pointless because it doesn't help anyone are quite simply wrong. I have also had multiple antibody tests as part of an infection study and all are negative, meaning for me the vaccine has thus far been ineffective. Continuing to test and isolate positive cases protects people like me who just like them want to get on with life. As stated by an earlier poster the current upward trend could feasibly lead to 8 percent (as much as 12 in some studies ) of the population dying due to covid. Effectively meaning that around 1 in 10 of everyone you know could die from it. It's easy to say let's forget about it and just move on, I wonder if it was your mother,father,sister,brother or best friend that died would these same people just shrug it off and say it's just part of the acceptable death rate? " I don't care if it's a relative, a stranger, or my worst enemy. I don't want to be part of the problem. The acceptable number of preventable deaths I contribute to is zero. | |||
| |||
"From Statista.com (and ONS)- There were 10,372 deaths registered in England and Wales for the week ending August 13, 2021, of those 571 were covid related so the latest figures show a rise but are low compared to the first 3 months of 2021. It should be noted that the week to 12 Jan 2018 recorded over 15000 deaths long before covid, which was around 2000 above average for that time of year. In the coming winter flu could account for more deaths than covid though a double whammy will probably increase the figures. Unless something extraordinary happens covid will become endemic " Those people misfortunate enough to have coinfection with both flu or Covid, are much more likely to die, than if they'd just had flu or Covid. The covid unvaxed would do themselves a big favour and get the flu jab ASAP, as they are the people most likely to get these coexistent covid and flu infections and to die. | |||
"Lord God Dr Fauci said anything above 28 PCR cycles is pointless, dead nucleotides + false positives. Many labs are doing 32 to 40+ cycles. The difference in 32 cycles to 42 cycles is an amplitude factor of 1024. No doubt mass testing of healthy asymptomatic people is driving a large number of false positives. Even the normie establishment narrative is that 30% of positive 'cases' are asymptomatic. Well how does that work for the deadliest disease in human history. Could you explain that in laymen’s terms? I don’t see how you can call it the worst disease in human history when you compare it to the plaque where nearly a quarter of the population of Europe/(North Africa 75-200 million) was killed or the 20 million that died from Spanish Flu. 4.48 million to date from COVID " The pcr test isn't testing for the complete genetic sequence of a virus. They are testing just a dna fragment. The test works by getting the dna to replicate itself. So every cycle doubles the dna in the sample. The idea is to amplify the dna up to the point it can be measured. Kary mullis who invented the pcr test said if you do enough cycles you can find just about anything in anyone, because there is hardly 1 molecule you won't have. Fauci said beyond 28 cycles is clinically meaningless. It might show you were once infected but it doesn't show active infection or that you are even contagious. Pretty much all labs have been using 32+ cycles, with some up into the 40 range. The cycle threshold alone is guaranteeing huge numbers of false positives. The fact they are telling you 30% of cases are completely asymptomatic should clue you into this fraud. The mass testing of healthy asymptomatic people is driving our collective mania. Covid will never be over whilst we are doing 1+ million tests a day. | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? " It’s still a dangerous virus, so need to take precautions, and testing is a simple precaution. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness | |||
"I want to know if I'm infected, so I can protect those who aren't vaccinated. I am vaccinated but also have an underlying condition that affects my immune system, those who believe testing and isolating is pointless because it doesn't help anyone are quite simply wrong. I have also had multiple antibody tests as part of an infection study and all are negative, meaning for me the vaccine has thus far been ineffective. Continuing to test and isolate positive cases protects people like me who just like them want to get on with life. As stated by an earlier poster the current upward trend could feasibly lead to 8 percent (as much as 12 in some studies ) of the population dying due to covid. Effectively meaning that around 1 in 10 of everyone you know could die from it. It's easy to say let's forget about it and just move on, I wonder if it was your mother,father,sister,brother or best friend that died would these same people just shrug it off and say it's just part of the acceptable death rate? " Just move on. Learn to live with it. Part of life. And all the other lazy trite catch phrases. Trouble is they mean different things to different people. Trouble is wanting something a lot doesn't mean it is going to happen. Wishing it away doesn't make it happen. I'm not sure learning to live with "it" is the biggest problem now. It seems living happily alongside eachother is a big challenge for many. | |||
"I want to know if I'm infected, so I can protect those who aren't vaccinated. I am vaccinated but also have an underlying condition that affects my immune system, those who believe testing and isolating is pointless because it doesn't help anyone are quite simply wrong. I have also had multiple antibody tests as part of an infection study and all are negative, meaning for me the vaccine has thus far been ineffective. Continuing to test and isolate positive cases protects people like me who just like them want to get on with life. As stated by an earlier poster the current upward trend could feasibly lead to 8 percent (as much as 12 in some studies ) of the population dying due to covid. Effectively meaning that around 1 in 10 of everyone you know could die from it. It's easy to say let's forget about it and just move on, I wonder if it was your mother,father,sister,brother or best friend that died would these same people just shrug it off and say it's just part of the acceptable death rate? I don't care if it's a relative, a stranger, or my worst enemy. I don't want to be part of the problem. The acceptable number of preventable deaths I contribute to is zero." Agreed, my post wasn't aimed at you..hit reply and quote by mistake. more the opposite,I appreciate greatly that you want to protect others regardless of who they may be. | |||
"Testing is definitely needed to keep track on data and variants. I don't think there's a need to worry about high positive cases though at the moment as the link between cases and effects have been mostly broken. Again...I challenge that... The conversion between cases and deaths is lower than a year ago... But the link still exists...its not broken.. That's just media horse shit. Of course.. People don't just drop dead of no reason they die as a result of the infection... 40k infections. A day 149 deaths a day 820 hospitalisations a day And all increasing at the rate of 10 %.. Yes its certainly lower than the peaks of the last wave in winter.... The rolling average is 110 a day and according to the Zoe app which is seen as the most accurate reflection of cases were averaging 58k cases a day, giving you a death of 0.15%. Again I have reiterate how many of that 110 were part of the 2000 a day that were dying anyway, your bound to get infection when in a high epidemic case as we are now. What's the difference in average deaths, I haven't seen that budge in 8 months?. Hopefully this answers your question. From ons... If you look at the graph on this link... You can see the weekly deaths increasing away from the 5 year average... In week 22 deaths were below the 5 year average... They have been above 5 year average by an increasing amount since then. Latest figures are for week 32. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending13august2021 The number of deaths registered in England in the week ending 13 August 2021 (Week 32) was 9,705; this was 168 more deaths than the previous week (Week 31) and 14.1% above the five-year average (1,203 more deaths). " The BBC website breaks down excess deaths into covid and non covid, it's on the Corona virus by postcode page. On the graph you can clearly see excess deaths from covid are about 20% of the excess deaths total, so 80% of excess deaths currently aren't even covid related. Now bearing in mind that of the 2000 a day deaths that occur a very large chunk will be going thru the medical establishment via hospitals, doctors, care homes, hospices on route to death how many of them will pick up a positive sample factoring in that those places have a high incidence of infection?. So 2000 a day on average and 107 of them on average test positive for sars-cov2 in the middle of a large epidemic of cases? Prevalence according to the ons is 1-70 people infected meaning of 2000 people on average 30 will be infected with sars-cov2 you could in reality double that figure for those going thru the medical establishment on route to death because of its higher infection rates so 60 of the 2000 test positive for sars-cov2. How many died of COVID is a question we've still not fully answered 20 months into this Pandemic. | |||
| |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? It’s still a dangerous virus, so need to take precautions, and testing is a simple precaution. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness " Agreed | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? It’s still a dangerous virus, so need to take precautions, and testing is a simple precaution. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness " “……. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madnes…..” ——————————————- Agreed. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness indeed. Also unlike some other contagious illness, covid has a high amount of asymptomatic carriers. So it’s only through testing that some people will know they have it. And once they know that, they can then take steps to avoid spreading it to others. Also, it is through testing that we pick up new variants. And it is very important that we pick up these new variants so we can check and test the efficacy of the vaccine against those new variants. | |||
" The pcr test isn't testing for the complete genetic sequence of a virus. They are testing just a dna fragment. The test works by getting the dna to replicate itself. So every cycle doubles the dna in the sample. The idea is to amplify the dna up to the point it can be measured. Kary mullis who invented the pcr test said if you do enough cycles you can find just about anything in anyone, because there is hardly 1 molecule you won't have. Fauci said beyond 28 cycles is clinically meaningless. It might show you were once infected but it doesn't show active infection or that you are even contagious. Pretty much all labs have been using 32+ cycles, with some up into the 40 range. The cycle threshold alone is guaranteeing huge numbers of false positives. The fact they are telling you 30% of cases are completely asymptomatic should clue you into this fraud. The mass testing of healthy asymptomatic people is driving our collective mania. Covid will never be over whilst we are doing 1+ million tests a day." This is absolute fucking nonsense. | |||
" The pcr test isn't testing for the complete genetic sequence of a virus. They are testing just a dna fragment. The test works by getting the dna to replicate itself. So every cycle doubles the dna in the sample. The idea is to amplify the dna up to the point it can be measured. Kary mullis who invented the pcr test said if you do enough cycles you can find just about anything in anyone, because there is hardly 1 molecule you won't have. Fauci said beyond 28 cycles is clinically meaningless. It might show you were once infected but it doesn't show active infection or that you are even contagious. Pretty much all labs have been using 32+ cycles, with some up into the 40 range. The cycle threshold alone is guaranteeing huge numbers of false positives. The fact they are telling you 30% of cases are completely asymptomatic should clue you into this fraud. The mass testing of healthy asymptomatic people is driving our collective mania. Covid will never be over whilst we are doing 1+ million tests a day. This is absolute fucking nonsense."
A 'do nothing' word salad but not harvested from evidence. | |||
| |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? It’s still a dangerous virus, so need to take precautions, and testing is a simple precaution. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness “……. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madnes…..” ——————————————- Agreed. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness indeed. Also unlike some other contagious illness, covid has a high amount of asymptomatic carriers. So it’s only through testing that some people will know they have it. And once they know that, they can then take steps to avoid spreading it to others. Also, it is through testing that we pick up new variants. And it is very important that we pick up these new variants so we can check and test the efficacy of the vaccine against those new variants. " I've never seen a paper that shows covid has a higher amount of asymptomatic cases than any other contagious illnesses!. Could you show that evidence for me please. | |||
"The bbc also published a piece last year saying they were expecting an excess 30 thousand extra cancer deaths because half the healthcare system was shutdown last year. That's just cancer .." We use PCR to stratify patients to targeted therapies in several malignancies. You don't believe in PCR. You're thicker than sausage meat. | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? It’s still a dangerous virus, so need to take precautions, and testing is a simple precaution. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness “……. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madnes…..” ——————————————- Agreed. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness indeed. Also unlike some other contagious illness, covid has a high amount of asymptomatic carriers. So it’s only through testing that some people will know they have it. And once they know that, they can then take steps to avoid spreading it to others. Also, it is through testing that we pick up new variants. And it is very important that we pick up these new variants so we can check and test the efficacy of the vaccine against those new variants. I've never seen a paper that shows covid has a higher amount of asymptomatic cases than any other contagious illnesses!. Could you show that evidence for me please." I never said it had a higher amount than ‘any’ other illness. I said: ….unlike “some” other contagious illness... ‘Some’ and ‘any’ are two different words with two different meanings. | |||
"The bbc also published a piece last year saying they were expecting an excess 30 thousand extra cancer deaths because half the healthcare system was shutdown last year. That's just cancer .." Ever tried to diagnose CML without the exact same technique as used to detect SARS-CoV-2? How about minimal residual disease? Muppet. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Has anyone seen any research that confirms for delta variant,if one is asymptomatic, if there are any long covid type risks? Ie you have no symptoms now but stuff is being damaged for later on.? And if asymptomatic,with delta, how infectious, if at all, they are in comparison to those with symptoms? " Additionally has the 10 days isolation then you're all clear been revalidated for the Delta variant. Ie do people do their 10bdays but some are still spreaders after 10 days? | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? Low death rates? Where do people get this information? I'm looking at 770 deaths in the 7 days.! 770.... I do tend to agree that testing is pretty much pointless now. Given that little if any actions are taken off the back of it. I'm intrigued why it is people keep banging on about "low death rates" though. Perhaps it's brainwashing of media telling us they are low rather than the ability to assess the numbers for ourselves. I mean if 770 in a week is low.... What does an average week or a high week look like? You get roughly 300-400 deaths a day during a hard flu epidemic, so 770 a week would be considered low during this current epidemic." ONS gives a worst-case-history of 827 deaths per week due to influenza and pneumonia. And I’d like to point out that influenza was low during lockdown/distancing/masks. Without those and with covid, deaths from both will increase. | |||
"Has anyone seen any research that confirms for delta variant,if one is asymptomatic, if there are any long covid type risks? Ie you have no symptoms now but stuff is being damaged for later on.? And if asymptomatic,with delta, how infectious, if at all, they are in comparison to those with symptoms? " So far I haven’t seen any research data on this yet. However, all the questions you’ve asked above confirms why testing is important. It is through testing that we will be able to collect & analyse the data to answer those questions. | |||
| |||
"More money needs to be put into testing, we need a better lateral flow test definitely lateral flow are useless taken 6 all negative still didn't feel good so had pcr positive ." I think lat flow are for when you don’t have symptoms. PCR for when you do have symptoms.might explain your issue mate. | |||
| |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? It’s still a dangerous virus, so need to take precautions, and testing is a simple precaution. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness “……. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madnes…..” ——————————————- Agreed. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness indeed. Also unlike some other contagious illness, covid has a high amount of asymptomatic carriers. So it’s only through testing that some people will know they have it. And once they know that, they can then take steps to avoid spreading it to others. Also, it is through testing that we pick up new variants. And it is very important that we pick up these new variants so we can check and test the efficacy of the vaccine against those new variants. I've never seen a paper that shows covid has a higher amount of asymptomatic cases than any other contagious illnesses!. Could you show that evidence for me please. I never said it had a higher amount than ‘any’ other illness. I said: ….unlike “some” other contagious illness... ‘Some’ and ‘any’ are two different words with two different meanings. " What are the 'some other' infections, that you've not cited evidence from peer-reviewed studies for? Are they similarly impacting to the UK? | |||
"Testing I pretty much pointless now not because it is not needed but other than for returning from holiday it is pretty much optional. That means that unless you have good company sick pay or can work from home whilst isolating where is the incentive to get tested. I am one of those lucky ones but I know plenty of friends etc who will not go and get tested due to loss of wages. That then places the company in an awkward situation, you can't order them to get tested and if you send them home it would be on full pay something many companies can't afford so a nice catch 22 situation. " Because the government won't pay people, if they are to lose pay, testing is 'pointless'? 
Sod the people who will die, as a result of not bothering to get tested! Jeez
Sounds like there should be tougher implications for those who endanger life and the country's recovery.
Anybody with a moral backbone will test and stay isolated from others. Likewise, those in charge who will not create the financial support for those who have to, are equally or more deficient. | |||
"Because the government won't pay people, if they are to lose pay, testing is 'pointless'?
Sod the people who will die, as a result of not bothering to get tested! Jeez
Sounds like there should be tougher implications for those who endanger life and the country's recovery.
Anybody with a moral backbone will test and stay isolated from others. Likewise, those in charge who will not create the financial support for those who have to, are equally or more deficient. "Did I say it was right no I didn't and as I have said before you are asking people who are on £300 or £400 per week using average wage to drop to less than £100 a week and this could happen three or four times in quick succession. Similar take the company I work, for our sales have dropped by over half and are unlikely get back to pre-covid level for another 3 to 5 years, we are just about breaking even, the workforce has been cut by just over a third. Are you suggesting that they should be paying full wages for those that have to isolate? Great idea but who gets made redundant for such a great idea because that is the only way it could be paid for. This virus is affection people and business in more ways than just people getting sick so I would suggest getting down of your high horse and looking at reality. In the perfect world everybody would get tested but in reality people have to make difficult decisions and I would not EVER question their moral backbone. | |||
"The bbc also published a piece last year saying they were expecting an excess 30 thousand extra cancer deaths because half the healthcare system was shutdown last year. That's just cancer .. We use PCR to stratify patients to targeted therapies in several malignancies. You don't believe in PCR. You're thicker than sausage meat. " Did I say anywhere I didn't believe in it? No stop inventing nonsense. I said what fauci said, anything above 28 cycles is clinically meaningless. Most labs are using 32 to 40+ cycles which is guaranteeing large numbers of false positives. | |||
" Did I say anywhere I didn't believe in it? No stop inventing nonsense. I said what fauci said, anything above 28 cycles is clinically meaningless. Most labs are using 32 to 40+ cycles which is guaranteeing large numbers of false positives." You're repeating nonsense. Stop it. | |||
" Did I say anywhere I didn't believe in it? No stop inventing nonsense. I said what fauci said, anything above 28 cycles is clinically meaningless. Most labs are using 32 to 40+ cycles which is guaranteeing large numbers of false positives." Genuine Dunning-Kruger effect in the wild here. | |||
"People are still losing lives, because others have infected them. It makes sense to test and prevent others getting the worst outcome. So how does it end? Surely the "test positive and isolate for 10 days" plan isn't going to be sustainable once furlough goes? Those people weren't compensated by the furlough scheme. Those infecting others are causing hospitals to have to reduce treatments for other conditions. hospitals are struggling because of the number of NON COVID emergencies at the moment actually, as a result of treatment delays caused by lockdown and peoples disease progression being a lot worse because of delaying seeking medical advice. Hospitals sat empty last year - nobody was struggling in hospital unless you worked in respiratory or critical/intensive care. Literally ALL outpatient clinics were cancelled until late summer. England still has massive backlogs of patients, so every extra, preventable infection that could cause many others, is a preventable infection that could require hospitalisation. This is the easier time for hospitals, due to the weather. Building up a greater problem for the NHS, when weather isn't so fortunate, isn't prudent, when we have to cut NHS waiting times and give everyone the treatment that they deserve. The OP, ref testing, is about 1 of the tools that exist to be able to cut hospitalisations - where the unvaxed are over 2 times the burden, to have to be admitted to hospital for severe illness and subsequent potential death. Not everyone feels ready or right to get vaccinated, so the testing service helps them to know of their infection and possibly avoid hospitals having greater admission numbers. We all want the NHS to be able to cope and to reduce the backlog. Nobody wants avoidable deaths. That the testing fiasco has pushed £millions into the hands of the government's friends etc, is just a sordid part of that type of people and who we voted for. " you referenced literally nothing i said. lockdown CAUSED the current healthcare crisis we are facing and the illnesses that are causing the crisis are not COVID. Hospitals are NOT quiet just now they are overwhelmed with non COVID illness as a result of delayed treatment for 1 year or more. Last year non respiratory or high dependency wards were doing very little and that is why we are NOW in a terrible situation. You lock down fanatasists have caused a crisis of your own in cancer care, in cardiac care, mental health, diabetes, renal, gastro, because you were terrified of a disease that predominately affected those that were for the most part already at the end of life. You are so obsessed with the death rate being shocking that you didnt consider the fact that many (if not most) COVID deaths were unavoidable whilst many deaths caused by lockdown were in fact avoidable. People die, its extremely sad, I understand if you have not experienced that before it may be shocking. But at the start of the epidemic 40% of deaths were in care homes, a population whos life expectancy is already 1 year. The average COVID death was 84 I believe which was HIGHER than the UK life expectancy. Yes young people died and it was shocking but young people die of lots of other things too - why are you not worried about infant mortality in africa or malaria. Well obviously because it doesnt affect you right? COVID is by no means as bad as the extreme restrictions we have been forced to live under. We have had a far worse epidemic in living memory that no one gave a shit about because it affected gay and black people for the most part. I think a lot of people need to put into perspective what has happened COVID deaths were sad but unavoidable. If you are going to die from COVID, you still will because its not going anywhere. If you want to avoid the inevitable then YOU lockdown, YOU isolate. Because the rest of us need to take our risk head on and get on with life, we have missed enough of it already thanks to risk averse fuckwits like you. | |||
"People are still losing lives, because others have infected them. It makes sense to test and prevent others getting the worst outcome. So how does it end? Surely the "test positive and isolate for 10 days" plan isn't going to be sustainable once furlough goes? Those people weren't compensated by the furlough scheme. Those infecting others are causing hospitals to have to reduce treatments for other conditions. hospitals are struggling because of the number of NON COVID emergencies at the moment actually, as a result of treatment delays caused by lockdown and peoples disease progression being a lot worse because of delaying seeking medical advice. Hospitals sat empty last year - nobody was struggling in hospital unless you worked in respiratory or critical/intensive care. Literally ALL outpatient clinics were cancelled until late summer. England still has massive backlogs of patients, so every extra, preventable infection that could cause many others, is a preventable infection that could require hospitalisation. This is the easier time for hospitals, due to the weather. Building up a greater problem for the NHS, when weather isn't so fortunate, isn't prudent, when we have to cut NHS waiting times and give everyone the treatment that they deserve. The OP, ref testing, is about 1 of the tools that exist to be able to cut hospitalisations - where the unvaxed are over 2 times the burden, to have to be admitted to hospital for severe illness and subsequent potential death. Not everyone feels ready or right to get vaccinated, so the testing service helps them to know of their infection and possibly avoid hospitals having greater admission numbers. We all want the NHS to be able to cope and to reduce the backlog. Nobody wants avoidable deaths. That the testing fiasco has pushed £millions into the hands of the government's friends etc, is just a sordid part of that type of people and who we voted for. you referenced literally nothing i said. lockdown CAUSED the current healthcare crisis we are facing and the illnesses that are causing the crisis are not COVID. Hospitals are NOT quiet just now they are overwhelmed with non COVID illness as a result of delayed treatment for 1 year or more. Last year non respiratory or high dependency wards were doing very little and that is why we are NOW in a terrible situation. You lock down fanatasists have caused a crisis of your own in cancer care, in cardiac care, mental health, diabetes, renal, gastro, because you were terrified of a disease that predominately affected those that were for the most part already at the end of life. You are so obsessed with the death rate being shocking that you didnt consider the fact that many (if not most) COVID deaths were unavoidable whilst many deaths caused by lockdown were in fact avoidable. People die, its extremely sad, I understand if you have not experienced that before it may be shocking. But at the start of the epidemic 40% of deaths were in care homes, a population whos life expectancy is already 1 year. The average COVID death was 84 I believe which was HIGHER than the UK life expectancy. Yes young people died and it was shocking but young people die of lots of other things too - why are you not worried about infant mortality in africa or malaria. Well obviously because it doesnt affect you right? COVID is by no means as bad as the extreme restrictions we have been forced to live under. We have had a far worse epidemic in living memory that no one gave a shit about because it affected gay and black people for the most part. I think a lot of people need to put into perspective what has happened COVID deaths were sad but unavoidable. If you are going to die from COVID, you still will because its not going anywhere. If you want to avoid the inevitable then YOU lockdown, YOU isolate. Because the rest of us need to take our risk head on and get on with life, we have missed enough of it already thanks to risk averse fuckwits like you. " Is it really 1 year the life expectancy of the people in care homes? Sounds a bit extreme. | |||
"People are still losing lives, because others have infected them. It makes sense to test and prevent others getting the worst outcome. So how does it end? Surely the "test positive and isolate for 10 days" plan isn't going to be sustainable once furlough goes? Those people weren't compensated by the furlough scheme. Those infecting others are causing hospitals to have to reduce treatments for other conditions. hospitals are struggling because of the number of NON COVID emergencies at the moment actually, as a result of treatment delays caused by lockdown and peoples disease progression being a lot worse because of delaying seeking medical advice. Hospitals sat empty last year - nobody was struggling in hospital unless you worked in respiratory or critical/intensive care. Literally ALL outpatient clinics were cancelled until late summer. England still has massive backlogs of patients, so every extra, preventable infection that could cause many others, is a preventable infection that could require hospitalisation. This is the easier time for hospitals, due to the weather. Building up a greater problem for the NHS, when weather isn't so fortunate, isn't prudent, when we have to cut NHS waiting times and give everyone the treatment that they deserve. The OP, ref testing, is about 1 of the tools that exist to be able to cut hospitalisations - where the unvaxed are over 2 times the burden, to have to be admitted to hospital for severe illness and subsequent potential death. Not everyone feels ready or right to get vaccinated, so the testing service helps them to know of their infection and possibly avoid hospitals having greater admission numbers. We all want the NHS to be able to cope and to reduce the backlog. Nobody wants avoidable deaths. That the testing fiasco has pushed £millions into the hands of the government's friends etc, is just a sordid part of that type of people and who we voted for. you referenced literally nothing i said. lockdown CAUSED the current healthcare crisis we are facing and the illnesses that are causing the crisis are not COVID. Hospitals are NOT quiet just now they are overwhelmed with non COVID illness as a result of delayed treatment for 1 year or more. Last year non respiratory or high dependency wards were doing very little and that is why we are NOW in a terrible situation. You lock down fanatasists have caused a crisis of your own in cancer care, in cardiac care, mental health, diabetes, renal, gastro, because you were terrified of a disease that predominately affected those that were for the most part already at the end of life. You are so obsessed with the death rate being shocking that you didnt consider the fact that many (if not most) COVID deaths were unavoidable whilst many deaths caused by lockdown were in fact avoidable. People die, its extremely sad, I understand if you have not experienced that before it may be shocking. But at the start of the epidemic 40% of deaths were in care homes, a population whos life expectancy is already 1 year. The average COVID death was 84 I believe which was HIGHER than the UK life expectancy. Yes young people died and it was shocking but young people die of lots of other things too - why are you not worried about infant mortality in africa or malaria. Well obviously because it doesnt affect you right? COVID is by no means as bad as the extreme restrictions we have been forced to live under. We have had a far worse epidemic in living memory that no one gave a shit about because it affected gay and black people for the most part. I think a lot of people need to put into perspective what has happened COVID deaths were sad but unavoidable. If you are going to die from COVID, you still will because its not going anywhere. If you want to avoid the inevitable then YOU lockdown, YOU isolate. Because the rest of us need to take our risk head on and get on with life, we have missed enough of it already thanks to risk averse fuckwits like you. Is it really 1 year the life expectancy of the people in care homes? Sounds a bit extreme." Most residents live much longer than a year in care. Any care home with that average would be very suspect. | |||
| |||
"People are still losing lives, because others have infected them. It makes sense to test and prevent others getting the worst outcome. So how does it end? Surely the "test positive and isolate for 10 days" plan isn't going to be sustainable once furlough goes? Those people weren't compensated by the furlough scheme. Those infecting others are causing hospitals to have to reduce treatments for other conditions. hospitals are struggling because of the number of NON COVID emergencies at the moment actually, as a result of treatment delays caused by lockdown and peoples disease progression being a lot worse because of delaying seeking medical advice. Hospitals sat empty last year - nobody was struggling in hospital unless you worked in respiratory or critical/intensive care. Literally ALL outpatient clinics were cancelled until late summer. England still has massive backlogs of patients, so every extra, preventable infection that could cause many others, is a preventable infection that could require hospitalisation. This is the easier time for hospitals, due to the weather. Building up a greater problem for the NHS, when weather isn't so fortunate, isn't prudent, when we have to cut NHS waiting times and give everyone the treatment that they deserve. The OP, ref testing, is about 1 of the tools that exist to be able to cut hospitalisations - where the unvaxed are over 2 times the burden, to have to be admitted to hospital for severe illness and subsequent potential death. Not everyone feels ready or right to get vaccinated, so the testing service helps them to know of their infection and possibly avoid hospitals having greater admission numbers. We all want the NHS to be able to cope and to reduce the backlog. Nobody wants avoidable deaths. That the testing fiasco has pushed £millions into the hands of the government's friends etc, is just a sordid part of that type of people and who we voted for. you referenced literally nothing i said. lockdown CAUSED the current healthcare crisis we are facing and the illnesses that are causing the crisis are not COVID. Hospitals are NOT quiet just now they are overwhelmed with non COVID illness as a result of delayed treatment for 1 year or more. Last year non respiratory or high dependency wards were doing very little and that is why we are NOW in a terrible situation. You lock down fanatasists have caused a crisis of your own in cancer care, in cardiac care, mental health, diabetes, renal, gastro, because you were terrified of a disease that predominately affected those that were for the most part already at the end of life. You are so obsessed with the death rate being shocking that you didnt consider the fact that many (if not most) COVID deaths were unavoidable whilst many deaths caused by lockdown were in fact avoidable. People die, its extremely sad, I understand if you have not experienced that before it may be shocking. But at the start of the epidemic 40% of deaths were in care homes, a population whos life expectancy is already 1 year. The average COVID death was 84 I believe which was HIGHER than the UK life expectancy. Yes young people died and it was shocking but young people die of lots of other things too - why are you not worried about infant mortality in africa or malaria. Well obviously because it doesnt affect you right? COVID is by no means as bad as the extreme restrictions we have been forced to live under. We have had a far worse epidemic in living memory that no one gave a shit about because it affected gay and black people for the most part. I think a lot of people need to put into perspective what has happened COVID deaths were sad but unavoidable. If you are going to die from COVID, you still will because its not going anywhere. If you want to avoid the inevitable then YOU lockdown, YOU isolate. Because the rest of us need to take our risk head on and get on with life, we have missed enough of it already thanks to risk averse fuckwits like you. Is it really 1 year the life expectancy of the people in care homes? Sounds a bit extreme. Most residents live much longer than a year in care. Any care home with that average would be very suspect." well said we have residents in thier 50s with dementia and in one of our homes we have a gent whos 102 years old been in our care since here he was 80 care home often give these people more of a life so they get to a better age than some think they would ... care homes is not a death sentance its to help | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? " if you want the pandemic to end then we should stop testing and the whole thing would disappear; if you want to keep the pandemic part of life then keep on testing - the latter being the more likely scenario. | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? if you want the pandemic to end then we should stop testing and the whole thing would disappear; if you want to keep the pandemic part of life then keep on testing - the latter being the more likely scenario." “…… if you want the pandemic to end then we should stop testing and the whole thing would disappear…..” ————————————— Ok, so the virus will just ‘disappear’ if we stop testing.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes it will, FLU is just as prevalent but you don't know it's around because you don't test for it & never have" What's different is for some bizarre reason many people still went to work with flu and cough and cold etc symptoms. Hopefully that will stop now. Along with better (basic) environment cleaning hand washing hopefully all of those should improve. | |||
"Totally agree. Unless you have symptoms noone should be tested anyway. No one seems to question the fact we never test for FLU & I do not subscribe to the crap flu is not as deadly because to the elderly & vunerable it is just as deadly if not more so than COVID. Stop this stupid testing & as someone already said it all goes away " What's even more deadly than having 1 of them, is having both of them. Having both has a much larger chance of death or very serious illness. People who haven't been vaccinated for Covid would ideally get a flu vaccine, just in case they are to get both infections. | |||
"People are still losing lives, because others have infected them. It makes sense to test and prevent others getting the worst outcome. So how does it end? Surely the "test positive and isolate for 10 days" plan isn't going to be sustainable once furlough goes? Those people weren't compensated by the furlough scheme. Those infecting others are causing hospitals to have to reduce treatments for other conditions. hospitals are struggling because of the number of NON COVID emergencies at the moment actually, as a result of treatment delays caused by lockdown and peoples disease progression being a lot worse because of delaying seeking medical advice. Hospitals sat empty last year - nobody was struggling in hospital unless you worked in respiratory or critical/intensive care. Literally ALL outpatient clinics were cancelled until late summer. England still has massive backlogs of patients, so every extra, preventable infection that could cause many others, is a preventable infection that could require hospitalisation. This is the easier time for hospitals, due to the weather. Building up a greater problem for the NHS, when weather isn't so fortunate, isn't prudent, when we have to cut NHS waiting times and give everyone the treatment that they deserve. The OP, ref testing, is about 1 of the tools that exist to be able to cut hospitalisations - where the unvaxed are over 2 times the burden, to have to be admitted to hospital for severe illness and subsequent potential death. Not everyone feels ready or right to get vaccinated, so the testing service helps them to know of their infection and possibly avoid hospitals having greater admission numbers. We all want the NHS to be able to cope and to reduce the backlog. Nobody wants avoidable deaths. That the testing fiasco has pushed £millions into the hands of the government's friends etc, is just a sordid part of that type of people and who we voted for. you referenced literally nothing i said. lockdown CAUSED the current healthcare crisis we are facing and the illnesses that are causing the crisis are not COVID. Hospitals are NOT quiet just now they are overwhelmed with non COVID illness as a result of delayed treatment for 1 year or more. Last year non respiratory or high dependency wards were doing very little and that is why we are NOW in a terrible situation. You lock down fanatasists have caused a crisis of your own in cancer care, in cardiac care, mental health, diabetes, renal, gastro, because you were terrified of a disease that predominately affected those that were for the most part already at the end of life. You are so obsessed with the death rate being shocking that you didnt consider the fact that many (if not most) COVID deaths were unavoidable whilst many deaths caused by lockdown were in fact avoidable. People die, its extremely sad, I understand if you have not experienced that before it may be shocking. But at the start of the epidemic 40% of deaths were in care homes, a population whos life expectancy is already 1 year. The average COVID death was 84 I believe which was HIGHER than the UK life expectancy. Yes young people died and it was shocking but young people die of lots of other things too - why are you not worried about infant mortality in africa or malaria. Well obviously because it doesnt affect you right? COVID is by no means as bad as the extreme restrictions we have been forced to live under. We have had a far worse epidemic in living memory that no one gave a shit about because it affected gay and black people for the most part. I think a lot of people need to put into perspective what has happened COVID deaths were sad but unavoidable. If you are going to die from COVID, you still will because its not going anywhere. If you want to avoid the inevitable then YOU lockdown, YOU isolate. Because the rest of us need to take our risk head on and get on with life, we have missed enough of it already thanks to risk averse fuckwits like you. Is it really 1 year the life expectancy of the people in care homes? Sounds a bit extreme. Most residents live much longer than a year in care. Any care home with that average would be very suspect. well said we have residents in thier 50s with dementia and in one of our homes we have a gent whos 102 years old been in our care since here he was 80 care home often give these people more of a life so they get to a better age than some think they would ... care homes is not a death sentance its to help"
The average loss of life per person, in the first wave was over 10 years each. People assume that the elderly have just a few days left to live, which is statistically incorrect. | |||
"There are a lot of people that would like permanent shut downs + restrictions. Especially those sucking off the bosom of the state with all the free furlough money. Why work when the government provides?" We have neighbours that work for the local authority snd haven’t been to work for 21 months, they are supposed to be working from home because of people catching Covid19 in the offices, but they aren’t being monitored and regular tell us they are getting full pay for 10-12 hours work a week. People wonder why businesses are struggling to keep their heads above water and a lot I talk to in my line of work are now heavily in debt with footfall in our towns and cities at an all time low. I can see a big recession coming our way and people then moaning ‘if we’d only been told we needed to go back to work to keep the economy afloat’ | |||
| |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now " Is there still a place for man flu? | |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now " The flu but 20 times more aches | |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now " I haven’t know healthy people in the 20s and 30’s end up in ICU because of flu  | |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now " Except it's different. What about manflu, as someone asked? And manCov?  | |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now Except it's different. What about manflu, as someone asked? And manCov? "Ooo there's an idea. Ah but there's a test for covid so you can't get away with it. I'll just stick with man flu!  | |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now I haven’t know healthy people in the 20s and 30’s end up in ICU because of flu " | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? if you want the pandemic to end then we should stop testing and the whole thing would disappear; if you want to keep the pandemic part of life then keep on testing - the latter being the more likely scenario." If we want the pandemic to end then we should round up all the pandemic deniers and put them on a deserted island where they will be safe from all the people who take vaccines and wear masks and do tests. After all no vaccines + no masks + no tests = no covid, at least in their minds. We can save loads of money by not sending them any medical supplies as they won't need them in their covid free paradise. And meanwhile everyone that does believe in medicine and science and all that can vaccinate away to their hearts content, wear two masks if they want, test as much as they please, and head towards a covid zero strategy. It's a win-win for everyone. (Somebody remind me again how covid has worked for the countries that just flat out denied it exists?) | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? if you want the pandemic to end then we should stop testing and the whole thing would disappear; if you want to keep the pandemic part of life then keep on testing - the latter being the more likely scenario. If we want the pandemic to end then we should round up all the pandemic deniers and put them on a deserted island where they will be safe from all the people who take vaccines and wear masks and do tests. After all no vaccines + no masks + no tests = no covid, at least in their minds. We can save loads of money by not sending them any medical supplies as they won't need them in their covid free paradise. And meanwhile everyone that does believe in medicine and science and all that can vaccinate away to their hearts content, wear two masks if they want, test as much as they please, and head towards a covid zero strategy. It's a win-win for everyone. (Somebody remind me again how covid has worked for the countries that just flat out denied it exists?)" To even use the term "Covid Zero" is as completely batshit as those who deny it's existence. As always, the common sense scenario is somewhere in the middle. Have your vaccine, bin your masks and return to normal. | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? if you want the pandemic to end then we should stop testing and the whole thing would disappear; if you want to keep the pandemic part of life then keep on testing - the latter being the more likely scenario. If we want the pandemic to end then we should round up all the pandemic deniers and put them on a deserted island where they will be safe from all the people who take vaccines and wear masks and do tests. After all no vaccines + no masks + no tests = no covid, at least in their minds. We can save loads of money by not sending them any medical supplies as they won't need them in their covid free paradise. And meanwhile everyone that does believe in medicine and science and all that can vaccinate away to their hearts content, wear two masks if they want, test as much as they please, and head towards a covid zero strategy. It's a win-win for everyone. (Somebody remind me again how covid has worked for the countries that just flat out denied it exists?) To even use the term "Covid Zero" is as completely batshit as those who deny it's existence. As always, the common sense scenario is somewhere in the middle. Have your vaccine, bin your masks and return to normal." What is normal? | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? if you want the pandemic to end then we should stop testing and the whole thing would disappear; if you want to keep the pandemic part of life then keep on testing - the latter being the more likely scenario. If we want the pandemic to end then we should round up all the pandemic deniers and put them on a deserted island where they will be safe from all the people who take vaccines and wear masks and do tests. After all no vaccines + no masks + no tests = no covid, at least in their minds. We can save loads of money by not sending them any medical supplies as they won't need them in their covid free paradise. And meanwhile everyone that does believe in medicine and science and all that can vaccinate away to their hearts content, wear two masks if they want, test as much as they please, and head towards a covid zero strategy. It's a win-win for everyone. (Somebody remind me again how covid has worked for the countries that just flat out denied it exists?) To even use the term "Covid Zero" is as completely batshit as those who deny it's existence. As always, the common sense scenario is somewhere in the middle. Have your vaccine, bin your masks and return to normal." How would binning your mask, which could stop you or others, from getting infected, be - common sense?  | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? if you want the pandemic to end then we should stop testing and the whole thing would disappear; if you want to keep the pandemic part of life then keep on testing - the latter being the more likely scenario. If we want the pandemic to end then we should round up all the pandemic deniers and put them on a deserted island where they will be safe from all the people who take vaccines and wear masks and do tests. After all no vaccines + no masks + no tests = no covid, at least in their minds. We can save loads of money by not sending them any medical supplies as they won't need them in their covid free paradise. And meanwhile everyone that does believe in medicine and science and all that can vaccinate away to their hearts content, wear two masks if they want, test as much as they please, and head towards a covid zero strategy. It's a win-win for everyone. (Somebody remind me again how covid has worked for the countries that just flat out denied it exists?) To even use the term "Covid Zero" is as completely batshit as those who deny it's existence. As always, the common sense scenario is somewhere in the middle. Have your vaccine, bin your masks and return to normal." I find no common sense in your proclamation. I don't want Covid until we know much more about what it does to the body. Until we know what protection vaccination provides beyond hospitalisation and death. I don't want to be responsible for harming others, either. I've had my vaccines, I'm keeping my masks, and I'm keeping my distance. It might not be common, you might not think it makes sense, but it's my choice. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Zero Covid is never going to happen. The best we have is vaccinations. After that we choose if we want to live normally, live with restrictions forever or stay locked up forever. Everyone will choose the first option eventually, so anything else in the interim is wasting what's left of what's already a very short time on earth." I never said anything about zero Covid. My life, my choice. If you see that as a waste, ok, you do you. | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? if you want the pandemic to end then we should stop testing and the whole thing would disappear; if you want to keep the pandemic part of life then keep on testing - the latter being the more likely scenario. If we want the pandemic to end then we should round up all the pandemic deniers and put them on a deserted island where they will be safe from all the people who take vaccines and wear masks and do tests. After all no vaccines + no masks + no tests = no covid, at least in their minds. We can save loads of money by not sending them any medical supplies as they won't need them in their covid free paradise. And meanwhile everyone that does believe in medicine and science and all that can vaccinate away to their hearts content, wear two masks if they want, test as much as they please, and head towards a covid zero strategy. It's a win-win for everyone. (Somebody remind me again how covid has worked for the countries that just flat out denied it exists?) To even use the term "Covid Zero" is as completely batshit as those who deny it's existence. As always, the common sense scenario is somewhere in the middle. Have your vaccine, bin your masks and return to normal." people have become addicted to masks , like using crutches for a broken leg , you don’t dare go anywhere without it. They feel safe ; almost like a comfort blanket for a baby . Truth is the masks have no real impact or benefit on mitigating microscopic viral particles - useful as an ashtray on a motorbike ! In fact typical blue face mask is made of polypropylene; there is a risk of breathing in plastic fibres into your lungs if you wear it for long periods. And look up how polypropylene is made and where it comes from . Your choice , absolutely, wearing a mask makes you feel safe and secure ; and your doing your duty by protecting others then go ahead and continue. | |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now I haven’t know healthy people in the 20s and 30’s end up in ICU because of flu "Did they have the vaccine? | |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now I haven’t know healthy people in the 20s and 30’s end up in ICU because of flu "Hundreds of people die of the flu each week but we don't have any restrictions for flu when it's flu season.  | |||
| |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now I haven’t know healthy people in the 20s and 30’s end up in ICU because of flu
Hundreds of people die of the flu each week but we don't have any restrictions for flu when it's flu season. "Possibly we haven't had restrictions for flu in recent years because: 1. Flu deaths are nowhere near as many as covid deaths. 2. Flu is harder to catch than covid so does not require such extreme measures to control. 3. We have had a highly effective vaccination programme for flu for many years. Even in the years where the specific flu vaccine is deemed a failure against the specific flu strain that is prevalent, it has so far done a good enough job to prevent the flu turning into a world wide pandemic. 4. Because flu has been around for centuries, there is a background level of immunity to it, most people already have partial protection against many strains. Covid-19 has been around for two years, there is no background immunity to it. 5. Experience over the last 18 months has shown that in fact perhaps we should have been enforcing more restrictions against flu and other respiratory diseases. A few simple precautions such as wearing masks in crowded spaces during flu season, not coughing all over each other, and being given sick pay and told to stay home when ill, rather than struggling into work and passing a disease onto others, would reduce endemic disease levels drastically. This would not just save lives, but the general improvement in health across the nation would give economic gains. Your entire argument reduces to (a) historically we have allowed a number of people to die every year due to one disease, therefore (b) we should always forevermore let a far higher number of people die of a far worse disease, and (c) you believe that you will be okay, it doesn't matter what happens to anybody else. | |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now I haven’t know healthy people in the 20s and 30’s end up in ICU because of flu
Hundreds of people die of the flu each week but we don't have any restrictions for flu when it's flu season.
Possibly we haven't had restrictions for flu in recent years because:
1. Flu deaths are nowhere near as many as covid deaths.
2. Flu is harder to catch than covid so does not require such extreme measures to control.
3. We have had a highly effective vaccination programme for flu for many years. Even in the years where the specific flu vaccine is deemed a failure against the specific flu strain that is prevalent, it has so far done a good enough job to prevent the flu turning into a world wide pandemic.
4. Because flu has been around for centuries, there is a background level of immunity to it, most people already have partial protection against many strains. Covid-19 has been around for two years, there is no background immunity to it.
5. Experience over the last 18 months has shown that in fact perhaps we should have been enforcing more restrictions against flu and other respiratory diseases. A few simple precautions such as wearing masks in crowded spaces during flu season, not coughing all over each other, and being given sick pay and told to stay home when ill, rather than struggling into work and passing a disease onto others, would reduce endemic disease levels drastically. This would not just save lives, but the general improvement in health across the nation would give economic gains.
Your entire argument reduces to
(a) historically we have allowed a number of people to die every year due to one disease, therefore
(b) we should always forevermore let a far higher number of people die of a far worse disease, and
(c) you believe that you will be okay, it doesn't matter what happens to anybody else."Points 3 and 4 contradict each other. Vaccines have not stopped Flu from becoming a global pandemic. It's been around for cwnturies. Time to move on. | |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now I haven’t know healthy people in the 20s and 30’s end up in ICU because of flu
Hundreds of people die of the flu each week but we don't have any restrictions for flu when it's flu season.
Possibly we haven't had restrictions for flu in recent years because:
1. Flu deaths are nowhere near as many as covid deaths.
2. Flu is harder to catch than covid so does not require such extreme measures to control.
3. We have had a highly effective vaccination programme for flu for many years. Even in the years where the specific flu vaccine is deemed a failure against the specific flu strain that is prevalent, it has so far done a good enough job to prevent the flu turning into a world wide pandemic.
4. Because flu has been around for centuries, there is a background level of immunity to it, most people already have partial protection against many strains. Covid-19 has been around for two years, there is no background immunity to it.
5. Experience over the last 18 months has shown that in fact perhaps we should have been enforcing more restrictions against flu and other respiratory diseases. A few simple precautions such as wearing masks in crowded spaces during flu season, not coughing all over each other, and being given sick pay and told to stay home when ill, rather than struggling into work and passing a disease onto others, would reduce endemic disease levels drastically. This would not just save lives, but the general improvement in health across the nation would give economic gains.
Your entire argument reduces to
(a) historically we have allowed a number of people to die every year due to one disease, therefore
(b) we should always forevermore let a far higher number of people die of a far worse disease, and
(c) you believe that you will be okay, it doesn't matter what happens to anybody else."Exactly This ^^^
Not sure why people still keep comparing covid with the Flu | |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now I haven’t know healthy people in the 20s and 30’s end up in ICU because of flu
Hundreds of people die of the flu each week but we don't have any restrictions for flu when it's flu season.
Possibly we haven't had restrictions for flu in recent years because:
1. Flu deaths are nowhere near as many as covid deaths.
2. Flu is harder to catch than covid so does not require such extreme measures to control.
3. We have had a highly effective vaccination programme for flu for many years. Even in the years where the specific flu vaccine is deemed a failure against the specific flu strain that is prevalent, it has so far done a good enough job to prevent the flu turning into a world wide pandemic.
4. Because flu has been around for centuries, there is a background level of immunity to it, most people already have partial protection against many strains. Covid-19 has been around for two years, there is no background immunity to it.
5. Experience over the last 18 months has shown that in fact perhaps we should have been enforcing more restrictions against flu and other respiratory diseases. A few simple precautions such as wearing masks in crowded spaces during flu season, not coughing all over each other, and being given sick pay and told to stay home when ill, rather than struggling into work and passing a disease onto others, would reduce endemic disease levels drastically. This would not just save lives, but the general improvement in health across the nation would give economic gains.
Your entire argument reduces to
(a) historically we have allowed a number of people to die every year due to one disease, therefore
(b) we should always forevermore let a far higher number of people die of a far worse disease, and
(c) you believe that you will be okay, it doesn't matter what happens to anybody else.
Points 3 and 4 contradict each other.
Vaccines have not stopped Flu from becoming a global pandemic. It's been around for cwnturies.
Time to move on."But the flu vaccines have made an enormous impact on flu ravaging us, despite them being less effective than the Covid vaccines. We have been gifted the benefits of having free lives and 'moving on', whilst flu is around us, because of the vaccines and incredibly high take up of them, especially in the most vulnerable populations. Your 'time to move on' is vague and has no substance. More so when we know that Covid is so much worse than flu, for the reasons stated in the post from Polly that you replied to. It's much more infectious, severe and deadly. Time to move on from glib assertions from some that we face no problem. We're at this point with flu and Covid thanks to the vaccines that we have used. The take up of fully dosed Covid vaccination isn't as widespread as will afford us greater control of the damage that it can and is inflicting on us. Are you fully vaccinated? The fuller freedoms that we've gained this year are from the vaccines and restrictions that we have had. The greater the level of these in place, the stronger our recovery will be. | |||
"Exactly this..creating a phobia/fear fir no known reason. Control is..and always has been the end game " You'd like to think that with this huge wake up call about how poor our hygiene and infection control had become. That in future flu and norovirus seasons care homes, hospitals, workers, population in general will take a lot better care of their hygiene and take better care not to spread infections unnecessarily. Coughing and sneezing over people, not washing hands and clothes, introducing untested people into care homes and so on. Just like our mums taught us. A bit of thought goes a long way | |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now I haven’t know healthy people in the 20s and 30’s end up in ICU because of flu
Hundreds of people die of the flu each week but we don't have any restrictions for flu when it's flu season.
Possibly we haven't had restrictions for flu in recent years because:
1. Flu deaths are nowhere near as many as covid deaths.
2. Flu is harder to catch than covid so does not require such extreme measures to control.
3. We have had a highly effective vaccination programme for flu for many years. Even in the years where the specific flu vaccine is deemed a failure against the specific flu strain that is prevalent, it has so far done a good enough job to prevent the flu turning into a world wide pandemic.
4. Because flu has been around for centuries, there is a background level of immunity to it, most people already have partial protection against many strains. Covid-19 has been around for two years, there is no background immunity to it.
5. Experience over the last 18 months has shown that in fact perhaps we should have been enforcing more restrictions against flu and other respiratory diseases. A few simple precautions such as wearing masks in crowded spaces during flu season, not coughing all over each other, and being given sick pay and told to stay home when ill, rather than struggling into work and passing a disease onto others, would reduce endemic disease levels drastically. This would not just save lives, but the general improvement in health across the nation would give economic gains.
Your entire argument reduces to
(a) historically we have allowed a number of people to die every year due to one disease, therefore
(b) we should always forevermore let a far higher number of people die of a far worse disease, and
(c) you believe that you will be okay, it doesn't matter what happens to anybody else.
Exactly This ^^^
Not sure why people still keep comparing covid with the Flu"Correct influenza A and B and all known strains are a completely different family to Corona viruses, 3 of which have been in global circulation for thousands of years and what makes up the common cold along with rhinovirus and a couple of others. | |||
"With the rise in positive cases, the low death rates and the upcoming end of the furlough scheme, is it time for testing to end completely and just accept that covid is going to get around everyone now? I'm struggling to understand who is going to pay for an entire workplace that has to close due to covid once the furlough scheme is over at the end of September. Does a business just have to take the hit? Are venues with massive capacities really going to be able to keep positive cases out? I am not really seeing the point in testing anymore except if perhaps going to a place where there will be many vunerable people like a care home or a hospital. Anyone care to give me some more insights? It’s still a dangerous virus, so need to take precautions, and testing is a simple precaution. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness “……. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madnes…..” ——————————————- Agreed. Letting the virus run wild with no controls whatsoever in place would be madness indeed. Also unlike some other contagious illness, covid has a high amount of asymptomatic carriers. So it’s only through testing that some people will know they have it. And once they know that, they can then take steps to avoid spreading it to others. Also, it is through testing that we pick up new variants. And it is very important that we pick up these new variants so we can check and test the efficacy of the vaccine against those new variants. I've never seen a paper that shows covid has a higher amount of asymptomatic cases than any other contagious illnesses!. Could you show that evidence for me please. I never said it had a higher amount than ‘any’ other illness. I said: ….unlike “some” other contagious illness... ‘Some’ and ‘any’ are two different words with two different meanings. " So your not talking like for like contagious illnesses then?. Until this Pandemic the fact remains we had no idea how many people carry pathogens asymptomatically. Personally I've found all the new studies quite interesting, there's alot more going on than we first thought. | |||
| |||
"It's part of a responsible global approach to test. So that you can prove to USA, and EU that you can travel for business etc. Who pays? The UK people of course. Ireland is not only paying to shut down their companies, to pay for their own covid response but are net contributors to pay for other European countries to do the same, and are also paying toward 50 percent of EU vaccines to be given to non EU countries. If Ireland can pay to have much longer lockdown than UK and pay other EU countries for their lockdowns than the UK should be able to afford just it's own response. Ignoring it and letting it run rampant would be a North Korea type response." Net is a big word...Ireland has been a positive contributor for nearly 10 years....but not much of one. due to the departure of the UK it is now being asked to pay Euro-1.6 billion each year. Not exactly massive. If we had stayed, the UK contribution to the recovery-fund would have been Euro-80 billion (7-year deal). Mind, I don't know if Ireland has got the Euro-13 billion from Apple yet? Anyway, I have seen little that gives me any hope that the govt even cares if another few hundred thousand die... | |||
"It's part of a responsible global approach to test. So that you can prove to USA, and EU that you can travel for business etc. Who pays? The UK people of course. Ireland is not only paying to shut down their companies, to pay for their own covid response but are net contributors to pay for other European countries to do the same, and are also paying toward 50 percent of EU vaccines to be given to non EU countries. If Ireland can pay to have much longer lockdown than UK and pay other EU countries for their lockdowns than the UK should be able to afford just it's own response. Ignoring it and letting it run rampant would be a North Korea type response. Net is a big word...Ireland has been a positive contributor for nearly 10 years....but not much of one. due to the departure of the UK it is now being asked to pay Euro-1.6 billion each year. Not exactly massive. If we had stayed, the UK contribution to the recovery-fund would have been Euro-80 billion (7-year deal). Mind, I don't know if Ireland has got the Euro-13 billion from Apple yet? Anyway, I have seen little that gives me any hope that the govt even cares if another few hundred thousand die..." What would you like or expect to see that would show the govt cares if another few hundred thousand die? | |||
| |||
"I think we should treat it just like the flu now I haven’t know healthy people in the 20s and 30’s end up in ICU because of flu
Hundreds of people die of the flu each week but we don't have any restrictions for flu when it's flu season.
Possibly we haven't had restrictions for flu in recent years because:
1. Flu deaths are nowhere near as many as covid deaths.
2. Flu is harder to catch than covid so does not require such extreme measures to control.
3. We have had a highly effective vaccination programme for flu for many years. Even in the years where the specific flu vaccine is deemed a failure against the specific flu strain that is prevalent, it has so far done a good enough job to prevent the flu turning into a world wide pandemic.
4. Because flu has been around for centuries, there is a background level of immunity to it, most people already have partial protection against many strains. Covid-19 has been around for two years, there is no background immunity to it.
5. Experience over the last 18 months has shown that in fact perhaps we should have been enforcing more restrictions against flu and other respiratory diseases. A few simple precautions such as wearing masks in crowded spaces during flu season, not coughing all over each other, and being given sick pay and told to stay home when ill, rather than struggling into work and passing a disease onto others, would reduce endemic disease levels drastically. This would not just save lives, but the general improvement in health across the nation would give economic gains.
Your entire argument reduces to
(a) historically we have allowed a number of people to die every year due to one disease, therefore
(b) we should always forevermore let a far higher number of people die of a far worse disease, and
(c) you believe that you will be okay, it doesn't matter what happens to anybody else.
Points 3 and 4 contradict each other.
Vaccines have not stopped Flu from becoming a global pandemic. It's been around for cwnturies.
Time to move on.
But the flu vaccines have made an enormous impact on flu ravaging us, despite them being less effective than the Covid vaccines. We have been gifted the benefits of having free lives and 'moving on', whilst flu is around us, because of the vaccines and incredibly high take up of them, especially in the most vulnerable populations.
Your 'time to move on' is vague and has no substance. More so when we know that Covid is so much worse than flu, for the reasons stated in the post from Polly that you replied to. It's much more infectious, severe and deadly.
Time to move on from glib assertions from some that we face no problem. We're at this point with flu and Covid thanks to the vaccines that we have used. The take up of fully dosed Covid vaccination isn't as widespread as will afford us greater control of the damage that it can and is inflicting on us. Are you fully vaccinated? The fuller freedoms that we've gained this year are from the vaccines and restrictions that we have had. The greater the level of these in place, the stronger our recovery will be. "Not that it's anyone's business, but yes I have been fully vaccinated for a couple of months. Took my jabs as soon as they were offered. The "fuller freedoms" cannot possibly be from "restrictions", lol. Certainly vaccines have helped - they are the only realistic to we have which is why all other restrictions have rightly been lifted. | |||
"Interestingly enough there's two members of sage who released statements yesterday saying testing and publishing cases is now pointless, testing asymptomatic people is now pointless, isolating asymptomatic people is now pointless, it's endemic we're now all going to get it sooner or later, constant boosters for all and vaccinating children is pointless and that actually a gradual way of people catching it is the only way out of this Pandemic. They were both professors in relative fields." Hallelujah. Finally some common sense. Do you happen to have a link? | |||
"Interestingly enough there's two members of sage who released statements yesterday saying testing and publishing cases is now pointless, testing asymptomatic people is now pointless, isolating asymptomatic people is now pointless, it's endemic we're now all going to get it sooner or later, constant boosters for all and vaccinating children is pointless and that actually a gradual way of people catching it is the only way out of this Pandemic. They were both professors in relative fields." That is interesting. The whole approach to asymptomatic infections has had the feel of the emperors new clothes about it. Is there any further info on asymptomatic infections spreading it the same amount , more, less, or not at all for delta variant? Way back in alpha days.... There was info floating around that if you were asymptomatic you didn't spread it but lots has been learned since then. | |||
"What low death rate. Johnson is happy with 50000 a year. Just under 1000 a week. From his point of view those aged 80 or over who have been infected by the don't care unmasked and untested." Not happy with, just accepting that that might be unavoidable. Like flu due to endemic Covid are now here to stay. I think the annual number will settle at a figure considerably lower than 50,000 but it will still be a significant number. Management of an endemic disease requires a different approach to managing an epidemic. | |||
"Interestingly enough there's two members of sage who released statements yesterday saying testing and publishing cases is now pointless, testing asymptomatic people is now pointless, isolating asymptomatic people is now pointless, it's endemic we're now all going to get it sooner or later, constant boosters for all and vaccinating children is pointless and that actually a gradual way of people catching it is the only way out of this Pandemic. They were both professors in relative fields. Hallelujah. Finally some common sense. Do you happen to have a link?" I can't remember them to be honest, one was from East Anglia university, I follow Dr John Campbell on YouTube, he puts all the links in the podcast, it's yesterdays broadcast. | |||
"Interestingly enough there's two members of sage who released statements yesterday saying testing and publishing cases is now pointless, testing asymptomatic people is now pointless, isolating asymptomatic people is now pointless, it's endemic we're now all going to get it sooner or later, constant boosters for all and vaccinating children is pointless and that actually a gradual way of people catching it is the only way out of this Pandemic. They were both professors in relative fields. That is interesting. The whole approach to asymptomatic infections has had the feel of the emperors new clothes about it. Is there any further info on asymptomatic infections spreading it the same amount , more, less, or not at all for delta variant? Way back in alpha days.... There was info floating around that if you were asymptomatic you didn't spread it but lots has been learned since then. " Asymptomatic vaccine cases or asymptomatic previous infections appear to differ, the viral load appears higher in vaccine only applicants but the best and lowest is vaccine+infection. Asymptomatics in general despite even high viral loads spread far less due to mostly well no sneezing, no coughing, no nose dribbling etc etc. And yes your correct Delta and alpha are as different as alpha was to b1. | |||
| |||
"Net is a big word...Ireland has been a positive contributor for nearly 10 years....but not much of one. due to the departure of the UK it is now being asked to pay Euro-1.6 billion each year. Not exactly massive. If we had stayed, the UK contribution to the recovery-fund would have been Euro-80 billion (7-year deal). Mind, I don't know if Ireland has got the Euro-13 billion from Apple yet? Anyway, I have seen little that gives me any hope that the govt even cares if another few hundred thousand die..." Net is net. For years now Ireland even during financial crisis gave more to EU than took. Then add in Irish waters which are bigger than the UK waters. Even when Ireland was takongore cash than it gave it was a net contributor in resources worth more than it ever took. Ireland of course got the 13 billion from Apple but is trying to give it back. So won't spend it. Your point about the UK would have to pay more into the covid fund than it gets out of it were part of the EU proves my point. The UK is savingoney by not being in the UK? So can surely afford some tests. Let's be perfectly honest. The UK response has killed people across Europe. First the British variant. No lockdowns, no clamp downs, it spread across Europe causing a spike of deaths. Second delta variant came through UK from india. No lockdowns a spike of deaths across Europe. We have countries in South America, poor as hell, struggling with lambda and mu variants. Eventually these variants will hit us, but not fr lack of trying to keep them contained on the poor countries part. British people should be embarrassed and apologetic for their handling and the deaths caused. That poor South American countries are trying harder. That now the UK wants to give up all together cause they can't be bothered and don't have the cash? The UK is ready to accept the deaths so everyone else can accept them? The Tories coldness usually comes with some resolve and some stuff upper lip. Take Thatcher. She was willing to sacrifice a town, but also the resolve to sail the navy down to Argentina. If you told her "there is an variant that could kill thousands" her response wouldn't have been "oh we can afford that". She probably would have implemented a viscous lockdown and good luck to planes from India getting in. What about Afghanistan? Would she have been sheepish about sending the army in to protect British people? No. She wouldn't have let Ireland go into Afghanistan with France, she would have been insulted that UK wasn't taking care of it. And that's what we have now. Tories that are as cold as they have ever been, with no resolve, no backbone, no stiff upper lip. Just bumbling around in the dark. It's all just a mess and people are trying to protect ego by pretending anything else. The UK inside or outside the EU should be able to afford to test its own people, and test other countries people too. | |||
| |||
"Imo testing is not pointless at all. It's one of the simplest things to continue to do. I picked up 14 lft at Boots last night. We all done one last night, my daughter was positive. She was due to go into school for a test this afternoon before she goes back on Monday. If we hadn't of done a test she would of gone in none the wiser and possibly infected her whole friendship group!" Very responsible! 5 jabs on the trip advisor. Let's hope everyone else follows suit and our kids education is less disrupted than the last 2 years. | |||
"Imo testing is not pointless at all. It's one of the simplest things to continue to do. I picked up 14 lft at Boots last night. We all done one last night, my daughter was positive. She was due to go into school for a test this afternoon before she goes back on Monday. If we hadn't of done a test she would of gone in none the wiser and possibly infected her whole friendship group!" hope she feels okay and gets over it without any probs  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Imo testing is not pointless at all. It's one of the simplest things to continue to do. I picked up 14 lft at Boots last night. We all done one last night, my daughter was positive. She was due to go into school for a test this afternoon before she goes back on Monday. If we hadn't of done a test she would of gone in none the wiser and possibly infected her whole friendship group!" Theres some scientific consensus shifting from not catching it to catch it now while Delta is the current variant. The thinking is the next variant will probably drop the efficacy of the vaccine significantly yet again as Delta has already a bit. Natural infection has a far higher efficacy against reinfection and more than likely against the future variant. Delta is far too transmissible for restrictions to have an effect and vaccines are at least currently taking the edge of it. Within the next two to three years were all going to get this virus, the thinking is this is the best time, possibly. | |||
"Imo testing is not pointless at all. It's one of the simplest things to continue to do. I picked up 14 lft at Boots last night. We all done one last night, my daughter was positive. She was due to go into school for a test this afternoon before she goes back on Monday. If we hadn't of done a test she would of gone in none the wiser and possibly infected her whole friendship group! Very responsible! 5 jabs on the trip advisor. Let's hope everyone else follows suit and our kids education is less disrupted than the last 2 years. " Thankyou! I hope so, she is already stressing that she's going to miss the first week of the new term. Year 11 to Can't believe it tbh, really bad timing  | |||
"Imo testing is not pointless at all. It's one of the simplest things to continue to do. I picked up 14 lft at Boots last night. We all done one last night, my daughter was positive. She was due to go into school for a test this afternoon before she goes back on Monday. If we hadn't of done a test she would of gone in none the wiser and possibly infected her whole friendship group!hope she feels okay and gets over it without any probs "Thank you, me to. She's had cold symptoms for a couple of days and couldn't smell a coconut body scrub I got | |||
"I think lateral flow tests make a lot more sense than having to be double jabbed to enter venues. Obviously you can still carry it if your double jabbed, but a test, in my opinion, is more likely to be able to keep people from spreading it. " I'm with you on that. Test, test, test! | |||
| |||
"Imo testing is not pointless at all. It's one of the simplest things to continue to do. I picked up 14 lft at Boots last night. We all done one last night, my daughter was positive. She was due to go into school for a test this afternoon before she goes back on Monday. If we hadn't of done a test she would of gone in none the wiser and possibly infected her whole friendship group! Very responsible! 5 jabs on the trip advisor. Let's hope everyone else follows suit and our kids education is less disrupted than the last 2 years. Thankyou! I hope so, she is already stressing that she's going to miss the first week of the new term. Year 11 to Can't believe it tbh, really bad timing "Well there's an upside... At least if she gets it now in summer hopefully it's less symptomatic. With community rates as high as they are it's pretty likely they will all get it at some point this year. So she will have an uninterrupted run for the rest of the year... Fingers crossed. | |||
"Imo testing is not pointless at all. It's one of the simplest things to continue to do. I picked up 14 lft at Boots last night. We all done one last night, my daughter was positive. She was due to go into school for a test this afternoon before she goes back on Monday. If we hadn't of done a test she would of gone in none the wiser and possibly infected her whole friendship group! Theres some scientific consensus shifting from not catching it to catch it now while Delta is the current variant. The thinking is the next variant will probably drop the efficacy of the vaccine significantly yet again as Delta has already a bit. Natural infection has a far higher efficacy against reinfection and more than likely against the future variant. Delta is far too transmissible for restrictions to have an effect and vaccines are at least currently taking the edge of it. Within the next two to three years were all going to get this virus, the thinking is this is the best time, possibly. " so the equivalent of chicken pox parties? The point you make about natural immunity being "better" is different to what has been said for 12 months pretty much which was that the immunity from the vaccine is "better" because it lasts longer or whatever the reason was... I'm interested has the science changed on that with delta now or is it another one of those scientific facts that you basically pick your scientist and take your choice.? | |||
"Imo testing is not pointless at all. It's one of the simplest things to continue to do. I picked up 14 lft at Boots last night. We all done one last night, my daughter was positive. She was due to go into school for a test this afternoon before she goes back on Monday. If we hadn't of done a test she would of gone in none the wiser and possibly infected her whole friendship group! Very responsible! 5 jabs on the trip advisor. Let's hope everyone else follows suit and our kids education is less disrupted than the last 2 years. Thankyou! I hope so, she is already stressing that she's going to miss the first week of the new term. Year 11 to Can't believe it tbh, really bad timing
Well there's an upside... At least if she gets it now in summer hopefully it's less symptomatic. With community rates as high as they are it's pretty likely they will all get it at some point this year. So she will have an uninterrupted run for the rest of the year... Fingers crossed. "Always an upside. Also I guess she may get a little immunity going into winter. | |||
"Imo testing is not pointless at all. It's one of the simplest things to continue to do. I picked up 14 lft at Boots last night. We all done one last night, my daughter was positive. She was due to go into school for a test this afternoon before she goes back on Monday. If we hadn't of done a test she would of gone in none the wiser and possibly infected her whole friendship group! Theres some scientific consensus shifting from not catching it to catch it now while Delta is the current variant. The thinking is the next variant will probably drop the efficacy of the vaccine significantly yet again as Delta has already a bit. Natural infection has a far higher efficacy against reinfection and more than likely against the future variant. Delta is far too transmissible for restrictions to have an effect and vaccines are at least currently taking the edge of it. Within the next two to three years were all going to get this virus, the thinking is this is the best time, possibly. so the equivalent of chicken pox parties? The point you make about natural immunity being "better" is different to what has been said for 12 months pretty much which was that the immunity from the vaccine is "better" because it lasts longer or whatever the reason was... I'm interested has the science changed on that with delta now or is it another one of those scientific facts that you basically pick your scientist and take your choice.? " No it was always a scientific fact, I don't know where you heard it but it's always been known. They particularly choose to use a single particular spike protein in the vaccine for various reasons instead of the old practice of an attenuated virus. It was never going to give the same protection as natural infection because there's 20odd other proteins and other factors but it was going to give a long lasting protection against a particular spike protein which was the main protagonist. | |||
| |||
