Coronavirus

[gregs24]

17 hours ago, windymiller said:

so she took a test on saturday and it was negative but positive monday, wopuld she of been infectious from wed/thr through to sunday ?

No. Assume you are talking about a lateral flow test there is good correlation with vaccine shedding and a positive test. Lateral flow will go positive slightly later than a PCR (hours). Obviously you know she was positive on Monday and negative on Saturday but she went positive somewhere in between. She will have started shedding virus at that time. Clinical signs start around the same time as shedding. So minimal risk before Saturday, and then high risk after Saturday.

[RobinB5]

3 hours ago, PaulCP said:

Snap!

Our daughter tested positive this morning but this one lives 250miles away in S. Wales so little chance of passing it on to us😉

Your point re schools rings true here though. She has 2 sons at school and is a self employed child minder so it was probably only a matter of time before the inevitable🤔

Snap as well. My youngest (14) tested positive last Friday. So far me and the wife are negative, though surely that will change, or can 3 jabs protect you to the extent where you don't get infected enough to show in a test? @gregs24?

[andydclements]

Banishing them from the house may protect you from that, less so for intervention from social services etc.

[gregs24]

2 hours ago, RobinB5 said:

Snap as well. My youngest (14) tested positive last Friday. So far me and the wife are negative, though surely that will change, or can 3 jabs protect you to the extent where you don't get infected enough to show in a test? @gregs24?

Yes it can. If you had the third dose at least 2 weeks ago then you may show no symptoms, or be very mild and not test positive. The antibody response to the third dose is HUGE, about 40x the second dose.

 

[Colin P]

3 hours ago, andydclements said:

Banishing them from the house may protect you from that, less so for intervention from social services etc.

No need for that. My 22 year old and 16 year old caught it at different times. Banished them to their bedrooms and their bathroom - barely noticed a difference!!!

BTW, the 16 year old has a part time job in a care home so has to do a weekly PCR. This showed up as positive, but she had no symptoms at any time and did a load of lateral flows through isolation etc and each and every one was negative.

[windymiller]

4 hours ago, andydclements said:

Banishing them from the house may protect you from that, less so for intervention from social services etc.

we are feeding her through the velux windows at mo lol !!! shes ok bless her nly has a higher than normal temperature we are all still testing negative but seemingly its going rife through the school they go too

[Barrykearley]

Unless you are vulnerable I’d not lock your kids away - we certainly didn’t when ours were positive and we were not. None of us caught it from within the household the last two times. Just seems cruel and unnatural to me.

[LotusFella]

When our 16 year old daughter caught it in July we did not banish her either.  After all it must have been a little scary.  We still cuddled and reassured her.  We never knowingly caught it. 

[Barrykearley]

Just now, LotusFella said:

We still cuddled and reassured her.

❤️ Absolutely correct. Fantastic parenting.

[Bibs]

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

Lockdowns reduced deaths by 0.2%!

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.

While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

[ramjet]

I would have thought that the lockdowns were more to prevent transmission and hospital admissions moreso than fatality figures.

That was what I was led to believe by the announcements etc that were also made on the TV.

[thebartman]

 

1 hour ago, ramjet said:

I would have thought that the lockdowns were more to prevent transmission and hospital admissions moreso than fatality figures.

That was what I was led to believe by the announcements etc that were also made on the TV.

True - but still shows that when (our) Government says that we are in lockdown because of the science - it demonstrates, once again, it's like statistics - just pick whatever info supports the policy of the day - there is NO absolute .....

 

[RobinB5]

4 hours ago, Bibs said:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

Lockdowns reduced deaths by 0.2%!

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.

While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

Interesting paper, wonder if it was peer reviewed?

Cherry picking a few phrases:

          'Our review does not point out why lockdowns did not have the effect promised by the epidemiological models of Imperial College London...'

          '...on average – voluntary behavioral changes are 10 times as important as mandatory behavioral changes in combating COVID-19...'

          '...mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts and can hardly regulate nor enforce handwashing, coughing etiquette, distancing in supermarkets, etc.'

          '...even if lockdowns are successful in initially reducing the spread of COVID-19, the behavioral response may counteract the effect completely, as people respond to the lower risk by changing behavior.'

So maybe voluntary changes in behaviour that lessen the spread and subsequent mortality of the virus are not correlated sufficiently with mandated lockdowns, but are beneficial nevertheless? A government will find it easier to be seen doing something that can be enforced, i.e. mandated lockdowns, than putting effort into the more difficult job of affecting voluntary behaviours.

[Colin P]

19 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

Unless you are vulnerable I’d not lock your kids away - we certainly didn’t when ours were positive and we were not. None of us caught it from within the household the last two times. Just seems cruel and unnatural to me.

Wife was a shielder. We’d do it for them. Neither had an issue with it. As I said they tend to vanish to their bedrooms anyway. Personally I think not taking the vaccines and boosters is a worse position to take. But there we go again with our different opinions. 🤷‍♂️

[Bibs]

I got a letter today inviting me for my 4th jab! 

[LotusFella]

22 minutes ago, Bibs said:

I got a letter today inviting me for my 4th jab! 

how many jabs are they expecting us to have a year.  I am pro vaccination but this is getting ridiculous. 

[exeterjeep]

45 minutes ago, Bibs said:

I got a letter today inviting me for my 4th jab! 

Didn't think a 4th was on the cards at the mo....

Covid: No need for a fourth jab yet, say UK advisers   

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59915560    reported on 8th Jan. 

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

Maybe this guy sent you the letter?

https://news.sky.com/story/vaccine-fraudster-jailed-after-charging-92-year-old-pensioner-140-for-fake-jab-12380441

[andydclements]

IIRC @bibs was originally shielding, so logically is classed as having a severely weakened immune system or something.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/coronavirus-vaccine-people-with-severely-weakened-immune-system/

[gregs24]

8 hours ago, Bibs said:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

Lockdowns reduced deaths by 0.2%!

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.

While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

Well worth reading in full because it explains and defines 'lockdowns'. For example the analysis finds closing of non-essential shops is of significant benefit (thought to be because it closes bars / pubs) and also that people become naturally cautious when a disease is out and about. The most recent information on the differences between forced and recommended actions show this to be the case in the UK where contacts in December / January 21/22 were very little different to during full lockdown in early 2020. Of course some see 'lockdown' as any form of restriction whereas in reality we have only really had it once in the UK in 2020. Of course getting people to accept and embrace measures that reduce the spread are much easier now than they were in march 2020 when nobody had any experience of it. People are more naturally cautious now.

1 hour ago, exeterjeep said:

Didn't think a 4th was on the cards at the mo....

Covid: No need for a fourth jab yet, say UK advisers   

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59915560    reported on 8th Jan. 

In certain cases some people have had 3 doses as part of their primary course and so they will receive a 4th dose as their booster. Typically includes people with compromised immune systems etc.

[gregs24]

4 hours ago, thebartman said:

 

True - but still shows that when (our) Government says that we are in lockdown because of the science - it demonstrates, once again, it's like statistics - just pick whatever info supports the policy of the day - there is NO absolute .....

 

It doesn't say that at all. 

Compliance with anything other than a full lockdown would have been very poor in March 2020 - and a totally naïve population at that time. People listen and take precautions now because they understand why and what it does from experience, they simply wouldn't have done back then. 

6 hours ago, ramjet said:

I would have thought that the lockdowns were more to prevent transmission and hospital admissions moreso than fatality figures.

That was what I was led to believe by the announcements etc that were also made on the TV.

Correct - but then one often leads to the other, especially early in the pandemic. Plus March 2020 was VERY different to now. No vaccine, far fewer effective treatments, far higher death rates.

[gregs24]

22 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

Unless you are vulnerable I’d not lock your kids away - we certainly didn’t when ours were positive and we were not. None of us caught it from within the household the last two times. Just seems cruel and unnatural to me.

Lucky you,  but very poor advice. Cuddling and reassuring is not wise with a contagious virus. I accept things are different now to 2 years ago with vaccines, but you can still catch it, and pass it on to some other poor immunocompromised or at risk person. Thanks for thinking of others!

 

[Barrykearley]

3 hours ago, gregs24 said:

Thanks for thinking of others!

When the whole household was locked down - frankly what difference does it make. 

[pete]

6 hours ago, Bibs said:

I got a letter today inviting me for my 4th jab! 

Had mine last week💉💉

[march]

And to lighten the mood.