Covid-19 discussion thread

[Lencoboy]

What I don't get is how it makes the daily national figures look better, but suddenly the LTLA figures are *far* worse - for example, cases locally have nearly trebled. Yet they claimed a reduction in cases overall, I believe.

I guess there are still the odd exceptions, as in those LTLA cases you're referring to (Leicester in particular being a prime example), but obviously not the 'be all and end all' of daily national stats.

Also there are still a lot of conflicting opinions, which inevitably doesn't help.

[Gary A]

What I don't get is how it makes the daily national figures look better, but suddenly the LTLA figures are *far* worse - for example, cases locally have nearly trebled. Yet they claimed a reduction in cases overall, I believe.

A fair few of those “new cases” are actually people in healthcare settings who test positive for antibodies. This means that while they don’t currently have the virus and are most likely no longer infectious, they still must be recorded as a new case as that’s the only way to track the scale of the virus.

There needs to be a bigger effort to give straight figures to the public. At this point they should be publishing estimations of the number of currently infectious people within the population and showing how they arrive at such conclusions.

[Lencoboy]

A fair few of those “new cases” are actually people in healthcare settings who test positive for antibodies. This means that while they don’t currently have the virus and are most likely no longer infectious, they still must be recorded as a new case as that’s the only way to track the scale of the virus.

There needs to be a bigger effort to give straight figures to the public. At this point they should be publishing estimations of the number of currently infectious people within the population and showing how they arrive at such conclusions.

So in that case, possible overcounting/
overestimation of COVID-19 cases then?

If so, it will most certainly defy those who are still convinced the cases are undercounted or 'massaged'!!

I could still be wrong though!!

[Scass]

A fair few of those “new cases” are actually people in healthcare settings who test positive for antibodies. This means that while they don’t currently have the virus and are most likely no longer infectious, they still must be recorded as a new case as that’s the only way to track the scale of the virus.

There needs to be a bigger effort to give straight figures to the public. At this point they should be publishing estimations of the number of currently infectious people within the population and showing how they arrive at such conclusions.

That’s interesting, I have a friend who works at a GP surgery who has had the antibody test and it was positive. She has no idea when she actually had the virus though, but thinks maybe in January after she’d had day surgery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scass]

I'm being brave tomorrow. No, let's be honest, I'm being greedy. Heading into town for the first time since March because I've got a lunch reservation at a rather nice restaurant.

I'm going to be careful, of course, but the urge to get out and about is particularly strong when you live on a sink estate.

That sounds like a perfect thing to do! Enjoy! And tell us all about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gary A]

So in that case, possible overcounting/
overestimation of COVID-19 cases then?

If so, it will most certainly defy those who are still convinced the cases are undercounted or 'massaged'!!

I could still be wrong though!!

It’s all about active cases, namely people who are infected and still shedding live virus particles. People who have antibodies can still test positive for current infection but they’re no longer shedding the virus so aren’t a danger to anyone around them.

Again, there isn’t a definition between active cases and past cases when these figures are released so I feel it would benefit us all if that definition was made.

[Noivous]

A fair few of those “new cases” are actually people in healthcare settings who test positive for antibodies. This means that while they don’t currently have the virus and are most likely no longer infectious, they still must be recorded as a new case as that’s the only way to track the scale of the virus.

There needs to be a bigger effort to give straight figures to the public. At this point they should be publishing estimations of the number of currently infectious people within the population and showing how they arrive at such conclusions.

At my wife's hospital they aren't checking any of the workers for antibodies or the virus. The thought among the workers is the powers that be don't want to know.

[Lencoboy]

It’s all about active cases, namely people who are infected and still shedding live virus particles. People who have antibodies can still test positive for current infection but they’re no longer shedding the virus so aren’t a danger to anyone around them.

Again, there isn’t a definition between active cases and past cases when these figures are released so I feel it would benefit us all if that definition was made.

Understandably that's probably causing a lot of confusion and no doubt leading people to believe that the active cases are much higher than they actually are, so in a sense, I'm feeling both surprised and relieved, even though we're still not out of the woods yet, and of course, the real test will be over the next 2-3 weeks or so, following tomorrow's latest lockdown easements.

Perhaps the death rates are likely to come down even more when the steroid that was discovered a fortnight ago starts seeing more widespread use in treating active case patients.

[pulisa]

I'm being brave tomorrow. No, let's be honest, I'm being greedy. Heading into town for the first time since March because I've got a lunch reservation at a rather nice restaurant.

I'm going to be careful, of course, but the urge to get out and about is particularly strong when you live on a sink estate.

I hope you have a lovely lunch and that all goes smoothly-no reason why it shouldn't. I look forward to hearing all about it!

[MyNameIsTerry]

I hope you both have a nice time, BlueIris and Pamplemousse. Adjusting to these changes is bound to make many of us nervous but the more we do stuff the more we grow in confidence in ourselves. So getting over the anticipatory anxiety you will hopefully find yourself calmer and enjoy some time doing things you enjoy.

Pamplemousse, you just know it's going to raise those what ifs once it's over but remember you did what was required to keep yourself safe so is it worth your energy worrying? Perhaps do something to distract yourself for a bit so it subsides. Wanting to do something is powerful. You could always avoid something but pushing threw in spite of all the unpleasant sensations shows you have the strength to do it.