• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

scaramanga said:
I think you might be confusing your lack of understanding with a general one.

Humans know a huge amount about viruses. What you'll continually hear from researchers is "we're not sure." That doesn't mean they don't know, it means they're not absolutely certain and it's their job to be certain before making statements. But by the standards you or I would apply to our knowledge, they know.
Click to expand...

I disagree. For example, there was one study that looked at viral load and how it impacts on the severity of the infection. It is one study...its far from a comprehensive understanding. We always assume 'science' has all the answers, but surely this pandemic has shown that we are, in the main, making most of it up as we go along. Certain things are exceptionally well studied. Cancer say, HIV etc etc. But it is striking that we know very little about the details of how airborne infections work.

There was another study that looked at how viruses spread on a plane. How it was the immediate rows either side of the person that were most at risk of catching a virus. But then recently, there were accounts of restaurants with seating plans etc with covid traveling quite far. When scientists say "we're not sure" it is because we don't know. We don't have definitive answers.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
I disagree. For example, there was one study that looked at viral load and how it impacts on the severity of the infection. It is one study...its far from a comprehensive understanding.
Click to expand...
It's the one study you know about. Run a journal search for "viral load" between 2016 and 2019 (so, before this happened) and you'll get hundreds of results.

SpurMeUp said:
We always assume 'science' has all the answers, but surely this pandemic has shown that we are, in the main, making most of it up as we go along. Certain things are exceptionally well studied. Cancer say, HIV etc etc. But it is striking that we know very little about the details of how airborne infections work.
Click to expand...
The whole point of science is discovery. We don't know everything and we never will - we do know a lot more than you give people credit for though. By expecting researchers (the clue is in the name) to know everything, you're creating a straw man against which to falsely judge them.

SpurMeUp said:
There was another study that looked at how viruses spread on a plane. How it was the immediate rows either side of the person that were most at risk of catching a virus. But then recently, there were accounts of restaurants with seating plans etc with covid traveling quite far. When scientists say "we're not sure" it is because we don't know. We don't have definitive answers.
Click to expand...
Yes, different circumstances have different outcomes. Why is that a surprise?
 
scaramanga said:
It's the one study you know about. Run a journal search for "viral load" between 2016 and 2019 (so, before this happened) and you'll get hundreds of results.


The whole point of science is discovery. We don't know everything and we never will - we do know a lot more than you give people credit for though. By expecting researchers (the clue is in the name) to know everything, you're creating a straw man against which to falsely judge them.


Yes, different circumstances have different outcomes. Why is that a surprise?
Click to expand...

If we or science had a deep understanding we could answer this question definitively: does the amount of virus received by a person, make an impact on the severity of their illness? We suspect it does but we can't definitively answer even this quite basic question right now. From there, we could look at other variables such as transmission frequencies e.g. does aircon increase spread, do filters on aircon units work to clean the air of virus in planes, how/can these be improved used elsewhere, are airborn droplets a more frequent way to transmit viruses or is picking up viruses through touch, then rubbing your eyes etc. more transmittable.

Bearing in mind the world has been closed for almost a year due to a viral infection, we don't have clear answers to some key quite basic questions. There is a presumption that science just knows. We saw it at the beginning of this epidemic. A belief that there was a one right answer that science already knew. But really science is patchy at best and like many other things follows the money. If there is lots of funding, then we'll research stuff throughly.
 
Last edited:
upload_2020-12-22_12-0-58.png

This is the kind of thing I see frequently working with the government
Celebrating what is a failure as a success
I need to be carful what I say due to my job but it’s just an odd world we live in where a failed opportunity can be spun into looking like success to tick boxes
 
Bedfordspurs said:
View attachment 10350

This is the kind of thing I see frequently working with the government
Celebrating what is a failure as a success
I need to be carful what I say due to my job but it’s just an odd world we live in where a failed opportunity can be spun into looking like success to tick boxes
Click to expand...
This is the side of govt that I hate - all spin and promotion rather than governance..

Im lucky that my dept is non ministerial and has the balls to say when we get it wrong too.
I pushed hard to create that culture in reporting when I started and thankfully had the support of senior management.

The public need to demand honesty. I don't know how we do that however.
 
monkeybarry said:
This is the side of govt that I hate - all spin and promotion rather than governance..

Im lucky that my dept is non ministerial and has the balls to say when we get it wrong too.
I pushed hard to create that culture in reporting when I started and thankfully had the support of senior management.

The public need to demand honesty. I don't know how we do that however.
Click to expand...
This is all honest but it’s not in context
40M tests is great
But not if it should be 120m tests like for like
 
Bedfordspurs said:
View attachment 10350

This is the kind of thing I see frequently working with the government
Celebrating what is a failure as a success
I need to be carful what I say due to my job but it’s just an odd world we live in where a failed opportunity can be spun into looking like success to tick boxes
Click to expand...
Our projects team at work do stuff like this, they never mention how late projects get implemented if at all and how much over budget each and every one is due mainly to them not asking the business and instead employing helmet consultants who know nothing
 
Ok so as a COVID testing centre is now open in my area (Tier 4) - question.

What's the point of me getting tested in T4? I mean, we're already locked down, nothing open and can't see the family? So, what does getting a positive or a negative really tell us in a T4 scenario?

Isn't it more worthwhile running mass testing in a T3 area so you might save some of that local economy? Makes no difference now to London/SE surely?
 
Diamond Lights said:
Ok so as a COVID testing centre is now open in my area (Tier 4) - question.

What's the point of me getting tested in T4? I mean, we're already locked down, nothing open and can't see the family? So, what does getting a positive or a negative really tell us in a T4 scenario?

Isn't it more worthwhile running mass testing in a T3 area so you might save some of that local economy? Makes no difference now to London/SE surely?
Click to expand...

I agree, but assume it was already in the set-up stages before T4 was even a thing?

There was a professor of something or other on the radio this morning who said not only were the lateral flow tests very unreliable for people not displaying any symptoms (up to 50% wrong results, although waiting for further feedback on the Liverpool mass testing) but that the manufacturer specifically states that the test is not designed for use on people with no symptoms.
Yet lateral flow tests are being rolled out specifically for people with no symptoms.
So what reliance can be placed on the results?

Edit : just read that if you get a positive result from the lateral flow test then you are asked to take another test - presumably a PCR?
 
Diamond Lights said:
Ok so as a COVID testing centre is now open in my area (Tier 4) - question.

What's the point of me getting tested in T4? I mean, we're already locked down, nothing open and can't see the family? So, what does getting a positive or a negative really tell us in a T4 scenario?

Isn't it more worthwhile running mass testing in a T3 area so you might save some of that local economy? Makes no difference now to London/SE surely?
Click to expand...

This is a really good point and I think its adds to confusion. My views on being against a total lockdown were clear but the more I have sat at home and had time to digest more and even if I put a prolockdown hat on I find it extremely difficult to understand what they are trying to achieve? Telling people that if things were ok they could spend Christmas together even for me made little sense, even if the plan worked, you do all the hard work to then let it rip again? Then rather than put the whole country under one tier he would prefer it to rip first, get bad, then lockdown based on what he said last night despite his adviser saying on tele we should be in stricter measures in tier 1 or 2 because its coming and its coming bad?

Tiers, partial lockdowns, firebreakers for Wales, mocking one idea on Wedsneday, implementing the idea on Saturday? Just seems mental TBH, I fail to see a plan regardless where I sit with my own ideas.
 
Last edited:
Glenda's Legs said:
I agree, but assume it was already in the set-up stages before T4 was even a thing?

There was a professor of something or other on the radio this morning who said not only were the lateral flow tests very unreliable for people not displaying any symptoms (up to 50% wrong results, although waiting for further feedback on the Liverpool mass testing) but that the manufacturer specifically states that the test is not designed for use on people with no symptoms.
Yet lateral flow tests are being rolled out specifically for people with no symptoms.
So what reliance can be placed on the results?

Edit : just read that if you get a positive result from the lateral flow test then you are asked to take another test - presumably a PCR?
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ed-over-accuracy-fears?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

So, it seems as if the whole basis on which students were ‘safely’ sent home - and on which schools were to be ‘safely’ reopened - was/is flawed.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I agree, but assume it was already in the set-up stages before T4 was even a thing?

There was a professor of something or other on the radio this morning who said not only were the lateral flow tests very unreliable for people not displaying any symptoms (up to 50% wrong results, although waiting for further feedback on the Liverpool mass testing) but that the manufacturer specifically states that the test is not designed for use on people with no symptoms.
Yet lateral flow tests are being rolled out specifically for people with no symptoms.
So what reliance can be placed on the results?

Edit : just read that if you get a positive result from the lateral flow test then you are asked to take another test - presumably a PCR?
Click to expand...

This is right. If you get a positive in the rapid test you are immediately asked to book a PCR test. We went through this last week when two of my family got it. All recovering now. Its a nasty virus.
 
Diamond Lights said:
Ok so as a COVID testing centre is now open in my area (Tier 4) - question.

What's the point of me getting tested in T4? I mean, we're already locked down, nothing open and can't see the family? So, what does getting a positive or a negative really tell us in a T4 scenario?

Isn't it more worthwhile running mass testing in a T3 area so you might save some of that local economy? Makes no difference now to London/SE surely?
Click to expand...
It would mean you don't go to the store and increase the spread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back