- Location
- Deep South of Cambridgeshire
A (hopefully) theoretical question… Just wondering if (trying to ignore ethical considerations) it would be legal for NHS to prioritise treatment of vaccinated sick Covid patients over unvaccinated?
in as far as making a medical decision on patients most likely to respond positively to treatment - surely this happens all the time. As a punitive measure against people deemed to be making decisions which are bad for their health - even when, as you asked, I try to ignore ethical considerations…seems pretty counter productive.A (hopefully) theoretical question… Just wondering if (trying to ignore ethical considerations) it would be legal for NHS to prioritise treatment of vaccinated sick Covid patients over unvaccinated?
A (hopefully) theoretical question… Just wondering if (trying to ignore ethical considerations) it would be legal for NHS to prioritise treatment of vaccinated sick Covid patients over unvaccinated?
This is suitably vague:From October 4, it appears you no longer need a pre-departure test of any kind, if you are fully vaccinated.
New system for international travel
Eight countries will move from the red list on 22 September and the rules for international travel to England will change on 4 October 2021.www.gov.uk
The government has said they hope it will be in place for the end of October half term. I wouldn't plan on it before November though. Seems too risky.This is suitably vague:
From the end of October, eligible fully vaccinated passengers and those with an approved vaccine from a select group of non-red countries will be able to replace their day 2 test with a cheaper lateral flow test, reducing the cost of tests on arrival into England. The government wants to introduce this by the end of October, aiming to have it in place for when people return from half-term breaks.
What’s meant by the end of October? Literally it would be midnight on Sunday 31st which wouldn’t help anyone wanting to be back for the beginning of the week.
I look forward to a time when more of that lot follow the example of Alberta's Kenney in admitting they got it wrong and change course: Alberta reverses hands-off approach to Covid to tackle ‘crisis of unvaccinated’I am a bit more conspiracy-loving (but probably not wrong in this case). When some activitists need to especially address that the movement is "people-funded", the funding most possibly is not mainly from common people. It is no secret that anti-vaxx/anti-mask/anti-restriction movement got support from right wing groups, and right wing groups got money from God-knows-where.
I hear now that an MP who was in parliament unmasked now as Covid, he’s double jabbed so probably already on the mend. Wish him well etc. But how can that go on?View attachment 21110Is it political to wonder whether this morning's gathering took place within the spirit or the letter of official advice? I really do not know.
You're not alone, Russ. Plenty of us are sticking to sensible rules and opting out of situations where that isn't possible. Quite keen on, er, following the, um, actual um, science.I hear now that an MP who was in parliament unmasked now as Covid, he’s double jabbed so probably already on the mend. Wish him well etc. But how can that go on?
Mind you I’m increasingly feeling lonely wearing my mask to shops.
How grim, Alex, I'm sorry to hear that.Do we yet have any useful data on what degree of protection masks give to the wearer? (How much would it flatten the curve if there were 90% adoption?) Or is your suggestion mostly aimed at the unwittingly infected?
My uncle (80) died a couple of days ago from Covid, despite being double jabbed and a mask-wearer (bleeding in the kidney area appears to be the precise mechanism of this throughly versatile disease). Mind you, it could be said that he'd lost the will to live following the death of his wife a few months back. [I don't say this to undermine your advice, though!]
Good luck! Do you have a stash of LFTs?I've had a text this morning to say I've been in contact with someone who has the virus. So I've booked a walk-in test for this lunchtime.
As it happens, I have a stinking cold and a cough. It doesn't feel like anything serious and I don't have a temperature. Here's hoping.
Oh sorry to hear that Alex - grim news indeed.Do we yet have any useful data on what degree of protection masks give to the wearer? (How much would it flatten the curve if there were 90% adoption?) Or is your suggestion mostly aimed at the unwittingly infected?
My uncle (80) died a couple of days ago from Covid, despite being double jabbed and a mask-wearer (bleeding in the kidney area appears to be the precise mechanism of this throughly versatile disease). Mind you, it could be said that he'd lost the will to live following the death of his wife a few months back. [I don't say this to undermine your advice, though!]
I largely agree but I’m not so sure it’s that clear cut data wise. Mask observance in France is very high and mandated indoors yet their current hospitalisations are 50% higher (8k vs 12k) and their ICU occupancy is double ours (1k vs 2k). Surely if they were so effective France would see much smaller numbers than us? There does seem to be a randomness to data that is very difficult to quantify.Oh sorry to hear that Alex - grim news indeed.
To your point - I think there is really no ambiguity around the point that masks make you far less likely to transmit the disease. My understanding is that we can be quite certain that most people catching covid now are primarily doing so from unmasked people who are close to them indoors. Ask to how protective masks are to the wearer - I haven't seen a conclusive study, but neither have I been looking for one.
If one were to think about this purely selfishly, the main reason to wear masks is to encourage other people to wear masks. Social proof is one of the strongest motivators of human behaviour. Certainly, my anecdata show that after I enter a train carriage wearing a mask, *some* people choose to put masks on, and none choose to take them off.
This has been discussed up the thread although I'm not sure that any of the postulated explanations (eg. they stay in longer, or come in sooner, or many cases are not tested) for this were ever shown to be the case.I largely agree but I’m not so sure it’s that clear cut data wise. Mask observance in France is very high and mandated indoors yet their current hospitalisations are 50% higher (8k vs 12k) and their ICU occupancy is double ours (1k vs 2k). Surely if they were so effective France would see much smaller numbers than us? There does seem to be a randomness to data that is very difficult to quantify.
Ah sorry I'm just skimming this thread now. But yes it does seem strange. I think Covid-19 just doesn't quite act in the way we hope and model it will. Annoyingly!This has been discussed up the thread although I'm not sure that any of the postulated explanations (eg. they stay in longer, or come in sooner, or many cases are not tested) for this were ever shown to be the case.
It sounds like the first test did not pass quality control hence they ran it again. If your son had 3 postive results from antigen test and one uncertain result from PCR test, it's rather unlikely your son hasn't got it.Further to my son's PCR test we have now received a second result for the same test from yesterday. The first was negative and the second positive. WTF? He has now had a second test and we wait for the dual results presumably.
Sounds par for the course. I've heard of people getting results evn though they'd not sent their sample in, so it only seems fair to get two results if you do!Further to my son's PCR test we have now received a second result for the same test from yesterday. The first was negative and the second positive. WTF? He has now had a second test and we wait for the dual results presumably.
That's really interesting!And a Nature study supported by the Zoe app.
Association of social distancing and face mask use with risk of COVID-19 - Nature Communications
Estimating the effectiveness of COVID-19 control measures requires large prospective data including symptoms and personal risk factors. Here, the authors used data from smartphone-based application and found that individual face mask use was associated with a 64% reduced risk of COVID-19 symptoms.www.nature.com
I took heart at 62% reduced risk even with various adjustments for social distance and risk areas.