Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[8MileBU]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

Whilst that could be true as well, it would not explain why 80+ staff in a single factory would be 'infected'

Any food processing factory I have been in has had incredible attention to detail with regards to hygiene, before Covid-19 was even a thing. It would seem incredibly unlikely to me that that level of transmission could occur in that environment, which is what leads me to believe that the majority of these cases are the result of detecting remaining strands of RNA picked up previously from elsewhere.

There is also the possibility that, like most bugs and viruses (especially SARS) before it, it has run its course and is fizzling out.

We don't tend to go looking for virus RNA in people without symptoms, so there is nothing really to compare it to.

It sounds to me like you’re maybe being a bit blinkered and focusing solely on the processing area of the factory? My first job whilst still at high school was working  in a food processing environment. Despite the stringent hygiene standards of the factory itself, the same factory also had a despatch area which was effectively just a warehouse, communal changing rooms and other communal areas such as the canteen or even just the corridors. I don’t think it’s above possibility that the Coupar Angus place could have similar facilities where transmission could easily occur within said environments. 

Edited August 24, 2020 by 8MileBU

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, 8MileBU said:

It sounds to me like you’re maybe being a bit blinkered and focusing solely on the processing area of the factory?

tbh it wasn't really about the factory. It was more about the current limitations of testing people and linking any and all positives to it. It just happened to be topical.

The same would apply for any other group of people, whether that be an office, a pub, or school.

[Todd_is_God]

11 minutes ago, Snafu said:

As you will be aware the factory has links to two other food processing factories in the area and there is an investigation into those. As mentioned in the many of the workers don't live in Cupar Angus, so if you are correct and the track and trace will confirm it that many people who either work there or have been in contact over the last few months have had the virus and gone under the radar. They will show the antibodies but not the virus.

I'm not sure if continuing to follow track and trace any further back than people who they have been in contact with over the last couple of weeks is worth it, this could be never ending and go around in circles.

To the bit in bold, not necessarilly, whilst the virus RNA can remain present for months.

However the rest of your post is pretty much what I was trying to put across.

I just find it really odd that no one is asking any of the questions or points being raised to NS, JL or GS when they have the platform to do so. The questions are generally so soft, or the answers to them so blatently obvious, it leaves me wondering if the journalists are just poor at their job, or whether they are warned to stick to within a certain range of questions.

There are definitely more valid points, queries and observations on this thread than our journalists have ever thought to ask about, which is quite poor really.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Boostin' Kev]

Visions of VT punching the air in delight at the news of the 17 teachers in Dundee. 

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, Boostin' Kev said:

Visions of VT punching the air in delight at the news of the 17 teachers in Dundee. 

Another two weeks off for them, though. They'll need to work 8 days a week when they come back now.

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

To the bit in bold, not necessarilly, whilst the virus RNA can remain present for months.

However the rest of your post is pretty much what I was trying to put across.

I just find it really odd that no one is asking any of the questions or points being raised to NS, JL or GS when they have the platform to do so. The questions are generally so soft, or the answers to them so blatently obvious, it leaves me wondering if the journalists are just poor at their job, or whether they are warned to stick to within a certain range of questions.

There are definitely more valid points, queries and observations on this thread than our journalists have ever thought to ask about, which is quite poor really.

If you got the chance to ask her a question in the form of "Why don't you do X instead?", what would X be, given the tools at their disposal?

Edited August 24, 2020 by welshbairn

[Todd_is_God]

15 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

If you got the chance to ask her a question in the form of "Why don't you do X instead?", what would X be, given the tools at their disposal?

It wouldn't be my job when asking a question to produce a solution, however I would certainly make reference to the effectiveness of PCR testing in asymptomatic patients, and the presence of RNA alone not equalling infection or infectiousness, and ask if the SG is aware of how many cycles were required to produce each positive result when they get the numbers sent to them and, if so, for those which required high numbers of cycles, if anything was being done to verify those, or whether any and all positive results, no matter how many cycles were required, were treated as new cases without any follow up.

I think that would be both a fair and important question (and answer).

Edited August 24, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[D.A.F.C]

Is there a way to tell if a virus is getting weaker or 'burning itself out'?
Really hope it is, no virus wants to kill hosts due to lack of spread.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

It wouldn't be my job when asking a question to produce a solution, however I would certainly make reference to the effectiveness of PCR testing in asymptomatic patients, and the presence of RNA alone not equalling infection or infectiousness, and ask if the SG is aware of how many cycles were required to produce each positive result when they get the numbers sent to them and, if so, for those which required high numbers of cycles, if anything was being done to verify those, or whether any and all positive results, no matter how many cycles were required, were treated as new cases without any follow up.

I think that would be both a fair and important question (and answer).

So are you suggesting there's no point in testing until they get a more accurate method? Forget about test and trace?

[coprolite]

3 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

Well, yes, but that's not likely. It will be higher than the number of confirmed cases by some margin though.

The test will find virus RNA if it is there. If you have to amplify it many many times it's unlikely the person is currently infected, never mind infectious.

No one has asked this in the briefings, or how specific the tests are. It certainly hasn't been volunteered.

A weak positive, though, isn't a false positive. But it doesn't mean they are currently infected.

Why? They have found a 'positive' and will treat them all the same (i.e. infected and infectious). Being overly cautious with someone isn't dangerous. 

They aren't putting their health in danger by saying "we found this" - They are doing their job. It's up to the government to consider the implications of mandating people isolate / implement local lockdowns on the back of a number of weak positives.

Given the SG admitted last week that they have no idea if someone was symptomatic at the time of being tested when the results come to them, it's fairly clear they are being ultra cautious and just treating any and all positives equally (ie that person is infected and infectious).

This will lead to "clusters" being reported, unnecessary restrictions being in place, and a never ending cycle.

Testing asymptimatic people is not a viable long term strategy if we ever want to get back to anything close to normal.

 

Not meaning to be a smart arse and asking a genuine question.

How can the virus' RNA end up in someone who doesn't have the virus? 

Does that not mean it's present and either they are immune (ie they are a carrier) or they're just asymptomatic? 

[Todd_is_God]

20 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

So are you suggesting there's no point in testing until they get a more accurate method? Forget about test and trace?

Did I say that?

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Not meaning to be a smart arse and asking a genuine question.

How can the virus' RNA end up in someone who doesn't have the virus? 

Does that not mean it's present and either they are immune (ie they are a carrier) or they're just asymptomatic? 

The RNA can remain in a person after the virus is dead (think of it like a finger print that shows you touched something - it doesn't disappear immediately after you leave). It could be that they had a mild / asymptomatic case and got over it, or it could be that their immune system destroyed the virus.

Or, of course, it could mean they are currently infected and could be infectious.

A lab simply saying "this swab tested positive" cannot alone tell the difference.

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Did I say that?

No, you just keep saying the SG don't know what they're doing, while offering no suggestions for what they should be doing.

[John MacLean]

55 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I just find it really odd that no one is asking any of the questions or points being raised to NS, JL or GS when they have the platform to do so. The questions are generally so soft, or the answers to them so blatently obvious, it leaves me wondering if the journalists are just poor at their job, or whether they are warned to stick to within a certain range of questions.

 

There is no conspiracy here so, for that at least, you can stick the tin foil back in the drawer. 

The journalists are interested in pretty much one thing; getting the headline (and online clicks) that they've already decided is their given angle. 

An example: 

Hack: If infection rates were to rise to something approaching March/April levels would you introduce a second Lockdown?

NS: We shouldn't speculate about future infection rates or the impact of them. 

Headline: FM REFUSES TO RULE OUT SECOND LOCKDOWN IF SECOND WAVE HITS

There you have Lockdown and Second Wave included in the same Headline in what, technically, would be an accurate summary of the FM's reply. 

 You can debate whether the above reflects on the standard of journalism and/or our collective attention spans. 

[Todd_is_God]

16 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

No, you just keep saying the SG don't know what they're doing, while offering no suggestions for what they should be doing.

I really don't understand why you are so triggered by that question.

The limitations of the current test are not a secret. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the SG what steps they are taking to validate tests at the weaker end of the spectrum before ordering large groups of people to isolate, businesses to close, and even introducing local restrictions off the back of them.

Is there a particular reason you don't think that's important, or why you wouldn't want it to be asked?

Edited August 24, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, John MacLean said:

There is no conspiracy here so, for that at least, you can stick the tin foil back in the drawer. 

The journalists are interested in pretty much one thing; getting the headline (and online clicks) that they've already decided is their given angle. 

An example: 

Hack: If infection rates were to rise to something approaching March/April levels would you introduce a second Lockdown?

NS: We shouldn't speculate about future infection rates or the impact of them. 

Headline: FM REFUSES TO RULE OUT SECOND LOCKDOWN IF SECOND WAVE HITS

There you have Lockdown and Second Wave included in the same Headline in what, technically, would be an accurate summary of the FM's reply. 

You can debate whether the above reflects on the standard of journalism and/or our collective attention spans. 

Aye, fair point

[Steven W]

10 minutes ago, John MacLean said:

There is no conspiracy here so, for that at least, you can stick the tin foil back in the drawer. 

The journalists are interested in pretty much one thing; getting the headline (and online clicks) that they've already decided is their given angle. 

An example: 

Hack: If infection rates were to rise to something approaching March/April levels would you introduce a second Lockdown?

NS: We shouldn't speculate about future infection rates or the impact of them. 

Headline: FM REFUSES TO RULE OUT SECOND LOCKDOWN IF SECOND WAVE HITS

There you have Lockdown and Second Wave included in the same Headline in what, technically, would be an accurate summary of the FM's reply. 

 You can debate whether the above reflects on the standard of journalism and/or our collective attention spans. 

That did actually happen. Last week I think it was

[Szamo's_Ammo]

1 hour ago, Boostin' Kev said:

Visions of VT punching the air in delight at the news of the 17 teachers in Dundee. 

That must have been some pre-back to school 'drinkypoos' get together in Tonic.

[The Moonster]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

I really don't understand why you are so triggered by that question.

The limitations of the current test are not a secret. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the SG what steps they are taking to validate tests at the weaker end of the spectrum before ordering large groups of people to isolate, businesses to close, and even introducing local restrictions off the back of them.

Is there a particular reason you don't think that's important, or why you wouldn't want it to be asked?

I assume we're using the same test as the rest of the world, do you know what other countries are doing to validate tests at the weaker end? Is it simply getting them tested again?

We received a mailshot from our travel agent that they could offer us COVID-19 tests which were 99.9% accurate. If false positives are as prevalent as being reported I'm not sure any company should be claiming an accuracy rate of 99.9%.

[Todd_is_God]

46 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I assume we're using the same test as the rest of the world, do you know what other countries are doing to validate tests at the weaker end? Is it simply getting them tested again?

There are (I think) around 300 companies producing test kits all over the world. From what I could gather when I read about it, though, the method behid PCR testing is quite bread and butter, and any lab could knock up their own testing facility fairly easily.

No one is doing any validation from what I can tell. This would certainly explain the rise in cases across Europe without the rise in deaths. It's not a public health issue to isolate a healthy person. It will just cause issues if you get panicky with the lockdown button off the back of them.

As for the false positives, weak positives wouldn't be classed as false positives. The RNA is there. The people being tested are just not necessarily infected or infectious.

The sensitivity of the tests is pretty much 100%. If it is negative, you don't have the RNA present. The claim of 99.99% accurate in that instance would be perfectly valid.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Todd_is_God