Music0 min ago
Double Jabbed Can Still Spread Covid
46 Answers
We know that...but now we can see how high the rate is. Just be careful everyone.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pastafreak. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//...but now we can see how high the rate is//
The reason the rate is high is because this country is testing a stupendous number of people. As I said in another thread, the UK undertakes by far and away the greatest number of tests per head in Europe and probably the world. More than a million tests a day are carried out. The vast majority are on people displaying no symptoms and the vast majority (more than 95%) turn out to be negative. The only country coming near to this number of test is France (which carries about about half the number per head). The UK carries out ten times the rate than Germany does and fifteen times the rate in Greece. For as long as this goes on, the country will record high numbers of infections. It is costing a huge amount of money and it is largely wasted.
The disease is endemic in the UK now and will remain so for decades. This ridiculous regime of testing has not prevented its spread and it was never likely to. The only testing that is necessary now is on those displaying symptoms and then only to determine what treatment they need. There is simply no need to test anybody else. The spread of the disease cannot be prevented and those who are particularly vulnerable to it must take whatever precautions they think fit.
The reason the rate is high is because this country is testing a stupendous number of people. As I said in another thread, the UK undertakes by far and away the greatest number of tests per head in Europe and probably the world. More than a million tests a day are carried out. The vast majority are on people displaying no symptoms and the vast majority (more than 95%) turn out to be negative. The only country coming near to this number of test is France (which carries about about half the number per head). The UK carries out ten times the rate than Germany does and fifteen times the rate in Greece. For as long as this goes on, the country will record high numbers of infections. It is costing a huge amount of money and it is largely wasted.
The disease is endemic in the UK now and will remain so for decades. This ridiculous regime of testing has not prevented its spread and it was never likely to. The only testing that is necessary now is on those displaying symptoms and then only to determine what treatment they need. There is simply no need to test anybody else. The spread of the disease cannot be prevented and those who are particularly vulnerable to it must take whatever precautions they think fit.
// The reason the rate is high is because this country is testing a stupendous number of people.//
o god send him back to skool someone !
judges' skool even
the NUMBER is high is because this country is testing a stupendous number of people.
the rate is over time and should be per head and should be unaffected (*)
Hey everybody - - - there are ten thousand cases out there, and only two thousand have tested positive -
Can anyone see the fallacy? they only tested 2000
I mean - can we keep our brains 'ON' whilst posting
trump said the same....
Yeah, I mean - can we keep our brains 'ON' whilst posting
(*) rate should be reserved for time series.
o god send him back to skool someone !
judges' skool even
the NUMBER is high is because this country is testing a stupendous number of people.
the rate is over time and should be per head and should be unaffected (*)
Hey everybody - - - there are ten thousand cases out there, and only two thousand have tested positive -
Can anyone see the fallacy? they only tested 2000
I mean - can we keep our brains 'ON' whilst posting
trump said the same....
Yeah, I mean - can we keep our brains 'ON' whilst posting
(*) rate should be reserved for time series.
anyway - sorry to mention it BUT
wasnt a Very Important Lawyer on these very threads asking:
Chris - why oh why are you testing regularly when you have proven to be negative ?
yeah - wasnt a nasal mouth breather askinng about testing negatives? to a chorus of 'because they may turn positive and be infectious!'
ho hum must be AB at midday
wasnt a Very Important Lawyer on these very threads asking:
Chris - why oh why are you testing regularly when you have proven to be negative ?
yeah - wasnt a nasal mouth breather askinng about testing negatives? to a chorus of 'because they may turn positive and be infectious!'
ho hum must be AB at midday
Peter@11:23...according to this FT article it was published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases...
https:/
https:/
Here you are Peter...
https:/
https:/
Here's another read for you Peter...
https:/
https:/
Lancet article is- - - not very readable
In 25% of households they looked at they had a double vacc who tested positive and who passed it onto another double vacc - I think
and then said - well breakthro we know is already at this level
They also said that the majority of infections are household driven which wd indicate the public wearing of masks does diddly squat
In 25% of households they looked at they had a double vacc who tested positive and who passed it onto another double vacc - I think
and then said - well breakthro we know is already at this level
They also said that the majority of infections are household driven which wd indicate the public wearing of masks does diddly squat
//Negative tests are not wasted! They allow people to go into work or school even if there household is positive//
If they were not tested at all they would still be able to go to work or school. You don’t need a negative test to go to work. I have only had one test and that was ten days ago because I’d returned from abroad. It returned negative (which is hardly surprising considering the lack of vigour I exercised when taking it). Having no other negative tests would not have prevented me from working. You have fallen into the trap that people should need to prove their cleanliness to go to work – they should not.
//…the rate is over time and should be per head and should be unaffected//
I don’t often respond to your ramblings Peter, but just this once I know about the aspect of your pedantry surrounding the use of the term “rate” but please don’t suggest I’ve left my brains in the toybox because of it. It is scarcely my fault that you have a misunderstanding of what English words mean. A “rate” does not have to be over time. One dictionary definition of “rate: “a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against another quantity or measure.” In this case I am referring to the number of tests undertaken compared to the number of people in the country – the rate of testing among the population. In the UK it is roughly one in sixty-five. Germany is testing less than one person in 600; Greece about one in a thousand. If the infection rates (remember the definition) are similar in each country it is hardly surprising that the UK records the most.
//They also said that the majority of infections are household driven which wd indicate the public wearing of masks does diddly squat//
At least we can agree on that – even if not necessarily for the same reason.
If they were not tested at all they would still be able to go to work or school. You don’t need a negative test to go to work. I have only had one test and that was ten days ago because I’d returned from abroad. It returned negative (which is hardly surprising considering the lack of vigour I exercised when taking it). Having no other negative tests would not have prevented me from working. You have fallen into the trap that people should need to prove their cleanliness to go to work – they should not.
//…the rate is over time and should be per head and should be unaffected//
I don’t often respond to your ramblings Peter, but just this once I know about the aspect of your pedantry surrounding the use of the term “rate” but please don’t suggest I’ve left my brains in the toybox because of it. It is scarcely my fault that you have a misunderstanding of what English words mean. A “rate” does not have to be over time. One dictionary definition of “rate: “a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against another quantity or measure.” In this case I am referring to the number of tests undertaken compared to the number of people in the country – the rate of testing among the population. In the UK it is roughly one in sixty-five. Germany is testing less than one person in 600; Greece about one in a thousand. If the infection rates (remember the definition) are similar in each country it is hardly surprising that the UK records the most.
//They also said that the majority of infections are household driven which wd indicate the public wearing of masks does diddly squat//
At least we can agree on that – even if not necessarily for the same reason.
NJ, where are you getting the testing rates from? As of Wednesday, there had been 325,738,621 virus tests in the UK accounting to government figures.
https:/
That figure clearly includes folk being tested multiple times but what is your source for the numbers of individuals in each country?
https:/
That figure clearly includes folk being tested multiple times but what is your source for the numbers of individuals in each country?
//That figure clearly includes folk being tested multiple times but what is your source for the numbers of individuals in each country?//
They are all over the place, Corby. I'll try to find some later. As far as the UK's figures go, less than 5% of tests are proving positive. The peak of infections (but which I assume positive tests) was around 50k, which indicates that around one million tests were undertaken.
They are all over the place, Corby. I'll try to find some later. As far as the UK's figures go, less than 5% of tests are proving positive. The peak of infections (but which I assume positive tests) was around 50k, which indicates that around one million tests were undertaken.
// You don’t need a negative test to go to work. //
legally, no. however a lot of premises i visit have made it a condition of entry via their company covid-secure policy - no negative test (24hr or less before visit), no entry.
on average I'm taking 1-2 antigen tests a week, and each result has to be registered with the NHS, and their confirmatory email sent to the company before the visit, together with a photo of the test. most companies also check your temperature on arrival.
legally, no. however a lot of premises i visit have made it a condition of entry via their company covid-secure policy - no negative test (24hr or less before visit), no entry.
on average I'm taking 1-2 antigen tests a week, and each result has to be registered with the NHS, and their confirmatory email sent to the company before the visit, together with a photo of the test. most companies also check your temperature on arrival.
I am sorry Judge but you have left your brains in a wig today
A “rate” does not have to be over time.
a rate DOES have to over time - it is very confusing not to. Similarly 'significant' must NOT be used for important whether or not the dictionary says it can. It should only be used for 5% stat significance
I just hope you dont adjudicate (nay pray) in a covid case - or an asbestos case
Typical judge-itis - a judge ccan *** something up and shrug his shoulders, and say: "well that is what the law is, until you appeal"
The fact that you have no idea what the difference between a raw number ( 1500 cases today) and a ratio 500 per 100,000 - pleads my case and not yours ( that one should call a thing a thing and not another thing)
and thank you for reading and understanding my point about rates. Learning at this er rate (pun intended) will take about a year - thousands on AB didnt
A “rate” does not have to be over time.
a rate DOES have to over time - it is very confusing not to. Similarly 'significant' must NOT be used for important whether or not the dictionary says it can. It should only be used for 5% stat significance
I just hope you dont adjudicate (nay pray) in a covid case - or an asbestos case
Typical judge-itis - a judge ccan *** something up and shrug his shoulders, and say: "well that is what the law is, until you appeal"
The fact that you have no idea what the difference between a raw number ( 1500 cases today) and a ratio 500 per 100,000 - pleads my case and not yours ( that one should call a thing a thing and not another thing)
and thank you for reading and understanding my point about rates. Learning at this er rate (pun intended) will take about a year - thousands on AB didnt
// If the infection rates (remember the definition) are similar in each country//
I DO remember the difference - like the leedol MOzart, I scream when I hear it used wrongl
here, the infection rate = prevalence innit? - yes I do remember the definition
I am strongly reminded of Lord mersey in the titanic inquiry 1912 - "what do all these numbers mean, they mean nothing to me" - that was the positions of the boats.....
I DO remember the difference - like the leedol MOzart, I scream when I hear it used wrongl
here, the infection rate = prevalence innit? - yes I do remember the definition
I am strongly reminded of Lord mersey in the titanic inquiry 1912 - "what do all these numbers mean, they mean nothing to me" - that was the positions of the boats.....
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.