Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

Was the LSHTM model that cases were tracking disaggregated by region? I would be interested to see the model versus the cases in London.

Was the LSHTM model that cases were tracking disaggregated by region?

No, I don't think it was.

There's still a lot of debate on whether London is peaking right now or whether there is something weird about the data. Positivity still climbing, tests taken have plummeted...but case numbers have dropped by way too much over the period between xmas and NY to be explained away by fewer people taking tests or any of the "festive effects" or day of week effects.

Its a real opinion divider. Will be interesting to see how the next week pans out. If you just look at the numbers, London has peaked. If you look at how the numbers relate to each other, the pattern isn't quite how you'd expect.

I was looking at the hospital data, not case data. I guess there could be a holiday effect around hospital data (in the reporting).

Well, on the daily briefing Sir Chris Whitty was just asked about not taking lateral flow tests for 90 days following a positive test and didn't quite answer the question involved.

I'll dig up his answer once I can find a recording to review, and I've got the time to go looking through it.

I was looking at the hospital data, not case data. I guess there could be a holiday effect around hospital data (in the reporting).

Sure, but in the past, case rates have been a good predictor of the admissions peak.

I don't think the festive effect explains the situation in London. Every year the NHS sees a drop in admissions over the festive period but this was much bigger in London than elsewhere this time round.

That said, it has been over 15 years since it was last my job to analyse NHS admissions and its something I only ever did for London trusts so its perfectly possible that London has more of a festive effect than other regions (perhaps more people leaving the city to visit family?!)

Anyway, I'm still siding with London peaking with cases later this week but its an unpopular and disputed view. Next week I'll either be smug or have egg on my face.

Our NHS Trust has moved from twice weekly LFT... to taking an LFT every morning before work (for patient facing staff.)

Best try and get some more tests from somewhere...

Yeh he didn't really address it, he emphasised that LFT's are a good indication of infectiousness and then answered a different question about PCR's but didn't answer why old guidance was no LFT or PCR for 90 days but now isnt

https://youtu.be/yl78rcVww4E?t=1690

Should link to the right timestamp for the question, but it's 28:10 if that hotlink doesn't work, and goes on until 30:01.

Rough transcription follows:

"
Q: I had COVID at the beginning of November and was told by Test and Trace not to take a lateral flow test for 91 days as the result may not be accurate. So how is it now reliable to use the results of these tests on days 6 & 7 to reduce the isolation period? Does the 91 day period for not using lateral flow tests no longer apply?

Amanda from Cheshire

Johnson: Er, Chris, I'm going to defer to you on this one.

Witty: Thank you Prime Minister. The answer is that the key thing the lateral flow is really good at ... is the fact that it ... is a pretty good guide, a very good guide actually, to whether someone is at that moment infectious. And so the reason that we feel that it is a useful tool to allow on day 6 and day 7 someone has isolated because they know they've got COVID day 5 and a negative test on day 6 and a negative test on day 7 we have confidence they are much less likely to be in any way infectious to other people if they then leave isolation than if they had not done those tests. So that's the reason why adding those tests on allowed ministers to decide to move from 10 days isolation down to 7, but the last two you do the lateral test because they are very predictive of how infectious someone is, obviously if they still positive they do need to stay in isolation 'til it goes negative.

Witty: The PCR tests, which are the other way of testing, they can remain positive for a long time after someone has had an infection, including beyond the point where they are infectious. So the reason that we find the PCRs extremely good because they are very sensitive and they are extremely good because they tell you which type of variant of Covid, it's got many advantages but the lateral flows are really good at helping to determine whether someone is infectious at that point to other people.
"

So, there you go. If you test positive on a lateral flow on either day 6 or day 7 of your isolation you should continue to isolate until you test negative.

Also he seems pretty confident that they are a very good indicator of whether someone is infectious or not at that point in time, and that applies near the end of an infection too.

I'll leave it to others to challenge Prof Sir Chris Whitty for his sources.

And, PERSONAL OPINION ALERT I think it's pretty clear given what he said that he doesn't think that people shouldn't take lateral flow tests within 90 days of originally testing positive, otherwise why would he be advocating the current advice of people taking them on day 6 and day 7 to end isolation "early".

And, again, PERSONAL OPINION ALERT, I think the 90 day thing only ever really was meant to apply to PCR tests but somewhere along the way lateral flows got bundled in there too which just confused things. Further conjecture by me would probably say it was a deliberate and cynical move by the Government to avoid spotlights on the shortages of tests early last year, and the staff shortages (in healthcare, care homes and schools) that would almost certainly have occurred if many of the staff had been actively testing frequently in those long periods where Delta was on the rise. Instead they let it circulate amongst the much less statistically vulnerable.

Also I've no idea why certain individuals continue to test positive on lateral flow tests but negative on PCR tests. But you shouldn't use the fallacy of perfection to throw away the wide sweeping benefits of LFDs and PCRs just because they fail in odd ways for a very small minority.

So, there you go. If you test positive on a lateral flow on either day 6 or day 7 of your isolation you should continue to isolate until you test negative.

So you're saying he's saying you can't leave isolation until you test negative? I'll put a tenner towards crisis that you're wrong.

Fuck it. Tenner sent. This thread is on ignore again.

So you're saying he's saying you can't leave isolation until you test negative?

For some people in some circumstances you have to isolate for ten days even if you NEVER test positive (18yo+ unvaccinated close contacts of a case).

In the circumstances that you peeps are bickering about, you can leave self isolation after 10 days if you are still testing positive with a lateral flow. But ONLY if you don't have a high temperature, and you're not feeling unwell. If you test positive on LFT on day 6 or later, you need to complete your ten days.

Or at least that is what the NHS guidance says.

"
So that's the reason why adding those tests on allowed ministers to decide to move from 10 days isolation down to 7, but the last two you do the lateral test because they are very predictive of how infectious someone is, obviously if they still positive they do need to stay in isolation 'til it goes negative.
"

Was a direct quote from him.

[EDIT] Anyway, I recognise that a single quote from a TV briefing does not define official Government policy, however (to me) it's indicative of the difference of opinions between the scientists/medics and the politicians. It would be completely unsurprising to find that what is currently Government policy doesn't go far enough in Whitty/Valance's opinion.

I know thats what he said. You quoted it above.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/04/no-need-to-isolate-after-day-10-even-with-positive-test-england-rules-say

Prof Chris Whitty has sparked confusion by saying people should stay in self-isolation “until their test goes negative”, despite official guidance allowing a day 10 exit even with a positive lateral flow test.

Why don’t you both send a tenner to me and call it a score draw?

Im so confused, Chris sounding like Boris now.

I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to #25862 and since t'other had flounced I wasn't going to reply to them cirectly to avoid them getting a reply notification for a thread they didn't care about.

Yes, this will be interesting to see how this plays out.

On the one hand you've got the politicians that really want people to be out and about and not facing seemingly endless isolation, and then you've got the scientists that are saying that a positive lateral flow is a very good indicator that someone is still infectious, so do you really want them wandering around in society if they're still testing positive at the end of their designated isolation period.

(It's almost as if this was the exact set of points I was making a few days ago.)

Frankly ridiculous IMO, if you're aiming for zero risk then you're gonna have a miserable time.

I don't think my brother-in-law's wife has let their family leave the house since April 2020 more than a handful of times.

They have . . . issues.

at least that is what the NHS guidance says.

That isn't what the guidance says for thier staff

An example but know others in other trusts have had to follow the same:
https://www.ouh.nhs.uk/working-for-us/staff/covid-staff-faqs-self-isolation.aspx

If the test is positive on the 10th day, you should continue to take daily tests and must not return to work until you get a negative test result

Oh bollocks, I went to A&E to get some chest pain checked out on Monday, and just got a notification I was sitting near someone who's tested positive. Was probably in the same small waiting area as them for about 5 hours, so it feels more worrying compared to the other day when I had a notification and had been near a co-worker for maybe 25 minutes. I have oral surgery tomorrow and have a bad feeling I'm gonna wake up feeling like shit and get bumped back 2 months (again).

Gotta say it pissed me off to hear everyone coming in saying 'no of course, no fever or cough or anything' when questioned at the door, then multiple people would sit down and start coughing up a lung, sometimes with their mask on their chin. Meanwhile I was gritting my teeth wearing this FFP3 that sliced into my ears for about 7.5 hours total.

It's sad honestly

My other cousin didn't come for Christmas because of the case numbers.

It all felt very safe despite current situation, small Christmas, everyone lat flowed, everyone recently boosted etc. If that isn't something safe to do then Im not sure what will be for him

It's sad honestly

I hear you.

The in-laws have a 4 year-old that has had pretty much zero interaction with any other human, let alone other children, in their entire life.

It's not just a covid thing though, although covid has been a nucleating point and facilitator for all degrees of psychoses.

That's sad. Saw this today:

At six months of age, babies born during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic scored lower on developmental screening tests for social and motor skills -- regardless of whether their mothers had COVID during pregnancy -- compared to babies born just before the pandemic.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2787479

I hope it's recoverable.

That isn't what the guidance says for thier staff

AFAIK trusts get to set their own policies, which can be tighter than the rules for us plebs.