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

Which ban on recreational cycling did you advise about?

Maybe it's just that it won't be limited to NHS providers. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a huge bidding war after the initial stocks are distributed.

A short summary , and massively paraphrasing with the benefit of hindsight, is that in the early days of the 1st wave I was approached and asked if I would be happy to to make myself available to be "deployed" to help with the NHS response to the pandemic on the basis that they were contacting all former NHS employees with hands on pandemic planning or emergency planning experience.

I got to listen in on some London-specific meetings and heard a lot of discussions about the risks around cycling. The two main concerns were police inability to enforce lockdown if they had to deal with cyclists a long way from home and the unknown around how airborne the virus actually was at the time (various authorities were warning that the viral plume could be up to 30 feet behind a cyclist). The local policing team in my local area were also expressing frustration on lack of clarity on how they should handle a cyclist who was out on a long ride and whether it was acceptable or not under the guidelines back then.

In the event, the decision to bring former NHS pandemic staff back was shelved and I was never used. And nothing ever came of the conversations about curtailing the distance/time that cyclists would be permitted to exercise.

Without trying to figure out the forum search, I assume I relayed the above with a tone of authority that was totally unwarranted and on the basis that I could not provide a source for my info, I was quite rightly criticised for it. Especially so as it never happened in the end. Tensions were high, nobody knew what was going on, after a few days of snarky remarks from people on here I apologised and everybody seemed to move on.

It was mentioned in a face to face meeting with a senior rep from a uni my wife works at

Nothing external as yet as they have to find a way to polish that turd

Of course this isn't a guarantee and everything is subject to U-turns these days

I work for a Russell Group university with very senior people (at Vice Principal and sometimes Principal level - our Principal = everyone else's Vice Chancellor).

Tbh the idea that they have any real insight into high level government decisions like that is a bit laughable, but don't tell anyone because they all think they're very important ;)

Also I'm fairly sure that who pays for (or doesn't pay for) vaccines will be a political decision, not one made by PHE. Which is being abolished anyway.

Or whoever Dido's ripping us off on behalf of the gov (deffo a political choice, I thought was inferred)

Ah yes the cycling restrictions that never happened, I remember.

What do you do in public health or policy research again?

Was it today when there said that there were reviewing the current tiers. Haven't seen any announcements take its as you were apart from London and Essex.

Reviewed today, announced tomorrow apparently.

Like any restriction on cycling would have happened for you in any event. :)

Whoops.

https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1339310484269494273?s=21

Elderly (mid '80s) neighbour just phoned to let me know she has an appointment for the first dose of vaccine this Friday afternoon. First person I know of.
NHS has set up a Community Vaccination Centre in the LBH-owned 'Young People's Centre', just beyond the top of Ruislip High Street, to serve the north of the LB Hillingdon.

Yeah. That "30 people for a business meeting" is fucking stupid.

Let us not go there.

So 20 million people for pfizer.

Is the oxford one as effective as it uses a different method to manufacture (and work)

So what do you do with people who claim they have symptoms, so far is on test 6 and still negative.

How do you deal with this kind of person? They even claim to have long covid symptoms too.

Nothing, but then my post didn't imply that I did so not sure what you mean by that question?

I'm not saying they have it but it's theoretically possible they could:
https://www.gq.com/story/julia-ioffe-false-negative-covid-testing

Get that no test is 100% accurate, but SIX!

EDIT: Also those self administered tests, how many did the swabbing correctly..

As the old saying goes - 99% of the population have a 99% chance of not fully understanding probability theory...

If none of the tests were done during the right time window relative to the onset of symptoms (which IIRC is only a few days) then the probability of them all being negative is quite high.

Even if one of the tests was done at the right time, the probability of them all being negative is the same as the false negative probability for that one test.

So that makes me think how do are the people that have no symptoms get tested and get a positive?

Am confused.

Especially as serco are involved.

So that makes me think how do are the people that have no symptoms get tested and get a positive?

The best time to take the test roughly coincides with the onset of symptoms. In asymptomatic people that day still exists, you just don't get an indicator of when it is/was.

Thirty five thousand new cases yesterday.

And we haven't even got close to the Christmas relaxations yet.

I am totally unable to describe in words how outrageous this situation is.

When do these politically decided deaths amount to a crime?