PT today
 

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:59:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

A similar prediction was also made for Sweden.

PT today
 

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:49:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

On the flip side , the coronavirus death list also includes people who died
WITH the virus, not just those of died OF the virus. Other countries only
measure the latter.

PT today
 

wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:49:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

On the flip side , the coronavirus death list also includes people who died
WITH the virus, not just those of died OF the virus. Other countries only
measure the latter.

As often mentioned, it's best to look at excess deaths, to avoid arguments
about whether death certificates are consistent or accurate. The BBC web
site has an interactive map that lets you compare the excess deaths per
capita in any chosen area with the national average:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

In most of the country, the excess deaths are now running at a low rate,
but I find that in some parts of the country that were hit hard and early,
the excess deaths are now negative. In other words, the virus claimed the
lives of some of the frail people who would have died in June a couple of
months early. Ealing and Hounslow, boroughs adjacent to Heathrow, are
examples where the current death rate is below their norm.

But, to pick a purely random example, County Durham, still has a high CV-19
death rate, so excess deaths are still significant.

PT today
 

In message , at 09:13:34 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:49:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

On the flip side , the coronavirus death list also includes people who died
WITH the virus, not just those of died OF the virus. Other countries only
measure the latter.

How do they know that the thing the person died of, wasn't a consequence
of the virus? Some consequences are well known, but it's becoming
clearer that it affects the blood as well as the lungs. Indeed, the
effect on the lungs may itself often be due to changes in the blood.

Meanwhile, if an affected person is run over by a bus, do they test the
corpse for virus? The UK at least has been severely rationing tests
until quite recently.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

In message , at 09:12:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:59:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

A similar prediction was also made for Sweden.

Who had social distancing and PPE policies. But a lack of lockdown has
meant their infection rate has merely plateaued, and is stuck at around
50 per million, UK is currently regarded as disastrous at 40 (down from
a peak of 80), most of the rest of Europe is now below 10.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:03:38 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:12:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:59:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

A similar prediction was also made for Sweden.

Who had social distancing and PPE policies. But a lack of lockdown has

Voluntary policies. They treated their population as adults, not naughty
children who needed to be coralled at home.

PT today
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:49:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that
rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

On the flip side , the coronavirus death list also includes people who
died
WITH the virus, not just those of died OF the virus. Other countries only
measure the latter.

As often mentioned, it's best to look at excess deaths, to avoid arguments
about whether death certificates are consistent or accurate. The BBC web
site has an interactive map that lets you compare the excess deaths per
capita in any chosen area with the national average:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

but only UK

not for comparison with ROW

PT today
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:13:34 on Mon, 22 Jun 2020,
remarked:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:49:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that
rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

On the flip side , the coronavirus death list also includes people who
died
WITH the virus, not just those of died OF the virus. Other countries only
measure the latter.

How do they know that the thing the person died of, wasn't a consequence
of the virus?

Well they don't, and that's "they" generally, both them and us

the point is the UK are more "honest" about this than some (not all) other
countries.

The UK puts primary cause = pneumonia, secondary cause = COVID on the forms,
thus it counts as a COVID death

some countries put cause = pneumonia and it doesn't count as a COVID death
even if the patient has tested positive

That's all separate from the problem of people dying with COVID, completely
undiagnosed

and people dying of something else completely because they couldn't get the
necessary hospital treatment as all the beds are full

tim

PT today
 

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:49:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that
rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

On the flip side , the coronavirus death list also includes people who
died
WITH the virus, not just those of died OF the virus. Other countries only
measure the latter.

As often mentioned, it's best to look at excess deaths, to avoid arguments
about whether death certificates are consistent or accurate. The BBC web
site has an interactive map that lets you compare the excess deaths per
capita in any chosen area with the national average:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

but only UK

not for comparison with ROW

True. But it's useful to compare different UK areas. There are other sites
that compare the UK with other countries.

PT today
 

tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:13:34 on Mon, 22 Jun 2020,
remarked:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:49:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that
rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

On the flip side , the coronavirus death list also includes people who
died
WITH the virus, not just those of died OF the virus. Other countries only
measure the latter.

How do they know that the thing the person died of, wasn't a consequence
of the virus?

Well they don't, and that's "they" generally, both them and us

the point is the UK are more "honest" about this than some (not all) other
countries.

The UK puts primary cause = pneumonia, secondary cause = COVID on the forms,
thus it counts as a COVID death

some countries put cause = pneumonia and it doesn't count as a COVID death
even if the patient has tested positive

That's all separate from the problem of people dying with COVID, completely
undiagnosed

and people dying of something else completely because they couldn't get the
necessary hospital treatment as all the beds are full

That's why it's best to use the excess deaths estimate when doing
comparisons. Of course, it may not be possible with countries that don't
keep the daily death statistics.

PT today
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:13:34 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020,
remarked:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:49:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19
Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that
the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without
the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public
would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that
rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

On the flip side , the coronavirus death list also includes people who
died
WITH the virus, not just those of died OF the virus. Other countries
only
measure the latter.

How do they know that the thing the person died of, wasn't a consequence
of the virus?

Well they don't, and that's "they" generally, both them and us

the point is the UK are more "honest" about this than some (not all)
other
countries.

The UK puts primary cause = pneumonia, secondary cause = COVID on the
forms,
thus it counts as a COVID death

some countries put cause = pneumonia and it doesn't count as a COVID
death
even if the patient has tested positive

That's all separate from the problem of people dying with COVID,
completely
undiagnosed

and people dying of something else completely because they couldn't get
the
necessary hospital treatment as all the beds are full

That's why it's best to use the excess deaths estimate when doing
comparisons. Of course, it may not be possible with countries that don't
keep the daily death statistics.

doesn't need to be daily

quarterly figures (Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun etc) would be sufficient

PT today
 

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:13:34 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020,
remarked:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:49:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19
Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that
the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without
the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public
would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that
rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

On the flip side , the coronavirus death list also includes people who
died
WITH the virus, not just those of died OF the virus. Other countries
only
measure the latter.

How do they know that the thing the person died of, wasn't a consequence
of the virus?

Well they don't, and that's "they" generally, both them and us

the point is the UK are more "honest" about this than some (not all)
other
countries.

The UK puts primary cause = pneumonia, secondary cause = COVID on the
forms,
thus it counts as a COVID death

some countries put cause = pneumonia and it doesn't count as a COVID
death
even if the patient has tested positive

That's all separate from the problem of people dying with COVID,
completely
undiagnosed

and people dying of something else completely because they couldn't get
the
necessary hospital treatment as all the beds are full

That's why it's best to use the excess deaths estimate when doing
comparisons. Of course, it may not be possible with countries that don't
keep the daily death statistics.

doesn't need to be daily

quarterly figures (Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun etc) would be sufficient

That would be too coarse, but monthly might be enough. The Economist has
some weekly analysis:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries

PT today
 

On 22/06/2020 11:50, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:03:38 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:12:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:59:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

A similar prediction was also made for Sweden.

Who had social distancing and PPE policies. But a lack of lockdown has

Voluntary policies. They treated their population as adults, not naughty
children who needed to be coralled at home.


Here, of course, they had to allow for people like you.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

PT today
 

In message , at 14:20:26 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, tim... remarked:

some countries put cause = pneumonia and it doesn't count as a COVID
death even if the patient has tested positive

Really?
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

In message , at 10:50:17 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:03:38 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:12:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:59:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

A similar prediction was also made for Sweden.

Who had social distancing and PPE policies. But a lack of lockdown has

Voluntary policies. They treated their population as adults, not naughty
children who needed to be coralled at home.

And look how successful that was.

Actually, not bad compared to the "take no action at all" scenario, even
though they nevertheless have the worst figures in Europe.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:50:17 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:03:38 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:12:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:59:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

A similar prediction was also made for Sweden.

Who had social distancing and PPE policies. But a lack of lockdown has

Voluntary policies. They treated their population as adults, not naughty
children who needed to be coralled at home.

And look how successful that was.

Actually, not bad compared to the "take no action at all" scenario, even
though they nevertheless have the worst figures in Europe.

Which 'they' are you referring to in that statement? Presumably not
Sweden, whose figures are better than the UK.

PT today
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:20:26 on Mon, 22 Jun 2020,
tim... remarked:

some countries put cause = pneumonia and it doesn't count as a COVID death
even if the patient has tested positive

Really

apparently

that's how some countries have absurdly low figures for deaths

PT today
 

On 23/06/2020 07:25, tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:20:26 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, tim... remarked:

some countries put cause = pneumonia and it doesn't count as a COVID
death even if the patient has tested positive

Really

apparently

that's how some countries have absurdly low figures for deaths




Cite?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

PT today
 

In message , at 19:54:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:50:17 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:03:38 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:12:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:59:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

A similar prediction was also made for Sweden.

Who had social distancing and PPE policies. But a lack of lockdown has

Voluntary policies. They treated their population as adults, not naughty
children who needed to be coralled at home.

And look how successful that was.

Actually, not bad compared to the "take no action at all" scenario, even
though they nevertheless have the worst figures in Europe.

Which 'they' are you referring to in that statement?

Sweden.

Presumably not Sweden, whose figures are better than the UK.

But are significantly worse than other r27 countries.

ps In case you hadn't noticed, we left Europe.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

In message , at 09:24:49 on Sun, 21 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:

There's nothing in the story from The Telegraph which confirms their
test is *not* one of the kind the MHRA are now saying not to use.

I think you need a drive to Barnard Castle. Then read it again. Or for the
first time.

Please quote the Telegraph text which supports your proposition.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:24:49 on Sun, 21 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:

There's nothing in the story from The Telegraph which confirms their
test is *not* one of the kind the MHRA are now saying not to use.

I think you need a drive to Barnard Castle. Then read it again. Or for the
first time.

Please quote the Telegraph text which supports your proposition.

I already had done. So, even when I include text from an article behind a
paywall, you still don't read it. This is part of the extract I included:

Avonchem contacted the Government in March, offering to supply the
finger-prick test, but has still not secured Public Health England (PHE) or
Department of Health (DoH) approval for the kits, despite the test being
approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
and being widely used in other countries.

The pin-prick test is 99.4 per cent accurate, according to independent
verification obtained by Avonchem, with results available in 10 to 15
minutes. But the firm now warns it may have to ship the tests overseas if
it can not secure the necessary approval for their use in this country in
the near future.


Contrast that with:

The MHRA is asking providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody testing
services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick, to temporarily
stop providing this service until home collection of this sample type has
been properly assessed and validated for use with these laboratory tests.

This does not affect rapid, point of care tests or laboratory tests
performed using blood taken from the vein.

The Agency has recently updated its guidance on home antibody testing kits,
to ensure that the public and industry have the latest information on the
reliability of test results and what they mean.

Graeme Tunbridge, MHRA Interim Director of Devices, comments:

Patient safety and public health are our main priorities and it is in the
interests of everyone for antibody tests to be as reliable and meaningful
as they can be.

There are several UK providers of testing services who offer COVID-19
antibody testing using a fingerprick sample of capillary blood collected in
a small container.

We are asking all providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody testing
services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick to temporarily
stop providing this service until home collection of this sample type has
been properly assessed and validated for use with these laboratory tests.

——

It shouldn't have taken an intelligent person more than 10-15 seconds to
spot that the last sentence means that the MHRA comment doesn't apply to
the Avonchem test, as it doesn't use home collection for lab testing. If
you still don't get it, perhaps you know an intelligent person who can help
you comprehend?

PT today
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:54:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:50:17 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:03:38 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:12:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:59:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

A similar prediction was also made for Sweden.

Who had social distancing and PPE policies. But a lack of lockdown has

Voluntary policies. They treated their population as adults, not naughty
children who needed to be coralled at home.

And look how successful that was.

Actually, not bad compared to the "take no action at all" scenario, even
though they nevertheless have the worst figures in Europe.

Which 'they' are you referring to in that statement?

Sweden.

Presumably not Sweden, whose figures are better than the UK.

But are significantly worse than other r27 countries.

Rubbish. You'll have to cite the scientific paper that supports that fake
statistic. Or did you just make it up?

Meanwhile, in the real world, Sweden has the fifth-worst figures in Europe.
We are second-worst.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/


ps In case you hadn't noticed, we left Europe.

Really? Which continent are we in now?

PT today
 

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:45:58 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:54:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:50:17 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:03:38 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:12:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:59:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

A similar prediction was also made for Sweden.

Who had social distancing and PPE policies. But a lack of lockdown has

Voluntary policies. They treated their population as adults, not naughty
children who needed to be coralled at home.

And look how successful that was.

Actually, not bad compared to the "take no action at all" scenario, even
though they nevertheless have the worst figures in Europe.

Which 'they' are you referring to in that statement?

Sweden.

Presumably not Sweden, whose figures are better than the UK.

But are significantly worse than other r27 countries.

Rubbish. You'll have to cite the scientific paper that supports that fake
statistic. Or did you just make it up?

Meanwhile, in the real world, Sweden has the fifth-worst figures in Europe.
We are second-worst.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...orldwide-per-m
illion-inhabitants/

Further proof if any more was needed that lockdown was a pointless exercise
that has achieved little other than to kill the economy. France had Spain both
had a far stricter lockdown than us yet have fared little better. And its
unlikely to be down to social distancing and PPE since Spain also went for 2m
and AFAIK people had to wear masks in shops. There's something much more subtle
at work IMO.

PT today
 

In message , at 09:45:58 on Tue, 23 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:54:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:50:17 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:03:38 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:12:22 on Mon, 22 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:59:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

A similar prediction was also made for Sweden.

Who had social distancing and PPE policies. But a lack of lockdown has

Voluntary policies. They treated their population as adults, not naughty
children who needed to be coralled at home.

And look how successful that was.

Actually, not bad compared to the "take no action at all" scenario, even
though they nevertheless have the worst figures in Europe.

Which 'they' are you referring to in that statement?

Sweden.

Presumably not Sweden, whose figures are better than the UK.

But are significantly worse than other r27 countries.

Rubbish. You'll have to cite the scientific paper that supports that fake
statistic. Or did you just make it up?

Meanwhile, in the real world, Sweden has the fifth-worst figures in Europe.
We are second-worst.

I was quoting OurWorldinData, and looking at the *current* run-rate of
cases. Which has Sweden at 50 per million, and UK at 38 per million.

The important thing is that Sweden is pretty much plateaued, whereas
most others are declining.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...irus-lockdown-
sweden-death-rate-worst-country-covid-19-a9539206.html

But the Swedish *deaths* are running at twice ours too.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...avirus-deaths-
worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

ps In case you hadn't noticed, we left Europe.

Really? Which continent are we in now?

Not part of the 28, which is why I used the expression r27, above.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

In message , at 09:41:15 on Tue, 23 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:24:49 on Sun, 21 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:

There's nothing in the story from The Telegraph which confirms their
test is *not* one of the kind the MHRA are now saying not to use.

I think you need a drive to Barnard Castle. Then read it again. Or for the
first time.

Please quote the Telegraph text which supports your proposition.

I already had done. So, even when I include text from an article behind a
paywall, you still don't read it. This is part of the extract I included:

Avonchem contacted the Government in March, offering to supply the
finger-prick test,

Finger prick test

but has still not secured Public Health England (PHE) or
Department of Health (DoH) approval for the kits, despite the test being
approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
and being widely used in other countries.

The pin-prick test is 99.4 per cent accurate, according to independent
verification obtained by Avonchem, with results available in 10 to 15
minutes. But the firm now warns it may have to ship the tests overseas if
it can not secure the necessary approval for their use in this country in
the near future.


Contrast that with:

The MHRA is asking providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody testing
services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick, to temporarily
stop providing this service

MHRA says "stop the finger prick tests"...

until home collection of this sample type has
been properly assessed and validated for use with these laboratory tests.

....*until*

This does not affect rapid, point of care tests or laboratory tests
performed using blood taken from the vein.

The Agency has recently updated its guidance on home antibody testing kits,
to ensure that the public and industry have the latest information on the
reliability of test results and what they mean.

Graeme Tunbridge, MHRA Interim Director of Devices, comments:

Patient safety and public health are our main priorities and it is in the
interests of everyone for antibody tests to be as reliable and meaningful
as they can be.

There are several UK providers of testing services who offer COVID-19
antibody testing using a fingerprick sample of capillary blood collected in
a small container.

We are asking all providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody testing
services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick to temporarily
stop providing this service until home collection of this sample type has
been properly assessed and validated for use with these laboratory tests.

——

It shouldn't have taken an intelligent person more than 10-15 seconds to
spot that the last sentence means that the MHRA comment doesn't apply to
the Avonchem test, as it doesn't use home collection for lab testing. If
you still don't get it, perhaps you know an intelligent person who can help
you comprehend?

You've confused yourself. It's not the Avonchem test that's done in the
lab, but the "until" part. And UNTIL they've done that, they don't want
any more pricks [Bites tongue].
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:41:15 on Tue, 23 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:24:49 on Sun, 21 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:

There's nothing in the story from The Telegraph which confirms their
test is *not* one of the kind the MHRA are now saying not to use.

I think you need a drive to Barnard Castle. Then read it again. Or for the
first time.

Please quote the Telegraph text which supports your proposition.

I already had done. So, even when I include text from an article behind a
paywall, you still don't read it. This is part of the extract I included:

Avonchem contacted the Government in March, offering to supply the
finger-prick test,

Finger prick test

but has still not secured Public Health England (PHE) or
Department of Health (DoH) approval for the kits, despite the test being
approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
and being widely used in other countries.

The pin-prick test is 99.4 per cent accurate, according to independent
verification obtained by Avonchem, with results available in 10 to 15
minutes. But the firm now warns it may have to ship the tests overseas if
it can not secure the necessary approval for their use in this country in
the near future.


Contrast that with:

The MHRA is asking providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody testing
services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick, to temporarily
stop providing this service

MHRA says "stop the finger prick tests"...

until home collection of this sample type has
been properly assessed and validated for use with these laboratory tests.

...*until*

This does not affect rapid, point of care tests or laboratory tests
performed using blood taken from the vein.

The Agency has recently updated its guidance on home antibody testing kits,
to ensure that the public and industry have the latest information on the
reliability of test results and what they mean.

Graeme Tunbridge, MHRA Interim Director of Devices, comments:

Patient safety and public health are our main priorities and it is in the
interests of everyone for antibody tests to be as reliable and meaningful
as they can be.

There are several UK providers of testing services who offer COVID-19
antibody testing using a fingerprick sample of capillary blood collected in
a small container.

We are asking all providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody testing
services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick to temporarily
stop providing this service until home collection of this sample type has
been properly assessed and validated for use with these laboratory tests.

——

It shouldn't have taken an intelligent person more than 10-15 seconds to
spot that the last sentence means that the MHRA comment doesn't apply to
the Avonchem test, as it doesn't use home collection for lab testing. If
you still don't get it, perhaps you know an intelligent person who can help
you comprehend?

You've confused yourself. It's not the Avonchem test that's done in the
lab, but the "until" part. And UNTIL they've done that, they don't want
any more pricks [Bites tongue].

The key words are, 'laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody testing'. That
doesn't apply to the Avonchem test.

It's the home collection of pinprick samples for lab analysis that the MHRA
is dubious about; it is explicitly not against 'rapid' tests. Presumably
the problem lies in keeping tiny pinprick blood samples in good condition
during the several days it might take to get them back to the testing lab.
It's not a problem if they're immediately tested.

PT today
 

In article , Recliner
writes
It's the home collection of pinprick samples for lab analysis that the MHRA
is dubious about; it is explicitly not against 'rapid' tests. Presumably
the problem lies in keeping tiny pinprick blood samples in good condition
during the several days it might take to get them back to the testing lab.

We did these last week. You prick your finger, using a provided lancet,
and drip blood into a small tube. Seal the tube with the special cap.
Attach a label. Put the whole lot in the included special envelope which
is designed for the job and pre-labelled. Take to the local post office
and give it to them; it's pre-paid express delivery. Checked and it was
delivered at 06:05 the following morning and we were emailed the results
later in the day.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

PT today
 

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:51:57 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Recliner
writes
It's the home collection of pinprick samples for lab analysis that the MHRA
is dubious about; it is explicitly not against 'rapid' tests. Presumably
the problem lies in keeping tiny pinprick blood samples in good condition
during the several days it might take to get them back to the testing lab.

We did these last week. You prick your finger, using a provided lancet,
and drip blood into a small tube. Seal the tube with the special cap.
Attach a label. Put the whole lot in the included special envelope which
is designed for the job and pre-labelled. Take to the local post office
and give it to them; it's pre-paid express delivery. Checked and it was
delivered at 06:05 the following morning and we were emailed the results
later in the day.

That seems pretty good, but maybe it isn't always? Normal RM
deliveries are typically running a day late at present, but maybe
these express services are still working promptly.

But you missed out the punch line? Was the result as expected? Have
you already had the disease?

PT today
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:41:15 on Tue, 23 Jun

MHRA says "stop the finger prick tests"...

until home collection of this sample type has
been properly assessed and validated for use with these laboratory
tests.

...*until*

This does not affect rapid, point of care tests or laboratory tests
performed using blood taken from the vein.

The Agency has recently updated its guidance on home antibody testing
kits,
to ensure that the public and industry have the latest information on
the
reliability of test results and what they mean.

Graeme Tunbridge, MHRA Interim Director of Devices, comments:

with the announcement that there are now going to be "walk in" centres for
people who cannot attend the current drive-ins, I took a look at the process
so that I might be able to see if my long lasting, but very minor, symptoms
are COVID (as the doctor continually suggest that they might be).

And firstly I fell at the first global hurdle - "you should make sure to
take the test during the first 5 days of symptoms" (so I'm out there by more
than 100 days)

and second I fell at the ridiculous assault course inserted in front of the
walk-in centres - "do not come to the centre by public transport or taxi -
walk or cycle"

there are 4 of them in the whole country

are they really expecting "ill" people to walk/cycle 150 miles to get to one
of them?

Nuts!

tim

PT today
 

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:41:15 on Tue, 23 Jun

MHRA says "stop the finger prick tests"...

until home collection of this sample type has
been properly assessed and validated for use with these laboratory
tests.

...*until*

This does not affect rapid, point of care tests or laboratory tests
performed using blood taken from the vein.

The Agency has recently updated its guidance on home antibody testing
kits,
to ensure that the public and industry have the latest information on
the
reliability of test results and what they mean.

Graeme Tunbridge, MHRA Interim Director of Devices, comments:

with the announcement that there are now going to be "walk in" centres for
people who cannot attend the current drive-ins, I took a look at the process
so that I might be able to see if my long lasting, but very minor, symptoms
are COVID (as the doctor continually suggest that they might be).

And firstly I fell at the first global hurdle - "you should make sure to
take the test during the first 5 days of symptoms" (so I'm out there by more
than 100 days)

and second I fell at the ridiculous assault course inserted in front of the
walk-in centres - "do not come to the centre by public transport or taxi -
walk or cycle"

there are 4 of them in the whole country

are they really expecting "ill" people to walk/cycle 150 miles to get to one
of them?

Nuts!

Yes, that's absurd. Can you get a home antibody test, to check if you've
had and recovered from it?

PT today
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:41:15 on Tue, 23 Jun

MHRA says "stop the finger prick tests"...

until home collection of this sample type has
been properly assessed and validated for use with these laboratory
tests.

...*until*

This does not affect rapid, point of care tests or laboratory tests
performed using blood taken from the vein.

The Agency has recently updated its guidance on home antibody testing
kits,
to ensure that the public and industry have the latest information on
the
reliability of test results and what they mean.

Graeme Tunbridge, MHRA Interim Director of Devices, comments:

with the announcement that there are now going to be "walk in" centres
for
people who cannot attend the current drive-ins, I took a look at the
process
so that I might be able to see if my long lasting, but very minor,
symptoms
are COVID (as the doctor continually suggest that they might be).

And firstly I fell at the first global hurdle - "you should make sure to
take the test during the first 5 days of symptoms" (so I'm out there by
more
than 100 days)

and second I fell at the ridiculous assault course inserted in front of
the
walk-in centres - "do not come to the centre by public transport or
taxi -
walk or cycle"

there are 4 of them in the whole country

are they really expecting "ill" people to walk/cycle 150 miles to get to
one
of them?

Nuts!

Yes, that's absurd. Can you get a home antibody test, to check if you've
had and recovered from it?

I didn't think that such a test was routinely available, even in the private
market

I thought all of these tests were speculate and unreliable

PT today
 

In message , at 06:42:09 on Sat, 27 Jun
2020, tim... remarked:

Can you get a home antibody test, to check if you've
had and recovered from it?

I didn't think that such a test was routinely available, even in the
private market

I thought all of these tests were speculate and unreliable

They are probably still testing the tests.

And, of course, even if you have antibodies, how much does that protect
you, both over time and against different strains. So how confident are
we that the quote[1] in the bumf is actually not actually causing *over*
confidence?

I know someone who took this test recently:

https://www.fortressdiagnostics.com/...tibody-igm-igg

It's quick, at home, but a bit fiddly.

So they are available through certain channels.

[1] "It showed that I have the IGG antibody which means I've had
COVID19. It's given me huge confidence to return to work safely."
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:41:15 on Tue, 23 Jun

MHRA says "stop the finger prick tests"...

until home collection of this sample type has
been properly assessed and validated for use with these laboratory
tests.

...*until*

This does not affect rapid, point of care tests or laboratory tests
performed using blood taken from the vein.

The Agency has recently updated its guidance on home antibody testing
kits,
to ensure that the public and industry have the latest information on
the
reliability of test results and what they mean.

Graeme Tunbridge, MHRA Interim Director of Devices, comments:

with the announcement that there are now going to be "walk in" centres
for
people who cannot attend the current drive-ins, I took a look at the
process
so that I might be able to see if my long lasting, but very minor,
symptoms
are COVID (as the doctor continually suggest that they might be).

And firstly I fell at the first global hurdle - "you should make sure to
take the test during the first 5 days of symptoms" (so I'm out there by
more
than 100 days)

and second I fell at the ridiculous assault course inserted in front of
the
walk-in centres - "do not come to the centre by public transport or
taxi -
walk or cycle"

there are 4 of them in the whole country

are they really expecting "ill" people to walk/cycle 150 miles to get to
one
of them?

Nuts!

Yes, that's absurd. Can you get a home antibody test, to check if you've
had and recovered from it?

I didn't think that such a test was routinely available, even in the private
market

I thought all of these tests were speculate and unreliable

Clive reported having such a test, but with the analysis done the next day
in a lab, not at home. There are also private tests available, not sure how
reliable they are.

PT today
 

In article , Recliner
writes
It's the home collection of pinprick samples for lab analysis that the MHRA
is dubious about;
[...]
Checked and it was
delivered at 06:05 the following morning and we were emailed the results
later in the day.

That seems pretty good, but maybe it isn't always? Normal RM
deliveries are typically running a day late at present, but maybe
these express services are still working promptly.

That's my guess. The big "COVID-19 SAMPLE" sticker on the (supplied)
envelope probably didn't hurt either.

But you missed out the punch line? Was the result as expected? Have
you already had the disease?

I can't tell you that! Georgie would be unhappy that I'm publishing my
personal data!!

(Lrf, vg jnf nf rkcrpgrq: artngvir.)

--
Clive D.W. Feather

PT today
 

In article , Recliner
writes
I didn't think that such a test was routinely available, even in the private
market

I thought all of these tests were speculate and unreliable

Clive reported having such a test, but with the analysis done the next day
in a lab, not at home. There are also private tests available, not sure how
reliable they are.

This was a private test.

It was recommended to me by a senior hospital consultant that I've known
for over 40 years and I trust. She used it for her family and, if I
recall correctly, said it was the one the hospital uses when needed.

I also asked a friend who's a coronavirus and immunization expert at CDC
in Atlanta to look over the company's web site and translate the jargon
for me. He said that it will be reliable in the positive direction - if
it says you have the long term antibodies, you have them - but perhaps
2% false negatives - saying "no" when you do have antibodies. For the
purpose we wanted the tests, that's the right answer.

--
Clive D.W. Feather