https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-07/arh-ykc072720.php
"We found that children under 5 with COVID-19 have a higher viral load than older children and adults, which may suggest greater transmission, as we see with respiratory syncytial virus, also known as RSV," says lead author Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Lurie Children's and Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. "This has important public health implications, especially during discussions on the safety of reopening schools and daycare."
I havent received one,maybe it depends on area/gp? To be honest the government advice for shielded/high risk is mix with your own household and stringently socially distance etc elsewhere. Unfortunately they are also implying that the risk is much less . Which for certain groups it may be. Who knows? Certainly a case of needing to read the small print!Just as I am preparing to go back to work on Monday, I have this morning received a suitably vague letter from my GP's surgery (attached - all personal details removed) .
View attachment 43023
Is the government advising us ALL to stay at home as much as possible? I thought that advice had pretty much ended with the exception of obvious specific areas.
I have no idea if this has gone to everybody or just to diabetics in this locale.
Couldnt put it better myself. Independent Sage always interesting and today commented on the public's increasingly disengagement from the government. Also commented on the influence that those who have vested interests in making/ selling of alcohol have on the government both now and previously. If only as much thought (and resources) was put into opening schools as pubs/gyms/nailbars.There are several problems for diabetics which is why we seem to have been left in the cold.
Firstly I, on advice from my Union, called the Equality & Advisory Support Service over a month ago to ask if I was covered with regard to discrimination through disability. I was told by a very sympathetic advisor that basically it's down to which Judge you would get at any Tribunal because Diabetes isn't written in black and white when it comes to disability discrimination. I think the assumption was that Type 1 would be more likely to be included than Type 2 (not my words).
It's down to the fact that diabetes affects people in different ways and in many ways is a hidden condition to others, much like when I had my work tribunal against the DWP with my Vertigo. If people don't "see" it then it doesn't exist!! For instance and I apologise if anyone is upset by my example, but take me who still plays football with the kids at school and then take someone else who may be in a wheelchair with the condition. A Judge will look at how the condition may impact you, so pre covid there is no way on earth that I could argue that my diabetes stops me from working. It may change as Covid continues of course but again it's all down to a Judge and a Tribunal at the time of writing.
Secondly with regard to Statutory Sick Pay and Welfare payments, as long as we remain in the Clinically Vulnerable Group rather than the Shielded Group we have difficulty because we were never told to officially shield. We were told to work from home if possible, but now the Government wants people to go back to work. Again it would/may be different if the Government said "all back to work except for those with the following conditions who are required to continue to work from home and NOT re-enter the workplace until further notice". Unfortunately they are not saying that, they are using this "if the work place is safe" situation which you cannot prove it is or it isn't. Let's face it no work place is going to be 100% safe with Covid. It might be for one day or a week but certainly the risk increases for every day you are there and the risk also increases as the year goes on and the weather changes. It's like what are the chances of you having a car crash on your way to work? If you work 5 days a week the likely hood is far higher than if you work two days.
It makes me laugh when the Government start banging on about mental health being affected by being stuck at home. At least at home you can stay reasonably safe and can make your own decisions re risk. It's the one thing that makes me really nervous about going back and that's the fact that I am "always" going to be on edge. The asymptomatic reality of this virus means that I will never relax at all constantly, permanently wondering if I am going to fall ill within the next 6 days. That's the problem because you "don't know" if you have been infected or not and that means you will never be 100% sure if you are covid free. Sounds dramatic but it's probably as close as I will ever get to experience being on death row, never knowing when the Governor is going to call but you could be there for years or a couple of weeks!!
The problem is no body whether it's the Employers, Unions, GP's or whoever is going by anything else bar what has proven to be flawed Government Advice. I wouldn't even by a car of Boris!! Someone somewhere needs to take responsibility, even if it's to make a legal challenge because it makes no sense that the risk to the clinically vulnerable can change from March to July/August when the same pesky virus is still out there.
And today Wales has announced further relaxation of safety measures, in order to save the tourist industry.
And more false positives of course...
I thought the choice of words from the ONS was interesting
View attachment 43024
Specifically not an "increase in infections"
"it makes no sense that the risk to the clinically vulnerable can change from March to July/August when the same pesky virus is still out there." They are even expecting the "shielded" to return to work (and the shops etc), on Monday so Good Luck with getting any consideration if you are clinically vulnerable!There are several problems for diabetics which is why we seem to have been left in the cold.
Firstly I, on advice from my Union, called the Equality & Advisory Support Service over a month ago to ask if I was covered with regard to discrimination through disability. I was told by a very sympathetic advisor that basically it's down to which Judge you would get at any Tribunal because Diabetes isn't written in black and white when it comes to disability discrimination. I think the assumption was that Type 1 would be more likely to be included than Type 2 (not my words).
It's down to the fact that diabetes affects people in different ways and in many ways is a hidden condition to others, much like when I had my work tribunal against the DWP with my Vertigo. If people don't "see" it then it doesn't exist!! For instance and I apologise if anyone is upset by my example, but take me who still plays football with the kids at school and then take someone else who may be in a wheelchair with the condition. A Judge will look at how the condition may impact you, so pre covid there is no way on earth that I could argue that my diabetes stops me from working. It may change as Covid continues of course but again it's all down to a Judge and a Tribunal at the time of writing.
Secondly with regard to Statutory Sick Pay and Welfare payments, as long as we remain in the Clinically Vulnerable Group rather than the Shielded Group we have difficulty because we were never told to officially shield. We were told to work from home if possible, but now the Government wants people to go back to work. Again it would/may be different if the Government said "all back to work except for those with the following conditions who are required to continue to work from home and NOT re-enter the workplace until further notice". Unfortunately they are not saying that, they are using this "if the work place is safe" situation which you cannot prove it is or it isn't. Let's face it no work place is going to be 100% safe with Covid. It might be for one day or a week but certainly the risk increases for every day you are there and the risk also increases as the year goes on and the weather changes. It's like what are the chances of you having a car crash on your way to work? If you work 5 days a week the likely hood is far higher than if you work two days.
It makes me laugh when the Government start banging on about mental health being affected by being stuck at home. At least at home you can stay reasonably safe and can make your own decisions re risk. It's the one thing that makes me really nervous about going back and that's the fact that I am "always" going to be on edge. The asymptomatic reality of this virus means that I will never relax at all constantly, permanently wondering if I am going to fall ill within the next 6 days. That's the problem because you "don't know" if you have been infected or not and that means you will never be 100% sure if you are covid free. Sounds dramatic but it's probably as close as I will ever get to experience being on death row, never knowing when the Governor is going to call but you could be there for years or a couple of weeks!!
The problem is no body whether it's the Employers, Unions, GP's or whoever is going by anything else bar what has proven to be flawed Government Advice. I wouldn't even by a car of Boris!! Someone somewhere needs to take responsibility, even if it's to make a legal challenge because it makes no sense that the risk to the clinically vulnerable can change from March to July/August when the same pesky virus is still out there.
Just as I am preparing to go back to work on Monday, I have this morning received a suitably vague letter from my GP's surgery (attached - all personal details removed) .
View attachment 43023
Is the government advising us ALL to stay at home as much as possible? I thought that advice had pretty much ended with the exception of obvious specific areas.
I have no idea if this has gone to everybody or just to diabetics in this locale.
Ah sometimes it's difficult to know whether to laugh or screamThis is a fabulous article from John Rentoul of the Independent.
What Boris Johnson said: Two weeks ago, I updated you from this podium on the progress we had made as a country against coronavirus. And in many ways that progress continues.
What he really meant: That progress does not continue.
What he said: But I have also consistently warned that this virus could come back and that we would not hesitate to take swift and decisive action as required.
What he meant: I have always delivered mixed messages.
What he said: I am afraid that in parts of Asia and Latin America the virus is now gathering pace. And our European friends are also struggling to keep the virus under control. As we see these rises around the world, we cannot fool ourselves that we are exempt.
What he meant: I have been world class in my ability to fool myself that we are exempt. Yesterday I claimed “massive success” on the day the Office for National Statistics found that England had the highest number of excess deaths in Europe.
What he said: Last night the health secretary announced new restrictions on household contact in the northwest.
What he meant: He didn’t do it very well and a lot of people are very cross with him, so you note I say “the health secretary” (that’s Matt Hancock) not “the government” (that’s me, buck stops here etcetera).
What he said: Even as we act locally, it is also my responsibility to look again at the measures we have in place nationally in light of the data we are seeing about incidence.
What he meant: Responsibility? Who wrote this bit?
What he said: You will remember that at every point I have said our plan to reopen society and the economy is conditional – that it relies on continued progress against the virus, and that we would not hesitate to put on the brakes if required.
What he meant: I definitely said it and it’s your fault if you think I said, “Get back to work; get yourself a sandwich; here’s a tenner to paint the town red”. I was very clear. I said: “Go to work, don’t go to work.”
What he said: With those numbers creeping up, our assessment is that we should now squeeze that brake pedal in order to keep the virus under control.
What he meant: I am the Lewis Hamilton of public health policy. Where’s the reverse gear?
What he said: On Saturday 1 August, you’ll remember, we had hoped to reopen in England a number of higher-risk settings that had remained closed. Today, I am afraid we are postponing these changes for at least a fortnight.
What he meant: That’s tomorrow, by the way. Tomorrow’s off.
What he said: We will, of course, study the data carefully and move forward with our intention to open up as soon as we possibly can.
What he meant: Chris Whitty says we can’t and I have to do what he says or the public inquiry will tear me to shreds.
What he said: We also said we would pause shielding nationally from 1 August – based on clinical advice, that national pause will proceed as planned, and our medical experts will be explaining more about that decision later and about shielding later today.
What he meant: The messages get so mixed at this point that it is probably best if I just hand over to someone in a metaphorical white coat.
What he said: Most people in this country are following the rules and doing their bit to control the virus. But we must keep our discipline, we must be focused and we cannot be complacent.
What he meant: Some people have been tearing the pants out of the guidance.
What he said: It means a greater police presence to ensure face coverings are being worn where this is required by law.
What he meant: I don’t believe in this and the police don’t want to do it, but I have to say it because otherwise it will look as if I’m not taking it seriously.
What he said: This is how we will avoid any return to a full national lockdown.
What he meant: If you don’t do as you’re told, you will be letting everybody else down and worst of all you will be sent back into your houses and told to stay there.
What he said: I do believe that getting our children back into school on 1 September, or 11 August in Scotland, is a good thing. That should be a national priority; that should be something that we aim to deliver.
What he meant: But is it going to happen? Don’t ask me, I’m just the prime minister.
What he said: The only real utensil we have for controlling the spread of this new virus is human behaviour.
What he meant: And if I can’t sprinkle my answers with Bjork references, what even is the point of being prime minister?
What he said [When John Stevens of the Daily Mail asked about his summer plans]: I will be working flat out as you can imagine; I may allow a brief staycation to creep on to the agenda if that’s possible.
What he meant: Remember when David Cameron had to go on holiday to Cornwall, sulked about it and then jetted off somewhere sunnier? That.
What he said: Ultimately, you know, it’s up to everybody, it’s, it’s up to the whole country to get this right and to do it together.
What he meant: How do you put this thing into reverse?
I don't think he is ready for stand-up.This is a fabulous article from John Rentoul of the Independent.
What Boris Johnson said: Two weeks ago, I updated you from this podium on the progress we had made as a country against coronavirus. And in many ways that progress continues.
What he really meant: That progress does not continue.
What he said: But I have also consistently warned that this virus could come back and that we would not hesitate to take swift and decisive action as required.
What he meant: I have always delivered mixed messages.
What he said: I am afraid that in parts of Asia and Latin America the virus is now gathering pace. And our European friends are also struggling to keep the virus under control. As we see these rises around the world, we cannot fool ourselves that we are exempt.
What he meant: I have been world class in my ability to fool myself that we are exempt. Yesterday I claimed “massive success” on the day the Office for National Statistics found that England had the highest number of excess deaths in Europe.
What he said: Last night the health secretary announced new restrictions on household contact in the northwest.
What he meant: He didn’t do it very well and a lot of people are very cross with him, so you note I say “the health secretary” (that’s Matt Hancock) not “the government” (that’s me, buck stops here etcetera).
What he said: Even as we act locally, it is also my responsibility to look again at the measures we have in place nationally in light of the data we are seeing about incidence.
What he meant: Responsibility? Who wrote this bit?
What he said: You will remember that at every point I have said our plan to reopen society and the economy is conditional – that it relies on continued progress against the virus, and that we would not hesitate to put on the brakes if required.
What he meant: I definitely said it and it’s your fault if you think I said, “Get back to work; get yourself a sandwich; here’s a tenner to paint the town red”. I was very clear. I said: “Go to work, don’t go to work.”
What he said: With those numbers creeping up, our assessment is that we should now squeeze that brake pedal in order to keep the virus under control.
What he meant: I am the Lewis Hamilton of public health policy. Where’s the reverse gear?
What he said: On Saturday 1 August, you’ll remember, we had hoped to reopen in England a number of higher-risk settings that had remained closed. Today, I am afraid we are postponing these changes for at least a fortnight.
What he meant: That’s tomorrow, by the way. Tomorrow’s off.
What he said: We will, of course, study the data carefully and move forward with our intention to open up as soon as we possibly can.
What he meant: Chris Whitty says we can’t and I have to do what he says or the public inquiry will tear me to shreds.
What he said: We also said we would pause shielding nationally from 1 August – based on clinical advice, that national pause will proceed as planned, and our medical experts will be explaining more about that decision later and about shielding later today.
What he meant: The messages get so mixed at this point that it is probably best if I just hand over to someone in a metaphorical white coat.
What he said: Most people in this country are following the rules and doing their bit to control the virus. But we must keep our discipline, we must be focused and we cannot be complacent.
What he meant: Some people have been tearing the pants out of the guidance.
What he said: It means a greater police presence to ensure face coverings are being worn where this is required by law.
What he meant: I don’t believe in this and the police don’t want to do it, but I have to say it because otherwise it will look as if I’m not taking it seriously.
What he said: This is how we will avoid any return to a full national lockdown.
What he meant: If you don’t do as you’re told, you will be letting everybody else down and worst of all you will be sent back into your houses and told to stay there.
What he said: I do believe that getting our children back into school on 1 September, or 11 August in Scotland, is a good thing. That should be a national priority; that should be something that we aim to deliver.
What he meant: But is it going to happen? Don’t ask me, I’m just the prime minister.
What he said: The only real utensil we have for controlling the spread of this new virus is human behaviour.
What he meant: And if I can’t sprinkle my answers with Bjork references, what even is the point of being prime minister?
What he said [When John Stevens of the Daily Mail asked about his summer plans]: I will be working flat out as you can imagine; I may allow a brief staycation to creep on to the agenda if that’s possible.
What he meant: Remember when David Cameron had to go on holiday to Cornwall, sulked about it and then jetted off somewhere sunnier? That.
What he said: Ultimately, you know, it’s up to everybody, it’s, it’s up to the whole country to get this right and to do it together.
What he meant: How do you put this thing into reverse?
Other than interpretation of this statement (Which is quite frankly stretched to fit your point) is there any evidence of false positives? I’m hearing of false negatives but not the reverse other than in possibly “reinfection” situations after recovery which has the possible explanation of inactive rna fragments from the earlier infection.And more false positives of course...
I thought the choice of words from the ONS was interesting
View attachment 43024
Specifically not an "increase in infections"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?