So has anyone got the NHS app and had the 'potentinal covid exposure' notification? Does anyone know how long it roughly takes for this to be verified and tell you whether to self-isolate?

So has anyone got the NHS app and had the 'potentinal covid exposure' notification? Does anyone know how long it roughly takes for this to be verified and tell you whether to self-isolate?

 

I know with the Northern Irish app there were two different notifications of this type, one where you don’t need to isolate and one where you do, so it might be worth checking to see what the app website says in relation to this.

I know with the Northern Irish app there were two different notifications of this type, one where you don’t need to isolate and one where you do, so it might be worth checking to see what the app website says in relation to this.

 

There's nothing in the app and the guidance says that specific push notification is from Apple notifying that someone within Bluetooth range has tested positive. Apparently if you have to isolate its then built in to the app. The app shows nothing so far. It's all a bit confusing really.

interesting article from the atlantic suggesting we need to start paying more attention to k, or the dispersion of the virus, and not focus so much on r. most interesting are the implications for contact tracing; instead of targeting every infected person and tracking down everyone they came in contact with, it's more useful and more resourceful to go backwards to find the person who infected them and then forward trace from that person, as more often than not with this virus, it traces back to to one superspreader event or person.

 

The reason for backward tracing’s importance is similar to what the sociologist Scott L. Feld called the friendship paradox: Your friends are, on average, going to have more friends than you. (Sorry!) It’s straightforward once you take the network-level view. Friendships are not distributed equally; some people have a lot of friends, and your friend circle is more likely to include those social butterflies, because how could it not? They friended you and others. And those social butterflies will drive up the average number of friends that your friends have compared with you, a regular person. (Of course, this will not hold for the social butterflies themselves, but overdispersion means that there are much fewer of them.) Similarly, the infectious person who is transmitting the disease is like the pandemic social butterfly: The average number of people they infect will be much higher than most of the population, who will transmit the disease much less frequently. Indeed, as Kucharski and his co-authors show mathematically, overdispersion means that “forward tracing alone can, on average, identify at most the mean number of secondary infections (i.e. R)”; in contrast, “backward tracing increases this maximum number of traceable individuals by a factor of 2-3, as index cases are more likely to come from clusters than a case is to generate a cluster."

Edited October 5, 20204 yr by dhweeb

@1313058131900018694

 

Surely they're not that incompetent to use Excel rather than actual database software? How much money are they paying Serco?

:')

 

I'm putting it in the maximum size possible because that's how dumb this reason is.

@1313058131900018694

 

Surely they're not that incompetent to use Excel rather than actual database software? How much money are they paying Serco?

 

It looks like I use a more sophisticated database software to log my PERSONAL CHART than they have for a 'World Beating' Test and Trace programme. I mean...

12.6k genuine cases today

Rumblings only over 50s will be vaccinated once one is available...

 

...isn't that all but admitting the asks on the rest of us to self-isolate and keep our distance now are a deliberate political choice taken rather thanasking just over 50s and the vulnerable to?

I may have the vaccination but my wife says she definitely won't. Her three close friends won't or her employers. They just don't trust it. Who knows what's in there they say.

 

I guess quite a few will refuse it. Wouldn't be right to make it compulsory though.

Edited October 5, 20204 yr by Crazy Chris

There was never any realistic chance that everybody who wants a vaccine will be able to get it. The government really needs to come clean and manage expectations.

Rumblings only over 50s will be vaccinated once one is available...

 

...isn't that all but admitting the asks on the rest of us to self-isolate and keep our distance now are a deliberate political choice taken rather thanasking just over 50s and the vulnerable to?

 

 

Well the death rate for under 50's is very very low so if the vaccine's not available for everyone it makes sense to do older people first and those most vulnerable.

I may have the vaccination but my wife says she definitely won't. Her three close friends won't or her employers. They just don't trust it. Who knows what's in there they say.

 

I guess quite a few will refuse it. Wouldn't be right to make it compulsory though.

 

Well I don't want to force anyone, but I'd say anyone who is offered it that doesn't take it is probably stupid. If it gets approval, it's safe. But peoples choice if they'd rather a stiff arm for 2 days or end up on a ventillator in ICU.

 

There was never any realistic chance that everybody who wants a vaccine will be able to get it. The government really needs to come clean and manage expectations.

 

They have said that there is no point vaccinating Under 50s as there could be adverse side effects. Which, for the head of the UK vaccine programme was an absolutely ridiculous thing to come out to the press with. All they've done now is add fuel to the anti-vaxxers propaganda. Morons.

Well I don't want to force anyone, but I'd say anyone who is offered it that doesn't take it is probably stupid. If it gets approval, it's safe. But peoples choice if they'd rather a stiff arm for 2 days or end up on a ventillator in ICU.

 

 

There's a rumour her friend has heard that there'll be a mind control drug in it too. :lol: :rolleyes:

Rumblings only over 50s will be vaccinated once one is available...

 

...isn't that all but admitting the asks on the rest of us to self-isolate and keep our distance now are a deliberate political choice taken rather thanasking just over 50s and the vulnerable to?

 

This is sounding unusually right wing from you - I am quite sure I saw Nigel Farage making a similar point in one of his videos recently. You aren't really suggesting we just let it spread out of control with the under 50s? Yes it could contribute a bit to herd immunity but it will put over 50s even more at risk when they have to go to the supermarket if a large number of under 50s have the virus.. Not worth the risk.

 

I feel like I'm repeating myself and have made this point many times before on this thread :drama: :lol:

Edited October 5, 20204 yr by Вuzzjack user

Well I don't want to force anyone, but I'd say anyone who is offered it that doesn't take it is probably stupid. If it gets approval, it's safe. But peoples choice if they'd rather a stiff arm for 2 days or end up on a ventillator in ICU.

They have said that there is no point vaccinating Under 50s as there could be adverse side effects. Which, for the head of the UK vaccine programme was an absolutely ridiculous thing to come out to the press with. All they've done now is add fuel to the anti-vaxxers propaganda. Morons.

 

I am not an anti vaxxer but I will be sceptical about the new vaccine once it arrives, they will be able to test for short term side effects but not long term side effects as well, such as ones that could happen years after.

There's a rumour her friend has heard that there'll be a mind control drug in it too. :lol: :rolleyes:

Don't be silly! The government just wants to lower the population hence this virus which was designed by Bill Gates and released in China. Then you get vaccinated and die from the vaccine itself. Win-win!!1

This is sounding unusually right wing from you - I am quite sure I saw Nigel Farage making a similar point in one of his videos recently. You aren't really suggesting we just let it spread out of control with the under 50s? Yes it could contribute a bit to herd immunity but it will put over 50s even more at risk when they have to go to the supermarket if a large number of under 50s have the virus.. Not worth the risk.

 

I feel like I'm repeating myself and have made this point many times before on this thread :drama: :lol:

 

I believe putting a right or left wing spin on this is a fallacy.

 

This becomes an issue of being honest with your population.

 

We have the capacity to not have to have anyone in the vulnerable groups going out and mixing. We have deliveries. We have door to door services. Etc. Etc. Most of us have made great use of them during the pandemic.

 

I don't understand why the whole world is pussyfooting around what seems to be more and more apparent a truth: that we don't actually need to isolate if we aren't in the at risk groups. That this is, in fact, a huge sacrifice. And look, it's fine to make a sacrifice. We make lots of sacrifices in our day to day lives. But if that is the case, let's call a spade a spade rather than demonizing younger people for 'putting themselves at risk' when they're never going to be offered a vaccine.

They’re only vaccinating over 50s to control them to become more woke and conform to the ultra-leftie prescribed thinking. They’re eradicating free speech!!1!

Don't forget the 5G towers!!

 

Are the people who are hearing rumours getting confused by the flu vaccine, which THIS year is free for anyone over 50 instead of 65 or in a specific vulnerable or at risk category (as it is usually)?