So, coronavirus...

[tc27]

Not wanting to downplay how bad it being in the UK but I am curious to see if the way deaths are recorded here (Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate) are compared to how figures are reached in other nations.

In GDP terms the UK was looking like it had the worse hit economy but in turns out this is just due to the way the UK records GDP so there is precedent.

[robmatic]

An elimination strategy, as adopted by those countries who have been most successful in managing this pandemic, is about getting community transmission as low as possible and then to ensure you have a robust test, track and trace system in place to identify and control any outbreaks as soon as they emerge. It also requires strong support and regulation to make sure those identified isolate as required and that we stop inward seeding of the population by bring more cases of the virus in from abroad. We did get the numbers very low in the summer but instead of adopting the correct strategy our Gov failed to get a working TTT system in place, didn't control the borders, encouraged folk to go and spread the virus by paying them to go and eat out and told everyone we had won the war on the virus and everyone let their defences down. Despite seeing the trends we then sent schools and university students back and increased the spread. Hopefully vaccination will provide our escape route out of this otherwise, given our current strategy we will be in a constant loop of lock downs for many years yet. Even with vaccinations we will need a functioning TTT system, systems and support for self isolation and border controls - we just dont know if further variants will emerge and be resistant to current vaccines. My worry is our Gov do not have a plan beyond vaccination.

Turkey has a really strong track and trace setup as it's how they controlled measles and TB outbreaks throughout the 20th century. As well as the smartphone app, they have local public health teams doing contact tracing, they swing by the house to monitor that people are self-isolating, deliver medicines, food etc. It's honestly streets ahead of anything I can imagine the UK implementing. And it still couldn't cope by the time we reached autumn.

[Saint]

Not wanting to downplay how bad it being in the UK but I am curious to see if the way deaths are recorded here (Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate) are compared to how figures are reached in other nations.

In GDP terms the UK was looking like it had the worse hit economy but in turns out this is just due to the way the UK records GDP so there is precedent.

The daily reporting is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Deaths with Covid on the certificate is a much worse number.

But I agree that there's a lack of clarity as to how numbers are recorded across different countries

[Biffer]

An elimination strategy, as adopted by those countries who have been most successful in managing this pandemic, is about getting community transmission as low as possible and then to ensure you have a robust test, track and trace system in place to identify and control any outbreaks as soon as they emerge. It also requires strong support and regulation to make sure those identified isolate as required and that we stop inward seeding of the population by bring more cases of the virus in from abroad. We did get the numbers very low in the summer but instead of adopting the correct strategy our Gov failed to get a working TTT system in place, didn't control the borders, encouraged folk to go and spread the virus by paying them to go and eat out and told everyone we had won the war on the virus and everyone let their defences down. Despite seeing the trends we then sent schools and university students back and increased the spread. Hopefully vaccination will provide our escape route out of this otherwise, given our current strategy we will be in a constant loop of lock downs for many years yet. Even with vaccinations we will need a functioning TTT system, systems and support for self isolation and border controls - we just dont know if further variants will emerge and be resistant to current vaccines. My worry is our Gov do not have a plan beyond vaccination.

Turkey has a really strong track and trace setup as it's how they controlled measles and TB outbreaks throughout the 20th century. As well as the smartphone app, they have local public health teams doing contact tracing, they swing by the house to monitor that people are self-isolating, deliver medicines, food etc. It's honestly streets ahead of anything I can imagine the UK implementing. And it still couldn't cope by the time we reached autumn.

Now don't be silly. We couldn't possibly learn anything from a backwards country like Turkey.

[Biffer]

Not wanting to downplay how bad it being in the UK but I am curious to see if the way deaths are recorded here (Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate) are compared to how figures are reached in other nations.

In GDP terms the UK was looking like it had the worse hit economy but in turns out this is just due to the way the UK records GDP so there is precedent.

The daily reporting is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Deaths with Covid on the certificate is a much worse number.

But I agree that there's a lack of clarity as to how numbers are recorded across different countries

Yeah, Belgium's headline figure is from Covid being mentioned on the death certificate, so it's numbers look very high.

[tc27]

The daily reporting is deaths within 28 days of a positive test

I get that - I also think that measure should be avoided because of the extent to which it underestimates actual deaths (and was the measure used by guess who...Devi Sridhar to proclaim Scotland had almost eliminated the virus over the summer BTW).

[Saint]

An elimination strategy, as adopted by those countries who have been most successful in managing this pandemic, is about getting community transmission as low as possible and then to ensure you have a robust test, track and trace system in place to identify and control any outbreaks as soon as they emerge. It also requires strong support and regulation to make sure those identified isolate as required and that we stop inward seeding of the population by bring more cases of the virus in from abroad. We did get the numbers very low in the summer but instead of adopting the correct strategy our Gov failed to get a working TTT system in place, didn't control the borders, encouraged folk to go and spread the virus by paying them to go and eat out and told everyone we had won the war on the virus and everyone let their defences down. Despite seeing the trends we then sent schools and university students back and increased the spread. Hopefully vaccination will provide our escape route out of this otherwise, given our current strategy we will be in a constant loop of lock downs for many years yet. Even with vaccinations we will need a functioning TTT system, systems and support for self isolation and border controls - we just dont know if further variants will emerge and be resistant to current vaccines. My worry is our Gov do not have a plan beyond vaccination.

Turkey has a really strong track and trace setup as it's how they controlled measles and TB outbreaks throughout the 20th century. As well as the smartphone app, they have local public health teams doing contact tracing, they swing by the house to monitor that people are self-isolating, deliver medicines, food etc. It's honestly streets ahead of anything I can imagine the UK implementing. And it still couldn't cope by the time we reached autumn.

The fact is that over summer with all the Eat our to Help out stuff going on, the numbers didn't really move. Covid really was just a a background number. In itself, those summer policies didn't really cause any damage. What they did do was relax everyone's guard, so that when positive tests started to climb in September everyone was far more lax, and then the government didn't respond quickly enough. Lockdown 2 was pretty half hearted both in limitation and its observation, but in a large part of the country it did work (sort of). But that was the stage where the numbers continued to climb in the South East, which ultimately was put down to the new Strain. I'm not at all sure that any TTT would work with this Strain given just how transmissible it appears to be

[Biffer]

Excess Deaths in Scotland worse than any peacetime year since the 1891 'Russian Flu' pandemic (which may have been another coronavirus, not flu)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52214177

As an aside one of the things I noticed in that is that Spanish Flu didn't seem to have a huge impact in Scotland.

[tc27]

Excess Deaths in Scotland worse than any peacetime year since the 1891 'Russian Flu' pandemic (which may have been another coronavirus, not flu)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52214177

As an aside one of the things I noticed in that is that Spanish Flu didn't seem to have a huge impact in Scotland.

There seems to be a lack of correlation between case numbers and recorded/ excess deaths in Scotland. Since deaths are a 'reliable' figure it does make you wonder about how useful recorded case numbers are.

[Biffer]

Excess Deaths in Scotland worse than any peacetime year since the 1891 'Russian Flu' pandemic (which may have been another coronavirus, not flu)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52214177

As an aside one of the things I noticed in that is that Spanish Flu didn't seem to have a huge impact in Scotland.

There seems to be a lack of correlation between case numbers and recorded/ excess deaths in Scotland. Since deaths are a 'reliable' figure it does make you wonder about how useful recorded case numbers are.

Do you think so? I'm of a mind that our higher CFR is likely due to obesity, age and general health of the population being shite.

[Denny Crane]

PCR sampling protocols revisited after persistent lobbying by scientists and doctors around the world.

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
20 January 2021

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

Contact person for further information:

Anita SANDS, Regulation and Prequalification, World Health Organization, e-mail: rapidalert@who.int

References:

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

[JM2K6]

It's really fucking weird having someone on here who doesn't engage in discussion but just posts whatever the conspiracy peddlers are latching onto on any given day.

[fishfoodie]

It's really fucking weird having someone on here who doesn't engage in discussion but just posts whatever the conspiracy peddlers are latching onto on any given day.

and onto ignore he goes .....

[Biffer]

PCR sampling protocols revisited after persistent lobbying by scientists and doctors around the world.

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
20 January 2021

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

Contact person for further information:

Anita SANDS, Regulation and Prequalification, World Health Organization, e-mail: rapidalert@who.int

References:

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

Care to give us an explanation of what you think that actually means?

[dpedin]

An elimination strategy, as adopted by those countries who have been most successful in managing this pandemic, is about getting community transmission as low as possible and then to ensure you have a robust test, track and trace system in place to identify and control any outbreaks as soon as they emerge. It also requires strong support and regulation to make sure those identified isolate as required and that we stop inward seeding of the population by bring more cases of the virus in from abroad. We did get the numbers very low in the summer but instead of adopting the correct strategy our Gov failed to get a working TTT system in place, didn't control the borders, encouraged folk to go and spread the virus by paying them to go and eat out and told everyone we had won the war on the virus and everyone let their defences down. Despite seeing the trends we then sent schools and university students back and increased the spread. Hopefully vaccination will provide our escape route out of this otherwise, given our current strategy we will be in a constant loop of lock downs for many years yet. Even with vaccinations we will need a functioning TTT system, systems and support for self isolation and border controls - we just dont know if further variants will emerge and be resistant to current vaccines. My worry is our Gov do not have a plan beyond vaccination.

Turkey has a really strong track and trace setup as it's how they controlled measles and TB outbreaks throughout the 20th century. As well as the smartphone app, they have local public health teams doing contact tracing, they swing by the house to monitor that people are self-isolating, deliver medicines, food etc. It's honestly streets ahead of anything I can imagine the UK implementing. And it still couldn't cope by the time we reached autumn.

The fact is that over summer with all the Eat our to Help out stuff going on, the numbers didn't really move. Covid really was just a a background number. In itself, those summer policies didn't really cause any damage. What they did do was relax everyone's guard, so that when positive tests started to climb in September everyone was far more lax, and then the government didn't respond quickly enough. Lockdown 2 was pretty half hearted both in limitation and its observation, but in a large part of the country it did work (sort of). But that was the stage where the numbers continued to climb in the South East, which ultimately was put down to the new Strain. I'm not at all sure that any TTT would work with this Strain given just how transmissible it appears to be

Not sureI agree about Eat out etc. It ran till end of August and the number of cases in Scotland started increasing in September and by end of September had quadrupled. It then went lots higher in Oct, as you would expect once the virus starts spreading. The curve followed the classic pattern - starts slow then accelerates. The combination of Eat Out and returning holiday makers seeded the exponential growth we saw.

[tc27]

[Saint]

So once you factor in NI, probably 365K-367K in total

[Insane_Homer]

[Sandstorm]

PCR sampling protocols revisited after persistent lobbying by scientists and doctors around the world.

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
20 January 2021

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

Contact person for further information:

Anita SANDS, Regulation and Prequalification, World Health Organization, e-mail: rapidalert@who.int

References:

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

Care to give us an explanation of what you think that actually means?

[Insane_Homer]

[dpedin]

We'll be separating children from their parents next!

[Saint]

So once you factor in NI, probably 365K-367K in total

Almost 367K on the dot

5.43 million doses total

[Paddington Bear]

PCR sampling protocols revisited after persistent lobbying by scientists and doctors around the world.

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
20 January 2021

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

Contact person for further information:

Anita SANDS, Regulation and Prequalification, World Health Organization, e-mail: rapidalert@who.int

References:

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

[Biffer]

So once you factor in NI, probably 365K-367K in total

Almost 367K on the dot

5.43 million doses total

The Scottish government plan (which they published last week and then were forced to take down) had them at about of a third of a million this week with an accelerated rate next week to get to a million shots by mid February-ish. So if that plan still holds true, should be doing 30-35,000 a day next week.

[Bimbowomxn]

Not wanting to downplay how bad it being in the UK but I am curious to see if the way deaths are recorded here (Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate) are compared to how figures are reached in other nations.

In GDP terms the UK was looking like it had the worse hit economy but in turns out this is just due to the way the UK records GDP so there is precedent.

The daily reporting is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Deaths with Covid on the certificate is a much worse number.

But I agree that there's a lack of clarity as to how numbers are recorded across different countries

Yeah, Belgium's headline figure is from Covid being mentioned on the death certificate, so it's numbers look very high.

Which is the same as the UK. One of the reasons ours are measured so high.

[.OverThere]

PCR sampling protocols revisited after persistent lobbying by scientists and doctors around the world.

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
20 January 2021

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

Contact person for further information:

Anita SANDS, Regulation and Prequalification, World Health Organization, e-mail: rapidalert@who.int

References:

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

Care to give us an explanation of what you think that actually means?

If a person with no symptoms tests positive with a high Cycle threshold, then the tester should consider testing again, either using same test or different one. This is more particularly so when there are low numbers being tested.

It also of course throws up question marks re the real number of positive cases measured during last summer.

[Raggs]

If a person with no symptoms tests positive with a high Cycle threshold, then the tester should consider testing again, either using same test or different one. This is more particularly so when there are low numbers being tested.

It also of course throws up question marks re the real number of positive cases measured during last summer.

That was specifically aimed at Denny I suspect, he likes to pop in, post something to try and lure you down the rabbit hole of conspiracy under the guise of "asking questions" and then never actually respond to any of the responses.

Once again. 0.35% is basically the highest the false positive rate can be, since that was the positive rate for 160k tests in a single day. So you may question if it was 600 or so cases, or in fact only 300, but it seems to be a little too quibbling for me, and the truth of the matter is, it wasn't 0, so it didn't help.

[Biffer]

If a person with no symptoms tests positive with a high Cycle threshold, then the tester should consider testing again, either using same test or different one. This is more particularly so when there are low numbers being tested.

It also of course throws up question marks re the real number of positive cases measured during last summer.

That was specifically aimed at Denny I suspect, he likes to pop in, post something to try and lure you down the rabbit hole of conspiracy under the guise of "asking questions" and then never actually respond to any of the responses.

Once again. 0.35% is basically the highest the false positive rate can be, since that was the positive rate for 160k tests in a single day. So you may question if it was 600 or so cases, or in fact only 300, but it seems to be a little too quibbling for me, and the truth of the matter is, it wasn't 0, so it didn't help.

It most definitely was.

[tc27]

The redacted delivery schedule the Scottish government accidently released.

Assuming volumes are population based it indocates what the UK government is expecting supply wise.

[Saint]

The daily reporting is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Deaths with Covid on the certificate is a much worse number.

But I agree that there's a lack of clarity as to how numbers are recorded across different countries

Yeah, Belgium's headline figure is from Covid being mentioned on the death certificate, so it's numbers look very high.

Which is the same as the UK. One of the reasons ours are measured so high.

No. Our headline figure is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. ONS are keeping a separate record of deaths with Covid on the death certificate, which is quite a lot worse, and then there's our excess death figure which is worse again

[Dogbert]

The redacted delivery schedule the Scottish government accidently released.

Assuming volumes are population based it indicates what the UK government is expecting supply wise.

Not accidentally released at all

[Biffer]

Yeah, Belgium's headline figure is from Covid being mentioned on the death certificate, so it's numbers look very high.

Which is the same as the UK. One of the reasons ours are measured so high.

No. Our headline figure is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. ONS are keeping a separate record of deaths with Covid on the death certificate, which is quite a lot worse, and then there's our excess death figure which is worse again

Is that Bimbo lying again?

[Denny Crane]

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 9/abstract

[JM2K6]

You posted that already, oddball.

[Saint]

Which is the same as the UK. One of the reasons ours are measured so high.

No. Our headline figure is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. ONS are keeping a separate record of deaths with Covid on the death certificate, which is quite a lot worse, and then there's our excess death figure which is worse again

Is that Bimbo lying again?

Lying is such a strong term

[Saint]

Supplies of vaccine are obviously still a problem with limited amounts being available for Newcastle next week.

[tc27]

Supplies of vaccine are obviously still a problem with limited amounts being available for Newcastle next week.

Looks like there is some regional redistribution going on - Northern parts of England have being racing ahead so some of their supply is going elsewhere (sorry cant find the article to link to).

[dpedin]

Supplies of vaccine are obviously still a problem with limited amounts being available for Newcastle next week.

Supply chain is an issue but it isn't a surprise and will get sorted. It would have been amazing if vaccine supply and vaccination capacity developed so fast and in synch. Rather than seeing it as a problem it is probably more a measure of how fantastic the NHS has done in getting the capacity to deliver vaccines up and running as quickly as it has. As soon as supply is ramped up I expect the vaccination rate to accelerate significantly. Given the scale and speed this has been done there is relatively little noise in the system and most issues that have arisen would have been expected.

It just shows how lucky we are with NHS and a crying shame that we didnt spend the £22b on asking the NHS to get test, track and trace in place rather than spaffing it agains the wall providing profits to all the Tory donors. Even if we get vaccination rates up, which we will, we still need a functioning and fit for purpose TTT system in place for the rest of this year and probably permanently.. Surely the Gov need to admit failure on this, sack Dido and plan to replace the failed call centre based approach run by the incompetent profiteering Serco, Deliottes, etc.

[Saint]

Supplies of vaccine are obviously still a problem with limited amounts being available for Newcastle next week.

Looks like there is some regional redistribution going on - Northern parts of England have being racing ahead so some of their supply is going elsewhere (sorry cant find the article to link to).

Been listening on R5L this morning. Locally it;s dried up as well - no vaccination clinics next week. But MArlow is only opening up the main clinic tomorrow

[tc27]

Caveat - NHS in Scotland and Wales being breaking the Pzier vaccine into smaller batches to get it into care homes quicker (80% vaccinated vs 60% in England) which has slowed things down somewhat.