Coronavirus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

You were saying that the positive tests needs to be <5%. Are the countries that are testing far more than us, doing too many tests?

The USA for example has an almost 8% hit rate, should they actually slow things down?

---

I think you're misunderstanding. If the US hit rate is 8% they're not testing enough. Ours is 0.27% so our testing rate is 30 times better than theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

Scotland ranks about 50th in the world with regards to number of tests carried out per head of population and ranks well behind many other countries in Europe, including England.

They also require tests from the UK government each day to boost the total number of tests carried out in Scotland by over 30%.

As of 24th June (which is the most up to date figure I can find on the Scottish government website), only around half of the people working in social care, and their families, have been tested.

The lack of testing up here is shocking.

---

I agree we were slow off the mark but have no complaints with where we are now. Given that the level of infectious people across Scotland is estimated somewhere around 1500, and the government are carrying out thousands of tests daily and identifying only a handful of cases daily suggests we are now in a good place.

This is reflected in the notable divergence in cases and deaths in Scotland compared to England since late May.

This article might help explain it better. As can be seen from the numbers quoted, Scotland's positivity rate is better than every single US state. In fact it's twice as good as the "best" US state (Vermont).

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/testing-positivity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

I completely understand what you are saying and I agree that people with mild asthma should be complying but that doesn't change the fact that the authorities have made a blanket exemption for anyone with asthma not to cover their face whilst on public transport or, from next week, in a shop. It also probably won't change the fact that people who claim to have asthma, however mild it may be or even those people who don't even have asthma at all will be forced to provide details on the severity of their condition by shop assistants, bus drivers, security staff etc.

---

Similar to my bafflement at why it seems to be the case that you have to socially distance at airports but are then deemed OK to sit right next to other passengers on a plane, I don't really follow the logic of the masks in shops policy. Why is a shop environment any more risky than a pub or restaurant? But then if you're asked to wear a mask in a pub or restaurant how do you eat or drink? It strikes me that a lot of the thinking aorund these issues comes down to practicality rather than medical rationale.

And one other mask question. When hairdressers re-open, how do they cut the side of your hair properly if there's a mask strap in the way? And if you have a beard, I'm guessing a barber's not allowed to trim that? Sorry, that's two questions...:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocky

If I had a classic car in my garage with no wheels, engine or gearbox it would still be exempt from car tax. Would I expect the rules to be rewritten to make my car not exempt on the basis that it's not going on the road any time soon?

---

Or to use another analogy Aussies and Kiwis can now visit a cesspit without sanitising their hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocky

I think you're misunderstanding. If the US hit rate is 8% they're not testing enough. Ours is 0.27% so our testing rate is 30 times better than theirs.

---

But with our low tests per head of population figure, are we missing people who are positive? Should our case numbers be even higher?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

Similar to my bafflement at why it seems to be the case that you have to socially distance at airports but are then deemed OK to sit right next to other passengers on a plane, I don't really follow the logic of the masks in shops policy. Why is a shop environment any more risky than a pub or restaurant? But then if you're asked to wear a mask in a pub or restaurant how do you eat or drink? It strikes me that a lot of the thinking aorund these issues comes down to practicality rather than medical rationale.

And one other mask question. When hairdressers re-open, how do they cut the side of your hair properly if there's a mask strap in the way? And if you have a beard, I'm guessing a barber's not allowed to trim that? Sorry, that's two questions...:wink:

---

I'm also struggling with the idea that for the last 3 and a half months, people have been able to go to Tesco with no face covering as long as social distancing was adhered to, all whilst thousands were dying and many more thousands of people were testing positive. Now in 6 days' time, when there's hardly any deaths and very low levels of positive cases each day, we all of a sudden need to wear a face covering in the same supermarket, despite the same rules on social distancing still being in place? :confused:

I'm sure I also heard that beard trimming will be off limits at first. Barbers will only be able to cut the hair on your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overdrive

If you go to a private dentist, expect the cost to go up now. A colleague of my girlfriend went for an emergency appointment the other day and was charged £40 on top of the normal cost of the treatment as a PPE surcharge.

---

I was at the dentist yesterday for a filling and hour long appointment, so used all the high powered air compressors for drills etc and the PPE charge was £4.80 on top of my bill, I use a private dentist, sounds like they were royally ****ed over

Daily Scottish update;

11 new cases since yesterday
Increase of 30 in hospital including an increase of 7 in the confirmed cases
Increase of 7 in intensive care
4092 have left hospital since 5th March
No deaths registered since yesterday

Practical mask issue.

I need glasses for reading. I like to read on trains and buses. When I wear a mask, my glasses steam up (You have no idea how long it's taken me to type this on the train 😁).

As I see it, I have 2 options.

1. Don't read.

2. Don't breathe.

Someone out there must have the answer.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

But with our low tests per head of population figure, are we missing people who are positive? Should our case numbers be even higher?

---

It's not about tests per head of population, it's about positivity rate, i.e. the proportion of tests which come back positive as a percentage of the total tests conducted. This line from the article I linked explains why:

If a positivity rate is too high, that may indicate that the state is only testing the sickest patients who seek medical attention, and is not casting a wide enough net to know how much of the virus is spreading within its communities. A low rate of positivity in testing data can be seen as a sign that a state has sufficient testing capacity for the size of their outbreak and is testing enough of its population to make informed decisions about reopening.
The WHO position is that if the rate is below 5% then you're doing enough testing to be getting a good view of the prevalence of the virus. Scotland is miles better than that target, at 0.27%. The USA is missing the target, as they're currently around 7-8% positivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Practical mask issue.

I need glasses for reading. I like to read on trains and buses. When I wear a mask, my glasses steam up (You have no idea how long it's taken me to type this on the train 😁).

As I see it, I have 2 options.

1. Don't read.

2. Don't breathe.

Someone out there must have the answer.....

---

I used to use RainX on my bike helmet visor :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Practical mask issue.

I need glasses for reading. I like to read on trains and buses. When I wear a mask, my glasses steam up (You have no idea how long it's taken me to type this on the train 😁).

As I see it, I have 2 options.

1. Don't read.

2. Don't breathe.

Someone out there must have the answer.....

---

Audio books? 📖😉

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Practical mask issue.

I need glasses for reading. I like to read on trains and buses. When I wear a mask, my glasses steam up (You have no idea how long it's taken me to type this on the train 😁).

As I see it, I have 2 options.

1. Don't read.

2. Don't breathe.

Someone out there must have the answer.....

---

Supposedly a nose clip on the mask solves this by preventing your breath from going straight up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Practical mask issue.

I need glasses for reading. I like to read on trains and buses. When I wear a mask, my glasses steam up (You have no idea how long it's taken me to type this on the train 😁).

As I see it, I have 2 options.

1. Don't read.

2. Don't breathe.

Someone out there must have the answer.....

---

Means your mask isn't fitting properly, Doctors and Surgeons actually tape their masks to their face to stop the same thing happening

Not even sure how I know that random fact :faf:

You can get anti fog spray and wipes for glasses too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4

Means your mask isn't fitting properly, Doctors and Surgeons actually tape their masks to their face to stop the same thing happening

Not even sure how I know that random fact :faf:

You can get anti fog spray and wipes for glasses too

---

Ta 😀

I'm now experimenting with having the mask (and my head)at different angles while I read. Less fog, but I must look ****ing weird 😂

One advantage is that Fife looks ethereal through the mist...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Practical mask issue.

I need glasses for reading. I like to read on trains and buses. When I wear a mask, my glasses steam up (You have no idea how long it's taken me to type this on the train 😁).

As I see it, I have 2 options.

1. Don't read.

2. Don't breathe.

Someone out there must have the answer.....

---

Google anti fog masks. The following link is getting good reviews and reusable/washable. Bit pricey, but gives you an idea of what's out there.
https://biolymask.co.uk/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocky

It's not about tests per head of population, it's about positivity rate, i.e. the proportion of tests which come back positive as a percentage of the total tests conducted. This line from the article I linked explains why:

If a positivity rate is too high, that may indicate that the state is only testing the sickest patients who seek medical attention, and is not casting a wide enough net to know how much of the virus is spreading within its communities. A low rate of positivity in testing data can be seen as a sign that a state has sufficient testing capacity for the size of their outbreak and is testing enough of its population to make informed decisions about reopening.
The WHO position is that if the rate is below 5% then you're doing enough testing to be getting a good view of the prevalence of the virus. Scotland is miles better than that target, at 0.27%. The USA is missing the target, as they're currently around 7-8% positivity.

---

Thanks for the link I've never heard that until now. I'll need to take a while to mull over that.

We're currently testing around 0.1% of our total population every day. Does the WHO say anything about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Practical mask issue.

I need glasses for reading. I like to read on trains and buses. When I wear a mask, my glasses steam up (You have no idea how long it's taken me to type this on the train [emoji16]).

As I see it, I have 2 options.

1. Don't read.

2. Don't breathe.

Someone out there must have the answer.....

---

Visor.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

Thanks for the link I've never heard that until now. I'll need to take a while to mull over that.

We're currently testing around 0.1% of our total population every day. Does the WHO say anything about that?

---

Not that I know of, I don't think they consider percentage of population as relevant, as it depends entirely on the prevalence of the virus in the population. Eg a country where 5% of the population are infected will need to test roughly ten times as many people per head of population as one where 0.5% are infected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Practical mask issue.

I need glasses for reading. I like to read on trains and buses. When I wear a mask, my glasses steam up (You have no idea how long it's taken me to type this on the train 😁).

As I see it, I have 2 options.

1. Don't read.

2. Don't breathe.

Someone out there must have the answer.....

---

Cleaning the lens with soapy water and drying gently works well with ski goggles. Imagine you can do it with glasses too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocky

Not that I know of, I don't think they consider percentage of population as relevant, as it depends entirely on the prevalence of the virus in the population. Eg a country where 5% of the population are infected will need to test roughly ten times as many people per head of population as one where 0.5% are infected.

---

I suppose what I'm getting at is whether we can point to our 0.27% hit rate and say that proves we're carrying out enough tests, when 99.9% of the Scottish population isn't being tested on any given day.

Maybe it does, I'm certainly not going to argue with medical experts, it's just something I would not have previously considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

I suppose what I'm getting at is whether we can point to our 0.27% hit rate and say that proves we're carrying out enough tests, when 99.9% of the Scottish population isn't being tested on any given day.

Maybe it does, I'm certainly not going to argue with medical experts, it's just something I would not have previously considered.

---

Maybee its time to ask Whitty...Ops, a forgot he's the new economic spokesman for the UK Administration.https://www.hibs.net/image/gif;base6...iKqdPIqBoFADs=https://www.hibs.net/image/gif;base6...iKqdPIqBoFADs=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

I suppose what I'm getting at is whether we can point to our 0.27% hit rate and say that proves we're carrying out enough tests, when 99.9% of the Scottish population isn't being tested on any given day.

Maybe it does, I'm certainly not going to argue with medical experts, it's just something I would not have previously considered.

---

Unless I'm missing something, only people with symptoms are being tested, meaning that the rate of testing is in line with the suspected infection. If other countries are doing the same thing and they have higher levels of tests then they also have a higher rate of infection.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

39 more deaths in England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

I'm also struggling with the idea that for the last 3 and a half months, people have been able to go to Tesco with no face covering as long as social distancing was adhered to, all whilst thousands were dying and many more thousands of people were testing positive. Now in 6 days' time, when there's hardly any deaths and very low levels of positive cases each day, we all of a sudden need to wear a face covering in the same supermarket, despite the same rules on social distancing still being in place? :confused:

I'm sure I also heard that beard trimming will be off limits at first. Barbers will only be able to cut the hair on your head.

---

Yep I just don't get that either. It's like the UK airport quarantining introduced long after the virus peaked. Why now?

Or was it just seen as a good photo op to get pics of Nicola Sturgeon wearing a tartan mask on the front pages? 😉

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

I suppose what I'm getting at is whether we can point to our 0.27% hit rate and say that proves we're carrying out enough tests, when 99.9% of the Scottish population isn't being tested on any given day.

Maybe it does, I'm certainly not going to argue with medical experts, it's just something I would not have previously considered.

---

I'm assuming, maybe wrongly, that the low percentage of testing is related to the track and trace system. That is after front line workers are being tested there aren't that many in the general population warrant a test. If the D&G outbreak had 11 folk down with covid and 23 were traced and presumably offered and took up the test that's not a big number or percentage in comparison to D&Gs total population.

I was thinking the face covering thing might end up tying into a reduction in social distancing, in certain circumstances.. . The medical folks keep going on about how it's the basket of measures that 'do the job' not one particular thing. So reducing social distancing = more use of masks?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

They are our tests in the sense that people in Scotland are benefitting from them, I don't dispute that. My point was specifically in relation to the Scottish government's record on testing.

I don't have any numbers on England and Wales as it's not of any interest to me and has no bearing on my views on the situation in Scotland.

---

I see. We'll only look to England and Wales when they're better than us. 👍

It's a pity they've rarely kept in step with the other governments in the UK. Maybe they'd have learned something.

Enjoy your evening. 👍

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

I see. We'll only look to England and Wales when they're better than us. 👍

It's a pity they've rarely kept in step with the other governments in the UK. Maybe they'd have learned something.

Enjoy your evening. 👍

---

Perfect illustration of what I was talking about yesterday. 👍