How will schools be able to go back in September? (Continued)

Icyseanfitz

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

If someone tests negative they do isolate for a further 48 hours after test result, at least that's what happened with the wife.

Fixed my post. My point was they don’t isolate for 14 days

Will Yam

delly wrote: »

Can you link to these stats? From looking at the HSE 14 day breakdown reports, their age range is 5-14 and 15-24, so is it the former that you reference?

I’m not sure what stats raind is referencing but earlier in this thread there were 2 stats referenced from the hse (or whoever publishes their stats).

1. The rate of positive tests nationally is 2.4%. The rate among the younger cohort was 1.7%, indicating a significantly lower incidence among the younger.

2. The increase over the last 2 weeks nationally was 92%. The increase among the younger cohort was 70%, again supporting the hypothesis that it is less prevalent among the younger cohort.

Just beware some thread experts piling in to say these data are dated. They are, by c 24 hours. But they don’t like data that shows encouraging performance.

wirelessdude01

Willy, are you going to tell us how those answers were different?

Will Yam

Will Yam wrote: »

It’s not a different story. It’s the same story. I was referred for a test. I have no symptoms. I am in close contact with someone who has exhibited the symptoms of a common cold. That person was referred as well.

There aren’t conspiracies everywhere about all this, you know.

But I’m sure, as ever you’ll come up with some fantastical scenario.

GPs back to those old tricks referring everyone just in case? If you contacted your gp within 3-5 days of contact with the suspect case, it was almost pointless referring you for a test as you would likely have got a not detected even if your contact had the virus, and you would have been contacted to be tested again once they were confirmed

Icyseanfitz

Will Yam wrote: »

I’m not sure what stats raind is referencing but earlier in this thread there were 2 stats referenced from the hse (or whoever publishes their stats).

1. The rate of positive tests nationally is 2.4%. The rate among the younger cohort was 1.7%, indicating a significantly lower incidence among the younger.

2. The increase over the last 2 weeks nationally was 92%. The increase among the younger cohort was 70%, again supporting the hypothesis that it is less prevalent among the younger cohort.

Just beware some thread experts piling in to say these data are dated. They are, by c 24 hours. But they don’t like data that shows encouraging performance.

Or maybe the hse are using differing definitions of "pods" Within schools to keep from testing too many students. Bit too conspiracy theory for me but might explain why close contact testing is so stupidly different between each school and class

wirelessdude01

Will Yam wrote: »

It’s not a different story. It’s the same story. I was referred for a test. I have no symptoms. I am in close contact with someone who has exhibited the symptoms of a common cold. That person was referred as well.

There aren’t conspiracies everywhere about all this, you know.

But I’m sure, as ever you’ll come up with some fantastical scenario.

See you said you were a close contact. Now you say you were in close contact.

Totally different scenario and story. Anyway your GP shouldn't have been referring you as you fulfulled none of the criteria that are there are the moment.

Will Yam

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Willy, are you going to tell us how those answers were different?

Have a quick look back at 9222. In my second “scenario” as you described it, I had asked does somebody who is tested because they are a close contact of someone who is being tested, and come back negative do they have to isolate for 14 days.

You answered, in post 9222 YES to that scenario.

So then it was 14 days. Now it’s 48 hours.

More figures being plucked out of the air methinks.

Icyseanfitz

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

Or maybe the hse are using differing definitions of "pods" Within schools to keep from testing too many students. Bit too conspiracy theory for me but might explain why close contact testing is so stupidly different between each school and class

Even with poorly defined pods, those included are likely to be the closer contacts and therefore more likely contract this virus. The risk at 1 metre is way higher than 2 which is way higher that 3 etc etc etc.
And where cases are missed due to poorly defined pods, the bulk will still be detected causing a signal in the data, and more importantly evidence of transmission in the classroom which will widen the net

Will Yam

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

Or maybe the hse are using differing definitions of "pods" Within schools to keep from testing too many students. Bit too conspiracy theory for me but might explain why close contact testing is so stupidly different between each school and class

Well they could be.

One needs to read the hse stuff very very closely.

Will Yam

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

See you said you were a close contact. Now you say you were in close contact.

Totally different scenario and story. Anyway your GP shouldn't have been referring you as you fulfulled none of the criteria that are there are the moment.

I shall register a complaint with my go first thing in the morning.

I’m sure he will be, erm, completely disinterested in your views.

downthemiddle

Will Yam wrote: »

Have a quick look back at 9222. In my second “scenario” as you described it, I had asked does somebody who is tested because they are a close contact of someone who is being tested, and come back negative do they have to isolate for 14 days.

You answered, in post 9222 YES to that scenario.

So then it was 14 days. Now it’s 48 hours.

More figures being plucked out of the air methinks.

Willy you are having a mare this evening. Have a lie down you are clearly confused.

Will Yam

Deleted User wrote: »

GPs back to those old tricks referring everyone just in case? If you contacted your gp within 3-5 days of contact with the suspect case, it was almost pointless referring you for a test as you would likely have got a not detected even if your contact had the virus, and you would have been contacted to be tested again once they were confirmed

Even if the two of you were tested simultaneously?

Will Yam

downthemiddle wrote: »

Willy you are having a mare this evening. Have a lie down you are clearly confused.

It is quite confusing. Our resident expert on self isolation tells us that the self isolation period for a non symptom negative test is 14 days, sorry 48 hours.

Who wouldn’t be confused?

wirelessdude01

Will Yam wrote: »

Have a quick look back at 9222. In my second “scenario” as you described it, I had asked does somebody who is tested because they are a close contact of someone who is being tested, and come back negative do they have to isolate for 14 days.

You answered, in post 9222 YES to that scenario.

So then it was 14 days. Now it’s 48 hours.

More figures being plucked out of the air methinks.

If you are tested due to symptoms and it's negative, then you restrict your movements for 48hrs after symptoms are gone and then away you go.

If you are tested due to being a close contact of s positive case then you still have to restrict your movements for 14 days from your last contact with that person.

That clear enough for you?

Jucifer

Will Yam wrote: »

I’m not sure what stats raind is referencing but earlier in this thread there were 2 stats referenced from the hse (or whoever publishes their stats).

1. The rate of positive tests nationally is 2.4%. The rate among the younger cohort was 1.7%, indicating a significantly lower incidence among the younger.

2. The increase over the last 2 weeks nationally was 92%. The increase among the younger cohort was 70%, again supporting the hypothesis that it is less prevalent among the younger cohort.

Just beware some thread experts piling in to say these data are dated. They are, by c 24 hours. But they don’t like data that shows encouraging performance.

The figures quoted do not necessarily mean that schools are not causing an increase in transmission. The virus may not be spreading at a high rate within the schools due to controls but it may be a significant route of transmission between households.

Consider the scenario where a child gets infected in schools and the child goes on to infect both parents and an aunt. He is asymptomatic and before the cluster is discovered passes it onto another child in school. This child passes it on to their father and two grandparents. So in this scenario we have 2 children infected in the class but 6 adults.

This is obviously just a hypothetical situation but it does demonstrate how opening schools could be a key driver of increasing cases without necessarily seeing a higher case rate in school children.

Will Yam

Will Yam wrote: »

Have a quick look back at 9222. In my second “scenario” as you described it, I had asked does somebody who is tested because they are a close contact of someone who is being tested, and come back negative do they have to isolate for 14 days.

You answered, in post 9222 YES to that scenario.

So then it was 14 days. Now it’s 48 hours.

More figures being plucked out of the air methinks.

Why so combative, this isn’t personal. Someone may simply have misread your scenario or mis typed their answer, or you may have misread their answer I think.

Either way, someone who doesn’t have symptoms, and /or is not a contact of a confirmed case does not have to isolate. If you think you may have been exposed you should perhaps choose to restrict movements

Will Yam

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

See you said you were a close contact. Now you say you were in close contact.

Totally different scenario and story. Anyway your GP shouldn't have been referring you as you fulfulled none of the criteria that are there are the moment.

I am a close contact of someone with whom I was in close contact.

Does that help you?

I know it’s difficult.

downthemiddle

Will Yam wrote: »

It is quite confusing. Our resident expert on self isolation tells us that the self isolation period for a non symptom negative test is 14 days, sorry 48 hours.

Who wouldn’t be confused?

And you are telling us that you have been referred for a test despite having no symptoms and not being a close contact of a positive case. You wouldn't be inventing more "facts" Willy by any chance?

Will Yam

Deleted User wrote: »

Why so combative, this isn’t personal. Someone may simply have misread your scenario or mis typed their answer, or you may have misread their answer I think.

Either way, someone who doesn’t have symptoms, and /or is not a contact of a confirmed case does not have to isolate. If you think you may have been exposed you should perhaps choose to restrict movements

I don’t think it’s simply a question of a misread post.

But anyway, to your point. The question is for someone who gets tested because they are a close contact of, and in close contact with someone who is tested becuse they have symptoms, and the person who has no symptoms gets a negative result (as does the other) what is the isolation period.

So far I’ve been given 14 days and 48 hours. My own reading of the hse stuff is that it’s 14 days, which seems mad....but there you go.

downthemiddle

Will Yam wrote: »

I am a close contact of someone with whom I was in close contact.

Is there any other type of close contact?
Unfortunately Willy you don't meet the criteria for testing and you have been caught telling a pointless porky.

wirelessdude01

Will Yam wrote: »

I am a close contact of someone with whom I was in close contact.

Does that help you?

I know it’s difficult.

Someone is only considered a close contact when the person had a positive test result.

The situation you gave us doesn't make you a close contact at all but if you were and the person tested positive then you restrict your movements for 14 days from last contact.

Will Yam

downthemiddle wrote: »

And you are telling us that you have been referred for a test despite having no symptoms and not being a close contact of a positive case. You wouldn't be inventing more "facts" Willy by any chance?

Yes I am telling you that.

You can choose to call me a liar if you wish.

Will Yam

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Someone is only considered a close contact when the person had a positive test result.

The situation you gave us doesn't make you a close contact at all but if you were and the person tested positive then you restrict your movements for 14 days from last contact.

I understand the implications of a positive test.

What is being debated here are the implications of a negative test.

Will Yam

Will Yam wrote: »

I don’t think it’s simply a question of a misread post.

But anyway, to your point. The question is for someone who gets tested because they are a close contact of, and in close contact with someone who is tested becuse they have symptoms, and the person who has no symptoms gets a negative result (as does the other) what is the isolation period.

So far I’ve been given 14 days and 48 hours. My own reading of the hse stuff is that it’s 14 days, which seems mad....but there you go.

Zero days assuming you did not subsequently develop symptoms. It’s the same as a random test off the street.

The scenarios are pretty simple actually if we read them not expecting there to be some catch

wirelessdude01

downthemiddle wrote: »

And you are telling us that you have been referred for a test despite having no symptoms and not being a close contact of a positive case. You wouldn't be inventing more "facts" Willy by any chance?

Yet he claims a GP referred him for testing. Makes no sense at all.

downthemiddle

Will Yam wrote: »

Yes I am telling you that.

You can choose to call me a liar if you wish.

You do not meet the criteria for testing Willy.
Any results from this "test" yet Willy?

Will Yam

Deleted User wrote: »

Zero days assuming you did not subsequently develop symptoms. It’s the same as a random test off the street.

The scenarios are pretty simple actually if we read them not expecting there to be some catch

One would think that.

But reading the regs would make me wonder - they are not clear, really.

And of course the medical expertise here helps..............

delly

Deleted User wrote: »

I think all school age children fall within those buckets apart from a some of the younger juniors.

So without the breakdown in 15-18 year olds it’s possible there has been massive growth in this cohort and reduction in 19 to 24 years, but it’s highly unlikely. And the 5 -14 stats are stable. 8% of cases at the start of the month and in the most recent report.

Respectively it being possible and highly unlikely, doesn't really validate your point. I'm not saying you are wrong, but if the age brackets are as outlined, there is a significant percentage of school going children not being accounted for accurately. They are also the group that it is said transmit in the same way as adults, with the younger age group thought not to spread as easily. We also have no stats for school staff cases.

Will Yam

downthemiddle wrote: »

You do not meet the criteria for testing Willy.
Any results from this "test" yet Willy?

My goodness another medical expert, telling me what criteria I meet and I don’t meet. Just like the guy who tells me how my acquaintances react.


No, not yet.

Over 24 hours now so no news is generally expected to be good news as they prioritise contacting the positive cases - quite rightly.

wirelessdude01

Will Yam wrote: »

I understand the implications of a positive test.

What is being debated here are the implications of a negative test.

So essentially we'll take this as your situation.

You were referred for a test by your GP. Stand alone case as it wasn't due to being a close contact of a positive case. If you had symptoms and tested negative it would be 48hrs from the end of symptoms.

However you present to test with no symptoms and no reason for the test so I cannot answer that.

Being friends with someone who went for a test isn't a reason to be tested.