Spoke to HR (who had nothing to do with the policy or the H&S Covid Risk Assessment) and they were happy to follow Gov guidelines.
Few places I know taking this arse-covering line. Follow the guidelines, no more, no less. Won't get you or the company blamed for anything, simple retort to disagreements that may arise, and the measurable cost is small.
Sydney/NSW update, beep beep boop. Apologies for the long post. TLDR: it's going well.
In terms of vaccination:
In NSW we've hit 85% (16yrs+) fully vaxed, expecting to hit 90% on 8th Nov. Australia as a whole is at 73%.
12-16 y/o group is a bit further behind: 78% single dosed, 53% double (NSW) with Australia at 64% and 36% respectively.
The booster program is going to start on Nov 8th apparently - and it's looking like the idea is to give everybody Pfizer, regardless of what they received the first time around - but lets see what gets approved. Apparently we have enough Pfizer for that - happy days.
The regulators (TGA) have also apparently received a "partial" application for 5-12 year olds from Pfizer - so that's good news as well, sounds like that's getting fast tracked: expected end of November (the TGA are notoriously slow) - just in time for my 5 year old to start school.
So - despite dropping the ball / screwing the pooch on the initial vaccine rollout (procurement, more accurately) - Australia are currently smashing-it. Question is where we will end-up? The ACT (Canberra) are at 98% single dosed, so it looks like that might be the upper ceiling, 1-2% of people with medical exemptions sounds about right.
In terms of restrictions.... it's getting interesting.
NSW is re-opening steadily - all shops etc are now open, you can go back to the office if you want. Restaurants, cafes and Pubs are now open for dine-in (although with limited numbers per sq/m), and in pubs "vertical consumption" is now permitted. We had our first trip to the beach for a while this weekend - it's outside the 5km radius that we have been restricted to for the past few months.
Schools have all started back this week. The return has been staggered somewhat - but the timeline has been accelerated by the new premier (see below).
Masks are still widespread - basically you have to wear them inside, and compliance seems to be very high based on what I can see (c100%).
We are trying to distinguish between vaxed and unvaxed people - you have to show your certificate when you go to the pub etc. Not really sure how that's going, but IMO it was mostly designed as a final threat to convince people to get vaccinated. I think they'll drop the distinction soon.
I think Queensland are about to slam the door on any healthcare workers who haven't been jabbed, but I haven't really been following that, so perhaps I'll let Reeksy comment.
In Victoria (Melbourne), they have just passed their peak of daily cases (over 2,000) and so are reopening a bit more cautiously. Given their track record - I have no doubt they will find a way to **** it up..... probably a massive protest or something.
In NSW we have a new Premier, the ex state treasurer, who's focus (unsurprisingly) is opening up as soon as possible. He threw the cat amongst the pigeons a couple of weeks ago with a surprise announcement that, from 1st Nov, all quarantine for people arriving into the country (double jabbed and negative test) would be dropped. His announcement was a bit vague, but seemed to suggest that this was for all/any travellers..... ie: tourists could come too, not just "returning citizens". Que: a hastily convened press conference by the prime minster, who was clearly blindsided. He didn't really say anything - but it seemed like he was just trying to pretend he was consulted lol. He did make clear that travel into Australia would still only be for Aussie citizens/permanent residents, and their immediate families.
He did however announce that "immediate family" was going to be expanded to include parents - something that's a huge relief, as neither sets of my parents have seen their grandkids for 2 years.... a big deal when they are only 3 and 5.
So yeah...... things going quite nicely.
I'm quite relaxed about the whole thing. I'd like us to be opening the schools a bit later, once 12-16 vaccination rates are a bit higher, but 78% (single) is pretty decent. Pleased that my 5 year old might be able to get a pfizer jab before she starts school at the end of Jan - that was really only my main concern...... that and being able to go for a surf
Nice summary batfink. Your words are like wings of real... oh that doesn't really work.
Queensland is interesting. We're throwing everything at the vaccination opportunities - schools, sports clubs, Bunnings car parks (an Aussie institution a bit like B&Q - yeah I know) yet still 75.7% 1st dose and 61.2% 2nd dose. I still think it's because the experience of COVID isn't real enough here. You have to put your tongue on the frozen lamp-post before you believe it will actually get stuck i guess. Ergo, the highest rate of vaccination in the state is at Goondiwindi - a border town where truckers stop for fuel and consequently they've had a few cases.
Discussions i've had with Indigenous elders have revealed that rumours are rife that Indigenous communities aren't even being offered vaccinations, despite clear and obvious evidence to the contrary.
The public health system is indeed saying that unvaccinated staff will not be allowed to face the public if they've not had a jab as of 1 November. Doesn't mean they can't do other work. I've also heard those that have applied for exemptions haven't been contacted yet ... no doubt there's a lot of very worried people on both sides - apparently there are thousands of staff that aren't vaccinated.
My perspective on the grandparents issue is that if they have to wait another year to see my kids again, but they get to stay alive, then so be it. Mum has her booster booked for Nov 8th, so maybe middle of 2022 she'll get out here?
Discussions i’ve had with Indigenous elders have revealed that rumours are rife that Indigenous communities aren’t even being offered vaccinations, despite clear and obvious evidence to the contrary.
Thats really interesting! But surely that's an open door to go and vaccinate? "not being offered it, you say? Well here it is.... roll up your sleeve"
You have to put your tongue on the frozen lamp-post before you believe it will actually get stuck in guess
That was exactly the issue throughout Australia - vaccinations only really took-off in Victoria (and later Sydney) when people got locked down and started to worry about catching it and dying. Australia's success in keeping the virus out worked against them in "phase 2" - but I'd rather that than talk about deaths in six figures.
I view the "get the jab or else <insert consequence here>" stuff as far better used as a threat to drive vaccine uptake than an actual practical safety measure. Seems to have worked in Sydney (as we told people they couldn't go to the pub unless vaxxed), but Melbourne seem to have ended up in some sort of nasty union dispute with the construction industry - so I'd say that has backfired for them. Similarly it seems like QLD have painted themselves into a bit of a corner with healthcare workers - lets see what happens.
deleted what I'd wrote ... started a thread to avoid dragging this off...
What remains is how is it so difficult to find out what the LFT actually measures?
I've trawled t'interwebby with my limited googlefoo and even the NHS sites for NHS employees/trusts don't seem to say WHAT it's measuring ???
What remains is how is it so difficult to find out what the LFT actually measures?
Antibodies I thought? Happy to be corrected
There's a nice write up here:
TESTING
The tests commonly available for SARS-CoV-2 can detect either:the RNA − detected by the PCR test
the surrounding proteins − detected by the rapid lateral flow devices
the human body’s response to the virus – detected by antibody tests.
And:
What’s the difference between lateral flow tests and PCR tests?
Lateral flow tests
These simple test kits detect viral proteins (antigens) from the SARS-CoV-2 virus in respiratory samples, such as from a nose or throat swab. If the target antigen is present in enough quantity it will bind to specific antibodies fixed to a paper strip enclosed in a plastic casing and generate a visual signal, usually within 30 minutes. These tests are not to be confused with rapid antibody tests, which use blood to detect antibodies generated in response to infection.PCR tests
Polymerase chain reaction tests detect the virus’s RNA in a sample. The test amplifies small bits of genetic material to enable detection. So a test can give a positive result long after a person stops being infectious.
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n287
I believe that there are lateral flow tests that can also be used to detect antibodies, but they're the ones that require a finger prick and a few drops of blood rather than spit and snot.
impatientbull
The links are certainly helpful but I'm still getting lost here ...
These simple test kits detect viral proteins (antigens) from the SARS-CoV-2 virus
What does "proteins from the virus" mean? (specifically in terms of the virus are these active or not or does the LF test contain multiple antigens some of which might indicate the virus is active and others not) ..
I understand what all the words mean ... just not what this means in practice... (specifically does that mean it binds to inactive proteins (that would be termed dead if a virus was classed as living) ???
If the target antigen is present in enough quantity it will bind to specific antibodies
This part is pretty clear on PCR ... what I'm missing is an idiots guide like this for LF.
It's confusing as we are being specifically told NOT to test for 90 days with either and both my son and others have (regardless and for whatever reason) have done so and tested negative whereas I got the only really positive LF.
There is obviously a good clinical reason for the PCR tests as explained below but I'm missing if there is a real reason or timeframe for LF.
PCR tests
Polymerase chain reaction tests detect the virus’s RNA in a sample. The test amplifies small bits of genetic material to enable detection. So a test can give a positive result long after a person stops being infectious.
I'm not for waiting 90 days but in the absence of a "reason" I'm feeling a bit of caution as mudmuncher says. Certainly I wouldn't want to visit my mum or go into a supermarket (neither of which are pressing)... but I might do a few solo night rides before my head explodes.
Equally ... if I understood if its likely to test negative in a week etc. it might give me something to aim for.
Based on that I assume an LFT doesn’t stay positive weeks after an infection in the same way a PCR does, do I’d probably avoid mixing if you are still positive on LFT
What does “proteins from the virus” mean? (specifically in terms of the virus are these active or not or does the LF test contain multiple antigens some of which might indicate the virus is active and others not) ..
I have not expert knowledge and have just been looking around for answers as your question made me curious.
This slide:
From this paper:
https://academic.oup.com/peds/article/doi/10.1093/protein/gzab010/6276119
Make it look like it's actually testing for the protein on a live virus.
I have not expert knowledge and have just been looking around for answers as your question made me curious.
Yep I must admit I'd never really wondered WHAT was being tested...it's just one of those things I just accepted until it didn't make sense.
What knowledge I do have on antigens is all backwards as it's stuff I had to find out for my autoimmune disorders. By backwards I mean my antibodies latching onto the wrong stuff...
What I do know from that (and not sure how or if it translates) is that antibodies don't (always? ever?) latch onto complete proteins but smaller amino acid chains. (In my case it is some small amino acid chains - what I'm saying is I don't know how universal that is)
From what I can make out this seems to indicate there are 2 or more different antibodies in the LFA tests they were discussing?
Analyte-antibody conjugates then flow to a test pad that has been striped with the immobilized primary antibodies to the analyte (analyte test line) and secondary antibodies (control line sensitive to the analyte primary antibodies).
So just a wild postulation is my earlier LFA tests were all positive to secondary antibodies and the last test (when I was meant to come out of isolation) had a proper line if this means the secondary antibodies are more diffusely on the test pad ??? If my wild postulation is anywhere near then perhaps the broken down proteins give a stronger response???
I have no confidence in 'results' of LFTs.
The US FDA have deemed them not fit for purpose.
No-one here, with the possible exception of TiRed and one or two others is, is qualified to comment on/dispute that.
The over-reliance on LFTs is, I think, significantly distorting - understating - the true position in the UK.
I'm neither a virologist nor an immunologist; very few of us are.
You've said this before. Is it that you have no confidence in a negative lft? Or no confidence in a positive? Or both?
I don't think anyone is disputing the FDA's position on them.
Analyte-antibody conjugates then flow to a test pad that has been striped with the immobilized primary antibodies to the analyte (analyte test line) and secondary antibodies (control line sensitive to the analyte primary antibodies).
In plain English, 😏
The primary antibody is the one that binds to the small bits of covid proteins they specifically recognise (epitopes or analytes as thet are saying here)
-the first line of the LFT
The secondary antibody is one that binds to the antibodies that are detecting the covid
epitopes
-the 2nd line of the lft
This is a control to show that the test is working and the covid detecting antibodies are present
Thats really interesting! But surely that’s an open door to go and vaccinate? “not being offered it, you say? Well here it is…. roll up your sleeve”
Well @batfink i'm told by those in the know that for months any Indigenous person can waltz right in without an appointment to get a jab. Our guys have been trying to get the message across but i guess it's hard to convince people, sadly.
It's really hard to get your head around. If you've never been 'on Country' i recommend it. It doesn't mean everything suddenly makes sense, but it certainly makes you think.
I have no confidence in ‘results’ of LFTs.
The US FDA have deemed them not fit for purpose.
No-one here, with the possible exception of TiRed and one or two others is, is qualified to comment on/dispute that.
Sorry, but I dispute that.
Different area but google Time and Extent Applications on sunscreen ingredients to see that FDA can be very stubborn, and 'Not invented here' when it wants to be, and the fact that FDA don't trust LFT's when many other countries do is not proof.
Also FWIW - the FDA did not necessarily have a problem with LFT tests per se, but with Innova. There is a concern with the accuracy caused by variability in swabbing between professional and self-users (more towards the negative test doesn't necessarily mean negative Covid, but TBH is picking up 80% of the positive cases not better than not testing and missing them all?), and also because the co had started to market before authorisation making claims that they couldn't verify. Both are genuine concerns, but are the FDA also in a huff because not following process / don't like being strongarmed again?
FDA have approved 38 rapid tests. Innova is not one of them. I’m not a devices person, but the approval process, even for emergency use (EUA) is similar. The letter from the FDA is utterly damning.
Sensitivity and specificity may not be as good as a gold standard PCR, and sampling variability may not help. But the basic properties of the test and validation method must be suitably qualified. They must also be manufactured and labelled appropriately. Innova fell over on all those points. And the FDA questioned whether the data was even real!
Approved list here of tests here. Under an EUA, when the pandemic is over one needs to seek formal approval with more documentation.
Don’t let the perfect test be the enemy of the good. They are a step to modify behaviour. Nothing more. But get a swab from the back of your nasopharynx if you can. It goes back five inches when horizontal how else do you hammer a nail in? 😉
kimbers
In plain English, 😏
The primary antibody is the one that binds to the small bits of covid proteins they specifically recognise (epitopes or analytes as thet are saying here)
-the first line of the LFTThe secondary antibody is one that binds to the antibodies that are detecting the covid
epitopes
-the 2nd line of the lft
This is a control to show that the test is working and the covid detecting antibodies are present
That makes perfect sense now. I see I was misreading the secondary part.
I'd like to say genius .. why can't the NHS get you writing their literature but ....
Assuming you are correct in adding "the small bits of covid proteins" (I have no reason to think you're not) it makes me wonder why there can't just be a simple explanation on NHS literature (like on the instructions of the LFT would be one good place) ???
My day job includes looking after medics who come to do PhDs in our lab, a lot of scientific literature is pretty impregnable, even for them, so I'm doing this a lot.
We needed some LFTs in a rush recently, my wife grabbed some from the library and we also got a pack posted, interestingly the library ones are still Innova, but the ones posted are from a different manufacturer, I've been tempted to use both each time just to compare.
Assuming you are correct in adding “the small bits of covid proteins” (I have no reason to think you’re not) it makes me wonder why there can’t just be a simple explanation on NHS literature (like on the instructions of the LFT would be one good place) ???
Good scientific communication is a scarce resource. The average Briton's reading/comprehension ability is roughly around the level of 'The Sun'. It can be extremely difficult to communicate complex, nuanced, scientific concepts at that level without risking accuracy. I suppose sometimes you have to make a call that oversimplifying something is necessary because reward of communicating the core message is worth it.
kimbers
My day job includes looking after medics who come to do PhDs in our lab, a lot of scientific literature is pretty impregnable, even for them, so I’m doing this a lot.
One of my mates (now retried) used to write technical literature/manuals etc.
It just seems to me the whole art has been lost or buried though.
I remember decades ago (turn of millennia) one of our software suppliers (for scientific/engineering software) and you could never actually work out WHAT the software actually did or how it worked from any of their technical literature. At the time that was uncommon, certainly to the degree they did it and we (all postgrads in science or engineering that would be using it) kept being told apologetically by their techs it was "their marketing people".
At that time in my industry Snr Mgt at least in the US and Europe were all technically competent.
martinhutch
Good scientific communication is a scarce resource. The average Briton's reading/comprehension ability is roughly around the level of 'The Sun'. It can be extremely difficult to communicate complex, nuanced, scientific concepts at that level without risking accuracy. I suppose sometimes you have to make a call that oversimplifying something is necessary because reward of communicating the core message is worth it.
I'm struggling with “the small bits of covid proteins” and how that isn't understandable even by a Sun reader. Proteins breaking down into amino acid chains isn't exactly complex or nuanced especially if you word it like Kimbers did as “the small bits of covid proteins”.
It seems now that the bar is lowered to the point where much factual information is incorrect and misleading and rather the aim is that someone who's incompetent but in charge needs to be a couple of layers above it so they can feel clever. I suspect the bar here is set somewhere along the lines of "make it simple enough for the Minister to understand and look clever".
The gulf between the "plain English" and "technical" has widened or in some cases the "technical" is completely missing and dumbed down so much it's worse than useless. [this isn't new NASA had managed to perfect management disinformation to the point they could smear astronauts across the desert by 2001] but the mass use of the internet to check facts is relatively new and growing.
This isn't limited to health etc. it's just very unfortunate especially now with Covid and in combination with t'interwebby and dumbing down education a major reason why so many people buy into conspiracy theories.
The issue I've seen is that so much of the "accessible" information is just simplified to the point it's plain incorrect and given everyone has access to the t'interweb it's remarkably easy to see it proven incorrect and endless web sites/FB groups etc. who once they demonstrate one thing is incorrect use that to knock the whole thing. (Be that covid, science or whatever).
I suppose sometimes you have to make a call that oversimplifying something is necessary because reward of communicating the core message is worth it.
The problem here is that the public gets a VERY different core message to the one intended. (and its also lying and it will be found out - it always does)
Not to put too fine a point on it but the message they get is the NHS/PHE/WHO whomever are lying... and the inference is "if they lied about this they are lying about everything".
It's not long ago I was listening to a rant about why someone refused to wear a mask (that was free) and the whole rant was based on "they lied about this so"...
TBH I don't remember the details ... or who they though "they" were for them some "they" had lied to them about Covid before therefore some "they" was lying about masks reducing transmission etc.
If I go back to my NASA analogy and core messages ..
If you read the actual report the core message the engineers wanted to get across was that the shuttle wasn't safe to fly but this got totally lost in the dumbing down to the technically incompetent managers.
https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001yB&topic_id=1&topic=Ask+E%2eT%2e
I’m struggling with “the small bits of covid proteins” and how that isn’t understandable even by a Sun reader. Proteins breaking down into amino acid chains isn’t exactly complex or nuanced especially if you word it like Kimbers did as “the small bits of covid proteins”.
It seems now that the bar is lowered to the point where much factual information is incorrect and misleading and rather the aim is that someone who’s incompetent but in charge needs to be a couple of layers above it so they can feel clever. I suspect the bar here is set somewhere along the lines of “make it simple enough for the Minister to understand and look clever”.
The gulf between the “plain English” and “technical” has widened or in some cases the “technical” is completely missing and dumbed down so much it’s worse than useless. [this isn’t new NASA had managed to perfect management disinformation to the point they could smear astronauts across the desert by 2001] but the mass use of the internet to check facts is relatively new and growing.
You can't just sprinkle words like 'protein', 'mRNA' or even 'antibody' without context and explanation. This is all GCSE Biology stuff, and we have to remember that a good chunk of the audience (and most likely the key part of the audience) will either not have experienced this, slept through it, or forgotten it all.
As someone who used to do this for a living a while ago, you have to start without any assumptions about the prior knowledge of your readership, and a lot of your writing is trying to introduce detail for some readers while making sure the core message is delivered before others glaze over and click on something else.
<blockquoteThis is all GCSE Biology stuff,
I don't have GCSE Biology. I am, however, mindful that science should be explained clearly. In fact failure to explain without technical jargon sometimes demonstrates a less than comprehensive understanding of the fundamental principles. At work, I sometimes pitch my technical talks at the admins because then you know that everyone can take something away. The number of comments you get back thanking you, from technically qualified people, is often surprising.
Binding = stick, DNA = instructions, mRNA = more instructions... etc.
I still recall the Tomorrow's World demonstration of receptor binding with a lock and key. My career highlight is receiving communications training from Judith Hann herself! Sometimes it's nice to meet your childhood heroes 🙂
I don’t have GCSE Biology.
I'm going to let you off that one because I'm guessing you have a marginally higher qualification. 🙂
I always knew which scientists I liked to quote because you could work with them to boil down complex principles into something digestible for my audience, as long as you didn't try to overstate or misapply their findings ('CURE FOR CANCER!). There were others who expected you to just copy and paste the executive summary of their paper in Nature.
As part of my job I write "Patient information sheets" and "informed consent" forms for often quite complicated clinical trials.
I received formal training on how to do this - the key point was to understand that the average reading age in the UK was (at that time) 8, and so don't use words like "utilize" when you can just say "use".
The quality of scientific writing has definitely declined in that time - we use dedicated "medical writers" for lots of stuff now..... so maybe that's why those skills have been lost by the wider industry?
I now work in APAC and have to translate much of our complex scientific documentation into languages without a latin root (eg: Japanese, Mandarin) - so it's hugely obvious when you have to send chunks of English text back to the author pointing out that what they have written just doesn't make any **** ing sense, even in English, let alone to the poor chap trying to translate it into Japanese. I do try to say "respectfully....." when I tell them that what they have written is crap.
Readability data suggest that the average reading age of the UK population is 9 years – that is, they have achieved the reading ability normally expected of a 9-year-old. The Guardian has a reading age of 14 and the Sun has a reading age of 8.
One of the things I do for my job is take patient information (factsheets, websites, videos etc) to patients to test them for understanding. Staff have a guideline and instructions on how to write for patients to school Grade 6 (IIRC) but they don't seem to pay much attention to that.
Good recent episode of Word of Mouth about the NHS approach here - very similar to what we do: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000dpkc
Like Batfink, it's pretty frustrating dealing with the authors, but when i have a panel of patients explain how things can be improved it's a lot harder for them to disagree.
I'm going to suggest though, that it is isn't necessarily due to dumbing down - people are distracted by the myriad other things in their life/eyeline. Competition for concentration means that even if we're capable of reading and interpreting information it's harder to focus. And what percentage of information do we actually retain?
I'll always go back to Orwell's Politics and the English Language, where he bemoans the 'current' state of writing. Pretty much all the same issues as now.
Queensland - Booster jabs now available for healthcare staff that had their second dose 6m+ ago.
So, past this peak or just a drop in testing over half term?
Good scientific communication is a scarce resource. The average Briton’s reading/comprehension ability is roughly around the level of ‘The Sun’. It can be extremely difficult to communicate complex, nuanced, scientific concepts at that level without risking accuracy. I suppose sometimes you have to make a call that oversimplifying something is necessary because reward of communicating the core message is worth it.
I did a degree module in "Understanding and assessing research" I still find it bloody difficult to actually do this - to get even a glimmer of the quality of the research and understand conclusions.
Education is the key
You can’t just sprinkle words like ‘protein’, ‘mRNA’ or even ‘antibody’ without context and explanation. This is all GCSE Biology stuff, and we have to remember that
Point of order, all that is in GCSE combined Science, which everyone has to do, although some would be higher tier only so not done by all.
a good chunk of the audience (and most likely the key part of the audience) will either not have experienced this, slept through it, or forgotten it all.
Or taught by me and didn't have a clue what I was rambling on about!!!
I was thinking about this sort of thing last night watching autumn watch, it uses quite a lot of technical language in a throw away manner...mollusc for example with no explanation of what one is... that's not in GCSE science... A huge amount must just flow over people's heads.
I tested positive last week (both LFT/PCR), luckily not many symptoms, a bit achy, occasional cough, taste a bit off. My wife has similar symptoms yet is not testing positive at all (several LFT, 2 PCRs) so either her symptoms are just coincidence or she's had it before without us knowing and it just her body fighting it off - who knows
Readability data suggest that the average reading age of the UK population is 9 years – that is, they have achieved the reading ability normally expected of a 9-year-old. The Guardian has a reading age of 14 and the Sun has a reading age of 8.
Day Mail average reading age 78.....
In NSW we have a new Premier, the ex state treasurer, who’s focus (unsurprisingly) is opening up as soon as possible. He threw the cat amongst the pigeons a couple of weeks ago with a surprise announcement that, from 1st Nov, all quarantine for people arriving into the country (double jabbed and negative test) would be dropped
@batfink what's the modelling and public expectation for what's going to happen when the country does eventually open up ? I'm just curious really, not sure there is any precedent for 'allowing the virus in' to an almost fully vaccinated population. Over here delta seems to be circulating widely amongst vaccinated people, but perhaps that won't happen if starting from almost zero??
So, past this peak or just a drop in testing over half term?
SAGE did project a slight fall in hospitalisations followed by a rise again to the peak, but then Patrick Vallance was on the other morning saying basically we were likely to plateau at these numbers for quite a while, so who knows?
The key I suspect will be the rate of vaccine waning vs booster rollout, then whether there is a problem among non-boostered under-50s in late winter/early spring.
Round here there are still a lot of older people behaving as if they are invulnerable to breakthrough infections.
So, past this peak or just a drop in testing over half term?
I think we will see a modest climb due to delta plus replacing delta. Doubling time prior to half-term was 28 days. Not the 7-10 days we saw for delta emergence. Slow and steady squeeze on resources. Don't ask for a peak size or date!
Readability data suggest that the average reading age of the UK population is 9 years
Our patient information leaflets are tested for a reading age of 10-12. Most front-page mainstream media articles are kite flying from academic institutes with their latest tool compound and a decent press release means they might get another grant. Pharma doesn't fly kites, but does release data regularly (public company, material to share price...)
Good item on molnupiravir on Newsnight last night. I hope it is as safe and well-tolerated, as it is efficacious.
Can someone please explain how track and trace works
Basically, other half got a text through last night stating she had to isolate until 4th due to a close contact. She doesn’t have the app but does give her phone number over when going to restraunts etc.
An isolation end date of the 4th suggests a contact date of last monday (25th) however she didn’t go anywhere on that date
Furthermore, without knowing where she got exposed, she can’t alert the folks she was with as the group only ever hand over one phone number
Good scientific communication is a scarce resource. The average Briton’s reading/comprehension ability is roughly around the level of ‘The Sun’. It can be extremely difficult to communicate complex, nuanced, scientific concepts at that level without risking accuracy. I suppose sometimes you have to make a call that oversimplifying something is necessary because reward of communicating the core message is worth it.
Readability data suggest that the average reading age of the UK population is 9 years – that is, they have achieved the reading ability normally expected of a 9-year-old. The Guardian has a reading age of 14 and the Sun has a reading age of 8.
Self evidently these can't both be true unless the average age of the population is 9 or unless reading age declines progressively through secondary school and later.
It's also making huge assumptions that a "Sun reader" is only capable of reading "Sun level" English and not simply choosing to read it for entertainment.
The whole soundbite is a bit spurious... it's like saying "the average handwriting age of medical doctors is 5". [insert your GP's handwriting age here] and inferring that relates to their education level.
The red tops don't actually have a burden of fact ... indeed they can sell papers by uncovering the lies published from sources that people thought were trustworthy such as NHS and associated websites. These are self fulfilling ... a NHS website/trust/insert new name can claim it sees everyone in A&E in 4 hours but the actual experience of many is that they falsify data.
On one hand you have a hospital/trust/whatever name today deliberately falsifying data that most people know is false...on the other a sensationalist article interviewing (quite possibly) real people that matches your own experience.
It's fairly open and shut ... anyone who waited (or has friends/relatives) 8+hrs in A&E only to be told "no you didn't we see everyone in 4 hours" isn't going to trust anything from what they perceive as the same source again. Stick in waiting lists or whatever ... but the issue is for years the NHS and organisations of it/associated with (PHE) etc. (the distinctions are lost so lets say "they") have been blatantly lying whilst the red tops papers have been publishing their exposure of these lies. (Don't get me wrong I believe this is a consequence of underfunding .. the problem is so many people don't trust those sources)
Looking back perhaps I wonder how these claims could be expected to last ? Surely it's obvious that when a Sun reporter spends 9 hours in A&E with a critically sick child only to be told "no you didn't that the excrement is going to hit the extractor? Surely they realised that but perhaps they just needed to get through the next funding round and hit their KPI's??
We are now in the middle of a pandemic (and the information on NHS associated websites regarding it has been far from clear or accurate and often contradictory)
Now we need people to get vaccinated, wear a mask .. even believe Covid is actually real but huge numbers of people view these "trusted" organisations with either suspicion.
I think to some extent the public's perception of the NHS is better now than for a decade and instead of publishing "lazy lies" assuming everyone is stupid those publishing accurate and well written information
@tpbiker - if she's double jabbed then it's meaningless anyway as she doesn't have to isolate. That might be just England though(?)
If you're told to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace - NHS (www.nhs.uk)
Can someone please explain how track and trace works
My understanding from the text/email is it depends WHERE you live (England/Wales/Scotland)
In England I got a code (confusing called account ID) and a link. (This is the bit I think is different) you can then go onto the link and fill out the information as best you can and request a PCR kit (or book one to go to).
Her last day of isolation will/may depend on how quickly she does this so I'd encourage her to just get it done ASAP.
She needs a load of information like NHS number etc. and from memory you need this twice (if your PCR is positive) as the test and trace system doesn't seem to be able to connect them so in retrospect better to write everything down just in case she tests +ve and has to repeat everything.
It’s also making huge assumptions that a “Sun reader” is only capable of reading “Sun level” English and not simply choosing to read it for entertainment.
The statement is pretty clear, and it doesn't say that. It says that a significant chunk of the population can't read above that level, not that this is the ceiling for every Sun reader.
I occasionally read material pitched at people with a very low educational level, for example some of the politics threads on here. 🙂
Self evidently these can’t both be true unless the average age of the population is 9 or unless reading age declines progressively through secondary school and later.
'Reading age of x' is shorthand for the level expected within education at that age. It's not based on the actual level achieved at this age. A lot of people's reading development is slow enough that this is their maximum attainment. While you'd always aim for more, this basic level is easily enough for people to function day-to-day in society.
Furthermore, without knowing where she got exposed, she can’t alert the folks she was with as the group only ever hand over one phone number
That's the trade off to preserve privacy - otherwise knowing it was 12:03 last Friday I might be able to be sure that Fred Smith gave it to me as he and I were alone 11:30 thru 12:30. Fred might then be reluctant to give information because he thinks I might not like him giving me COVID.
If pinged I believe you are meant to go for a pcr test which she has done
But the issue is that if she was in contact with someone, she wasn’t alone. She has been places with her mum, and me but as they don’t have our numbers (and we don’t know where the contact took place) we don’t know if we need to be tested also
Furthermore, she has contacted all the places she has been and none have handed over her number so she now suspects it’s been a mistake. Would be useful if you could find out where you were when you were ‘pinged’
The advice in England is all "should", nothing is mandatory any longer (subject to the exemptions mentioned on the NHS web site). As mentioned by Murray, you don't know the where/when etc as that would be a breach of privacy. Though the app will give you a contact date I believe (it did when I was pinged earlier this year). It's no big deal to get a PCR though, so if you think you've been exposed, just arrange one?
This is also the reason that the guidance (as it would be too sensible to make it a legal requirement) is that everyone over 16 in a group registers at an establishme, rather than one person doing it for the group.
It says that a significant chunk of the population can’t read above that level
Hence its obviously a false claim or our education system is so poor that it's unteaching people above 9 or most likely the entire "reading age" myth is just a con.
The first google source is an advert trying to sell something but illustrates how much BS there is about this.
https://www.see-a-voice.org/marketing-ad/effective-communication/readability/
This is an example of a possible paragraph written for the access page of a brochure:
"At every performance where an audio description is provided, there is also an opportunity for a touch tour of the stage and set. Touch tours give visually impaired patrons an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the set and costumes before the show to enhance their enjoyment of the production."
This sample has a reading age of 24 and, therefore, excludes the vast majority of its intended readers.
Here is an alternate version of the copy:
"There will be a touch tour before every audio-described performance. This gives you the chance to get to know the set and costumes. Patrons tell us this means they enjoy the show more."
It now has a reading age of 10. All we’ve done is to use shorter sentences and shorter, everyday words.
I'm missing how an hyphenated "audio-described" is magically shorter than 11 letters the maximum length above or how they classed "familiarise" as a 24yr old word. Frankly almost any adult that speaks English could read it, even though it's poorly written. Indeed, if anything the first one looks like it's been written by a 10yr old who hasn't learned to use grammar effectively and is intent on run-on sentences.
Here is a randomly selected Guardian article
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/oct/29/astounding-roman-statues-unearthed-at-norman-church-ruins-on-route-of-hs2
Again, I'm missing a reason (almost) any English speaking adult couldn't read that ? Obviously those from outside the UK may well wonder what HS2 is... or may not realise that Stoke Mandeville is a town.
What I'd expect is many people would struggle to write it.... but that's completely different to being able to read and comprehend it.
It's also more IMHO a question of who would choose to read it.
My expectations are that the average red top reader would only read an article about Stoke Mandeville if it involved Jimmy Saville (or perhaps because they live in Stoke Mandeville) and it's the subject matter not the grammar or vocabulary that puts them off in the first instance.
If you asked the average red top reader to read and answer some questions in order to receive a qualification in English they'd probably tell you to go have intercourse with yourself.
If you asked the average red top reader to read and answer some questions in order to receive a hot date with whomever is the celebrity of choice and the chance of a shag I'm sure most of them could.
If you asked the average red top reader to take the facts and write this I'd be surprised if any amount of bribery would produce an article of similar quality.
They may struggle spelling mausoleum for example but that doesn't mean they don't know what one is.
Look at it this way ... is the language really more complex than Indiana Jones? The same people can watch a film (so long as it has some action, boobs and sex) but can't read the same?
Change the subject from some "Astounding’ Roman statues" to a cache of Erotic Roman Art for example and it suddenly becomes more interesting and hence readable.
For example: https://www.amusingplanet.com/2016/11/naples-secret-museum-of-erotic-art.html
What is the reading age for "brothels", "erotic", Phallic-shaped, sexually explicit materials ???
"Today, it is well known that the ancient Romans had a very liberal view on sexuality, and that Pompeii boasted a large sex industry with dozens of brothels whose walls were adorned with erotic frescoes. Artistic depiction of sex was also found on the walls of bedrooms in private villas. Phallic-shaped amulets hung from the neck of Pompeii residents to ward of evil spirits, and an assortment of sex-themed artworks embellished every home.
The candid display of sexually explicit materials caused such great embarrassment and consternation among the 18th century public, that King Charles III of Bourbon ordered the obscene antiquities to be locked away in a secret cabinet, away from public view."
The point really is that most people are able to read many things they simply chose not to. It's not because the reading age is "too high" but that they don't give a **** about the subject.
To take my earlier example ... the person selling the bike with hydrolic breaks either just doesn't care or simply prefers to sound poorly educated. They have to specifically ignore an autocorrect... or even override it.
It's a mistake to assume because of that they can't READ and understand "hydraulic brakes" or for that matter "protein", "amino acid" or "DNA".
