For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 351
  • 352
  • 353
  • 354
  • 355
  • 582
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876486
Miscellaneous wrote:Can anyone explain the thinking behind someone living in a household where an occupant has tested positive, not being required to isolate providing they have been double jabbed?

Would such a person not be equally likely to pass on COVID whether jabbed, or not?


AIUI the idea is that someone double jabbed is not as infectious as someone who isn't. Therefore it doesn't automatically follow that they infect others. So the idea is that contacts do LFT rather than isolate,

At the moment Mrsjohnm is testing weekly because that's part of the deal with choir starting up again. As long as she tests negative we're making the brave assumption that I am OK too. Should she test positive then I'll be testing as well.
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876487
eltonioni wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Yes and no.

Do you think the UK has per capita more vulnerable people?

I personally think that it is more useful to compare data from countries with similar population densities and economic, medical and social parameters.

Of course.

What I'm trying to say (obviously quite badly :) ) is that a death is a statistic of one, ie dead/alive. What causes that one to be dead/alive is about that individual, which I certainly don't need to tell you as a GP and am not trying.

So while Covid death comparisons between similar nations are useful/helpful/interesting/instructive/whatever, they are Schrodinger's Statistics, being both dead and alive, healthy and unhealthy until we look in the box. We know that the actual patient in the box will most likely be previously unhealthy and dead. We have to open a lot of boxes to find a previously healthy and dead patient. Happily, virtually every box has a live patient, whether healthy or not.




Apologies for absolutely mangling the metaphor, I just wanted to shoehorn in my new favourite term, Schrodinger's Statistic. :oops:


(nerd-mode-on) I'm not sure Schrodinger's method is applicable to COVID - don't the events need to be independent? You may have been referring to Heisenberg - as in Heisenbug where the problem moves as soon as you look hard at it. (nerd-mode-off)

Schrodinger's Statistics sounds better :D

PS some readers may know why I chose () rather than <>
eltonioni liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876500
Miscellaneous wrote:Would such a person not be equally likely to pass on COVID whether jabbed, or not?


I think the type of vaccine makes a difference as well.

I know of a few households where those Astra Zeneca jabbed got Covid and were reasonably ill, but others Pfizer jabbed in the same household didn't get it at all and tested negative throughout. I also know some people who were Pfizer jabbed who tested positive and were a little bit ill for a few days.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876522
eltonioni wrote:I had the Pfizer as booster yesterday. Original jabs were OxAz. Literally no idea what any of that really means.

/feelingexperimental :D


It means that you are unlikely to have any side effects other than a sore arm (both personal and professional experience) ,and the benefit, that as far as we know at the moment, the best possible protection.

:thumright: :thumleft:
eltonioni, kanga liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876549
johnm wrote:AIUI the idea is that someone double jabbed is not as infectious as someone who isn't. Therefore it doesn't automatically follow that they infect others. So the idea is that contacts do LFT rather than isolate,



Johnm wrote:
It seems that the double jabbed can still pass on the Delta variant with a viral load similar to those unvaccinated, it's just that the double jab mitigates the severity of disease suffered by that infected person.


Hey ho….
#1876555
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
It means that you are unlikely to have any side effects other than a sore arm (both personal and professional experience) ,and the benefit, that as far as we know at the moment, the best possible protection.

:thumright: :thumleft:


You could, of course, listen to FD who is a medical professional, or you could assume that the virologists studying this stuff know what they are talking about.

However, I read on the Internet somewhere that some bloke's mate's mate's brother-in-law's second cousin had all his hair fall out and became impotent.

Whatever were you thinking? :wink:
kanga, eltonioni liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876631
I would expect serious academics to publish their views in an academic paper, not a weekly or daily fish and chips wrapper.

Apart from that, Sikora is now so discredited that in a recent case* where his 'expert advice' was provided by the defence that he was referred to the GMC for his actions in that case.

That takes some beating.

'The case was that of the oncologist who was happy to treat the rich and famous for vast sums of money outside any treatment guidelines/policies projecting recovery/healing by treating them, in some cases literally on their death bed. As an expert witness it is always wise to see what case you are taking on and for which side.
kanga, johnm, MikeB liked this
  • 1
  • 351
  • 352
  • 353
  • 354
  • 355
  • 582