News Forum - Those who don’t report positive ATK results can face penalties – DDC director

[FTF020]

So hold on, are these last 4 pages of hurf-blurf about reporting your positive ATK test to the authorities or are some of the more extreme types now advocating going out even when testing positive?

I agree the former is a bad idea, and how are they even going to check it? Sift through your trash to see if there's any used ATK tests in there? (also don't the results fade in hours anyway?)

[Vince]

Just now, FTF020 said:

So hold on, are these last 4 pages of hurf-blurf about reporting your positive ATK test to the authorities or are some of the more extreme types now advocating going out even when testing positive?

I agree the former is a bad idea, and how are they even going to check it? Sift through your trash to see if there's any used ATK tests in there? (also don't the results fade in hours anyway?)

It could come back to bite you if you knew and were then caught at a pool party infecting 20 other people. 

I'm assuming kits are bought in person with cash? Any credit card transaction leaves a paper trail. 

Unless forced to test I don't see any point if you have only mild symptoms and no high risk factors. 

A case of a runny bottom or sore throat isnt much bother to me to want to get a COVID test. 

[FTF020]

9 minutes ago, Vince said:

It could come back to bite you if you knew and were then caught at a pool party infecting 20 other people. 

Oh not I totally agree. If I had a positive ATK test I would do another one just to be sure, and then properly self-isolate until negative. But i'd do that before going for a PCR and possibly ending up in "the system" and paying lots more.

 

9 minutes ago, Vince said:

I'm assuming kits are bought in person with cash? Any credit card transaction leaves a paper trail. 

Either pay cash or bring some from home (I always carry a couple as I work in hospitality)

 

9 minutes ago, Vince said:

Unless forced to test I don't see any point if you have only mild symptoms and no high risk factors. 

A couple days before your flight home for example could be useful, just so you have more time to anticipate problems/make arrangements

Edited January 20, 2022 by FTF020

[jaymi]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

You've missed the whole point of the "delay".  It's nothing to do with zero covid or miracles or delaying long covid, but is what all the restrictions have been intended to do - simply give time for vaccines to be produced, procured and administered.

It's pretty simple.

"You've missed the whole point of the "delay""

I have not missed the point at all, you will notice I explicitly said that when you are exposed it will depend on what your vaccination status is.  Of course this is then related to the amount of people that need to be treated in hospital and hence the hospitals ability to cope.  It really is pretty simple, I should not need to explain it to you further.

 

[Vince]

3 minutes ago, FTF020 said:

Oh not I totally agree. If I had a positive ATK test I would do another one just to be sure, and then properly self-isolate until negative. But i'd do that before going for a PCR and possibly ending up in "the system" and paying lots more.

I'd self isolate with any symptoms. 

And wear a mask with or without symptoms. 

 

[oldschooler]

10 hours ago, Stonker said:

It's far from as simple as that.

While your "97%" isn't correct for the UK it's still a very clear majority despite the non-vaxxed being a minority of the population, so you shouldn't really be comparing numbers as if they're the same - 10 out of 30 is a lot worse than 10 out of 70.

What's key, as the ONS concluded, is that you're about 30 times more likely to die from Covid if you're unvaccinated than if you're vaccinated.

Interestingly, the ONS concluded that the unvaccinated are also considerably more likely to die earlier from NON-Covid issues than the vaccinated. Nothing to do with being vaccinated or not, but evidently the non-vaccinated are just less likely to take care of their health and more likely to be unhygienic and prone to illness with less effective immune systems.

Interesting, given some of the assumptions made here .

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31october2021

Yes, would expect to see irrational folk like anti - vaxxers believing all sorts of other unscientific nonsense so making bad or wrong Health choices.
Did say I liked various other (empirical) points made by the (extreme) anti -vaxxer poster.
The 97% gives a 32x factor so close to ONS 30x figure, which appears fairly consistent across western countries at least. straight causality correlation, no doubt with (minor) contributing factors like poorer hygiene, health and stress ( so much anger) lowering anti - vaxxer immune systems.

[GMoney2312]

11 hours ago, Stonker said:

What's key, as the ONS concluded, is that you're about 30 times more likely to die from Covid if you're unvaccinated than if you're vaccinated.

 

In his post he also provides a link to a report of the ONS that concludes that you're about 30 times more likely to die from Covid if you're unvaccinated than if you're vaccinated.   But if you open that report it states already in the very 1st point of the Summary that the monthly age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for deaths involving COVID-19 have been consistently lower for people who had received a second dose at least 21 days ago, compared with unvaccinated people. This is the case for all age groups. 

The disdain and contempt for the intelligence and analytical skills of the readers of those ONS reports is simply stunning.  I do not think that those statisticians that wrote the report are absolute morons, and that leads to the conclusion that they are DELIBERATELY trying to obfuscate the correct conclusions from the figures (which by the way they refuse to share as it is 'not in the public interest' to do so). 

The point is that they compare the deaths 'involving covid' of the double-vaccinated who had received a 2nd dose at least 21 days ago, with the unvaccinated.  That means to put it simple: if you die less than 21 days after having received your 2nd covid-jab that you are counted as 'unvaccinated'.  And we know that the risk of dying after having received the jab is highest shortly after being jabbed and then gradually diminishes such that if you make it till second/third week your risk has become very low.  And that's exactly what they are finding.

So concluding that the unvaccinated group (which contains those less than 3 weeks ago last vaccine receivers), are at 30 times higher risk than the double-jabbed group constitutes data fraud as the large majority of their readers will take that statement at face value. 

 

[Stonker]

9 hours ago, jaymi said:

"You've missed the whole point of the "delay""

I have not missed the point at all, you will notice I explicitly said that when you are exposed it will depend on what your vaccination status is.  Of course this is then related to the amount of people that need to be treated in hospital and hence the hospitals ability to cope.  It really is pretty simple, I should not need to explain it to you further.

The reason for my thinking that you'd missed the point was because you wrote :

13 hours ago, jaymi said:

So restrictions are only in place to slow the spread to a level where hospitals can continue to treat those who are elderly and/or vulnerable, they are not there to stop you actually being exposed at some point.

I disagree strongly, particularly as you've now repeated that.

That is very much NOT the "only" reason why restrictions are in place - it's not "only" about "the hospital's ability to cope".  That's certainly a major factor, but it's also about those who've ben infected after they leave hospital who suffer the effects of long covid and the recently discovered shorter term "brain fog".

There are going to be a growing number of them as there are more cases and infections unless some restrictions are kept in place, and obviously that's going to affect not just them but those who have to take care of them, as well as the workforce they're going to only be able to play a reduced part in, even if (IF) the numbers hospitalised remain steady and the hospitals can do their part.

You then went on to say:

 

13 hours ago, jaymi said:

So those who are saying for example that restrictions are justified to prevent a lot of people getting 'long covid' don't understand that is not part of the plan or something restrictions will prevent longterm.  If someone is going to be susceptible to "long covid" then the restrictions at best would just slightly delay the point at which this occurs, not if it occurs.

Again, I completely disagree since what you're saying is incorrect medically on a point of fact:  very few of those who are "going to be susceptible to "long covid"" will get long covid once they're fully vaccinated (with a booster).

What you're saying is simply not correct: they're not just doomed to long covid - that's the whole point of the vaccines, which you seem to be denying.

The restrictions are there not just to keep hospital numbers down but also to prevent a lot of people getting long covid as that IS something restrictions will prevent long term, as they won't just "slightly delay the point at which this occurs" but they will prevent it occuring as they will buy time for booster vaccines to be procured and better vaccines developed.

Your view clearly appears to be that we're all doomed not only to catch Covid but to get long covid if susceptible (and for many to presumably suffer the 'brain fog' too), and that nothing can be done to change that so all that matters is that hospitals are able to cope and that the only answer is for " those who are worried stayed at home until some miracle cure was discovered."

To me that's as absurd as it is selfish - 40% of the population are clinically vulnerable to Covid, and many of those as well as many who aren't will catch long covid if not vaccinated to give them some level of protection and minimise the symptoms. 

A reasonable level of restrictions, such as continued mask wearing by all, can prevent that until boosters can be procured and administered and better vaccines developed.

It's a simple choice.  Either:

1. All play their part and endure a minimal amount of inconvenience and restrictions for the benefit of all until all can be fully vaccinated, if they want to be, so everyone can enjoy a reasonable amount of 'freedom' now and full 'freedom' later.

or

2. Some can object to playing their part and sacrificing any of their 'freedom' for others, wanting full 'freedom' for themselves now even if that means that many others will either suffer and die because of that or have no 'freedom' at all.

I think we've both made our preferences clear, as have others here. 

 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, GMoney2312 said:

The point is that they compare the deaths 'involving covid' of the double-vaccinated who had received a 2nd dose at least 21 days ago, with the unvaccinated.  That means to put it simple: if you die less than 21 days after having received your 2nd covid-jab that you are counted as 'unvaccinated'.  And we know that the risk of dying after having received the jab is highest shortly after being jabbed and then gradually diminishes such that if you make it till second/third week your risk has become very low.  And that's exactly what they are finding.

No, that's not "exactly what they are finding", and your claim of what "they compare" and  that  "if you die less than 21 days after having received your 2nd covid-jab that you are counted as 'unvaccinated' " is completely incorrect.

They don't just compare fully vaccinated (21 days after jabs) with the unvaccinated as you claim. That's not correct at all - the comparison groups are very clearly shown in Table 1, the first table in the report, Para 3.

The comparisons and tables in Para 3 compare five vaccination states:

"The vaccination status is split by dose and time since vaccination, to allow for the increase in protection in the first few weeks after vaccination. The vaccination status is one of:

• unvaccinated
• received only the first dose, less than 21 days ago
• received only the first dose, at least 21 days ago
• received the second dose, less than 21 days ago
• received the second dose, at least 21 days ago"

In Para 4 they compare those in Group 1 ("unvaccinated") with Group 3 ("received only the first dose, at least 21 days ago") and with Group 5 ("received the second dose, at least 21 days ago") NOT Groups 1+2+3+4 with Group 5 as you claim.

In Para 5 they again compare all five groups, as in Para 3, and the same 3 groups as Para 4.

What you're claiming is simply completely incorrect and doesn't happen at any stage in the report, and I'm putting that as politely as possible.

For anyone thinking that "deaths involving Covid-19" is just a death within 28 days of being tested, they also give a lengthy and very detailed explanation, centred around "For this analysis we define a death as involving COVID-19 if either of the ICD-10 codes U07.1 (COVID-19, virus identified) or U07.2 (COVID-19, virus not identified) is mentioned on the death certificate."

1 hour ago, GMoney2312 said:

and that leads to the conclusion that they are DELIBERATELY trying to obfuscate the correct conclusions from the figures (which by the way they refuse to share as it is 'not in the public interest' to do so). 

That's also clearly patently incorrect, since they've "shared" the figures you're referring to in the report - if they hadn't done so, you wouldn't have been able to read them.

Edit:

To save anyone looking for the link, this was the ONS report referred to:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31october2021

 

[GMoney2312]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

No, that's not "exactly what they are finding"

And then I fell asleep.....

[Stonker]

24 minutes ago, GMoney2312 said:

And then I fell asleep.....

I was being generous, as you appear to have been asleep when you read it.

[GMoney2312]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

I was being generous, as you appear to have been asleep when you read it.

Read it? Now that is funny!

[jaymi]

7 hours ago, Stonker said:

2. Some can object to playing their part and sacrificing any of their 'freedom' for others, wanting full 'freedom' for themselves now even if that means that many others will either suffer and die because of that or have no 'freedom' at all.

There you go with the sanctimonious virtue signalling.  So anyone that takes a different view to you isn't bothered if others suffer and die...how predictable...

7 hours ago, Stonker said:

 very few of those who are "going to be susceptible to "long covid"" will get long covid once they're fully vaccinated (with a booster).

So it needs to be with the "booster".  You do realise that the booster wains and some countries are now rolling out a 4th dose right?  Next you will be calling for restrictions until everyone has had a 4th dose in order to prevent "long covid".  In your world restrictions will never end and anyone that suggests they should end will get your "you don't care about other people" accusation.

 

[Stonker]

12 minutes ago, jaymi said:

There you go with the sanctimonious virtue signalling.  So anyone that takes a different view to you isn't bothered if others suffer and die...how predictable...

Nothing to do with virtue signalling or taking a different view - that just happens to be the choice.

 

14 minutes ago, jaymi said:

So it needs to be with the "booster".  You do realise that the booster wains and some countries are now rolling out a 4th dose right?  Next you will be calling for restrictions until everyone has had a 4th dose in order to prevent "long covid".  In your world restrictions will never end and anyone that suggests they should end will get your "you don't care about other people" accusation.

Fortunately for me, my "world" is Thailand and that's how Thais look at it.

[jaymi]

6 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Nothing to do with virtue signalling or taking a different view - that just happens to be the choice.

But it is not the only choice.  You can play your part in terms of being fully vaxxed, boosted and masking and still justifiably point out when restrictions are starting to cause more problems than they are solving.

[Stonker]

15 minutes ago, jaymi said:

But it is not the only choice.  You can play your part in terms of being fully vaxxed, boosted and masking and still justifiably point out when restrictions are starting to cause more problems than they are solving.

Unfortunately that isn't what you said before  -  that restrictions are "only" there to control hospital numbers, not to save lives, minimise long covid, or to enable others to have some 'freedom':

22 hours ago, jaymi said:

... So restrictions are only in place to slow the spread to a level where hospitals can continue to treat those who are elderly and/or vulnerable, they are not there to stop you actually being exposed at some point.

So those who are saying for example that restrictions are justified to prevent a lot of people getting 'long covid' don't understand that is not part of the plan or something restrictions will prevent longterm.  If someone is going to be susceptible to "long covid" then the restrictions at best would just slightly delay the point at which this occurs, not if it occurs.  The only exception would be if the whole world was pursuing a zero covid strategy, which it is not, or those who are worried stayed at home until some miracle cure was discovered.

... maybe you've changed your mind ...

[jaymi]

6 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Unfortunately that isn't what you said before  -  that restrictions are "only" there to control hospital numbers, not to save lives, minimise long covid, or to enable others to have some 'freedom':

... maybe you've changed your mind ...

Hospitals are where those who get seriously ill are treated, restrictions keep those numbers to a manageable level so that not too many are getting sick at once.  There are several ways you might stop too many hospitalisations, for example restrictions can reduce transmission, vaccination rollouts can stop people getting seriously ill even if they contract covid etc.  But with something as contagious as Omicron restrictions are not going to stop you being exposed at some point, which goes all the way back to exactly what I said at the beginning which you conveniently leave out:

"The question is not whether you will will at some point be exposed to covid but rather what your vaccination/health status is at the time, and/or what treatments may become available in the future."

But hey, if you want to call for almost never ending restrictions while everyone waits for a 4th dose, 5th dose etc, feel free to stay in with a mask permanently on, meanwhile the rest of us can trust in the science and start to get back to normal.

 

[Stonker]

3 minutes ago, jaymi said:

Hospitals are where those who get seriously ill are treated, restrictions keep those numbers to a manageable level so that not too many are getting sick at once.  There are several ways you might stop too many hospitalisations, for example restrictions can reduce transmission, vaccination rollouts can stop people getting seriously ill even if they contract covid etc.  But with something as contagious as Omicron restrictions are not going to stop you being exposed at some point, which goes all the way back to exactly what I said at the beginning which you conveniently leave out:

"The question is not whether you will will at some point be exposed to covid but rather what your vaccination/health status is at the time, and/or what treatments may become available in the future."

But hey, if you want to call for almost never ending restrictions while everyone waits for a 4th dose, 5th dose etc, feel free to stay in with a mask permanently on, meanwhile the rest of us can trust in the science and start to get back to normal.

Not what I'm saying, which is simply that if everyone gives up a small amount of their 'freedom' then everyone can live a reasonably 'free' life before we can all return to normality.

Your suggestion that some should have to "stay in with a mask permanently on" just to survive, though, so that you can ignore them and "start to get back to normal" yourself, puts your view clearly into perspective.

[jaymi]

36 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Not what I'm saying, which is simply that if everyone gives up a small amount of their 'freedom' then everyone can live a reasonably 'free' life before we can all return to normality.

Your suggestion that some should have to "stay in with a mask permanently on" just to survive, though, so that you can ignore them and "start to get back to normal" yourself, puts your view clearly into perspective.

Not to ignore, but we all accept there is some risk in order to live in a free society.  For example in the UK in 2017/18 four month flu season there were 50,000+ excess deaths.  Surely some of these could have been prevented with a full lockdown in 2017.  But we have chosen to accept that part of the cost of having an open society is that there will be some risk.  

Looking at the typical symptoms with Omicron, unlike Delta, Omicron in many cases is less severe than a serious bout of flu.  Now if you still want restrictions under those circumstances, you would have to wonder when you would ever agree to them being relaxed...Omicron in Thailand will cause far less deaths than motoring this year, should we stop people driving?

 

 

 

[SkipsPa]

Seems badly worded to me and could be misinterpreted :-  Does this mean if I test negative ATK result I can face penalties for not reporting positive?

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, jaymi said:

..Omicron in Thailand will cause far less deaths than motoring this year, should we stop people driving?

If you look at the most recent figures for road deaths in Thailand, not the oft quoted ones from ten years ago, there were twice as many deaths from Covid last year as deaths in RTA's.

... and why "stop people driving" - Covid is a respiratory virus, so the equivalent would be to stop people breathing, which as far as I know hasn't been suggested.

It's a pretty simple choice - you can either keep a few restrictions in place such as mask wearing and social distancing until people have had the opportunity to be vaccinated sufficiently, which is a minor inconvenience to all but will save deaths and illness for many, or you can remove those restrictions and let those people suffer and die while you're able to live the life you want.

I prefer the former and so do all the Thais I know and all those I see.

You prefer the latter. Up to you, but at least have the courage to say so rather than trying to find an excuse for it.

[riclag]

2 hours ago, SkipsPa said:

Seems badly worded to me and could be misinterpreted :-  Does this mean if I test negative ATK result I can face penalties for not reporting positive?

Today I went to the private hospital up here for a full general exam ! Urine,blood, xrays ,ultrasound of the colon  and Doctor consult.

I inquired if I must take a covid test ! Originally they said only if I was to stay overnight!

 Come to find out they said I had to take one if I wanted ultrasound test on my lower body! I declined!

I thought if my the test  came back positive , I wouldn’t be leaving that hospital until it became negative and the cost of quarantine 

I wasn’t sure if they initially did the atq or the more reliable pcr,in any event, I accomplished everything I set out to do minus the ultrasound !

[jaymi]

24 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Up to you, but at least have the courage to say so rather than trying to find an excuse for it.

I am triple jabbed, always wear a mask and am cautious to others in indoor spaces, I doubt of course I am as virtuous as yourself, but I have followed the restrictions carefully.

26 minutes ago, Stonker said:

If you look at the most recent figures for road deaths in Thailand, not the oft quoted ones from ten years ago, there were twice as many deaths from Covid last year as deaths in RTA's.

I mentioned Omicron, which is the dominant strain now as that is what is being dealt with now.  I raised no objections to previous lockdowns etc.

27 minutes ago, Stonker said:

It's a pretty simple choice - you can either keep a few restrictions in place such as mask wearing and social distancing until people have had the opportunity to be vaccinated sufficiently

That is a pretty good statement, but the goal posts around 'vaccinated sufficiently' have been getting difficult to define and it is now becoming clear, with even a 4th dose being liable to wane, that at some point things will need to open up again even though not all will be as protected as would be ideal.

To be honest I am not sure that we disagree on as much as you maybe think we do, this is all a sliding scale of lifting restrictions vs risk, and we may or may not be in a slightly different position on that scale in terms of our opinions, but I doubt we are a mile apart.