General Discussion/Q&A on Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Beano]

I wouldn't feel happy about staying in the same hotel currently used for MIQ. Is it polite to ask a hotel if they do MIQ? I see I can book a room at the Hyatt Regency.

 

[Pushka]

I wouldn't feel happy about staying in the same hotel currently used for MIQ. Is it polite to ask a hotel if they do MIQ? I see I can book a room at the Hyatt Regency.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask and so no need to be bashful in asking. We always do if we aren't sure (eg another state).

 

[Pushka]

Why isn't the Australian Government using the rapid tests? Used in UK to do a quick test result in just a few minutes and according to a scientist yesterday is 100% reliable. Each family is given two or three a week and sons partner will use them later this week before she visits her aged parents. We could do a rapid test for all overseas flights and immediately isolate positive people rather than letting them stay at less secure places waiting for the nasal test results. Not to replace the swab tests at all, but an adjunct. It can also reliably test for positive cases where there are no symptoms for people in the general population. Is there any reason at all why we aren't doing this? And they are cheap.

 

[JessicaTam]

Why isn't the Australian Government using the rapid tests? Used in UK to do a quick test result in just a few minutes and according to a scientist yesterday is 100% reliable. Each family is given two or three a week and sons partner will use them later this week before she visits her aged parents. We could do a rapid test for all overseas flights and immediately isolate positive people rather than letting them stay at less secure places waiting for the nasal test results. Not to replace the swab tests at all, but an adjunct. It can also reliably test for positive cases where there are no symptoms for people in the general population. Is there any reason at all why we aren't doing this? And they are cheap.

My understanding is that it not 100% reliable. I am not sure what the error rate is but enough for it not to be used.

 

[drron]

My understanding is that it not 100% reliable. I am not sure what the error rate is but enough for it not to be used.

Initially it was reported that there was an accuracy of 94-96% but in the real world it is much lower.A CDC study showed an 80% accuracy if symptoms-that is missed 20% of positives.But in asymptomatic patients the accuracy dropped to 41%.

CDC study shows COVID-19 rapid tests not as accurate as first reported

COVID-19 rapid tests can deliver results in less than 15 minutes, but there are questions about their accuracy.

www.wsls.com

 

[Pushka]

My understanding is that it not 100% reliable. I am not sure what the error rate is but enough for it not to be used.

But it is better than the current system of waiting 24 hours for positive people to be isolated surely? In the general population If it picks up issues that aren't Covid related then a swab test is then needed to confirm. Which type of error is it unreliable? False positives or false negatives. If the former then there are no problems with that. It isn't to replace but we currently do with regards to quarantine but certainly could be extremely helpful once people land at the airport.

In the situation I refer to, likely a visit to a parent wouldn't necessitate a swab test especially in a child or young adult where there are no symptoms. In this case, it might pick up a positive that is hidden.

Isnt it better to add to the testing regime and not simply say it isn't 100% accurate and so completely dismiss it?

 

[Beano]

It would take one false negative to start the lock downs again.

 

[Pushka]

It would take one false negative to start the lock downs again.

If in the quarantine population, I am not suggesting that the swab regime is removed. So all people would continue to be quarantined and put into isolation and tested as per normal. Not an issue.

 

[Beano]

Ok, so you quarantine all positives and do a swab on all negative results, because you can't trust a negative? Any false positives just have to suck it up?

 

[Pushka]

Ok, so you quarantine all positives and do a swab on all negative results, because you can't trust a negative? Any false positives just have to suck it up?

I'm generally talking about people arriving from overseas who have to suck it up now so?

But it does have a use in the community.

In the general community, as a preventive to visit an older person for instance. As a preventive action then it assumes you have no symptoms. Take the quick test. False negative? Well, that is the situation now if you don't have symptoms, because you wouldn't have taken a swab test anyway. False positive? Cautionary isolate and get the swab test. Wait 24 hours. And act according to the results. I don't see the issue, it's called risk management in a pandemic.

So, in the case of having symptoms. You have to have a swab test. That should not change. And in the interim in that 24 hour wait, take the rapid test. If that shows positive, then immediately isolate from everyone in the household. If that is negative, still isolate in general and await confirmatory swab test either positive or negative and take the appropriate action.

Quarantine workers. Take the quick test at the end of the shift (but in addition to the daily swab test that takes 24 hours). If the quick test is positive then given exposure it is likely to be true. Isolate from family until the swab test comes back.

 

[drron]

The UK has done very well especially in comparison to Europe.
.

The Pfizer vaccine was used for hospital workers and the results released.

Study shows BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine prevents symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection using real-world data

Findings from a study published in The Lancet show that the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine can prevent both symptomatic and asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in working-age adults. “Our follow-up of this large cohort of 23,324 health-care...

dgalerts.docguide.com

So 70% effective after 1 dose was 70% and at 1 week after second dose 85% effective in preventing Covid.The phase 3 trial suggested 945 effectiveness.
The Oxford vaccine in it's Phase 3 trials was said to be 62% effective leading a lot to say it was inferior to Pfizer.But what are the real world figures.
Well in the UK 76% effective after 1 dose and 82% effective after a second dose-though not that many have had their second dose.

Oxford-AstraZeneca Q&A: How effective is the Covid-19 vaccine, and how is it different to Pfizer?

The rollout of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is in full flight in the UK - here is everything we know so far

www.telegraph.co.uk

Take home message-the results of Phase 3 trials are merely guides.The real proof comes in the real world and results are that there is very little difference in the results of Pfizer and Oxford vaccines.

 

[NM]

Regarding rapid tests, how about using them at the boarding airport gate area. Positive result and nobody from your party is getting on the aircraft. Negative result and you can board, but arrival process with hotel quarantine remains as it is today. Use the rapid test to identify people who are already positive before boarding. Yes, its not a perfect test, but might slow the number of infectious people arriving into the country.

 

[Flashback]

Why isn't the Australian Government using the rapid tests? Used in UK to do a quick test result in just a few minutes and according to a scientist yesterday is 100% reliable. Each family is given two or three a week and sons partner will use them later this week before she visits her aged parents. We could do a rapid test for all overseas flights and immediately isolate positive people rather than letting them stay at less secure places waiting for the nasal test results. Not to replace the swab tests at all, but an adjunct. It can also reliably test for positive cases where there are no symptoms for people in the general population. Is there any reason at all why we aren't doing this? And they are cheap.

That was the MO when kidlets went back to school, now you can order online or pop into a chemist and pickup packs of 7 tests at a time. Chemists will normally give you 2x 7.

Not 100% reliable as noted, however if it comes back positive then you're obliged to then take a PCR test which is more reliable and if that comes back negative then all good and if not well you know the drill.

The UK has done very well especially in comparison to Europe.
View attachment 246437.

The Pfizer vaccine was used for hospital workers and the results released.

Study shows BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine prevents symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection using real-world data

Findings from a study published in The Lancet show that the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine can prevent both symptomatic and asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in working-age adults. “Our follow-up of this large cohort of 23,324 health-care...

dgalerts.docguide.com

So 70% effective after 1 dose was 70% and at 1 week after second dose 85% effective in preventing Covid.The phase 3 trial suggested 945 effectiveness.
The Oxford vaccine in it's Phase 3 trials was said to be 62% effective leading a lot to say it was inferior to Pfizer.But what are the real world figures.
Well in the UK 76% effective after 1 dose and 82% effective after a second dose-though not that many have had their second dose.

Oxford-AstraZeneca Q&A: How effective is the Covid-19 vaccine, and how is it different to Pfizer?

The rollout of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is in full flight in the UK - here is everything we know so far

www.telegraph.co.uk

Take home message-the results of Phase 3 trials are merely guides.The real proof comes in the real world and results are that there is very little difference in the results of Pfizer and Oxford vaccines.

Mrs FB had her 2nd shot booked for 12 weeks, GP has now offered earlier slots. She was going to go for Friday which would have been 8 weeks but a Dr friend here suggested having it closer to 10 so she booked the latest slot available which put her bang on 9 weeks so she'll be sorted by the end of next week. AZ for her. Mine I just have to wait for supplies so who knows when I will get it... Pfizer for me. Hopefully in the next month also.

 

[Beano]

Still waiting to hear. the NZ web site says they will let me know, but not how they would let me know.

 

[Flashback]

That was the MO when kidlets went back to school, now you can order online or pop into a chemist and pickup packs of 7 tests at a time. Chemists will normally give you 2x 7.

Not 100% reliable as noted, however if it comes back positive then you're obliged to then take a PCR test which is more reliable and if that comes back negative then all good and if not well you know the drill.

Mrs FB had her 2nd shot booked for 12 weeks, GP has now offered earlier slots. She was going to go for Friday which would have been 8 weeks but a Dr friend here suggested having it closer to 10 so she booked the latest slot available which put her bang on 9 weeks so she'll be sorted by the end of next week. AZ for her. Mine I just have to wait for supplies so who knows when I will get it... Pfizer for me. Hopefully in the next month also.

Exhibit A ....... no, I'm not sure why one box is bigger than the other. Both contain 7 tests! Perhaps male swabs are bigger to cater for our bigger mouths


Made in........... China, of course!

 

[OZDUCK]

Some good news out of the UK showing a marked reduction in the transmission rate after just the first dose of either Pfizer or A straZeneca

Covid: One dose of vaccine halves transmission - study

People who get coronavirus after their first jab are up to 49% less likely to pass it on, research suggests.

www.bbc.com

 

[drron]

Another lot of interesting snippets.
Even in children who are symptomatic with C-19 or the MIS-C syndrome thrombotic events are not uncommon occurring in 6.8%in those older than 12 but under 21.But if they did have thrombosis the mortality rate was 28%.

Study details incidence of thrombosis in children and adolescents hospitalised with COVID-19 or MIS-C

A multicentre retrospective cohort study was conducted to determine the incidence of thrombosis in children and adolescents hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and to evaluate its associated risk factors. The findings...

dgalerts.docguide.com

The story with the UK variant keeps changing.A study a little while ago suggested it did cause increased severity but this new study doesn't.

SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant associated with increased viral load, but not increased disease severity: Study

A study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggests that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.1.7 variant was not associated with more severe disease or death, although the variant was associated with an increased viral load, consistent with emerging...

dgalerts.docguide.com

Meanwhile in the UK the Covid challenge study is beginning.People deliberately re infected but with the original Wuhan strain.

Welcome to Precision Vaccinations News

Precision Vaccinations News publishes vaccine news patients can trust to make informed immunization decisions in partnership with doctors, nurses, and pharmacists.

www.coronavirustoday.com

And it has been shown Covid can grow in salivary cells and can be spread by saliva.

Study Demonstrates Saliva Can Spread Novel Coronavirus

COVID-19 is primarily considered a respiratory illness that affects the lungs, upper airways, and nasal cavity. But COVID-19 can also affect other parts of the body, including the digestive system,…

directorsblog.nih.gov

 

[dajop]

Regarding rapid tests, how about using them at the boarding airport gate area. Positive result and nobody from your party is getting on the aircraft. Negative result and you can board, but arrival process with hotel quarantine remains as it is today. Use the rapid test to identify people who are already positive before boarding. Yes, its not a perfect test, but might slow the number of infectious people arriving into the country.

I vaguely recall that is part of the plan for charter flights from India to re-commence.

 

[Bundy Bear]

Once people come back to Australia and into a quarantine hotel can't we just give them all a pfizer vaccine.

It was like earlier they didn't have the authority to test anyone in isolation so can't we just give everyone a shot on their first night.

I'm surprised that the Australian government has stopped direct flights between India and Darwin; wasn't Howard Springs set up for this kind of scenario.

 

[k_sheep]

Why isn't the Australian Government using the rapid tests? Used in UK to do a quick test result in just a few minutes and according to a scientist yesterday is 100% reliable. Each family is given two or three a week and sons partner will use them later this week before she visits her aged parents. We could do a rapid test for all overseas flights and immediately isolate positive people rather than letting them stay at less secure places waiting for the nasal test results. Not to replace the swab tests at all, but an adjunct. It can also reliably test for positive cases where there are no symptoms for people in the general population. Is there any reason at all why we aren't doing this? And they are cheap.

The company will of course say they are 100% reliable. They will only release the results when they have worked perfectly how they want - you don't know how many previous failed attempts they have made.

All the studies we have done, on real-life samples (dual tested with these antigen tests and 2x different PCR methods), on 8 different products, have shown sensitivity and specificity in the 60% range - ie not much better than flipping a coin. That's false negatives and false positives. So they are utterly useless in a resource rich country like Australia.

Once swabs are in the lab, most methods are complete in 4 hours, some less than an hour. So there's no real use for 'rapid', subpar tests anywhere near a laboratory.