Inflation

[Deleted member 292770]

Fillyboy has just presented a classic example of the difference between unsubstantiated information claimed as factual. But when he presents the real information backed up with the actual quote, and supported with links to the original information, the difference becomes crystal clear.

Fillyboy's opinion claims it's 24 days, but the real restriction is 17 days. It could be longer depending on your symptoms, but it could be just 14 days.






Of course you're not, because the actual information out there disproves your claims.


I always provide the links to my sources of information.


Very trying!

It’s nice that we can agree to disagree.
Some people have opinions.
Some people have other peoples opinions.
That’s cool.

 

[Deleted member 292770]

It could be longer depending on your symptoms,

so it could be 24 days.
stop digging . Please.

 

[fillyboy]

And there was me thinking 14 + 10 = 24

 

[Deleted member 292770]

Don't apologise, at least you are trying.

More than you do . You just brown nose Angle.

 

[denso13]

And there was me thinking 14 + 10 = 24

It is and also, 14 = 14

 

[denso13]

so it could be 24 days.

Yes, but not for all, that is the point.

It could even be longer than that.

 

[fillyboy]

24 Day Isolation Rule Non-announcement Unprofessional And Unworkable | Scoop News

 

[ajohn]

OK, sounds good, so do we follow the UK scientists who say we need to self isolate for 5 days, or the New Zealand scientists who say we should self isolate for 24 days?
Sounds to me like they haven't got a ******* clue, much like yourself, a clueless internet troll.

When people mention the UK isolation rules and get critical as they have changed they forget testing is involved. If some one is positive they remain in isolation. That determines how long they isolate - if they obey the rules. Quoting you as knowing the gov the actual real changes in isolation time may well on average be longer than the number of days they suggest. On the other hand vaccination should speed things up. Only one way to find out but if people don't report they never will. Infection levels show that 20 to 29 year olds do not report, more so males. That looks to be the case at other ages as well. Or maybe women spend more time talking to each other rather more close together than they ideally should be. Not the first time they lead on infection levels but the way testing is now they may be more inclined to report. The testing change is why some wonder if the numbers are meaningful any more. Gov says saving PCR for critical workers. Seems it was struggling to keep up.

NZ - their web pages will have info on what they actually do and probably why some where or the other as well. Au's rules have been misreported lately. NZ - pass and I wont be bothering to look. They have followed different ideas from day 1.China is too as are some others. Someday maybe it will be all looked at in detail to see what the best overall approach is but for instance we could not do what China is currently doing.

Or if you’re one side of a bridge wear masks everywhere, but if you’re the other side of the same bridge don’t wear any masks.

So the rule isn't perfect for those that choose to cross but if they follow welsh rules they should still work to them on the other side of the bridge as they are welsh. That is about as stupid as your comment especially as populations are of a certain size spread over an area and the majority wont cross it anyway as the boundary is too far away. How bright of you to spot a hole in the idea, congratulations, keep the good work up.

 

[Deleted member 292770]

When people mention the UK isolation rules and get critical as they have changed they forget testing is involved. If some one is positive they remain in isolation. That determines how long they isolate - if they obey the rules. Quoting you as knowing the gov the actual real changes in isolation time may well on average be longer than the number of days they suggest. On the other hand vaccination should speed things up. Only one way to find out but if people don't report they never will. Infection levels show that 20 to 29 year olds do not report, more so males. That looks to be the case at other ages as well. Or maybe women spend more time talking to each other rather more close together than they ideally should be. Not the first time they lead on infection levels but the way testing is now they may be more inclined to report. The testing change is why some wonder if the numbers are meaningful any more. Gov says saving PCR for critical workers. Seems it was struggling to keep up.

NZ - their web pages will have info on what they actually do and probably why some where or the other as well. Au's rules have been misreported lately. NZ - pass and I wont be bothering to look. They have followed different ideas from day 1.China is too as are some others. Someday maybe it will be all looked at in detail to see what the best overall approach is but for instance we could not do what China is currently doing.


So the rule isn't perfect for those that choose to cross but if they follow welsh rules they should still work to them on the other side of the bridge as they are welsh. That is about as stupid as your comment especially as populations are of a certain size spread over an area and the majority wont cross it anyway as the boundary is too far away. How bright of you to spot a hole in the idea, congratulations, keep the good work up.

I could have quoted
Leominster
Hay on wye
Shrewsbury
Chester.
But you get the point right? No ?
well that makes you the stupid one.
Thanks for leaving the gate open

 

[Deleted member 292770]

So the rule isn't perfect

It’s a joke . Get a grip. pick a town in the border that you can step across.

 

[denso13]

pick a town in the border that you can step across.

There are none.

 

[ajohn]

It’s a joke . Get a grip. pick a town in the border that you can step across.

Like I said how bright of you to spot the flaw. It clearly indicates a superior intellect. Clearly the welsh advisers were not aware of this. You should contact them and tell them they have it wrong. They are bound to be grateful as they just didn't realise.

 

[Deleted member 292770]

There are none.

jellyjook

 

[AngleEyes]

so it could be 24 days.

And there was me thinking 14 + 10 = 24

24 Day Isolation Rule Non-announcement Unprofessional And Unworkable | Scoop News

For sure there are hypothetical scenarios where some people may need to be in isolation for even longer.
Suppose someone tests positive, they need to isolate for 14 days. At the end of their isolation, close contacts need to isolate for a further 10 days. And assuming they are negative, all's well.
But suppose on day 5 a close contact tests positive. They need to isolate for 14 days (33 days total so far), Their close contact needs to isolate for 10 days after their release. Suppose this close contact is the same person who tested positive and isolated previously. That person would have undergone 14 days isolation, 5 days release, followed by more isolation while they look after the positive person, followed by another 10 days after the end of the 14 days isolation of the positive case, that could be something like 14 + (-5) + 14 + 10, 38 days total isolation, but with a 5 day gap after the first 14 days isolation.
So we could all present hypothetical examples that suit our narrative.

 

[denso13]

jellyjook

Gibberish