Does it matter? Seriously. Neither feels unwell nor makes any demand on healthcare etc which I suspect is your focus.
People use terms like "infected with SARS-CoV-2", "has COVID-19", "is infected with the virus that causes COVID-19", etc., pretty much interchangeably. (Though I think the last one's almost never used because it's too long, but it's something someone might say.)
The tests don't show if one is infectious. I've said this from the very beginning and it is still true today.
In the paragraph above you correctly identify the test is actually for the presence of the sars cov2 virus, not the covid disease. In this one you get it wrong. So you yourself are now mixing up the terminology and as someone so keen on the correct usage it proves how easily less pedantic people might confuse/use them.
Yes you are right, they have the wording technically incorrect. Again does it flipping matter? They are infected with the transmissible virus - which is the relevant part - regardless of what you call it. Do you correct everyone on every incorrect usage of the English language?
They technically don’t. They ring in “sick” infected with a transmissible virus. Again semantics, that just about everyone except you seems to understand. Previously in the pandemic that was legally mandated to avoid onward transmission. Now it’s a matter a company policy how it’s handled, same as most other illnesses, diseases and infections. This virus is unusual in that we can test for it at home asymptomatically. We don’t face this same dilemma about other asymptomatic “sickness/infection/disease” because we don’t know about it. If we did the level of risk to others would need to be assessed in order to attend work in the same way it is/was for sarscov2/covid.
Ok. I'm completely wrong. I'm just being pedantic, playing with words and getting into circular conversations.
yep 100% agree with you now You are using this argument to rile against the restrictions that were put in place (which are in the past now too). I’ve heard better and more persuasive ones even if I don’t agree with them.
Yep got that many posts back. Agreed with you. And said so many times. And agreed people use the virus name and disease name interchangeably and incorrectly sometimes. The rest of us extrapolate, understand their meaning, ignore the error and move on rather than carry on in the above mentioned circles.
See #125
I actually do agree here. But you seem to ignore this system isn’t perfect and doesn’t always respond fast enough to achieve no symptoms and even over reacts sometimes too and causes it’s own problems. When it’s a new infection to the host even more likely it won’t be perfect the first time.
For this virus we don’t need to distinguish as the testing is primarily for the purpose of avoiding reinfecting others. And no one has recommended treatment or seeking medical care for a positive test without symptom’s.
And continuing to do so would have removed all your negative feelings? I don’t think so. As I said laziness in speech and text because of the awkwardness of using sarscov2 probable Is responsible for the inaccurate shorthand much as it is for many other technical but widely understood errors. (There’s one being discussed about margarine elsewhere in the forum right now, hoovers and vacuums, pens and bics)
I watched the case numbers all through the pandemic. I felt it more than just laziness that they changed a simple positive test to a "case". As you understand, a "case" of something is a huge leap from just a positive test (there are thousands of viruses and we could make a test for anyone of them).
I think you've developed an obsession with my posts. Lol.
Plenty of other threads to watch.
@nonethewiser Straight up question, honestly, has your interest never been piqued by any of it?
You are aware that protection from natural and vaccines is not identical? It seems not. Thouhg I do agree it always felt odd natural immunity from a recent infection was ignored. They stimulate the body slightly differently? And fade at different rates? And have different effects on T cells as well as antibodies? And have differing effects on the likelihood and severity of long covid?
The problem as I see it is that the "experimental mRNA product" (Peter Doshi's description) has been conflated with traditional "vaccines".
They use a different technology, sure, but the idea's the same: they let the adaptive immune system see things we'd like it to attack, but without the risk of being infected by whatever it is.
Still a vaccine introduced via a jab v natural immunity. Whatever your views on either they are not the same thing and have different properties/effect, and that was my point. I’m not going to debate covid vaccines/mRNA etc as that’s another huge as yet unconcluded issue.
My impression is partly they didn't want to create incentives for people to infect themselves and partly they were worried about the relative variation in response to infection. Likely also there's some question of simplicity (many people were infected before testing was generally available).
All very fair points.
. I’m pro vaccine (even whilst realising it’s not perfect and there will always be rare and serious reactions to ANY medication) but it has to be said even vaccine responses are variable in regards to immunity conferred, not just virus exposure.Especially early on I don't get the impression that the PM cared that much about deaths, as such. The fear was overwhelming hospitals with people needing oxygen (who might well survive, but equally might not).
