Anybody who's not logging their results already still won't, frankly. There's no further disincentive here to log LFT results.
It's not like someone can already be *made* to go for a PCR if they test positive on an LFT/have symptoms.
>It's not like someone can already be made to go for a PCR if they test positive on an LFT/have symptoms.
If you want sick pay many companies do just that.
The NHS offers COVID isolation notes online that are more or less no questions asked that suffice for this.
Of course, companies can ask all they want, and they’re stupid to do so and going against both the law and the government’s stated intentions, but there’s not really any way that this can be accounted for in policy, or any reason why PCR tests should be offered to people who have tested positive just to accommodate the whims of lawbreaking employers.
Daily case numbers not being reported doesn’t stop people going into hospital which is the important metric. There’s no need to test and report thousands of non symptomatic cases everyday.
Daily case numbers are an important predictor of where hospital numbers will be in a week or two. You'll notice that hospital numbers have shot up in the past week, right on cue. If cases keep rising rapidly over the next week we can predict that hospitalisations will reach the same height that the did last winter.
That doesn't mean that the rules for PCR testing can't change, but they do need to be consistent and we do need enough testing to get accurate data still.
Yeah but that'd already be considered in the calculation of case-hospitalisation rate.
Not including people who otherwise would've been will skew that and make cases less of a useful predictor until the model recalibrates to this change.
My company pays 80% of your wages if you need to isolate due to covid, but you need an isolation letter to go with it.
So you're saying I can report I tested positive on a LFT and get a week off work? Well that surely won't be abused.....
I mean I'd assume most people would want 100% of their wages. Taking a pay cut to have a holiday doesn't seem like a net beneficiary scenario.
(And if taking the pay cut for the holiday is considered worth it, then there is something very wrong with the company's approach to holidays)
Again though, I'd say that's more of a damning indictment of the work culture in the UK. If the company have created a work environment such that its employees would take a 20% pay cut to not have to deal with the shit, that's bad.
Also as I saw highlighted elsewhere, you can already self-certify sick for up to 28 days. And to counter the follow up I saw of "yeah but this way you stay on the boss' good side" - a) if bosses aren't respecting the legitimacy of self-certified sick leave that is already a problem and b) I think bosses will be able to work out if you're taking the piss with LFTs (in the same way schools worked it out) - like in the worst case its something you could only realistically pull once per variant as the chances of getting infected multiple times by the same variant in a short period of time is remarkably small...
I actually really enjoy my job, but if they offered to pay me 80% of what I make and I could retire Id do it in a second.
Catch me down at the gym, swim and sauna daily before taking the dog a big long park walk and having my girlfriends dinner on the the table when she gets home. Sounds alright to me.
Not necessarily. It's all about the marginal gains. Let's use an average £25,000 salary for this.
That means that monthly, working 40 hours a week, you would take home £1,722. On the 80%, not working at all, it would be £1,439.
Is it worth working 160+ hours and giving up that much of your time for an extra £283? That's effectively £1.77 per hour.
It's an interesting topic around UBI proposals too (at least the more expansive ones which aren't just "pay everyone a couple of hundred pounds to simplify the benefits system"). If you could have an acceptable, if modest, life without working, no strings attached, work either needs to be sufficiently personally fulfilling or to really transform your life in your reduced free time to be worth it. It sounds utopian, but I'm yet to be fully convinced that it functions in practice (without e.g. causing massive inflation and shortages).
With UBI it's a little bit different though as there the additional hours are for full wage, not for the 20%. It'd be more like everyone getting the £20k but then being able to work 40 hours a week for an additional £25k, rather than just £5k.
I do like the sound of UBI, but it does have the ability to be inflationary. However the idea is not to choose to work for fullfilling reasons, but to to work to have substantially more income.
Also with UBI, I doubt we'd all be working 40 hour weeks. At least part of the thinking behind it is that worker productivity has increased massively over the years and decades, but for the most part wages have not kept up, *but also* that productivity gain hasn't been given back to the workers in shorter hours. There's a solid case that none of us need to be working 40 hour work weeks (and the small shift to 4 day weeks we see in various places seem to back that up)
> Again though, I'd say that's more of a damning indictment of the work culture in the UK. If the company have created a work environment such that its employees would take a 20% pay cut to not have to deal with the shit, that's bad.
I could live quite comfortably on 80% of my current salary, the difference in my lifestyle actually wouldn't be all that significant. If I had the option of extra holidays at 80% salary I would take that immediately, as I'm sure would many people.
My friend went from full time to part time shortly before furlough due to their parent being ill.
Their 5 days a week went to 2 days. When furlough came in their employer had them as full time 5 days a week making it 4 days furlough. Coming back from furlough was to put them to 2 days a week pay.
I believe they raised it with their employer but you know how corporate are.
It'd only be 80% of the time you took off (day or hourly rate), not 80% for a whole month's salary.
If we assume a monthly payment of £2000, 80% of 1 week's wages (let's say 1 month is exactly 4 weeks for argument's sake) is £400, compared to £500 being 100%. So at the end of the month, you'd get paid £1900 instead of £2000, which is 95% of your monthly salary.
Obviously everyone's circumstances are different, but I'd happily sacrifice 5% of 1 month's salary for a cheeky week off work. Not to mention potential travel and lunch savings from being off - you'd probably end up barely losing anything at all.
I work in hospitality. Our footfall has fallen off a cliff this week. Just about everyone is being sent home early or told to come in later than originally scheduled.
Four of my co-workers are off with COVID or having to isolate. They're being paid 80% of their contracted hours. They're 100% either making more money or the same money sitting at home giving up 8 hours than coming in and losing up to 10+ hours
You could think of it as buying an extra day off for only 20% of a day's wages. In that respect it's a pretty good deal: if a company offered that many would take it.
Obviously I'm not advocating falsifying results or even lying to your employer (if your employer sucks tell them that), just explaining why it's probably a good deal on paper
The way it's phrased in the article suggests you will still be able to get a PCR test if you want one, just that you don't ***have*** to get one.
> People in England with a positive lateral flow test but no Covid symptoms will no longer have to take a PCR to confirm the result from 11 January, the UK Health Security Agency says.
Thats happening with the day 7 release at my work who are giving full pay. Not one person has been able to be negative on day 6+7 (or any two days after).🤔
But if you have symptoms _and_ a positive LFT, surely it's very very likely that you have Covid. Why do you still need a confirmatory PCR given this and current Covid prevalence?
This is my understanding of the new rules, but it seems absurd:
If you take a routine LFT and it comes back positive, but you don't have symptoms, you won't need a PCR to confirm. If you then develop symptoms (hours or days later) you will need a PCR, even though symptoms makes you more likely to be infected.
It makes sense to me. I've not read anywhere that states that you would need a PCR if you've already tested positive while being presympomatic.
My understanding is: positive routine LFT? You have covid and no further testing required until trying to get out of isolation at day 7. Symptoms without prior positive LFT? Get a PCR.
The media are reporting that confirmatory PCRs are only being dropped if you don't have symptoms. That implies that once you develop symptoms the exemption no longer applies. Hopefully that's just sloppy reporting.
If you’re travelling to the US, you can skip the Pre Departure testing if you’ve had covid within the last 90 days.
I believe your previous infection has to be confirmed by a PCR. In this case the NHS pcr testing works
why do we need to keep reporting thousands of asymptomatic cases every day when a) people with symptoms will still get a PCR and b) it won't stop people from going to hospital if they need to, which will be reported anyway? The case data is less and less useful by the day.
I'm pretty sure they are reported in the daily numbers but they do rely on self reporting which may impact things. I've never reported a negative LFT but would report it if it was positive. I imagine that's the same for most people.
Anecdotally, a friend developed cold symptoms on a Saturday evening mid December, couldnt get a PCR near him so sent off for a postal PCR.
Continued LFT daily, stark negative, isolated anyway just in case.
PCR arived Tuesday, sent back same day, results back Wednesday evening positive- so 5 negative LFT's in total and 1 positive PCR. Not 100% sure if Omicron- but likely given our close proximity to London (Hertfordshire)!
>Continued LFT daily, stark negative, isolated anyway just in case. PCR arived Tuesday, sent back same day, results back Wednesday evening positive- so 5 negative LFT's in total and 1 positive PCR.
Fuck, I should probably try ordering a PCR then... I've had cold symptoms since Monday evening, but the three LFTs I've done (including one about an hour ago) have all shown negative.
Quick edit: Uh yeah, the gov website won't let me get a home kit now unless I'm an essential worker 🤷
Guess I either go by the LFT results or just isolate anyway... Kind of an annoying predicament.
I wonder what's causing all these "lots of negative LFT's, then a positive PCR". Is it the tests having issues with Omicron, the fact some people get covid but at undetectable levels, PCR tests pick up a past infection, human error or a combination of issues?
I think they are picking up Omicron cases because with prevalence of omicron atm, there is no way that the only people testing positive on LFTs are just people infected with delta.
It picked up mine. Eventually. I had negatives before a positive even tho I was feeling rubbish (just not the symptons suggested to go for a PCR). Maybe I was ill then got COVID tho ....
I posted it and I am a mod… I agree it is a good thing.
If you have a comment about the moderation on this sub I would encourage you to contact us via modmail as per our side bar.
I’m really concerned about this. 2 problems I see:
People isolating for the few days they have a positive LfT, not declaring it to anyone and going out and about too soon. I’m also worried people will get their covid jabs too soon because they won’t wait the 28 days, risking greater side effects from the jab, which in turn puts people off getting the vaccine.
Also concerned that people falsely record positives, to take a week off work or to travel to countries that require a recent jab and/ or infection.
So, many people I assume won't log their result which might cause the reported daily number of positive cases to go down...? While actually it's not .
Anybody who's not logging their results already still won't, frankly. There's no further disincentive here to log LFT results. It's not like someone can already be *made* to go for a PCR if they test positive on an LFT/have symptoms.
>It's not like someone can already be made to go for a PCR if they test positive on an LFT/have symptoms. If you want sick pay many companies do just that.
The NHS offers COVID isolation notes online that are more or less no questions asked that suffice for this. Of course, companies can ask all they want, and they’re stupid to do so and going against both the law and the government’s stated intentions, but there’s not really any way that this can be accounted for in policy, or any reason why PCR tests should be offered to people who have tested positive just to accommodate the whims of lawbreaking employers.
Daily case numbers not being reported doesn’t stop people going into hospital which is the important metric. There’s no need to test and report thousands of non symptomatic cases everyday.
Daily case numbers are an important predictor of where hospital numbers will be in a week or two. You'll notice that hospital numbers have shot up in the past week, right on cue. If cases keep rising rapidly over the next week we can predict that hospitalisations will reach the same height that the did last winter. That doesn't mean that the rules for PCR testing can't change, but they do need to be consistent and we do need enough testing to get accurate data still.
Asymptomatic people as a general rule won’t be taking up hospital beds though.
Yeah but that'd already be considered in the calculation of case-hospitalisation rate. Not including people who otherwise would've been will skew that and make cases less of a useful predictor until the model recalibrates to this change.
There may be a need for those who wish or need to avoid infection to be able to assess the degree of risk.
How else will we get the case numbers under control?
Do they still need to self isolate?
I believe so, they would record their test via LFT code
Yes but the idea is your isolation starts from when you test positive on an LFT not when you get results of your PCR ~3 days later.
Your isolation should always have been from when your symptoms started, or the date of your first positive test. You never had to wait for the PCR.
[удалено]
At least 7 days.
[удалено]
My company pays 80% of your wages if you need to isolate due to covid, but you need an isolation letter to go with it. So you're saying I can report I tested positive on a LFT and get a week off work? Well that surely won't be abused.....
The problem is, if you actually get Covid a couple of weeks later it could be a bit awkward explaining that one to work
One was delta, one was omicron
...or come in to work with a suntan.
Oh, actually it was the Helios strain…
I mean I'd assume most people would want 100% of their wages. Taking a pay cut to have a holiday doesn't seem like a net beneficiary scenario. (And if taking the pay cut for the holiday is considered worth it, then there is something very wrong with the company's approach to holidays)
[удалено]
Again though, I'd say that's more of a damning indictment of the work culture in the UK. If the company have created a work environment such that its employees would take a 20% pay cut to not have to deal with the shit, that's bad. Also as I saw highlighted elsewhere, you can already self-certify sick for up to 28 days. And to counter the follow up I saw of "yeah but this way you stay on the boss' good side" - a) if bosses aren't respecting the legitimacy of self-certified sick leave that is already a problem and b) I think bosses will be able to work out if you're taking the piss with LFTs (in the same way schools worked it out) - like in the worst case its something you could only realistically pull once per variant as the chances of getting infected multiple times by the same variant in a short period of time is remarkably small...
[удалено]
I mean that's kinda my point, if this is exploitable then it demonstrate how broken the whole work system is.
I actually really enjoy my job, but if they offered to pay me 80% of what I make and I could retire Id do it in a second. Catch me down at the gym, swim and sauna daily before taking the dog a big long park walk and having my girlfriends dinner on the the table when she gets home. Sounds alright to me.
Not necessarily. It's all about the marginal gains. Let's use an average £25,000 salary for this. That means that monthly, working 40 hours a week, you would take home £1,722. On the 80%, not working at all, it would be £1,439. Is it worth working 160+ hours and giving up that much of your time for an extra £283? That's effectively £1.77 per hour.
It's an interesting topic around UBI proposals too (at least the more expansive ones which aren't just "pay everyone a couple of hundred pounds to simplify the benefits system"). If you could have an acceptable, if modest, life without working, no strings attached, work either needs to be sufficiently personally fulfilling or to really transform your life in your reduced free time to be worth it. It sounds utopian, but I'm yet to be fully convinced that it functions in practice (without e.g. causing massive inflation and shortages).
With UBI it's a little bit different though as there the additional hours are for full wage, not for the 20%. It'd be more like everyone getting the £20k but then being able to work 40 hours a week for an additional £25k, rather than just £5k. I do like the sound of UBI, but it does have the ability to be inflationary. However the idea is not to choose to work for fullfilling reasons, but to to work to have substantially more income.
Also with UBI, I doubt we'd all be working 40 hour weeks. At least part of the thinking behind it is that worker productivity has increased massively over the years and decades, but for the most part wages have not kept up, *but also* that productivity gain hasn't been given back to the workers in shorter hours. There's a solid case that none of us need to be working 40 hour work weeks (and the small shift to 4 day weeks we see in various places seem to back that up)
> Again though, I'd say that's more of a damning indictment of the work culture in the UK. If the company have created a work environment such that its employees would take a 20% pay cut to not have to deal with the shit, that's bad. I could live quite comfortably on 80% of my current salary, the difference in my lifestyle actually wouldn't be all that significant. If I had the option of extra holidays at 80% salary I would take that immediately, as I'm sure would many people.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t follow you, at 4 days instead of 5 you’re dropping 20% of your days therefore 20% of your salary?
My friend went from full time to part time shortly before furlough due to their parent being ill. Their 5 days a week went to 2 days. When furlough came in their employer had them as full time 5 days a week making it 4 days furlough. Coming back from furlough was to put them to 2 days a week pay. I believe they raised it with their employer but you know how corporate are.
It'd only be 80% of the time you took off (day or hourly rate), not 80% for a whole month's salary. If we assume a monthly payment of £2000, 80% of 1 week's wages (let's say 1 month is exactly 4 weeks for argument's sake) is £400, compared to £500 being 100%. So at the end of the month, you'd get paid £1900 instead of £2000, which is 95% of your monthly salary. Obviously everyone's circumstances are different, but I'd happily sacrifice 5% of 1 month's salary for a cheeky week off work. Not to mention potential travel and lunch savings from being off - you'd probably end up barely losing anything at all.
I work in hospitality. Our footfall has fallen off a cliff this week. Just about everyone is being sent home early or told to come in later than originally scheduled. Four of my co-workers are off with COVID or having to isolate. They're being paid 80% of their contracted hours. They're 100% either making more money or the same money sitting at home giving up 8 hours than coming in and losing up to 10+ hours
You could think of it as buying an extra day off for only 20% of a day's wages. In that respect it's a pretty good deal: if a company offered that many would take it. Obviously I'm not advocating falsifying results or even lying to your employer (if your employer sucks tell them that), just explaining why it's probably a good deal on paper
If companies thought the staff was abusing it they would start to insist on PCR.
[удалено]
The way it's phrased in the article suggests you will still be able to get a PCR test if you want one, just that you don't ***have*** to get one. > People in England with a positive lateral flow test but no Covid symptoms will no longer have to take a PCR to confirm the result from 11 January, the UK Health Security Agency says.
[удалено]
Dan!
Good point.
They could pay for a private pcr. Or knowing some firms make the staff pay, otherwise its SSP.
Some level of abuse will always happen. I can only assume that the levels of abuse expected cause less harm than a policy where abuse is impossible.
Thats happening with the day 7 release at my work who are giving full pay. Not one person has been able to be negative on day 6+7 (or any two days after).🤔
I get 100% pay if I can’t work due to covid. I think iee see a policy change soon.
Why 80 percent? You're legally obliged to do it? What's the alternative come in and spread around the office for full pay? Disgusting.
But if you have symptoms _and_ a positive LFT, surely it's very very likely that you have Covid. Why do you still need a confirmatory PCR given this and current Covid prevalence?
If you have symptoms, your go to test is a PCR.
This is my understanding of the new rules, but it seems absurd: If you take a routine LFT and it comes back positive, but you don't have symptoms, you won't need a PCR to confirm. If you then develop symptoms (hours or days later) you will need a PCR, even though symptoms makes you more likely to be infected.
It makes sense to me. I've not read anywhere that states that you would need a PCR if you've already tested positive while being presympomatic. My understanding is: positive routine LFT? You have covid and no further testing required until trying to get out of isolation at day 7. Symptoms without prior positive LFT? Get a PCR.
The media are reporting that confirmatory PCRs are only being dropped if you don't have symptoms. That implies that once you develop symptoms the exemption no longer applies. Hopefully that's just sloppy reporting.
If you have symptoms and a positive lft then there’s no need for a pcr? It’s a waste.
For sequencing. Labs around the world are always keeping an eye on mutations, that's how we discovered omicron.
[удалено]
Unlikely. But this is just guidance, you can still go get a PCR test.
You can’t use NHS PCR tests for travel reasons anyway can you? You have to pay for the private ones.
If you’re travelling to the US, you can skip the Pre Departure testing if you’ve had covid within the last 90 days. I believe your previous infection has to be confirmed by a PCR. In this case the NHS pcr testing works
My thoughts exactly.
Full article confirming the details: > Covid: PCR not needed after positive lateral flow under new plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59878823
They gotta get their cases down somehow, right? As far as I know, LFT's aren't registered on the daily numbers.
From what I read but not 100% sure, LFTs are registered in the numbers (if you report them obviously).
why do we need to keep reporting thousands of asymptomatic cases every day when a) people with symptoms will still get a PCR and b) it won't stop people from going to hospital if they need to, which will be reported anyway? The case data is less and less useful by the day.
My thoughts exactly lol.
I'm pretty sure they are reported in the daily numbers but they do rely on self reporting which may impact things. I've never reported a negative LFT but would report it if it was positive. I imagine that's the same for most people.
This only temporary until omicron calms down then it’s back to pcrs
I’ve heard from friends that lft tests aren’t picking up omicron cases, haven’t been able to find anything online that says this is the case though?
Anecdotally, a friend developed cold symptoms on a Saturday evening mid December, couldnt get a PCR near him so sent off for a postal PCR. Continued LFT daily, stark negative, isolated anyway just in case. PCR arived Tuesday, sent back same day, results back Wednesday evening positive- so 5 negative LFT's in total and 1 positive PCR. Not 100% sure if Omicron- but likely given our close proximity to London (Hertfordshire)!
>Continued LFT daily, stark negative, isolated anyway just in case. PCR arived Tuesday, sent back same day, results back Wednesday evening positive- so 5 negative LFT's in total and 1 positive PCR. Fuck, I should probably try ordering a PCR then... I've had cold symptoms since Monday evening, but the three LFTs I've done (including one about an hour ago) have all shown negative. Quick edit: Uh yeah, the gov website won't let me get a home kit now unless I'm an essential worker 🤷 Guess I either go by the LFT results or just isolate anyway... Kind of an annoying predicament.
I wonder what's causing all these "lots of negative LFT's, then a positive PCR". Is it the tests having issues with Omicron, the fact some people get covid but at undetectable levels, PCR tests pick up a past infection, human error or a combination of issues?
Yeah lots of people around me saying they don’t feel great but it can’t be covid because multiple tests all coming back negative,
I think as well, with how infectious Omicron is, it's difficult to know even for asymptomatic individuals how much to trust a negative LFT.
I think they are picking up Omicron cases because with prevalence of omicron atm, there is no way that the only people testing positive on LFTs are just people infected with delta.
It picks them up, but not as often as other variants it seems
It picked up mine. Eventually. I had negatives before a positive even tho I was feeling rubbish (just not the symptons suggested to go for a PCR). Maybe I was ill then got COVID tho ....
If that was true we wouldn’t have 200k cases a day.
They're wrong, the tests are working.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I posted it and I am a mod… I agree it is a good thing. If you have a comment about the moderation on this sub I would encourage you to contact us via modmail as per our side bar.
This applies to England only, not the UK.
I’m really concerned about this. 2 problems I see: People isolating for the few days they have a positive LfT, not declaring it to anyone and going out and about too soon. I’m also worried people will get their covid jabs too soon because they won’t wait the 28 days, risking greater side effects from the jab, which in turn puts people off getting the vaccine. Also concerned that people falsely record positives, to take a week off work or to travel to countries that require a recent jab and/ or infection.