Coronavirus Thread

[Guest Harrydc]

Only 1 place out of the 20 places with a current local lockdown have had Coronavirus cases decrease. That's a 5% success rate of local lockdowns. Going by these FACTS, how is forcing Notts in to a lockdown going to help anyone? It will only cause more austerity and depression.

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Legend_in_blue said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

 

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

 

There is plenty out there to suggest that they are not effective.  Certainly "a face covering" is not effective.  The WHO state as such. 

 

 

N95 masks are the most efficient but are not mandatory so why do the govt persist in forcing "a face covering" when these are not effective?  They should be making N95 masks mandatory.  

 

 

 

 

 

This all seems rather misleading. You quote these studies as if they are suggesting that masks don’t work at all. Admittedly I have only quickly skimmed the abstracts, but AFAICT most of these seem to be comparing N95 vs surgical not masks vs nothing. I don’t think any of them were saying that wearing masks is ineffective.

 

A mask is not a silver bullet but does not have to be 100% effective to have a significant effect. For example if two people are both wearing masks and one is infectious, and if each mask is only 30% effective, the probability of passing on the infection by the infectious person is only 70% of what it would have been. Likewise the uninfected person is only 70% as likely to become infected as they would have been. These two probabilities multiply to result in infection probability of only 49% of what it would have been, ie infection rate halved.

 

This could have a real effect on the value of R. Suppose on average each infected person passes the infection on to R other people in the absence of masks. If everyone wore a mask in the example above, this number could halve to R/2. So for example, this could reduce R from 1.5 (bad) to 0.75 (infection will peter out).

 

No one wants lock downs, or thinks that they can go on indefinitely and simply be incorporated into our long term way of life. Eventually, if a vaccine does not materialise, and there are no silver bullet cures, we will have to accept the consequences, though even then in such a way as not to overwhelm health services. In the meantime, it seems that the people who rail most loudly against being locked down, are also those whining on about relatively innocuous interventions like mandatory mask wearing that might actually result in lockdowns being unnecessary.

Edited 11 October 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Americans traditionally are less concerned than us about continuing to breathe for as long as possible.  There are many more people over there who happily carry on eating fried food all day and every day, not because they don't know it's bad for them, but because they are willing to take their chance.

...and then when the time comes they shit themselves, blame everyone else and "want more time", just like anybody else does.

 

Yeah, humans lacking foresight and taking risks based on that is definitely a thing and that's totally ok - so long as it is only themselves that they're potentially harming (or at least others consenting to take the same risk). That ain't the case here.

 

 

2 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

In Ivor's latest video, we also have a WHO representative who is now saying that lockdowns are ineffective.  

 

 

 

When Boris makes his statement on Monday, he'll have to bring his bus with him.

 

2 hours ago, Harrydc said:

Only 1 place out of the 20 places with a current local lockdown have had Coronavirus cases decrease. That's a 5% success rate of local lockdowns. Going by these FACTS, how is forcing Notts in to a lockdown going to help anyone? It will only cause more austerity and depression.

I'll direct this question to both of the above responses tbh, because I don't think I've heard a real response to it in all of this thread.

 

What is the alternative to local or national lockdowns/mask wearing and other measures, and how can it be proven that it will save more lives in the long term than the actions being carried out now?

 

"Proven" being the key word here.

 

35 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

This all seems rather misleading. You quote these studies as if they are suggesting that masks don’t work at all. Admittedly I have only quickly skimmed the abstracts, but AFAICT most of these seem to be comparing N95 vs surgical not masks vs nothing. I don’t think any of them were saying that wearing masks is ineffective.

 

A mask is not a silver bullet but does not have to be 100% effective to have a significant effect. For example if two people are both wearing masks and one is infectious, and if each mask is only 30% effective, the probability of passing on the infection by the infectious person is only 70% of what it would have been. Likewise the uninfected person is only 70% as likely to become infected as they would have been. These two probabilities multiply to result in infection probability of only 49% of what it would have been, ie infection rate halved.

 

This could have a real effect on the value of R. Suppose on average each infected person passes the infection on to R other people in the absence of masks. If everyone wore a mask in the example above, this number could halve to R/2. So for example, this could reduce R from 1.5 (bad) to 0.75 (infection will peter out).

 

No one wants lock downs, or thinks that they can go on indefinitely and simply be incorporated into our long term way of life. Eventually, if a vaccine does not materialise, and there are no silver bullet cures, we will have to accept the consequences, though even then in such a way as not to overwhelm health services. In the meantime, it seems that the people who rail most loudly against being locked down, are also those whining on about relatively innocuous interventions like mandatory mask wearing that might actually result in lockdowns being unnecessary.

Thank you for clarifying this for the benefit of everyone who doesn't want to be misled.

[Heathrow fox]

5 hours ago, st albans fox said:

A few months ago there was hardly any virus out there ....... add to that sunlight limits the ability of the infection to spread ........outside events simply did not see any transmission....

 

but as winter draws on that may change somewhat, especially if we get cold and still conditions ....... I expect it’s all to do with trying to get us all wearing some kind,of covering .....if they’re off and on then it becomes more complicated - if they’re on all the time then it’s much more straightforward..... how much difference it makes we won’t know for some time but it definitely wouldn’t make it worse !  

All good points and I have no problem wearing a mask when out and about.Especially now the weathers turning.The danger was that mask wearing would make us more complacent.The 2m rule has all but gone out the window.Even more so now mask wearing is being encouraged.Personally given a choice,I would feel less likely to catch the virus with a return to the strict 2m rule,than wear a sub standard mask and be more bunched up.

[yorkie1999]

The whole problem is going to eventually come down to an economic one and the reason people are arguing about masks and lockdowns is because they want to get back to some sort of normality and see it all as an infringement on their basic rights and are worried about their future. If the government had said that people’s wages would be covered if you have to take time off and stay at home due to catching the virus they would have, so far, had to cover 350000 people’s wages and life would have carried on as normal, but instead they’ve somehow managed to completely destroy the economy and we’ve ended up with millions unemployed, so far as those jobs are not coming back, who are all going to need supporting for many years, , and we’re still in the same position as when we started. How could we end up in a situation where apparently the average age of a person dying from the virus is older than the average age of a person who dies without it and contemplate sacrificing the whole country because of it. Statistically you’re better off dying of Covid than of something else because you’re going to live longer.

Edited 11 October 2020 by yorkie1999

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Thank you for clarifying this for the benefit of everyone who doesn't want to be misled.

Thanks Mac, but please remember that I don’t claim any authority on any medical discipline. I didn’t know what epidemiology was before February. I have a basic training in a numerate science from long ago and am just trying to use a little common sense.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Thanks Mac, but please remember that I don’t claim any authority on any medical discipline. I didn’t know what epidemiology was before February. I have a basic training in a numerate science from long ago and am just trying to use a little common sense.

As someone with a little experience in science communication, you did a fine job of disseminating the information in those articles and addressing how the original post containing them was misleading.

[joachim1965]

9 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Have you got scientific papers to back that up or simply your opinion? 

If you're walking through a busy area, a mask would protect yourself and others. 

it will not.

[MonmoreStef]

10 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

‘The average age of those who have died from coronavirus in England and Wales since the start of the pandemic is 82.4 years old.’
 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/average-age-of-coronavirus-fatalities-is-82-pcwqrzdzz

Incredible stat.  So in essence we are destroying both our economy and our way of life for people in there 80s. I’d be surprised if the people over 80 would even want us to make such sacrifices for them. 

[UniFox21]

8 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

 

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

 

There is plenty out there to suggest that they are not effective.  Certainly "a face covering" is not effective.  The WHO state as such. 

 

 

N95 masks are the most efficient but are not mandatory so why do the govt persist in forcing "a face covering" when these are not effective?  They should be making N95 masks mandatory.  

The first thing I'll say is your sources linked average to be from 10/11 years ago, many stating there isn't a huge amount of data available or present for them to carry out their literature review and meta analysis, which will skew much of what they've written.

 

However, you're correct in what you're suggesting that the face coverings aren't 100% effective. But they simply don't need to be in order to be of good use.

The surgical masks are much more effective, but also have an increased cost, are generally single usage and need fitting to produce a tight fit on your face, so aren't sustainable.

 

In high crowded spaces for example, a face covering reduces your "spray" of droplets and aerosols, reducing your potential transmission events straight away. In tandem with social distancing rules and you're likely reducing transmission events and protecting yourself and others. Without an individually fitted face mask, you aren't being 100% effective. But that was never the point for their usage.

 

None of the measures outside of a full lockdown will stop transmission fully, but it's about reducing it as much as possible, whilst being able to continue with normality.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202031254X

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2?ContensisTextOnly=true

[Guest Harrydc]

Seriously had enough of all this. Everyday is a struggle knowing what's coming in regards to the economy and the great depression. 

[UniFox21]

24 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

it will not.

Face coverings reduce your aerosol/droplet "spray", reducing your ability to transmit the virus. Therefore protects you and others to a degree. 

 

Then sticking to social distancing and you're decreasing risk further.

[RobHawk]

28 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

Seriously had enough of all this. Everyday is a struggle knowing what's coming in regards to the economy and the great depression. 

Stop watching! Seriously!

I think their reaches a point in time or life where you realise theres no point worrying about what you cant control.

 

Right now, you cant control what the authorities do, you cant control what the virus does, you cant control how the economy reacts. So stop watching and live in ignorant bliss! 

Works a lot better for me anyway and i'm out on a busy shop floor, surrounded by the general public for 40 hours a week. 

[st albans fox]

17 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Face coverings reduce your aerosol/droplet "spray", reducing your ability to transmit the virus. Therefore protects you and others to a degree. 

 

Then sticking to social distancing and you're decreasing risk further.

It’s interesting that it’s now accepted (and proven) wisdom that face coverings reduce transmission of the virus. Six months ago we were told that there wasn’t peer reviewed evidence that they were of use in controlling transmission.  It was just common sense that they would help.  Now we’re are being asked to accept it’s common sense to have a 10pm curfew and questions are being asked for the data  that proves it ....... mixed messages and little honesty from the authorities that the mask advice from April was based on availability of PPE for carers and the NHS .......

[Legend_in_blue]

Van-Tam is giving the doomsday predictions this morning.

 

Just close everything down then and see what effect it makes.  Close everywhere down.  Stay at home.  Do nothing.

 

Both sides of the argument cannot be correct but since the other side doesn't seem to be getting any recognition in the mainstream, just shut us down.  

 

It's not as if we're anywhere near Vallance's doomsday predictions of a few weeks ago but the expectation is the public won't notice and go with the narrative.

 

If everyone stays at home, they'll have to blame something else when it doesn't suit!

[FoxesDeb]

9 hours ago, Harrydc said:

It really is astonishing to me how many people are just accepting everything being told to them. More people have died of suicide than covid over the last few months, mental health deteriorating, businesses falling apart, millions being made redundant. Does that not concern anyone? Or will you still accept all of this in 2 years time for your own 'safety'? 

https://fullfact.org/health/post-comparing-deaths-august-guess/

 

 

 

 

[UniFox21]

9 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It’s interesting that it’s now accepted (and proven) wisdom that face coverings reduce transmission of the virus. Six months ago we were told that there wasn’t peer reviewed evidence that they were of use in controlling transmission.  It was just common sense that they would help.  Now we’re are being asked to accept it’s common sense to have a 10pm curfew and questions are being asked for the data  that proves it ....... mixed messages and little honesty from the authorities that the mask advice from April was based on availability of PPE for carers and the NHS .......

For sure its interesting to see the data support the initial thoughts behind the use of masks and face coverings. As you say this felt like common sense. 

 

I can see the same appearing with pubs, simply as closing them an hour early will accumulate over time so of course will give a lower number of infections. But i don't personally see the sense in the rule. Forces people out at 10, so people generally will stay until 10. Rather than with an 11 close time, people will gradually leave on their own accord and not be squashed out in a large group.

 

There is a lot of hidden priorities behind many of the rules, I don't think we'll ever find out the full extent of the problems behind our policy and decision making. 

[filbertway]

I've decided to stop worrying about it till February, it's getting me down thinking of the potential consequences of it all. I will be annoyed with the government if they don't support anyone who is forced out of work because of this. They've already lost any potential vote from me in the next election. All I'm hoping is that there's still a life worth living on the other side of this. We're sacrificing a lot in our future to attempt to save an incredibly small amount of lives in the grand scheme of things (that could be saved if they took precautions anyway).

 

Average age of deaths is 82 is it? If you're 75+, try and avoid contact with large amounts of people. Have neighbours, family or friends do your shopping. See family from a distance outside. My grandparents have been doing this Feb. They don't need the government to tell them what to do - they know they're doing it for their own safety.

 

Hopefully we more positive news of a vaccine in the next month or two.

 

[joachim1965]

can anybody tell me if this virus has ever been isolated?

[UniFox21]

2 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

can anybody tell me if this virus has ever been isolated?

I believe so: 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/

 

I'd suggest it has been in order for us to be producing a vaccine we'd need to know the genomic structure and physical characteristics of the virus.

[joachim1965]

I have just read a paper on pcr testing issued by CDC which states "since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-ncov are currently available" 

Why are no isolates available.

[joachim1965]

[StanSP]

Margaret Ferrier is a piece of work isn't she? Now saying it was 'a blip' and that Covid makes you do weird things

 

[StanSP]

And this shite still continues... 

 

 

[stretch1965]

10 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I've decided to stop worrying about it till February, it's getting me down thinking of the potential consequences of it all. I will be annoyed with the government if they don't support anyone who is forced out of work because of this. They've already lost any potential vote from me in the next election. All I'm hoping is that there's still a life worth living on the other side of this. We're sacrificing a lot in our future to attempt to save an incredibly small amount of lives in the grand scheme of things (that could be saved if they took precautions anyway).

 

Average age of deaths is 82 is it? If you're 75+, try and avoid contact with large amounts of people. Have neighbours, family or friends do your shopping. See family from a distance outside. My grandparents have been doing this Feb. They don't need the government to tell them what to do - they know they're doing it for their own safety.

 

Hopefully we more positive news of a vaccine in the next month or two.

 

You have just summed up all of my own thoughts, feelings and worries. I wish I had the courage to discuss these worries with my family instead of telling them we will be fine and have just got to get through it.

Great post