Coronavirus

[kent_white]

5 hours ago, boltondiver said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Interesting - but I can think of quite a few reasons why that study might not work very well straight off the top of my head. 

For example - did the group not wearing masks go to extra lengths to protect themselves because they weren't getting the protection offered more easily by a mask? 

I think it's highly likely that they did. 

The other thing to bear in mind is that everybody around them WAS wearing a mask which should help protect the none wearers anyway. The masks are really designed to prevent you spreading it - not the other way around.

But what this RCT does seem to show is that if you're in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask, but you choose not to. It won't significantly change your chance of catching COVID. Providing everybody else keeps theirs on.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

bar Belarus and Moldova, we were the last European country to offer out any sort of "national recommendations" (even Sweden did that a week before us) and pretty much the last to lockdown

everyone else had an inkling what was coming and acted swiftly

after the weekend of Wimbledon away (7th) we started to cancel social plans and kept outside contact to a minimum

all you had to do was look at what was sweeping it's way from the east to know that you had to act quickly

 

Absolutely, we knew it was coming. That's the difficulty for every government, judging when to act.

Like I said before, one of the main protagonists explained that we were much closer in time to Europe, and not the "two weeks" or so that they initially said.

Also loops back to kent's initial input in explaining that PHE had been drastically reduced in capacity in recent times. The effect of this would have been slower identification of cases and obviously reduced capacity to conduct track/trace. 

Be interesting to see how the new body looks when all this is done with.

No doubt that an earlier intervention would have reduced to peak for me.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

9 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Interesting - but I can think of quite a few reasons why that study might not work very well straight off the top of my head. 

For example - did the group not wearing masks go to extra lengths to protect themselves because they weren't getting the protection offered more easily by a mask? 

I think it's highly likely that they did. 

The other thing to bear in mind is that everybody around them WAS wearing a mask which should help protect the none wearers anyway. The masks are really designed to prevent you spreading it - not the other way around.

But what this RCT does seem to show is that if you're in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask, but you choose not to. It won't significantly change your chance of catching COVID. Providing everybody else keeps theirs on.

Bingo.

Not impressed with some of the tone of these spectator articles. This one seems to try to rely more on the science, but there is a lot about the study that needs to be learned.

I'd add, that from experience and other' comments that mask use is often done poorly: either in handling, positioning etc.

I'd also add that how did they offer controls; much transmission may well be from contact with surfaces, so what was the hand washing/sanitising regime that minimised this alternative method of transmission. 

Given that half of the mask wearers failed to observe proper guidance with regard to their use, how reliable is their behaviour in other aspects, even if it was completely unintentional?

Edited November 19, 2020 by Tonge moor green jacket

[Zico]

13 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Interesting - but I can think of quite a few reasons why that study might not work very well straight off the top of my head. 

For example - did the group not wearing masks go to extra lengths to protect themselves because they weren't getting the protection offered more easily by a mask? 

I think it's highly likely that they did. 

The other thing to bear in mind is that everybody around them WAS wearing a mask which should help protect the none wearers anyway. The masks are really designed to prevent you spreading it - not the other way around.

But what this RCT does seem to show is that if you're in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask, but you choose not to. It won't significantly change your chance of catching COVID. Providing everybody else keeps theirs on.

 

5 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Bingo.

Not impressed with some of the tone of these spectator articles. This one seems to try to rely more on the science, but there is a lot about the study that needs to be learned.

I'd add, that from experience and other' comments that mask use is often done poorly: either in handling, positioning etc.

I'd also add that how did the offer controls; much transmission may well be from contact with surfaces, so what was the hand washing/sanitising regime that minimised this alternative method of transmission. 

Given that half of the mask wearers failed to observe proper guidance with regard to their use, how reliable is their behaviour in other aspects, even if it was completely unintentional?

 

aye, main thing I took from it is:

it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small

what's wrong with small?

marginal gains and all that when you add all the other precautions together - like sanitsing and distancing etc

[DazBob]

In hindsight, as mentioned previously, allowing Cheltenham to go ahead was one of the most stupid decisions of all.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

4 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

 

 

aye, main thing I took from it is:

it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small

what's wrong with small?

marginal gains and all that when you add all the other precautions together - like sanitsing and distancing etc

Yep.

Might be completely erroneous, but so far it seems the number of folk about with colds etc is lower than normal. Perhaps also a reflection of lockdowns etc, but maybe some impact in reducing spread of seasonal sniffles.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 minute ago, DazBob said:

In hindsight, as mentioned previously, allowing Cheltenham to go ahead was one of the most stupid decisions of all.

And scousers hosting Spanish.

[Zico]

38 minutes ago, DazBob said:

In hindsight, as mentioned previously, allowing Cheltenham to go ahead was one of the most stupid decisions of all.

led by science

or

led by the fact Dido Harding is on the board of Jockey Club and Hancock (MP for Newmarket) receives donations from them

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Just now, ZicoKelly said:

led by science

or

led by the fact Dido Harding is on the board of Jockey Club and Hancock (MP for Newmarket) receives donations from them

Jesus. More foil.

 

[Zico]

Just now, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Jesus. More foil.

 

😁

yeah, it's not like they do their mates favours is it

[Traf]

42 minutes ago, DazBob said:

In hindsight, as mentioned previously, allowing Cheltenham to go ahead was one of the most stupid decisions of all.

Not even hindsight, mate.

There was enough people saying to cancel it even before it happened.

[Traf]

Just now, ZicoKelly said:

😁

yeah, it's not like they do their mates favours is it

Most people in power are corrupt, but over the last 9 months, these cunts have really taken the biscuit.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

😁

yeah, it's not like they do their mates favours is it

Do you reckon Liverpool FC slipped Boris a couple of million too?

[Zico]

3 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Do you reckon Liverpool FC slipped Boris a couple of million too?

it was equally stupid to let that go ahead when the parts of Europe were already playing behind closed doors

attendance, 52,000

it was on the day the WHO declared a pandemic, Madrid had already closed schools and banned gatherings of 1,000 or more people (3,000 away fans turned up, you at least stop those from coming)

 

that was a full 2 days before Cheltenham (so 2 days into a global pandemic)

attendance 250,000

it finished on the 13th, 3 days later Hancock says we need to stop social contact

 

again, my point is, nothing they've done is really based on science, IMO

 

[stevieb]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. 

We had Casino and Mount's still saying it's just the fly well into April 

[Zico]

28 minutes ago, stevieb said:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. 

We had Casino and Mount's still saying it's just the fly well into April 

he was lumping it in the same bracket as flu 2 pages ago

as for hindsight, it's all you can use when retrospectively looking back to ask "what did we do wrong, and what do we do to avoid making the same mistakes again"

again though, I'm just refuting the idea that we were led by accurate or even flawed science/data - the only way you can do that is by looking back 

[birch-chorley]

I think it’s fair to lump it in the same bracket as flu, after all flu is as deadly, it’s only because we have a vaccine for it that it’s much less of a problem 

The flu vaccine isn’t 100% effective and vulnerable people still die from it each year (or complications following flu) 

Likewise this Covid vaccine won’t be 100% effective, it won’t work for say 5%-10% of the 15m in the ‘vulnerable group’ so we will still likely see Covid deaths beyond the vaccination programme, more in line with normal winter flu deaths mind 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

10 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

I think it’s fair to lump it in the same bracket as flu, after all flu is as deadly, it’s only because we have a vaccine for it that it’s much less of a problem 

The flu vaccine isn’t 100% effective and vulnerable people still die from it each year (or complications following flu) 

Likewise this Covid vaccine won’t be 100% effective, it won’t work for say 5%-10% of the 15m in the ‘vulnerable group’ so we will still likely see Covid deaths beyond the vaccination programme, more in line with normal winter flu deaths mind 

More chance of getting properly on top of covid though. It doesn't change like flu so might be easier to nobble if enough vaccine is given world wide. 

Only time will tell on that.

[birch-chorley]

4 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

More chance of getting properly on top of covid though. It doesn't change like flu so might be easier to nobble if enough vaccine is given world wide. 

Only time will tell on that.

Aye, appreciate it should be eradicated (if it doesn’t mutate) 

Was just highlighting that it won’t work on a small number of vulnerable just like the Winter flu jab doesn’t so some folk will still die well after the vaccine is rolled out, deep into next year. 

However the risk to the NHS won’t be any higher than any normal Winter flu 

[only1swanny]

Can't trust anyone with a large financial influence. 

 

Bolton hospital yesterday saying there have been no hospital based transmissions for 8 weeks as they're really working hard. 

Sounds great but the family member who went in for a severe chest infection and caught covid in there bags to differ, alongside the other half of the ward that caught it 

[Guest]

https://www.chris-green.org.uk/news/covid-19-and-my-view

[Tonge moor green jacket]

39 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Aye, appreciate it should be eradicated (if it doesn’t mutate) 

Was just highlighting that it won’t work on a small number of vulnerable just like the Winter flu jab doesn’t so some folk will still die well after the vaccine is rolled out, deep into next year. 

However the risk to the NHS won’t be any higher than any normal Winter flu 

According to the WHO covid has a higher death rate, maybe by a factor of 10 or more.

Not sure we're out of the woods in that regard, but I take the general point.

[mickbrown]

3 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Jesus. More foil.

 

Aye, it's just a coincidence 😀

[birch-chorley]

29 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

According to the WHO covid has a higher death rate, maybe by a factor of 10 or more.

Not sure we're out of the woods in that regard, but I take the general point.

Both circa 1% aren’t they? 

[miamiwhite]