Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

By filbertway, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, shade said:

Yes I'm aware of that, but that just reeks of "this doesn't fit the narrative, we must explain it away" to me.

 

There is increasing evidence from numerous countries that the vaccines make you more prone to infection.

 

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/more-evidence-on-omicron-vaccine

Vaccines cannot make you more prone to infection.  you get infected by breathing the virus in.  Vaccines do not stop you breathing the virus in.

 

What a vaccine does is help you fight off the infection once you have got it.  If successful, it will help you clear the virus before you even get enough of it to register on a test; that way, you would never know you were infected even if you were tested every day.  It is possible that statistically, vaccinated people appear to be infected more because they are tested more; it is just about possible (but unlikely) that they are infected more because they are less afraid and so go out more.  It isn't rational to suppose that the vaccine in itself makes infection more likely.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Are they preparing some imaginary doctors and nurses to staff them?

I think that's the attitude that the NHS bigwigs have had all along.  Which is why lockdown would be pointless, because the sole remaining purpose of lockdown is to delay the surge until the NHS is ready for it; and the NHS will never be ready for it.

 

There is a school of thought that says with short term appointment of retired staff, more intensive use of non-medical staff, and spreading medical staff thinner (at some cost to efficiency of treatment), the number of beds could be materially increased.  How hard have the NHS authorities tried to make this happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fox_favourite

fox_favourite

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, filbertway said:

Use of ventilators and deaths aren't really climbing too much. Hospitalisations must be less severe than previous. Guess there's also a chance that people going in for other reasons are also testing positive and becoming a figure.

It’s hard to look at figures without knowing the actual situation in hospitals. Are people getting discharged quicker? Are they seeing less critical care needed? Is it more staffing that is the issue (due to isolation/exhaustion/leaving the profession) I don’t work in hospitals, so can’t comment, but would love to hear people that do. These nightingale hospitals are pointless if there isn’t the staff to back it up!  
 

I still worry that, even if mild for most a small number will still end up needing the specialist care that only hospitals can offer. As a small number of a large amount is still a lot. That in itself could overwhelm the nhs.

 

I have such the up most respect for anyone who has worked in hospitals during all this. I always think we are one lucky country to have it. 
 

the last part of your comment could be valid? It be interesting to see

 

Edit - I have just seen the daily infection figures!!! Wow! I bloody hope most stay out of hospital otherwise the nhs will collapse!! 

Edited by fox_favourite
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CosbehFox

CosbehFox

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, filbertway said:

Use of ventilators and deaths aren't really climbing too much. Hospitalisations must be less severe than previous. Guess there's also a chance that people going in for other reasons are also testing positive and becoming a figure.

The latter is now fact which has been backed up by NHS trust leaders. I think without that being part of it we would have certainly had some restrictions by now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shade

shade

Posted
Posted
Just now, leicsmac said:

...and so endure a vastly increased prevalence of the virus with all that entails.

 

I'm not sure how palatable an option that is, even if it could turn out to be a matter of smaller payment now to prevent bigger payment later.

If everyone was wearing N95 masks, it may be a worthwhile option, but ill fitting cloth or surgical masks which have shown in countless real world studies (not sterile, perfect lab studies) to be absolutely pointless, but which will contribute to an ecological catastrophe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, shade said:

If everyone was wearing N95 masks, it may be a worthwhile option, but ill fitting cloth or surgical masks which have shown in countless real world studies (not sterile, perfect lab studies) to be absolutely pointless, but which will contribute to an ecological catastrophe.

I'm sorry, but this is factually inaccurate.

 

If clear and convincing scientific evidence of this is required, I shall deliver it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CosbehFox

CosbehFox

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, brucey said:

Smaller Nightingale Hospitals apparently being prepared again in the new year.. just in case they're needed... :mellow:

100 bed temporary extensions to nine hospitals. Nowhere near the same operation.
 

Strikes me:-

1) they know short stays with minimal oxygen support are coming. Staff can be a ‘lesser’ level than the intensive care trained staff

2) this is a NHS trust led operation rather than a cabinet brain wave. Some of the names persons quoted like Chris Hopson are more central to the NHS than a government official. 
 

Looks a good tactic - having seen the list of hospitals it may be areas of the country where vaccination rate is low.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
grobyfox1990

grobyfox1990

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, shade said:

If everyone was wearing N95 masks, it may be a worthwhile option, but ill fitting cloth or surgical masks which have shown in countless real world studies (not sterile, perfect lab studies) to be absolutely pointless, but which will contribute to an ecological catastrophe.

I’m the first to complain about covid do Gooders wearing disgusting old bits of cloth that the disgustingly filthy lazy b***rs can’t be bothered to wash thinking they're doing gods work by ‘wearing a mask to save lives.’ N95 surgical masks changed every four hours is clearly the best way. However, if wearing said disgusting bits of cloth even produces a 60% reduction in potential spread of covid particles, for me that’s worth it. People should still wash their masks more often though! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shade

shade

Posted
Posted
Just now, grobyfox1990 said:

I’m the first to complain about covid do Gooders wearing disgusting old bits of cloth that the disgustingly filthy lazy b***rs can’t be bothered to wash thinking they're doing gods work by ‘wearing a mask to save lives.’ N95 surgical masks changed every four hours is clearly the best way. However, if wearing said disgusting bits of cloth even produces a 60% reduction in potential spread of covid particles, for me that’s worth it. People should still wash their masks more often though! 

60% would be brilliant, but a 1% edge gap is 50% leakage. a 2% gap (which is much better than you will achieve) is 75%. (study in “aerosol science and technology, 2021)

 

your mask is probably getting over 95% leakage of aerosolized virions that hang in the air when you breathe them out.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, shade said:

please do.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

 

"The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts." (Note that "clinical in this context means "real-world" and measured.)

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497125/

 

"Cloth face masks show minimum efficacy in source control than the medical grade mask. The efficacy of cloth face masks filtration varies and depends on the type of material used, number of layers, and degree of moisture in mask and fitting of mask on face...

"Cloth face masks have limited efficacy in combating viral infection transmission. However, it may be used in closed, crowded indoor, and outdoor public spaces involving physical proximity to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection."

(Cloth masks are of limited use and surgical masks are of much more use, as opposed to "pointless". However, yes, they must be fitted properly to be effective, but that's up to the person.)

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

 

"But the latest finding is based on a randomized trial involving nearly 350,000 people across rural Bangladesh. The study’s authors found that surgical masks — but not cloth masks — reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in villages where the research team distributed face masks and promoted their use."

 

(This however says that cloth masks aren't great, but surgical masks are.)

 

So overall, I would conclude that from these "real world" studies, that at least surgical masks are of great use when it comes to preventing transmission of Covid-19, and cloth masks may or may not be of much use - and those cloth masks should have minimal environmental footprint as they are supposed to be reusable.

 

Don't get me wrong, the amount of plastic waste that is resulting from this is appalling, but I am entirely unconvinced that reducing use of these items and their waste and by extension letting the virus run further amok will save more lives than it takes in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shade

shade

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

 

"The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts." (Note that "clinical in this context means "real-world" and measured.)

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497125/

 

"Cloth face masks show minimum efficacy in source control than the medical grade mask. The efficacy of cloth face masks filtration varies and depends on the type of material used, number of layers, and degree of moisture in mask and fitting of mask on face...

"Cloth face masks have limited efficacy in combating viral infection transmission. However, it may be used in closed, crowded indoor, and outdoor public spaces involving physical proximity to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection."

(Cloth masks are of limited use and surgical masks are of much more use, as opposed to "pointless". However, yes, they must be fitted properly to be effective, but that's up to the person.)

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

 

"But the latest finding is based on a randomized trial involving nearly 350,000 people across rural Bangladesh. The study’s authors found that surgical masks — but not cloth masks — reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in villages where the research team distributed face masks and promoted their use."

 

(This however says that cloth masks aren't great, but surgical masks are.)

 

So overall, I would conclude that from these "real world" studies, that at least surgical masks are of great use when it comes to preventing transmission of Covid-19, and cloth masks may or may not be of much use - and those cloth masks should have minimal environmental footprint as they are supposed to be reusable.

 

Don't get me wrong, the amount of plastic waste that is resulting from this is appalling, but I am entirely unconvinced that reducing use of these items and their waste and by extension letting the virus run further amok will save more lives than it takes in the long term.

Are these all observational or do any of them have randomised control groups?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shade

shade

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

 

"The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts." (Note that "clinical in this context means "real-world" and measured.)

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497125/

 

"Cloth face masks show minimum efficacy in source control than the medical grade mask. The efficacy of cloth face masks filtration varies and depends on the type of material used, number of layers, and degree of moisture in mask and fitting of mask on face...

"Cloth face masks have limited efficacy in combating viral infection transmission. However, it may be used in closed, crowded indoor, and outdoor public spaces involving physical proximity to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection."

(Cloth masks are of limited use and surgical masks are of much more use, as opposed to "pointless". However, yes, they must be fitted properly to be effective, but that's up to the person.)

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

 

"But the latest finding is based on a randomized trial involving nearly 350,000 people across rural Bangladesh. The study’s authors found that surgical masks — but not cloth masks — reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in villages where the research team distributed face masks and promoted their use."

 

(This however says that cloth masks aren't great, but surgical masks are.)

 

So overall, I would conclude that from these "real world" studies, that at least surgical masks are of great use when it comes to preventing transmission of Covid-19, and cloth masks may or may not be of much use - and those cloth masks should have minimal environmental footprint as they are supposed to be reusable.

 

Don't get me wrong, the amount of plastic waste that is resulting from this is appalling, but I am entirely unconvinced that reducing use of these items and their waste and by extension letting the virus run further amok will save more lives than it takes in the long term.

Take a look at this randomised controlled trial...

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-#:~:text=Unlike other studies looking at masks%2C the Danmask,told to change after eight hours of use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, shade said:

Take a look at this randomised controlled trial...

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-#:~:text=Unlike other studies looking at masks%2C the Danmask,told to change after eight hours of use.

An interesting study, but a single study, one that is from a year ago and involves a much smaller cohort than the Nature article.

 

Of course it isn't a five-sigma scientific certainty that masks prevent COVID spread, but even given preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond all doubt as burden of proof it is still probably better to have them than not in terms of overall cost. Of at least, ambiguous enough to be more risk averse in the short term and then sort the longer term stuff out as we can.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shade

shade

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

An interesting study, but a single study, one that is from a year ago and involves a much smaller cohort than the Nature article.

 

Of course it isn't a five-sigma scientific certainty that masks prevent COVID spread, but even given preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond all doubt as burden of proof it is still probably better to have them than not in terms of overall cost. Of at least, ambiguous enough to be more risk averse in the short term and then sort the longer term stuff out as we can.

Yeah, I personally wear one, I just make sure it's a surgical one and I wear it once and throw it in a bin outside the shop straight after. I don't think it's doing any good if you're asymptomatic, but I'm not one of those "I'm exempt mate" kind of people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, shade said:

Yeah, I personally wear one, I just make sure it's a surgical one and I wear it once and throw it in a bin outside the shop straight after. I don't think it's doing any good if you're asymptomatic, but I'm not one of those "I'm exempt mate" kind of people.

That's fair enough. :thumbup:

 

I appreciate being kept on my toes on such things, by the way - someone must always be prepared to back themselves with evidence when it comes to science. Hitchens Razor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...