Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

26 Pages«<2122232425>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
rs10  
#881 Posted : 19 November 2020 09:31:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rs10

A quick question folks?  Would you say introducing a Covid antigen testing in the workplace is reasonable, where the purpose is to protect the health and safety of the workforce?  Or 'Covid secure' measures should be sufficient and therefore testing is not proportionate? If there are valid and legitimate reasons why an employee refuses to take the test an employer would be on 'risky' ground to take any action?

biker1  
#882 Posted : 19 November 2020 09:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

The problem with SLord80's statistics is that once again, they have misinterpreted reports. The conclusion includes the phrase 'uncommon general mask use', which tells me that mask wearing has to be common for adequate protection to be effected. The research looked at infection amongst those wearing masks in this context, and in case the point was missed - masks are to protect other people, not the wearer. The studies cited thus far have looked at protection for the wearer. The whole ethos of mask wearing in the current pandemic is that if people wore them and thus reduced the transmission to other people, especially in indoor locations and where adequate social distancing would be hard to achieve, transmission risk would be significantly reduced. If I wore a mask but no-one else did, my risk would not be significantly reduced (other people's might be), as I would still be vulnerable to other people's infection. That is the whole point. The altenative is to insist on social distancing of at least eight metres to allow for coughs and sneezes, which would be completely impractical.

The Iron Chicken  
#883 Posted : 19 November 2020 10:25:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Since March 2020 there has been an increase in domestic abuse cases, some of which will be physical abuse and some of which will be psychological abuse.

In the case of psychological abuse, it can be difficult for the abused person and also those around them to recognise what is going on and understand why, so I thought I'd post some information that may just help someone to help themselves or help someone else.

In addition, as you will see from the image below, coercive control is also the main feature of UKGov 'pandemic' management...

The Iron Chicken  
#884 Posted : 19 November 2020 10:35:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: chris.packham Go to Quoted Post

The two-metre concept intrigues me. Consider that I am standing behind the infected person. The wind is from behind me then past them. They are facing away from me and sneeze. Will the particles containing the virus travel upwind for me to inhale them? So I could be well under one metre and still be safe. Now suppose I am standing downwind of them with the wind taking the particles towards me. Would two metres be sufficient distance? I have just been reading a paper which shows how those retro-fitted air conditioning units, often found over the door, can recirculate the virus ensuring that the whole room is contaminated. Again, I have a study showing how the quality of facial coverings can vary enormously in terms of preventing the spread of droplets and, as we have no standard that requires a certain level of performance to be met, how do I know whether what I am wearing is really protecting others? I have another peer reviewed study that suggests that fomites spreading the infection could be a more significant route, yet even here there are pitfalls for the unwary. When I visited my optician recently I had to sign a paper. The lady behind the counter handed me a pen after having wiped it with a disinfectant tissue. I signed the paper and handed her back the pen. Total time around 10 seconds. Would the disinfectant have had time to neutralise any coronavirus from my hands before she held the pen again? The more I study this topic the more questions arise and the less acceptable I find some of the simplistic answers that we are being given. For example will the current test method detect that my hands are colonised with SARS-Cov-2 that could contaminate anything or anyone I touch even if I have tested negative?


Great to see you asking these questions and noticing that things do not make sense when examined more closely - I've just posted about coercive control below, which might just help explain some of it...
Holliday42333  
#885 Posted : 19 November 2020 10:39:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Good grief Chicken, the tin foil in your hat must be especially thick today.

So what would be your solution then if the present ones are akin to communics brainwashing from the '50s?

I suppose you are an advocate of Herd Culling*; the concept of just letting the virus run as the controls are worse than the harm?  I think it was some Oxford Uni modelling that predicted that the deaths would be in the very high millions if not billions, worldwide, and would repeat on a cycle as personal immunity is not guaranteed. (*also referred to as herd immunity)

Roundtuit  
#886 Posted : 19 November 2020 11:16:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Someone has been busy cut, copy and pasting - spell checker highlighting the non existent New York Acadamy

Roundtuit  
#887 Posted : 19 November 2020 11:16:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Someone has been busy cut, copy and pasting - spell checker highlighting the non existent New York Acadamy

biker1  
#888 Posted : 19 November 2020 11:45:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Which country is the Iron Chicken living in? I don't recognise half the COVID list as applying here. There are so many falsehoods and exaggerations in this list, I wouldn't know where to start. To compare COVID restrictions to the worst facets of 'communist' regimes is frankly ridiculous. Are we going down the route of COVID being a government propaganda to exert control here? For what purpose? This is the territory of conspiracy theorists, and we all know what sort of people inhabit that domain.

SLord80  
#889 Posted : 19 November 2020 11:53:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
<p>The problem with SLord80's statistics is that once again, they have misinterpreted reports. The conclusion includes the phrase 'uncommon general mask use', which tells me that mask wearing has to be common for adequate protection to be effected. The research looked at infection amongst those wearing masks in this context, and in case the point was missed -&nbsp;<u>masks are to protect other people, not the wearer</u>. The studies cited thus far have looked at protection for the wearer. The whole ethos of mask wearing in the current pandemic is that if people wore them and thus reduced the transmission to other people, especially in indoor locations and where adequate social distancing would be hard to achieve, transmission risk would be significantly reduced. If I wore a mask but no-one else did, my risk would not be significantly reduced (other people's might be), as I would still be vulnerable to other people's infection. That is the whole point. The altenative is to insist on social distancing of at least eight metres to allow for coughs and sneezes, which would be completely impractical.</p>


Could you please reference a few studies which show/conclude wearing masks protects other people and not the wearer?

Thanks
SLord80  
#890 Posted : 19 November 2020 11:56:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
<p>The problem with SLord80's statistics is that once again, they have misinterpreted reports. The conclusion includes the phrase 'uncommon general mask use', which tells me that mask wearing has to be common for adequate protection to be effected. The research looked at infection amongst those wearing masks in this context, and in case the point was missed -&nbsp;<u>masks are to protect other people, not the wearer</u>. The studies cited thus far have looked at protection for the wearer. The whole ethos of mask wearing in the current pandemic is that if people wore them and thus reduced the transmission to other people, especially in indoor locations and where adequate social distancing would be hard to achieve, transmission risk would be significantly reduced. If I wore a mask but no-one else did, my risk would not be significantly reduced (other people's might be), as I would still be vulnerable to other people's infection. That is the whole point. The altenative is to insist on social distancing of at least eight metres to allow for coughs and sneezes, which would be completely impractical.</p>


Coughs and sneezes travel 8 metres in a lab test, not in real life.

And there’s me using manners to cough and sneeze into a tissue or my inner arm.

How many people openly cough and sneeze? Hardly any.

Come biker try and think practically.
SLord80  
#891 Posted : 19 November 2020 12:01:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
<p>Which country is the Iron Chicken living in? I don't recognise half the COVID list as applying here. There are so many falsehoods and exaggerations in this list, I wouldn't know where to start. To compare COVID restrictions to the worst facets of 'communist' regimes is frankly ridiculous. Are we going down the route of COVID being a government propaganda to exert control here? For what purpose? This is the territory of conspiracy theorists, and we all know what sort of people inhabit that domain.</p>


I’ve never seen the table iron posted before.

Reading through the covid lists, most apply in the uk, if not all.

You claim half of them don’t apply, could you please tell me which 14 of the 28 points don’t apply here?

I’ve been trying to work out which you may think don’t apply in the uk it I can’t get past just a few, it seems most of them have applied at some points during the pandemic.
SLord80  
#892 Posted : 19 November 2020 12:05:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post
<p>Good grief Chicken, the tin foil in your hat must be especially thick today.</p><p>So what would be your solution then if the present ones are akin to communics brainwashing from the '50s?</p><p>I suppose you are an advocate of Herd Culling*; the concept of just letting the virus run as the controls are worse than the harm?&nbsp; I think it was some Oxford Uni modelling that predicted that the deaths would be in the very high millions if not billions, worldwide, and would repeat on a cycle as personal immunity is not guaranteed. (*also referred to as herd immunity)
</p>


Billions dead, really?

You have really been brain washed by the media and the MPs haven’t you, poor bloke.

You do realise the survival rate of covid is approx 99.77%?

Yet you seems to think billions of people could’ve died from it?

Have you just plucked this figure out your backside? I’m genuinely interested where you got the figure from.

peter gotch  
#893 Posted : 19 November 2020 12:12:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Roundtuit

A quick google suggests that The Iron Chicken merely repeated a typo.

Biderman did do a paper for the New York Academy of Medicine.

But The Iron Chicken's source is a website that is still under construction, and due to be up an running in a bit over two days. So, may be The Iron Chicken is one of the architects of this website, and now is presenting a rather nonsensical comparison of how "The Commies" dealt with US prisoners of war with today's varying global controls on Covid, as being independent of their own thinking.

I have not concerned myself with whether the original Biderman paper was influenced by right wing thinking.

But, as example, I don't think that even the most stringent controls that have been promoted anywhere in the world have suggested using facemasks when in bed with your partner, which is one of the claims in the chart that The Iron Chicken presents.

SLord80  
#894 Posted : 19 November 2020 12:16:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post
<div class="quote"><span class="quotetitle">Originally Posted by: SLord80 <a href="/posts/m804322-Open-blog-about-Covid19--C19--what-s-your-impression#post804322"><img src="/Themes/iosh2/icon_latest_reply.gif" title="Go to Quoted Post" alt="Go to Quoted Post" /></a></span><div class="innerquote"><div class="quote"><span class="quotetitle">Originally Posted by: CptBeaky <a href="/posts/m803954-Open-blog-about-Covid19--C19--what-s-your-impression#post803954"><img src="/Themes/iosh2/icon_latest_reply.gif" title="Go to Quoted Post" alt="Go to Quoted Post"></a></span><div class="innerquote"><div class="quote"><span class="quotetitle">Originally Posted by: SLord80 <a href="/posts/m803925-Open-blog-about-Covid19--C19--what-s-your-impression#post803925"><img src="/Themes/iosh2/icon_latest_reply.gif" title="Go to Quoted Post" alt="Go to Quoted Post"></a></span><div class="innerquote">[



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

https://www.cambridge.or...6EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05


https://onlinelibrary.wi...j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x


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


https://academic.oup.com...ticle/65/11/1934/4068747


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


https://onlinelibrary.wi.../epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381
.

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public.


</div></div>

Thanks for the links.1st paper :- not testing the efficacy of masks to prevent spreading, only testing protective capabilities2nd paper :- looking at influenza, not corona viruses - as a side note this is the advice that the original government policy was based on, which is why it failed so badly. I think I linked to their pandemic plan earlier in this thread (or another). Influenza is not the same is corona viruses.
3rd paper:- is nearly 10 years old. I am trying to link to current evidence, also influenza based.
4th paper:- compares N95 maks with surgical masks, findings show nosignificant difference. That is not the same as not working
5th paper :- "Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS."did you even read this paper, it does not back up your claims at all. It does warn against "paper, disposable or cotton masks" though, which suggest you should be arguing for stricter masks rules, not softer.6th paper :- again comparing efficacy of N95 vs medical face masks, not whether they worked at all.7th paper :- see above ....Your papers are not what you think they are. They tend to be comparing protection offered when comparing N95 (FFP3) masks vs medical masks and finding limited difference. They tend to be looking at influenza, not corona viruses. Finally they are looking at protection of infection, not protection against transmission. Whilst interesting reads, they are not reaching any conclusions based on the widespread reduction of transmission of a SARS virus.
I have already linked to papers that do show a benefit, despite your allegations that "no study exists". Here is another onehttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7
Given your complete inability to acceptfacts that are there in black and white it doesn't surprise me that you have an afinity to a president that is a known liar and science denier.
</div></div><p>

Hi! Here’s the link:


https://www.acpjournals....Q0Y_fvn9OVNTblg&amp;

Here you go. You show a study with TEN participants as evidence masks work.

Here is a randomized controlled study, over 6000 participants.


I’ll summarise for everyone :

Two groups. One group wears mask, other groups doesn’t wear masks. 3000 participants in each group. Over a period of 4 weeks.

42 participants in the mask wearing group tested positively for covid within 4 weeks.
53 participants in the no mask group tested positive for covid within 4 weeks.

So, 11 people contracted covid, out of 3000, who wouldn’t have if they had worn a mask.

No statistical difference!

To my knowledge, please correct me if I’m wrong, this is the only randomized control study that exists, testing the efficacy of masks in preventing covid.

We now have two randomized control studies (gold standard, remember) on face masks in general, both with similar conclusions - masks make no statistical difference.
</div></div>

</p><p>Go on, I'll bite.</p><p>The problem with your post is that the report in its own conclusion (which is not the same as your summary) states "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection."</p><p>So the report found that mask wearing only reduced infection by 46% in a population with low infection rates and that other protections measures also worked.</p><p>You are not going to like this but&nbsp; SLord80, I thank you for this report as it shows me that mask wearing is effective, is likely to be more effective in areas with a&nbsp;higher rate of infection than Denmark (ie UK), is effective even when most of the population <u>do not </u>wear masks and that other transmission controls, such as social distancing, are also required.
To me your definative study actually disproves one of the main arguments that you have been clogging this forum with.
</p>


Do you ever admit to being wrong? I don’t think your capable of doing so.

You first claimed I was using old studies.

Then you claimed the studies I was referencing weren’t directly studying covid 19.

So I reference a 2020 covid 19 study and you interpret the results to fit your own agenda even when the results as clear as day.

Masks prevented 11 people out of 3000 from contracting the virus. If you want to take that as to mean ‘masks work!’ Be my guest.

But it’s a statistically insignificant figure. With covid having a 99.77% survival rate. One persons life would be saved for every 90,818 people wearing a mask. Is that proportionate?

Now if your still going to claim masks where, even though two randomised controlled trials suggest otherwise. Please atleast reference a few studies that are online with your own set criteria:

1. They study covid directly
2. They are recent studies.

A study with 10 participants is literally meaningless.

Can you reference any other research? If not, why are you still of the opinion mass mask wearing is a good thing,
peter gotch  
#895 Posted : 19 November 2020 12:25:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

SLord80

Holliday referred to some modelling.

Modelling is not the same as predicted outcome.

The modelling works on the basis of not implementing effective controls.

So, on a basis that effectively would apply the most libertarian thinking. [The sort of thinking that has objected to many changes such as prohibiting children from working as chimney sweeps]

Open everything back up, no controls of movement between areas, do away with social distancing, use of sanisiting spray and/or soap and water, no masks.[Note that I have mentioned masks as the last of this list]

Assuming that a country or region applies any or all of these controls then the modellers would naturally expect that the figures cited in the model will not occur.

SLord80  
#896 Posted : 19 November 2020 12:31:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post
<p>Roundtuit</p><p>A quick google suggests that The Iron Chicken merely repeated a typo.</p><p>Biderman <strong>did </strong>do a paper for the New York Acad<strong>e</strong>my of Medicine.</p><p>But, as example, I don't think that even the most stringent controls that have been promoted anywhere in the world have suggested using facemasks when in bed with your partner, which is one of the claims in the chart that The Iron Chicken presents.</p><p>
</p>


Wrong. Yet again.

Canada’s chief scientific advisor recommend this back in september.

https://www.webmd.com/lu...earing-a-mask-during-sex

The Iron Chickens post on covid19 restrictions looks more and more legitimate by the post.

achrn  
#897 Posted : 19 November 2020 13:41:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Quote:

Quote:

masks are to protect other people, not the wearer.



Could you please reference a few studies which show/conclude wearing masks protects other people and not the wearer?

No.  You are the one intent on finding studies that prove your view.  You don't prove your view by demanding that someone else finds studies that prove their view.

It's not entirely clear what you are trying to prove, but it sseems to be something along the lines of 'masks don't work'.  You produced a study that shows that masks have a small effect in protecting the wearer, but we all know these types of masks are not intended to protect the wearer - they are intended to protect everyone else from the wearer.  So the fact that they also have a small benefit for the wearer is interesting.

But basically, what you've done is claimed something like (by analogy) that a car is useless as a means of transport because in tests only a few managed to float on the sea.

Edited by user 19 November 2020 13:43:25(UTC)  | Reason: format

The Iron Chicken  
#898 Posted : 19 November 2020 14:02:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post

Good grief Chicken, the tin foil in your hat must be especially thick today.

So what would be your solution then if the present ones are akin to communics brainwashing from the '50s?

I suppose you are an advocate of Herd Culling*; the concept of just letting the virus run as the controls are worse than the harm?  I think it was some Oxford Uni modelling that predicted that the deaths would be in the very high millions if not billions, worldwide, and would repeat on a cycle as personal immunity is not guaranteed. (*also referred to as herd immunity)



Billions dead, really?

You have really been brain washed by the media and the MPs haven’t you, poor bloke.

You do realise the survival rate of covid is approx 99.77%?

Yet you seems to think billions of people could’ve died from it?

Have you just plucked this figure out your backside? I’m genuinely interested where you got the figure from.


The Professor Neil Ferguson School of Modelling I suspect...
thanks 1 user thanked The Iron Chicken for this useful post.
SLord80 on 19/11/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#899 Posted : 19 November 2020 14:10:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

SLord80 - you will have to try MUCH harder than that Canadian link.

I wrote in bed with your partner - the implication is that this is a relationship NOT a one night stand which would be recommended against in many current restrictions.

To quote from your link:

Canada’s chief public health officer has issued safe sex guidelines for the coronavirus pandemic, including recommending you wear a face mask during sexual encounters with someone outside your quarantine group.

“Sex can be complicated in the time of COVID-19, especially for those without an intimate partner in their household or whose sexual partner is at higher risk for COVID-19,” Dr. Theresa Tam wrote

if you “choose to engage in an in-person sexual encounter with someone outside of your household or close contacts bubble,” skip the kissing and face-to-face contact and “consider wearing a mask that covers the nose and mouth,” she said.

Remember as with all social interactions, try to keep your number of close contacts low if possible.”

Tam is not the first medical authority make these recommendations.

In a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Harvard researchers said people should wear masks and avoid kissing if they get together with somebody they’re not quarantining with.

They said that every form of “in-person sexual contact” carries a risk because the virus is “readily transmitted by aerosols.”

The researchers ranked sexual behaviors in ascending risk: Abstinence, masturbation, sex using digital platforms, sex with someone you’re quarantined with, and sex with somebody you’re not quarantined with.

The Mayo Clinic also said people should wear masks and avoid kissing when they have sex with someone from outside their household. It’s also a good idea to wash sex toys, wear condoms, and minimize your number of sex partners.

All quite reasonable - nothing here suggesting that people in their own bubble should be wearing masks when in bed.

What these people are saying is in no way moralistic - it's a reasonable conclusion from the available science. Not a bright idea to be sleeping around at this time.

SLord80  
#900 Posted : 19 November 2020 14:25:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
<p><div class="quote"><span class="quotetitle">Quote:</span><div class="innerquote">
</p><p><div class="quote"><span class="quotetitle">Quote:</span><div class="innerquote">
</p><div class="innerquote"><p><u>masks are to protect other people, not the wearer</u>.
</p></div><p></div></div>

Could you please reference a few studies which show/conclude wearing masks protects other people and not the wearer?

</div></div>
</p><p>No.&nbsp; You are the one intent on finding studies that prove your view.&nbsp; You don't prove your view by demanding that someone else finds studies that prove their view.
</p><p>It's not entirely clear what you are trying to prove, but it sseems to be something along the lines of 'masks don't work'.&nbsp; You produced a study that shows that masks have a small effect in protecting the wearer, but we all know these types of masks are not intended to protect the wearer - they are intended to protect everyone else from the wearer.&nbsp; So the fact that they also have a small benefit for the wearer is interesting.
</p><p>But basically, what you've done is claimed something like (by analogy) that a car is useless as a means of transport because in tests only a few managed to float on the sea.
</p>


Please go back to Facebook. We don’t want trolls like you on a respected forum like this please.

There is no place to simply claim ‘we all know masks are to protect other people and not the wearer’

How do you know that, that’s all I’ve asked, and you are literally unable to provide any evidence.

The irony is you have no idea how moronic you actually sound.
SLord80  
#901 Posted : 19 November 2020 14:29:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post
<p>SLord80 - you will have to try MUCH harder than that Canadian link.</p><p>I wrote in bed with your partner - the implication is that this is a relationship NOT a one night stand which would be recommended against in many current restrictions.</p><p>To quote from your link:</p><p><span style="color:#000080;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Canada’s chief public health officer has issued safe sex guidelines for the coronavirus pandemic, including recommending you wear a face mask during sexual encounters with </span></span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">someone outside your quarantine group.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color:#000080;">“Sex can be complicated in the time of COVID-19, especially for those without an intimate partner in their household or whose sexual partner is at higher risk for COVID-19,” Dr. Theresa Tam&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2020/09/statement-from-the-chief-public-health-officer-of-canada-on-september-2-2020.html" data-metrics-link=""><span style="color:#000080;">wrote</span></a><span style="color:#000080;">.&nbsp;</span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="color:#000080;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">if you “choose to engage in an in-person sexual encounter with someone </span></span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">outside of your household or close contacts bubble</span><span style="color:#000080;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">,” skip the kissing and face-to-face contact and “consider wearing a mask that covers the nose and mouth,” she said.</span></span></p><p><span style="color:#000080;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Remember as with all social interactions, try to </span></span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">keep your number of close contacts low if possible</span><span style="color:#000080;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">.”</span></span></p><p><span style="color:#000080;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Tam is not the first medical authority make these recommendations.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color:#000080;">In a paper&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7233185/" data-metrics-link=""><span style="color:#000080;">published</span></a><span style="color:#000080;">&nbsp;in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Harvard researchers said people should </span>wear masks and avoid kissing if they get together with somebody they’re not quarantining with<span style="color:#000080;">.</span></span></p><p><span style="color:#000080;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">They said that every form of “in-person sexual contact” carries a risk because the virus is “readily transmitted by aerosols.”</span></span></p><p><span style="color:#000080;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">The researchers ranked sexual behaviors in ascending risk: Abstinence, masturbation, sex using digital platforms, sex with someone you’re quarantined with, and </span></span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">sex with somebody you’re not quarantined with.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color:#000080;">The Mayo Clinic also</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/vbasheda/Downloads/The%20researchers%20ranked%20sexual%20behaviors%20in%20ascending%20risk:%20Abstinence,%20masturbation,%20sex%20using%20digital%20platforms,%20sex%20with%20someone%20you%E2%80%99re%20quarantined%20with,%20and%20sex%20with%20somebody%20you%E2%80%99re%20not%20quarantined%20with" data-metrics-link=""><span style="color:#000080;">&nbsp;said</span></a><span style="color:#000080;">&nbsp;people should </span>wear masks and avoid kissing when they have sex with someone from outside their household.<span style="color:#000080;"> It’s also a good idea to wash sex toys, wear condoms, and minimize your number of sex partners.</span></span></p><p>All quite reasonable - nothing here suggesting that people in their own bubble should be wearing masks when in bed.</p><p>What these people are saying is in no way moralistic - it's a reasonable conclusion from the available science. Not a bright idea to be sleeping around at this time.</p>


At what point did anyone say people in their own bubble have to wear masks when having sex?

The evidence is right in front of your face yet it’s as though it’s Invisible to you.

It’s been recommended human beings wear masks when they have sex, yet you see nothing wrong with that.

I can see now your clearly have been brainwashed to the point your mind cannot be changed, even though considerable evidence has been presented To you.

Ironically, you state I need to ‘try harder’ how about looking at the evidence OBJECTIVELY.

I bet your all for mandatory vaccination passports too aren’t you, for the ‘greater good’.

Shame.
SLord80  
#902 Posted : 19 November 2020 14:37:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Just out of interest for the brainwashed posters on the forum, you all have the opinion that those who do not wear masks are in the wrong because they are putting other people at risk.

With that in mind, are you equally annoyed at the obese people for continuing to eat McDonald’s and unhealthy foods? How about the smokers? Are you as equally, if not more, concerned by these people spreading the virus? I suspect not, as it’s their choice to smoke, or to eat McDonald’s. Yet this choice puts other people directly at risk, as their immune system is weaker, and thus there likely to pass it on and fill up a hospital bed.

If only most of you could actually see the idiocy of your thoughts.

I’m so thankful that the half a dozen or so posters on this forum are now in the minority, as most people are realising the restrictions are so far out of proportion it’s almost inevitable there will be a legal case against the government in the near future.

thanks 1 user thanked SLord80 for this useful post.
The Iron Chicken on 19/11/2020(UTC)
chris42  
#903 Posted : 19 November 2020 14:51:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

So, at 99.77% survival, would mean 0.23% die. Now according to internet UK population is 67,886,011 (mid-year), so once everyone has had it once that would give us a death toll of 156,138 people (Rounded up). The current death toll is 53,274, so we have 102,864 to go.

Are people suggesting they just get on with it, so the rest don’t have to suffer wearing a mask, giving a bit of distance or risk taking a vaccine? Of course, that is assuming people only get it once (though there seem to be anecdotal reports of people getting it more than once. Of course, it would also not take into account any long-term effects from both Covid or potential worsening of other illnesses.

To be honest though, this is predominantly a Workplace Health and Safety web site. Therefore, we have very little say about people taking a vaccine, as that is a personal thing. The wearing of masks /face covers is in the hands of the Government who have put it into guidance / legislation, so nothing we can really have an effect on. Such discussions are probably better on more public social media like twitter and Facebook (I understand, as I don’t use the things myself).

Chris

thanks 1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
Holliday42333 on 19/11/2020(UTC)
achrn  
#904 Posted : 19 November 2020 14:52:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post

Please go back to Facebook. We don’t want trolls like you on a respected forum like this please.

Quote:

The irony is you have no idea how moronic you actually sound.

LOL

No, honestly, that actually made me laugh. Thank you.

SLord80  
#905 Posted : 19 November 2020 15:05:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

https://electroverse.net...hodkinson-on-covid-hoax/

Thank god for people like Dr Roger Hodkinson, Professor Carl Heneghan, et al.
thanks 1 user thanked SLord80 for this useful post.
The Iron Chicken on 20/11/2020(UTC)
SLord80  
#906 Posted : 19 November 2020 15:13:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post
<p>So, at 99.77% survival, would mean 0.23% die. Now according to internet UK population is 67,886,011 (mid-year), so once everyone has had it once that would give us a death toll of 156,138 people (Rounded up). The current death toll is 53,274, so we have 102,864 to go. </p><p>Are people suggesting they just get on with it, so the rest don’t have to suffer wearing a mask, giving a bit of distance or risk taking a vaccine? Of course, that is assuming people only get it once (though there seem to be anecdotal reports of people getting it more than once. Of course, it would also not take into account any long-term effects from both Covid or potential worsening of other illnesses.</p><p>To be honest though, this is predominantly a Workplace Health and Safety web site. Therefore, we have very little say about people taking a vaccine, as that is a personal thing. The wearing of masks /face covers is in the hands of the Government who have put it into guidance / legislation, so nothing we can really have an effect on. Such discussions are probably better on more public social media like twitter and Facebook (I understand, as I don’t use the things myself).</p><p>Chris</p>


So many wrong assumptions here. Firstly, not everyone in the uk would contract the virus, many already have T cell immunity (Yeadon 2020).

Secondly, 99.77% is the overall statistics but this is inaccurate on an individual level (obviously). If your below 25 your survival rate is approximately 99.998%. Under 15 99.999%. Over 80 then 95%. So to use your equation we’d have to know the age of each person in the population to actually work out the predicted total deaths.

I’m extremely confident all the ‘no maskers’ would happily wear them if the science backed it up. But there are literally thousands of doctors and experts who disagree that face masks actually reduce transmission. Thus, many people don’t wear them. It should be noted that if these people are exercising and eating healthy the risk is lowered much more than simply donning a mask.

People are suggesting common sense is used, and people are not deprived of their freedom. Basically what Sweden have done. I assume you know of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Holliday42333  
#907 Posted : 19 November 2020 15:18:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post

So, at 99.77% survival, would mean 0.23% die. Now according to internet UK population is 67,886,011 (mid-year), so once everyone has had it once that would give us a death toll of 156,138 people (Rounded up). The current death toll is 53,274, so we have 102,864 to go.

And with a world population of approx 7.8 billion, if SLord80's survival rate is correct (and not just plucked from Facebook) that would mean a global death toll of 179.4 million souls if no controls measures were implemented. 

If people think that is an acceptable scenario for something that could be controlled in large part by easy to impliment controls and a relatively small hardship to our personal freedoms, then I am lost for words.

Holliday42333  
#908 Posted : 19 November 2020 15:22:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post

People are suggesting common sense is used, and people are not deprived of their freedom. Basically what Sweden have done.


You are obviously aware that Sweden have by far the highest death toll in the baltic/scandi region and are right now imposing more and more controls due to the unacceptable loss of life and ecconomic catastrophy caused by their initial approach.

Edited by user 19 November 2020 15:23:19(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The Iron Chicken  
#909 Posted : 19 November 2020 16:00:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

How many of you are aware of the following statement made by UKGov back in March?

Status of COVID-19

"As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.

"The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

"The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID."

Holliday42333  
#910 Posted : 19 November 2020 16:07:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: The Iron Chicken Go to Quoted Post

How many of you are aware of the following statement made by UKGov back in March?

Status of COVID-19

"As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.

"The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

"The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID."


I am aware thank you.

I am also aware of what HCID actually means.

I am also aware that we should all thank [insert personal deity here] that Covid-19 is not an HCID or we'd be needing more than the control of some personal freedoms.

peter gotch  
#911 Posted : 19 November 2020 16:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

From SLord80 whoever they might be:

  1. At what point did anyone say people in their own bubble have to wear masks when having sex? AND
  2. It’s been recommended human beings wear masks when they have sex, yet you see nothing wrong with that.

ANSWERS

  1. Implicit in previous SLord80 posting (though I fully accept that they tend to be VERY selective in their evidence base)

“Canada’s chief scientific advisor recommend this back in september.
https://www.webmd.com/lu...earing-a-mask-during-sex

  1. No, I don’t see anything wrong with the recommendation if they are not with their regular partner - it is exactly the sort of recommendation you would expect from a non-aligned sexual health clinic – not particularly different to advice on spreading HIV, except that the potential means of transmission is different, so leading to different recommendations as to precautions. 

Those quoted in the Canadian article are NOT recommending that human beings wear masks when they have sex with their regular partners.

The Iron Chicken - yes we know that Covid is no longer considered to be an HCID - so what? Doesn't mean that the 4 nations do not consider it to be a significant public health threat.

PS - I was typing the last paragraph as Holliday was posting their response to The Iron Chicken's recent attempt to misuse terminology to support a position that few scientists advocate. There may be "thousands" who are aligned with The Great Barrington Declaration, but there are many more thousands who are NOT so aligned.

Edited by user 19 November 2020 16:16:46(UTC)  | Reason: PS for clarification

The Iron Chicken  
#912 Posted : 19 November 2020 17:35:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

And on 23 March came the following recommendation from SAGE's Behavioural Science sub-group SPI-B:

"A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened...The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging."

The APEASE table within the document advocates "Use media to increase sense of personal threat," "Use and promote social approval for desired behaviours," "Consider enacting legislation to compel required behaviours" and "Consider use of social disapproval for failure to comply."

I would suggest that if the threat was bad enough to warrant the above, the UK population in general would have seen this and taken the necessary action to keep themselves safe without needing to be told.

Thoughts anyone?

peter gotch  
#913 Posted : 19 November 2020 19:04:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

My thought The Iron Chicken is to ask you a number of questions since you earlier indicated that you had signed the GBD, and hence presumably should be supportive of the position that its website portrays.

From the website's FAQs

How do we protect older people living at home? 

During high transmission times, older people should be offered home delivery of groceries and other essentials. When seeing friends and relatives, it is best to do it outdoors. Testing should be available for relatives and friends who want to visit. Free N95 masks should be provided for when they cannot avoid potential exposure. 

Many will be supportive of much of what is said in this but what about the idea of "free N95 masks".

At a very early stage in the pandemic the World Health Organization warned against diverting N95 or equivalent filtering face piece respirators to those not in high risk activities, due to constraints on global supply.

So, how does the GBD propose to resource a supply of N95 or equivalent respiratory protective equipment for all the "older people" when they "cannot avoid potential exposure" during "high transmission times"?

How do you define "high transmission times"?

How many such "older people" are there?

How often would you expect their RPE to be replaced given that these respirators are mostly designed for single use (or very limited duration/number of uses)?

How would you ensure that this RPE is effectively face fit tested by/for those using it, including some who may have impaired mental function?

Do you propose to mandate that all such "older people" are clean shaven?

How often should they shave, given that research long since has demonstrated that a person clean shaven at the beginning of a shift may not get adequate protection later in a shift due to growth of stubble during the shift?

If you conclude that there wouldn't be enough of this RPE to go around, would you ration it?

May be to just the US and the UK?

May be to just richer citizens?

May be decide to not protect some ethnicities?

May be decide to give up with some with underlying health conditions? (a bit of generational cleansing)

May be decide to divert RPE from occupational users - after all the persons using it will probably not be proven to have sustained serious disease from occupational exposure for years or decades?

Or are you going to go down the route of procuring from pest controllers or other enterprises with no track record of ensuring that personal protective equipment meets relevant international standards? 

Or just bin the standards and pretend that the masks will do their job?

Edited by user 19 November 2020 19:46:40(UTC)  | Reason: minor edit

Roundtuit  
#914 Posted : 19 November 2020 21:05:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Back to the blog

New research from PHE shows the most likely place to catch Covis is... the supermarket (NSS).

Second place education, we can rule out what was third place as hospitality is shut.

Fourth place health care (can only be hospital related as getting a face to face with the doctor...).

Roundtuit  
#915 Posted : 19 November 2020 21:05:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Back to the blog

New research from PHE shows the most likely place to catch Covis is... the supermarket (NSS).

Second place education, we can rule out what was third place as hospitality is shut.

Fourth place health care (can only be hospital related as getting a face to face with the doctor...).

chris.packham  
#916 Posted : 19 November 2020 21:22:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Whilst it has been amusing seeing the 'flate earthers' making fools of themselves my view is that it really is time for the monitors to act so that this forum can get back to the serious business of trying to keep those at work safe and healthy, a difficult enough task without some trying to throw dust in our eyes.

SLord80  
#917 Posted : 19 November 2020 21:44:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: chris.packham Go to Quoted Post
<p>Whilst it has been amusing seeing the 'flate earthers' making fools of themselves my view is that it really is time for the monitors to act so that this forum can get back to the serious business of trying to keep those at work safe and healthy, a difficult enough task without some trying to throw dust in our eyes.</p>


Chris Peckham, stop being such a egotistical baffoon. Hopefully the mods of the forum remove you for being an imbecile.

Flat earthers, be quiet. How can you compare them people, who are blatantly mentally unwell as it’s a FACT that the earth isn’t flat. To all the points I’ve raised on this forum? I doubt even the other posters would portray their opinion as fact. Atleast then seem somewhat willing to hear the other side of the debate. It’s a very bad look for you Chris, shows how unprofessional you are.

Every point I’ve raised is backed up with evidence. Yet you seem incapable of doing the same.

This is a free forum, to think the mods will remove people because they disagree with your opinion basically proves that you sir, and a bit of a (fill in the blank)
Roundtuit  
#918 Posted : 19 November 2020 22:21:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Twice now this particular thread has descended from the forum purpose of discussing matters H&S (4th August & 28th October). Can those posters please try and remember the rules they agreed to abide by:

2. When using the forums you are expected at all times to be polite and respectful towards all forum users  2.2. Please do not indulge in personal criticism of other users, bullying, aggressive, discriminatory or nuisance behaviour. 2.3. Your language use must remain professional

Don't know why I am bothering - so much easier to scroll past the offensive attacks on respected forum posters.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
RVThompson on 20/11/2020(UTC), RVThompson on 20/11/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#919 Posted : 19 November 2020 22:21:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Twice now this particular thread has descended from the forum purpose of discussing matters H&S (4th August & 28th October). Can those posters please try and remember the rules they agreed to abide by:

2. When using the forums you are expected at all times to be polite and respectful towards all forum users  2.2. Please do not indulge in personal criticism of other users, bullying, aggressive, discriminatory or nuisance behaviour. 2.3. Your language use must remain professional

Don't know why I am bothering - so much easier to scroll past the offensive attacks on respected forum posters.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
RVThompson on 20/11/2020(UTC), RVThompson on 20/11/2020(UTC)
The Iron Chicken  
#920 Posted : 20 November 2020 06:35:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Back to the blog

New research from PHE shows the most likely place to catch Covis is... the supermarket (NSS).

Second place education, we can rule out what was third place as hospitality is shut.

Fourth place health care (can only be hospital related as getting a face to face with the doctor...).

As a point of accuracy, 'catching covid' is otherwise known as 'testing positive for a coronavirus using a test that is fundamentally flawed' - a 'case' is NOT an 'infection'.

Oh, and I'll just leave this here...

Quote from Isabel Oliver, Director of the National Infection Service, Public Health England:<br /><br />"Suggestions that supermarkets are causing COVID-19 to spread are inaccurate. Common exposure data does not prove where people are contracting COVID-19.<br />It simply shows where people who have tested positive have been in the days leading up to their test, and is used to help identify possible outbreaks."

The Iron Chicken  
#921 Posted : 20 November 2020 06:54:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

This article is a must-read and is most definitely H&S workplace-related:

Health and Safety Breaches at the Milton Keynes Lighthouse Lab

19 November 2020 by Julian D. Harris PhD

It is written by an experienced virologist with a specialist knowledge of molecular biology technologies and biosafety level 2/3 (BSL2/3) facilities who volunteered at the Lighthouse lab in Milton Keynes, one of the main laboratories processing PCR tests in the UK.

After working at the lab for three days and discovering various safety lapses, he contacted the HSE, who agreed he would continue working there and passing on information about any health and safety breaches in real-time.

Still trusting the UKGov?

Andrew W Walker  
#922 Posted : 20 November 2020 07:23:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Andrew W Walker

Originally Posted by: Kim Hedges Go to Quoted Post

So here we are on the 18th March 2020. 2000 confirmed cases of covid19 in the UK, 71 deaths so far. While in Italy there are 24,747 cases, Germany 4838, France 5380, Spain 7753. It is estimated that the UK is 15 days behind Italy. The UK Government has provided £330,000,000, 000.00 (330 Billion Pounds). UK subjects are asked not to travel abroad for 30 days, but many countries have already closed their borders, making international travel difficult. Airlines and Airports are running at reduced capacity or closed down. A news item yesterday showed Trucks delivering goods from Poland into Germany, stuck on the border, there was a 42 km queue. Many SME companies have been closed, millions of people are in isolation in the UK, whilst in Europe they have travel bans and fines for those who would break these new laws. The North Pole has already had 1 confirmed case on a research ship previously isolated, South Africa has had it's first cases plus 30 other countries. Russia has just started building a new hospital for their expected cases, but the local workers don't seem to be aware of covid19 at all - meaning the Russian press are not reporting it much! Many people are now effected worldwide, in China where it was first discovered 3 months ago (31st December 2019) their peak seems to have passed, but they still have cases. The UK Gov expect 20,000 deaths in the UK alone and really we are just beginning.

I will continue to post stuff, I would suggest IOSH members contribute, simply as a record of how we have dealt with this most recent personal assault on our humanity.  Just think, if you are still alive in 30 years time, you will probably start sentences with 'When we had the coronavirus in 2020 we.....' 

You've got a lot to answer for...   ;-)

thanks 1 user thanked Andrew W Walker for this useful post.
Kate on 20/11/2020(UTC)
achrn  
#923 Posted : 20 November 2020 08:53:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: The Iron Chicken Go to Quoted Post

This article is a must-read and is most definitely H&S workplace-related:


But it clearly contains obvious errors - "The lab where the real-time PCR assay was run was kept under negative pressure for processing purposes, which meant no air from other areas was supposed to enter this room and potentially contaminate the assay." This complaint makes no sense.

If it's under negative pressure that promotes air from elsewhere entering this area.  If you wanted to prevent other air entering this area you'd run it on positive pressure (same as breathing apparatus).  If they were running it under negative presure that would be to prevent air escaping from this area to other areas.  So teh author is either backwards in what negative pressure is supposed to achieve, or they are backwards in what pressure the lab was at, or possibly they are backwards in what happened with any air leaks. One way or another, this complaint at least is utterly incoherent.

Edited by user 20 November 2020 08:54:50(UTC)  | Reason: spilling

thanks 1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 23/11/2020(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
26 Pages«<2122232425>»
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.