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

25 Pages«<1718192021>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Brian Hagyard  
#721 Posted : 29 October 2020 12:51:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Not had time to read the whole paper - but i think im reading that cloath face coverings CAN help prevent an infected person spread the virus - but the effectivness depends on the charicteristics of the cloath (weave size etc). No supprises there - but as we have no standred for the manufacture of these things we have no idea how effective the ones people walking round the supermarket actualy are.

Roundtuit  
#722 Posted : 29 October 2020 13:07:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Absolutely no mention of the protection of others from devices which have an exhaust valve as part of their design which are more typically solely for the protection of the wearer.

Roundtuit  
#723 Posted : 29 October 2020 13:07:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Absolutely no mention of the protection of others from devices which have an exhaust valve as part of their design which are more typically solely for the protection of the wearer.

A Kurdziel  
#724 Posted : 29 October 2020 13:28:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Back in June, CEN the European wide equivalent of BSI, published a draft standard (technically speaking a Workshop Agreement) CWA 17553 which covers what they are referring to as “community masks”.  Its available here but note its only a draft standard and CEN have a disclaimer attached, saying as much.

https://www.cencenelec.eu/research/cwa/documents/cwa17553_2020.pdf

biker1  
#725 Posted : 29 October 2020 15:26:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Apart from the scientific reports, the balance of which seems to come down in favour of face coverings, there is also an intuitive wisdom to it. We are told to catch it and bin it in relation to colds and flu - has there been any research to suggest that handkerchiefs or preferably tissues are not effective in helping to avoid spreading the conditions? In the case of COVID, we have a highly infectious disease that can be spread by people merely talking to each other in close proximity, let alone coughing and sneezing. It would seem intuitively wise to wear something that limits spread, bearing in mind that when someone talks, their spittle can travel up to two feet in the air around them. I don't need to plough through myriads of research documents with varying conclusions to realise that face coverings are probably a good idea as a basic form of control; I use, dare I say it, common sense to reach this conclusion.

I don't think it is safe to maintain that children are at zero risk from the virus - there have been cases of infant infection, and at what age would you conclude they are not safe? They may, as has been commented on, be spreaders of the virus (as might any of us).

John Murray  
#726 Posted : 29 October 2020 15:38:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Mask equivalence and effectiveness:

https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/assets/docs/face-mask-equivalence-aprons-gown-eye-protection.pdf

Probably I should not put my view on FFP masks with an exhalation valve, but what the heck?

People with problems breathing (Asthma/COPD/Emphysema/etc) may well find it easier to protect themselves from others while wearing one. And anyway, if everyone is wearing a facemask, then the probability of them being infected by inhaling the unfiltered exhaust breath of someone wearing a valved mask is minimal, if that.

In the hospital "briefing" with various clinicians, on the subject of avoidance of infection (I also have Bronchiectasis, as well as Asthma/COPD, so will always have a respiratory infection) I was told "if you can smell their perfum/deoderant/body-odour, you are probably too close"....on the London Tube, at rush hour, you can smell peoples perfume etc from the other end of the carriage.

I'll draw your attention to the report on acquired immunity and lifespan of scv2 antibodies, which specified a reduced time for body retention of same, AND ALSO MENTIONED THAT THIS REDUCTION DOES NOT OCCUR IN HEALTHCARE WORKERS EXPOSED TO THE VIRUS REPEATEDLY, which should be expected. Many people will have acquired immunity by being exposed to reduced levels of the virus.

SLord80  
#727 Posted : 29 October 2020 19:54:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

For everyone who seems to believe that all experts have the same opinion. There are literally thousands of experts who disagree completely with the narrative being fed to us. Doctors in Netherlands are literally taking the government to court.

Here’s another expert who has said in public many times that the sage members are liars - and there has never been has rebuttal from them. Because they would lose the argument in court.

https://lockdownsceptics.org/what-sage-got-wrong/

As mike Yeadon tells us, the only reason we are still in a pandemic is because the media and sage tell us we are.


The flu is literally hundreds times deadlier than covid to children. Yet you people believe the restriction we are putting on children are proportionate? Really?
John Murray  
#728 Posted : 30 October 2020 07:43:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

That's because the children are the main spreaders now.

Schools are at the top of the list.

Obviously, you are another "use-the-sickness-as-a-political-advantage" adherent.

The kids are ok...my grandkids are managing very well. The older teens are managing to avoid using the advice, but are smart enough to know to protect their grandparents.

Haven't you got any adverts for Armenian holidays or p**n adverts masquerading as tax advice to post on here now?

John Murray  
#729 Posted : 30 October 2020 07:56:39(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Deaths within 28 days of positive test

Latest data provided on 29 October 2020

Daily
Brian Hagyard  
#730 Posted : 30 October 2020 08:41:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: John Murray Go to Quoted Post

Deaths within 28 days of positive test

Latest data provided on 29 October 2020

Daily


And there for me is the problem - we dont know how many of these people would have died anyway - sorry if that sound harsh. The 1st death reported in my local paper happend to be a collegue mum. Her husband came out with a very brave statement saying how ill she had been for some time and how they had been told she had only a short time to live even before Covid.

I think we need to look at the number of deaths above the normal to know how bad this realy is.

Interseting graph in this BBC report

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54712917

You can see we are already above the seasonal average for every year since 2008 - but below the years before that. What happened in 2007? I dont remember anywhere near the levels of news reporting as we have now.

Finaly the other problem we have is that we dont know how bad it would have been if we had not done everything we have. I suspect that deaths would have been way higher, that the NHS would have been near to collapse. At least now we appear to be in a better position to treat people.

Can i prove any of this? Not until we invent a time machine go back to January and do absolutly nothing. As frustraiting as it is i will continue to limit my socialising and wear a face covering to try and do my bit to limit the live we lose!

thanks 1 user thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
biker1 on 30/10/2020(UTC)
chris.packham  
#731 Posted : 30 October 2020 09:29:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

‘This suggests that direct droplet transmission and fomite transmission are relatively more important ways of transmission than airborne transmission, for which R-values are generally (very) high.’ – Scott H. Smith et al; Aerosol persistence in relation to possible transmission of SARS-CoV-2, Physics of Fluids 32, 107108 (2020, Oct)

biker1  
#732 Posted : 30 October 2020 09:32:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

If you include the people for whom COVID was mentioned on their death certificates, the number of deaths goes up to fifty seven thousand. If you look at the number of excess deaths, i.e. above what we would expect, the number goes up to sixty five thousand. It is a complex issue, as some of those deaths would be due to conditions that didn't get treated because hospitals were swamped with COVID cases. However, it has also been reported that the virus has killed three times more people than flu and pneumonia combined. Whilst I realise that the media will sensationalise things, and report mainly the bad news, there is no doubt that COVID has killed an awful lot of people, and made even more very ill. Without everyone adopting sensible precautions, it will continue to do so. Yes, there will always be 'experts' who disagree with accepted practice, but I tend to put them into the David Icke camp.

Children are pretty robust, and the upside is that they get to spend more time with their families, a factor more likely to cause psychological damage if absent. What is frustrating is the piecemeal restrictions that feature in the tier levels, which still leave major sources of virus spread open. People who resist all restrictions are either head-in-the-sand in denial, or think we should let herd immunity sort it all out. The problem with this is two-fold. Firstly, acquired immunity to the virus doesn't last very long, latest estimate being 2/3 months, so herd immunity is unlikely to occur. Secondly, who are we willing to sacrifice for this doctrine - any volunteers?

CptBeaky  
#733 Posted : 30 October 2020 09:54:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post

Is this your best? A link to an article written as a "science" paper on a conspiracy site? Ok let me break down the falsehoods in this article

  1. The author assumes that only SAGE are offering advice. There is a worldwide concensus, not just a UK consensus that this is a novel virus. This is similar to the anti NASA rhetoric, forgetting that other space agencies exist
  2. Not a flaw, just a gap in your arguement, this paper has the suvivability of the virus at 99.8%, 5 times worse than your original post. The consensus is around 0.9% infection fatality rate, which equates to 99.1% survivability rating
  3. The media has never supressed the fact that we already have 4 corona viruses in circulation, I don't understand why the author thinks they have. It is common knowledge that common colds exist.
  4. The author posts about his "belief" that exposure to these varients leads to immunity to COVID-2. The study he links to does not back up his claims. It talks about some T-cells already present in 20-50% of people. You would think that the author would know that this may not make a person immune.More research has to be done, I am not sure why he doesn't know this, when I (not even a novice) do. I put it to you that he does know this, but hopes his audience doesn't.
  5. No govenrment has done anything about this revelation, because there is very limited research to back it up and the current infection rates don't support the idea that 20-50% of the population were already immune.
  6. I still don't know where he gets his 30% immunity from using this information, the best he could get was 20-50%. Nowhere is 30% stated in the studies he publishes
  7. He uses the 0.2% fatality rate, working backwards, to decide how many people have been infected. This is begging the question. He needs the numbers to work as he wants them to work so just puts in the numbers that he likes and gets 32% infected. Given that infection rate currently are racing back to where they were I find it very strange to believe that (given his own numbers) over half the population of the UK that can be infected, already are. Given that as "herd immunity" approcahes 100% , infection rates reduce exponentially I find it very hard to believe that we already have 72% of the population immune to this disease. Why are infection rates still accelerating?
  8. Using his maths, and the more generally accepted 0.9% infection fatality rate would suggest that 7.5% of the population has been infected, whch strangely enough is the number that is accepted using many other methods.
  9. He states it is "a little greater in its lethality than the average seasonal influenzas", which is nonsence. The average infection fatality rate of a flu is around 0.1%. Even his own fudged numbers have this twice as bad. If the generally held 0.9% is correct it is pratically an order of magnitude more deadly
  10. "But the main reason the pandemic hasn’t faded away is simply because SAGE says it hasn’t. Seriously. In practice, it has all but disappeared." . Good to see this paper was published before the 2nd wave truly hit and is being shown to be utter rubbbish.
  11. "Another prediction is that areas hit the hardest in the spring will not now see any great number of cases and deaths. I point simply to London ..... It is over, there. It is most unlikely to return" https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases?areaType=region&areaName=London  oops, another prediciton down, this is more embarassing the Jehovah Witness end times claims...
  12. "I have another prediction. Where we do regrettably see outbreaks, these will develop much more slowly than in the spring" the thing about science is that it succeeds or fails based on the predictions it makes. The author has just been struck out. Infection rates in lots of areas are a lot faster than in the spring
  13. I expect within a few weeks that the effects will crest and begin to decline. And then, nationally, it will be over. This does appear to be happening in Spain ready.  https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/spain/ we even gave him an extra swing, and he still misses. 
  14. I will give him that we do need to review SAGE after the pandemic is over, and decide what the best make up and distribution should be. Currently though they seem to be doing fine.
  15. His vaccine rant is bizzare. He seems to think the vaccine will not have been tested, despite the fact the tests are ongoing.
  16. He finishes with graphs that make no mention of controls on the spread of the virus, improvements in treatment, improvements in early detection, less burden on hospitals. His argument is basically "Lines go up more slowly, this mean virus over!"

TLDR

This was a hack job by a perosn that should know better. It was full of assumptions, with very little evidence beyond confirmation bias. Some of the papers linked didn't even support his own conclusions, they rather call for more research. He makes predictions that have not only failed, but are still failing. At the start of the article he claims there are two possibilities with the following predictions based on them:

His opinion:- Smaller more regional outbreaks, with far fewer deaths/ Does not reignite in the capital/ Grows much more slowly than in the spring

Consensus:- Very large number of additional deaths/ will resume in the capital/ will proceed at a similar speed to the spring

It is looking bad for him....

If this is the best argument you have for not wearing masks (which wasn't even addressed in this article), then you have no argument.

thanks 3 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
biker1 on 30/10/2020(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 30/10/2020(UTC), flysafe on 30/10/2020(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#734 Posted : 30 October 2020 11:22:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/10/9/e039424.full.pdf

Just as an aside - This is one of the best papers I can find that tests the efficiency of various coverings, albeit in laboratory settings.

biker1  
#735 Posted : 30 October 2020 11:49:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

A thorough piece of debunking, CptBeaky. The paper you debunked would make David Icke proud.

Going back to SLord80's original post, the assertions made in this are shot through with unjustifiable assumptions and misinterpretations. Mental health services are more busy than ever? I think if you examine the facts, you will find that this was the case long before COVID, as such services have been progressively cut back for some years. Children are missing education? I seem to recall that online teaching was instituted early on in the pandemic. Children are at record levels of obesity due to lockdown? Again, if you examine the evidence, record levels of child obesity were reported long before the pandemic, so it is without substance to blame the lockdown for this

The question of face coverings keeps emerging, as if we are looking for someone to tell us we don't need to wear them. I refer to my previous statement about normal speech resulting in spittle carrying up to two feet; that's why microbiologists wear masks, to avoid contaminating things. Coughs and sneezes spread up to eight metres. The three metre separation rule was devised on the basis that the virus is carried on water droplets when we breathe out and speak, and these will fall to the ground within three metres (rather than one metre as per the WHO, which I've never understood). It therefore seems intuitive to cover our mouths and noses with something to limit such spread. They had grasped this back in 1918 during the Spanish flu outbreak, so I don't know why we are even arguing about it now.

thanks 1 user thanked biker1 for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 30/10/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#736 Posted : 30 October 2020 11:59:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Guess the clue is in the title of the legislation: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/791)

2 feet = 0.6096 metres

Where did 3 metres come from?

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/10/which-face-mask-tests-reveal-huge-differences-in-filtration/

Interseting article in Which?

Edited by user 30 October 2020 12:21:12(UTC)  | Reason: added link

Roundtuit  
#737 Posted : 30 October 2020 11:59:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Guess the clue is in the title of the legislation: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/791)

2 feet = 0.6096 metres

Where did 3 metres come from?

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/10/which-face-mask-tests-reveal-huge-differences-in-filtration/

Interseting article in Which?

Edited by user 30 October 2020 12:21:12(UTC)  | Reason: added link

Brian Hagyard  
#738 Posted : 30 October 2020 12:22:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

You will get no argument from Me Biker1 - until there is conclusive evidance that they are not needed i will continue to wear one. But i do wish we had clear guidance on the standared to follow not thecurrent "make ywhat ever you want" advice.

CptBeaky  
#739 Posted : 30 October 2020 12:27:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

I think we can all agree a specific standard is long overdue. We should have had this pinned down before the second spike. The above paper does show that any appears better than none, but a huge difference in quality between them. And we assume that the "any" doesn't carry additional health hazards.

achrn  
#740 Posted : 30 October 2020 13:12:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

Children are missing education? I seem to recall that online teaching was instituted early on in the pandemic.

Anyone that thinks online teaching implemented in a rushed ad-hoc basis is equivalent to being in a classroom with a teacher is clearly in cloud-cuckoo land.

That's before you admit to making the asusmption that every schoolchild in the land has unfettered access to a computer and broadband - a significant number of schoolchildren in the country don't get proper food, never mind a PC each and a quiet working space.

We are potentially blighting the rest of the lives of at least a couple of years of children - their qualifications are devalued and their education was truncated. It's not just those not taking exams last year.  The sylabus this year is reduced, and it's the useful things that have been dropped (like doing practicals from science, or actually being able to speak it from modern foreign languages).

It is self-evidently this government's policy to prioritise the retired over young people - that's why we have a pensions triple-lock meaning that pensions rise faster than inflation, even as children go hungry.  Baby-boomers have had it easy the last decade or so, and continue to take priority over the generations that follow. There are many times more children in poverty in teh UK than pensioners - in any of the statistics you choose to look at.
thanks 1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
SLord80 on 31/10/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#741 Posted : 30 October 2020 15:38:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post
CWA 17553 which covers what they are referring to as “community masks”.

In Section 7.2 "Instructions for Use" WARNING - If you are ill, this community face covering is unsuitable.

Roundtuit  
#742 Posted : 30 October 2020 15:38:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post
CWA 17553 which covers what they are referring to as “community masks”.

In Section 7.2 "Instructions for Use" WARNING - If you are ill, this community face covering is unsuitable.

John Murray  
#743 Posted : 30 October 2020 19:38:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

"There are many times more children in poverty in teh UK than pensioners - in any of the statistics you choose to look at"
This is the age of the new state pension, set at a level equal to the minimum required income. Those who have no other income get just the new state pension. And maybe a few quid of pension-credit-savings-credit. That "triple-lock" hardly benefits anyone receiving the basic pension, since it increases the pension by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation number, average earnings or 2.5%. So their additional pension credit goes down as the basic pension rises. Since inflation is usually higher than the state says it is, they hardly benefit much.
The people who *really* benefit from the state pension, are those with additional pensions. Which is a very large proportion of the middle class. A teacher receiving a final-salary pension also gets the state pension, as does a top civil servant retiring on a pension based upon his salary of £80,000. They also get the "winter heating allowance" (£200 for a single person) and the Xmas bonus (£10). They also get it if living abroad in europe.
John Murray  
#744 Posted : 30 October 2020 19:55:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

"Finaly the other problem we have is that we dont know how bad it would have been if we had not done everything we have. I suspect that deaths would have been way higher, that the NHS would have been near to collapse. At least now we appear to be in a better position to treat people"

The NHS already had already planned for a pandemic situation in 2016. Those plans existed and were implemented immediately. Many treatments were halted as premises were altered in-line with the planning (which actually already allowed for the expected refusal of govt to release extra funding). The refusal to buy the needed extra PPE was unexpected, as was the purchase of large amounts of PPE which was of no value. The local hospital was never more than a few patients from collapse, with an extended ICU from 15 to 75 beds, and rented refridgerated storage outside for the corpses. Over 250 died in 3 months. Many more were the in the same state. The "Nightingdale" hospitals could hardly work effectively, since many of the needed staff were in short supply within existing hospitals, and plans  to use army non-medical-personnel rapidly fell-through, as sense prevailed. At the same time other patients were dying from other ailments in the hospital, and outside it. All outside deaths still have to be taken to hospital as well, just to check what they died from, and whether their deaths had been "assisted".....as for the vaccine, the leading candidate vaccines tests are proceeding. The one that I know has had no side effects (yet) but has also had no antibodies formed. Bitch.

biker1  
#745 Posted : 02 November 2020 09:24:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

My bad. I mentioned a separation distance of three metres. Not sure why I said this, unless I was thinking of the very early days of the pandemic, when three metres was suggested as a suitable distance.

The seeds of the crisis in the NHS were sown long before the pandemic, with decades of under investment in the NHS. Before the virus struck, we were already short of seven thousand doctors and thirty thousand nurses, hospitals were struggling to find beds for patients, so is it any surprise that they are now in crisis? It might sound impressive when the government announces so many millions more in funding, but when this is divided up amongst all of the trusts, the net amount is pathetically small and won't make any effective difference. The investment needed is in the billions (like that given to HS2, but that's another matter). Nightingale hospitals were set up, but since there weren't the staff to man these, it came across as a publicity gimmick. I heard that some are being made ready again, but unless we have magically solved the manning issue, this is not likely to achieve much.

Well, the dreaded 'lockdown' is nearly upon us, assuming that the government wins the vote on Wednesday. Once again, it is not a total lockdown, and I struggle to understand why schools and universities are staying open. I didn't think the graphs used in Boris's briefing were terribly convincing, but I have no doubt that some form of national lockdown is needed; it's just a pity that Boris has dithered about this for weeks despite the scientific advice, but then dithering is his speciality. We just need to decide what we're going to do about the selfish idiots not abiding by it. More protests, one addressed by David Icke, which tells you everything about it. Interesting what you get from his name if you just use the initial for his first name.

SLord80  
#746 Posted : 02 November 2020 16:25:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

1. There has only been one gold standard study on face masks, McIntyre 2015. The conclusions are that they may actually increase the risk of transmitting the virus, which is actually a very logical conclusion.

2. Secondly, Chris witty himself said on the news back in March, and I quote ‘the evidence is clear, wearing a mask when you don’t have the infection does not reduce the risk at all’ this is a direct quote.

3. If you honestly believe they work, why have we not worn them previously? We have had some terrible flu seasons, with tens and tens of thousands of deaths every single year. Surely, if the government and scientists truely believe they actually work, they would’ve been recommend in the past? They would’ve literally saved millions of lives globally.

4. You claim we are in a second wave, we aren’t, not yet anyway. We aren’t currently experience any excess deaths at all. Hospital bed capacity is what would be expected for this time of year, they are always close to being full.

5. Why are you all seemingly turning a blind eye to the non covid related excess deaths? These 16,000+ live’s have quite literally been sacrificed to save other people’s live’s from covid. The cure has literally being worse than the disease.

6. It’s blatantly obvious that the people who ‘don’t understand why schools aren’t closing’ don’t have children attending school. Why should we dent / harm a child’s life when they are at zero risk? It would be immoral, unethical and arguably illegal (children act 1989, paramouncy principal) to do so


SLord80  
#747 Posted : 02 November 2020 16:32:03(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
A thorough piece of debunking, CptBeaky. The paper you debunked would make David Icke proud.Going back to SLord80's original post, the assertions made in this are shot through with unjustifiable assumptions and misinterpretations. Mental health services are more busy than ever? I think if you examine the facts, you will find that this was the case long before COVID, as such services have been progressively cut back for some years. Children are missing education? I seem to recall that online teaching was instituted early on in the pandemic. Children are at record levels of obesity due to lockdown? Again, if you examine the evidence, record levels of child obesity were reported long before the pandemic, so it is without substance to blame the lockdown for thisThe question of face coverings keeps emerging, as if we are looking for someone to tell us we don't need to wear them. I refer to my previous statement about normal speech resulting in spittle carrying up to two feet; that's why microbiologists wear masks, to avoid contaminating things. Coughs and sneezes spread up to eight metres. The three metre separation rule was devised on the basis that the virus is carried on water droplets when we breathe out and speak, and these will fall to the ground within three metres (rather than one metre as per the WHO, which I've never understood). It therefore seems intuitive to cover our mouths and noses with something to limit such spread. They had grasped this back in 1918 during the Spanish flu outbreak, so I don't know why we are even arguing about it now.


All wrong.

Again, you obviously don’t work on, and have zero knowledge of, mental health wards. There is literally a massive influx of people, who have never, ever had any mental health issues before, being admitted to mental health wards, in most cases for depression due to covid losses, or due to fear of actually getting the virus.

I’m obviously not blaming obesity in the lockdown, lockdown has clearly multiplied the problem.

Well, if you don’t know why we’re arguing about masks, then you clearly have read the literature. Do you know what a randomised controlled study is? If not, google it. There has only ever been one done on the effectiveness of face masks. In 2015. The results? Face masks may actually INCREASE the transmission of a virus. A perfectly logical conclusion. There are literally dozens of other studies, with similar conclusions. So atleast now you understand why a large amount of people disagree with them - it’s because we are informed. As my post above clearly states, Chris witty himself stated they make zero difference if you don’t actually have a virus.
peter gotch  
#748 Posted : 02 November 2020 17:32:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

SLord80

I don't know whether you are typing your pseudo-science on a mobile phone but it would make it much easier to read your postings if you put in some paragraphs and e.g. knew how to spell Whitty.

Professor Whitty is quite entitled to shift his position on masks as more evidence emerges as to how Covid spreads. 

However with your rapid tapping at a keyboard you appear to contradict yourself in two sentences:

Do you know what a randomised controlled study is? If not, google it. There has only ever been one done on the effectiveness of face masks. In 2015. The results? Face masks may actually INCREASE the transmission of a virus. A perfectly logical conclusion. There are literally dozens of other studies, with similar conclusions. 

In one sentence you say there has only been one randomised controlled study of the effectiveness of face masks. Then you say there are dozens of other studies coming to similar conclusions. How do you bridge that gap? Are you saying that the dozens were not done to the standard you are demanding?

As has been pointed out, excess mortality in the UK has been statistically significantly up when compared to the average for the same period in the last 5 or 10 years.

We have discussed on these Forums whether or not the current method of counting of Covid-related deaths is the most appropriate - currently deaths within 28 days of a Covid diagnosis.

Now some of those will be people who have been positively diagnosed but have subsequently recovered such that the current method of counting over-reports the impact of Covid.

On the other hand there are numerous deaths where it would be reasonable to guess that Covid was causative but without a positive diagnosis, e.g. as a result of lack of availability of testing. AND by "causative" I mean that - the immediate cause might be e.g. pneumonia but in circumstances where a medical practitioner comes to the conclusion that this would have been unlikely had the patient not been made more vulnerable due to Covid.

There are also the deaths from other causes that have occurred due to lack of capacity in healthcare systems around the World resulting from bedspace and other resources being diverted to Covid patients - these are one reason why a much better measure of the overall impact of Covid is probably counting excess mortality.

You have accused other posters of complete ignorance as to mental health wards, but have not provided any evidence that this is one of your specialist areas of knowledge.

What is your evidence base for your assertion that

There is literally a massive influx of people, who have never, ever had any mental health issues before, being admitted to mental health wards, in most cases for depression due to covid losses, or due to fear of actually getting the virus.

...and what is your definition of "massive influx" - 2, 22, 222, 2222, 22222, 222222 or millions?

There are rational reasons why the use of face masks MAY increase risks. There are also rational reasons why the use of face masks can mitigate risks. What Professor Whitty and many others have done is try to identify the balance as more evidence emerges.

By what scientific criteria do you assert that you are "informed" and, thence that Professor Whitty and others are not "informed"?

Oh, and I agree with one of your assertions. If children and those around them do not carry the virus then masks will not protect them. The problem is that we can't tell whether these people are carrying the virus without testing them frequently. You cannot define "zero risk" without doing these tests! Usually it is inappropriate to assume "zero risk" - the risk might be low or even "negligible" but rarely is it appropriate to decide that something has "zero risk".

So, as example current advice is that the risk of importing "Chronic Wasting Disease" into the UK is reported by Government as "negligible to very low". Sensible people would not report the risk of CWD spreading from one state in the US to another in the same terms. So, you have to have people with the right understanding of whatever threat making assessments of the level of any risk having regard to the variables that apply wherever they do their risk assessment.

Edited by user 02 November 2020 17:33:25(UTC)  | Reason: Typo

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 03/11/2020(UTC)
SLord80  
#749 Posted : 02 November 2020 18:38:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post
SLord80I don't know whether you are typing your pseudo-science on a mobile phone but it would make it much easier to read your postings if you put in some paragraphs and e.g. knew how to spell Whitty.Professor Whitty is quite entitled to shift his position on masks as more evidence emerges as to how Covid spreads.However with your rapid tapping at a keyboard you appear to contradict yourself in two sentences:Do you know what a randomised controlled study is? If not, google it. There has only ever been one done on the effectiveness of face masks. In 2015. The results? Face masks may actually INCREASE the transmission of a virus. A perfectly logical conclusion. There are literally dozens of other studies, with similar conclusions.
In one sentence you say there has only been one randomised controlled study of the effectiveness of face masks. Then you say there are dozens of other studies coming to similar conclusions. How do you bridge that gap? Are you saying that the dozens were not done to the standard you are demanding?As has been pointed out, excess mortality in the UK has been statistically significantly up when compared to the average for the same period in the last 5 or 10 years.We have discussed on these Forums whether or not the current method of counting of Covid-related deaths is the most appropriate - currently deaths within 28 days of a Covid diagnosis.Now some of those will be people who have been positively diagnosed but have subsequently recovered such that the current method of counting over-reports the impact of Covid.On the other hand there are numerous deaths where it would be reasonable to guess that Covid was causative but without a positive diagnosis, e.g. as a result of lack of availability of testing. AND by "causative" I mean that - the immediate cause might be e.g. pneumonia but in circumstances where a medical practitioner comes to the conclusion that this would have been unlikely had the patient not been made more vulnerable due to Covid.There are also the deaths from other causes that have occurred due to lack of capacity in healthcare systems around the World resulting from bedspace and other resources being diverted to Covid patients - these are one reason why a much better measure of the overall impact of Covid is probably counting excess mortality.You have accused other posters of complete ignorance as to mental health wards, but have not provided any evidence that this is one of your specialist areas of knowledge.What is your evidence base for your assertion thatThere is literally a massive influx of people, who have never, ever had any mental health issues before, being admitted to mental health wards, in most cases for depression due to covid losses, or due to fear of actually getting the virus.
...and what is your definition of "massive influx" - 2, 22, 222, 2222, 22222, 222222 or millions?There are rational reasons why the use of face masks MAY increase risks. There are also rational reasons why the use of face masks can mitigate risks. What Professor Whitty and many others have done is try to identify the balance as more evidence emerges.By what scientific criteria do you assert that you are "informed" and, thence that Professor Whitty and others are not "informed"?Oh, and I agree with one of your assertions. If children and those around them do not carry the virus then masks will not protect them. The problem is that we can't tell whether these people are carrying the virus without testing them frequently. You cannot define "zero risk" without doing these tests! Usually it is inappropriate to assume "zero risk" - the risk might be low or even "negligible" but rarely is it appropriate to decide that something has "zero risk".So, as example current advice is that the risk of importing "Chronic Wasting Disease" into the UK is reported by Government as "negligible to very low". Sensible people would not report the risk of CWD spreading from one state in the US to another in the same terms. So, you have to have people with the right understanding of whatever threat making assessments of the level of any risk having regard to the variables that apply wherever they do their risk assessment.





I’m not sure if your illiterate but that is clearly not contradicting myself? I simple said there is one gold standard study, McIntyre 2015, which advises against the use of face masks, and that there are other studies backing up this claim. Obviously, these are not randomised controlled studies, as I have already stated there are only one of them.


My definition of a massive influx is all the many acute mental health wards I know of are all completely full, and have literally never had as many new admissions with no previous mental health issue.


My evidence base is my job, I work daily with mental health nurses across the whole of the UK.

No response to my main point of the point I see - is it ok to kill some people to save others? It is unarguable that this happened during lockdown, with there being no reason to believe it won’t happen again during this next one.
SLord80  
#750 Posted : 02 November 2020 18:54:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

https://twitter.com/Desm...1319298302538645504?s=20

It’s encouraging to see some MPs can think for themselves.

Desmond makes some great points.
Roundtuit  
#751 Posted : 02 November 2020 19:54:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Do we really need an SM feed posting?

Feel free to be aggrieved but kindly take your angst to another platform where such behaviour is acceptable.

You are not progessing the debate merely seeking to shout down anyone who disagrees with your personal POV. This platform is not that way inclined which had you bothered to understand the rules before launching in to your vitriol you may have appreciated.

BTW it should read "IMHO Desmond makes some great points" it is your opinion rather than an absolute - personally I think the man talks out of his back side

Roundtuit  
#752 Posted : 02 November 2020 19:54:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Do we really need an SM feed posting?

Feel free to be aggrieved but kindly take your angst to another platform where such behaviour is acceptable.

You are not progessing the debate merely seeking to shout down anyone who disagrees with your personal POV. This platform is not that way inclined which had you bothered to understand the rules before launching in to your vitriol you may have appreciated.

BTW it should read "IMHO Desmond makes some great points" it is your opinion rather than an absolute - personally I think the man talks out of his back side

SLord80  
#753 Posted : 02 November 2020 22:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Do we really need an SM feed posting?
Feel free to be aggrieved but kindly take your angst to another platform where such behaviour is acceptable.You are not progessing the debate merely seeking to shout down anyone who disagrees with your personal POV.This platform is not that way inclined which had you bothered to understand the rules before launching in to your vitriol you may have appreciated.BTW it should read "IMHO Desmond makes some great points" it is your opinion rather than an absolute -personally I think the man talks out of his back side


I’ll stay here thank you very much. And I will continue to post as much as I choose too.

So you think it’s acceptable to kill some people in order to save others? Fair enough if you believe that, but it’s quite simply morally wrong.

The irony is there are only a few on this forum who seemingly have the ability to think for themselves and actually look at the evidence.

We are not experiencing any excess deaths at all at present yet we’re heading into lock down, which will literally be the end of many small businesses. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Again ironically I’m one of the lucky few who has been significantly financially advantaged since lockdown, but I still don’t agree with it as it’s doing more harm than good.

stevedm  
#754 Posted : 03 November 2020 08:18:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

I am not sure that the original intent of this thread is being maintained...it gets more like Facebook every day!

I am sure it was about how we deal with rather than how we moan about it...

thanks 1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
Roundtuit on 03/11/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#755 Posted : 03 November 2020 08:27:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

How very arrogant to presume to know what I think.

Roundtuit  
#756 Posted : 03 November 2020 08:27:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

How very arrogant to presume to know what I think.

flysafe  
#757 Posted : 03 November 2020 08:50:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
flysafe

To Quote Slord80 "Chris witty himself stated they make zero difference if you don’t actually have a virus." so how do you know if you have the virus to make that choice? If you know you would be isolating so the masks are for when you have the virus but dont know and are therfore protecting others, its no hardship in the great scheme of things.

biker1  
#758 Posted : 03 November 2020 10:03:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

SLord80 seems to assume a position that he/she knows everything, and the rest of us know nothing - not a good start for a reasoned discussion, especially considering that most contributors here are qualified and experienced safety and health practitioners. Like other people trying to force their views on other people, he/she is selective in which points are responded to.

On the subject of mental health services, I do have long-standing experience of these, so I do have some knowledge ot them. Whilst I don't doubt that there has been an increase in demand due to the pandemic, and indeed most people predicted this, my point is that such services were in crisis long before the virus hit us. In my area alone, we have lost three major mental health hospitals in the last 30/40 years, as the authorities pursued an agenda of care in the community. Of the remaining ones, bed availability was extremely limited before the pandemic. The same can be said for hospitals generally.

On the subject of masks, as with most things, their effectiveness depends to some extent on how they are used. Continuing to wear a potentially contaminated mask rather than changing for a new one could increase the risk of transmission, but again it depends on what is done with the mask when it is removed. Since official figures indicate that some 80% of people testing positive for the virus are not symptomatic, it is spurious to claim that they are only effective if someone has the virus, since none of us actually know unless we are tested every day (and like an MOT, such tests are only valid on the day of issue). I notice there was no response to my points about transmission range, and a common sense precaution to limit this.

This poster seems to backtrack on their assertion that the pandemic has resulted in record levels of child obesity.

On the subject of data, official figures indicate total deaths from COVID at over forty two thousand. However, adding in those for whom COVID was mentioned on their death certificate, but wasn't therefore the only reason but clearly a contributory one, this figure rises to fifty seven thousand. On the subject of excess deaths, this figure stood at sixty five thousand a couple of weeks ago. Yes, some of this last figure might be due to lack of treatment for other things, but COVID has already killed three times as many people as flu and pneumonia combined. 

thanks 2 users thanked biker1 for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 03/11/2020(UTC), flysafe on 03/11/2020(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#759 Posted : 03 November 2020 11:29:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54786130

So after saying "only test with symptoms" they are now looking at city wide testing - the idea i guess is people isolte to limit spread quicker. I wonder what % will take this up? Those that come up with an excuse (and i dont mean those with a gebuine reason) to wear mask are hardly lickly to take the test every 2 weeks. Hopefuly this will be the "game changer" there are predicting.

CptBeaky  
#760 Posted : 03 November 2020 11:38:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

The issue is that people can't afford to isolate. It is daft that if you are furloughed, thereby being less likely to be exposed to the disease, you can get 80% of your wages paid. However, if you are working, thereby increasing your exposure to the disease, you get far less. Until people can afford to isolate, they will not.

Obviously there are outliers that will ignore the rules, whether through misguided beliefs or ignorance. The sort of people that would rather rely on their own knowledge than go through the inconvenience of wearing a mask. This combined with the attack in expertise that is prevelant in society currrently means that the effects of this lockdown are not likely to be as severe as before. In my opinion it will impact the spread, but not reduce it to the levels seen in June/July. I spend a lot of my life wondering whether the internet has been a net benefit to knowledge globally, or a net loss

peter gotch  
#761 Posted : 03 November 2020 11:57:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Lord - along with all your other talents are you a statistician?

Do you know better than the ONS?

I think the most recent ONS stats on excess deaths in England and Wales are at

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/12372weeklyprovisionalexcessdeaths2020forregionsinenglandandwalesandpopulationsofregionsinenglandandukcountries2015to2020

This indicates assuming that I have done the excel calcs right:

Looking at two month periods to the nearest day:

January, February - excess mortality Minus 2323

March, April - Plus 45990 - most of us have seen the graphs put up on the news on a daily basis. The first "peak"

May, June - Plus 13651

July, Aug - Plus 532

First three weeks in September - Minus 183

Since then what has been described as the "second wave" has been accelerating.

No excess mortality in 2020 in England and Wales. Really? If you can get the total of the two Minus numbers to exceed the total of the Plus numbers, then I need to go back to school. From a UK perspective Scotland and NI are NOT going to change the overall picture so as to negate the picture for E&W.

Edited by user 03 November 2020 11:59:42(UTC)  | Reason: Punctuation and clarification

Roundtuit  
#762 Posted : 03 November 2020 11:58:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: flysafe Go to Quoted Post
it is no hardship in the great scheme of things

There is always a different perspective https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54779697

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 03/11/2020(UTC), flysafe on 03/11/2020(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 03/11/2020(UTC), flysafe on 03/11/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#763 Posted : 03 November 2020 11:58:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: flysafe Go to Quoted Post
it is no hardship in the great scheme of things

There is always a different perspective https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54779697

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 03/11/2020(UTC), flysafe on 03/11/2020(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 03/11/2020(UTC), flysafe on 03/11/2020(UTC)
chris.packham  
#764 Posted : 03 November 2020 12:01:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

One of the issues is that many people claim that they are using their common sense. I try to keep in mind the statement in one of his books by Prof. Brian Cox: "Commonsense is worthless and irrelevant when investigating reality."  In my field (skin) what may appear logical is often not the same as what science is telling us. Particularly with Covid-19 there is so much misinformation being spread around that I am not surprised that we have problems in controlling the pandemic. Unfortunately some of the misinformation is from what might be considered 'official' sources. 

Roundtuit  
#765 Posted : 03 November 2020 12:03:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

There can be some very interseting stats:

SLord 80 joined 2nd May 2020

Posts to date 9 - eight in this thread

Roundtuit  
#766 Posted : 03 November 2020 12:03:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

There can be some very interseting stats:

SLord 80 joined 2nd May 2020

Posts to date 9 - eight in this thread

Brian Hagyard  
#767 Posted : 03 November 2020 12:14:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: flysafe Go to Quoted Post
it is no hardship in the great scheme of things

There is always a different perspective https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54779697

I agree Roundtuit its important where people have a genuine reason for not wearing a face covering we protect them from abuse - i think the sunflower lanyards are a great idea, my local supermarket was promoting them - but again anyone could just ask for one no evidance needed - and we know some will abuse such situation - just like some abuse blue badge parking.

thanks 1 user thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
flysafe on 03/11/2020(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
25 Pages«<1718192021>»
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.