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«<2021222324>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Roundtuit  
#841 Posted : 13 November 2020 19:14:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

2. When using the forums you are expected to be polite and respectful towards all forum users. Please do not indulge in personal criticism of other users, bullying, aggressive, discriminatory or nuisance behaviour.
3. Your posting must be appropriate to the forum and relevant to the discussion. The forums are for professional discussion and debate of workplace health and safety and environmental issues.
4. You must not post any message that could be considered unwanted, unprofessional, defamatory, obscene, offensive, deliberately provocative, inflammatory, or unlawful. You must not use the forums to pursue or promote a grievance against any individual or organisation. This is not to stifle debate but to prevent unwarranted attacks on others.
5. Your posting must be your own comments; be factual, truthful and where an opinion is given, it must be clearly acknowledged as such. You must not appear to deliberately misquote another person or make misleading statements.

Roundtuit  
#842 Posted : 13 November 2020 19:14:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

2. When using the forums you are expected to be polite and respectful towards all forum users. Please do not indulge in personal criticism of other users, bullying, aggressive, discriminatory or nuisance behaviour.
3. Your posting must be appropriate to the forum and relevant to the discussion. The forums are for professional discussion and debate of workplace health and safety and environmental issues.
4. You must not post any message that could be considered unwanted, unprofessional, defamatory, obscene, offensive, deliberately provocative, inflammatory, or unlawful. You must not use the forums to pursue or promote a grievance against any individual or organisation. This is not to stifle debate but to prevent unwarranted attacks on others.
5. Your posting must be your own comments; be factual, truthful and where an opinion is given, it must be clearly acknowledged as such. You must not appear to deliberately misquote another person or make misleading statements.

SLord80  
#843 Posted : 13 November 2020 20:21:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
2. When using the forums you are expected to be polite and respectful towards all forum users. Please do not indulge in personal criticism of other users, bullying, aggressive, discriminatory or nuisance behaviour.
3. Your posting must be appropriate to the forum and relevant to the discussion. The forums are for professional discussion and debate of workplace health and safety and environmental issues.
4. You must not post any message that could be considered unwanted, unprofessional, defamatory, obscene, offensive, deliberately provocative, inflammatory, or unlawful. You must not use the forums to pursue or promote a grievance against any individual or organisation. This is not to stifle debate but to prevent unwarranted attacks on others.
5. Your posting must be your own comments; be factual, truthful and where an opinion is given, it must be clearly acknowledged as such.You must not appear to deliberately misquote another person or make misleading statements.


Thanks so much for posting these important forum rules here mate.

Hopefully the other posters willl refrain from the bullying behaviour they have shown, and to stop misquoting me also.

I have been misquoted 3 times now, all to support the posters own option, agenda, or to exaggerate their point.
John Murray  
#844 Posted : 13 November 2020 20:21:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

Tens of thousands of experts disagreeing? This poster seems to be an expert on exaggeration. 



Pardon me?

46,355 medical professionals / scientist have now signed The Great Barrington Declaration.

:)

True.

Even Dr Doolittle has signed. And B Karloff.

"Gregg Gonsalves, assistant professor of epidemiology at Yale University, described the strategy proposed by the declaration as "culling the herd of the sick and disabled", calling it "grotesque"

"The Francis Crick Institute's
group leader of the cell biology of infection laboratory, Rupert Beale, said herd immunity is "very unlikely" to be built up before a COVID-19 vaccine is generally implemented.[58][42]
Of the Great Barrington Declaration he said the "declaration
prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the
vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up 'herd immunity' in the
rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to
fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully
isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes
over time, and re-infection is possible"

"Devi Sridhar, the University of Edinburgh's
professor of global public health, said that the declaration "sounds
good in theory" but that "if you actually work in practical public
health on the front line, it doesn't make much sense", saying the
declaration's premise was neither "accurate" nor "scientific"

I could continue for at least 50 pages.....

SLord80  
#845 Posted : 14 November 2020 13:15:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: John Murray Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biker1 <img src="/Themes/iosh2/icon_latest_reply.gif" title="Go to Quoted Post" alt="Go to Quoted Post"> Tens of thousands of experts disagreeing? This poster seems to be an expert on exaggeration.

Pardon me?

46,355 medical professionals / scientist have now signed The Great Barrington Declaration.

:)



True.
Even Dr Doolittle has signed. And B Karloff.
"Gregg Gonsalves, assistant professor of epidemiology at Yale University, described the strategy proposed by the declaration as "culling the herd of the sick and disabled", calling it "grotesque"
"The Francis Crick Institute's
group leader of the cell biology of infection laboratory, Rupert Beale,
said herd immunity is "very unlikely" to be built up before a COVID-19 vaccine is generally implemented.[58][42]
Of the Great Barrington Declaration he said the "declaration
prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the
vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up 'herd immunity' in the
rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to
fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully
isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes
over time, and re-infection is possible"
"Devi Sridhar, the University of Edinburgh's
professor of global public health, said that the declaration "sounds
good in theory" but that "if you actually work in practical public
health on the front line, it doesn't make much sense", saying the
declaration's premise was neither "accurate" nor "scientific"
I could continue for at least 50 pages.....



So could the 46k + experts in their field, John.
peter gotch  
#846 Posted : 14 November 2020 16:02:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

How many "experts" have actually signed this Declaration? The original three appear to admit that many of those who have signed are neither medical professionals nor scientists.

What is interesting is that reputable organisations have concluded that it is necessary to control the circulation of something emanating from a right wing thinktank. A bit like preventing Trump from tweeting falsehoods.

The debate about "free speech" is always a fine line. To publish "Mein Kampf" or not?

A discussion of the pros and cons of "herd immunity" in relation in Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4

If SLord80 would demonstrate their credentials it would help. Occupation?

The Iron Chicken  
#847 Posted : 14 November 2020 18:19:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

How many "experts" have actually signed this Declaration? The original three appear to admit that many of those who have signed are neither medical professionals nor scientists.

What is interesting is that reputable organisations have concluded that it is necessary to control the circulation of something emanating from a right wing thinktank. A bit like preventing Trump from tweeting falsehoods.

The debate about "free speech" is always a fine line. To publish "Mein Kampf" or not?

A discussion of the pros and cons of "herd immunity" in relation in Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4

If SLord80 would demonstrate their credentials it would help. Occupation?


Are you referring to Google as a 'reputable organisation'? Think again. Google manipulates search results to show you what Google wants you to see. The GBD was hidden by Google when interest in it soared - other SEs such as Bing were still listing it at the top of the results. Google later reversed this following a worldwide outcry about its blatant censorship.

I think you'll find that Sunetra Gupta says of herself (Daily Mail article 30 October 2020): "I do have deeply held political ideals — ones that I would describe as inherently Left-wing." So, no right-wing think-tank there then.

When I signed the GBD other signatures were available to search through; interestingly there were quite a number of other CMIOSH signatories in addition to myself.

The Iron Chicken  
#848 Posted : 14 November 2020 18:25:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Dr Zoe Harcombe PhD has produced a comprehensive report on SAGE conflicts of interest.

Here are her findings from the Executive Summary of the report:

– Organisations invested in vaccines make money from vaccines. People who acquire natural immunity have less/no need for a vaccine. If people are locked in their homes, they have less chance of acquiring natural immunity.

– Twelve out of 20 key influencers work for/have received funding from organisations involved in the Covid-19 vaccine.

– There are four times more modellers/statisticians and experts in behaviour manipulation on the committee than there are virologists. There are no immunologists.

* It doesn’t matter if a drug is good or bad. It matters that those who have a financial interest in that drug are conflicted if they give advice that protects the financial interest in that drug.

Anyone worried by her findings?

The Iron Chicken  
#849 Posted : 14 November 2020 18:52:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Those of you advocating Covid19 vaccination may be interested to read the following short paper:

Written evidence from Dr Lisa Forsberg*, Dr Isra Black**, Dr Thomas Douglas*, Dr Jonathan Pugh* (COV0220)

Compulsory vaccination for Covid-19 and human rights law

This was submitted to the Human Rights (Joint Committee) of UK Parliament a few months ago.

I quote: 

"The law permits compulsory interference with bodily integrity under mental health law. This derogation from the common law principle of no treatment without consent is compatible with the ECHR. It is arguable that if compulsory treatment under mental health law is compatible with human rights law, so too is compulsory vaccination."

Basically, the authors are advocating that if you are 'vaccine hesitant' you do not care about the health of others and therefore have a mental health disorder, so there is an argument for detaining you under the Mental Health Act and forcibly vaccinating you because it is necessary 'for the protection of other persons.'

SLord80  
#850 Posted : 14 November 2020 20:58:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

How many parents who have their child vaccinated, and how many adults who receive vaccinations, are aware of the governments £120,000 vaccine damage payment, that is available to anyone who becomes severely disabled from a vaccine.

Surely there would be no need for this if vaccines are ‘safe’.

I think my definition of ‘safe’ differs widely to the definition of the pharmaceutical companies and MPs.

https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment

Food for thought for some of you on this forum who refer to ‘anti vaxxers’ as being uninformed, uneducated. The irony is - it’s actually the opposite, almost every person who willingly consents to a vaccine is not giving informed consent as they do not know the true risks involved.
thanks 1 user thanked SLord80 for this useful post.
The Iron Chicken on 15/11/2020(UTC)
The Iron Chicken  
#851 Posted : 15 November 2020 14:54:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
How many parents who have their child vaccinated, and how many adults who receive vaccinations, are aware of the governments £120,000 vaccine damage payment, that is available to anyone who becomes severely disabled from a vaccine.

Surely there would be no need for this if vaccines are ‘safe’.

I think my definition of ‘safe’ differs widely to the definition of the pharmaceutical companies and MPs.

https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment

Food for thought for some of you on this forum who refer to ‘anti vaxxers’ as being uninformed, uneducated. The irony is - it’s actually the opposite, almost every person who willingly consents to a vaccine is not giving informed consent as they do not know the true risks involved.

The Pandemrix vaccine from GSK was rushed through safety trials in 2009 as a response to the H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic. A number of  studies have linked this with an abrupt 13-fold increase in the risk of narcolepsy (and in some cases also cataplexy, an auto-immune condition) in about 1200 European children who received the vaccine. GSK was given indemnity by governments around Europe.

achrn  
#852 Posted : 15 November 2020 17:34:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: The Iron Chicken Go to Quoted Post

Those of you advocating Covid19 vaccination may be interested to read the following short paper:

Written evidence from Dr Lisa Forsberg*, Dr Isra Black**, Dr Thomas Douglas*, Dr Jonathan Pugh* (COV0220)

Compulsory vaccination for Covid-19 and human rights law

This was submitted to the Human Rights (Joint Committee) of UK Parliament a few months ago.

I quote: 

"The law permits compulsory interference with bodily integrity under mental health law. This derogation from the common law principle of no treatment without consent is compatible with the ECHR. It is arguable that if compulsory treatment under mental health law is compatible with human rights law, so too is compulsory vaccination."

Basically, the authors are advocating that if you are 'vaccine hesitant' you do not care about the health of others and therefore have a mental health disorder, so there is an argument for detaining you under the Mental Health Act and forcibly vaccinating you because it is necessary 'for the protection of other persons.'


You must be reading a different one to the one that I get following that link.

The one I get does not advocate what you claim and indeed states "A policy of compulsory vaccination would thus require primary legislation".  It is not advocating using mental health law as you claim, it notes that mental health law permits medical treatment without consent. It notes that this occurs only in exceptional cases.

The authours are not advocating using mental health legislation in the way you claim.  They state that mental health legislation contains an arguably comparable parallel to teh question of whether medical treatment without consent can ever be permitted.

Do you know what 'arguable' means?  It indicates that the case is open to disagreement and not obviously correct.  The authors are saying the case for compulsory vaccination is, if you like, 'shaky' or 'debatable'.

peter gotch  
#853 Posted : 15 November 2020 19:12:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Difficult to take anything seriously from someone whose moniker is a character in a small children’s TV animation.

When they “contributed” to this thread in August they advised that this was their last appearance, but did say that they were an engineer and CMIOSH, but that says nothing about their competence on pandemics. For all I know they could work on a heritage railway at the weekends and call themselves an engineer on that basis.

I am supportive of those posting on the IOSH Forums being permitted anonymity but perhaps both SLord80 and The Iron Chicken might explain their credentials when cutting and pasting libertarian propaganda..

There has been mention here that one of the first three signatories says that they are to the left. No shortage of historic examples of supposedly socialist minded people getting sucked in to campaigns by the right wing.

However, the Great Barrington Declaration emanates from the American Institute of Economic Research

Those pushing this Declaration and pretending that it is not associated with a right wing think tank could always get what Wikipedia says about its source amended:

“The American Institute for Economic Research is a libertarian or free-market think tank located in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. It was founded in 1933 by Edward C. Harwood, an economist and investment advisor. It is a 501 nonprofit that partners with the Atlas Network and other Koch-funded think tanks.”

One undoubtedly partisan (in opposition) comment says:

“The institution behind the Great Barrington Declaration, the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), is a free-market think tank tied to funding from the Koch petrochemical and industrial empire and an investment firm with significant holdings in fossil fuels.

This free-market think tank has further links to the fossil fuel industry through American Investment Services (AIS), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the organization. AIS says it is a “separate legal entity” that “conducts its investment advisory business independent of AIER’s day-to-day operations.”

But earnings from this investment firm, valued at nearly $285 million as of this year, help fund AIER, which appoints the firm’s board of directors.

American Investment Services has holdings in various polluting energy and petrochemical corporations such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, General Electric, and Eversource Energy, as well as tobacco giant Phillip Morris.”

The website of the GBD says (15/11/2020):

"current signature count

concerned citizens 628,334

medical & public health scientists 11,975

medical practitioners 34,569

Signatures of scientists will be made public after verification and approval"

So, the promoters of this Great Declaration admit that they don’t know how many scientists have signed or what their credentials are. The implication of the last sentence above is that the promoters are not too bothered about verifying the signatures of others and at least one doctor has signed to check that there was no due diligence whatsover.

Quite legitimate to discuss the pros and cons of various aspects of the precautions that have been applied to mitigate Covid risks nationally and internationally, but simply spouting propaganda could be kept to other social media.

SLord80  
#854 Posted : 15 November 2020 19:43:38(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
<div class="quote"><span class="quotetitle">Originally Posted by: The Iron Chicken <a href="/posts/m804173-Open-blog-about-Covid19--C19--what-s-your-impression#post804173"><img src="/Themes/iosh2/icon_latest_reply.gif" title="Go to Quoted Post" alt="Go to Quoted Post" /></a></span><div class="innerquote"><p>Those of you advocating Covid19 vaccination may be interested to read the following short paper:</p><p><a data-cke-saved-href="https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9253/html/" href="https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9253/html/">Written evidence from&nbsp;Dr Lisa Forsberg*, Dr&nbsp;Isra&nbsp;Black**, Dr Thomas Douglas*, Dr Jonathan Pugh*&nbsp;(COV0220)
</a></p><p><a data-cke-saved-href="https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9253/html/" href="https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9253/html/">Compulsory vaccination for&nbsp;Covid-19&nbsp;and human rights law</a>
</p><p>This was submitted to the Human Rights (Joint Committee) of UK Parliament a few months ago.
</p><p>I quote:&nbsp;</p><p>"The law permits compulsory interference with bodily integrity under mental health law. This derogation from the common law principle of&nbsp;no treatment without consent&nbsp;is compatible with the ECHR. It is arguable that if compulsory treatment under mental health law is compatible with human rights law, so too is compulsory vaccination."
</p><p>Basically, the authors are advocating that if you are 'vaccine hesitant' you do not care about the health of others and therefore have a mental health disorder, so there is an argument for detaining you under the Mental Health Act and forcibly vaccinating you because it is necessary 'for the protection of other persons.'
</p><p></div></div>

</p><p>You must be reading a different one to the one that I get following that link.
</p><p>The one I get does not advocate what you claim and indeed states "A policy of compulsory vaccination would thus require primary legislation".&nbsp; It is not advocating using mental health law as you claim, it notes that mental health law permits medical treatment without consent. It notes that this occurs only in exceptional cases.
</p><p>The authours are not advocating using mental health legislation in the way you claim.&nbsp; They state that mental health legislation contains an arguably comparable parallel to teh question of whether medical treatment without consent can ever be permitted.
</p><p>Do you know what 'arguable' means?&nbsp; It indicates that the case is <span jsslot=""><span>open to disagreement and not obviously correct</span></span>.&nbsp; The authors are saying the case for compulsory vaccination is, if you like, 'shaky' or 'debatable'.

</p>


Let’s hope and pray that primary legislation never arrives. Forced mandated vaccines is an awful thought. Even forced treatment of the mentally unwell is immoral, in my opinion.

Just to add, yes the MH code of practice states forced treatment should only be used in exceptional circumstances, however, that doesn’t mean it isn’t used often. People on mental health wards and literally restrained and injected daily, against their will. This is even if they have full mental capacity and understanding. Many have advocated for mental health illness to have equal refusal rights to physical illness (where any capacitated adult can refuse treatment even if this leads to their death) but this will likely never change.

On another note:

https://www.bmj.co m/content/371/bmj.m4425

The corruption is real. The evidence is literally there for all to see but some are still blind to it.
Roundtuit  
#855 Posted : 15 November 2020 21:16:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

"The evidence is literally there for all to see" - as are the forum rules which two posters seek to ignore.
Roundtuit  
#856 Posted : 15 November 2020 21:16:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

"The evidence is literally there for all to see" - as are the forum rules which two posters seek to ignore.
Holliday42333  
#857 Posted : 16 November 2020 08:57:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

What is more concerning is why the PM hasn't been following social distancing (see the photo of him standing within 2m to the MP who tested positive) when he clearly could/should have.  If he had been he surely wouldn't have been pinged by Test & Trace and now wouldn't be isolating.

Inundated with clarification requests again now and arguments over the social distancing 'rules'

peter gotch  
#858 Posted : 16 November 2020 11:40:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Holliday

Possibly Boris had a problem with the space time continuum. Needed to get shot of Dominic Cummings before realising that if you set rules you should abide by them yourself.

Or for the conspiracy theorists here, perhaps he just wanted an excuse to be less visible for a couple of weeks. 

Of course, one of the issues is that Government messaging in the UK has taken an about turn wherein social distancing is communicated as being less important than face coverings. 

...and that isn't just the UK Government. The current main message from the Scottish Government is based on the acroynm FACTS.

F for face covering

fourth is T for Two metres, and the idea that if 2m is impractical you should do 1.5m if practical doesn't feature.

Holliday42333  
#859 Posted : 16 November 2020 12:06:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

The Prime Ministers message on this specifically stated that 'all social distancing measures were followed' and Matt Hancock, when specifically asked, told the BBC the same thing and that No.10 was Covid Secure.

If so, why are the PM and four others self-isolating and why did the positive MP post a photo to social media showing him clearly within 2m of the PM (although this may have been less than the stipulated 15mins)? ie close contact.

Test and trace isn't supposed to contact people in these circumstances

Does anybody know how to apply to emigrate to New Zealand?

Roundtuit  
#860 Posted : 16 November 2020 12:45:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Time and Distance - if it were purely the absolute of distance many aspects of society would stop e.g. boarding a bus, having medical treatment, essential shopping.....

Roundtuit  
#861 Posted : 16 November 2020 12:45:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Time and Distance - if it were purely the absolute of distance many aspects of society would stop e.g. boarding a bus, having medical treatment, essential shopping.....

John Murray  
#862 Posted : 16 November 2020 13:00:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Time and Distance - if it were purely the absolute of distance many aspects of society would stop e.g. boarding a bus, having medical treatment, essential shopping.....

"Using public transportation, visiting a place of worship, or otherwise traveling from the home is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of testing positive with the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, while practicing strict social distancing is associated with a markedly lower likelihood"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200910110824.htm

Now is a good time to be a hermit and/or antisocial

Holliday42333  
#863 Posted : 16 November 2020 13:03:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Time and Distance - if it were purely the absolute of distance many aspects of society would stop e.g. boarding a bus, having medical treatment, essential shopping.....

I agree Roundtuit, which is why I included the time statement regarding the photograph.

However, surely to goodness, meetings between MPs can be done at 2m distance which would reduce the risk and not require self-isolation; a point Prof Chris Whitty focussed on at the re-launch of test and trace.

Yet again, those in Govenment (of all political pursuasions) can't do the simple things being asked of everybody else.

biker1  
#864 Posted : 16 November 2020 13:45:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
SLord80 - you argued against lockdowns, you argued against face masks, and now you are arguing againstl vacciness. Just what do you suggest we all do in view of the clear emergence of a second wave of the virus? As for facing facts, we have now gone over 50 thousand deaths in the UK, the highest number in Europe. Sweden, which decided against lockdowns, is now experiencing the highest rate of rise of cases in Europe. Their philosophy was somewhat dubious - if they get a second wave, it won't be bad because most people will have immunity. But hang on, if there were a low number of cases in the first wave, for whatever reason, then there will by definition be a low spread of immunity. You can't have one without the other. History tells us that in pandemic situations, the second wave has been worse than the first, as per the last major pandemic in 1918.It is easy to rubbish the restrictions placed on us, whilst forgetting that such restrictions have contributed to keeping cases in control to some extent. Yes, the media have reported and sensationalised the pandemic, that's what they do, but that doesn't detract from the potentially terrible situation we face if we just abandon controls.



Please don’t misquote me, why do people on this forum insist on making things up about me to try and exaggerator their point? Your the 3rd poster to do it now. I know your all in your little circle but come on, grow up.

1. Face masks shouldn’t be MANDATORY for everyone. They would be used where necessary. As previously stated, they have absolutely no benefit if the person doesn’t actually have covid. Is it blatantly disproportionate to mandate them to 66 million people when only a fraction of this number have covid, and of these most should be self isolating.

2. The lockdown shouldn’t have been so aggressive, why do you keep forgetting to mention the 16,000 excess deaths - all non covid? Attributable to the lockdown measures. The elderly who where too afraid to go to the hospital with their chest pain. The woman who had no where to go, who then where murdered of their partners. The suicide rate increasing dramatically, but atleast we saved a few lives from covid, so that makes it all okay?

3. A vaccine which didn’t have all the pitfalls of my last post would be welcomed by most I’m sure. But at the moment, it’s a recipe for disaster.

I have to ask Biker, as your so pro lockdown and pro lose all of our rights and I won’t bat an eye lid. When is it too far? Vaccination passports? Lockdown for 1 month, 6 month, how about 2 years, would that be too far? Or never. I’m genuinely interested into when you believe the restrictions would be too far. Bearing in mind most people currently can’t see family, exercise, go to church, see they partner etc.

When is enough, enough?

We all know the lockdown will be extended in December.


You misquote research, but don't like being 'misquoted' youself. Hmm. To take youi points. 1. You state that masks shouldn't be mandatory for everyone, and are not effective if the person doesn't have COVID (presumably you mean the person wearing it). The problem here is that unless you have just had a test, you don't know if you've got it, so the precautionary principle applies. It is worth bearing in mind that the use of masks/face coverings will likely reduce the transmission of other infectious diseases like colds and flu, which can't be a bad thing..2. We have only ever had a partial lockdown, and the current one is even less stringent than the first. There are probably people who have died, or will do, not related to COVID, but this is largely down to the suspension of NHS services to cope with the number of COVID cases, and the seeds of this crisis were sown a long time ago by successive governments. It is not true that most people can't see family, exercise, go to church etc. The concepts of bubbles and the rule of six have made it possible for most people to see family, unlimited exercise is permitted, people can attend church for individual time there, just not organised services. Are suicide rates rising dramatically, and do we know the reasons for this? 3. I agree there are concerns over the vaccine, since it has been developed far quicker than normal vaccines, and so might not have gone through all the peer reviews and reporting of side effects that would normally be expected with any new medication. We will likely know more as time progresses. Vaccination generally has saved a lot of lives; far more people would have died from flu, for instance, without it. It is a sound concept, that is well tolerated by the vast majority of people.

I notice that you haven't answered my question about what you would do about the pandemic and the second wave of it. If you have a brilliant solution, please tell us. The problem with lockdowns is that they have only ever been partial ones, and thousands of people have defied them. It doesn't take many selfish idiots to keep a virus spreading.

thanks 1 user thanked biker1 for this useful post.
Holliday42333 on 16/11/2020(UTC)
chris.packham  
#865 Posted : 16 November 2020 15:02:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

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?

thanks 2 users thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
biker1 on 16/11/2020(UTC), The Iron Chicken on 19/11/2020(UTC)
Holliday42333  
#866 Posted : 16 November 2020 15:22:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Isn't the two metre concept just a risk reduction measure though?  It has never really been suggested as a finite 'safe / not safe' scenario.

Regardless of this, it is what is supposed to define test and trace requirements.  Or, yet again, has one thing been written in the details of the guidance but thats not really what is meant or happens?  

biker1  
#867 Posted : 16 November 2020 16:33:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

When some of the precautions were first announced, I did wonder if they were similar to the old public information films about nuclear attack (get under a table), which were to try and reassure the public that they were doing something to protect themselves even if it was actually pathetically ineffective. I can see the wisdom in the precautions now, and conclude that they represent a minimum level of protection that the public can understand whilst not getting into the detail of various situations. The two metre rule is a very minimum ditance based on how quickly the virus, attached to water droplets, will drop to the ground. However, if someone coughs or sneezes, you would need to be over eight metres away from them to be at all safe, hence the idea of masks and face coverings to reduce this impractical distance. Then there is the problem of contamination of hands and surfaces, which is a major source of potential tranmission. The guidance came out to wash our hands often, which was of limited use, as it supposed we were always near a toilet to do so. Then the toilets were closed. People are notorious for touching things, including their own faces, and don't even realise they're doing so most of the time. This is probably a bigger challenge for most people than masks and distancing. The question about how long a disinfectant takes to work is an interesting one. I am sure most people assume it is an instant effect, but is it? I can't help wondering if picking up infection from surfaces is more of a factor than has been realised by most people, and various figures about how long the virus survives on various surfaces don't help. A great deal of faith has been placed on hand sanitisers - is this all justified?

I don't think that we are told all of the facts for one minute, but a sanitised (no pun intended) version of them that people can get their heads around. Forums like this are very useful for getting the detailed information that the government don't tell us, and there are some very knowlegeable people on here.

chris42  
#868 Posted : 16 November 2020 17:05:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Nearly all the disinfectants I have seen in shops state they need to be on the surface for 5 minutes! this is not a definitive list / time just all the ones I could find for sale. There probably are chemicals that could do it faster, but you probably don’t want to melt the pen. I wouldn’t even try that way! I would have a container with the pen in it (covered in Covid if you like), then some Alcohol hand wash for use afterwards by the user. Receptionist does not need to touch. Easy.

Chris

Roundtuit  
#869 Posted : 16 November 2020 21:35:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

But they are "doing something" by using wipes not an effective solution but psychologically there is a perception (or should that more correctly be employer deception?) of protection.

The supermarkets offer similar - a blue wipe, a spray and a hand sanitiser - personally I feel happier when store staff offer me a trolley they have previosuly wiped (still dubious but at least the disinfectant will have had some limited time to work).

What we really need is a shift from the pantomime "hoodoo, voodoo" routines implemented by the well meaning but miss-informed to realistic activity starting with temperature checking whose sole beneficiaries are the thermometer sales men.

Roundtuit  
#870 Posted : 16 November 2020 21:35:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

But they are "doing something" by using wipes not an effective solution but psychologically there is a perception (or should that more correctly be employer deception?) of protection.

The supermarkets offer similar - a blue wipe, a spray and a hand sanitiser - personally I feel happier when store staff offer me a trolley they have previosuly wiped (still dubious but at least the disinfectant will have had some limited time to work).

What we really need is a shift from the pantomime "hoodoo, voodoo" routines implemented by the well meaning but miss-informed to realistic activity starting with temperature checking whose sole beneficiaries are the thermometer sales men.

chris.packham  
#871 Posted : 16 November 2020 21:43:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Re the performance of disinfectants, those that are incorporated into the anti-microbial skin cleansers usually require at least one minute and often two or more to have any real effect. Also for some the claim that they kill 99.9% of all bacteria has been found to depend on the concentration, one that would not be acceptable in a product to be applied to the skin. Virtually all are irritant to the skin and many are skin sensitisers, even though they have not officially been classified as H317. The definitive guide to this is Anton de Groot's book on Patch Testing, the latest edition of which lists some 4,900 chemicals known to dermatologists as skin sensitisers to the extent that there is a patch test history and recommended concentration for patch testing. These disinfectants (probably more correctly referred to as biocides) if left on the skin can deplete the skin's own commensal flora making it less able to inhibit colonisation by transient micro-organisms, not exactly what we would be welcoming.

thanks 1 user thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
Roundtuit on 16/11/2020(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#872 Posted : 17 November 2020 09:13:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post

Does anybody know how to apply to emigrate to New Zealand?

https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/why-choose-nz/compare-new-zealand/uk

The only thing is under the travel restrictions - you have to swim there!

chris42  
#873 Posted : 17 November 2020 09:36:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

To clarify my post, I was suggesting that the pen user, use a 65% alcohol hand sanitiser on their hands, not the disinfectant.

Yes, I prefer it when they have cleaned the trolly. But I assume everything I pick up in a supermarket is contaminated so make a conscious effort not to touch my face with my hands. Once back to the car I tend to use a hand sanitiser (and on key) before opening driver’s door (had to open boot). I sill wipe everything I buy down when I get home (or isolate it for at least 3 days), which I’m not sure does any good but makes me feel better.

Chris

Brian Hagyard  
#874 Posted : 17 November 2020 11:00:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

So its now being reported in the newspapers that mouthwash can kill covid!

Cannot find full details of the research paper only the summery.

https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2393970/Potential-role-of-oral-rinses-targeting-the-viral-lipid-envelope-in-SARS-CoV-2-infection.pdf

Does not read as straight forward as the newspapers are reporting it to me - and im guessing it only works on the virus in the mouth at the time - and the mouth will soon become recontaminated soon after - will we all be carrying mouth wash soon as well as hand sanitiser?

thanks 1 user thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
rs10 on 17/11/2020(UTC)
biker1  
#875 Posted : 17 November 2020 11:46:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard Go to Quoted Post

So its now being reported in the newspapers that mouthwash can kill covid!

Cannot find full details of the research paper only the summery.

https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2393970/Potential-role-of-oral-rinses-targeting-the-viral-lipid-envelope-in-SARS-CoV-2-infection.pdf

Does not read as straight forward as the newspapers are reporting it to me - and im guessing it only works on the virus in the mouth at the time - and the mouth will soon become recontaminated soon after - will we all be carrying mouth wash soon as well as hand sanitiser?


Are you sure it's not just the makers of Listerine trying to find yet another market for their product?
Brian Hagyard  
#876 Posted : 17 November 2020 13:50:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

[


Are you sure it's not just the makers of Listerine trying to find yet another market for their product?

I did wonder that ! just like the tabacco companies used to pay for studies that showed smokeing was good for you! Or maybe this is Trumps retirement plan? Im sure swilling your mouth out with an alchole based product of your choice would have a similar short term effect!

biker1  
#877 Posted : 17 November 2020 15:05:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

If Trump was involved, we'd have to use Domestos as mouth wash. Could this be marketed as a heartburn cure? On second thoughts, let's not give him ideas.

biker1  
#878 Posted : 18 November 2020 15:38:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Apart from a few shops being closed, has anyone noticed any difference in activity since the second 'lockdown' started? Traffic levels are as bad as normal from what I can see, in contrast to the first lockdown when we had largely empty roads. People seem to be out and about in considerable numbers, in contrast to the first lockdown when people said hello as they were just thankful to see another human being. I cannot see this being a 'lockdown' in any meaningful sense of the word, so not sure what it is going to achieve. What are other peoples' perceptions?

Holliday42333  
#879 Posted : 18 November 2020 16:41:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

Apart from a few shops being closed, has anyone noticed any difference in activity since the second 'lockdown' started? Traffic levels are as bad as normal from what I can see, in contrast to the first lockdown when we had largely empty roads. People seem to be out and about in considerable numbers, in contrast to the first lockdown when people said hello as they were just thankful to see another human being. I cannot see this being a 'lockdown' in any meaningful sense of the word, so not sure what it is going to achieve. What are other peoples' perceptions?

No discernable difference here.  Perhaps why my area has been in the top 5 worst rates in the country with no sign of the rate slowing and the hospital quickly filling up.
If Andy Burnham wasnt happy with the support Manchester got he should try it on the oppsite side of the country

No chance of strong leadership here either as the Towns MP was one of those earlier in the week who obviously couldn't understand or follow the concept of social distancing when having a meeting.

Sad, sad state of affairs with no end in realistic sight

Edited by user 18 November 2020 16:55:29(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked Holliday42333 for this useful post.
biker1 on 18/11/2020(UTC)
biker1  
#880 Posted : 18 November 2020 16:56:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Not just me, then. Is the government aware of the farce of this supposed lockdown, or do they just not care? As long as they are seen to be doing something, however ineffective, they can bluster their way in the House of Commons. If there is any significant reduction in cases, which is not exactly clear at the moment, the only factor I can see is the closure of pubs. Schools and universities still open, most people going to work, crowded public transport (certainly in London), just what the hell is this all going to achieve? History tells us that second waves of pandemics have been worse than the first, and yet the supposed lockdown this time around is partial to the point of being pointless. I am not holding my breath for any change by Christmas. It's time the government got a grip (although that would be a first, wouldn't it?)

Holliday42333  
#881 Posted : 18 November 2020 17:11:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Meanwhile in Australia 38 cases have caused a local lockdown harsher than anything experienced in the UK at any time.

I wonder which county has been hit worst ecconomically, has the biggest pressure on the health service and the most grieving families?

SLord80  
#882 Posted : 18 November 2020 22:05:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post


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.


Hi! Here’s the link:


https://www.acpjournals....te6AQ0Y_fvn9OVNTblg&

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.
Roundtuit  
#883 Posted : 18 November 2020 22:24:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

A timely article for those who think they can pull up the drawbridge to outside drivers

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54994472

the HSE said it had received complaints suggesting some restaurants were breaching the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations of 1992.

These not only oblige restaurants to provide toilet access for delivery drivers, but also washing facilities at "readily accessible places"

Roundtuit  
#884 Posted : 18 November 2020 22:24:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

A timely article for those who think they can pull up the drawbridge to outside drivers

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54994472

the HSE said it had received complaints suggesting some restaurants were breaching the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations of 1992.

These not only oblige restaurants to provide toilet access for delivery drivers, but also washing facilities at "readily accessible places"

Holliday42333  
#885 Posted : 19 November 2020 08:40:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

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


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.



Hi! Here’s the link:


https://www.acpjournals....te6AQ0Y_fvn9OVNTblg&

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.


Go on, I'll bite.

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."

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.

You are not going to like this but  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 higher rate of infection than Denmark (ie UK), is effective even when most of the population do not 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.

Edited by user 19 November 2020 08:49:12(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked Holliday42333 for this useful post.
peter gotch on 19/11/2020(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
25 Pages«<2021222324>»
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.