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

35 Pages«<2829303132>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Roundtuit  
#1161 Posted : 14 January 2021 21:32:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Seeing empty posts brought the Tremeloes recording "Silence is Golden" to mind

When you wonder how that song title came about you arrive at the proverb "Speech is silver, silence is golden"

Proverbs about silence include "Empty vessels make the most sound"

A completed journey from which inner peace can prevail

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 15/01/2021(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#1162 Posted : 14 January 2021 21:32:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Seeing empty posts brought the Tremeloes recording "Silence is Golden" to mind

When you wonder how that song title came about you arrive at the proverb "Speech is silver, silence is golden"

Proverbs about silence include "Empty vessels make the most sound"

A completed journey from which inner peace can prevail

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 15/01/2021(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 15/01/2021(UTC)
SLord80  
#1163 Posted : 15 January 2021 07:08:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
1. There has only been one gold standard study on face masks, McIntyre 2015.


I assume you mean MacIntyre 2015https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h694.abstract



I got in contact with Ms MacIntyre - the author of the paper. Below is the e-mails sent
Good afternoon,My email -I am really sorry to bother you at what is probably a really busy time for you. As you can see I am a H&amp;S professional. Currently there is a debate in a H&amp;S forum in the UK as to the efficacy of face coverings. The person arguing against their use is quoting your paper (in the title). Are you able to confirm that is your conclusion, based on the current pandemic, that face coverings are not an effective method of transmission spread?
Her responseNo, it is not my conclusion. I believe an effective cloth mask can be designedPlease seehttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e042045


Slord - remember your "gold Standard" paper that the author herself said that you are wrong? This is why I can't take you seriously. You have the very author that you stated was the best on offer to supportyour argument saying you are wrong, and yet you refuse to re-evaluate your position. At this point it is obvious that no evidence will be good enough for you, and therefore there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.
What evidence would convince you that face coverings/lockdowns etc are necessary? How many deaths would it take? If you can quantify your position, maybe we would be able to understand it better.Captcha WuWu



You clearly don’t understand how science works do you matey.

The papers conclusions are the papers conclusions - just because the author ‘changes their minds’ doesn’t then take away from the objective parts of the research - they are factual and there for all to see.

Additionally, it is actually you who fails to be able to re assess your own opinion when factual evidence is presented to you, not only did I provide the McIntyre study I then provided the Denmark study 2020 which look at thousands of mask and non mask wearers and found no statistical difference between either group catching covid19. Yes you will now tell me ‘it’s about protecting other people!’ Show me the evidence then. Or are you all just taking matt Hancock’s (one of the most vile human beings I’ve ever laid eyes on) word for it?

I have repeatedly asked for you or other forum members to post some good hard science that masks are effective - and the best I got was a trial with TEN participants in. That’s a 1 and a 0. Utterly insignificant when presented on its own due to the ridiculously low sample size.

Now again, ironically, it is you whose suffering from the ability to change your own opinion, even when presented with solid evidence.
SLord80  
#1164 Posted : 15 January 2021 07:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post
The return of Iron Chicken and SLord80 make me want to raise my eyes to the heavens


Please don't let them drag you down to the sort of ad-hominem name-calling they practice.
They are very welcome here if they remain on topic, remain civil, and don't move from explanations of why they disagree with the views expressed by another poster to making statements like "you ... don’t have a clue" and "you’ve clearly no idea about anything you talk about".



Do you see you hypocrisy?

You mention my comments but fail to mention said poster first called me an idiot?

How about you take your own advice.
thanks 1 user thanked SLord80 for this useful post.
The Iron Chicken on 15/01/2021(UTC)
John Murray  
#1165 Posted : 15 January 2021 08:15:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Now, if *everyone* blocks them, we can get back to normal !

(if you are really masochistic then log-in without a password and continue to read)

thanks 1 user thanked John Murray for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Holliday42333  
#1166 Posted : 15 January 2021 09:09:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

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

The return of Iron Chicken and SLord80 make me want to raise my eyes to the heavens


Please don't let them drag you down to the sort of ad-hominem name-calling they practice.

They are very welcome here if they remain on topic, remain civil, and don't move from explanations of why they disagree with the views expressed by another poster to making statements like "you ... don’t have a clue" and "you’ve clearly no idea about anything you talk about".


Quite right achrn.  This is the reason for my plea for moderation (you have to look to the heavens for this as you are more likely to get a divine response than one from IOSH Towers)

chris42  
#1167 Posted : 15 January 2021 09:38:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post

I have recently come across a document from outside of our company that suggested that close contact includes being within 1m of someone for one minute while wearing face coverings.

However, the Gov.uk web site lists it as below without mention of face covering:

  • been within one metre for one minute or longer without face-to-face contact
  • been within 2 metres of someone for more than 15 minutes (either as a one-off contact, or added up together over one day)

Has anyone come across such a definition of close contact regarding time and distance while wearing a face cover?

 

Not sure if my post got lost in amongst other irrelevant rantings adding nothing or no one had an input or view on it, so I thought I would put it at the end again.

I only wondered because if in England you have so far followed the 1m plus rules with the plus being a face cover then you (your business) are possibly at risk that if one person gets it all have to isolate and so the company could lose a significant section of its workforce.

The Gov web site puts an exception in for plastic screens, but no mention if everyone in group was using a face cover (including the infected person).

Chris



The Iron Chicken  
#1168 Posted : 15 January 2021 09:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

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

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
1. There has only been one gold standard study on face masks, McIntyre 2015.

I assume you mean MacIntyre 2015 https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h694.abstract

I got in contact with Ms MacIntyre - the author of the paper. Below is the e-mails sent

Good afternoon,

 My email -

I am really sorry to bother you at what is probably a really busy time for you. As you can see I am a H&S professional. Currently there is a debate in a H&S forum in the UK as to the efficacy of face coverings. The person arguing against their use is quoting your paper (in the title). Are you able to confirm that is your conclusion, based on the current pandemic, that face coverings are not an effective method of transmission spread?

Her response

No, it is not my conclusion. I believe an effective cloth mask can be designed

Please see

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e042045

 


Slord - remember your "gold Standard" paper that the author herself said that you are wrong? This is why I can't take you seriously. You have the very author that you stated was the best on offer to support your argument saying you are wrong, and yet you refuse to re-evaluate your position. At this point it is obvious that no evidence will be good enough for you, and therefore there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

What evidence would convince you that face coverings/lockdowns etc are necessary? How many deaths would it take? If you can quantify your position, maybe we would be able to understand it better.

Captcha WuWu


Erm... the BMJ article Ms MacIntyre linked to is actually a study comparing cloth masks (washed by hand), cloth masks (washed in hospital laundry) and medical masks, with the following stated aims:

"To determine the relationship of washing of masks to infection risk in cloth mask users. The secondary aim was to determine contamination with viral pathogens on the surface of cloth and medical masks."

Also her answer: "I believe an effective cloth mask can be designed"

Neither of the above answer the question you asked her!

Brian Hagyard  
#1169 Posted : 15 January 2021 09:53:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post

I only wondered because if in England you have so far followed the 1m plus rules with the plus being a face cover then you (your business) are possibly at risk that if one person gets it all have to isolate and so the company could lose a significant section of its workforce.

The Gov web site puts an exception in for plastic screens, but no mention if everyone in group was using a face cover (including the infected person).

Chris

Chris I have constantly advised my employer that face covering are not an acceptable "additional measure" where they want to reduce the 2m rule.

I use this from the test and trace guidance to support this (as well as the workplace guidance documents)

The contact tracers will not consider the wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE) as a mitigation when assessing whether a recent contact is likely to have risked transmitting the virus. Only full medical-grade PPE worn in health and care settings will be considered.

To date my employer has been supportive and we are sticking to the 2m rule,

thanks 1 user thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
biker1  
#1170 Posted : 15 January 2021 11:21:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Chris42, I have never understood why the WHO have stuck to their mantra of 1m separation, whereas 2m has always seemed a bare minimum distance to me, when you consider the ability of people to spread spittle even in normal conversation, going back to my microbiology training.

I do struggle to understand what the big problem is in wearing face coverings, social distancing etc. These precautions are not perfect, and no-one would claim they are, but they are small sacrifices to make to try and limit the spread of the virus. If face coverings are not at all effective, why are they insisted on in clinical settings? They are a well established precaution, the difference now being that they are viewed as more about protecting others rather than the wearer, but then in microbiology settings this has long been the case. We can all trawl research on such matters, which will have varying results, but then what is our motivation in doing so? If it is to identify the most efficient way of using the precautions, then fair enough, but if it is to argue against precautions without suggesting alternatives, then I think the motivation is suspect. The 'scientific method' is not without bias, and people can interpret results to support their preconceived ideas. It can be an emotive subject, especially if like me you have had family members made seriously ill by COVID, and then read material arguing against common sense precautions. There is therefore a risk of descending into name calling, which I hold my hand up to, but ultimately this will get us nowhere.

thanks 2 users thanked biker1 for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#1171 Posted : 15 January 2021 12:01:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
If face coverings are not at all effective, why are they insisted on in clinical settings? 

The face coverings the public are expected to wear whilst appearing to be of a "medical" type are not.

Vigilant suppliers even stipulate on their packaging that the product is not a medical device nor is it RPE.

Medical Devices come under Directive 93/42/CEE or Regulation EU/2017/745 and like PPE are CE marked.

Roundtuit  
#1172 Posted : 15 January 2021 12:01:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
If face coverings are not at all effective, why are they insisted on in clinical settings? 

The face coverings the public are expected to wear whilst appearing to be of a "medical" type are not.

Vigilant suppliers even stipulate on their packaging that the product is not a medical device nor is it RPE.

Medical Devices come under Directive 93/42/CEE or Regulation EU/2017/745 and like PPE are CE marked.

CptBeaky  
#1173 Posted : 15 January 2021 12:04:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

There is nothing I believe in that I would willing put other people's lives at risk rather than admit I might be wrong. Wearing a face covering won't kill me, not wearing one might kill someone else. As H&S professionals we deal with this sort of situation all the time. We have to avoid letting our pride put other people at risk. We must do what the scientific consensus suggests, whether we agree with that scientific consensus or not.

For example, our learned colleague Chris Packham knows a lot more about hand hygiene than I do. I believed that alcohol gel was bad for hands, and soap and water was the best option. He gave evidence that I was wrong. He explained why I was wrong. He has much more knowledge on the subject, therefore I have changed my stance. My pride is not so great that I would put the skin of my workers at risk, rather than admit that an expert knows more than me.

The mistrust of experts is now endemic across the world. This pandemic has highlighted just how bad this has become. We can blame Trump for this, but to be honest Trump was the logical outcome of this paranoia. He got where he was because people no longer trusted experts and here pandered to that fear. A perfect example of this was during the ebola crisis "witch doctors" told their followers that the healthcare professionals were killing their loved ones in the hospitals. This resulted in the families rushing into the hospitals to rescue their families, causing the outbreak to spread again. The woo-peddlars were worried they would lose face and believers if the experts proved to be right. They risked the lives of their congregation rather than admit they could be wrong. I find it strange that climate change deniers can't see the power that the oil companies have, and instead point to a "green energy hoax".

For too long blame has been put at experts doors, when none was there to be had. We have a media that distorts facts depending on their agenda, to the point that James Murdoch quit his media empire due to the fact they were knowingly posting lies about climate change being a hoax. This has been excerbated by politians taking donations from groups that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

Now we have a situation where literally thousands of people are dying every day and people still don't believe there is a virus or that it is exagerated. Some people don't even believe in viruses themselves, arguing they are just the result of the body "detoxing".

There are conspiracies out there that will be true, but these are not the grand schemes that the "truthers" want us to believe. A conspiracy is only as good as those that can keep it a secret. The millions of people that would have to be in on the virus hoax precludes it from being true. Health care workers, virologists, victims, biologists, governments, etc would all have to be in on it.  The ruling elite doesn't make sense when you see how bungled a response many countries have had. Do they ask governments to delibrately make their response look shambolic? For what end?

Strange that when the truthers get on a plane they trust that experts to get them safely to their destination.

Remember, as Carl Sagan said, all claims require evidence, extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence 

thanks 4 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
Kate on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC), biker1 on 15/01/2021(UTC), peter gotch on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#1174 Posted : 15 January 2021 12:15:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

I do struggle to understand what the big problem is in wearing face coverings, social distancing etc. These precautions are not perfect, and no-one would claim they are, but they are small sacrifices to make to try and limit the spread of the virus.

Biker1 - not sure if my post was clear - i agree with you about wearing face coverings and social distancing during this public health crisis - which is why when asked if we can reduce to 1m if we wear face coverings I tell my employer no - thats not in the guidance.

chris42  
#1175 Posted : 15 January 2021 13:07:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Sorry my question was not about the wearing of face covings in terms of “must we” I am happy to wear them with the hope it does something to protect others and as far as I am aware, we have no one in work that have expressed a problem with wearing them. I do also suggest that everyone should stay 2m apart when possible, but there are times they do need to be closer for a short period of time, so have suggested they can be 1m plus face cover away (plastic screens not appropriate for our scenarios)

I believe our duty is to help protect not only employees, but our employers, I’m part of the management team and sit in board meetings etc. Government guidance allows for the distancing down to 1m plus an additional measure (latest update 07/01/2021) and that measure can be a face cover (link below)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing

My question was regarding employees who have to self-Isolate because they have followed this guidance, and worked 1m with face cover for more than 1 minute, and end up on SSP for 2 weeks. Obviously at the same time it could remove a significant amount of the workforce and become an issue for my employer for two weeks. We work in relatively small groups around the country, say 2 dozen in one place, and any qty of people having to isolate means we close that site. We are considered to be providing an essential service.

It just seems that on one hand they are saying it is safe to be 1m plus face cover from someone else, but if you do and they get the virus you have to isolate because it was risky for you to do that.

Just wondered about others views on this.

Chris

Roundtuit  
#1176 Posted : 15 January 2021 13:27:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post
My question was regarding employees who have to self-Isolate because they have followed this guidance, and worked 1m with face cover for more than 1 minute, 

Bit of a leap to declare self-isolation was "because" - ever since the concept of Covid secure these forums have concluded that in the general populations (not virology labs or treatment wards) work environment it would be impossible to draw conclusion that someone definitivley caught the virus as a consequence of work.

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC), A Kurdziel on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#1177 Posted : 15 January 2021 13:27:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post
My question was regarding employees who have to self-Isolate because they have followed this guidance, and worked 1m with face cover for more than 1 minute, 

Bit of a leap to declare self-isolation was "because" - ever since the concept of Covid secure these forums have concluded that in the general populations (not virology labs or treatment wards) work environment it would be impossible to draw conclusion that someone definitivley caught the virus as a consequence of work.

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC), A Kurdziel on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#1178 Posted : 15 January 2021 14:39:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing

It just seems that on one hand they are saying it is safe to be 1m plus face cover from someone else, but if you do and they get the virus you have to isolate because it was risky for you to do that.

Chris

I see the document you have link as guidance to the general public - i do not belive it is aimed at the workplace. If you look at any of the workplace guides face coverings do not feature in the listed "additional measures" for 1m+. I two have situations where collegues cannot stay 2m appart - when this happens we try and follow the other guidance, such as fixed teams. Yes we encourage the use of face coverings, but the only areas we make them madatory are where staff are lickly to meet people they do not normaly contact and socially distancing may be difficult (I think that was the wording from the guidance) or where mandated such as close contact survices (where it is type 2 surgical mask and face coverings) retail sale etc.

Unfortunatly i think people are taking the guidance you link to, to mean thats its OK to be within 1 meter with face coverings but i dont belive that was ever its intention. If both people are wearing coverings it will limit the spread but as we keep saying they are not PPE and hence why Test and Trace discount them. 

Edited by user 15 January 2021 14:40:51(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
biker1  
#1179 Posted : 15 January 2021 15:26:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

I do struggle to understand what the big problem is in wearing face coverings, social distancing etc. These precautions are not perfect, and no-one would claim they are, but they are small sacrifices to make to try and limit the spread of the virus.

Biker1 - not sure if my post was clear - i agree with you about wearing face coverings and social distancing during this public health crisis - which is why when asked if we can reduce to 1m if we wear face coverings I tell my employer no - thats not in the guidance.


Sorry Brian, but I wasn't thinking of your post when I wrote this, if you follow me.
chris42  
#1180 Posted : 15 January 2021 15:55:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Roundtuit, I was not intending it to sound as if the person caught the virus in work, just that they had been working with a mask on in work and later found out they had it. Yes, I agree you will not know if it was work related, unless a whole team comes down with it in one go, then it may be likely.

Interesting point Brian I had put lots of different guidance together. I admit when I went to look for a reference, I just picked the first one, which I had read previously, I also read a number of other workplace ones so probably merged a few together in my head. Other workplace guidance does mention the use of face coverings, but not to rely on it as only measure, which we don’t it is more of “as well as” the other measures, but as you say that is why test and trace discount them.

Thanks for the discussion all.

Chris

peter gotch  
#1181 Posted : 15 January 2021 16:06:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Good that this thread appears to be reverting (in the main) to discussions about real life problems and real life solutions.

chris42  
#1182 Posted : 15 January 2021 16:15:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Just noted I used the word mask when I intended it to be face cover.

Chris

SLord80  
#1183 Posted : 15 January 2021 16:56:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
<p>There is nothing I believe in that I would willing put other people's lives at risk rather than admit I might be wrong. Wearing a face covering won't kill me, not wearing one might kill someone else. As H&amp;S professionals we deal with this sort of situation all the time. We have to avoid letting our pride put&nbsp;other people at risk. We must do what the scientific consensus suggests, whether we agree with that scientific consensus or not.</p><p>For example, our learned colleague Chris Packham knows a lot more about hand hygiene than I do. I believed that alcohol gel&nbsp;was&nbsp;bad for hands, and soap and water was the best option. He gave evidence that I was wrong. He explained why I was wrong. He has much more knowledge on the subject, therefore I have changed my stance. My pride is not so great that I would put the skin of my workers at risk, rather than admit that an expert knows more than me.</p><p>The mistrust of experts is now endemic across the world. This pandemic has highlighted just how bad this has become. We can blame Trump for this, but to be honest Trump was the logical outcome of this paranoia. He got where he was because people no longer trusted experts and here pandered to that fear. A perfect example of this was during the ebola crisis "witch doctors" told their followers that the healthcare professionals were killing their loved ones in the hospitals. This resulted in the families rushing into the hospitals to rescue their families, causing the outbreak to spread again. The woo-peddlars were worried they would lose face and believers if the experts proved to be right. They risked the lives of their congregation rather than admit they could be wrong. I find it strange that climate change deniers can't see the power that the oil companies have, and instead point to a "green energy hoax".</p><p>For too long blame has been put at experts doors, when none was there to be had. We have a media that distorts facts depending on their agenda, to the point that James Murdoch quit his media empire due to the fact they were knowingly posting lies about climate change being a hoax. This has been excerbated by politians taking donations from groups that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.</p><p>Now we have a situation where literally thousands of people are dying every day and people still don't believe there is a virus or that it is exagerated. Some people don't even believe in viruses themselves, arguing they are just the result of the body "detoxing".</p><p>There are conspiracies out there that will be true, but these are not the grand schemes that the "truthers" want us to believe. A conspiracy is only as good as those that can keep it a secret. The millions of people that would have to be in on the virus hoax precludes it from being true. Health care workers, virologists, victims, biologists, governments, etc would all have to be in on it.&nbsp; The ruling elite doesn't make sense when you see how bungled a response many countries have had. Do they ask governments to delibrately make their response look shambolic? For what end?
</p><p>Strange that when the truthers get on a plane they&nbsp;trust that&nbsp;experts to get them safely to their destination.
</p><p>Remember, as Carl Sagan said, all claims require evidence, extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence&nbsp;</p>


I agree with this.

At the start of the pandemic I had a similar option to Biker1. But then I came across facts which surprised me, such as the survival rate, such as the inaccuracy of PCR tests, such as the dodgy contracts given by the government (we have tens of thousands of full hazmat suits that will never ever be used, we paid 12 billion for the failure that is test and trace), then you even have the dodgy reportings of deaths (any death after a positive PCR Test would be classified as a covid death - no matter how many weeks or months it happened after the test).

This changed my mind. No you tube videos changed my mind, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, so linking people like me (I know many professionals personally who have a similar opinion as me, yea this includes doctors and nurses working on the front line) to these flat earthers is just as easy way to discredit us.

On that note, I’d be genuinely interested of the evidence that changed your mind regarding alcohol gel being better than soap and water?
Roundtuit  
#1184 Posted : 15 January 2021 18:52:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9151577/Germany-passes-two-million-coronavirus-infections.html

Here you go Biker - Angela is upping the required standard for face coverings to "medical"

Roundtuit  
#1185 Posted : 15 January 2021 18:52:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9151577/Germany-passes-two-million-coronavirus-infections.html

Here you go Biker - Angela is upping the required standard for face coverings to "medical"

Roundtuit  
#1186 Posted : 15 January 2021 19:02:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9149537/Covid-EU-leaders-discuss-plans-week-roll-vaccine-passports.html

Well what a great idea from countries desparate to have holiday maker money.

Why don't they do it the other way - free vaccine with every holiday?

Based on Janet Street Porters latest article the fact so many "non" celebrities are being photographed in Dubai may be down to a concierge service offering "tourist vaccine packages"

BoJo should have closed the airports immediatley - not Monday morning

Roundtuit  
#1187 Posted : 15 January 2021 19:02:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9149537/Covid-EU-leaders-discuss-plans-week-roll-vaccine-passports.html

Well what a great idea from countries desparate to have holiday maker money.

Why don't they do it the other way - free vaccine with every holiday?

Based on Janet Street Porters latest article the fact so many "non" celebrities are being photographed in Dubai may be down to a concierge service offering "tourist vaccine packages"

BoJo should have closed the airports immediatley - not Monday morning

The Iron Chicken  
#1188 Posted : 16 January 2021 16:44:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

On a point of order...

The viewpoints of SLord80 and myself may differ from those of many of you.

SLord80 and I may share opinions on some topics, but we also differ on others.

I'm sure I speak for SLord80 also, when I say it would be appreciated if you would afford us the courtesy of treating us as individuals rather than pigeonholing us as you are currently doing.

Thanking you in anticipation.

peter gotch  
#1189 Posted : 17 January 2021 19:05:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

SLord80 - in your reply to CptBeaky you commented:

On that note, I’d be genuinely interested of the evidence that changed your mind regarding alcohol gel being better than soap and water?

Since CptBeaky had already referred to the expertise of Chris Packham, I suggest you do a search for posts by

chris.packham

(complete with the full stop in the middle)

Chris has set out the evidence base for his rationale on more than one occasion on these Forums. Little point in his repeating himself without good cause.

Chris's explanations do not tackle the subject of any fire risks associated with alcohol based sanitisers. But these appear the domain of a number of urban myths and have been debunked and discussed at various times on these Forums over the last year.

chris.packham  
#1190 Posted : 18 January 2021 07:49:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

The topic of flammability of alcohol sanitisers was raised at one of our recent webinars on hand hygiene for Covid-19. I had already looked into this. The World Health Organisation carried out a very extensive search on this. Yes, alcohol sanitiser is flammable so care needs to be taken to ensure that it is stored correctly. However, neither they nor I could find any validated claims that substantiate the claim that when used it is a fire hazard.  Only a very small amount (around 3ml) is applied to the hands and this is then spread around the hands. It immediately starts to evaporate. Within a second or two there would not be enough on the hands that even a naked flame directly applied to the skin would cause a flame. Within 20-30 seconds the skin is completely dry so no residual risk whatsoever. 

Of course, if you did what one person (in the USA) did and applied a very large amount to his arm then immeidately applied a naked flame (cigaretter lighter) to this, then you can get a skin burn! 

Regarding effectiveness, why do you think that the official, NICE accredited, guidance on hand hygiene recommends alcohol sanitiser as the standard approach for hand decontamination, with hand washing reserved for two specific situations?

biker1  
#1191 Posted : 18 January 2021 17:41:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

I think it is important to look at the holistic view of the pandemic, and not to confuse government incompetence or developing scientific understanding with any form of conspiracy, or detract from the seriousness of the pandemic.

A statistically high survival rate has often been cited, but this doesn't even begin to tell the full story. Even with this, the number of deaths could run into the millions, and I for one don't consider this acceptable. Added to this is the misery and suffering that many who do survive the virus go through.

I have criticised the track and trace system, which was badly conceived, took a ridiculously long time to develop, and which has some basic flaws in it. This can be put down to incompetence, but doesn't detract from the logic of developing such a system.

A comment has been made about the perceived wideness and vaguary of reporting of deaths. Although I would question some of the massaging of figures, the standard criterion now is for deaths that occur within 28 days of a positive COVID test (not months). There are other reporting criteria, which might be equally as valid, such as those where COVID is mentioned on the death certificate, or the number of excess deaths above what would be expected. There is always the difficulty of separating deaths from the virus from deaths due to existing medical conditions that were exacerbated by the virus, and I'm not sure we have bottomed this one out, or indeed whether we ever will.

The simple quick COVID test, the lateral flow test, is acknowledged by the medical profession to result in false negatives. Carried out repeatedly it can give an indication of infection, but as a one-off test it is far from useful. The full PCR test is far more reliable, and will no doubt improve in this respect as our understanding of the virus improves, but there are variables that can affect its accuracy, such as the time it was carried out in the cycle of infection.

The term 'lockdown' has achieved a relative meaning. We are currently in our third lockdown in the UK, but in practice it is far from being anything that can be meaningfully described as a lockdown. The first lockdown came closest, but restrictions have been watered down for this current one.

The purchase of protective equipment for the pandemic has had elements of dodgy dealing, corruption and incompetence. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, this was almost inevitable given the considerable amounts of money involved. There seems to have been little effective oversight of such matters.

I have already commented on the issues of face coverings and other precautions, so won't repeat myself.

Yes, we have probably been guilty of lumping together people who object to current COVID practice for various reasons, which carries the danger of over-simplfying their objections. I woud only say that whether these objections are for reasons of conspiracy theories or interpretation of research, the end result will be the same in terms of not complying with restrictions, and therefore putting people's lives ar risk. This could be why objectors have been lumped together in people's minds.

No doubt I will get flamed by certain people for these comments, but whilst I may not be a leading expert on such matters, on the other hand I do have a good idea of what I am talking about, but try to keep an open mind as our understanding develops.

Edited by user 18 January 2021 17:47:37(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 3 users thanked biker1 for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 19/01/2021(UTC), CptBeaky on 19/01/2021(UTC), peter gotch on 19/01/2021(UTC)
chris.packham  
#1192 Posted : 19 January 2021 06:55:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Biker 1 - thanks for this excellent summary. The simple facts are that at present we are still learning about the SARS-Cov-2 virus and how to manage it. We have no full picture yet and so have to make certain assumptions that may or may not be helpful as we find out more. In my considered view what we need is what has been described as the Swiss Cheese approach. Each layer has one or more holes. Put enough layers together and there is no hole going right through them all! We need to consider the routes by which the virus can be spread, both direct and indirect, and how we manage each of them, so no 'silver bullet'. Facial coverings can help, as can social distancing, surface disinfection, hand decontamination and, of course, vaccination, but only as part of a properly balanced and structured plan. You are welcome to contact me off the forum and I can show you what I have put together.

thanks 1 user thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 19/01/2021(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#1193 Posted : 19 January 2021 11:40:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Biker 1 and Chris

No argument from me on any of this - you know my view that this is a public health matter not H&S but i agree with doing everything we can to reduce the effect of this virus. The world has changed since the Spanish Flu epidemic and i think everyones expectations have changed.

For me i just look at the number of people in hospital and the excess death figures - I belive last year saw more deaths in a year (when adjusted for population age profile etc) than at any time since the 2nd WW.

I can see no other reason at the moment for these deaths other than by the direct effect of Covid or the nock on effect of streatching the NHS, cancelled treatments etc - and i think this effect will continue for some time even with a succesful vaccination programme. I hate to think what the effect would have been in the UK without the measures that have been taken.

achrn  
#1194 Posted : 19 January 2021 12:04:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard Go to Quoted Post

No argument from me on any of this - you know my view that this is a public health matter not H&S but i agree with doing everything we can to reduce the effect of this virus.

Depending how you define "the effects of teh virus", I disagree. 

We shouldn't do things that kill or harm more people than the virus does (for example: suspend all other NHS care).

We shouldn't do things that put large number of people into multi-generational poverty (for example: write off two or three years of school-leavers and just resign them to never getting employment).

We shouldn't do things that do societal harms for a lifetime (for example, abolish social interaction for under-6-year-olds - look out for a prison population spike in 12 years time).

If you count them as "effects of the virus", then I agree, but all too often "effects of the virus" is used to mean deaths and virus-specific health consequences only.  The difficulty is identifying what's the least harm.  Is an 85-yr-old dying a year earlier than they would have done more or less harm than a 17-year-old never getting a job and they and their children living entire lifetimes in poverty?

thanks 3 users thanked achrn for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 19/01/2021(UTC), N Hancock on 19/01/2021(UTC), The Iron Chicken on 20/01/2021(UTC)
N Hancock  
#1195 Posted : 19 January 2021 14:18:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
N Hancock

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard Go to Quoted Post

I hate to think what the effect would have been in the UK without the measures that have been taken.


Just give it year and you will see what lockdown brings.   Next year it will be the healthy who have lost everything paying the price. 

thanks 1 user thanked N Hancock for this useful post.
The Iron Chicken on 20/01/2021(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#1196 Posted : 19 January 2021 15:29:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Guys i dont disagree with either of you (apprat from the comment about 85 year olds dies a year sooner than they would do without covid which i think is poor)- infact read my last paragraph again.

I can see no other reason at the moment for these deaths other than by the direct effect of Covid or the nock on effect of streatching the NHS, cancelled treatments etc - and i think this effect will continue for some time even with a succesful vaccination programme

There will be a far reaching effect from this virus from associated factors as you rightly say for years to come. I know my own mental health is stretch - and i have a 25 year old son who works part time in retail (currently on furlough) who will be fighting with thousands for a job after this.

The point i was trying to make is how do we measure those effects agains the loss of thousands (if not hundreds of thousand) of people who may die if we take no action. And it would not just be the over 85 year olds. If all the beds younger people would not be able to revive the treatment that may save their lives.

I dont pretend to have the answers.

Brian Hagyard  
#1197 Posted : 19 January 2021 16:32:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

taken from BBC daily news - sorry part of a bigger story so no easy link. 1 way of ensuring people self isolate i soppose - glad i have some people blocked on this site as i can just see thier comments on this.

Over the last couple of weeks, cases of Covid-19 have been rising in the northeast of China, particularly in the city of Shijiazhuang.

And so, on 13 January, work began in the city to construct 3,000 prefabricated rooms to accommodate the growing numbers of people who need to quarantine.

China says that a third of these 18 sq metre rooms – a full 1,008 of them - have now been completed and will soon be in use. The task took 98 hours, just over four days. Twenty per cent of the workers were retired soldiers.

A journalist from state broadcaster CCTV visited the facilities today, and showed viewers inside one of the rooms, which has electricity, air conditioning, showers, and a wireless network.

She added that people at the site have confirmed that the number of rooms is going to be increased in the coming days from 3,000 to 4,200.

Shijiazhuang is one of three cities in northeastern China that is currently deemed high-risk because of growing infection. It has recorded more than 700 symptomatic cases of Covid-19 since the beginning of the year and has a population of around 11 million.

But China has a track record of being able to construct massive facilities in a short space of time. This time last year, construction workers built two hospitals in under two weeks to provide thousands of extra beds for Covid-19 patients in Wuhan, and this helped bring the virus under control.

John Murray  
#1198 Posted : 19 January 2021 19:18:39(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Two weeks!

The plans wouldn't even have been drawn in two weeks, in the UK.

Never mind the environmental impact statement.

Then there is the planning permission.

Then moving protected newts/whatever.

thanks 1 user thanked John Murray for this useful post.
biker1 on 20/01/2021(UTC)
John Murray  
#1199 Posted : 19 January 2021 19:27:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post

Depending how you define "the effects of teh virus", I disagree. 

We shouldn't do things that kill or harm more people than the virus does (for example: suspend all other NHS care).

We shouldn't do things that put large number of people into multi-generational poverty (for example: write off two or three years of school-leavers and just resign them to never getting employment).

We shouldn't do things that do societal harms for a lifetime (for example, abolish social interaction for under-6-year-olds - look out for a prison population spike in 12 years time).

If you count them as "effects of the virus", then I agree, but all too often "effects of the virus" is used to mean deaths and virus-specific health consequences only.  The difficulty is identifying what's the least harm.  Is an 85-yr-old dying a year earlier than they would have done more or less harm than a 17-year-old never getting a job and they and their children living entire lifetimes in poverty?

For suspending care, there is not really much choice.

The local hospital now has no "green" wards, they're all "red".

The outlying treatment areas, like endoscopy, have been changed to treat non-covid patients. The theatres have largely been converted into high-dependency units. 1 nurse died last week, from covid, others are ill and some are absent while sheltering. Doctors = 2 dead so far, others ill. My outpatient care is now via video-conferencing and phone. Many admin are working from home. All hospital staff have received their first dose of vaccine.

The hospital car-park, usually full, is now half empty (and they are currently building another 300-car one). Look on the bright side, A&E is being expanded.

Roundtuit  
#1200 Posted : 19 January 2021 20:41:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I would just like to say "AAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!"

In the same week our supermarkets finally begin to participate with the "face covering" regulations the French join ranks with the Germans recommending disposable professionally manufactured medical devices instead.

Anyone giving odds on when "wee Jimmy" discards her tartan nosebag and brings out yet another instruction?

For an accumulator what odds on the time for CW/JVT/MH to join the chorus?

Roundtuit  
#1201 Posted : 19 January 2021 20:41:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I would just like to say "AAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!"

In the same week our supermarkets finally begin to participate with the "face covering" regulations the French join ranks with the Germans recommending disposable professionally manufactured medical devices instead.

Anyone giving odds on when "wee Jimmy" discards her tartan nosebag and brings out yet another instruction?

For an accumulator what odds on the time for CW/JVT/MH to join the chorus?

The Iron Chicken  
#1202 Posted : 20 January 2021 05:44:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

The Unwitting Collaborators

These are people so psychosed / propagandised that they have lost the ability to stand back and reassess, so the condition becomes profound; they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction, way of life, culture and society but they have been rendered incapable of seeing this.

The Unwilling Collaborators

These are people who know something is not right but will not speak up because they won’t accept the potential backlash from their peers or from authority – a coward essentially waiting for an escape door which in reality will never be opened.

The Willing Collaborators

These are people who enthusiastically embrace the narrative and publicly denounce those who hold different views or do not comply with ‘the rules’; this makes them feel virtuous. They consider their lives to be relatively unaffected and do not acknowledge the great harms others are suffering. They do not realise their virtuousness will not elevate them to a privileged status in the long run.

The Truth Seekers aka 'The Resistance’

These are people who know something is not right and are willing to search beyond the narrative with an open mind; they use high-quality evidence to find real truths, regardless of whether these are inconvenient, unpopular or ridiculed; they speak out, often sacrificing reputations and relationships in the fight for truth and justice, putting these principles above everything else.

Which one are you?

Alan Haynes  
#1203 Posted : 20 January 2021 08:59:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alan Haynes

"The Unwitting Collaborators

These are people so psychosed / propagandised that they have lost the ability to stand back and reassess, so the condition becomes profound; they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction, way of life, culture and society but they have been rendered incapable of seeing this."

Iron Chicken. I congratulate you - you have summed yourself up perfectly.

thanks 5 users thanked Alan Haynes for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 20/01/2021(UTC), chris.packham on 20/01/2021(UTC), biker1 on 20/01/2021(UTC), peter gotch on 20/01/2021(UTC), John Murray on 20/01/2021(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#1204 Posted : 20 January 2021 09:57:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I am starting to get concerned about the way some contributors are going on about how the Chinese seem to be managing this outbreak so much better than anybody else. Well, the outbreak began in China late in 2019 and was allowed to spread because the local authorities suppressed any “bad news” until it was too late. The WHO organisation believes this and  have sent investigators to Wuhan to establish a clear timeline of  what happened. Once the Chinese authorities realised that is was going wrong, they did what they always do-big gesture project such as knocking out fully equipped hospitals in a fortnight. I doubt if they bother with things like Construction Safety plans when they do this sort of thing-look at the ILO on China and you will soon realise it has a terrible H&S record, as well as a poor environmental record. The whole purpose of this is to give an impression of action and in particular the united leadership of the Communist party. There  are no public debates or discussions about levels of lockdown or balancing public health requirements with economic issues. Within China the message is clear “the Party has done a better job that those useless democratic governments in the West”. It has also been picked up in the West by people who are tired and disillusioned by the impact of the Covid epidemic on their lives. “If only we could  do things like China does” say the apologists but of course similar things were said in the 1930 about Nazi Germany and Uncle Joe’s Soviet Union in relation to the Great Depression, but that because we did not know the full story.

thanks 3 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
biker1 on 20/01/2021(UTC), John Murray on 20/01/2021(UTC), The Iron Chicken on 21/01/2021(UTC)
biker1  
#1205 Posted : 20 January 2021 11:08:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Some good points. I think the jury is still out on how the virus started and spread, and given the historical secrecy of 'communist' regimes, I am not holding my breath for an answer. One theory was that it was manufactured in a lab in Wuhan, but they have been quick to deny this, although the whistleblowers who could have told us disappeared from sight rather quickly. The first explanation, about wet food markets, although having some credibility, neglected to explain why this hadn't happened before (although it wasn't the first virus outbreak in that part of the world, was it?). I can only imagine how rushed and unsafe the erection of hospitals was. As for lockdown, if you wsant to control people, a totalitarian regime is the way to do it. It stands in stark contrast to the UK (and US) experience of the pandemic, where people were too fond of their own freedom to consistenly comply with restrictions, even for a relatively short time. It is ironic, and I will not phrase this any more than this, that we have continued to buy a lot of equipment to protect against the virus from China. I can quite see how this could give rise to conspiracy theories, although it is worth bearing in mind that we import a lot of stuff from China anyway.

peter gotch  
#1206 Posted : 20 January 2021 11:31:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Suspect that John was a bit tongue in cheek but there are very good reasons why we have requirements for EIAs, planning permission and the safeguarding of protected species.

When Covid has receded the world will still be at threat, unless you fall into the camp that says that Climate Change is a hoax.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
35 Pages«<2829303132>»
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.