re. the protecting the 'at risk,' been some stuff about unepxerted mortality in children due to some kind of toxic shock syndrome; so I don't think its just a case of rounding up the old and infirm.
The old people thing is an immediate indicator, my concern is more around the kawasaki syndrome in children and any other potential hidden or delayed issues from this infection.
That's why I am lairy on any early return to schools for kids etc..
some stuff about unepxerted mortality in children due to some kind of toxic shock syndrome;
Kawasaki type disease..
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/27/nhs-warns-of-rise-in-children-with-new-illness-that-may-be-linked-to-coronavirus
That’s **** news from Germany but not entirely surprising
Many older people don’t like to think of themselves as vulnerable or old
There's just been a nice feelgood piece on Sky News about Capt Tom and his birthday cards. They interviewed a bloke who was helping to open and sort the cards. All well and good.
At the back of the shot was some old dear who was opening cards. She licked her fingers every time she opened one. If she's not at risk of getting a disease from the cards, she really is a hot spot for passing some along.
Dirty old bugger. I hope poor old Capt Tom doesn't get hers to look at; it'd finish him off.
OWG - I don’t disagree with any of your last post. I’m assuming from it you are in the older bracket? I sympathise totally with the tough decisions taken by many/most of us up and down the country and indeed all over the world.
I’m maybe not explaining myself well, but I think there are many selfish people across all age ranges that think they are ok, so can do what they want, without seeing the knock on effects to others.
It’s a bit like the cyclist/driver/horse rider analogies - there are a lot of tossers in the world - some drive, some ride bikes etc. It doesn’t make all drivers tossers, it’s just that there are a lot of tossers everywhere!
the older bracket
Yeah, as I said in previous post I'm 60. But hey, 60 is the new 40, right?
You're correct about the tossers.
F me.
Watching BBC news and the presenter Sarah Smith just said wearing a mask might protect others but it wont protect you. She actually f ing said that, on the news, on TV, on the BBC!
Ones safety and others safety are not mutually exclusive. They also pushed the false sense of security narrative.
Never mind, another minutes silence shown from across Europe. At least the politicians are hanging their heads in shame, if only for a minute.
Just analyzed the Week 16 ONS official death data for England and Wales. For Week 16 (April 17th, 11 days ago), the UK had 31,626 (95% CI 22627,40186) excess deaths over the previous 10-year historic average.
That is an entire town the size of Deal in Kent (338th largest town).
That is all.
The bbc presenter was technically correct though.
It is unlikely to prevent you catching corona unless it is a full face fit ffp3.
But if you have the virus it might stop you spreading it to others.
Sorry to disrupt your faux outrage but she was right
I've been puzzled at some of the stuff I've seen on the news and social media about PPE. Someone claiming to be a doctor was saying not to wear gloves unless you are medically trained. By that logic, you shouldn't wear a mask also. Perhaps I shouldn't wear safety glasses when using an angle grinder unless I've got a medical degree too? Or maybe a degree in metallurgy?
I've no doubt that to maximise the benefits of PPE then a fancy education is a help, but I find it hard to believe that PPE doesn't offer a fairly easy win reduction in risk.
The bbc presenter was technically correct though.
It is unlikely to prevent you catching corona unless it is a full face fit ffp3.
I'm assuming you can cite a peer-reviewed research paper for that? 😀
Bear in mind that Daz going about his business in Asda wearing a mask isn't the same as a nurse or doctor breathing in lots of aerosolised viruses in a hospital.
If I could be arsed to actually search for one then yes I would expect that there are plenty of papers that detail the effect of masks and their ability to prevent virus passage through the mask.
In a previous job I actually helped design a few studies on viral retention in masks. I left before the data was generated so couldn't give you the numbers
grahamt1980,
Faux outrage you say?
The suggestion that wearing a mask won't protect you is moronic.
The less people infected lessens the likelihood of others getting infected. Therefore if we both wear masks it will make it less likely that we will infect each other. The collective wearing of masks or face coverings in enclosed spaces protects us.
There is also the issue of viral load. If wearing a mask limits the amount of virus you inhale you might become infected but not heavily so thus you won't become ill.
It's an exponential thing, like the virus itself. so she (the presenter) and you are both technicaly incorrect.
You are conflating the general population reduction in viral transmission with the effect on an individual.
which one do you think the average viewer is going to understand?
Clearly the whole population is not at your enlightened level of knowledge
Therefore if we both wear masks it will make it less likely that we will infect each other.
Yes, other people wearing masks may help protect you. You wearing a mask may help protect others.
Grahamt1980
You can't be arsed to search for any examples to back up your remarks but you're quite prepared to contribute to the nonsense narrative that there's no point in wearing masks or face coverings. I can understand if you're a bit bored staying at home but spreading fake and unsubstantiated information is just dangerous.
Looking at global numbers we seem to be winning the death count cup in terms at numbers per capita. We're also leading the world in the non mask wearing but technically correct stakes as well. Must be a coincidence eh?
What are you're views on injecting bleach? I guess you're going to tell me that Trump was technically correct in that bleach does actually kill the virus.
I'm just off for a drive without my seatbelt on 😀
Seatbelts give your are a false sense of security and I'd rather be thrown clear in the event of a crash 😀
Go search my previous comments in this thread for info on what I do and my history.
I am totally open for you to believe whatever you like but please feel free to sod off on making judgements on my competence
btw i am not bored at home, I am spending the majority of my days ensuring your drugs are safe and manufactured correctly
Just because my views do not agree with yours is no excuse to make attacking comments.
And actually if you want to be like that trump is technically correct that bleach kills the virus, however it has the unpleasant side effect by killing its host, but let's not allow that little detail get in the way of your own narrative
Graham....
Yes, I am conflating the general population reduction in viral transmission with the effect on an individual. In that a general population reduction in viral transmission is likely to lead to less individual cases of infection.
Someone claiming to be a doctor was saying not to wear gloves unless you are medically trained. By that logic, you shouldn’t wear a mask also. Perhaps I shouldn’t wear safety glasses when using an angle grinder unless I’ve got a medical degree too?
And you've rather proved his point. You wear the safety glasses and gloves when angle grinding to protect you from immediate harm from sparks and flying debris, they form a mechanical barrier. In the case of covud-19 They are there to prevent cross infection to you and others, they achieve this because they become contaminated not your skin. They work if you take them off properly to avoid contaminating your skin and you replace them regularly to minimise the time you have contaminated hands reducing the chances of touching your face.
So wearing them whilst shopping, taking them off carefully before opening the car is sensible. Doing what most people seem to do and get into the car, touching control surfaces etc. spreading potential virus.
You misunderstand.
Medical knowledge may help to maximise the effectiveness of PPE but that doesn't mean that PPE doesn't reduce the risk for laymen.
It isn't either/or.
Graham.
My only narrative is to suggest that wearing masks or face coverings is a good thing. So I'm prepared to push back against narratives that suggest that it isn't a good thing.
Why would I be arsed to search your previous comments when you can't be arsed to pull up research that you were involved in yourself?
You started the attacking comments with the phrase faux outrage.
Stumpyjon beat me to the point about gloves, and I have to say that there have been plenty of experts in the press saying that wearing a "normal" surgical mask doesn't protect you from infection, but may reduce the chance of you passing it on. So in a round about way it may reduce the risk of infection spreading, but there's a reason that WHO and others are saying that the NHS need them rather than us.
So you swearing about something a presenter said on the bbc that was factually correct isn't faux outrage?
OK will leave you to it then.
The point stands that the benefits from masks come from preventing you passing on the virus, not from preventing you physically catching it. But whatever
Graham1980 if you were forced to pass within proximity of an infected person would you not wear a mask if given the choice?
Yes rydster,
Let's be done with all these inventions giving us a false sense of security, let's include air bags, parachutes, fire alarms and helmets on the list whilst were at it.
I'm tired of waiting for the experts to conduct their tests to establish the effectiveness of PPE in the face of a virus we don't really understand. We have to fully understand the virus before we can have a true understanding of PPE effectiveness.
So people's, If you dont know what the virus is (and remember that the experts dont know what it is yet either) just follow the precautionary principle.
Better to be technically incorrect and alive than technically correct and dead,. Or worse, technically correct to the point of passing on the virus and killing someone else.
Well I've just tried using a buff across mouth an nose in line with Scottish government advice.
How do you wear a mask without your glasses steaming up?
Is there a knack to it?
Given the choice I am going to make sure I don't pass on the proximity of an infected person.
Hence the social distancing.
However if they are infected then I want them wearing a mask not me.
they could infect lots of people where one mask on them could protect a lot, the one mask on me might protect me.
Given a choice though I want the nhs to have all the masks in going to carry on social distancing and keeping clean.
Maybe once there are no restrictions on ppe then masks will be worth it, until then it is a false argument as their effectiveness is in the wrong place if the general population is wearing them.
Morecash,
This is the heart of the problem. Not enough masks to go round so narratives are pushed to sow confusion so there's (nearly) enough left for healthcare workers. I get that. It's catch 22 though, I posit that we have more cases of CV in this country because we haven't been wearing masks or face coverings in busy environments. So more face masks for the NHS but also more patients for them to deal with.
Had the narrative been let's keep surgical face masks for the healthcare workers but let's encourage scarves, bandanas and home made masks for the general public we would have far less cases now.
I for one am glad we have threads like this.
It's good to know all the wisdom in one place. It means scientists, leaders, decision makers, and the educated have a strong single point of knowledge to inform their work.
Just nip over to Singletrack!
Waderider.
Thanks for the compliment! Indeed if some world leaders, scientists and experts had listened to me we'd all be in a better place. I'd have stopped the airlines quicker and told everybody to cover their mouths.
(Love that a advert for a fashion face mask appeared above my last post!)
Sorry Inkster, I'm stepping away from this. You're clearly set in your opinion and not open to an alternative point of view.
Grahamt1980,
You admit that one mask would protect You? I thought you were arguing that it wouldn't?
And given what choice? CV won't let you choose, it won't even let you know if it's got you for up to 14 days. You can't choose to think wether you are others are infected.
The only thing we know for sure about CV is that 100% of people infected are asymptomatic until they become symptomatic.
Morecash,
Coolio, yes, I'm set in my ways with regards practicing the precautionary principle in the face of a not fully understood threat.
Though I'm agreeing with you regards healthcare workers having a greater need so not really sure what other point of view im not seeing? This whole little segment started with me swearing at the BBC for pushing narratives as to why not to wear a face mask or covering remember.
Come back to it in a week or two when were all wearing face masks in public spaces if you like! The points of view then will be either -why weren't we all doing this much earlier?' Or- 'what a waste of time this is!' Place your bets folks, though remember to gamble responsibly!!!!
So people’s, If you dont know what the virus is (and remember that the experts dont know what it is yet either) just follow the precautionary principle.
It’s a Corona virus. What researchers don’t know is what’s causing the different symptoms that sufferers are experiencing, like liver and kidney failure, and strokes that some younger sufferers have had.
They know what it is, not what it’s doing.
I’m not wearing a mask or gloves, but thanks for your advice, I’ll take it under advisement.
Infectious disease are somewhat unique in the medical world in that the action of the individual may have consequences for the many. The seatbelt isn’t really a good analogy (unless you become an organ donor). If you consider that the total dose of an antibiotic that society can take is fixed before resistance renders it of no use, you’d think more about how you’d use it.
Personal protection probably serves some use in the community to prevent transmission. In a hugely nonlinear world, it doesn’t need to be a big difference. People don’t appreciate just how non-linear. I’ve said before, suppose the probability of transmission is 10% without a mask and you have 30 close contacts in a day. The probability of having at least one transmission is 1 - 0.9^30 = 96%. Now assume a mask lowers the risk by - third to 6.7% per contact. Those thirty close calls on the tube now mean only a 88% chance.
We’ll all be covering our faces come July. Like it or not, especially on public transport.
I was typing out a sensible response to you however as someone else has said you are not Listening to anyone else and interpreting what they are saying however you feel. So I cannot see any point in replying.
Good luck to you and I hope you like everyone else gets through this fine.
I just hope you job is not as a proof reader as I think you are missing things
Btw that reply was for inkster not tired. Tired always is a breath of sanity around here
Inkster and Rydster....
Hmm... not related to Fredster, late of this parish?
Graham,
Coolio, but realise I'm saying pretty much exactly what TiRed is saying.
The virus operates in a non linear way. Small percentages in effective protection become higher percentages when adopted widely. It's an exponential thing as I said earlier.
And as he says, we'll all be wearing masks in busy places in a week or two anyhow.
I'm beginning to think a lot of people are reading TiReds' posts and pretending to understand them. I cant for the life of me see what he is saying that is in any way different to what i've been saying for the last hour or so.?
Inkster and Rydster….
Hmm… not related to Fredster, late of this parish?
