Re: Coronavirus
 

The number of LFT results has already increased faster than PCR tests.

Though about 90% of LFT results are never reported, so really we haven't got a clue what the positivity rate is.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The pandemic doesn’t exist because people test. It exists because people get ill.

It’s no more credible to have a “bury head in sand” approach now than it was in February 2020.

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------

200,000 people a day didn’t test positive because they felt fine and randomly took a test for entertainment value. Similarly the rise in cases around Europe, America and the rest of the world isn’t some collective mass hysteria.

---------- Post added at 20:59 ---------- Previous post was at 20:53 ----------

Pierre’s either gone full Great Barrington or his pandemic management is even worse than his interpretation of statistics. Or both I suppose.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Possibly, possibly not.


But the fact is that people are encouraged to take LFTs before doing things even if they feel perfectly well.


So what you're saying is somewhat untrue. 200k people, or the vast majority of them, may well have indeed felt perfectly fine, but took a LFT before going shopping, or seeing elderly relatives, or going to a carol service for christmas, or whatever, somehow it ends up positive, they have the virus without realising it.



And those situations did actually show because people tested as opposed to them getting ill.


Add onto that the people who do have symptoms but don't have covid. Whilst strictly speaking with negative tests they can do what they like, is that a good idea?


Asymptomatic spread is an issue with all viruses, whilst the logic to stopping spread is clearly still true, testing people who aren't unwell as a long term measure clearly isn't sustainable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

says the guy who can’t differentiate between % of population and rate per 100,000. Or between rate per population or rate in hospital.

Never mind, I’m sure if I gave you some crayons you would probably eat one and scribble all over a picture of Elsa from Frozen, and not stay within the lines….!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

You know as well as I do that it is not the case that only those who are feeling ill who get a PCR test.

In any case, that’s not the point. What I am saying is that the number of PCR tests has increased substantially of late, so it’s not surprising that the number of reported cases has gone up as well.

Lateral flow tests are not getting reported, and so now that fewer PCR tests will be carried out in favour of the former, the number of reported cases go down. Do you get my drift?

As for the actual number of people who have the virus, with or without symptoms, well yes, that number is very high. However, given that the lockdown was designed only to enable the NHS to cope, it’s the number of hospitalisations that is what matters. Of course, being such a low number, this is not what you prefer to focus on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is all very "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" suggesting that reducing testing will reduce infections...

The data you need is what proportion of tests are positive. If, as suggested that more testing means more cases, then the positivity rate should remain constant. Unfortunately, the recent data does suggest that the proportion of PCR tests that are positive has gone way up since early November where it was around 9% to nearly 3% with the latest data shown in the first chart here

Going forward however, we need to treat this with care as you only need a PCR test when symptomatic where before, you got one when you got a positive lateral flow result

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, I was commenting on the number of reported cases - that figure that appears on our TV sets each night. I am not arguing that the number of actual cases will fall.

The thing is, nobody knows the actual number of cases there are in the country because we cannot know what isn’t reported. One thing for certain is that there are far more positive cases than are reported.

The data indicating the proportion of tests that are positive proves very little. After all, there are specific reasons why people get PCR tests. What about the rest of positive cases where no PCR tests are performed?

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one is saying that.

What they are saying is the number of reported cases will go down, which is an obvious fact.

You only need a test, if you want a test.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, the absolute number of cases is a crude estimate of the severity of any outbreak and certainly shouldn't be used to establish a health policy. However, it is a measure easily digested by the public which is critical in a public health emergency.

As always, the absolute number numbers reported should never be taken as gospel for the reasons you state - many people might get missed due to not testing. More important is the trending - are cases going up or down and therefore are things likely to get better or worse? Of course, trending is only possible if the drivers for testing stay the same, i.e. people do a test for the same reasons every time.

The other option is to randomly sample a subset of the population and extrapolate from there. That is what the ONS reports do where around 180,000 people are randomly selected per fortnight for PCR testing. This probably gives a better guide of what is out there in the wild than people who self select (or not) through booking and taking tests. Here is the current report. This is where you see the 1 in 15 in England testing positive. I know some on here don't like statisticians but these surverys are pretty up front about the limitations in the data (article here and here)

Unfortunately, the ONS surveys only come out weekly and probably aren't timely enough considering the doubling time of COVID when it runs riot

Re: Coronavirus
 

There have been many ludicrous claims and assertions made on the forum but baselessly claiming the data isn’t very good so we shouldn’t collect any at all is right up there as a starter for 2022.

Nobody claims the testing data is a complete picture. The ONS data, with sufficient proficiency in understanding (and not applying unrelated figures from a sub-population) proves that.

However claiming that more people are testing positive - than ever before over the last few weeks - is a result of more people neither unwell or identified as close contacts having a speculative test is a wilfully fanciful interpretation. The ONS data is consistent with the rise is testing. The trend is also seen around the world - even in countries reliant upon PCR testing that don’t have easy or free universal access to LFTs.

What strikes me as most bizarre about the “just don’t test” argument is those who test positive, and are double/triple vaccinated are the most likely to resume somewhat normal economic behaviour. Removing this uncertainty is surely rational, and condemning millions to uncertainty and risk-averse behaviour for months going forward the most economically irrational?

The absence of quality data only means people will make spurious claims that can neither be easily proven nor disproven. Statements like there is no risk to kids, or there are only two in hospital across the land, end up given equal weight to more meaningful insights or analysis from people in the NHS, paediatric units and so forth.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But none of this alters the fact that the daily statistics are based on the number of cases reported, which will go up and down on the basis of how many tests are carried out, not the actual number of cases, which is far higher. People are glued to these reported figures rather than the hospitalisation figures.

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:30 ----------

How will the Scots react to Nicola Sturgeon’s latest pronouncement?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...s-plan-living/

Scots will be have to wear face coverings in public places for years to come under Nicola Sturgeon's long-term strategy for living with Covid, she has indicated.

The First Minister said Scotland had to ask itself "what adaptations to pre-pandemic life" might be needed and said face coverings "might be required in the longer-term to enable us to live with it with far fewer protective measures".

She insisted the tough measures she had imposed on hospitality and large events from Boxing Day had worked, despite government figures showing that Scotland has a higher Covid rate than England.

It would not be a popular measure in my part of the world.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pray, tell OB how does a member of the Great British public exercise “common sense” in evaluating their own risk if you take away the most important factor of all - the statistical chance of meeting someone with Covid?

Let’s be honest you’d not support an implementation of legal restrictions based upon approaching the threshold of hospital capacity. We’d be straight onto OF Covid or WITH Covid to minimise the importance (or otherwise) of hospitalisations. The important thing would be the deaths. Then it would be they are all old, or underlying health issues. And those would be minimised.

You’ve no genuine interest of having an informed public making decisions based upon their own personal risk.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What about the statistical chance of getting flu?

I do not understand why you are deliberately ignoring the fact that hospitalisations due to Covid are pretty low, and we have probably just about reached the peak number of infections.

This is no longer the desperate situation it was, due to Boris Johnson’s master stroke of investing in vaccination development at an early stage. He was the first leader to recognise that vaccinations, not lockdowns, were the way out of this.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Irrelevant.

Hospitals declaring emergencies, cancelling elective surgeries and my local NHS board putting on social media to stay away as there are 12 hour queues. Forgive me if I don’t agree with your subjective interpretation of “pretty low”. Lower than last January isn’t a particularly significant measurement in my book.

So you don’t think the public should be reliably informed to exercise their own “common sense”? All pandemic you have cried out that people should be trusted. Why not now?

I am however glad you’ve now accepted the decision to lock down and delay infections to after vaccination was a good one. As you say, Covid is no longer the desperate situation it once was.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hospitals have been doing that for years, its not new, and certainly not unique to covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Like every year for the last 20 yrs. The NHS has been at breaking point for the last 40 years , but it’s still here ( despite all those Tory governments) it does more than it should and get a phenomenal amount of Money.

The NHS is fine, unfortunately it’s also just a dog whistle for the predictable left knob jockeys

Re: Coronavirus
 

You'd think that anyone with half a brain could work out that with an ever increasing population you'd also need an ever increasing NHS.

It's been a monetary black hole for years . . . but the alternative of handing it over to 'private' enterprise is unthinkable

Still, we've got that nice cheap HS2 to look forward to . .

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, it’s all a left wing, homosexual conspiracy.

:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Health Service 2?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The NHS is full of hard working, dedicated people who often go the extra mile. It's too often run by those either promoted from where they do well to positions they don't do well in or those more interested in their own positions than those they are in charge of. It also has too much dead weight that is hard to get rid of.


It also does too much but that is hard to quantify and since lives are involved you can't simply stop and try to restart with better focus.


A big drain at this time are those who require treatment for Covid but have refused (as opposed to can't) get vaccinated or take other precautions. Shame there isn't an easy way to charge them but that is too easy to expand to charging for other treatment that was (possibly) preventable. (I don't want to get into all the ins and outs of that in this topic.)


And a further problem at this time is not just levels of patients but levels of staff off sick. Some are likely at or close to limits of exhaustion.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Will probably not get so much attention today but this news has just broken:

VIP lane for PPE found to be illegal
https://t.co/txxRhfPLS9

Re: Coronavirus
 

I found this reassuring:

The Judge found that, even though Pestfix and Ayanda received unlawful preferential treatment via the VIP lane, they would likely have been awarded contracts anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Now do this for Michelle Mone’s pal and Matt Hancocks landlord.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Dare you to say that to his face.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1642000686

Re: Coronavirus
 

..

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is this taking the piss

Covid horror as anti-vaxxers drinking urine after claiming it's more effective than jab

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...ective-vaccine

Re: Coronavirus
 

He’s even suggested a recipe:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Context is everything (as is an appropriately-scaled graph).

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1642023603

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1642023603

On 6 January 2021 a case spike of almost 58,000 (rolling average) resulted in a peak rolling-average of deaths of around 1,200, 3 weeks after the new case peak.

On 6 January 2022 the rolling 7 day average of new cases peaked at a whopping 181,000. Now, we are likely still a fortnight from the death peak associated with that, however with the rolling average presently sitting at 238 it’s fanciful to think it’s going to get anywhere near where it did last year. For comparison, one week post-peak last year, rolling average deaths were 985, I.e. already 75% of the way to their peak. If we are similarly 75% of the way to the peak death rate associated with omicron, then we’re looking at a rolling 7-day average in the region of maybe 320. And that’s assuming deaths climb for the next two weeks at the same rate they did last January, which so far in this wave they simply have not done.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Chris, let us not also not forget that the official metric is still "death within 28 days of a positive test".


So anyone who dies, but has tested positive for covid in the preceding 28 days, counts as this. Even if their covid illness was mild or asymptomatic, and irrespective of how they have actually died.


It isn't surprising that with 100k+ positive tests a day for the last 2-3 weeks we're now seeing an increase in "deaths" but how many of those deaths were caused by covid?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given how few deaths are being recorded off the back of the whopping omicron infection wave, I’d say that’s a moot point. Whether because of vaccines, a mutation making omicron less dangerous, natural immunity or a combination of the above, it is now abundantly clear that the risk to life from omicron covid is minimal.

The public health messaging won’t go big on that because its transmissibility creates serious resource issues for the NHS, but in the long run that’s a political question, not a public health crisis.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'd disagree with you on that one.


Given that it is a milder, and as you say a "minimal risk to life" illness, this in actuality, means that the discrepancy between hospitalisations and deaths with or of covid matters more than at any stage previously in the pandemic.


In other words, has this person died because they had covid? Or have they died from some other reason but at some point in the recent past they tested positive for covid, which had no influence on their death?


Or, this person coming to hospital, because they can't stop coughing and can't breathe because they have covid, or because they broke their leg at a football game, and tested positive?


Yes, I do get that a covid-positive patient, whether or not they are in because they have covid, perhaps requires additional barrier methods, but, the detail is still important here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As much as everyone loves a good OF Covid or WITH Covid debate the number of “incidental” deaths can reasonably be calculated.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...31december2021

In the UK between 1st and 28th December there were 2.4m positive cases on the UK dashboard. If you take off 15% for Scotland and NI (actual figures are available) the chances the proportion of the population of England and Wales testing positive is 2m(positive)/58m population give or take. Statistically the chances of incidentally dying within 28 days of a positive test for those dates is about 1 in 30. Of those 8477 deaths it’d be expected that about 1 in 30 would die incidentally following a Covid test - or 40 a day (280 a week E&W). In the same period 767 (UK) were recorded on the dashboard subject to the arbitrary 28 day cutoff.

It remains the case that the vast majority of people dying within 28 days of a Covid test appear - statistically at least - to have that as some factor within their death.

Greater accuracy could be achieved - for anyone with the time or inclination - by comparing age/sex stratified infection rates with death rates. E.g. if Covid infection rates were significantly higher in younger age groups (which I believe was the case) but people were mainly dying in older age groups (reasonable assumption) this would record more incidental Covid deaths in my model.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Covid is over………………….

In so far as restrictions will not be brought in because finally the government know that the population won’t follow their edicts now.

In regards to the actual disease, well it wasn’t really dangerous to fit healthy people anyway.

So instead of boosters, and mandated vaccination. How about mandating exercise and diet?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It was estimated (2/3 weeks ago) that about 30% of 'covid' admissions were actually people admitted for other reasons, but then tested positive.

---------- Post added at 23:08 ---------- Previous post was at 23:03 ----------

In fact, I posted it here : https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...d#post36107388

Re: Coronavirus
 

We have a couple of friends who contracted Covid in hospital, not uncommon but that will also inflate figures of people in hospital with Covid. It could also extend their stay even if just for obs or because their "other condition" makes combination with Covid more risky.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Economics is a science I suppose…

Re: Coronavirus
 

nah, economics is simply not spending more than you're earning, even my mum could do that and she was definitely no scientist . . . although she was good at making meals with leftovers, so maybe in a way she was ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

From Department of Health and Social Care and The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP
Published 13 January 2022

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/s...tive-lfd-tests

Re: Coronavirus
 

10 >> 7 >> 5, perhaps they are slowly realising all this isolation is doing more damage than good.

Why do we still need special self isolation at all ?
People who are ill dont exactly rush to go out anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Depends on what sort of boss or manager they have.Some seem to think that their employees should bustle into work in their coffin.:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's taken many many more months than it should have but finally the government have realised that this is now a seasonal endemic illness that can easily be treated with vaccines or other treatments.

Finally, we can now say that it's just going to be like the flu (as long as no pesky scientists bugger about with that gain of function malarky).

There should be no need to test anymore.

But If you do still test positive there should be no reason to isolate or be off work unless you are actually ill.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If Covid is seasonal what seasons has it not caused a wave of infections?

---------- Post added at 12:57 ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 ----------

It would seem perverse to encourage infectious people into workplaces - in particular in the service and hospitality sectors everyone worries so much about until it comes to paying furlough.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which season? Spring, Summer, Autumn or Winter?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indications are clearly that it is an illness that starts to ramp up as you enter Autumn/ Winter and dissipates through Spring/Summer.

An annual vaccination for those that require one will become the norm.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pretty much Autum & Winter.

Re: Coronavirus
 

From todays BBC update ;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59999786

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh, so you are a scientist now? :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed, surely it is definitely now time to end the Plan B measures, not that I would have expected them to have actually done much anyway, especially masks which don't work very much (if we were all wearing N95 masks it would probably be a bit different), are divisive because some people are clearly attached to wearing them now, cause issues with communication, mental health and anxiety, and aren't used properly by a lot of people anyway. Working from home was the only useful measure, and even that has limited use (and was guidance anyway) because not all jobs can be done from home and some people prefer to be around others in a workplace even if it can be done from home. Talking to your colleagues online isn't the same either.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What’s the point? There will only be exemptions for the rich, and whatever countries we are seeking trade deals with. Then the opportunity to enter via indirect fights.

Politicians don’t get to declare viruses endemic for their own ends. The characteristics of a virus make it endemic, and the ability to collapse a healthcare system isn’t generally regarded as one of them.

---------- Post added at 17:25 ---------- Previous post was at 17:22 ----------

Neither do the Government get to declare the end of WFH. It now suits many businesses and their employees and generates savings. Plus the obvious benefit of reducing the chances of simultaneous numbers of staff being sick at the same time or isolating due to an outbreak. With vaccines unable to prevent outbreaks of this variant, never mind the inevitability of the next one, it’s here to stay regardless of what the politicians say.

Masks are only divisive because right wing politicians decided to make them so.

---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------

It’s a social science. And the only thing this, and the US, Government are following with the latest iterations of their rules.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It doesn't need politicians to suggest that though does it? And it should remain suggested if at all possible for non-covid reasons too - reducing emissions from travelling, crowding on PT etc.



Companies don't need the government to dictate or to tell them that. It's common sense that if someone goes into the workplace with a virus other members of staff in the workplace will probably catch it. And if they are working from home the chances of them coming into contact with others with the virus will be diminished. It doesn't even need to be covid, you see previously how you can get outbreaks of colds, flu, norovirus, anything else in a closed environment where a lot of people are sat close together all day.



But they should still consider some sort of hybrid working with not everyone in the office all the time, and respect the wishes of employees who would still prefer to work from home (provided doing so didn't impact on their performance) who may have other requirements, dependents with CEV, or may simply just feel safer.



And because they don't work yet some people think forcing everyone to wear one is the right answer.


OK, so yes some face covering (preferably a surgical grade one) may help stop spread on public transport and in healthcare settings and this should be strongly suggested, but people wearing a bit of cloth in a shop for 2 minutes, which they pulled up off their chin?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1345

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seatbelts don’t work if you don’t wear them properly, and don’t prevent death in a car accident, yet they’re a fraction of as politically divisive.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There was WFH before COVID. I’ve worked from home, at least a few days a week, for 16 years.

Certainly ( some) companies will have noticed healthy cash flows with reduced utility costs and almost nil travel and expenses costs. Employees however will have noticed increased utility costs, but reduced travel costs.

But some people also prefer and/or need to interact with others in an office environment

I think there will be an increase in WFH but not as large as some would expect, and it will be something like 3days in 2 days home etc.

I would also be amazed if there was ever another lockdown.

---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------

I think you mean don’t prevent “all” deaths. I’m pretty sure a lot of deaths and serious injury has been prevented by wearing seatbelts.

But comparing the two is nonsensical.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There may well not be another lockdown - but that’s a massive leap from no restrictions whatsoever.

“Running hot” with the delta variant didn’t create a massive upturn in city centre economic activity (or immunity against omicron) and there’s no reason to expect a rush back to the office against a backdrop of a larger number of omicron cases.

I’m pretty sure transmission has been prevented from mask wearing, and consequent hospitalisations and deaths. The evidence clearly supports this regardless of what anti mask groups claim. It may not prevent “all” transmission - hence my entirely valid and appropriate comparison.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I imagine this type of thing must be happening in other parts of the world too...

Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

So if people were allowed to use a piece of sellotape or cotton in place of a the seatbelt which was fitted into the car, that wouldn't stop you being flung around like a crash dummy. So that's the equivalent with people using cloth or paper masks as opposed to the medical ones which do work much more effectively.


The whole seatbelts rabbit hole is fundamentally flawed anyway.


It should be nigh on obvious to anyone, and you can watch a video to show this quite easily, how a seatbelt in a car prevents you from being thrown around as much in the event of an impact (though in itself isn't always sufficient to prevent death or serious injury). It doesn't take much more digging to see that in an actual example of this, the one person in the crash which killed Diana who survived was wearing a seat belt and the others who didn't died.



The link there is obvious, can be seen, and can be justified categorically.


The link with masks is less obvious, less universally agreed on, less proven to make a difference. In the early days of the pandemic we had both the CMO and two of his then deputies all saying that wearing cloth face masks did little. This point hasn't really changed over time, indeed the only benefit is a possible reduction in transmission exiting from people who should be at home anyway. If you don't have covid, then wearing a mask does nothing for you, it does nothing for anyone else, it is just a visual sign we're in a pandemic and that you are complying with whatever the state tells you to do. If they said we needed to stand on the doorstep at 6pm and clap the health service every day then people would no doubt do it without questioning, which is very Orwellian.


If anyone really thinks the gaps in a cloth face mask are enough to stop a virus getting through it, they need to think about how big these are, even multiple layers, which stand a greater chance, don't always stop it getting through. If they did. then how come all this covid transmission is happening when everyone has had to wear masks in shops and PT since the end of November and in any enclosed public space since the middle of December, which is one month ago. If it worked, the transmission would be cut to within households within a matter of days, as households, pubs, restaurants etc is really the only indoor spaces you don't need to wear a mask in, unless you're exempt, which is a minority of people. Better masks would probably help more, but even then, you're still hitting tennis balls at scaffolding and expecting them to bounce back...

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s what happens when you allow non-expert input into an expert subject matter.

Again you’re doing the extremely common anti-mask trait of setting the bar at 100% effective.

I fail to see how you come to the conclusion that the only transmission would be within households if pubs and restaurants were venues people could freely mix with other households (and nightclubs) for extended periods without masks. And of course schools. It’s simply not credible to claim this was achievable at all under that scenario let alone “in a matter of days”.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So where is it transmitting then? Given that it's an airborne virus which dissipates easily in outdoor settings and less so in indoor ones, and other non-airborne methods of transmission are now thought to be minor...


Consider where you would usually go indoors.
Pubs/restaurants - No mask wearing at all, but then you can't wear a mask if you're eating or drinking, so as this dominates one's time in the venue, wearing it going in and out is unlikely to offer any more protection than not wearing one (provided distance is kept) and in any case the virus is going to spread when people are sat or standing at the bar drinking etc.
Nightclubs - No mask wearing but under Plan B measures need either a vaccine passport or proof of a negative LFT to get in. Potentially spreading, given that being vaccinated doesn't mean you aren't going to spread the virus, but then, the people going here are unlikely to be at much risk anyway
Shops, Public transport, healthcare settings, museums, places of worship, cinemas, concert venues etc - Mask wearing is mandatory in these unless you are either exempt medically or performing a task which is mask exempt. Larger venues with over 500 people also need vax passes.

Workplaces not covered by the above - Most office based staff will be working from home under Plan B guidance, you would expect those who can't would probably be wearing a mask, but this is a matter for individual workplaces to settle
Schools - Mandatory for secondary school kids and staff to wear a mask in lessons, corridors, communal areas unless outside, doing a mask exempt activity (such as a music or PE lesson) or mask exempt. Primary age kids not mandatory
I really can't think of many areas where you would meet other people indoors (aside from mixing in private homes) where it's not covered by one of the above, or a mask mandate.


So it either isn't spreading in any of those environments, or it is and masks are nowhere near effective enough as they should be - the only other alternative is that it's spreading within households and mixing in private homes, which it won't be. So where is it? Last time they reported on this, it was mainly in schools, households, hospitals, institutions like prisons, and workplaces. If that's still the case why masks in shops?


Also, you're not quite getting the "within a few days" - probably you would need a week or two due to the incubation period of the virus, but, that hasn't really been the case either has it?


It needs to work or it needs to not be a measure. We're nearly two years into the pandemic and scatter gun approaches based on "oh well it probably reduces it by a little bit" don't really wash now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is little evidence [I've seen] that most masks make much (if any) difference.
Even real evidence is hard to come by, and generally refers to 'proper' masks (worn correctly).

The covid requirement has always been "a face covering" rather than a mask.
So visors have been ok to use (what real use are they ?) or scarfs, or any old bit of material.

If we were all going around with proper maks, it may have had small effect, the flimsy coverings most people have (if they even wear them properly) not so much.

Have Wales and Scotland had much lower infection levels than England in this last wave (or previous ones) with their stricter measures (inc masks) ?

It doesnt really seem so.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Such as this, you mean?

Re: Coronavirus
 

They were wrong. At the time it was believed that most transmission was via surfaces, but that turned out to be very rare. (IIRC, 1 case in 1000 in a study from Ireland)

Cloth masks do work. Anything that can catch droplets works.

"Masks reduced viral RNA by 48% in fine and by 77% in coarse aerosols; cloth and surgical masks were not significantly different"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34519774/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, but we were three down at halftime and ended up drawing 3-3, so never let your mask slip. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

What he said is still right though, with important caveats.


"there is no evidence to suggest that wearing cloth face masks amongst people who are well reduces the spread of the virus"


Key point is the bold. Most people who understand what benefit they (do/may) have know that the point is to reduce the viral load emitted from someone who has the virus.


Someone who doesn't have the virus doesn't have any viral load to reduce, so there is no benefit or spread reduction from them wearing the mask.



Someone who is well, in general, is unlikely to have the virus - and that is the key caveat, since we know (and have since the early days from Italy) that people can test positive for the virus without having symptoms, and you would class those as being well. So the key point there would depend on the viral load of someone who has covid-19 without any symptoms and how much this would be transmitted by them having no symptoms (e.g. if they breathe or vocalise) as opposed to how much is transmitted if they cough, sneeze etc.



Whitty and Van Tam are consultant professors of virology, and especially the latter who is of Far East origin, would both presumably be aware of the mask-wearing culture which is more obvious there. They wouldn't be wrong, and still aren't. Also what Jenny Harries said about them causing potentially more harm than good is still true with people reusing masks, touching them, putting them round their chins, taking them off and not putting them somewhere clean, all of this can still cause infection in yourself and in others.


The issue with masks is a mechanical one though. If the gaps between your mask fibres are more of the same magnitude as the particles you're trying to stop, they have more chance of doing so. A weak mask will of course stop the largest droplets but the smallest ones and the aerosols as well as "naked" virus will still pass easily. I guess it depends how effective this needs to be.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Then being the pedant you are you would be able to link to an expert peer reviewed study on the effectiveness of cloth masks.

To my limited knowledge I don't know of one although there are many for the N95 mask.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris says they work, so that's good enough for me.

Condoms aren't 100% effective, but better than nothing ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

He was born and raised in Lincolnshire.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That does not say they were wrong and is not yet peer reviewed it is a pre-print publication and even states (my bold).

Now go find a peer reviewed one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know this but his family is from Vietnam originally, his father was a maths teacher at Boston Grammar school, this is his grandfather, so his father presumably moved over here...

---------- Post added at 22:07 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

You highlight an important point though.


"Vaccination rates are very high" - What does this exactly equate to, both in terms of 1st/2nd doses and boosters (the latter clearly wasn't a thought if it wasn't recent study). One would expect a reputable scientific study to put some quantification on that.


"tight fitting masks and respirators will be necessary" - So who considers the cloth nonsense we're using to be in this category?


Given that the gov site shows the following as of tonight:
90.6% of 12+ had a 1st dose
83.3% 2nd dose
63.3% Booster or 3rd dose


You would probably consider this to be a high level of vaccination, especially considering a lot of kids' parents probably don't consider the vaccination to be of benefit to them compared to other risks (heart inflammation especially in younger sporty teen lads, for example), and that a fair amount of this roll out is being done via schools for safeguarding reasons, that it may for such reasons not reach the kids as easily as it is right now for an adult to be jabbed.


It also reads on as a single thing to me - when you're vaccinated enough, you don't need masks. Which makes sense, because even if the protection is partial, the immunity from vaccination still makes it less likely for a person to have covid and spread the virus which is also what masks try and reduce.

---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:07 ----------

Suffice to say, I would trust professional virologists, medics etc such as JVT, Whitty, Harries, Hopkins, and the likes of Meaghan Kall working for UKHSA, ahead of non-peer reviewed research, which may be right, but in reality can say anything.

Re: Coronavirus
 

At a time idiots were hoarding toilet rolls, yes they sought to ensure supplies for the NHS by not push panic buying of appropriate PPE.

---------- Post added at 22:41 ---------- Previous post was at 22:40 ----------

Since when do facts matter when pushing disinformation?

---------- Post added at 22:45 ---------- Previous post was at 22:41 ----------

Ah British exceptionalism. Served us so well to date. Would love to know why JVT suddenly announced his departure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Kall is American... And as mentioned, Van Tam is the son of a migrant... Susan Hopkins is Irish.


Let's not be silly though. I notice you have no on-topic counter-argument.

---------- Post added at 22:56 ---------- Previous post was at 22:47 ----------

He wasn't theirs to begin with.


He is a professor of medicine at the university.


They let him go on secondment to the DCMO role, which was time-limited.


The university still employs him and wants him to take up a new role, which is a senior position within the establishment, and either ended the secondment early, or requested this at the end of it.


Nothing sinister.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why not it’s your raison d’etre.

I very clearly made a counterpoint however you appear to be oblivious. Which is unsurprising given the nature of your selective quoting but that’s entirely how you derail the debate to ignore the inconvenient points and pollute the thread with paragraph after paragraph of speculation, opinion, conjecture, pseudoscience and misinformation.

I can make any silly point I wish this evening and none so ridiculous as your claim that if mask wearing was effective we should have reduced Covid spread to within households at the same time pubs and restaurants were open with households mixing maskless. :dunce:

---------- Post added at 23:41 ---------- Previous post was at 23:31 ----------

Probably the pubs and restaurants. Last I checked it’s difficult to drink a pint through a mask. Which is what made your claim that mask wearing should have reduced transmission to within households preposterous.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Right.


So let's simply entertain the unproven and somewhat bizarre hypothesis that wearing a hankie over your face somehow stops covid, which is basically what you're saying.


Let this be true for a split second. Reality knows it isn't but that never enters into your agenda.


So anywhere where mask wearing is mandated doesn't spread covid as the masks stop covid.


So covid can't spread in any shops, museums, places of worship, hospitals, public transport, cinemas, art galleries, schools, concert halls... etc etc



Basically anywhere but pubs, restaurants, nightclubs, households, outside


So what's the plan then?


Given that as you said you can't eat or drink with a mask on, are you saying to close pubs and restaurants again? Even though SAGE modelling proved last winter they were not a location where disease spread? Or will you go back to the absurdity of wearing a mask to and from the table but taking it off when sat down, as though this has any impact?


Are you going to ban household mixing given that in the absence of other vectors and the mask mandate that this is clearly where the virus is spreading? And how are you going to put the population under surveillance to ensure this doesn't happen?

Let's see your solution. I see plenty of criticism from you but no answers.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That comment has some merit but do you think the general masks shortage was the same as the N95 mask shortage? One of the NHS essentials in short supply World wide was N95 masks.

China in the beginning possibly?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...us-crisis.html

Meanwhile I still await the peer review data on effective anti covid effectiveness of cloth masks.

Just as an aside, could the toilet roll rush due to be the shortage of masks and people thoght 2 layer of 4 ply was better than one?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given you're equally good at doing this, I suggest you move on from attacking other members for the same, pronto.

---------- Post added at 04:10 ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 ----------

In other news, the self-isolation has now gone down to 5 days.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60011276

Re: Coronavirus
 

Another day, another leaving party. With their Boozeter jabs, Johnson and chums seem to have developed immunity to Coronavirus legislation. ;)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...boris-25962670

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Surely the common sense way to do it is a test every day, unless you have symptoms, in which case you start testing when the symptoms have stopped. 2nd successive day of negative tests you can end self isolation.


Given that you have to test negative on both the 7 and 5 day periods, it will probably amount to the same, though in reality there's still the issue with people who don't have any symptoms of the virus at all testing positive just because they happen to do a test if they were seeing someone or if their work wanted them to, the fact this has only recently become a thing and that they aren't requiring the follow up PCR test as often for positive LFTs seems to demonstrate that the LFT is the only way these know they have the virus.



There do also appear to be a fair number of examples I've heard of where people test negative on LFTs but a PCR test comes back positive - surely this can't be that all of them aren't doing the LFTs properly, potentially not swabbing enough or the right areas? That could still leave a fair amount of people going around with covid believing they haven't as they have a negative test. And you'd probably expect any "follow up" LFTs to be negative...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

We can't and shouldn't make masks normative. It is a huge obstacle to those who rely on lip reading (yes those with them may have appropriate mask/screen/visor) but what about all those around? But generally we like to see faces to read expressions and the like.


It's generally hoped that it will become endemic and like flu/cold etc most of the population will only normally suffer minor symptoms even with more virulent strains as our bodies will recognise the type of virus even if not the specific strain.


On a related but different topic, health workers are going to have to be able to take leave soon, just to take leave, rest, have a holiday and that too will affect capacity to treat patients. It is going to take time to recover and for some that may have very sad outcomes. Commentators are going to have to be quite sensitive over this, probably won't be but one can hope.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I struggle to hear what people say in noisy environments and didn't realise how much I lip read until masks came in. It's very frustrating.

Given that the omicron variant is spread by viral particles rather than water droplets it's said that ordinary cloth masks are largely ineffective anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Analytical hat popped on. Passive tense noted. Who says this?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here's one source:

Source

A quick Google reveals plenty more

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why would you? unless you needed a test for specific reason.

I've had COVID symptoms several times over the past two years and never tested. The only time I tested was when I needed to on return from holiday.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The thing is, what are exactly "covid symptoms", it does seem to change a fair amount, because they are nonspecific to begin with.


Right at the start of the pandemic it was a new cough and fever, they added loss of taste a bit later, they have been the main ones since, but there are also others, for example diarrhoea, runny nose, headache, tiredness, joint pains... Basically not a lot different from any other virus really.


With the omicron variant we also have a situation where the symptoms are very much easily confused with a cold though this could be simply that in vaccinated or previously infected people the virus is milder.


Really the only way to know if you have covid or a cold/flu virus now is to take a test. And of course, other coronaviruses can cause colds in humans.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Then people should were surgical/N95 masks.

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 ----------

It's almost as if it were a novel virus, and we were discovering new things as time progressed, then updating people with the new information...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let’s hope the virus agrees with you. Although having said that if the virus decides not to play ball you’ll more than likely call it ‘French’ refuse to be infected by it, and carry on as normal :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, yes. And the symptoms have changed over time too.


Doesn't really change the point that other things can cause these symptoms too.

So people could equally have a runny nose and sore throat and think it's cold because they don't have a fever or cough when it's actually covid, or have a bad cough/fever which turns out to be a cold or flu and think it could be covid (such as people with that in the early days when they couldn't get a test).


With testing at the scale it's been it's clear a lot of people have positive tests but no/minor symptoms.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Even Macron? ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Would do sweetie, but the US beckons....

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have absolutely no intention of wearing a mask for a minute longer than I have to.

With luck all mask-wearing will be voluntary only when Plan B is reviewed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

BREAKING: France records largest daily record for new Covid-19 cases in 24 hours. 464,000+

So much for all those restrictions and requirements for Covid passes. :rolleyes: