Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't care much until I see the idiots who wear their mask UNDER their nose. Then I'm ready to go ballistic. So far I have controlled myself.

Re: Coronavirus
 

People seem pretty compliant round here. Even if I just pop into the newsagent for a paper I still put one on.

Downside is that the disposable ones are appearing as street litter and God knows how many tonnes of them are going into landfill.

I bought us a pack of reusable machine wash ones (white) so at least we won't be adding to the waste mountain.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one is whining at all as l certainly ain't going to be going up to somebody to tell them to put a mask on.

Its a personal decision at the end of the day.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some people are legitimately exempt but I suspect there’s many more Covid deniers who perceive it to be the Government trying to put them in a muzzle. Ironically, it’s these idiots making it worse, and dragging it out for longer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Stricter Covid 19 restrictions imposed in Lancashire, Merseyside and Warrington.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-in-lancashire

Re: Coronavirus
 

but there was evidence in the Oldham areas that had extra restrictions imposed many weeks ago, that although infection rates were up, hospital admissions and deaths remained low.

I know it's a difficult call when to pull the trigger, and if you leave it it may to late.

Personally, I'd like to see it play out a bit longer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The good news is the key decision makers have more evidence available to them than just Oldham and can make better decisions than you would by playing fast and loose during exponential spread.

Sky reporting lockdown 2 could start next week in England. Clearly the alarm bells are ringing in Westminster.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I happily wear a mask and most do, but let's not forget that the mask rule was brought in as a placebo and non of our Scientific advisors thought they made any significant difference.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This was never genuinely the case. Having seen every idiot and their dog stockpile toilet roll they were keen to ensure that appropriate PPE was prioritised to healthcare settings.

The science clearly supports masks. It always has. The British public couldn’t be trusted to be asked not to stockpile. So they downplayed the evidence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apparently Nicola Sturgeon has asked Boris Johnson to convene a Cobra meeting this weekend as she said that the coming days are likely to see some hard but necessary decisions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hopefully I can still fly out of the country for a few days.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can you please link to the evidence that evidence was downplayed re masks.

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

Stay away as long as you like:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody is ever going to publish that they wilfully mislead the public, but our advice was clearly contradictory to scientific evidence being applied elsewhere.

I’m not saying it was a bad decision. But I suspect that’s closer to the mark than it being an ineffective placebo. I think the position was then that it gave people confidence to not socially distance etc.

The official position then of course was stay home, protect the NHS, save lives. Masks giving people more confidence to go out was unwanted strategically.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You have a wonderful imagination.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...420-sage24.pdf

https://theconversation.com/coronavi...idarity-138461

this article is well balanced but still show the science is not 100%, and therefore does not "clearly support masks"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...virus-science/

As i said, the introduction of masks was purely a mental placebo, that would make people not as scared to venture out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

From your first link:

The legendary line that the previous research was conducted “in very different contexts from the UK” is also a classic. Do we breathe differently in the UK?

Essentially this is “research” to support a Government position at the time, that even it knows is flawed but suggests more research to buy more time - to resolve supply issues.

Another to file alongside “multi generational households in Italy” and “it’ll go away in the summer”.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It did go away in the summer . . well that's what it looks like in all the graphs I've seen :D

Now it's back - apparently - depending on which experts you listen to and how they skew the data ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

funny how it's also those "key decision makers" that produced the report you have just rubbished???????????

Re: Coronavirus
 

It lessened, but it didn’t go away (because if it had, it wouldn’t still be here...). ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

It supported their decision at the time. It’s somewhat naive of you to simply take everything Government says at face value and there’s never an ulterior motive.

They knew what they were doing until supplies of PPE were secured. They acknowledged they would revisit the matter at a later date, unsurprisingly, to move into line with the actual evidence around masks.

Note I’m not criticising their decision to do so, to tell the public it’d have created demand for masks from idiots everywhere.

There was clearly much more nuance to the message than you give the Government credit for.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well the good news is you can't catch it at work or school,so if your planning a party have it at work or in a school,stay safe;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wheras I don't agree that a use of a mask will stop transmission I certainly think it will reduce it.

You remember the link I gave you to evidence based view on covid that you barely watched and disparaged as just graph manipulation and not peer reviewed? Had you watched further T cell pre-immunity was also covered.

What are your thoughts on this peer reviewed BMJ article?

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/09/14/g...onth-old-firm/ Their website is "interesting" (as in "there's not much on it"), with some videos in the "Latest News" section that cover a two day period from June 16th 2020 to June 18th 2020 (but nothing else)...

Strangely enough, their Sales Office address is 85 Portland Street, which is a "virtual office" with 7,849 companies listed there...

Re: Coronavirus
 

You need to hold the graphs the other way up! Like me, it didn't go away fully in the Summer. ;)

---------- Post added at 15:44 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------

From the same school of unusual procurement that buys ferry services from non-ferry operators.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Altered my monitor resolution to 50 x 2000 . . . graphs look quite different now ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is also this report about testing and false positives.

https://www.hdruk.ac.uk/projects/false-positives/

---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------

There's some graphs for you here.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare

Re: Coronavirus
 

No-one has ever claimed masks to be 100% effective, or else it’d be a case of masking everyone up for six weeks and getting on with our lives.

Nobody has either challenged that there could be more to immunity than simply antibodies, and the notion of pre-existing immunity on some level in some populations has raised itself before.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...al-dark-matter

However, what you’ll find is that I scoffed at the frequently touted notion that somehow, by magic, the experience of other countries won’t be replicated here or that the January-March trend is generally the trend for unmitigated growth unless there is evidence we are at or near the herd immunity threshold.

I think as we are approaching lockdown two we can all accept as fact there’s clearly plenty of further opportunities for onward transmission of the virus within the population as a whole. We have accelerating, not decelerating growth that would be associated with reaching the threshold.

---------- Post added at 15:57 ---------- Previous post was at 15:56 ----------

I can’t see a graph I just have

START INTERNET EXPLORER 15:57

Rotate that at 90 degrees I realised I messed up the horizontal and vertical.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Less than distraction from T-cell pre-immunity which has been peer reviewed unlike a report in ther Groaniad.
For instance..

and


and
Finally

Not one mention of a peer reviewed existance of T-Cell pre-immunity. If that is not included in the data model then the model will be flawed. Nor is false positive testing results mentioned which can scew the model data further. Not forgetting the article is from 4 mths ago and a lot has been learned since.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m at a loss as to what your point is, pip? That we are at herd immunity? That we aren’t in a second wave?

These are palpably untrue and we wouldn’t be going into a second lockdown if they were. Unless someone can demonstrate what’s different between February and now the Government can only follow the evidence base that led to lockdown the first time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Palpably untrue? On what basis?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The best set of figures available from the Government, that will be an underrepresentation based on the number of tests outstanding.

If there was any evidence at all, absolutely any, that the situation was under control we wouldn’t be staring down the barrel of a second lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which figures though? Current flawed testing results due to false positves?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13...-tynside-corby

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s no real evidence that false positives are a significant proportion of all results, or that false positives are doubling every 8 days (or even increasing) as a proportion of all positive tests.

One of the key assumptions behind the theoretical piece is that hospitalisation aren’t rising. They now are, and in France and Spain they are seeing increased deaths. Again I ask the question of what will make our experience different?

Re: Coronavirus
 

In terms of hospitalisations, it should also be noted that

Re: Coronavirus
 

Viral load can be very important as to whether our immune systems can fight and win. So I think they may have something with this idea that masks help.

---------- Post added at 17:54 ---------- Previous post was at 17:52 ----------

French radio just gave new information that over 50% of the population in Care Homes there died within the first few weeks of the first spike. Whereas the "normal" rate was under 15%.

Re: Coronavirus
 

WOW! 200 staff to look after to look after 51 patients again. (sorry, that was London). Birmingham never had one patient although the staff were there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And it took a lockdown to prevent these being required.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So on that basis the alleged second wave will be larger than the first?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don’t follow your logic. How bad the second wave is depends on the effectiveness of the response by Government and compliance from public in respect of distancing etc. This is not known at this stage.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The logic is simple. During the onset of corona virus the Government set up 5 "Nightingale" units to look after the overflow from NHS hopitals during the epidemic, there were also 2 others set up slightly later.

The only unit to be used was the London one which had 200 full time staff for an eventual 51 patients during the time it was in operation. It then like the other 6 sites were mothballed but not decommissioned just in case.

So, following logic, if the Birmingham Nightingale unit is to be brought out of mothballing and staffed then it follows that it is considered the number of cases will be larger then when the covid epidemic began.

ERGO the alleged second wave will be larger than the first.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So no major rise In hospitalisations yet then

Re: Coronavirus
 

They can provide the best data available, despite it being healthy to be sceptical. You are falling into the trap of others by dealing with everything in black and white in a world of grey.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Don't you just love the "Higher alert" status. At present they are "mothballed" which means no staff, they are just there waiting for use. To use them there needs to be a supply of staff who were either laid off (agentcy) or sent back to normal working in the hospitals.

Selective media reporting methinks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don’t think all of those things necessarily flow from each other. The Birmingham unit being brought out of mothballing (and indeed any other) is risk management based on current data.

I’m not sure decisions can be compared with March.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Then please explain the flaw in my logic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have. I think you’ve made assumptions that are incorrect.

Pretty much every sentence is based on assumptions you’ve made in the sentence that preceded it that are flawed, or at least not the only possible reasoning, claiming it is a logical conclusion when it is not.

I could equally claim that the first wave would be seven times as bad as the second using the “straightforward logic” it projected seven nightingale hospital compared to one for the second wave.

I think everyone would accept that conclusion is made in the absence of material facts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Has the herd immunity theory finally been buried? This article suggests to me it has "There is also evidence that antibody levels wane over two to three months..."
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...warns-12075251

Re: Coronavirus
 

The only assumption I can make from that reply is that it is a waste of time attempting to have a rational discussion with you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Where do they get the 6% figure from, Andrew?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think I honestly trust SAGE to be as accurate with their 'findings' as they should be.

If I wanted to be sceptical, I'd say their latest 'evidence' that antibody levels wane over two to three months is purely based on the 'quiet' gap between May and August ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Try saying that when you have a family member who will never walk again thanks to Covid-19

Re: Coronavirus
 

:confused: Lockdown and other measures)eg shielding, social distancing) prevented herd immunity from happening.

Also as I've previously pointed out, antibodies decrease naturally after a few months. Instead the immune "memorizes" the antigen(eg virus) and is primed and ready, if it encounters it again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Isn't it cited in the article? I don't have more insight than you on this.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What % of the UK population have had a test?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I had a look through it but couldn't see how they arrived at this 6% figure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There was a link, possibly from pip a couple of pages back on T cell response which may be a bigger part of the immune response.

That said there’s no guarantee of lasting immunity in the population at all. Flus for example that are endemic some are susceptible to year on year. So for herd immunity to be the answer you’d have to infect almost everyone at once. Which defeats the point of immunity surely.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It seems to all go back to SAGE. You could try on their website. https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...porting-papers

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed except I would remove the "probably". ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

They have no way of knowing that unless they have tested everyone, and they are also totally ignoring T-cell immunity response.

Sorry but I call bollocks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seph, I still stand by my use of will rather than might. As regards hospitals to do "regular" stuff why have they been told to clear beds for a Covid spike?

Unfotunately this is only based on the headline for the Telegraph paywall.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ike-two-weeks/

Found this though.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coron...F1O?li=BBoPWjQ

Re: Coronavirus
 

Simple explantion, we're approaching(2 weeks time) the time of seasonal increases in NHS demand.
Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

We've basically had a lot of the summer and long days stolen from us by COVID.

I vote we cancel winter for this year and just have summer for the year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Has it not occurred to the NHS that those usually affected by , And killed by, seasonal flu are also those that should be, and probably, are routinely shielding from COVID 19.

And that many people that would use NHS services are choosing not to because of scaremongering media and general over-reaction to the pandemic.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if the NHS is far from overrun this winter, but I fear more people will die because they were too scared to seek treatment because of irrational fears over COVID, and I would expect that death toll to be much higher than deaths from Covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re still making assumptions that don’t necessarily flow together.

We don’t know how many Covid cases there were in March/April, had no idea of the R number and no real idea which cases were being most affected. Contingency planning was done, reasonably, with a mass of incomplete or unknown data.

We do have more data now - so as Seph correctly points out this decision could be based on modelling for Birmingham alone, this doesn’t preclude further action in other areas, nor does it mean the Birmingham one will definitely be used.

To then extrapolate for their whether one wave will be worse than another, without knowing what mitigation the Government is about to embark upon, and what compliance levels there are is fundamentally guesswork.

And as nomad points out - we are approaching a time of generally peak demand for NHS services.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seeing as a Blood Transfusion Service study found 1.5% of Londoners were carrying the virus by 1st week of March, it seems unlikely the current immunity is only 6%.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I say we hibernate from winter, let Covid pass over and come back out in Spring.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Then again they shouldn't make that assumption. You could also argue that some of the potential cases for this season have been already killed by Covid-19.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s (partly) what sage are saying. Antibodies diminish over time. Although how this links to the whole immune response is not yet known.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed nomad. We are now entering the "normal" time of respitory illnesses that occur at this time of year. First and formost on the list is Covid, so we may already be in the midst of that, who knows? We can only wait and see but ATM everything is pointing towards it from the Government POV.

Damien, I'm with you!

---------- Post added at 20:44 ---------- Previous post was at 20:37 ----------

And yet studies have already put forward compelling pre-immunisation T-cell theories which may yet prove to be correct.

Re: Coronavirus
 

By this logic, the 1.5% figure in March could be the wrong figure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Depnds if you are using jfman's logic or not.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They’re not comparing the same thing at the same time. Antibodies do diminish over time. So the 1.5% that nomad refers to can be right (then) and they might make up a smaller proportion of the 6% (now).

However as pip says there could be more to immunity with the T cell response.

How all of this translates to immunity in practice (how long does it last, is a second bout of infection significantly less severe etc) isn’t fully known.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That phrase can be added to just about anything related to this pandemic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Haha perhaps. Some folk are better at guessing than others though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

4 months ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Someone else found it: https://assets.publishing.service.go...n_COVID-19.pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

I may be reading it wrong, but that does not correlate to this, that says 6% as a base line but variances across the nation, as high as 20% in the North West.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ce-of-covid-19

But still, they are gathering the data from blood donors, which must have a very large margin of error.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Last month

https://www.imperial.nhs.uk/about-us...lishes-results

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is there any reason to suspect why a blood donor would have greater/lesser likelihood of catching Covid-19 and developing an antibody response and if they do that response would be shorter/longer lasting?

I think you're desperately looking for flaws in the science where there are none.

Nomadking points to the blood samples taken in March, but there's no inherent conflict there, antibodies diminish. That's not news. There's definitely something in what pip is putting forward with the t-cell response, but there's not enough there yet in the science to justify abandoning everything done and achieved to date. It'd be great if there was, but the figures are all moving in the wrong direction.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think there's 'trace' evidence to suggest many of the suppositions and theories being put forward could have an element of truth in them, but, as said, it's much too early to be stating any of it as being definite.

That probably accounts for much of the 'could, likely, may, possibly' etc that is used extensively ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

All countries, literally all, need to simultaneously push to zero. Release areas/regions from lockdown when they get there. When someone finally does the sums this was always the rational response.

However capitalism, and an aim for competitive advantage, always made some idiots gamble. If they are right the returns are huge. However like a problem gambler they routinely lose. There's only ever been one way out without a vaccine. I'll likely still be here in spring arguing as hundreds of billions have been spend on Covid mitigation. A fraction of the cost of paying 66 million folk, on a household basis, to stay apart for 2 months.

Re: Coronavirus
 

we tried that already.

Re: Coronavirus
 

9.6 million of them

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...e-on-furlough/

Re: Coronavirus
 

On a lighter note...

Listen carefully, I will say zis only once...

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1600514078

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well that's a lot clearer than anything the gov have put out:tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not in Aldi or Lidl, you won't! :D

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------

It's lockdowns that drag this on forever. You are still clinging on to your belief that if you just lock everything down, the virus will simply go away. It won't, and this second wave coming back all over Europe is proof of that.

How many times must this happen before you finally come to terms with the fact that if each lockdown produces another wave at the end, further lockdowns will have exactly the same effect until it has infected sufficient people?

Lockdowns slow the infection rate. They do not eliminate it.

---------- Post added at 12:39 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------

What rubbish! The masks that are on sale to the public are pretty useless, and that is medical opinion. I get it that you disagree with that view.

I think most thinking people realise that the mask wearing is being encouraged to get nervous people out of their homes. It's not a safety measure, it's reassurance. What you might call a false sense of security.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah Old Boy. Welcome to the thread I’ve been waiting since a second lockdown is now a virtual certainty. Please don’t misrepresent my position though.

Nobody anywhere has claimed it will ‘simply go away’ other than yourself and that’s not worked out well for you has it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Scientists disagree...

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news...-what-18592384

Re: Coronavirus
 

mostly with each other.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To be fair, the comment was about those on general sale to the public, which are not necessarily cotton.
Other factors are involved such as length of exposure.
Link
So if you go out more often because you think it's safe because you're wearing a mask, you're wrong. The more often you go out, the more likely the mask is going to "fail" at some point.

Wearing glasses seems to be added protection, again not 100%. Not wearing glasses may account for the lower end of reduction in risk of just wearing masks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m away with the family for a weekend trip to a west of Scotland seaside town, and I can absolutely see why Covid is on the march again in the greater Glasgow area. The complacency and the casual disregard for social distancing rules down here today is quite shocking.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Another peer reviewed paper on T-cell immunity.


Link

Still needs more research though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know this might be a shock, but I totally agree with you.

There is no one "silver bullet", but if people use, cumulatively, a series of measures (proper washing of hands, keeping a distance, don't spend too much time in a crowded place, wearing a mask, etc.), all together they will reduce the risk - not to zero, but any lessening of the chance of being infected can only be a good thing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Our family has gone up to seaside places in Dorset in the past few weeks and its very much the same.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, which roughly a 3rd of employed people, then take into account those that don’t need to furloughed and those that can’t be furloughed. Those out of work and on benefits are already covered.

So what’s your point?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Point - 9.2 million ≠ 66 million

Hope that helps...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Later lockdown?

Re: Coronavirus
 

We will see. I look forward to the mental gymnastics of justifying the second lockdown as the Government doing the right thing when it happens.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Stand back in amazement! I thought that was what you were doing!

---------- Post added at 18:44 ---------- Previous post was at 18:40 ----------

A human assessment of risk... by 'experts'.

---------- Post added at 18:48 ---------- Previous post was at 18:44 ----------

This is an over-simplification. T-cells are also important in fighting infection. The doubt that you should have here is whether any vaccine that is discovered will be effective over more than the short term.