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