Coronavirus (OLD)

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Scientists disagree...

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

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

For every type of mask studied, risk reduction decreased as exposure duration increased -- so the longer you're exposed to the virus, the more likely you are to get it, even with a mask on, the researchers found.
...
"But it does mean that a mask can't reduce your risk to zero. Don't go to a bar for four hours and think you're risk free because you're wearing a mask.

Wearing a mask reduced infection risks by 24 percent to 94 percent, or by 44 percent to 99 percent depending on the mask and the exposure duration.

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.

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.

[pip08456]

Another peer reviewed paper on T-cell immunity.

Professor Danny Altmann, British Society for Immunology spokesperson and Professor of Immunology at Imperial College London, said, “Among the many studies of cellular (T cell) immunity to SARS-CoV-2 that have appeared in the past few months, this is one of the most robust, impressive and thorough in the approaches used. It adds to the growing body of evidence that many people who were antibody-negative actually have a specific immune response as measured in T-cell assays, confirming that antibody testing alone under-estimates immunity.”

Link

Still needs more research though.

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

9.6 million of them

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

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?

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

Originally Posted by Pierre

we tried that already.

Originally Posted by Hugh

9.6 million of them

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

Originally Posted by Pierre

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?

Point - 9.2 million ≠ 66 million

Hope that helps...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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?

Later lockdown?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

[/B]

Later lockdown?

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

More expert than the stuff you come up with clutching at any straw you can find, Old Boy. You should just accept defeat that the economy will crash anyway.

I could blog that it’ll go away next Tuesday and you’d probably cite it on here.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Point - 9.2 million ≠ 66 million

Hope that helps...

No it doesn’t, and you’re being either facetious or stupid, so I’ll give you the BoD.

[jfman]

At least there’s options for Hugh. Others there’s no doubt which.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

Are your assumptions based on material facts, jfman, rather than on your natural inclination to argue?

Nobody has all the answers, but there are one or two things becoming apparent as we learn more about the virus.

I would remind you that you have been berating the government consistenly for not locking down earlier, and you have been comparing our death totals with other countries who have not counted their death totals in the same way as we have.

In those countries, the second wave is coming back with a vengeance. Nobody, but nobody (and that includes you and me) knows the extent of our second wave because it hasn't happened yet. If it turns out to be a very shallow wave, that will even out the death totals and confirm that the later lockdown did no harm. This is why I have said throughout that it is far too early to criticise the government for taking advice from the medical people that the herd immunity theory was the one to follow before the panic set in.

To be perfectly clear, I am not saying that we won't get the full force of a second wave. No-one knows at this stage. But if we do, it really does confirm the futility of your lockdown solutions, doesn't it?

---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

I agree with your second paragraph, nomad, but the first is not right. Herd immunity is just a fact of nature, it has not been eliminated.

It is because we have not yet acquired herd immunity that we are now seeing the start of a second wave. The measures we introduced have just slowed the process down and increased the risk of mutation.

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

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

Except that it will still be there, waiting for the fools who think they've beaten it.

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

Covid 19 is also a problem in Communist Russia! Your theories are progressively becoming more bizarre!

Communist Russia? Which century are you living in?