Coronavirus (OLD)

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Either masks are needed indoors or they're not. If you absolutely need to eat or drink then either do it away from others, or do it quickly and put your mask back in place. The idiotic exceptions highlight the contradictions.
Anything that is classed as being "safe", has to be safe to such a high level, as otherwise more people will do that activity, more often, meaning any "safety" gain is completely lost.

But that would mean the decimation of many eating and drinking establishments and the jobs, livelihoods and mental good health generated by them. Wearing masks in shops does not hinder purchasing to any significant extent. There will always be apparent contradictions but it's the difficult job of the government to weigh up these opposing forces.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

A principle is just that. If the principle is safety, the exceptions have to be safe to the same level. A room full of people eating or drinking isn't magically safe, compared to a room full of the same people not eating or drinking.

There’s no silver bullet.

Airport screening might be a percentage, masks another, working from home another. All of these push R down.

Doing nothing R continues unmitigated and as Andrew points out that ruins the economy.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

But that would mean the decimation of many eating and drinking establishments and the jobs, livelihoods and mental good health generated by them. Wearing masks in shops does not hinder purchasing to any significant extent. There will always be apparent contradictions but it's the difficult job of the government to weigh up these opposing forces.

If you follow that argument then there should be little or no restrictions of any sort, ie nearer the Swedish model.

I have no problem wearing a mask, but then again I've stayed at home for several weeks. I'm able to "hide away", others can't.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I never said that. Where did I say that?

You seem hell bent on punishing and blaming young people and young people only.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Because you are jumping in on replies I make to jfman or Andrew. You obviously have the right but your new found tendency, which has not happened before, leads to a curt reply.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that it was a private discussion on an open forum like this. Isn't this the idea of a good debate? To bring more debate points when you have them and stay away when you don't? If it makes you feel any better, I'm not targeting you specifically.

Originally Posted by Pierre

i don't think any generation has been/or is worse off than the generation preceding it.

Depends on how you look at it. Economics is one way:

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If you follow that argument then there should be little or no restrictions of any sort, ie nearer the Swedish model.

I have no problem wearing a mask, but then again I've stayed at home for several weeks. I'm able to "hide away", others can't.

Yet in Sweden many voluntarily shield, work from home and the economy is experiencing the same downturn as its neighbours.

All their model has given them is dead Swedes.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s no silver bullet.

Airport screening might be a percentage, masks another, working from home another. All of these push R down.

Doing nothing R continues unmitigated and as Andrew points out that ruins the economy.

Allowing too many exemptions means that the virus is still circulating. As long as the chain of infections is allowed to continue, it is still "out there". You have to completely stop that chaining of infections. The more often people go out and eat or drink, the greater the number of infections and the chaining continues. Too many examples of gatherings where mass outbreaks have resulted.

[Kushan]

I think it's clear from the recent spikes that too many restrictions have eased and people have got complacent.

You're never going to stop the virus entirely. It's just not possible without a vaccine or millions dying. This is a marathon where we have to slow its progression enough that our health services can cope with it, while trying not to slow down the economy too much.

It's going to be a constant juggle of easing then restricting. Some tough calls need to be made. If we want kids to go to school, we might have to give up on pubs. If we want old people to be able to get their shopping, we might have to queue a little longer.

But one thing for sure - if you don't wear a mask and you don't social distance, you're making this take a lot longer and putting many more people at unnecessary risk. If more people could learn this, we'd have less restrictions.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Yet in Sweden many voluntarily shield, work from home and the economy is experiencing the same downturn as its neighbours.

All their model has given them is dead Swedes.

They kept schools, bars, and restaurants open.
A high proportion of those deaths were in care homes, which a lockdown wouldn't have prevented.
France and Spain currently have higher infection rates than Sweden had at it's peak.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Either masks are needed indoors or they're not. If you absolutely need to eat or drink then either do it away from others, or do it quickly and put your mask back in place. The idiotic exceptions highlight the contradictions.
Anything that is classed as being "safe", has to be safe to such a high level, as otherwise more people will do that activity, more often, meaning any "safety" gain is completely lost.

At the moment I don’t drink socially in pubs with anyone outside my family. If I go to a restaurant and sit at a table for four, with my family, I don’t expect to, or need to, wear a mask.

[Carth]

I was born 1954, my 'teenage' years were much better than those born in the late 1990's - early 2000's.

We didn't have to worry about not having the latest iPhone, we weren't bewildered and confused by having 300 channels of crap on the TV, the music we listened to was usually performed by people who could sing and/or play instruments without the need for technology to make them sound decent, comedians were actually funny, mums used washpowders that got your clothes clean - in machines that used hot water, boys were boys and girls were girls with very few confused about that, education meant using a brain along with books and pen & paper, food was mainly bought fresh from corner shops and tasted great when cooked, playing and socializing was done with real people not pixels on a screen, getting drunk only took 4 pints, masks were something Batman & The Lone Ranger wore, and one of our biggest fears was mum finding grass stains on the knees of our trousers.

I miss those days

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Fair enough point on the economic data, but the bit in bold is ridiculous!

Exhbit A:

Originally Posted by Carth

I was born 1954, my 'teenage' years were much better than those born in the late 1990's - early 2000's.

We didn't have to worry about not having the latest iPhone, we weren't bewildered and confused by having 300 channels of crap on the TV, the music we listened to was usually performed by people who could sing and/or play instruments without the need for technology to make them sound decent, comedians were actually funny, mums used washpowders that got your clothes clean - in machines that used hot water, boys were boys and girls were girls with very few confused about that, education meant using a brain along with books and pen & paper, food was mainly bought fresh from corner shops and tasted great when cooked, playing and socializing was done with real people not pixels on a screen, getting drunk only took 4 pints, masks were something Batman & The Lone Ranger wore, and one of our biggest fears was mum finding grass stains on the knees of our trousers.

I miss those days

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Kushan

Exhbit A:

I'm sure there was a bit of tongue in cheek there......

---------- Post added at 19:31 ---------- Previous post was at 19:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

I was born 1954, my 'teenage' years were much better than those born in the late 1990's - early 2000's.

We didn't have to worry about not having the latest iPhone, we weren't bewildered and confused by having 300 channels of crap on the TV, the music we listened to was usually performed by people who could sing and/or play instruments without the need for technology to make them sound decent, comedians were actually funny, mums used washpowders that got your clothes clean - in machines that used hot water, boys were boys and girls were girls with very few confused about that, education meant using a brain along with books and pen & paper, food was mainly bought fresh from corner shops and tasted great when cooked, playing and socializing was done with real people not pixels on a screen, getting drunk only took 4 pints, masks were something Batman & The Lone Ranger wore, and one of our biggest fears was mum finding grass stains on the knees of our trousers.

I miss those days

lol

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yeah, I’m sure it will be policed very stringently.

It's a joke. The family I know who came back to quarantine were not inspected even once. There aren't enough people to police this, so the quarantine has turned out to be totally voluntary.

---------- Post added at 19:39 ---------- Previous post was at 19:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Dave42

Coronavirus infections surge by 60% in England with 3,200 new cases each day

COVID-19 infections in England have soared by 60% - with 3,200 new cases now being seen each day, according to official estimates.


https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...h-day-12068962

As I've said all along, the virus will be out there until we get herd immunity. It is a very simple principle.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You and jfman agree too much!

On a more serious (and ridiculous) note - fines/sanctions on the 19-25 age group could be higher than others as a deterrent.

Age discrimination?

---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Like I say, I'll wait until I see the hospital admission rates and/or death rates before I start running around in a panic like Beaker from the muppets.

Me, too. The vulnerables should be advised to keep their heads down unless they want to live dangerously.

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:41 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s good news in some respects though - we get to challenge those in denial with actual facts and evidence, from actual reality, on the ground in Britain. Plus the economy will tank for the property parasites like Alan Sugar.

You have such a perverse way of looking at this.

The virus will not go away until herd immunity is achieved. Is that not what is happening right now?

The only bright spot was that mathematician's calculation that the virus would have reached the peak we had naturally even if we had not locked down. We will soon see if he was right.

Either way, lockdowns just put the inevitable on pause for as long as they are applied.

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Just make wearing mask mandatory, no mask no entry in to any building.


Some idiot suggested that a face mask causes a build up of CO2.


Despite the fact a NHS doctor wore a medical spec mask and a O2 reader and his levels did not move.

Scientists themselves say that the masks you can buy are not effective, so why require them to be worn unless you just want to give people a false sense of security?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54118022

A new Covid-19 contact-tracing app will be launched across England and Wales on 24 September, the government has announced.

The app will let people scan barcode-like QR codes to register visits to hospitality venues and will implement Apple and Google's method of detecting other smartphones.

Businesses are being asked to display QR code posters to support the app.

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:23 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's a joke. The family I know who came back to quarantine were not inspected even once. There aren't enough people to police this, so the quarantine has turned out to be totally voluntary.

---------- Post added at 19:39 ---------- Previous post was at 19:36 ----------



As I've said all along, the virus will be out there until we get herd immunity. It is a very simple principle.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------



Age discrimination?

---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:40 ----------



Me, too. The vulnerables should be advised to keep their heads down unless they want to live dangerously.

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:41 ----------



You have such a perverse way of looking at this.

The virus will not go away until herd immunity is achieved. Is that not what is happening right now?

The only bright spot was that mathematician's calculation that the virus would have reached the peak we had naturally even if we had not locked down. We will soon see if he was right.

Either way, lockdowns just put the inevitable on pause for as long as they are applied.

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------



Scientists themselves say that the masks you can buy are not effective, so why require them to be worn unless you just want to give people a false sense of security?

Other scientists (with a link) disagree.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08...-work-act-now#

Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.

A comprehensive study, the report investigates the effectiveness of different face mask types and coverings, including an international comparison of policies and behavioural factors underlying usage.

Professor Melinda Mills, Director of the Leverhulme Centre and author of the study, says, ‘The evidence is clear that people should wear masks to reduce virus transmission and protect themselves, with most countries recommending the public to wear them. Yet clear policy recommendations that the public should broadly wear them has been unclear and inconsistent in some countries such as England.’

Around the world, the study finds, ‘Next to hand washing and social distancing, face masks and coverings are one of the most of widely adopted non-pharmaceutical interventions for reducing the transmission of respiratory infections.’

But, the study shows, some coverings are not as effective as others. Loosely woven fabrics, such as scarves have been shown to be the least effective. Professor Mills says, ‘Attention must also be placed on how well it fits on the face; it should loop around the ears or around the back of the neck for better coverage.’

She insists, ‘The general public does not need to wear surgical masks or respirators. We find that masks made from high quality material such as high-grade cotton, multiple layers and particularly hybrid constructions are effective. For instance, combining cotton and silk or flannel provide over 95% filtration, so wearing a mask can protect others.’

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0612172200.htm

Summary:
A study has found that not wearing a face mask dramatically increases a person's chances of being infected by the COVID-19 virus.

The team examined the chances of COVID-19 infection and how the virus is easily passed from person to person. From trends and mitigation procedures in China, Italy and New York City, the researchers found that using a face mask reduced the number of infections by more than 78,000 in Italy from April 6-May 9 and by over 66,000 in New York City from April 17-May 9.

"Our results clearly show that airborne transmission via respiratory aerosols represents the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19," Zhang said. "By analyzing the pandemic trends without face-covering using the statistical method and by projecting the trend, we calculated that over 66,000 infections were prevented by using a face mask in little over a month in New York City. We conclude that wearing a face mask in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent inter-human transmission.

"This inexpensive practice, in conjunction with social distancing and other procedures, is the most likely opportunity to stop the COVID-19 pandemic. Our work also highlights that sound science is essential in decision-making for the current and future public health pandemics."

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

<SNIP>


Age discrimination?
<SNIP>

Don't you start!