CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 3)

[isaldiri]

Dr Z said:

It's my mistake to assume that the PHers here are balanced enough to consider it. Oh well.

Top strawmanning again. I actually am partially on your side on this, if symptoms are so light they are easily mistaken as nothing then it might as well be asymptomatic transmission. And some asymptomatic transmission clearly is possible. I have more of an issue with the way the studies are assuming it is on the scale of 50+% as it's inferring a large number of infections purely on cases being asymptomatic.

But in any case, even if I accept that in a superspreading situation that can be the case for asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic transmission in high numbers, my point returns to this which no one who is pro mask seems to want to address.

When the outbreak was at it's very worst, people still had to go to the supermarket and in central london go to work in very crowded tube trains due to the shortage of trains per tfl service cuts. If non symptomatic aerosol transmission (the current justification for masks) was so easy how were we able to drop cases down so sharply? TTI also states you need to be within 2m for 15 mins to trigger isolation. In shops most of the time you simply wouldn't be in proximity to anyone for that long anyway so why masks and why now? Especially given it is actually not required in situations where cases actually have been appearing.

It's the blatant logic fail of the measure being demanded by the govt that is triggering a large pushback by some people. Let's face it - if the mask measure was implemented at lockdown, people would have been far more accepting of it as there was an obvious need to try to reduce cases. Given we have done reasonably well reducing cases and maintaining that level despite shops reopening, the justification for needing masks now is quite vastly weaker - the 'anything to help' argument simply isn't the same any longer.

[xjay1337]

HTalk on BBC News about a possible lockdown in Blackburn.

Anyone got figures for rise in infections (relative to testing rates) for this area.

[anonymous-user]

Shops are a risk because of frequent, short contact with new people. The 15 minutes thing is outdated.

With hindsight would have been good to have masks at peak, but on other hand given other stricter measures in place, it would be like using a watering can in addition to a hose to put out a fire. But there comes a point when the watering can is the better tool?

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 15th July 23:06

[johnboy1975]

sambucket said:

Shops are a risk because of frequent, short contact with new people. The 15 minutes thing is outdated.

Edited by sambucket on Wednesday 15th July 23:06

Source?

[smashing]

sambucket said:

Shops are a risk because of frequent, short contact with new people. The 15 minutes thing is outdated.

With hindsight would have been good to have masks at peak, but on other hand given other stricter measures in place, it would be like using a watering can in addition to a hose to put out a fire. But there comes a point when the watering can is the better tool?

Edited by sambucket on Wednesday 15th July 23:06

I didn't know the 15 minute stuff had been changed, can you point me to it please as I've missed it during the thread.

I do find it hard to believe that there is much risk in shops but then again I'm only in for 20 mins to get my weekly shop and out again where I meet practicality no one so my experience is probably different to others who may be longer/multi trips etc etc

[sim72]

smashing said:

I didn't know the 15 minute stuff had been changed, can you point me to it please as I've missed it during the thread.

I do find it hard to believe that there is much risk in shops but then again I'm only in for 20 mins to get my weekly shop and out again where I meet practicality no one so my experience is probably different to others who may be longer/multi trips etc etc

The biggest problem with shops is if some f*ckwit coughs or sneezes in your face, which a mask (them wearing one, not you) would obviously mitigate. But that's the case with any indoor social context where you're within range of other people, whether that be an office, bar, restaurant, gym, school/college, church ...

[isaldiri]

smashing said:

I didn't know the 15 minute stuff had been changed, can you point me to it please as I've missed it during the thread.

Better yet, sambucket had tell the govt that official guidance has changed and it's not being properly reflected

UK govt track and trace said:

We will ask you:

We are interested in in the 48 hours before you developed symptoms and the time since you developed symptoms. Close contact means:
having face-to-face contact with someone (less than 1 metre away)
spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of someone

Per link

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-test-and-trace-how...

[johnboy1975]

sim72 said:

The biggest problem with shops is if some f*ckwit coughs or sneezes in your face, which a mask (them wearing one, not you) would obviously mitigate. But that's the case with any indoor social context where you're within range of other people, whether that be an office, bar, restaurant, gym, school/college, church ...

That's never ever happened to me. You'd have to be standing eyeball to eyeball firstly.

Worst I can say is I've probably sneezed into my hand and not immediately disinfected it with bleach (aka carried on as normal). Lessons have been learnt....

[sim72]

isaldiri said:

Per link

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-test-and-trace-how...

The Government said:

...travelling in a car or other small vehicle with someone (even on a short journey) or close to them on a plane

I read a social media post from a friend today who'd flown from Berlin to the UK. The plane was half full but they'd put all the passengers in the front half of the plane and left the rest empty. FFS.

[isaldiri]

sim72 said:

The biggest problem with shops is if some f*ckwit coughs or sneezes in your face, which a mask (them wearing one, not you) would obviously mitigate. But that's the case with any indoor social context where you're within range of other people, whether that be an office, bar, restaurant, gym, school/college, church ...

Well you shouldn't be close enough to said fkwit to be able to cough in your face in a shop as you're abiding by social distancing and standing a reasonable distance away aren't you....?

[Elysium]

This is a great article comparing Sweden to New York:

https://fee.org/articles/why-sweden-succeeded-in-f...

Yinon Weiss said:

Here’s the good news: You can shut down businesses or keep them open. Close schools or stay in session. Wear masks or not. The virus will make its way through in either case, and if we protect the elderly then deaths will be spared.

[ruggedscotty]

monkfish1 said:

ruggedscotty said:

Id rather wear a mask than a ventilator....

What a dumb statement

By your logic, and assuming you are under 65 without and serious health conditions, i assume you are no longer driving? After all, statistically your are more likely to die in an RTA than from Covid.

i look forward to your confirmation of this.

UK road casualties
Key facts:

In 2018, there were 1,784 people killed on the roads in Britain;
In 2018, 25,511 people were seriously injured on the roads in Britain;
In 2018, there was a total of 160,597 casualties of all severities in road traffic crashes;
In 2018, the highest number of fatalities were car users, both drivers and passengers, who accounted for 44% of road deaths;
In 2018, of the 1,784 road deaths, the majority (58%) occurred on rural roads.

so far covid-19 deaths have passed 45,000.


I didnt get the 2019 and 2020 figues so allowing for adjustments and such it is still a considerable increase....

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

This is a great article comparing Sweden to New York:

https://fee.org/articles/why-sweden-succeeded-in-f...

Yinon Weiss said:

Here’s the good news: You can shut down businesses or keep them open. Close schools or stay in session. Wear masks or not. The virus will make its way through in either case, and if we protect the elderly then deaths will be spared.

Wuhan? Beijing? South Korea?

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 15th July 23:47

[anonymous-user]

isaldiri said:

smashing said:

I didn't know the 15 minute stuff had been changed, can you point me to it please as I've missed it during the thread.

Better yet, had tell the govt that official guidance has changed and it's not being properly reflected

UK govt track and trace said:

We will ask you:

We are interested in in the 48 hours before you developed symptoms and the time since you developed symptoms. Close contact means:
having face-to-face contact with someone (less than 1 metre away)
spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of someone

Per link

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-test-and-trace-how...

That was last updated 11th June. Given the fast shifting evidence on this, that counts as outdated.

i may have overplayed it, but I was remembering Hancock saying today

“If you can, wear a face covering in an enclosed space where social distancing isn’t possible and where you will come into contact with people you do not normally meet," the advice stated. "This is most relevant for short periods indoors in crowded areas, for example, on public transport or in some shops.

But even your link says 'or' having face to face contact with someone [for less than 15 mins].

[DukeDickson]

sambucket said:

Elysium said:

This is a great article comparing Sweden to New York:

https://fee.org/articles/why-sweden-succeeded-in-f...

Yinon Weiss said:

Here’s the good news: You can shut down businesses or keep them open. Close schools or stay in session. Wear masks or not. The virus will make its way through in either case, and if we protect the elderly then deaths will be spared.

Wuhan? Beijing?

Are just two places in the world, out of quite a few, where we don't really know what the reality is, for quite obvious reasons.

[anonymous-user]

DukeDickson said:

Are just two places in the world, out of quite a few, where we don't really know what the reality is, for quite obvious reasons.

South Korea had a relatively big outbreak and stopped it breaking out?

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 15th July 23:55

[Elysium]

sambucket said:

DukeDickson said:

Are just two places in the world, out of quite a few, where we don't really know what the reality is, for quite obvious reasons.

South Korea had a relatively big outbreak and stopped it breaking out?

The virus has not really started in South Korea. The country is subtropical, like Florida and will only now be starting to feel the pressure.

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

The virus has not really started in South Korea. The country is subtropical, like Florida and will only now be starting to feel the pressure.

Nearly 1000 cases a day is enough to light the fuse?

They don't seem to be feeling much pressure, cases and positivity rate are stable and low. Case have been hovering about 40 a day for almost two months now with little variation.

Climate stuff feels like a reach.

[isaldiri]

Elysium said:

The virus has not really started in South Korea. The country is subtropical, like Florida and will only now be starting to feel the pressure.

You are talking bks there I'm afraid. South Korea isn't subtropical like Florida, it's freaking cold there in winter!

[voyds9]

I haven't yet seen an analysis on the average age of death from Covid with the associated loss of life costs. I believe NICE values a treatment/life at £20,000-£50,000 per year. So is ruining the economy a monetarily viable argument.

I haven't been able to find an average age of death from Covid so I can't work it out.

Before anyone says I'm cold, heartless and wouldn't think the same if it was my mum/wife/child I would say

a) I don't give a damn
b) This is how NICE decides if you are getting that new NHS treatment.