Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[PNWokingham]

quite to to argue against much of this!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...hows-true-cost-arrogant-failed-establishment/

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Keep reading about the false positives in virus testing and non active infections(ie. prior ones) showing up as positives and the more the government test(which they are) the more the numbers will go up in absolute numbers. Also the positivity percentages is not massively changing, hospital admissions, triage/999/111 data and Zoe site are still not really increasing, ONS now perhaps showing a drop/levelling off and so on. But cases still kept going up. Almost be glad when everything points in the same direction to put the mind to rest

https://vimeo.com/443416775

An interesting video on the testing, goodness know who the people really are, but found it interesting.

 

[Ethan]

quite to to argue against much of this!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...hows-true-cost-arrogant-failed-establishment/

Paul, my old club mate, it is very easy to argue against that article. Sweden has not had a good pandemic. Their death rate (as of 7/8/20) is 567 per million. Better than the UK (702), for sure, but in the same ballpark as Spain and Italy and way worse than their neighbours and cultural cousins Denmark (107), Finland (63) and Norway (47), and for those who like to compare with countries similar in size to the UK, Germany (111).

As for the economic effect, do I really need to point out another major contributor to the UK's economic woes which the Govt could have avoided but chose not to?

 

[SocketRocket]

Lets try using relevant facts, though. Population density is a rather simplistic measure used for rather simplistic dismissals of data.

Do you suggest that a countries area is a complex measure for complex support of data ?

Rather than population density being used to dismiss data it has been used to support data.

I don't even know what that means. Let me copy and paste in into Google Translate. Hang on ..... sorry, it is coming up as nonsense.

Quite easily confused then ?

 

[Ethan]

Quite easily confused then ?

It is easy to be confused by nonsense. I'd be more worried if I was on the same page as you.

Population density is data, but in the wrong hands when misinterpreted alongside other data can be used to reach spurious conclusions.

 

[SocketRocket]

It is easy to be confused by nonsense. I'd be more worried if I was on the same page as you.

Population density is data, but in the wrong hands when misinterpreted alongside other data can be used to reach spurious conclusions.

OH I see, so in the right hands and interpreted alongside other data can be used to reach sound conclusions then.

I see you've now taken the normal socialist debating stance of using insults to support your opinions. Shame really but not surprising.

 

[Ethan]

OH I see, so in the right hands and interpreted alongside other data can be used to reach sound conclusions then.

I see you've now taken the normal socialist debating stance of using insults to support your opinions. Shame really but not surprising.

You wrote something that made no sense. Sorry. If you had made an understandable point, I would have responded to it. You didn't respond to any of mine, so get off your high horse.

Try again to explain your point. Or don't. I don't mind either way.

 

[Slab]

How do masks go from ‘not necessary in the UK’ to now warranting a fine for repeat offenders of up to 3k
I can't get my head round the fact that right through the peak there was no requirement to wear them except on public transport, now you could run up a sizeable fine over the weekend at the shopping centre

Has the UK's science changed that much

 

[Ethan]

How do masks go from ‘not necessary in the UK’ to now warranting a fine for repeat offenders of up to 3k
I can't get my head round the fact that right through the peak there was no requirement to wear them except on public transport, now you could run up a sizeable fine over the weekend at the shopping centre

Has the UK's science changed that much

The politics changed more than the science. The science was always that there was a modest but real effect from wearing a mask, either added to social distancing or as a fall back if SD was not possible. Two people wearing masks and social distancing have a very marked reduction in risk compared to doing neither. Initialy, Govt justified not demanding them by saying they needed to preserve them for NHS and care home staff. That wasn't the whole story. There was also, or perhaps mainly, objections in their own party ("a monstrous imposition") and grumbling unpopularity among certain parts of the public. As lockdown easing progressed, it became obvious that masks were necessary to allow shops to reopen and close indoor contact in other settings to resume, so they caved in.

 

[GB72]

The politics changed more than the science. The science was always that there was a modest but real effect from wearing a mask, either added to social distancing or as a fall back if SD was not possible. Two people wearing masks and social distancing have a very marked reduction in risk compared to doing neither. Initialy, Govt justified not demanding them by saying they needed to preserve them for NHS and care home staff. That wasn't the whole story. There was also, or perhaps mainly, objections in their own party ("a monstrous imposition") and grumbling unpopularity among certain parts of the public. As lockdown easing progressed, it became obvious that masks were necessary to allow shops to reopen and close indoor contact in other settings to resume, so they caved in.

Have to agree with that. Plus a public confidence issue. To get people out spending, the masks have proved useful in making people feel more comfortable.

That said, read an article yesterday (wish I had saved it) that compared masks and it was found that Snood type options used as a face covering are actually worse than wearing no mask and increased the spread (probably wrong term) from the user to 110% of what it would be without a mask.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Have to agree with that. Plus a public confidence issue. To get people out spending, the masks have proved useful in making people feel more comfortable.

That said, read an article yesterday (wish I had saved it) that compared masks and it was found that Snood type options used as a face covering are actually worse than wearing no mask and increased the spread (probably wrong term) from the user to 110% of what it would be without a mask.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/coro...actually-increases-risk-of-infection-12046715

Not sure if it is this one you mentioned, only confusing bit for me, you described it as a snood, the article describes it as a neck fleece, probably the same thing, but is it the material that’s the issue rather than the design?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

How do masks go from ‘not necessary in the UK’ to now warranting a fine for repeat offenders of up to 3k
I can't get my head round the fact that right through the peak there was no requirement to wear them except on public transport, now you could run up a sizeable fine over the weekend at the shopping centre

Has the UK's science changed that much

England only matter for the £3200 fines.
Science has not changed but Johnson's popularity has.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

The politics changed more than the science. The science was always that there was a modest but real effect from wearing a mask, either added to social distancing or as a fall back if SD was not possible. Two people wearing masks and social distancing have a very marked reduction in risk compared to doing neither. Initialy, Govt justified not demanding them by saying they needed to preserve them for NHS and care home staff. That wasn't the whole story. There was also, or perhaps mainly, objections in their own party ("a monstrous imposition") and grumbling unpopularity among certain parts of the public. As lockdown easing progressed, it became obvious that masks were necessary to allow shops to reopen and close indoor contact in other settings to resume, so they caved in.

A touch of mixing the medical knowledge with a dash of political stance, it seems.
When the SD was 2 metres and supermarkets and the lockdown shops were open ,with SD markings and two at a time type efforts at SD, then 2 metres was the rule, so masks were not deemed necessary. (As you say, they would have assisted if worn, as in belt and braces).
But mandatory masks came in when the distancing was below 2 m, as in public transport, and then when the shops were open as they are now.
Supermarkets no longer limiting numbers and one way walking round etc.
So, in these new circumstances of closer distancing, the science said masks were more necessary, hence the new rule.
Don't see why you have to bring in your assertions that "objections in their own party" etc, ( as if you would be in the know of thinking in "the party ",any more than others in the forum)!except to have a political pop at this government.
The last couple of weeks have clearly seen increases in cases of Covid on the continent, hence the new quarantine rules, so it seems the government is clearly worried about the relaxations allowing a second spike to be more likely.
So moves are being made to try to get more compliance by the British public to the new SD rules,

 

[SocketRocket]

A touch of mixing the medical knowledge with a dash of political stance, it seems.
When the SD was 2 metres and supermarkets and the lockdown shops were open ,with SD markings and two at a time type efforts at SD, then 2 metres was the rule, so masks were not deemed necessary. (As you say, they would have assisted if worn, as in belt and braces).
But mandatory masks came in when the distancing was below 2 m, as in public transport, and then when the shops were open as they are now.
Supermarkets no longer limiting numbers and one way walking round etc.
So, in these new circumstances of closer distancing, the science said masks were more necessary, hence the new rule.
Don't see why you have to bring in your assertions that "objections in their own party" etc, ( as if you would be in the know of thinking in "the party ",any more than others in the forum)!except to have a political pop at this government.
The last couple of weeks have clearly seen increases in cases of Covid on the continent, hence the new quarantine rules, so it seems the government is clearly worried about the relaxations allowing a second spike to be more likely.
So moves are being made to try to get more compliance by the British public to the new SD rules,

A good balanced post, well done.

 

[Ethan]

A touch of mixing the medical knowledge with a dash of political stance, it seems.
When the SD was 2 metres and supermarkets and the lockdown shops were open ,with SD markings and two at a time type efforts at SD, then 2 metres was the rule, so masks were not deemed necessary. (As you say, they would have assisted if worn, as in belt and braces).
But mandatory masks came in when the distancing was below 2 m, as in public transport, and then when the shops were open as they are now.
Supermarkets no longer limiting numbers and one way walking round etc.
So, in these new circumstances of closer distancing, the science said masks were more necessary, hence the new rule.
Don't see why you have to bring in your assertions that "objections in their own party" etc, ( as if you would be in the know of thinking in "the party ",any more than others in the forum)!except to have a political pop at this government.
The last couple of weeks have clearly seen increases in cases of Covid on the continent, hence the new quarantine rules, so it seems the government is clearly worried about the relaxations allowing a second spike to be more likely.
So moves are being made to try to get more compliance by the British public to the new SD rules,

Well, the politics has made the decisions, as they often said at Number 10 briefings, usually caveated by saying it was based on science. The voices against masks in the Tory Party were pretty public as rumours grew of some degree of mandatory mask wearing beyond public transport.

2M was never a magic distance of safety, especially if aerosolised smaller particles were generated which do not fall to the ground with gravity but float in the air, but it was a convenient recognisable distance that offered good protection. The evidence for masks has not really changed very much. The Govt response to it has changed more. From the outset it was known that there was a modest but real effect, mostly to the benefit of others if infected people were masked, and that benefit was not either/or with social distancing, but additive. 2M plus masks is pretty much excellent protection, 1M plus masks is pretty good.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

A touch of mixing the medical knowledge with a dash of political stance, it seems.
When the SD was 2 metres and supermarkets and the lockdown shops were open ,with SD markings and two at a time type efforts at SD, then 2 metres was the rule, so masks were not deemed necessary. (As you say, they would have assisted if worn, as in belt and braces).
But mandatory masks came in when the distancing was below 2 m, as in public transport, and then when the shops were open as they are now.
Supermarkets no longer limiting numbers and one way walking round etc.
So, in these new circumstances of closer distancing, the science said masks were more necessary, hence the new rule.
Don't see why you have to bring in your assertions that "objections in their own party" etc, ( as if you would be in the know of thinking in "the party ",any more than others in the forum)!except to have a political pop at this government.
The last couple of weeks have clearly seen increases in cases of Covid on the continent, hence the new quarantine rules, so it seems the government is clearly worried about the relaxations allowing a second spike to be more likely.
So moves are being made to try to get more compliance by the British public to the new SD rules,

There was scientific and medical advice from around the world saying face masks in public could help reduce the risk in March and April.

Scientific studies also found the following:

“A separate study conducted under laboratory conditions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, US, found that coughs can project liquid droplets up to 6m away and that sneezes reach up to 8m.”

The WHO initial advice was for 1 metre social distancing.

Therefore I would ask if you could show a link showing were anyone in Government advised masks were not deemed necessary by staying 2 metres apart.

I don’t agree with all Ethan’s points on why masks were not brought in earlier but there was evidence from around the world of Governments not wanting to bring in mandatory wearing of masks in public due to supply and demand and risking the supply to health professionals.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30134-X/fulltext

 

[Ethan]

There was scientific and medical advice from around the world saying face masks in public could help reduce the risk in March and April.

Scientific studies also found the following:

“A separate study conducted under laboratory conditions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, US, found that coughs can project liquid droplets up to 6m away and that sneezes reach up to 8m.”

The WHO initial advice was for 1 metre social distancing.

Therefore I would ask if you could show a link showing were anyone in Government advised masks were not deemed necessary by staying 2 metres apart.

I don’t agree with all Ethan’s points on why masks were not brought in earlier but there was evidence from around the world of Governments not wanting to bring in mandatory wearing of masks in public due to supply and demand and risking the supply to health professionals.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30134-X/fulltext

Radical move to say you don't agree with me and then cite evidence. Much more rational than complaining I was just being all political but without countering any assertions or points.

I agree the small droplet issue was understood early in this process.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Radical move to say you don't agree with me and then cite evidence. Much more rational than complaining I was just being all political but without countering any assertions or points.

I agree the small droplet issue was understood early in this process.

I said and I quote, “I don’t agree with all Ethan’s points on why masks were not brought in earlier”

 

[Ethan]

I said and I quote, “I don’t agree with all Ethan’s points on why masks were not brought in earlier”

I saw that. I have no issue with that because you provide some rational argument. I liked your post.

 

[Jamesbrown]

There was scientific and medical advice from around the world saying face masks in public could help reduce the risk in March and April.

Scientific studies also found the following:

“A separate study conducted under laboratory conditions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, US, found that coughs can project liquid droplets up to 6m away and that sneezes reach up to 8m.”

The WHO initial advice was for 1 metre social distancing.

Therefore I would ask if you could show a link showing were anyone in Government advised masks were not deemed necessary by staying 2 metres apart.

I don’t agree with all Ethan’s points on why masks were not brought in earlier but there was evidence from around the world of Governments not wanting to bring in mandatory wearing of masks in public due to supply and demand and risking the supply to health professionals.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30134-X/fulltext

I thought they weren’t bought in because the evidence was weak and nobody wears and uses a mask properly, touching, adjusting then contaminating stuff.

Then the advice changed because some unscrupulous chaps was lobbying for them. One being sadiq Khan.
There was an article I read on the BBC that stated the WHO was lobbied to change its advice but it was removed.