Face masks

[billw]

It's false to say the virus doesn't touch children, it does. The symptoms tend to be milder though.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

It's false to say the virus doesn't touch children, it does. The symptoms tend to be milder though.

So what is the process? There is built in immunity, or not? I agree that children are exposed to the virus, and the virus must enter their bodies. Therefore, children have a mechanism to defeat the virus without getting noticeably ill. How many adults also have this mechanism? Anyone?

 

[Rorschach]

It's false to say the virus doesn't touch children, it does. The symptoms tend to be milder though.

So what is the process? There is built in immunity, or not? I agree that children are exposed to the virus, and the virus must enter their bodies. Therefore, children have a mechanism to defeat the virus without getting noticeably ill. How many adults also have this mechanism? Anyone?

We don't know, if you don't have symptoms or have mild symptoms you are unlikely to get tested. If you have a very mild case then it's quite likely you won't form a (testable) immune response either.

 

[Chris152]

It's false to say the virus doesn't touch children, it does. The symptoms tend to be milder though.

So what is the process? There is built in immunity, or not? I agree that children are exposed to the virus, and the virus must enter their bodies. Therefore, children have a mechanism to defeat the virus without getting noticeably ill. How many adults also have this mechanism? Anyone?

Without searching for the proper response, i've read something along the lines of: as you get older you have more responses (past defences) to viral infections; Covid deaths result from over-response of the immune system to the virus; thus, youngsters don't have the 'resources' to over-respond. Something like that.

A point about the 'children' thing that's really getting my goat as I'm told my kids have to be sent back to school or face legal actions is that older kids are more vulnerable than younger ones, that many kids in school from puberty up to 18 are hardly children biologically and that the virus doesn't seem to respect our current definition of 'child'. The latest survey which showed infection rates in May showed the highest rate of infected people to be in the 18-25 category - I'm inclined to think my 17 year old is quite capable of contracting the disease and fetching it home for me. (Of course, at 17 he doesn't have to be in school, but the alternative is no education as schools and FE are planning full time, full capacity return in September - no social distancing etc., that's all very old-fashioned now.)

 

[Sheffield Tony]

And then your appeal to authority: only listen to the approved experts? Which ones? The ones that have already been confirmed to be completely wrong and incompetent (Neil Fergusson), or the ones that have already been caught out in the lie (masks don't work, until they do)? Show me which lie is the correct lie to believe, please.

First a point of order - I don't think it is fair to say Neil Fergusson was "completely wrong and incompetent". I know him personally from University days, and although I wouldn't say he was a friend, I'll defend him here. He was instrumental in changing the government's trajectory by showing that relying on herd immunity would not go well, and might lead to 250K deaths. As it is, our delay to implement the lockdown resulted in us having one of the worst death tolls, 45K officially and probably 60K judging by excess deaths. To me it seems quite likely he was very close to the mark. He actually lost his job because of breaking lockdown rules and being spotted sha**ing another man's wife. Remember he is just a university scientist, not a politician used to being watched by the press. No real politician would behave like that and expect to get away with it surely ? :roll:

Second, the masks "lie" has been covered at least twice already. There was a need to protect supplies for clinical and care use. It was only just a lie, as it is true to say they don't offer much in the way of protection to the wearer.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

And then your appeal to authority: only listen to the approved experts? Which ones? The ones that have already been confirmed to be completely wrong and incompetent (Neil Fergusson), or the ones that have already been caught out in the lie (masks don't work, until they do)? Show me which lie is the correct lie to believe, please.

First a point of order - I don't think it is fair to say Neil Fergusson was "completely wrong and incompetent". I know him personally from University days, and although I wouldn't say he was a friend, I'll defend him here. He was instrumental in changing the government's trajectory by showing that relying on herd immunity would not go well, and might lead to 250K deaths. As it is, our delay to implement the lockdown resulted in us having one of the worst death tolls, 45K officially and probably 60K judging by excess deaths. To me it seems quite likely he was very close to the mark. He actually lost his job because of breaking lockdown rules and being spotted sha**ing another man's wife. Remember he is just a university scientist, not a politician used to being watched by the press. No real politician would behave like that and expect to get away with it surely ? :roll:

I have a little bit of experience with the man through his foot and mouth scorched earth policies, but my main criticism of his work, as opposed to his ability to play hide-the-sausage, is that when finally released, his modelling software was shown to be a joke: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/06/ ... ons-model/

Second, the masks "lie" has been covered at least twice already. There was a need to protect supplies for clinical and care use. It was only just a lie, as it is true to say they don't offer much in the way of protection to the wearer.

Ok, so they were lying then, but telling the truth now? I have been amusing myself with this little offering over coffee this afternoon: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/lockdo ... vid-deaths

The premise is that, by withdrawing care and emptying the hospitals, the spike in mortality is directly attributable to lockdown policy, not any coronavirus:

I don't know if this is correct, but there is a very lucid argument to suggest that most of the deaths are due to the removal of care from the vulnerable, not from a virus. Brutal if true. It should, at the very least, be considered as a hypothesis, if only to be discarded after testing (like old-fashioned science, in other words).

Question everything.

 

[Rorschach]

You can't show that graph, it's not allowed! That's one of the ones that shows how infections were already declining before lockdown started! :lol:

Looking forward to hearing more from Prof Heneghan, the CEBM have been coming out with some very interesting data. Before anyone says this is quackery take note that the government issued their statement on death reporting today because of this research from the CEBM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxLDJJb1_KI&t=0s

 

[lurker]

It's false to say the virus doesn't touch children, it does. The symptoms tend to be milder though.

So what is the process? There is built in immunity, or not? I agree that children are exposed to the virus, and the virus must enter their bodies. Therefore, children have a mechanism to defeat the virus without getting noticeably ill. How many adults also have this mechanism? Anyone?

T cells are a main defence to disease. The body production starts to drop off when you reach 40.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

My reason for being hung up on "natural immunity" for want of a better description, is because of herd immunity. We know that 60% to 80% of the population need to get it for herd immunity to apply, but this doesn't mean 60% - 80% of the entire population - it only means those who are actually susceptible to the virus. This is a smaller number than the entire population, but how small? At what point do infection rates drop simply because there are no longer any available, infectable bodies around? I have seen numbers suggesting 17% to 20% of the total population, which is why Sweden, New York, UK etc have reducing death rates. Nothing to do with lockdown. Allegedly.

Investigations continue.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

Well, you have to decide what you trust. A professor at a respected university, or someone who writes on an oddball "skeptics" website who doesn't have the courage to reveal their identity.

 

[Rorschach]

Well, you have to decide what you trust. A professor at a respected university, or someone who writes on an oddball "skeptics" website who doesn't have the courage to reveal their identity.

Also ask yourself who has the most to lose? Getting the prediction wrong in one way would be career/life ending, getting it wrong the other way would be celebrated.

 

[woodhutt]

Question everything.

Why?

 

[Trainee neophyte]

In other news, apparently Greece has decided that face masks are mandatory in supermarkets. It would seem that no other shops, restaurants etc are included: just supermarkets. Makes perfect sense.

 

[woodhutt]

Certainly puzzling. Have read the recent UK mask regulations; shoppers but not shop staff, not required in taxis, not required by office workers (presumably they can socially distance at work), not required if you have a breathing problem.
All very strange and very loose.

 

[Suffolkboy]

Don't they kind of have to be to make them workable.

Not required by staff... Then the shop isn't bound by law to provide them and staff don't have to wear them all the time. Otherwise a shop might have to close because they can't get stock of facemasks for their employees I guess.

People with breathing trouble... You can't think it reasonable to force someone with extreme asthma or COPD etc to restrict their breathing even further can you?

Offices have other measures in place.

Got nothing for you on Taxis mind you.

The other thing is that it doesn't have to be law for people to wear a face mask so if an employer chooses to they can still ask their staff to wear a face covering.

 

[Rorschach]

The taxi one doesn't make sense but all the others make sense in their implementation (leaving aside the actual usefulness of the mask)

 

[Phil Pascoe]

...
it doesn't have to be law for people to wear a face mask so if an employer chooses to they can still ask their staff to wear a face covering ...

and if it's not a law they can refuse.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Well, you have to decide what you trust. A professor at a respected university, or someone who writes on an oddball "skeptics" website who doesn't have the courage to reveal their identity.

Trust the very people who freely admit to lying whenever they deem it expedient?

Trust the "experts"?

Does the term "Stockholm syndrome" mean anything to you? ;-)

Re your "anonymous blogger", UKColumn:

About The UK Column
The UK Column story began with local residents in Devonport, the historic Royal Navy dockyard area of the city of Plymouth in South West England.

Fighting against corruption within Plymouth City Council, and motivated by the increasing interference in their community by government backed ’Quangos’, as well as the political charity Common Purpose, local people were unable to get their concerns published by the local press.

Research suggested a collaboration between Plymouth City Council, South West of England Regional Development Agency, the Government Office of the South West, Common Purpose and local newspapers. The simple objective appeared to be to hide the truth.

In response a small Devonport group decided to print the truth themselves...

Sounds like the last bastion of honest journalism to me, but maybe I should stick with The Guardian, just to safe.

 

[Droogs]

Once again this all highlights how differently this is all being handled around the UK. In Scotland, EVERYONE INSIDE a shop is required to wear a mask. Taxi drivers are not permitted to carry a passenger unless they and the passenger/s are indeed wearing masks and all taxi and PHV/PCO companies must provide a disposable mask to any passenger who does not have one. If a passenger refuses to wear the mask they (the taxi driver) are not permitted to accept the fare and must refuse entry to the vehicle

 

[woodhutt]

People with breathing trouble... You can't think it reasonable to force someone with extreme asthma or COPD etc to restrict their breathing even further can you?

Offices have other measures in place.

Got nothing for you on Taxis mind you.

The other thing is that it doesn't have to be law for people to wear a face mask so if an employer chooses to they can still ask their staff to wear a face covering.

As someone with COPD myself, of course I don't expect someone with the same condition to suffer further breathing restriction. What I would expect is that they limit their exposure and not simply think "Oh well. I'm excused." and wander around in public.
The evidence seems to be that, taken in conjunction with other measures, mask wearing does help to limit the spread. However, it is a complete waste of time if only a percentage of the public adopt these measures.
As there are and always will be a lot of, let's call them 'independently' minded individuals, unless you mandate and enforce these measures then it is a waste of time.