One-*** efficacy questions

[Selwyn]

I agree, there have been lockdown mistakes, the police misinterpreting the rules, poor or wrong choice of intervention and perhaps the blunt instrument of national lockdown where some regions had almost no Covid.

but there are some who have a view that lockdowns are against their libertarian view and will use any misleading argument to fit that.

Or rather comparison of epidemic curves in places with strict lockdowns and those with less stringent measures shows no significant differences in COVID-19 indicators.

 

[Selwyn]

Selwyn, you are arguing from a parallel universe. Current NHS training (I know - my daughter just completed it 3 months ago and I helped her revise the materials) is that masks are worn by healthcare works to catch some of the water droplets they exhale as those may contain viral particles. A basic surgical mask captures some of the microscopic particles but to capture all, you need a better filter. This is identical to the concept of dust filtration in woodwork. Even basic hoovers capture some of the smallest dust particles.

I don't see anyone scared by this. I just see you saying things that virtually everyone in the scientific community disagrees with.

The most important argument against the compulsory use of masks is simply the lack of evidence that anyone without symptoms walking around the community will be a contagious person. It is very unlikely that an asymptomatic person is infectious. This argument becomes even stronger when we take the potential adverse effects of masks into consideration. These include symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, shortness of breath and other problems including psychological impact, acne, respiratory infections and dental problems.

You have been scared to death and it is not healthy. The scientific community does not all agree with you

 

[brocher]

The most important argument against the compulsory use of masks is simply the lack of evidence that anyone without symptoms walking around the community will be a contagious person. It is very unlikely that an asymptomatic person is infectious. This argument becomes even stronger when we take the potential adverse effects of masks into consideration. These include symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, shortness of breath and other problems including psychological impact, acne, respiratory infections and dental problems.

You have been scared to death and it is not healthy. The scientific community does not all agree with you

I think its about time that this thread was closed!

 

[Rorschach]

I think its about time that this thread was closed!

Why? What is it with people and wanting things shut down?

 

[RobinBHM]

I'm not anti vax. The vulnerable should take it.

You are more anti fact

 

[RobinBHM]

Or rather comparison of epidemic curves in places with strict lockdowns and those with less stringent measures shows no significant differences in COVID-19 indicators.

Untrue.

 

[RobinBHM]

It is very unlikely that an asymptomatic person is infectious

Only 59%.
I think you may need to reassess your words "very unlikely"

May I politely ask you why you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?
There are plenty of high quality scientific sources online....I am curious as to why you don't research your posts a bit better.



"59% of all transmission came from asymptomatic transmission, comprising 35% from presymptomatic individuals and 24% from individuals who never develop symptoms"
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707

 

[Selwyn]

Untrue.

True

 

[Spectric]

You will be discussing this till the cows come home because statistics can be interpreted in several ways to support an argument and data is only as good as the method and means used to obtain it and then the interpretation, plus you may have the issue of who do you trust. So no one is really right or wrong and in light of this your own self preservation should kick in, assume worst case until the facts prove otherwise and the best way to guarantee survival is to not catch it. We do know that the virus cannot fly or chase you down the road, it is not a predator and relies on people to give it a free ride to the next victim so it really depends on yourself, how much risk are you willing to accept knowing if old then it may kill or if young long term impairment it's your call. There is sufficient evidence to suggest the vacines do reduce this risk against current uk strains but there is concern over others and it also helps reduce the transmission so that has to be good but don't think this is all over, it only takes a few unseen embers to re-ignite a forrest fire.

 

[Jake]

May I politely ask you why you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?

Combination of arrogance, wishful thinking, lack of rigour in assessing arguments and evidence, and primarily listening to and believing gobshites.

 

[Jonm]

it only takes a few unseen embers to re-ignite a forrest fire.

It also needs the Forrest to be dry. The part of the forrest where I live is saturated with nearly 100% take up of the vaccine in the over fifties and now the under forties are being vaccinated. Other areas of the country are drier, particularly London.

Of course we have to be on the lookout for variants but we can hopefully soon get back to some form of normality.

 

[Rorschach]

It also needs the Forrest to be dry. The part of the forrest where I live is saturated with nearly 100% take up of the vaccine in the over fifties and now the under forties are being vaccinated. Other areas of the country are drier, particularly London.

Of course we have to be on the lookout for variants but we can hopefully soon get back to some form of normality.

Good analogy. Remember as well there were areas that despite 2 waves, lessened restrictions, and huge numbers of tourists, never really succumbed to Covid. Devon/Cornwall being an excellent example of this. Elderly population and a lot of fairly poor people but still Covid never got a proper foothold here and what little it did get soon vanished again and a lot of that was without vaccination.

 

[Peterm1000]

I think it is the circular arguments which get boring.

Agreed. But that's a reason to keep on moving past this thread if you feel that way rather than wanting it to be shut down. I think you can ignore individual threads - at the very least by not clicking on them!

 

[hairy]

Personally I find this thread interesting. As long as people do, and it is polite, I'm not sure why closing it is a good idea?

Ivor Cummins has some good presentations, one of his latest is just highlighting a MSM news item


Or this one which is long but for instance compares North and South Dakota, or Florida with California, and just how small the issue seemed to be in Israel even before they started vaccinating.

 

[selectortone]

Covid never got a proper foothold here and what little it did get soon vanished again and a lot of that was without vaccination.

...and of course lockdown had nothing to do with it.

 

[Rorschach]

...and of course lockdown had nothing to do with it.

Nope, cases peaked before lockdown was introduced. Lockdown probably accelerated the decline a bit but it wasn't the cause, we know that now (well I knew that before but you didn't believe me). Covered well in this video, no nutjobs here

 

[Selwyn]

...and of course lockdown had nothing to do with it.

And lockdown has increased other deaths and will continue too. All predicated on some very dodgy modelling...

The whole thing has been a total exaggeration. Yes it is a nasty virus but no it doesn't spread inexorably. The nosocomial infections in care homes and hospitals are a massive part of the picture yet ignored. Its utter madness

 

[RobinBHM]

Nope, cases peaked before lockdown was introduced

Wrong.
Look at the detail, the nuance.....especially the dates.

March 23rd lockdown....whilst the national lockdown started then, Johnson said on 16th all non essential travel must stop and pubs and restaurant shut before the 23rd
Also many care homes and hospitals closed to the public around 7 to 10 days before the 23rd

Once you factor in the detail, then you can see NPIs had a real effect on flattening the curve.

Also NPIs helped drive down the tail of the curve and it helped reduce long Covid numbers.


Lockdown 2......officially introduced on 31st Oct, but NPIs started much earlier from 14th of September.

Lockdown 3....officially started on 6th Jan, yet tier 4 restrictions started on 21st Dec (not much diff bet tier 4 and full lockdown)


As usual your arguments are built on lockdowns being a single binary event...they are not.

 

[RobinBHM]

And lockdown has increased other deaths and will continue too

Of course what you ignore is that having no lockdown measures wouldn't have prevented those deaths.

During January many hospitals in the South East and London had to take over operating theatres and children's wards for Covid patients. Hospital staff were struggling to cope.

Yet you think no lockdown magically would've meant hospitals to be fully open for non Covid treatments.

 

[Rorschach]

And he's off! lol

I'll call Professor Specter now, let him know some bloke on a forum said he's wrong, I'm sure he'll be glad to know