rammieib Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/12/cdc-study-finds-overwhelming-majority-of-people-getting-coronavirus-wore-masks/ Genuinely expect more of these type of studies to come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuffLuff Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 23 minutes ago, rammieib said: We’re still approaching this virus with a ‘forget the economy’ and ‘forget other medical issues’ mentality. To those advocating a complete lockdown, how many lives through other causes are you prepared to sacrifice to slow/lessen the impact of Covid? To be honest I’m not sure that’s really the case, I think we are now strong armed into a protect the economy at all costs approach because of how we acted in the first wave. We panicked into a complete shutdown and generous financial schemes which in hindsight didn’t need to go as far as they did. We also left the idea of shielding to the public which left many with minor issues unsure what they could/couldn’t do which also didn’t help. The knock on effect of that is the science probably is telling them that this circuit breaker lockdown at the end of September would have got us through into the new year, but we can’t do it because we left nothing in the pot. So I don’t think the economics can even allow us into a lockdown unless absolutely necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, maxjam said: Interesting to read the tweets in reply the Andrew Neil tweet posted below. Its like the twitter version of @Albert and my conversation ? Not really sure what point they think they're trying to make. As discussed, Sweden have a different strategy, but also have more restrictions than people give them credit for. They're not using lockdowns, but they do have a lot of other restrictions in place, moreso than the UK in many respects. Will be interesting to see how things develop, but it's certainly not as uncontrolled as in the UK. Also, interesting to see you dodging the points from before, seems you really have tacitly accepted my point on that. As to herd immunity, it only works when you get a large enough number of people having caught the disease, and the immunity lasts long enough that you get that critical mass of people who are immune. There are still too many unknown to guarantee that it could even by done by the 'let it burn' method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyp Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, rammieib said: https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/12/cdc-study-finds-overwhelming-majority-of-people-getting-coronavirus-wore-masks/ Genuinely expect more of these type of studies to come out. Are you just repeating what we already know, masks don’t stop you from catching Covid. Or are you trying to make a different point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, 1of4 said: What you said about not being able to stop the spread into a secure system just compound what I was trying to show about how hard it will be to shield the vulnerable. The bit about the guards sorry officers, that was naughty of me, sorry if you found it distasteful, for that I apologise. Do you not see how the points you are making are points to also use against a lockdown? Shielding the vulnerable means people that are high risk are provided with government support and PPE. Almost all of these people are in care homes or live alone on their own. Almost all are retired. I have several family members who are classified as high risk. I've seen them throughout this ordeal. We aren't going to let them simply die on their own in isolation. We take precautions, but we also take our own risks. That's the point. One had to go to the hospital last week because they hurt themselves, while at home on their own. We aren't about to take them out to bingo everyday or down to the pub. But shielding doesn't mean no contact. It means take precautions. Some people on this forum have genuinely lost the plot. Eddie for example says he has left his hours for no more than 6 hours since lockdown. That's insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, rammieib said: https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/12/cdc-study-finds-overwhelming-majority-of-people-getting-coronavirus-wore-masks/ Genuinely expect more of these type of studies to come out. ...from right wing groups who happily misrepresent academic literature? It's not surprising they'd misrepresent the study they link that way though. What it noted was that people were still getting it despite wearing masks, not that masks make it more or less likely. It's been demonstrated already that masks do indeed decrease risk of infection, but they're not a magical barrier. The CDC article also concludes that bars, restaurants, etc are a big risk factor, noting they are places where people tend to remove their masks etc, and the study has no way of determining the exact moment of infection. Consider the actual conclusion of the article: Quote This investigation highlights differences in community and close contact exposures between adults who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and those who received a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result. Continued assessment of various types of activities and exposures as communities, schools, and workplaces reopen is important. Exposures and activities where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, including going to locations that offer on-site eating and drinking, might be important risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Implementing safe practices to reduce exposures to SARS-CoV-2 during on-site eating and drinking should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities and slow the spread of COVID-19. They also have the video of Dr Redfield, but his point is valid. Vaccines won't be a magic bullet for individuals either, as they don't work for everyone, even the best ones. Given we don't know how effective the vaccines will be yet, if they even arrive, the point is a valid one. I prepare for the right wingers to go for 'people with the vaccine got sick' as their next go to line if the vaccine does come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 13 minutes ago, rammieib said: https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/12/cdc-study-finds-overwhelming-majority-of-people-getting-coronavirus-wore-masks/ Genuinely expect more of these type of studies to come out. CDC have tried to be careful with what they publish for a while. For example it is accurate that you can get reinfected. But the chances are so small, that it is not worth giving the media and lunatics the ammo. Same thing with masks. The chances of getting it from breathing the same air as another are so low. Yet they say this and the media and lunatics rum with it is transmitted by breathe. If masks are effective then why isn't seasonal flu down substantially.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 35 minutes ago, rammieib said: We’re still approaching this virus with a ‘forget the economy’ and ‘forget other medical issues’ mentality. To those advocating a complete lockdown, how many lives through other causes are you prepared to sacrifice to slow/lessen the impact of Covid? As noted, a proper lockdown that achieves control is the best for the economy and allowing a full return of elective and preventative medicine. It's not 'lockdowns or the economy' at all, the countries where the economy is recovering, and medical issues are being handled, are the ones that got their lockdowns right the first time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, Uptherams said: CDC have tried to be careful with what they publish for a while. For example it is accurate that you can get reinfected. But the chances are so small, that it is not worth giving the media and lunatics the ammo. Same thing with masks. The chances of getting it from breathing the same air as another are so low. Yet they say this and the media and lunatics rum with it is transmitted by breathe. If masks are effective then why isn't seasonal flu down substantially.. The seasonable flu is down substantially in many countries, including the UK, where it has been below baseline this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 And flu deaths are down because of masks? Because combined Covid and flu deaths aren't significant as shown above. Takes us to levels experienced between 1994 and 2000. So which is it? Masks are affective. Or the two viruses have almost identical crossover and kill the same group of people. Covid seems very comparable to the flu on this chart, that compares flu and Covid, don't you think? Edit: Why should a Covid vaccination perform any differently to the flu vaccination? In this case, just a 50% reduction in death once widespread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, Uptherams said: Combining 'flu and pneumonia' is a bit misleading, given that the vast majority are pneumonia. 4 minutes ago, Uptherams said: And flu deaths are down because of masks? Because combined Covid and flu deaths aren't significant as shown above. Takes us to levels experienced between 1994 and 2000. What that is saying is that combining all of them would make it the worst year for deaths due to respiratory diseases. That's not taking into account the fact that the figure on Covid deaths is seen internationally as an underestimate. That's a different discussion though. 4 minutes ago, Uptherams said: So which is it? Masks are affective. Or the two viruses have almost identical crossover and kill the same group of people. The cross over isn't identical, and as you've already shown, the numbers are bad already, and we're only just seeing the start of the second wave. 4 minutes ago, Uptherams said: Covid seems very comparable to the flu on this chart, that compares flu and Covid, don't you think? You're not comparing flu and Covid, as pneumonia is bundled in, and represents the majority of the deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 27 minutes ago, Albert said: As noted, a proper lockdown that achieves control is the best for the economy and allowing a full return of elective and preventative medicine. It's not 'lockdowns or the economy' at all, the countries where the economy is recovering, and medical issues are being handled, are the ones that got their lockdowns right the first time around. We had a ''proper'' lockdown. Unless you want the army patrolling the streets I don't see how we can do a stricter one than we did in March? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 It's worth noting this line from the source of Uptherams' data: Quote Since 1959, which is when ONS monthly death records began, the number of deaths due to influenza and pneumonia in the first eight months of every year have been lower than the number of COVID-19 deaths seen, so far, in 2020. [Source] The source also discussing the fact that pneumonia makes up virtually all the deaths in the 'flu and pneumonia' figures for this year. The flu has killed 394, while pneumonia has killed 13,619. It's like saying 'the UK and Slovenia have a population of around 70 million combined'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 13 minutes ago, Albert said: It's worth noting this line from the source of Uptherams' data: The source also discussing the fact that pneumonia makes up virtually all the deaths in the 'flu and pneumonia' figures for this year. The flu has killed 394, while pneumonia has killed 13,619. It's like saying 'the UK and Slovenia have a population of around 70 million combined'. Nice find @Uptherams! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 13 minutes ago, Andicis said: We had a ''proper'' lockdown. Unless you want the army patrolling the streets I don't see how we can do a stricter one than we did in March? A proper lockdown, and exit from lockdown, would have gotten the cases down towards zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Albert said: A proper lockdown, and exit from lockdown, would have gotten the cases down towards zero. We had a proper exit...straight to the pub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Albert said: A proper lockdown, and exit from lockdown, would have gotten the cases down towards zero. Tell me exactly how the UK lockdown wasn't proper though? Everything was shut and we were only allowed to the supermarket or to exercise. And we opened up much slower than the rest of Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyp Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 40 minutes ago, Uptherams said: Do you not see how the points you are making are points to also use against a lockdown? Shielding the vulnerable means people that are high risk are provided with government support and PPE. Almost all of these people are in care homes or live alone on their own. Almost all are retired. I have several family members who are classified as high risk. I've seen them throughout this ordeal. We aren't going to let them simply die on their own in isolation. We take precautions, but we also take our own risks. That's the point. One had to go to the hospital last week because they hurt themselves, while at home on their own. We aren't about to take them out to bingo everyday or down to the pub. But shielding doesn't mean no contact. It means take precautions. Some people on this forum have genuinely lost the plot. Eddie for example says he has left his hours for no more than 6 hours since lockdown. That's insane. When you say almost all, with regards to living in care homes or alone, and being retired, what percentage of all clinically extremely vulnerable are you implying? You say shielding doesn’t mean no contact, it means precautions. Did you decide that is what shielding means?Or have you perhaps read that somewhere (source)? Do we need not be concerned about the clinically vulnerable, moderately vulnerable or any other vulnerable persons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just now, Andicis said: Tell me exactly how the UK lockdown wasn't proper though? Everything was shut and we were only allowed to the supermarket or to exercise. And we opened up much slower than the rest of Europe. It ended too early, and the systems for long term control were not adequately set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just now, Albert said: It ended too early, and the systems for long term control were not adequately set up. Scotland continued for longer than England and has zero benefits from doing so. They should have sorted track and trace, I agree. We locked down for plenty long enough though. We got cases as low as we were ever going to get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.