So that'd be something like a 100% increase in death rate over a single year? But perhaps it's realistic to say 30% extra deaths over 3 years for the sake of argument? And many of these people aren't so far away from the grave anyway... So maybe 25% increase in deaths for a few years?
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
So that'd be something like a 100% increase in death rate over a single year? But perhaps it's realistic to say 30% extra deaths over 3 years for the sake of argument? And many of these people aren't so far away from the grave anyway... So maybe 25% increase in deaths for a few years?
I wonder how people are supposed to keep their facemasks on and not touch them in pubs and clubs while I assume drinking, eating or kissing from time to time.
I believe there are a few reasons to be careful about encouraging the public's use of face masks, scarcity being the current motivation by the establishment.
Also, people using incorrectly.
Handling and cross-contamination is a real issue with PPE and the uninitiated.
Length of use.
Not in comfort terms, though that should not be discounted, but using a damp, warm breeding substrate for all manner of bugs and nasties, by not discarding sooner.
Creation of tonnes of bio hazard waste, we're not geared up to handle.
Counterfeit supplies putting people at risk.
False sense of security and the effect on distancing, and to surface contamination.
There are probably plenty more considerations. These are just some I've discussed at work.
Its the appetite for the 24/7 news cycle that's been built up over years that is driving this. In such cycles, generally we get some factual information, but lots of guesswork and self-opinions from so called 'specialist' journalists and news presenters, assistant editors, etc. keen to make a name for themselves. With this virus being a pandemic, its virtually the same news story all over the world, as well as in the UK.
I suspect what we now really need is only the factual information and only when proper 'fact-checked' figures are released.
The speculation driven by the need for 24/7 bulletins, about lockdown ending etc. is doing more harm than good.
That seems to be higher than Spain and Italy, i wonder why. Here there have been 54 under 40 out of 22,000, and only 10 had nothing else wrong with them.
Exactly. And @Verminator has also got a good list of the flaws in this approach.
Personally, I think they might have a role to play as an additional measure during lockdown but it would be asking for trouble to try and rely on them to go back to the way of living we enjoyed before the lockdown.
Higher % of BAME in the Uk?
I think it's an issue with the guidelines from WHO as well. They will be underpinned by scientists who will be giving the best scientifically backed advice they can as of the time. As the science and knowledge of the virus improves this advice will change.
In the 24 hour news cycle this has got translated as being incorrect information and being slow, but it is just the way science works using the information available at the time. WHO were never going to tell the world to stop in December / January based on snippets of information and with lab results being investigated but hindsight is now being used to say this was wrong.
The media is so black and white with their reporting but something like this will always be progressive advice as the knowledge of the virus builds over months and the years to come.
Could be. There's clearly a great disparity between different country's fatality rates. It will be interesting to see when this is over if it was purely down to prevalence of testing or if there were other factors.
No chance. You've not encountered my daughters
In the UK, people were found to be deliberately coughing on others, so it was made illegal [source]. Yes, it really did happen :/. I guess the main reason "knowingly being infected and going out" hasn't been made illegal is at the time, most, if not all the tests were carried out for people already in hospitals and NHS workers. Now that the test is expanding to other key workers and individuals (very slowly) perhaps the law will change in this regard to be more explicit.
The WHO actually recommend you do not remove the mask [source].
I can understand why some governments have made the decision to make masks compulsory. I am certainly not in any position to criticise that.
TL: DR: I do think they have to do that.
However, I just feel that sometimes a lot of nonsense is being said both (1) to the general public or (2) by members of the public.
Regarding (1), i.e. what is being said to the public, I worry a lot about these home made masks and "advice how to make them". I don't really buy into any of it to be honest. At least not yet. The reason for this is because as far as I understand it, none of them have been tested properly. Even if a test or standard existed however, how can you guarantee people can make them properly to those standards? It leads to a situation where the masks have variable effectiveness, or perhaps none whatsoever. People are rightly mad about a test for the virus being only 75% accurate, but don't seem to have any problems with there being little or no(?) knowledge about how effective wearing home made masks are?!
Regarding (2), i.e. what members of the general public are saying, earlier in the thread we had an individual say something along the lines of "3M masks are best". Another individual was going to wear a mask just going for a walk, with no one around. Both comments were nonsense really. Some other individuals thought you could just wash these disposable masks and re-use them, or I think the implication was to wash home made ones. Thankfully someone posted an article saying you really need a specific set of conditions to clean the masks and it did not appear you can replicate those conditions at home, at least not yet. The WHO also say you cannot reuse single use (disposable) masks [source].
On top of both (1) and (2), the science of how effective it is for the general public to be wearing masks to limit the spread of infection still isn't clear. I've seen two videos where some of the science was discussed. Both had flaws in basic terminology. I saw another article where the author(s) stated (t)he(y) would release simulation details on linkedin. Absolutely bizarre, something I've never come across before and sets the alarm bells ringing. Note that the WHO still doesn't advice the public to wear masks. One reason given was that there is a risk that "they can be contaminated by other people's coughs and sneezes, or when putting them on or removing them" [source].
Having said all of that, I'm not adverse to the general public wearing masks and I certainly don't envy the policy makers having to make difficult decisions. I can understand the need to err on the side of caution and understand the decisions made. But I just think we need far better communication to the general public and ideally we also need people to wear masks which have been approved.
Interestingly though, we are seeing very little said about gloves. How do we know that wearing masks is more effective than wearing gloves (assuming social distancing/ isolation etc)? We know surfaces can be contaminated for a significant period of time but no one seems bothered by being infected via touching surfaces anymore. It is just all about masks. The discussion just seems a little haphazard. Wearing some PPE but not all. It leads to situations where we have individuals walking into a supermarket with full PPE.
I guess I am quite frustrated by everything. I want us to be led by clear science, but at the same time, I realize this isn't always possible and you need to be conservative. As I said this is extremely frustrating. I also don't want us to live in a society where wearing PPE becomes the norm. I would much rather we come up with engineering solutions to reduce pollution or better education to stay at home when ill etc. I do worry a lot that these sort of policies to wear masks will become the norm but I guess this worry isn't really important right now.
I agree, I think this is a good idea. Better for the UK to now have two meetings a week.
Utter bollocks. If I had to self quarantine tomorrow, I'd easily survive a month without withering away and dying.
There are plenty of delivery options, not just the main supermarkets.
This isn't even worthy of discussion - it's such a ridiculous position for you to take. Let's spread the virus instead of keeping away from everyone - great idea.
Comes in with a wooden cross and soon to be in a wooden box
I wonder what policy governments are going to push on the vaccine. Will it be mandatory for everyone, and if so, what measures will be taken against the anti vaxxers?
Personally I think I would be all for forcing people who refuse to take the vaccine because they believe it will give them autism, turn gay, turn frogs gay or similar to stay inside your home for the unforseable future. I mean, if the consequense is that everyone has to stay as much as possible at home and social distancing for years, I'd rather lock up the nutters and let the rest of the sane world who believes in science live a normal life.
Personally I think I would be all for forcing people who refuse to take the vaccine because they believe it will give them autism, turn gay, turn frogs gay or similar to stay inside your home for the unforseable future. I mean, if the consequense is that everyone has to stay as much as possible at home and social distancing for years, I'd rather lock up the nutters and let the rest of the sane world who believes in science live a normal life.
Strange timing for this comment. Yesterday's was the best and most informative for a while.
I see no situation in which everyone is going to qualify for it anyway. I can only see it being given to those who need the flu jab for example, the elderly and physically vulnerable/unwell......I can't imagine this being rolled out and mandatory to the entire population, which should keep the anti-vaxxers happy I guess as most of them tend to be younger.
Seems many parts of the US and some Euro countries have gone mask crazy due to the announcements but here in Greater Manchester I rarely see them and perhaps have even reduced usage. Some of the Aldi workers who did before don't even bother now, can see it being quite uncomfortable for long periods, plastic gloves can get very sweaty too and the virus lives on them far longer. For people just nipping out for a short time to a shop I can see masks being worth it during a lockdown.
Out of curiosity, what information did they give us that we didn't already know? We know we're not going to see a sudden drop in cases or deaths and it's a marathon not a sprint. We know its too early for lockdown measures to be released/lessened. We know a vaccine isn't coming overnight. What exactly was the new information? For me, it was nothing but repeating the general information.
Actually, yeah, BAME demographics isn’t the issue here. This is about testing. Uk testing of mild/community cases has been practically non-existent from day one. So their mortality rates base on confirmed cases will be higher across the board.
I know there’s been a big severity bias in Italy too but they ramped their testing up and up, over the course of the epidemic so must be getting a lot of milder cases by now, right? Those milder cases will inflate the total case number, without adding to the death toll.
I think this depends on the government and the capability of the people in it. Some governments are more interested in not getting the blame than actually doing what is right... Those that are more interested in the economic effects should be all over this... Regardless, having a huge supply of facemasks should be one of the top priorities in all countries. For protecting the healthcare workers first and foremost, and then as a method to opening up the society in a responsible way...
I reckon some people in every government is aware of this possibility, but I'm not sure if these are the right people. Party politics is not a meritocracy... This method would be feasible in less populated countries with the industrial capabilities to ramp up production of these masks. Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Switzerland and Sweden (but they are herding).
Did throw that number out there without anything to back it up...
Table 6: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190272/
From a 5 min search(will come back to this when I have more time.). Only skimmed the paper, so will not vehemently back up my original %... But the difference between with and without mask should not be underestimated.
I did not include the average stupidity of people when guestimating that number. Pubs and clubs are not a must, so they should be closed for the foreseeable future, regardless of availability and usage of facemasks.
This. They are mainly testing those who are sick enough to be hospitalised, therefore you're going to see a much higher mortality rate because if you get hospitalised with this, you are in big trouble for the most part. The majority of people are still and have still had mild to no symptoms and haven't required hospital visits.
Maybe so, but I imagine that here in Norway they would start with the most vulnerable and critical personel, and then advise everyone else to line up and get it. More and more of the commoners take the flu shot these days is my impression.
That’s grim but the way that care homes feature so highly in death tolls around the world might put their findings in context. The average 70-80 year old in a care home has a hell of a lot lower life expectancy than 70-80 year olds overall.
Goes without saying, I only read the abstract, lazy turd that I am. They probably discussed this potential bias in their conclusions.
Herd immunity is a HIT % of total population. I think the idea that you could infect most young people and isolate older people to the end of achieving a degree of overall herd immunity is just wishful thinking.
Eventually yes, I'd imagine so. But for the 'needs must' situation straight off the bat, it'll be the vulnerable only.
I know what herd immunity is. This initiative wouldn’t be about trying to achieve it. Just make a start. But yeah, keeping the young vermin apart from the rest of society is probably an insurmountable challenge.
This is exactly one of the reasons the WHO give for not (yet?) recommending their use [PDF document][web link]:
Last edited:
If the mortality figures from France are accurate (0.53% of all cases are fatal), that means about 3 million people in the UK have caught the disease (which amounts to about 5% of the population). I think that's a reasonable guesstimate, given the number of people I personally know who've caught it.
If the doubling rate were to go up to every 3 weeks, it'd only take 4 months to get to 48 million infected. I really don't think that eventual herd immunity is out of the question (given that covid-19 will be with us for at least 18 months). You can't lockdown totally for the full duration, so the virus is going to continue to proliferate.
If the doubling rate were to go up to every 3 weeks, it'd only take 4 months to get to 48 million infected. I really don't think that eventual herd immunity is out of the question (given that covid-19 will be with us for at least 18 months). You can't lockdown totally for the full duration, so the virus is going to continue to proliferate.
I doubt that we are going to see mandatory vaccination for the entire population, that would be a monumental task in terms of logistics alone and as far as I know you "only" need 60-70% of the population to achieve herd immunity anyway. I reckon they are going to offer it to the people who are most at risk and perhaps make it mandatory for certain jobs, e.g. healthcare, they could probably also enforce it as mass events, demand organizers to also check for a vaccination card at the gates. As with other
It doesn't sound reasonable given the whole world has less than 3 million confirmed cases.
People who are asymptomatic are unlikely to ever get tested. People with mild symptoms will probably never goto hospital and get tested.
There's a lot of room for people who will get it and never be tested. Especially in the UK.
I have read quite a bit about masks in the past as i lived in Asia for a few years where they are common and far better understood. The West is just getting to grips with the idea. It's fairly well known over there that they don't do anything to prevent you catching anything, and may even make it more likely because they encourage you to touch your face, but they do help in preventing you spreading what you do have. This is why surgeons wear them.
In Italy it is law to wear them because the government wants to stop spread from people who don't show symptoms or know they have the virus. Still, when I'm walking miles away from anywhere, i just keep it on my chin in case the police drive past.
A little bit maybe, but taking the 10 day current average time from symptoms to death, we still have a ~10% fatality rate. At one point it was up closer to 20%. 3,500 people tested positive 10 days before we posted 919 deaths.
Tests are up to around 60,000 per day but there is still no widespread testing of asymptomatic patients available to my knowledge.
For sure, but do we think the UK have only caught 4.5 % of their cases?
Yeah or just do them when they have something new or important to say, then people will definitely tune into the ones that are on. Maybe minimum once a week if there hasn't been one.
0.53 of France's population is 355,000 dead people.
Herd immunity either requires 11-70 million dead, depending on what Ro and HIT ends up being, or a vaccine.
Okay? I'm well aware of this. I'm not sitting in my 'ivory chair' to suggest that friends could deliver food essentials whilst you quarantine for 1 week. Regardless of their living conditions (which was never brought into question from my initial gripe about the guy, you've brought it up) if you have tested positive, you stay home for the week.
Why are you bringing this up? I think you're completely missing the point of my initial post. Positive? Stay home. Feel OK? Of course you can go out for exercise, walks, food shops etc, but there's no need to do it in a full fecking hazmat suit and gasmask.
Again, my initial post was about a man going food shopping with his wife in full hazmat suit and gasmask. The guy wasn't out partying or anything, I don't know why you're going down this tangent.
I don't understand people who wear facemasks in their car while driving alone (and they're not delivery men or the like).
Doesn't it get annoying to wear it more than you need to?
Doesn't it get annoying to wear it more than you need to?