Covid-19 the unlockdown

Covid-19 discussion, bring your own statistics
User avatar
shpalman
After Pie
Posts: 1753
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by shpalman » Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:07 pm

Famous a..eh.le Van Morrison reckons teh covids is all made up so expect to see him in hospital with it in 3... 2... 1...
molto tricky

User avatar
nekomatic
Fuzzable
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:04 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by nekomatic » Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:33 pm

Mask wearing in shops isn’t compulsory in Wales.

User avatar
shpalman
After Pie
Posts: 1753
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by shpalman » Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:17 am

I've seen various figures on social media, indicating that there have been about 60 cases traceable to the 70-year-old blue-glasses-wearer.

Here's a testimonial from a 20-year-old girl who caught covid on a night out and brought it home to infect her family and her dad is now in intensive care.

We had decided not to go out to discos and indoor bars all summer but that Saturday was my best friend's birthday, how could we have avoided celebrating until late? Anyway you can't catch covid in just one evening.

When I started to get cold symptoms and a cough I just assumed it was because of the air conditioning.*

The doctor said it was the wrong kind of cough and I didn't have a fever so it wasn't covid.**

So it wasn't until someone else who was at the same disco tested positive that they tested everyone who was at that disco, and found that she had it and so did almost all her family.

* - Italians have this weird superstition about air conditioning but it's not as bad as the "fan death" thing.

** - If you've managed to catch something viral and respiratory from another person then something is teh fail even if it's not covid (but it could have been).
molto tricky

User avatar
bjn
Catbabel
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by bjn » Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:00 pm

nekomatic wrote:
Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:33 pm
Mask wearing in shops isn’t compulsory in Wales.
which is stupid.

Went into Tesco’s yesterday, only about 30% not wearing masks, previous sample was Lidl.

User avatar
Brightonian
Fuzzable
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by Brightonian » Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:41 pm

I'm in Paris at the moment and mask wearing is pretty high. In shops it's pretty well 100%, so that yesterday when a man came into the supermarket without a mask my gut reaction was it looked so wrong, as if he'd come in only his underpants. Out in the street it's maybe 50% at the moment (excluding restaurant diners), but from 8 am tomorrow masks will be compulsory everywhere in Paris.

Talking about restaurants, many are effectively al fresco, as they're being allowed to set up their dining areas in car parking spaces. These al fresco restaurants make for a very pleasant atmosphere.

User avatar
Martin Y
Dorkwood
Posts: 1243
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by Martin Y » Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:12 pm

shpalman wrote:
Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:17 am
"... Anyway you can't catch covid in just one evening".
Well of course not. It's not as if simply exposing herself to infection was going to give her a disease. That would be absurd. You have to do it lots of times as recklessly as possible so you deserve to catch it. Covid-19 has to be earned. Well-known fact.

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by jdc » Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:54 pm

bjn wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:00 pm
nekomatic wrote:
Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:33 pm
Mask wearing in shops isn’t compulsory in Wales.
which is stupid.

Went into Tesco’s yesterday, only about 30% not wearing masks, previous sample was Lidl.
6/25 in Asda. Well, 7/26 if we're counting me.

Millennie Al
Fuzzable
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by Millennie Al » Sat Aug 29, 2020 1:40 am

bjn wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:00 pm
nekomatic wrote:
Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:33 pm
Mask wearing in shops isn’t compulsory in Wales.
which is stupid.
Why?
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
bjn
Catbabel
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by bjn » Sat Aug 29, 2020 4:13 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 1:40 am
bjn wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:00 pm
nekomatic wrote:
Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:33 pm
Mask wearing in shops isn’t compulsory in Wales.
which is stupid.
Why?
When people say “water is wet” do you ask them for citations? Up your game troll boy.

Millennie Al
Fuzzable
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by Millennie Al » Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:09 am

bjn wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 4:13 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 1:40 am
bjn wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:00 pm


which is stupid.
Why?
When people say “water is wet” do you ask them for citations? Up your game troll boy.
I would certainly expect them to be able to explain why.

Even if mask wearing is effective (and it's not clear that it makes much of a difference), that does not mean that it should be made compulsory. If you think it's so obvious that you call something stupid, I expect you to be able to justify your position. I expect that even when the issue is very obvious - such as the effectiveness of homeopathy - let alone one where the UK Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jenny Harries said the evidence is not strong either way.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

bob sterman
Clardic Fug
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by bob sterman » Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:33 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:09 am
Even if mask wearing is effective (and it's not clear that it makes much of a difference), that does not mean that it should be made compulsory. If you think it's so obvious that you call something stupid, I expect you to be able to justify your position. I expect that even when the issue is very obvious - such as the effectiveness of homeopathy - let alone one where the UK Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jenny Harries said the evidence is not strong either way.
Trouble is it's hard to take anything Jenny Harries says seriously - after early in the pandemic she said that WHO recommendations on testing didn't really apply to countries like the UK with its "extremely well-developed public health system". Apparently, the "World" part of the title didn't refer to us - so we didn't need to "test, test, test" like other countries. And our "extremely well-developed public health system" then opted not to test old folk before shipping them out of hospitals and into care homes.

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by jdc » Mon Aug 31, 2020 2:57 pm

The WHO weren't recommending masks initially were they? Didn't they say "don't bother" back in Spring then change their minds some months later?

As for whether water is wet...
To answer this question, we need to define the term "wet." If we define "wet" as the condition of a liquid sticking to a solid surface, such as water wetting our skin, then we cannot say that water is wet by itself, because it takes a liquid AND a solid to define the term "wet."

If we define "wet" as a sensation that we get when a liquid comes in contact with us, then yes, water is wet to us.

If we define "wet" as "made of liquid or moisture", then water is definitely wet because it is made of liquid, and in this sense, all liquids are wet because they are all made of liquids. I think that this is a case of a word being useful only in appropriate contexts.
hth

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by jdc » Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:03 pm

There's this from March: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han ... sAllowed=y

Doesn't include masks in its recommendations for people without symptoms. Says people with symptoms should wear a medical mask though.
A medical mask is not required for people who are not sick
as there is no evidence of its usefulness in protecting them.
However, masks might be worn in some countries, in
accordance with local cultural habits.

User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by Gfamily » Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:37 pm

jdc wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:03 pm
There's this from March: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han ... sAllowed=y

Doesn't include masks in its recommendations for people without symptoms. Says people with symptoms should wear a medical mask though.
A medical mask is not required for people who are not sick
as there is no evidence of its usefulness in protecting them.
However, masks might be worn in some countries, in
accordance with local cultural habits.
That's the advice for people to protect themselves from getting infected; for those who are infected, the advice is that they should wear a mask.

The current advice seems to be taking more account of transmission from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic Covid carriers, so I would interpret the then WHO advice as supporting the wearing of masks to reduce transmission from those who aren't aware of the chance of them being spreaders.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Sciolus
Fuzzable
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by Sciolus » Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:51 pm

This seems the most relevant paragraph:
Wearing medical masks when not indicated may result in unnecessary costs and procurement burdens and create a false sense of security that can lead to the neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices. Further, using a mask incorrectly may hamper its effectiveness in reducing the risk of transmission.
The false sense of security issue is still pertinent, but procurement, which was a major concern in March/April, is no longer a concern. The last sentence seems frankly daft, since I fail to see how a badly-used mask is worse than no mask (false sense of security aside).

User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by Gfamily » Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:55 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:51 pm
This seems the most relevant paragraph:
Wearing medical masks when not indicated may result in unnecessary costs and procurement burdens and create a false sense of security that can lead to the neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices. Further, using a mask incorrectly may hamper its effectiveness in reducing the risk of transmission.
The false sense of security issue is still pertinent, but procurement, which was a major concern in March/April, is no longer a concern. The last sentence seems frankly daft, since I fail to see how a badly-used mask is worse than no mask (false sense of security aside).
The risk then was believed to be 'people fiddling with the masks and thus putting their hands near their mouth and nose and infecting themselves that way'.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Sciolus
Fuzzable
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by Sciolus » Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:02 pm

Ah right. Clearly that's from the "masks protect you from others" school of thought, rather than the currently preferred "masks protect others from you when you're asymptomatic" school of thought. Complicated, innit?

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by jdc » Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:20 pm

Gfamily wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:37 pm
jdc wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:03 pm
There's this from March: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han ... sAllowed=y

Doesn't include masks in its recommendations for people without symptoms. Says people with symptoms should wear a medical mask though.
A medical mask is not required for people who are not sick
as there is no evidence of its usefulness in protecting them.
However, masks might be worn in some countries, in
accordance with local cultural habits.
That's the advice for people to protect themselves from getting infected; for those who are infected, the advice is that they should wear a mask.

The current advice seems to be taking more account of transmission from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic Covid carriers, so I would interpret the then WHO advice as supporting the wearing of masks to reduce transmission from those who aren't aware of the chance of them being spreaders.
Re your first point - yeah, that's what I said in my post.

The March WHO guidance recommended masks for people with symptoms and it didn't recommend masks for people without symptoms, so I'm not sure how it supports the wearing of masks for people without symptoms. The advice issued later didn't clarify previous advice, it superseded it.

User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by Gfamily » Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:31 pm

jdc wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:20 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:37 pm
jdc wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:03 pm
There's this from March: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han ... sAllowed=y

Doesn't include masks in its recommendations for people without symptoms. Says people with symptoms should wear a medical mask though.

That's the advice for people to protect themselves from getting infected; for those who are infected, the advice is that they should wear a mask.

The current advice seems to be taking more account of transmission from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic Covid carriers, so I would interpret the then WHO advice as supporting the wearing of masks to reduce transmission from those who aren't aware of the chance of them being spreaders.
Re your first point - yeah, that's what I said in my post.

The March WHO guidance recommended masks for people with symptoms and it didn't recommend masks for people without symptoms, so I'm not sure how it supports the wearing of masks for people without symptoms. The advice issued later didn't clarify previous advice, it superseded it.
The WHO advice did not seem to consider asymptomatic spreaders, but did recognise that symptomatic patients should wear masks as a means of reducing spread.

However, now we know that there are asymptomatic spreaders, the advice that 'masks reduce spread' implicitly applies to everyone.

The advice was sound as a way of reducing spread by the mask wearers, it just didn't know it at the time.

ETA, interestingly, one difference between what I said and what you said is that I said about infected people, and you said about symptomatic people. There is a difference.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by jdc » Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:46 pm

I was using the WHO's terminology there. They divided their advice into "with symptoms" and "without symptoms".

User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by Gfamily » Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:57 pm

jdc wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:46 pm
I was using the WHO's terminology there. They divided their advice into "with symptoms" and "without symptoms".
Yes, that was what they were concerned about then.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by jdc » Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:00 pm

Seeing as we're a dozen posts into this argument and nobody's actually posted any evidence, here's a little something to start us off: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 9/fulltext
...our findings continued to support the ideas not only that masks in general are associated with a large reduction in risk of infection from SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV but also that N95 or similar respirators might be associated with a larger degree of protection from viral infection than disposable medical masks or reusable multilayer (12–16-layer) cotton masks. Nevertheless, in view of the limitations of these data, we did not rate the certainty of effect as high.
(Once we've finished this section of the argument we can start on the strand that we've entirely ignored so far - "Even if mask wearing is effective (and it's not clear that it makes much of a difference), that does not mean that it should be made compulsory." Looking forward to that already.)

Millennie Al
Fuzzable
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by Millennie Al » Tue Sep 01, 2020 1:04 am

jdc wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:00 pm
Seeing as we're a dozen posts into this argument and nobody's actually posted any evidence, here's a little something to start us off: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 9/fulltext
...our findings continued to support the ideas not only that masks in general are associated with a large reduction in risk of infection from SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV but also that N95 or similar respirators might be associated with a larger degree of protection from viral infection than disposable medical masks or reusable multilayer (12–16-layer) cotton masks. Nevertheless, in view of the limitations of these data, we did not rate the certainty of effect as high.
Unfortunately, that considers the use of face masks as being either worn to prevent the wearer getting infected and worn to prevent the wearer infecting others. When mask wearing includes medics, I would assume there is a likelihood of bias in that the wearers are doing so in a professional setting and so are much more likely to use them correctly. Overall for correlational studies, there is a huge risk of being confounded by mask wearers do ing so because they are more worried and conscientious, so they are also more likely to do other things to help (including, possibly, things not recorded in studies). So we don't really know much yet.

However, to keep you amused while waiting for evidence, here's a multiple choice question:

On 15th March Boris Johnson suggested people should work from home becaues the number of cases of Covid-19 was about 1500. Currently, we are being urged to return to work, despite the number of cases being significantly higher and increasing. Why is this?
  1. We have a cure, so the number of people infected doesn't matter.
  2. We have a vaccine, so the number of people infected will inevitably drop
  3. The people most likely to die are Tory voters, but they would have died by the next election anyway
  4. The amount of testing is inadequate to show how many people are infected, so we're optimistcally assuming it's getting fewer
  5. We now all wear facemasks and wash our hands, which reduce the spread to the extent of keeping R < 1 and any evidence to the contrary, such as the increasing number of new cases, is mere reality which should be ignored.
  6. We are pursuing the herd immunity strategy, so it's necessary that a large proportion of the population catch the disease
  7. Boris had such a good time the last time around, he want's to repeat it
  8. The people who make the rules are ignorant and stupid, so the rules make no sense
Select all that are correct. Feel free to add your own reasons.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by jdc » Tue Sep 01, 2020 1:28 am

They do call for further research:
Further high-quality research, including randomised trials of the optimum physical distance and the effectiveness of different types of masks in the general population and for health-care workers' protection, is urgently needed. Two trials are registered to better inform the optimum use of face masks for COVID-19 (NCT04296643 [n=576] and NCT04337541 [n=6000]).
The second of those seems to have got underway but no results in yet: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04337541

They also say:
Until such data are available, our findings represent the current best estimates to inform face mask use to reduce infection from COVID-19.

User avatar
lpm
After Pie
Posts: 1617
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown

Post by lpm » Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:15 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 1:04 am
On 15th March Boris Johnson suggested people should work from home becaues the number of cases of Covid-19 was about 1500. Currently, we are being urged to return to work, despite the number of cases being significantly higher and increasing. Why is this?
There are no statistics for UK case numbers in March. The UK government failed to organise proper testing.

In March, about 30% of tests returned a positive, it's now 0.6%. There were about 20 tests per 100,000 population, now it's 250.

The actual March case figure was in the region of 50,000 to 100,000 per day, compared to the official 1,500. Currently the actual figure will be about 3,000 to 4,000 per day, compared to the official 1,100.

Ending working from home is obviously absurd, but we are currently in a very low patch for Covid cases. Rising steadily, but a pretty small rise from a very low base. In mid October we will know the impact of the return to schools, plus the mass internal migration that is the return to universities.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

Post Reply