Coronavirus

[Bryn]

Certainly is The sad thing is that it just highlights the inadequacies of all politicians as I am certain that were the other lot in power then they'd also be making monumental cock-ups. It's the nature of politicians.

I'm always reminded about the science-fiction story that had a massive asteroid on a collision course that would destroy earth but that a habitable planet had been discovered and that there was enough time to build two huge arks to rescue humanity on a one-way trip. The first ark was filled with all the really important people like politicians, estate agents, snake-oil salesmen and sales women etc. and sent on its way. It arrived safely but the occupants on the new planet were sad that the second ark with all its occupants must have perished on their journey as they never arrived.

That does rather chime with the fate of Douglas Adams's Golgafrincham B Ark.

[Dave2002]

101 and a bit years ago

101.5 years ago:

https://theweek.com/articles/909181/parade-that-killed-thousands?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Spanish Flu (so-called for propaganda and spurious reasons).

Maybe how not to do it ...

[ardcarp]

There was quite a good programme on Channel 4 last night, where several genuine medical experts were present (either well-spaced or online). They tried to leave out politics. The general consensus was that there is little known with certainty about Covid 19, except that they hope it might be one of the 'simpler' viruses to overcome with vaccines. Towards the end, one theory was that the extreme reactions seen in some patients are caused by an over-aggressive immune system, i.e. their own 'defence' antibodies work on overdrive and destroy lung and other tissues. So they are, somewhat counter-intuitively, trialling some immuno-suppressant drugs among volunteers.

Comment: The programme (Can Science Beat the Virus?) is annoyingly interrupted by very long ad-breaks. For this reason I seldom watch Ch4 except for the excellent 7pm News.

[johnb]

Don't forget, were awl innit togevver like.
A spokesman for GPs, interviewed on 'Today' earlier this morning, was of the view that there's no need for members of the general public to wear a mask if they're fit and well and follow the government's instructions. (I imagine it would also make life even more difficult for sub-titlers!)

I didn't hear the interview but what you say begs a number of questions.

The purpose of people wearing face masks is not to protect themselves but to protect others around them and reduce the person to person transmission. It has been established that people shed the virus in the early stages of the disease when they are asymptomatic,, i.e. when they feel fit and well.

Wearing face masks would only be effective if the great majority of people did so, therefore it would make sense to make it compulsory especially in crowded environments such as trains, buses, shops, etc. There is little point in individuals wearing masks if the majority of other people don't.

The main argument against making the wearing of face masks compulsory in crowded places is the supply problem, i.e. that it would make it even more difficult to procure sufficient masks for health and care workers.

No doubt the government will eventually find the "scientific advice" has changed in a few weeks time - just as it has done with test and trace, lockdowns, etc, etc. (I suspect the test & trace was abandoned early on because there weren't sufficient testing and tracing resources at the time, rather than for scientific reasons.)

[Bryn]

. . . I didn't hear the interview but what you say begs a number of questions.

The purpose of people wearing face masks is not to protect themselves but to protect others around them and reduce the person to person transmission. It has been established that people shed the virus in the early stages of the disease when they are asymptomatic,,,i.e. when they feel fit and well.

Wearing face masks would only be effective if the great majority of people did so, therefore it would make sense to make it compulsory especially in crowded environments such as trains, buses, shops, etc. There is little point in individuals wearing masks if the majority of other people don't.

The main argument against making the wearing of face masks compulsory in crowded places is the supply problem, i.e. that it would make it even more difficult to procure sufficient masks for health and care workers.

That's but one of the main arguments. Others are that the wearing of masks in public increases the chances of face-touching, and may give a false sense of security, leading to lax hand-washing, etc. Instructions re home-made mass can be found at various places on the Internet, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sk-coronavirus for those who feel the need.

[johnb]

That's but one of the main arguments. Others are that the wearing of masks in public increases the chances of face-touching, and may give a false sense of security, leading to lax hand-washing, etc. Instructions re home-made mass can be found at various places on the Internet, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sk-coronavirus for those who feel the need.

Those arguments need to be weighed against the benefits. I suspect the UK approach is heavily influenced by the prevailing culture as much as anything else.

As far as making one's own face masks - that is of little benefit unless the great majority of other people are also wearing them. For that to happen it needs government leadership <cue for laughter and ribald comments>.

[Dave2002]

Those arguments need to be weighed against the benefits. I suspect the UK approach is heavily influenced by the prevailing culture as much as anything else.

As far as making one's own face masks - that is of little benefit unless the great majority of other people are also wearing them. For that to happen it needs government leadership <cue for laughter and ribald comments>.

But the “benefits” are themselves uncertain, and arguably low for most people. Or so I’ve heard.

[johnb]

But the “benefits” are themselves uncertain, and arguably low for most people. Or so I’ve heard.

Bear in mind that the reason for the general public wearing face masks is not for individuals to protect themselves but to reduce the risk of them infecting other people, especially as it has been mooted that 50% of transmission might be from asymptomatic people. This should help to lowering the rate of transmission.

There don't seem to be any definitive trials reported in the medical media but that is probably not unexpected given the difficulty of conducting such trials in a meaningful way, however the countries who have best contained the virus have gone down, or are going down, that route. T

he following two articles might be of interest. Both advocate seriously considering the use of face masks on the precautionary principal:

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30918-1/fulltext

[Dave2002]

.... however the countries who have best contained the virus have gone down, or are going down, that route.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...918-1/fulltext

But always beware of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Those countries may have tried ten or more methods all in parallel, so perhaps not possible (necessarily) to determine how effective each method is, or why. Actually even if they tried just a couple of methods, there would still be confusion.

The precautionary principle is OK sometimes, but surely only if there's a reasonably sound basis for a particular approach.

[johnb]

Did you read the two articles? Just wondering.

[oddoneout]

There is also the public perception angle to consider perhaps? The use of masks makes sense to many as it's a barrier(whether in or out hardly matters) and is something an individual can do to achieve a modicum of action and control in a scary situation. Scientific argument has always faced an uphill battle against what the public sees(courtesy of dubious sources more often than not) as sense or fact. The very obvious differences of opinion within the science community about Covid 19 don't help, even though they are understandable and inevitable.
The lockdown restrictions and social distancing, even if grumbled about, make sense to the majority I think, and the mask issue is in some respects seen as a logical add-on.

[Pulcinella]

Should we all be chanting “Give them PPE” at 8pm?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/23/uk-key-workers-ppe-ministers-clapping-protect-nhs

[johnb]

I've updated the chart in #1805 with today's figures for hospital deaths in England.

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?21399-Coronavirus&p=789811#post789811

[MrGongGong]

Should we all be chanting “Give them PPE” at 8pm?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-protect-nhs

Clapping and supporting the current government is about as logical as being a vegan butcher.
Furthermore it is a gross insult to those who are dying whilst trying to save peoples lives to see the likes of Raab and co applauding
don't forget their cheers when this happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_MfQ9FloE&frags=pl%2Cwn

we see you, you pile of $&^@

[Pulcinella]

Clapping and supporting the current government is about as logical as being a vegan butcher.
Furthermore it is a gross insult to those who are dying whilst trying to save peoples lives to see the likes of Raab and co applauding
don't forget their cheers when this happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_MfQ9FloE&frags=pl%2Cwn

we see you, you pile of $&^@

I'm definitely NOT supporting the current government when I clap, but showing some support for those putting their lives at risk.