Coronavirus

[johnb]

So, Bristol is now in with S. Glos at 3-7 days?

Bristol had 129 cases in the 7 days to 29/09 and 301 cases in the 7 days to 04/10, an increase of 133% [PHE cases by specimen date published 08/10].

Looking at the Middle Super Output Area data, the areas that have the highest increases are "Bristol City Centre" which extends up to Tyndall's Park (University?) and "Stoke Bishop" (Halls of Residence?), so I would guess that much of the increase is driven by infections amongst university students.

(MSOAs are areas that area supposed to have a population of roughly 7200.)

[Richard Barrett]

wearing a mask is ... actually harmful in various ways

But what are these ways? I mean apart from those cases where one has a medical condition that's somehow exacerbated by wearing one. What I was saying (and the reason for invoking Pascal) was that if you wear the mask (as if it works) and it doesn't work you haven't lost anything.

[Bryn]

I would pretty much agree with your summary Dave, particularly when most masks in used are well below medial grade , I think.
The important thing though is, to keep asking the questions about what we are being asked to do, ( and of course to follow those laws and requirements that are well thought out) in part because there may be bigger, more significant battles ahead.

Though I have a good stock of disposable surgical masks, I tend to use these more, The slip-in filters are available in bulk at low cost.

Not exactly speedy delivery, however, though speedier than estimated in all three cases.

[french frank]

But what are these ways? I mean apart from those cases where one has a medical condition that's somehow exacerbated by wearing one. What I was saying (and the reason for invoking Pascal) was that if you wear the mask (as if it works) and it doesn't work you haven't lost anything.

Exactly. I'm not the one to ask about what harm it would do - I wear a (surgical) mask where 'advised' to do so. I thought it was Dave2002 who first mentioned Pascal's wager (which I think can't be applied to mask wearing or not, so I was really answering him). I agree with you about Nature.

[french frank]

Looking at the Middle Super Output Area data (MSOAs are areas of roughly 7200 population), the areas that have the highest increases are "Bristol City Centre" which extends up to Tyndall's Park (University?) and "Stoke Bishop" (Halls of Residence?), so I would guess that much of the increase is driven by infections amongst university students.

Good sleuthing. Unfortunately, I live in an area where there is a high rate of student shared houses. Still, I don't go out often.

[teamsaint]

But what are these ways? I mean apart from those cases where one has a medical condition that's somehow exacerbated by wearing one. What I was saying (and the reason for invoking Pascal) was that if you wear the mask (as if it works) and it doesn't work you haven't lost anything.

The sorts of things that people might have concerns about are covered here.

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435/rr-40

And further discussion here around the Delve report.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/scientists-disagree-over-face-masks-effect-on-covid-19

I see that those being interviewed also invoke the precautionary principle in favour of their own concerns about mask wearing and possible side effects.

[teamsaint]

Bristol had 129 cases in the 7 days to 29/09 and 301 cases in the 7 days to 04/10, an increase of 133% [PHE cases by specimen date published 08/10].

Looking at the Middle Super Output Area data, the areas that have the highest increases are "Bristol City Centre" which extends up to Tyndall's Park (University?) and "Stoke Bishop" (Halls of Residence?), so I would guess that much of the increase is driven by infections amongst university students.

(MSOAs are areas that area supposed to have a population of roughly 7200.)

The huge and unsurprising outbreaks around universities must be feeding into the figures by now?

A big effort on containing those outbreaks might be well worth while.

[johnb]

The huge and unsurprising outbreaks around universities must be feeding into the figures by now?

A big effort on containing those outbreaks might be well worth while.

I am sure they are in there.

The average number of confirmed cases for people aged 15-19, for the 7 days to 28/09 was 512/day.

Yesterday's figure for the age group 15-19 was 3,108 - for a single day.

That is double the overall rate of increase.

For yesterday alone, the age group 15-24 accounted for 38% of all the cases.

(These figures are for England only.)

[Bryn]

The sorts of things that people might have concerns about are covered here.

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435/rr-40

And further discussion here around the Delve report.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/scientists-disagree-over-face-masks-effect-on-covid-19

I see that those being interviewed also invoke the precautionary principle in favour of their own concerns about mask wearing and possible side effects.

Both items you link to are now very old in terms of the current health emergency and the scientific literature relating to face masks. The point regarding COPD appears well made, but those suffering this condition are covered by current exemptions. The argument regarding oxygen and carbon dioxide transmission through masks has been pretty comprehensively debunked. Mask hygiene, of course, is of the essence.

[Dave2002]

Isn't learning interesting stuff from one another one of the reasons why we're all here? Especially since this is going to involve an online search that lasts a fraction of a second, rather than a trip to the library or whatever. As for Pascal's wager, it has nothing to do with "believing something while at the same time not thinking it to be true". It suggests that (in this particular case) one should behave as if God exists and seek to believe in God. It doesn't matter which god. It doesn't matter whether it's a god or a face mask, the principle is the same. Is that clear now?

I think post 4046 from ff gets closer.

[Dave2002]

But what are these ways? I mean apart from those cases where one has a medical condition that's somehow exacerbated by wearing one. What I was saying (and the reason for invoking Pascal) was that if you wear the mask (as if it works) and it doesn't work you haven't lost anything.

Yes - but that's really a form of the precautionary principle. There are some other rather odd arguments against Pascal's wager - if one is "allowed" to have any god. In that case one can (for example) imagine a malevolent one who will send you to eternal damnation if you believe in him/her and let you off otherwise. In that case you most certainly would lose if you decided to "believe".

Even the precautionary principle has to be considered with care. Elsewhere in these posts I suggested that taking vitamin C tablets was a low cost option - which "might" provide some benefit. Some people believe this, others don't. Vitamin C tablets are usually quite cheap, and as has been pointed out, normally any even quite significant overdose will not have any obvious bad effect, as the excess will simply be urinated out.

That is not the case with some other vitamins. For example, there are some similar tablets which have vitamin K added to the overall mix. Vitamin K, if taken in quite large quantities can potentially have significant adverse effects.

Yet another one is taking zinc tablets - which it seems in small doses may (according to some doctors) have beneficial effects in cases of respiratory illness. Zinc is (nearly) always bound together with copper AFAIK. Again, taking these tablets in anything other than small doses may lead to significant problems.

So using your interpretation of Pascal's wager, the assumption is that one option is very low cost, and if it turns out to be true, the benefits are enormous, while if false, nothing has been lost. That is not the case for some other examples of the slightly similar precautionary principle.

You will see from post 4041 that I am not disagreeing that in some circumstances masks may be a good thing, but not necessarily in every situation.

[Bryn]

Yes - but that's really a form of the precautionary principle. There are some other rather odd arguments against Pascal's wager - if one is "allowed" to have any god. In that case one can (for example) imagine a malevolent one who will send you to eternal damnation if you believe in him/her and let you off otherwise. In that case you most certainly would lose if you decided to "believe".

Even the precautionary principle has to be considered with care. Elsewhere in these posts I suggested that taking vitamin C tablets was a low cost option - which "might" provide some benefit. Some people believe this, others don't . Vitamin C tablets are usually quite cheap, and as has been pointed out, normally any even quite significant overdose will not have any obvious bad effect, as the excess will simply be urinated out.

That is not the case with some other vitamins. For example, there are some similar tablets which have vitamin K added to the overall mix. Vitamin K, if taken in quite large quantities can potentially have significant adverse effects.

Yet another one is taking zinc tablets - which it seems in small doses may (according to some doctors) have beneficial effects in cases of respiratory illness. Zinc is (nearly) always bound together with copper AFAIK. Again, taking these tablets in anything other than small doses may lead to significant problems.

So using your interpretation of Pascal's wager, the assumption is that one option is very low cost, and if it turns out to be true, the benefits are enormous, while if false, nothing has been lost. That is not the case for some other examples of the slightly similar precautionary principle.

You will see from post 4041 that I am not disagreeing that in some circumstances masks may be a good thing, but not necessarily in every situation.

Hmm. According to current medical mainstream opinion, it's Vitamin D, not C, which is held to be of benefit in warding against respiratory infections. I take a Vitamin D and Calcium supplement as a ward against osteopenia so get some protection against respiratory infections as a bonus.

[Dave2002]

Hmm. According to current medical mainstream opinion, it's Vitamin D, not C, which is held to be of benefit in warding against respiratory infections. I take a Vitamin D and Calcium supplement as a ward against osteopenia so get some protection against respiratory infections as a bonus.

Yes - but I think someone else in this thread was advocating vitamin C, particularly for its anti-oxidant properties. Vitamin D is generally a good idea I think. The point about vitamin C is that it's low cost, and probably going to be excreted anyway.

[Richard Barrett]

Yes - but that's really a form of the precautionary principle. There are some other rather odd arguments against Pascal's wager - if one is "allowed" to have any god. In that case one can (for example) imagine a malevolent one who will send you to eternal damnation if you believe in him/her and let you off otherwise. In that case you most certainly would lose if you decided to "believe".

Even the precautionary principle has to be considered with care. Elsewhere in these posts I suggested that taking vitamin C tablets was a low cost option - which "might" provide some benefit. Some people believe this, others don't. Vitamin C tablets are usually quite cheap, and as has been pointed out, normally any even quite significant overdose will not have any obvious bad effect, as the excess will simply be urinated out.

That is not the case with some other vitamins. For example, there are some similar tablets which have vitamin K added to the overall mix. Vitamin K, if taken in quite large quantities can potentially have significant adverse effects.

Yet another one is taking zinc tablets - which it seems in small doses may (according to some doctors) have beneficial effects in cases of respiratory illness. Zinc is (nearly) always bound together with copper AFAIK. Again, taking these tablets in anything other than small doses may lead to significant problems.

So using your interpretation of Pascal's wager, the assumption is that one option is very low cost, and if it turns out to be true, the benefits are enormous, while if false, nothing has been lost. That is not the case for some other examples of the slightly similar precautionary principle.

You will see from post 4041 that I am not disagreeing that in some circumstances masks may be a good thing, but not necessarily in every situation.

woteva

[teamsaint]

I am sure they are in there.

The average number of confirmed cases for people aged 15-19, for the 7 days to 28/09 was 512/day.

Yesterday's figure for the age group 15-19 was 3,108 - for a single day.

That is double the overall rate of increase.

For yesterday alone, the age group 15-24 accounted for 38% of all the cases.

(These figures are for England only.)

Any consolation to be had in the numbers on the Kings App ?

https://covid.joinzoe.com/data#levels-over-time