Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The universities have been doing a lot of their own testing that most likely would not have been done normally..so that will hike the figures up a little." Patients admitted to hospital now up to 2400....was 600 about 2 weeks ago....and winters not among us yet. Hold your breath. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though." Death count not so relevent | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though.Death count not so relevent" Yet.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though." Opening the economy back up is going to see cases rise common sense really less social distance etc more back to work schools and universities open pubs open more chance for virus to spread masks got nothing to do with it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though.Death count not so relevent" How so? Surely thats the most relevant? Because if in the next month or two we are at 50,000 cases or even worse say 100,000 cases but we keep with the very low death rate then that means its no where near as deadly as jan-april and thats a good thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though.Death count not so relevent How so? Surely thats the most relevant? Because if in the next month or two we are at 50,000 cases or even worse say 100,000 cases but we keep with the very low death rate then that means its no where near as deadly as jan-april and thats a good thing." This is due to us knowing more and being able to treat it better,stop kidding yourself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though." The low death count could be put down to that the masks are working as it's got a lot to do with viral load you take in. So more people are out and about but majority wearing mask...think about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though.Death count not so relevent How so? Surely thats the most relevant? Because if in the next month or two we are at 50,000 cases or even worse say 100,000 cases but we keep with the very low death rate then that means its no where near as deadly as jan-april and thats a good thing." Unfortunately, the sharp rise in the number of people being admitted to hospital, almost certainly means sharp rise in the number of deaths too. There is always a lag, because it takes time to get through to the more vulnerable. The more cases, the more deaths to follow. It's that simple I'm afraid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though.Death count not so relevent How so? Surely thats the most relevant? Because if in the next month or two we are at 50,000 cases or even worse say 100,000 cases but we keep with the very low death rate then that means its no where near as deadly as jan-april and thats a good thing. Unfortunately, the sharp rise in the number of people being admitted to hospital, almost certainly means sharp rise in the number of deaths too. There is always a lag, because it takes time to get through to the more vulnerable. The more cases, the more deaths to follow. It's that simple I'm afraid." All in all it’s looking pretty disastrous | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here comes the scaremongering. The weather is changing. Flu season is starting. 80+ percent of us will get it with no or mild symptoms. A very small percentage will sadly pass away - but it is very likely that they would any way from normal flu or the underlying health conditions they have. The other 17 ish percent will have medium to strong symptoms, but will live. Do we keep locking down every five minutes or do we just ride the wave as they have in some other countries? Are the lives that we will definitely lose from lack of cancer detection/treatment, other hospital treatments, suicide and poverty worth losing to prevent the potential deaths of others? Is it worth running the country into the ground, bankrupting companies and amassing unemployment? It will probably get me some abuse, but do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Or should it be the other way round? Should we be “locking down” the vulnerable and letting the majority get on with things and build a heard immunity? It would cost the government so much less to pay the wages in full of the vulnerable then have so many on furlough and at risk of losing their jobs. The current plan isn’t working, it’s time for a new one..." Not credible I'm afraid. Letting everyone but the most vulnerable crack on with life will still crash the economy because of the number of people who will become too sick to work. It would also completely overwhelm the NHS in very little time at all and lead to a huge death toll. Keeping cases under control is the only viable option we have at the moment, until we have either a vaccine, enough people have gained resistance to it, or we get a reliable test system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Infections vary according to how much testing is done. Watch the death rate, but bear in mind that these figures are fucked about too!" Not true the number of infections don’t vary depending on how much testing you do, it’s known infections. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here comes the scaremongering. The weather is changing. Flu season is starting. 80+ percent of us will get it with no or mild symptoms. A very small percentage will sadly pass away - but it is very likely that they would any way from normal flu or the underlying health conditions they have. The other 17 ish percent will have medium to strong symptoms, but will live. Do we keep locking down every five minutes or do we just ride the wave as they have in some other countries? Are the lives that we will definitely lose from lack of cancer detection/treatment, other hospital treatments, suicide and poverty worth losing to prevent the potential deaths of others? Is it worth running the country into the ground, bankrupting companies and amassing unemployment? It will probably get me some abuse, but do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Or should it be the other way round? Should we be “locking down” the vulnerable and letting the majority get on with things and build a heard immunity? It would cost the government so much less to pay the wages in full of the vulnerable then have so many on furlough and at risk of losing their jobs. The current plan isn’t working, it’s time for a new one... Not credible I'm afraid. Letting everyone but the most vulnerable crack on with life will still crash the economy because of the number of people who will become too sick to work. It would also completely overwhelm the NHS in very little time at all and lead to a huge death toll. Keeping cases under control is the only viable option we have at the moment, until we have either a vaccine, enough people have gained resistance to it, or we get a reliable test system. " Only a full lockdown got the figures down last time and that’s not going to happen so maybe we really are staring down a barrel | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I smell a massive rat regarding this figure and how quickly the BBC skimmed over it on the news. A technical issue, really? Or is it a monumental cock up? Or maybe a strategic admission of one? No wonder folk won’t follow rules and think it’s all a conspiracy. The whole testing is an utter shambles and I’m starting to think deliberately so. I think this goes beyond an incompetent government with a clown at the helm. This won’t end well "Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here comes the scaremongering. The weather is changing. Flu season is starting. 80+ percent of us will get it with no or mild symptoms. A very small percentage will sadly pass away - but it is very likely that they would any way from normal flu or the underlying health conditions they have. The other 17 ish percent will have medium to strong symptoms, but will live. Do we keep locking down every five minutes or do we just ride the wave as they have in some other countries? Are the lives that we will definitely lose from lack of cancer detection/treatment, other hospital treatments, suicide and poverty worth losing to prevent the potential deaths of others? Is it worth running the country into the ground, bankrupting companies and amassing unemployment? It will probably get me some abuse, but do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Or should it be the other way round? Should we be “locking down” the vulnerable and letting the majority get on with things and build a heard immunity? It would cost the government so much less to pay the wages in full of the vulnerable then have so many on furlough and at risk of losing their jobs. The current plan isn’t working, it’s time for a new one... Not credible I'm afraid. Letting everyone but the most vulnerable crack on with life will still crash the economy because of the number of people who will become too sick to work. It would also completely overwhelm the NHS in very little time at all and lead to a huge death toll. Keeping cases under control is the only viable option we have at the moment, until we have either a vaccine, enough people have gained resistance to it, or we get a reliable test system. " What people don’t realise when they come out with the theory you’ve replied to, is that a quarter or more of the adult population fall into one vulnerable group or other. The shield them all is neigh on impossible because they have to mix or rely on / with everybody else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here comes the scaremongering. The weather is changing. Flu season is starting. 80+ percent of us will get it with no or mild symptoms. A very small percentage will sadly pass away - but it is very likely that they would any way from normal flu or the underlying health conditions they have. The other 17 ish percent will have medium to strong symptoms, but will live. Do we keep locking down every five minutes or do we just ride the wave as they have in some other countries? Are the lives that we will definitely lose from lack of cancer detection/treatment, other hospital treatments, suicide and poverty worth losing to prevent the potential deaths of others? Is it worth running the country into the ground, bankrupting companies and amassing unemployment? It will probably get me some abuse, but do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Or should it be the other way round? Should we be “locking down” the vulnerable and letting the majority get on with things and build a heard immunity? It would cost the government so much less to pay the wages in full of the vulnerable then have so many on furlough and at risk of losing their jobs. The current plan isn’t working, it’s time for a new one... Not credible I'm afraid. Letting everyone but the most vulnerable crack on with life will still crash the economy because of the number of people who will become too sick to work. It would also completely overwhelm the NHS in very little time at all and lead to a huge death toll. Keeping cases under control is the only viable option we have at the moment, until we have either a vaccine, enough people have gained resistance to it, or we get a reliable test system. What people don’t realise when they come out with the theory you’ve replied to, is that a quarter or more of the adult population fall into one vulnerable group or other. The shield them all is neigh on impossible because they have to mix or rely on / with everybody else." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I smell a massive rat regarding this figure and how quickly the BBC skimmed over it on the news. A technical issue, really? Or is it a monumental cock up? Or maybe a strategic admission of one? No wonder folk won’t follow rules and think it’s all a conspiracy. The whole testing is an utter shambles and I’m starting to think deliberately so. I think this goes beyond an incompetent government with a clown at the helm. This won’t end well
Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". "I’ve been going with that for a while but jeez can any government be this stupid? Talk about trying to baffle ppl with bullshit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I smell a massive rat regarding this figure and how quickly the BBC skimmed over it on the news. A technical issue, really? Or is it a monumental cock up? Or maybe a strategic admission of one? No wonder folk won’t follow rules and think it’s all a conspiracy. The whole testing is an utter shambles and I’m starting to think deliberately so. I think this goes beyond an incompetent government with a clown at the helm. This won’t end well
Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
I’ve been going with that for a while but jeez can any government be this stupid? Talk about trying to baffle ppl with bullshit "Can any government be this stupid? Ha!! This is the worst government I can remember | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here comes the scaremongering. The weather is changing. Flu season is starting. 80+ percent of us will get it with no or mild symptoms. A very small percentage will sadly pass away - but it is very likely that they would any way from normal flu or the underlying health conditions they have. The other 17 ish percent will have medium to strong symptoms, but will live. Do we keep locking down every five minutes or do we just ride the wave as they have in some other countries? Are the lives that we will definitely lose from lack of cancer detection/treatment, other hospital treatments, suicide and poverty worth losing to prevent the potential deaths of others? Is it worth running the country into the ground, bankrupting companies and amassing unemployment? It will probably get me some abuse, but do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Or should it be the other way round? Should we be “locking down” the vulnerable and letting the majority get on with things and build a heard immunity? It would cost the government so much less to pay the wages in full of the vulnerable then have so many on furlough and at risk of losing their jobs. The current plan isn’t working, it’s time for a new one... Not credible I'm afraid. Letting everyone but the most vulnerable crack on with life will still crash the economy because of the number of people who will become too sick to work. It would also completely overwhelm the NHS in very little time at all and lead to a huge death toll. Keeping cases under control is the only viable option we have at the moment, until we have either a vaccine, enough people have gained resistance to it, or we get a reliable test system. " Coming up to 8 months in and there still isn't a reliable test system is almost criminal.. The whole episode very quickly turned into a shambles And what's the exit strategy.. None. So let's just keep doing what we're doing... Why,it doesn't work. Individual resiliance, or not, to the virus is the only way forward... Total lockdown just delayed the inevitable and that time wasn't used wisely to prepare for easing of the restrictions.. So we're up shit creek now.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here comes the scaremongering. The weather is changing. Flu season is starting. 80+ percent of us will get it with no or mild symptoms. A very small percentage will sadly pass away - but it is very likely that they would any way from normal flu or the underlying health conditions they have. The other 17 ish percent will have medium to strong symptoms, but will live. Do we keep locking down every five minutes or do we just ride the wave as they have in some other countries? Are the lives that we will definitely lose from lack of cancer detection/treatment, other hospital treatments, suicide and poverty worth losing to prevent the potential deaths of others? Is it worth running the country into the ground, bankrupting companies and amassing unemployment? It will probably get me some abuse, but do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Or should it be the other way round? Should we be “locking down” the vulnerable and letting the majority get on with things and build a heard immunity? It would cost the government so much less to pay the wages in full of the vulnerable then have so many on furlough and at risk of losing their jobs. The current plan isn’t working, it’s time for a new one..." Agreed. This is nothing like April | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though.Death count not so relevent How so? Surely thats the most relevant? Because if in the next month or two we are at 50,000 cases or even worse say 100,000 cases but we keep with the very low death rate then that means its no where near as deadly as jan-april and thats a good thing." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here comes the scaremongering. The weather is changing. Flu season is starting. 80+ percent of us will get it with no or mild symptoms. A very small percentage will sadly pass away - but it is very likely that they would any way from normal flu or the underlying health conditions they have. The other 17 ish percent will have medium to strong symptoms, but will live. Do we keep locking down every five minutes or do we just ride the wave as they have in some other countries? Are the lives that we will definitely lose from lack of cancer detection/treatment, other hospital treatments, suicide and poverty worth losing to prevent the potential deaths of others? Is it worth running the country into the ground, bankrupting companies and amassing unemployment? It will probably get me some abuse, but do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Or should it be the other way round? Should we be “locking down” the vulnerable and letting the majority get on with things and build a heard immunity? It would cost the government so much less to pay the wages in full of the vulnerable then have so many on furlough and at risk of losing their jobs. The current plan isn’t working, it’s time for a new one..." And there is the bullshit... "A very small percentage will sadly pass away - but it is very likely that they would any way from normal flu or the underlying health conditions they have" That is absolute nonsense. Why? My post will no likely get removed if I link to the source but here is the result of research done on 24 studies reported 47 seasonal epidemic R values: "The median R value for seasonal influenza was 1.28 (IQR: 1.19–1.37)" This is significantly less than Covid 19 which has been estimated at about 2.5.. Here's the maths for you... For Flu, if 5 people are infected the each pass on to 1.30 others. 5 - cycle 1 11 - cycle 2 19 - cycle 3 30 - cycle 4 45 - cycle 5 63 - cycle 6 87 - cycle 7 119 - cycle 8 160 - cycle 9 213 - cycle 10 For Covid 19, if 5 people are infected the each pass on to 2.5 others. 5 - cycle 1 18 - cycle 2 51 - cycle 3 139 - cycle 4 368 - cycle 5 962 - cycle 6 2506 - cycle 7 6522 - cycle 8 16964 - cycle 9 44111 - cycle 10 After 10 cycles, 20x more people have covid than flu. So, 1 of these would have likely had flu if it hadn't been for covid but the other 19 would have been flu free and therefore wouldn't have died. In the UK there are 3.2 million aged 80 and over and 1.6 million aged 85 which tells me that a lot of people who 80-84 who will live way beyond 85..Many of these will have underlying health conditions which make them vulnerable but still have a good few years left in them. Unless of course they caught covid. Don't forget there are many people of all ages with underlying health conditions but these are not life limiting. They can have a normal live expectancy but are vulnerable to infections. The covid death rate for over 80s is 13.4%. As mentioned above, there are 3.2m over 80s in the UK. 429k would likely die if every person over the age of 80 caught covid 19. Of course, that's not going to happen because herd immunity would kick in at 60% so that's just 257k deaths. Remind me, seasonal flu deaths are what? 10-20k? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here comes the scaremongering. The weather is changing. Flu season is starting. 80+ percent of us will get it with no or mild symptoms. A very small percentage will sadly pass away - but it is very likely that they would any way from normal flu or the underlying health conditions they have. The other 17 ish percent will have medium to strong symptoms, but will live. Do we keep locking down every five minutes or do we just ride the wave as they have in some other countries? Are the lives that we will definitely lose from lack of cancer detection/treatment, other hospital treatments, suicide and poverty worth losing to prevent the potential deaths of others? Is it worth running the country into the ground, bankrupting companies and amassing unemployment? It will probably get me some abuse, but do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Or should it be the other way round? Should we be “locking down” the vulnerable and letting the majority get on with things and build a heard immunity? It would cost the government so much less to pay the wages in full of the vulnerable then have so many on furlough and at risk of losing their jobs. The current plan isn’t working, it’s time for a new one... Agreed. This is nothing like April" Correct, because the elderly are being protected. In England, in the over 85s there has been 38k positive tests in total. This week there has been 600. That means that there has been 63x more cases in total than in the past week even though only 30 weeks has passed and many of these weeks the infections were much lower than they are now. In contrast, in the 15-19 age group (the one that contains the students), there has been 7,300 cases in the past week but only 21,346 in total....1/3rd of all cases in that age group (one of the least vulnerable) has been recorded in the past 7 days.... So yes, completely different demographics makes April different from now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though." Only good research evidence will indicate mask effectiveness, which also needs them to be used correctly in the real world, to compare. Today's numbers were delayed issue and I'm guessing that numbers have been increasing more than we'd thought they had recently, despite them climbing fast. Not a good sign. I think we also possibly relaxed a few too many things too quickly, so we're now uncertain which of these may have contribute d most. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though. The low death count could be put down to that the masks are working as it's got a lot to do with viral load you take in. So more people are out and about but majority wearing mask...think about it." Hmm but the people that don't wear masks (the ones that don't think covid is anywhere near as dangerous as its been made out to be) are not the ones going out to get tested. So all these new cases are from people that wear masks surely? Hence why i asked if masks have not worked because it certainly looks like they have not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People don't think it's a conspiracy. They see it for what it actually is. They don't buy into the scaremongering. They use their common sense. We have a disproportionate reaction to the level of threat we face. The longer the idiotic public blindly keep abiding by this nonsense, the longer it will continue. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though. The low death count could be put down to that the masks are working as it's got a lot to do with viral load you take in. So more people are out and about but majority wearing mask...think about it. Hmm but the people that don't wear masks (the ones that don't think covid is anywhere near as dangerous as its been made out to be) are not the ones going out to get tested. So all these new cases are from people that wear masks surely? Hence why i asked if masks have not worked because it certainly looks like they have not." Then you have no understanding of how masks work, they help protect others not the wearer, they are also not and never have been publicised as some kind of fix all, they help, albeit only slightly, but they are also a trivial and very cost effective thing to ask the public to do so why wouldn't you wear one. You will also no doubt be aware that there are a very large number of people who have to get tested as part of their work. So there will be plenty being tested as positive that don't wear masks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People don't think it's a conspiracy. They see it for what it actually is. They don't buy into the scaremongering. They use their common sense. We have a disproportionate reaction to the level of threat we face. The longer the idiotic public blindly keep abiding by this nonsense, the longer it will continue. " Common sense when you have an infectious disease moving through the population is to try to protect yourself and others as much as possible, which includes listening to government advice. It is not advocating sticking your head in the sand and pretending it's not happening so you can carry on doing whatever you feel like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here comes the scaremongering. The weather is changing. Flu season is starting. 80+ percent of us will get it with no or mild symptoms. A very small percentage will sadly pass away - but it is very likely that they would any way from normal flu or the underlying health conditions they have. The other 17 ish percent will have medium to strong symptoms, but will live. Do we keep locking down every five minutes or do we just ride the wave as they have in some other countries? Are the lives that we will definitely lose from lack of cancer detection/treatment, other hospital treatments, suicide and poverty worth losing to prevent the potential deaths of others? Is it worth running the country into the ground, bankrupting companies and amassing unemployment? It will probably get me some abuse, but do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Or should it be the other way round? Should we be “locking down” the vulnerable and letting the majority get on with things and build a heard immunity? It would cost the government so much less to pay the wages in full of the vulnerable then have so many on furlough and at risk of losing their jobs. The current plan isn’t working, it’s time for a new one..." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though." what it means is they are getting exactly what they wanted early on herd immunity but on the quiet pubs open schools & unis open with the inevitable result of a spike this is what they wanted before they panicked about killing off grandma and overwhelming the NHS | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though. The low death count could be put down to that the masks are working as it's got a lot to do with viral load you take in. So more people are out and about but majority wearing mask...think about it. Hmm but the people that don't wear masks (the ones that don't think covid is anywhere near as dangerous as its been made out to be) are not the ones going out to get tested. So all these new cases are from people that wear masks surely? Hence why i asked if masks have not worked because it certainly looks like they have not. Then you have no understanding of how masks work, they help protect others not the wearer, they are also not and never have been publicised as some kind of fix all, they help, albeit only slightly, but they are also a trivial and very cost effective thing to ask the public to do so why wouldn't you wear one. You will also no doubt be aware that there are a very large number of people who have to get tested as part of their work. So there will be plenty being tested as positive that don't wear masks. " I may not know how masks work but i know doctors/surgeons do and heres a qoute from a Dr meehan. Which after reading it seems to make more common sense than anything else I've heard coming out of our goverment or experts. "I'm a surgeon that has performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. However, that fact alone doesn't really qualify me as an expert on the matter. More importantly, I am a former editor of a medical journal. I know how to read the medical literature, distinguish good science from bad, and fact from fiction. Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. It is very easy to be deceived by bad science. Since the beginning of the pandemic I've read hundreds of studies on the science of medical masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthy people should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by the highest level of scientific evidence. First, let's be clear. The premise that surgeons wearing masks serves as evidence that "masks must work to prevent viral transmission" is a logical fallacy that I would classify as an argument of false equivalence, or comparing "apples to oranges." Although surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients, that is about as far as the analogy extends. Obviously, surgeons cannot "socially distance" from their surgical patients (unless we use robotic surgical devices, in which case, I would definitely not wear a mask). The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks do nothing to prevent viral transmission. We should all realize by now that face masks have never been shown to prevent or protect against viral transmission. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics. The failure of the scientific literature to support medical masks for influenza and all other viruses, is also why Fauci, the US Surgeon General, the CDC, WHO, and pretty much every infectious disease expert stated that wearing masks won't prevent transmission of SARS CoV-2. Although the public health "authorities" flipped, flopped, and later changed their recommendations, the science did not change, nor did new science appear that supported the wearing of masks in public. In fact, the most recent systemic analysis once again confirms that masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of viruses like CoVID-19: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as they know the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask. Another area of "false equivalence" has to do with the environment in which the masks are worn. The environments in which surgeons wear masks minimize the adverse effects surgical masks have on their wearers. Unlike the public wearing masks in the community, surgeons work in sterile surgical suites equipped with heavy duty air exchange systems that maintain positive pressures, exchange and filter the room air at a very high level, and increase the oxygen content of the room air. These conditions limit the negative effects of masks on the surgeon and operating room staff. And yet despite these extreme climate control conditions, clinical studies demonstrate the negative effects (lowering arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide re-breathing) of surgical masks on surgeon physiology and performance. Surgeons and operating room personnel are well trained, experienced, and meticulous about maintaining sterility. We only wear fresh sterile masks. We don the mask in a sterile fashion. We wear the mask for short periods of time and change it out at the first signs of the excessive moisture build up that we know degrades mask effectiveness and increases their negative effects. Surgeons NEVER re-use surgical masks, nor do we ever wear cloth masks. The public is being told to wear masks for which they have not been trained in the proper techniques. As a result, they are mishandling, frequently touching, and constantly reusing masks in a way that increase contamination and are more likely than not to increase transmission of disease. Just go watch people at the grocery story or Walmart and tell me what you think about the effectiveness of masks in the community. If you can't help but believe and trust the weak retrospective observational studies and confused public health "authorities" lying to you about the benefits and completely ignoring the risks of medical masks, then you should at least reject the illogical anti-science recommendation to block only 2 of the 3 ports of entry for viral diseases. Masks only cover the mouth and nose. They do not protect the eyes." Jim Meehan MD is a physician, accomplished leader, and entrepreneur who provides innovative science and solutions that adhere to open, honest, transparent, and uncompromisingly patient-centered principles. He transforms raw data and scientific research into easy to understand information that educates, informs, and motivates changes in behavior to lead to improved health and wellness. Dr. Meehan believes in educating patients to be scientists of their own health. I won't but the link here but if anyone wants the link just ask. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People don't think it's a conspiracy. They see it for what it actually is. They don't buy into the scaremongering. They use their common sense. We have a disproportionate reaction to the level of threat we face. The longer the idiotic public blindly keep abiding by this nonsense, the longer it will continue. Common sense when you have an infectious disease moving through the population is to try to protect yourself and others as much as possible, which includes listening to government advice. It is not advocating sticking your head in the sand and pretending it's not happening so you can carry on doing whatever you feel like." Disproportionate reaction. Read again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though." No it’s because people won’t bloody wear them and self distance it seems | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though. The low death count could be put down to that the masks are working as it's got a lot to do with viral load you take in. So more people are out and about but majority wearing mask...think about it. Hmm but the people that don't wear masks (the ones that don't think covid is anywhere near as dangerous as its been made out to be) are not the ones going out to get tested. So all these new cases are from people that wear masks surely? Hence why i asked if masks have not worked because it certainly looks like they have not. Then you have no understanding of how masks work, they help protect others not the wearer, they are also not and never have been publicised as some kind of fix all, they help, albeit only slightly, but they are also a trivial and very cost effective thing to ask the public to do so why wouldn't you wear one. You will also no doubt be aware that there are a very large number of people who have to get tested as part of their work. So there will be plenty being tested as positive that don't wear masks. I may not know how masks work but i know doctors/surgeons do and heres a qoute from a Dr meehan. Which after reading it seems to make more common sense than anything else I've heard coming out of our goverment or experts. "I'm a surgeon that has performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. However, that fact alone doesn't really qualify me as an expert on the matter. More importantly, I am a former editor of a medical journal. I know how to read the medical literature, distinguish good science from bad, and fact from fiction. Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. It is very easy to be deceived by bad science. Since the beginning of the pandemic I've read hundreds of studies on the science of medical masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthy people should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by the highest level of scientific evidence. First, let's be clear. The premise that surgeons wearing masks serves as evidence that "masks must work to prevent viral transmission" is a logical fallacy that I would classify as an argument of false equivalence, or comparing "apples to oranges." Although surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients, that is about as far as the analogy extends. Obviously, surgeons cannot "socially distance" from their surgical patients (unless we use robotic surgical devices, in which case, I would definitely not wear a mask). The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks do nothing to prevent viral transmission. We should all realize by now that face masks have never been shown to prevent or protect against viral transmission. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics. The failure of the scientific literature to support medical masks for influenza and all other viruses, is also why Fauci, the US Surgeon General, the CDC, WHO, and pretty much every infectious disease expert stated that wearing masks won't prevent transmission of SARS CoV-2. Although the public health "authorities" flipped, flopped, and later changed their recommendations, the science did not change, nor did new science appear that supported the wearing of masks in public. In fact, the most recent systemic analysis once again confirms that masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of viruses like CoVID-19: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as they know the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask. Another area of "false equivalence" has to do with the environment in which the masks are worn. The environments in which surgeons wear masks minimize the adverse effects surgical masks have on their wearers. Unlike the public wearing masks in the community, surgeons work in sterile surgical suites equipped with heavy duty air exchange systems that maintain positive pressures, exchange and filter the room air at a very high level, and increase the oxygen content of the room air. These conditions limit the negative effects of masks on the surgeon and operating room staff. And yet despite these extreme climate control conditions, clinical studies demonstrate the negative effects (lowering arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide re-breathing) of surgical masks on surgeon physiology and performance. Surgeons and operating room personnel are well trained, experienced, and meticulous about maintaining sterility. We only wear fresh sterile masks. We don the mask in a sterile fashion. We wear the mask for short periods of time and change it out at the first signs of the excessive moisture build up that we know degrades mask effectiveness and increases their negative effects. Surgeons NEVER re-use surgical masks, nor do we ever wear cloth masks. The public is being told to wear masks for which they have not been trained in the proper techniques. As a result, they are mishandling, frequently touching, and constantly reusing masks in a way that increase contamination and are more likely than not to increase transmission of disease. Just go watch people at the grocery story or Walmart and tell me what you think about the effectiveness of masks in the community. If you can't help but believe and trust the weak retrospective observational studies and confused public health "authorities" lying to you about the benefits and completely ignoring the risks of medical masks, then you should at least reject the illogical anti-science recommendation to block only 2 of the 3 ports of entry for viral diseases. Masks only cover the mouth and nose. They do not protect the eyes." Jim Meehan MD is a physician, accomplished leader, and entrepreneur who provides innovative science and solutions that adhere to open, honest, transparent, and uncompromisingly patient-centered principles. He transforms raw data and scientific research into easy to understand information that educates, informs, and motivates changes in behavior to lead to improved health and wellness. Dr. Meehan believes in educating patients to be scientists of their own health. I won't but the link here but if anyone wants the link just ask." Well done, you have mastered copy and paste. It also contains false statements, there is no evidence at all that shows CO2 concentrations in a cloth mask have any affect whatsoever on cognitive function. There is also some evidence to show that face coverings do limit the spread of droplet expulsion, both in quantity and distance, although I'd admit, if I saw someone performing open heart surgery in ASDA, whether they had a mask on or not would probably be one of my lower infection mitigation concerns. A mask does absolutely no harm to the wearer in 99.9% of cases (I am allowing for those with breathing conditions) and can help reduce transmission. Why would you not wear one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue with the test is it’s not 100% hence people having a positive test but not symptoms and others having symptoms but negative test the virus will never go away it will adapt and change like the flu so it’s something we will have to live with for years to come masks are only as good as the person wearing it and far to many don’t wear it correctly do you clean your hands before you remove your reusable mask or touch your phone open your car door it’s a complete lifestyle change that’s needed and that won’t happen overnight get used to the fact this will be the new norm " Mostly rubbish apart from the last few words | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though. The low death count could be put down to that the masks are working as it's got a lot to do with viral load you take in. So more people are out and about but majority wearing mask...think about it. Hmm but the people that don't wear masks (the ones that don't think covid is anywhere near as dangerous as its been made out to be) are not the ones going out to get tested. So all these new cases are from people that wear masks surely? Hence why i asked if masks have not worked because it certainly looks like they have not. Then you have no understanding of how masks work, they help protect others not the wearer, they are also not and never have been publicised as some kind of fix all, they help, albeit only slightly, but they are also a trivial and very cost effective thing to ask the public to do so why wouldn't you wear one. You will also no doubt be aware that there are a very large number of people who have to get tested as part of their work. So there will be plenty being tested as positive that don't wear masks. I may not know how masks work but i know doctors/surgeons do and heres a qoute from a Dr meehan. Which after reading it seems to make more common sense than anything else I've heard coming out of our goverment or experts. "I'm a surgeon that has performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. However, that fact alone doesn't really qualify me as an expert on the matter. More importantly, I am a former editor of a medical journal. I know how to read the medical literature, distinguish good science from bad, and fact from fiction. Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. It is very easy to be deceived by bad science. Since the beginning of the pandemic I've read hundreds of studies on the science of medical masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthy people should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by the highest level of scientific evidence. First, let's be clear. The premise that surgeons wearing masks serves as evidence that "masks must work to prevent viral transmission" is a logical fallacy that I would classify as an argument of false equivalence, or comparing "apples to oranges." Although surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients, that is about as far as the analogy extends. Obviously, surgeons cannot "socially distance" from their surgical patients (unless we use robotic surgical devices, in which case, I would definitely not wear a mask). The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks do nothing to prevent viral transmission. We should all realize by now that face masks have never been shown to prevent or protect against viral transmission. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics. The failure of the scientific literature to support medical masks for influenza and all other viruses, is also why Fauci, the US Surgeon General, the CDC, WHO, and pretty much every infectious disease expert stated that wearing masks won't prevent transmission of SARS CoV-2. Although the public health "authorities" flipped, flopped, and later changed their recommendations, the science did not change, nor did new science appear that supported the wearing of masks in public. In fact, the most recent systemic analysis once again confirms that masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of viruses like CoVID-19: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as they know the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask. Another area of "false equivalence" has to do with the environment in which the masks are worn. The environments in which surgeons wear masks minimize the adverse effects surgical masks have on their wearers. Unlike the public wearing masks in the community, surgeons work in sterile surgical suites equipped with heavy duty air exchange systems that maintain positive pressures, exchange and filter the room air at a very high level, and increase the oxygen content of the room air. These conditions limit the negative effects of masks on the surgeon and operating room staff. And yet despite these extreme climate control conditions, clinical studies demonstrate the negative effects (lowering arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide re-breathing) of surgical masks on surgeon physiology and performance. Surgeons and operating room personnel are well trained, experienced, and meticulous about maintaining sterility. We only wear fresh sterile masks. We don the mask in a sterile fashion. We wear the mask for short periods of time and change it out at the first signs of the excessive moisture build up that we know degrades mask effectiveness and increases their negative effects. Surgeons NEVER re-use surgical masks, nor do we ever wear cloth masks. The public is being told to wear masks for which they have not been trained in the proper techniques. As a result, they are mishandling, frequently touching, and constantly reusing masks in a way that increase contamination and are more likely than not to increase transmission of disease. Just go watch people at the grocery story or Walmart and tell me what you think about the effectiveness of masks in the community. If you can't help but believe and trust the weak retrospective observational studies and confused public health "authorities" lying to you about the benefits and completely ignoring the risks of medical masks, then you should at least reject the illogical anti-science recommendation to block only 2 of the 3 ports of entry for viral diseases. Masks only cover the mouth and nose. They do not protect the eyes." Jim Meehan MD is a physician, accomplished leader, and entrepreneur who provides innovative science and solutions that adhere to open, honest, transparent, and uncompromisingly patient-centered principles. He transforms raw data and scientific research into easy to understand information that educates, informs, and motivates changes in behavior to lead to improved health and wellness. Dr. Meehan believes in educating patients to be scientists of their own health. I won't but the link here but if anyone wants the link just ask." Mate your last name was less ironic.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well done, you have mastered copy and paste." What a bizarre thing to write. I said in my post "heres a qoute from a surgeon". Why would i type it all out when i can copy and paste the qoute directly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well done, you have mastered copy and paste. What a bizarre thing to write. I said in my post "heres a qoute from a surgeon". Why would i type it all out when i can copy and paste the qoute directly? " I said you have mastered copy and paste. Next step is to be able to analyze the information before you post factually incorrect and misleading rubbish from some random place on the internet. These posts, full of twisted facts, misinterpretation and down right lies cause real world harm. If you don't understand what you are posting, I would suggest you don't post it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People don't think it's a conspiracy. They see it for what it actually is. They don't buy into the scaremongering. They use their common sense. We have a disproportionate reaction to the level of threat we face. The longer the idiotic public blindly keep abiding by this nonsense, the longer it will continue. Common sense when you have an infectious disease moving through the population is to try to protect yourself and others as much as possible, which includes listening to government advice. It is not advocating sticking your head in the sand and pretending it's not happening so you can carry on doing whatever you feel like. Disproportionate reaction. Read again. " Want to comment on my post above about R rate if covid and the way it spreads? You really have no idea the impact if covid is left to spread without precautions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well done, you have mastered copy and paste. What a bizarre thing to write. I said in my post "heres a qoute from a surgeon". Why would i type it all out when i can copy and paste the qoute directly? " What qualifies a surgeon any more than a ballet dancer to make those claims. Leave it to the "experts" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well done, you have mastered copy and paste. What a bizarre thing to write. I said in my post "heres a qoute from a surgeon". Why would i type it all out when i can copy and paste the qoute directly? What qualifies a surgeon any more than a ballet dancer to make those claims. Leave it to the "experts""
besides if if you read what he is saying its still easy to totally refute the point the poster is making ... the mask itself doesn’t cause harm even if you think its not helping ... the only harm it could cause is people assuming it protects them so losing focus on the other hygeine and distance guidelines ... that doesn’t mean we have to scrap masks ... we just need to double down on the hygeine and distance efforts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People don't think it's a conspiracy. Which They see it for what it actually is. They don't buy into the scaremongering. They use their common sense. We have a disproportionate reaction to the level of threat we face. The longer the idiotic public blindly keep abiding by this nonsense, the longer it will continue. " Which nonsense are you not abiding by and others should not? Laws? You accept that the fuller lockdown cut infection levels? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Karen, the Surgeon from the Internet, stated how mask and other measures, could have helped Trump and Johnson, as well as the others they probably infected. " That's all the evidence i need. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Karen, the Surgeon from the Internet, stated how mask and other measures, could have helped Trump and Johnson, as well as the others they probably infected. That's all the evidence i need. "It is when you add the evidence of Biden not having been infected and he was wearing a mask - Now your evidence is complete.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though." Matthew Paris wrote an interesting piece yesterday about that. I don’t agree with a lot of what he says but he did comment that if the rate of infection goes up with lockdown and mask wearing, you can’t make the same argument for lockdown and mask wearing when the infection rate goes down. (I’m not taking a view beyond agreeing with hands, face, space etc) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's fantastic to have a discussion about these things, but wow I find it so frustrating when some people will not listen to the other person's point of view! So quick to jump down their throats and tell them that they are wrong, not just on here but in every day life too! We are all entitled to our own opinion, you either chose to believe what the media are feeding you, or you don't. Breathe before you launch into someone for not wearing a mask, perhaps they have good reason. This whole situation is bad enough without us all bickering between ourselves! It's like the Purge! Keep smiling and chill out x "i mean im pretty sure the “opinion” being criticised provides their reasons and its that which people are picking apart people are entitled to their opinion yes but they also have to deal with the fact than when their opinion goes against common sense, scientific fact and public health rules ... it is perhaps an uneducated opinion and will be challenged | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Karen, the Surgeon from the Internet, stated how mask and other measures, could have helped Trump and Johnson, as well as the others they probably infected. " . There was several papers released in may that said mask wearing provided no to little cost benefit, in fact in 2015 debate was raging in the bjm as to whether masks were even worth it in surgical theater, yet here we are with masks touted by most as an almost saviour. Hands face space, been known for years, lockdowns have never been part of Western epidemic planning and again papers were released in the summer showing very little cost benefit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Those tests are 7 percent accurate confirmed by the foreign secretary " What tests are 7% accurate ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though." compare it to the flu death rate, it is very small. Look at the flu graph.. Which they don't wish us to see. Around 1000 people have been dying of flu and pneumonia every single week since June. Nobody is kicking up a fuss about that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though.compare it to the flu death rate, it is very small. Look at the flu graph.. Which they don't wish us to see. Around 1000 people have been dying of flu and pneumonia every single week since June. Nobody is kicking up a fuss about that " It's actually 250 a week or 1000 a month but not 1000 a week  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though.compare it to the flu death rate, it is very small. Look at the flu graph.. Which they don't wish us to see. Around 1000 people have been dying of flu and pneumonia every single week since June. Nobody is kicking up a fuss about that " Wake up you're dreaming | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Those tests are 7 percent accurate confirmed by the foreign secretary What tests are 7% accurate ?" Rabb appeared on sky tv to explain why the U.K. were not testing people when they arrive at airports. He replied that the problem was the test was only 7% accurate. Apparently he misspoke and should have said 70% accurate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.102356933.537922049.1601844925-1025718375.1601844925 Now make of that what you will...looks a little fishy to me" Hmmmmm I've just been reading about that. 16000 cases not included in the figures for last week due to a technical issue  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.102356933.537922049.1601844925-1025718375.1601844925 Now make of that what you will...looks a little fishy to me" It looks like 15,000 positive cases weren't properly logged between 25/09 and 02/10, so they were lumped on today, making today look even worse. If they wanted to hide those 15,000 cases, why add them on now? Other countries have had similar "adjustments" in data at different times over the course of the pandemic. It happens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"ok so infections are up. how many have died?" we can treat COVID a lot better and with more under standing, so the deaths MAY take time to show, ask same question in 4 to6 weeks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.102356933.537922049.1601844925-1025718375.1601844925 Now make of that what you will...looks a little fishy to me It looks like 15,000 positive cases weren't properly logged between 25/09 and 02/10, so they were lumped on today, making today look even worse. If they wanted to hide those 15,000 cases, why add them on now? Other countries have had similar "adjustments" in data at different times over the course of the pandemic. It happens. " Strange how they were rising quite rapidly the dropped the weekend before. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.102356933.537922049.1601844925-1025718375.1601844925 Now make of that what you will...looks a little fishy to me It looks like 15,000 positive cases weren't properly logged between 25/09 and 02/10, so they were lumped on today, making today look even worse. If they wanted to hide those 15,000 cases, why add them on now? Other countries have had similar "adjustments" in data at different times over the course of the pandemic. It happens. Strange how they were rising quite rapidly the dropped the weekend before." Again, why add these missed 15,000 to the total now if they wanted to hide them? Surely they could have kept mum? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.102356933.537922049.1601844925-1025718375.1601844925 Now make of that what you will...looks a little fishy to me It looks like 15,000 positive cases weren't properly logged between 25/09 and 02/10, so they were lumped on today, making today look even worse. If they wanted to hide those 15,000 cases, why add them on now? Other countries have had similar "adjustments" in data at different times over the course of the pandemic. It happens. Strange how they were rising quite rapidly the dropped the weekend before. Again, why add these missed 15,000 to the total now if they wanted to hide them? Surely they could have kept mum? " That I cant answer...but I dont think we are getting the true figures imo. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Common sense when you have an infectious disease moving through the population is to try to protect yourself and others as much as possible, which includes listening to government advice. It is not advocating sticking your head in the sand and pretending it's not happening so you can carry on doing whatever you feel like." But we did that. 98% compliance with the initial lockdown - way beyond what even the government expected. Did it work? NO. So why should we do it all again - isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Common sense when you have an infectious disease moving through the population is to try to protect yourself and others as much as possible, which includes listening to government advice. It is not advocating sticking your head in the sand and pretending it's not happening so you can carry on doing whatever you feel like. But we did that. 98% compliance with the initial lockdown - way beyond what even the government expected. Did it work? NO. So why should we do it all again - isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results?" the purpose of the lockdown was to slow the spread not to eradicate the virus so yes it did work and i assume they would be hoping for the same result with any future lockdown so hardly the insanity you describe | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" the purpose of the lockdown was to slow the spread not to eradicate the virus so yes it did work and i assume they would be hoping for the same result with any future lockdown so hardly the insanity you describe " Ok, if we accept that then are you proposing we continue with lockdown indefinitely as it's clear that as soon as lockdown is relaxed the virus returns full-force? Unless you can eradicate the virus or are willing to live under constant lockdown for an indefinite period then yes, it's a failure and we most certainly should not keep on doing it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" the purpose of the lockdown was to slow the spread not to eradicate the virus so yes it did work and i assume they would be hoping for the same result with any future lockdown so hardly the insanity you describe Ok, if we accept that then are you proposing we continue with lockdown indefinitely as it's clear that as soon as lockdown is relaxed the virus returns full-force? Unless you can eradicate the virus or are willing to live under constant lockdown for an indefinite period then yes, it's a failure and we most certainly should not keep on doing it." i didn’t say i was suggesting another lockdown i am just pointing out that your comment was factually incorrect i also think its misleading to say as soon as restrictions are lifted the virus instantly returns full force when we started lifting restrictions in june and are only now at the point where cases are high enough to warrant increasing some of the restrictions again (not even back into full lockdown) ... we got at least 11/12 weeks and thats not exactly instant it also doesn’t have to be all or none ... lockdown or freedom ... if people complied with limited restrictions there would be less need to keep increasing them i get you are against another lockdown but your posts are just full of your opinion worded as though its the only person who knows the facts and everyone else is wrong | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though.compare it to the flu death rate, it is very small. Look at the flu graph.. Which they don't wish us to see. Around 1000 people have been dying of flu and pneumonia every single week since June. Nobody is kicking up a fuss about that " Look up "weekly influenza report" on Google. There is no flu worth any mention. What there is however is pneumonia which, as I am sure you know, a condition that is caused by many different viruses, bacterial infections and fungai. People having cancer treatment can be susceptible to pneumonia too. Basically, you are comparing 1 virus with a condition caused for many different reasons. Don't you think that's a little bit daft? Btw, the weekly influenza report is published by Public Health England and the cases follow typical annual pattern to no chance that there is anything dodgy going on with the reporting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though. The low death count could be put down to that the masks are working as it's got a lot to do with viral load you take in. So more people are out and about but majority wearing mask...think about it. Hmm but the people that don't wear masks (the ones that don't think covid is anywhere near as dangerous as its been made out to be) are not the ones going out to get tested. So all these new cases are from people that wear masks surely? Hence why i asked if masks have not worked because it certainly looks like they have not. Then you have no understanding of how masks work, they help protect others not the wearer, they are also not and never have been publicised as some kind of fix all, they help, albeit only slightly, but they are also a trivial and very cost effective thing to ask the public to do so why wouldn't you wear one. You will also no doubt be aware that there are a very large number of people who have to get tested as part of their work. So there will be plenty being tested as positive that don't wear masks. I may not know how masks work but i know doctors/surgeons do and heres a qoute from a Dr meehan. Which after reading it seems to make more common sense than anything else I've heard coming out of our goverment or experts. "I'm a surgeon that has performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. However, that fact alone doesn't really qualify me as an expert on the matter. More importantly, I am a former editor of a medical journal. I know how to read the medical literature, distinguish good science from bad, and fact from fiction. Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. It is very easy to be deceived by bad science. Since the beginning of the pandemic I've read hundreds of studies on the science of medical masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthy people should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by the highest level of scientific evidence. First, let's be clear. The premise that surgeons wearing masks serves as evidence that "masks must work to prevent viral transmission" is a logical fallacy that I would classify as an argument of false equivalence, or comparing "apples to oranges." Although surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients, that is about as far as the analogy extends. Obviously, surgeons cannot "socially distance" from their surgical patients (unless we use robotic surgical devices, in which case, I would definitely not wear a mask). The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks do nothing to prevent viral transmission. We should all realize by now that face masks have never been shown to prevent or protect against viral transmission. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics. The failure of the scientific literature to support medical masks for influenza and all other viruses, is also why Fauci, the US Surgeon General, the CDC, WHO, and pretty much every infectious disease expert stated that wearing masks won't prevent transmission of SARS CoV-2. Although the public health "authorities" flipped, flopped, and later changed their recommendations, the science did not change, nor did new science appear that supported the wearing of masks in public. In fact, the most recent systemic analysis once again confirms that masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of viruses like CoVID-19: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as they know the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask. Another area of "false equivalence" has to do with the environment in which the masks are worn. The environments in which surgeons wear masks minimize the adverse effects surgical masks have on their wearers. Unlike the public wearing masks in the community, surgeons work in sterile surgical suites equipped with heavy duty air exchange systems that maintain positive pressures, exchange and filter the room air at a very high level, and increase the oxygen content of the room air. These conditions limit the negative effects of masks on the surgeon and operating room staff. And yet despite these extreme climate control conditions, clinical studies demonstrate the negative effects (lowering arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide re-breathing) of surgical masks on surgeon physiology and performance. Surgeons and operating room personnel are well trained, experienced, and meticulous about maintaining sterility. We only wear fresh sterile masks. We don the mask in a sterile fashion. We wear the mask for short periods of time and change it out at the first signs of the excessive moisture build up that we know degrades mask effectiveness and increases their negative effects. Surgeons NEVER re-use surgical masks, nor do we ever wear cloth masks. The public is being told to wear masks for which they have not been trained in the proper techniques. As a result, they are mishandling, frequently touching, and constantly reusing masks in a way that increase contamination and are more likely than not to increase transmission of disease. Just go watch people at the grocery story or Walmart and tell me what you think about the effectiveness of masks in the community. If you can't help but believe and trust the weak retrospective observational studies and confused public health "authorities" lying to you about the benefits and completely ignoring the risks of medical masks, then you should at least reject the illogical anti-science recommendation to block only 2 of the 3 ports of entry for viral diseases. Masks only cover the mouth and nose. They do not protect the eyes." Jim Meehan MD is a physician, accomplished leader, and entrepreneur who provides innovative science and solutions that adhere to open, honest, transparent, and uncompromisingly patient-centered principles. He transforms raw data and scientific research into easy to understand information that educates, informs, and motivates changes in behavior to lead to improved health and wellness. Dr. Meehan believes in educating patients to be scientists of their own health. I won't but the link here but if anyone wants the link just ask." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does this mean that masks have not worked? Since the introduction of masks about 2 months ago once the curve was flattened and cases was at its lowest. Since masks was made mandatory the cases have been only ever been rising. Or is it just a case of more and more people getting tested since the track and trace app came available? I see the death count is still really low though. The low death count could be put down to that the masks are working as it's got a lot to do with viral load you take in. So more people are out and about but majority wearing mask...think about it. Hmm but the people that don't wear masks (the ones that don't think covid is anywhere near as dangerous as its been made out to be) are not the ones going out to get tested. So all these new cases are from people that wear masks surely? Hence why i asked if masks have not worked because it certainly looks like they have not. Then you have no understanding of how masks work, they help protect others not the wearer, they are also not and never have been publicised as some kind of fix all, they help, albeit only slightly, but they are also a trivial and very cost effective thing to ask the public to do so why wouldn't you wear one. You will also no doubt be aware that there are a very large number of people who have to get tested as part of their work. So there will be plenty being tested as positive that don't wear masks. I may not know how masks work but i know doctors/surgeons do and heres a qoute from a Dr meehan. Which after reading it seems to make more common sense than anything else I've heard coming out of our goverment or experts. "I'm a surgeon that has performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. However, that fact alone doesn't really qualify me as an expert on the matter. More importantly, I am a former editor of a medical journal. I know how to read the medical literature, distinguish good science from bad, and fact from fiction. Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. It is very easy to be deceived by bad science. Since the beginning of the pandemic I've read hundreds of studies on the science of medical masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthy people should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by the highest level of scientific evidence. First, let's be clear. The premise that surgeons wearing masks serves as evidence that "masks must work to prevent viral transmission" is a logical fallacy that I would classify as an argument of false equivalence, or comparing "apples to oranges." Although surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients, that is about as far as the analogy extends. Obviously, surgeons cannot "socially distance" from their surgical patients (unless we use robotic surgical devices, in which case, I would definitely not wear a mask). The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks do nothing to prevent viral transmission. We should all realize by now that face masks have never been shown to prevent or protect against viral transmission. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics. The failure of the scientific literature to support medical masks for influenza and all other viruses, is also why Fauci, the US Surgeon General, the CDC, WHO, and pretty much every infectious disease expert stated that wearing masks won't prevent transmission of SARS CoV-2. Although the public health "authorities" flipped, flopped, and later changed their recommendations, the science did not change, nor did new science appear that supported the wearing of masks in public. In fact, the most recent systemic analysis once again confirms that masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of viruses like CoVID-19: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as they know the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask. Another area of "false equivalence" has to do with the environment in which the masks are worn. The environments in which surgeons wear masks minimize the adverse effects surgical masks have on their wearers. Unlike the public wearing masks in the community, surgeons work in sterile surgical suites equipped with heavy duty air exchange systems that maintain positive pressures, exchange and filter the room air at a very high level, and increase the oxygen content of the room air. These conditions limit the negative effects of masks on the surgeon and operating room staff. And yet despite these extreme climate control conditions, clinical studies demonstrate the negative effects (lowering arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide re-breathing) of surgical masks on surgeon physiology and performance. Surgeons and operating room personnel are well trained, experienced, and meticulous about maintaining sterility. We only wear fresh sterile masks. We don the mask in a sterile fashion. We wear the mask for short periods of time and change it out at the first signs of the excessive moisture build up that we know degrades mask effectiveness and increases their negative effects. Surgeons NEVER re-use surgical masks, nor do we ever wear cloth masks. The public is being told to wear masks for which they have not been trained in the proper techniques. As a result, they are mishandling, frequently touching, and constantly reusing masks in a way that increase contamination and are more likely than not to increase transmission of disease. Just go watch people at the grocery story or Walmart and tell me what you think about the effectiveness of masks in the community. If you can't help but believe and trust the weak retrospective observational studies and confused public health "authorities" lying to you about the benefits and completely ignoring the risks of medical masks, then you should at least reject the illogical anti-science recommendation to block only 2 of the 3 ports of entry for viral diseases. Masks only cover the mouth and nose. They do not protect the eyes." Jim Meehan MD is a physician, accomplished leader, and entrepreneur who provides innovative science and solutions that adhere to open, honest, transparent, and uncompromisingly patient-centered principles. He transforms raw data and scientific research into easy to understand information that educates, informs, and motivates changes in behavior to lead to improved health and wellness. Dr. Meehan believes in educating patients to be scientists of their own health. I won't but the link here but if anyone wants the link just ask." Hi can you send me the link please | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
