The Coronavirus Thread

[L'Emmerdeur]

I'm amazed that anybody bothers.

[pErvinalia]

[Brian Peacock]

All those face masks.

Calls for UK national lockdown grow as coronavirus death toll passes 60,000

Total of 61,469 comes as country hits 200-deaths-a-day average weeks earlier than forecast

The number of people killed by coronavirus in the UK passed 60,000 on Tuesday as the country hit a 200-a-day death toll weeks earlier than feared by the government’s chief scientific adviser.

The two alarming milestones bolstered calls for a national “circuit breaker” to halt an exponential rise in cases.

A further 367 new Covid deaths were confirmed on Tuesday – the largest number since May, and 265 higher than the previous day. While numbers often fluctuate during and after weekends, this brings the rolling seven-day average death toll to 200, with 61,469 deaths UK-wide, according to analysis of official data.

More than 9,000 people were in hospital with Covid, with Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust the latest to cancel some non-urgent operations, saying it had more coronavirus patients than at the peak of the first wave.

They really do work.

Yes. They do. Their use reduces the overall risk. As does good hand hygiene, maintaining social distance, avoiding public transport, etc etc. As I pointed out last week in a post which contained three videos from university departments about the epidemiology, without mitigation measures the initial rise in infections would have been steeper, would have gone higher, continued for longer, and come down slower. The spread of infections can be modelled and the mathematical basis of those models has been developed by epidemiologists and biologists over a long period of time. You're emotional obsession with masks aside, as woeful as these figures are they are the numbers following the imposition of certain measures. Without them we'd be in similar state to parts of the US - i.e. far worse off. The idea that the higher these kind of numbers go the more it proves how useless it is to try and limit the impact on public health of Covid-19 is, quite frankly, over-cooked, ass-backwards, batshit-crazy nonsense. Then again, where you think the numbers are low you also say the same thing. In having it both ways you demonstrate that this is simply an article of faith with you - something you hold to be absolute regardless of the evidence for or against.



The UK government were slow to impose a lockdown, and after 6 weeks of the billionaire press pitting public health against the economy they were quick to undermine those restrictions with what I believe were deliberately confusing and contradictory messages about the extent of the problem and the risk to public health. Indeed, their attitude seems to mirror you own almost perfectly: that Covid-19 isn't the kind of threat to public health people think it is, not least one that requires action which might permanently damage the economy. Where masks are used they reduce individual and overall risk, but where people are obliged to keep 'calm and carry on', to go to work and interact with people, to participate in 'the economy' as normal then person-person transmission and infection is far more likely to occur. This is where we are now in the UK.

You have a severe respiratory condition. You're probably quite right to say that being obliged to wear a mask would not only be difficult for you but counter-productive to your general health and well-being. But you have absolutely no right to project that onto society more widely, let alone expect public health policy to align with your personal needs, or even with your opinions. Lots of people are dying who don't need to die Scot, and whether you think that is important or not that is something that needs to be dealt with and addressed ahead of 'the economy'.

[pErvinalia]

In Simplistic Scot World rising numbers of cases means masks don't work. In the real world it is understood that numbers would be increasing at a greater rate had face masks not been worn.

[Hermit]

Should have worn masks
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/europe/b ... index.html

They are mandatory in Belgium but that's the point; they had no obvious influence.

No, they actually removed the mask mandate on Oct 1st.

Obviously it makes no difference.

October 1st: 7-day rolling average of daily new cases: 1,652. Belgium removes the mask mandate.
October 27th: 7-day rolling average of daily new cases: 14,748.

[pErvinalia]

You can't trust that data. You can only trust data that shows cases going up when masks are mandated.

[Brian Peacock]

A friend of mine has just moved to Belgium to avoid Brexit. Out of the frying pan, into the mayonnaise.

[JimC]

Plucky little Belgium...

[rainbow]

Should have worn masks
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/europe/b ... index.html

They are mandatory in Belgium but that's the point; they had no obvious influence.

Exactly.

Bloody Belgian Dutch people, they should go back to Holland, or wherever they belong.
... bringing disease and stupidity into Wallonia.

[rainbow]

A friend of mine has just moved to Belgium to avoid Brexit. Out of the frying pan, into the mayonnaise.

...but is it the civilised South, or the barbaric Dutch region (Brussels excepted)

[rainbow]

There are just so many variables involved plus no scientific evidence or trials.

...except for the scientific evidence and the trials.

We've even sent you links to these.

Anecdotal evidence counts these days?

Only according to you.

Nope, you've been sent links to actual published scientific studies, which you knee-jerk reject.

[Scot Dutchy]

Should have worn masks
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/europe/b ... index.html

They are mandatory in Belgium but that's the point; they had no obvious influence.

No, they actually removed the mask mandate on Oct 1st.

Obviously it makes no difference.

October 1st: 7-day rolling average of daily new cases: 1,652. Belgium removes the mask mandate.
October 27th: 7-day rolling average of daily new cases: 14,748.

So?

[Scot Dutchy]

There are just so many variables involved plus no scientific evidence or trials.

...except for the scientific evidence and the trials.

We've even sent you links to these.

Anecdotal evidence counts these days?

Only according to you.

Nope, you've been sent links to actual published scientific studies, which you knee-jerk reject.

Your favourite mantra. There have been no scientific double blind trials. Situations where shit has been extracted and presented as evidence you mean.

[pErvinalia]

How are you going to do double-blind?

[Brian Peacock]

Understanding 'aerosol transmission' could be key to controlling coronavirus

Imagine you think there are mice in your house. You can see the evidence – mouse droppings; gnawed or damaged skirting boards; holes left in food packaging. You call a local pest control team who confirm that you have mice and advise you on what is needed to remove them. Neither of you have actually had to see a mouse to reach this conclusion.

The same kind of thinking can be applied to the transmission of coronavirus. We don’t need to see the virus to understand how it spreads. Recent studies from China show that patients infected with Covid-19 in clinical settings exhale large amounts of virus, which remain present in the air and can be sampled and detected.

Because of this, scientists can reasonably infer that the virus contaminates its surrounding environment. People nearby may inhale it, and as the virus floats through the air, spreading further in poorly ventilated environments, those who are further away could also become infected. Importantly, scientists haven’t yet demonstrated that someone walking through a cloud of exhaled virus would develop Covid-19 from that particular exposure, and research in this area is ongoing. But there is growing evidence that the virus which causes Covid can remain in the air, and therefore pose a risk to people in that airspace.

The evidence that Covid can spread via aerosol transmission takes one of two different forms. First, many scientists now think that aerosol transmission explained some early outbreaks, such as those in an air-conditioned restaurant in Guangzhou, China, and at a choir practice in the US, where the virus was exhaled by people and may have remained in the surrounding environment before infecting others who inhaled it.

Second, aerosol transmission partly explains why countries that were early adopters of policies which targeted this kind of transmission have been more successful at controlling the virus. For example, south-east Asian countries were far quicker to adopt face masks, which are shown to reduce the spread of aerosols, than many western countries including the UK...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... wash-hands