Coronavirus: General discussion (see opening post for rules)

[sonofsanta]

This is a fascinating (but long!) thread on masks, the efficacy thereof, and the reason the advice (in Western countries) was so confused, as well as a summary of what's recommended going forward:

* ThreadReader

* Original on Twitter

 

In précis:

 

• advice against masks early on was based on misunderstanding of COVID spread (believing it was droplets, not airborne) and the Western scientific model of expecting strong evidence for an intervention before recommending it, rather than recommending just-in-case i.e. starting from a position of "what if masks are bad?" rather than "what if not masking is bad?"
  
• wearing a mask is infact as much about your own protection as it is about protecting other people, now we know it's airborne particles
  
• double-masking is worthwhile given the size of particles we now know are involved; filtering the air you're breathing in helps
  
• we should keep wearing masks, even if vaccinated, until there is "no longer uncontrolled spread in the community"; even at 95% efficacy, that means 20 vaccinated people are still equivalent to one unvaccinated person, and we've all seen how easily it can spread from that one person. Odds are better with vaccines but still not good enough to relax.
  

[LeMarchand]

So we should exercise "caution" and "common sense" after restrictions are lifted. Some (a lot?) of people aren't doing that with restrictions still in place. The chances of them doing so when there are no restrictions are about as high as those of England winning a major international football tournament. (Too soon ?)

[StevieM]

So we should exercise "caution" and "common sense" after restrictions are lifted. Some (a lot?) of people aren't doing that with restrictions still in place. The chances of them doing so when there are no restrictions are about as high as those of England winning a major international football tournament. (Too soon ?)

I was at a socially-distanced concert at Liverpool Philharmonic Hall on Saturday night. As I was waiting outside, an older couple (70s) approached the venue and had the following conversation before proceeding to put their masks on:

 

Woman: Oh, yes. I'd forgotten about the masks.

Man: Uurrghh. We'll be OK after the 19th of July, though.

 

Caution and common sense, my ar...mpit!

[LeMarchand]

I was at a socially-distanced concert at Liverpool Philharmonic Hall on Saturday night. As I was waiting outside, an older couple (70s) approached the venue and had the following conversation before proceeding to put their masks on:

 

Woman: Oh, yes. I'd forgotten about the masks.

Man: Uurrghh. We'll be OK after the 19th of July, though.

 

Caution and common sense, my ar...mpit!

 

I've been visiting the local hospital daily of late. In the few seconds that the security guard controlled entrance is visible for on each visit, there is always someone being told to wear one of the provided masks, and very few people wear masks unless they're within a few yards of the main entrance.

 

P.S. I'd laugh if it was decided that mask wearing should be mandatory for the over 70s for their own safety .

Edited July 13, 2021 by LeMarchand

[Rob_D]

This is a fascinating (but long!) thread on masks, the efficacy thereof, and the reason the advice (in Western countries) was so confused, as well as a summary of what's recommended going forward:

* ThreadReader

* Original on Twitter

 

In précis:

 

• advice against masks early on was based on misunderstanding of COVID spread (believing it was droplets, not airborne) and the Western scientific model of expecting strong evidence for an intervention before recommending it, rather than recommending just-in-case i.e. starting from a position of "what if masks are bad?" rather than "what if not masking is bad?"
  
• wearing a mask is infact as much about your own protection as it is about protecting other people, now we know it's airborne particles
  
• double-masking is worthwhile given the size of particles we now know are involved; filtering the air you're breathing in helps
  
• we should keep wearing masks, even if vaccinated, until there is "no longer uncontrolled spread in the community"; even at 95% efficacy, that means 20 vaccinated people are still equivalent to one unvaccinated person, and we've all seen how easily it can spread from that one person. Odds are better with vaccines but still not good enough to relax.
  

 

Interesting read. But having read the thread and some of the linked articles, I'm confused. Is it airborne or aerosolized? Because the tweets keep saying airborne, but all the links talk about aerosols.

[enbiggen]

Interesting read. But having read the thread and some of the linked articles, I'm confused. Is it airborne or aerosolized? Because the tweets keep saying airborne, but all the links talk about aerosols.

I believe aerosolized particles float in the air, rather than drop to the ground with gravity (as they're smaller and lighter) - so they are airborne.

[pooley]

I know this is based on Welsh data and specific to Wales but it's an interesting read.

[Ditto]

I didn't include children at all, although there are things like https://www.cdc.gov/mis/mis-c.html

I know, I was suggesting you should. When you are suggesting over 100,00 further deaths (presumably based on current actions), I suggest the fullest picture should be considered

Existing death rate is about 2%, so I halved that to get 1% given increases in knowledge of treatment.

I don't accept the 2% rate. Early on the rate was between 1.5 and 2%, but that was a fully unvaccinated population. The population left unvaccinated now is very different to the profile at the start because the vaccine focussed on the 90+% that were at higher risk. Halving the number for forward projection has no scientific basis. For a clearer understanding of Covid related death at present, have a look at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/deaths. The first visualisation show how much things have changed since the outbreak started.

I assume if you're immunocompromised you have a far higher chance of death, and that 1% of people are immunocompromised. Couldn't find much data on that, although https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/998309/Greenbook_chapter_14a_1July2021.pdf does say that they should be vaccinated, and there are very few people who shouldn't be, no numbers, but unlikely to be as high as 1%.

'Assuming' is unscientific. Immuno-compromised are at greater risk, the data is clear. You need accurate data of how many have been vaccinated or not to make a good projection.

 

So mostly it's people who have chosen not to be vaccinated, and those yet to be vaccinated. And then people for whom the vaccine is not effective.

Just no! Of the 33 million you quote at the outset, about 12 million are under 18 - they have not 'chosen' not to be vaccinated. Of the remaining 21 million, many have had a first dose, others both but may not yet be at the highest level or protection. Although the rate of vaccinating is falling, there are still over 1/4 million doses being given a day.

 

Look, I'm not looking forward to the next few weeks/months seeing increasing cases, hospitalisations, deaths, long Covid suffering, but as I've indicated before, I don't buy in to taking the most pessimistic outlook. Well used data can tell us facts, often retrospectively with accuracy. It can also be used for projecting forwards, but that's much harder and needs to be done carefully to be of value.

[mavhc]

I don't accept the 2% rate. Early on the rate was between 1.5 and 2%, but that was a fully unvaccinated population. The population left unvaccinated now is very different to the profile at the start because the vaccine focussed on the 90+% that were at higher risk. Halving the number for forward projection has no scientific basis. For a clearer understanding of Covid related death at present, have a look at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/deaths. The first visualisation show how much things have changed since the outbreak started.

 

The one that shows in Apr 2020-Jan 2021 75% of deaths were from 75 or older people. Now it's 50%?

 

'Assuming' is unscientific. Immuno-compromised are at greater risk, the data is clear. You need accurate data of how many have been vaccinated or not to make a good projection.

People make assumptions in science all the time, if anyone has those figures post them, improve the estimate.

 

Just no! Of the 33 million you quote at the outset, about 12 million are under 18 - they have not 'chosen' not to be vaccinated. Of the remaining 21 million, many have had a first dose, others both but may not yet be at the highest level or protection. Although the rate of vaccinating is falling, there are still over 1/4 million doses being given a day.

 

Right, there's 1. Those that have chosen not to have a vaccine, 2. Those yet to be vaccinated, including children, 3. those for whom the vaccine they've had won't work, and 4. those who can't have the vaccine, which which an antibody injection is being tested.

 

Can't tell the difference between 1 and 2 easily, hence a split of 50/50.

 

The most pessimistic outlook is our lack of quarantine and masses of people infected cause a new variant that's more dangerous, this was my optimistic calculation.

[Ditto]

I'll leave others to draw there own conclusions, I've said all I feel I need to at this point.

[sigma]

Might be showing my age here, but could you let me know what 'ROT' is an acronym for - thanks!

 

Rule of Thumb ..... Its an old person's expression (I'm old)....

[sigma]

This was published by SPI-B. It seems to me to be directly relevant to schools where there are so many people close together.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emg-and-spi-b-application-of-co2-monitoring-as-an-approach-to-managing-ventilation-to-mitigate-sars-cov-2-transmission-27-may-2021

[6Foot2]

Link: https://twitter.com/TVRav/status/1415026096597241858 [Rav Text Reply]

 

Buying all future books at @Waterstones

 

 

British "common sense" in operation upon removal of restrictions.

[mavhc]

New Zealand scientists say UK’s ‘awful experiment’ on Covid will threaten the country.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/nz-lockdown-easing-uk-covid-b1883324.html

[Rob_D]

Link: https://twitter.com/TVRav/status/1415026096597241858 [Rav Text Reply]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]62591[/ATTACH]

British "common sense" in operation upon removal of restrictions.

 

Joke all you want, but I think this is going to become a genuine problem for shops. People have enough choice (what with amazon selling pretty much everything now) that customers don't really need to go into any shop. The customer has all the power, if people don't want to jump through whatever hoops the shop puts up (be that masks or anything else), they'll just buy elsewhere and the shops will suffer. The govt isn't going to bail out shops that are failing because of this anymore than they would a shop that's failing because there's no market for it.

Which is going to put a lot of pressure on shops to lift restrictions which then puts staff at increased risk and in a horrible position of having to work somewhere they're not comfortable.

Which is to say, I do not envy retail right now.

[6Foot2]

Joke all you want...

My apologies. You misunderstood my post.

 

I wasn't joking.

 

I am surprised (putting it mildly) that Julia Hartley-Brewer and Laurence Fox think it's OK to publicly advocate the stances they do.

 

Madness!

[LeMarchand]

Yep, shops and bars are basically not going to be able to enforce mask wearing or social distancing. The latter, in particular, wasn't happening when restrictions were mandatory. They've got no hope once they're not.

 

If I had the time to modify it so that it was actually as effective as a "normal" mask, I'd be tempted to break my one of these out next week, just to make a point.

 

[Norphy]

My apologies. You misunderstood my post.

 

I wasn't joking.

 

I am surprised (putting it mildly) that Julia Hartley-Brewer and Laurence Fox think it's OK to publicly advocate the stances they do.

 

Madness!

 

I don't know much about Julia Hartley-Brewer (I vaguely recognise the name but couldn't pick her out in a lineup) but I'm not even remotely surprised that the dangerous waste of skin that is Laurence Fox has said something like that. He's been in the news for the last year decrying the alleged travesty of justice that is a facemask. He even built a large part of his London mayoral election campaign around it.

 

So yes, disturbed by it. Disgusted too. Disappointed even. Not surprised.

[6Foot2]

...So yes, disturbed by it. Disgusted too. Disappointed even. Not surprised.

Fair enough.

[paulkerton]

if people don't want to jump through whatever hoops the shop puts up (be that masks or anything else), they'll just buy elsewhere and the shops will suffer

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

No seatbelt, no insurance.

 

No insurance, breaking the law.

 

Businesses have every right to refuse a customer for not doing something they require, outside of the things protected by the law.

I know one numpty that works in schools thats refusing masks, thinks Covid is a government lie, won't take a jab etc... and now won't shop in Waterstones.

 

Guess who I'm going to pop into later and buy a book from?

[tg12]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/13/masks-will-be-needed-on-london-tube-buses-and-trains-tfl-to-confirm

 

I honestly think this is a sensible move by TfL and Sadiq Khan. I was wondering last week as I was going around London if this might be on the cards and I'm glad it is. While the risk is reportedly low, I certainly feel more confident about using public transport if masks are kept. Of course, people are trying to argue this isn't enforceable as it's no longer law (even though it really is as a condition of access!), so it remains to be seen how many people actually continue wearing masks!

[jmak]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/13/masks-will-be-needed-on-london-tube-buses-and-trains-tfl-to-confirm

 

I honestly think this is a sensible move by TfL and Sadiq Khan. I was wondering last week as I was going around London if this might be on the cards and I'm glad it is. While the risk is reportedly low, I certainly feel more confident about using public transport if masks are kept. Of course, people are trying to argue this isn't enforceable as it's no longer law (even though it really is as a condition of access!), so it remains to be seen how many people actually continue wearing masks!

I'll leave this here without commenting:

 

Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, has said he always “expected, and indeed, wanted” some train, bus and rail companies to insist on mask-wearing on their services, despite the government removing legal requirements for face coverings in England.

 

The minister said he backed the decision of Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, to carry on requiring face coverings on public transport in the capital, even though the government had previously said it wanted to move to a system of “common sense” and “personal responsibility” when it comes to mask-wearing

[/Quote]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/14/shapps-mask-wearing-expected-to-remain-on-public-transport?

[mavhc]

My apologies. You misunderstood my post.

 

I wasn't joking.

 

I am surprised (putting it mildly) that Julia Hartley-Brewer and Laurence Fox think it's OK to publicly advocate the stances they do.

 

Madness!

 

They do it to get free publicity, you gave it to them

[6Foot2]

They do it to get free publicity, you gave it to them

I honestly doubt that my Edugeek (Behind the Red Door) post will make much of an impact in the publicity received by these two numpties!

 

[mavhc]

I honestly doubt that my Edugeek (Behind the Red Door) post will make much of an impact in the publicity received by these two numpties!

 

 

Weirdly this is a metaphor for people wearing masks. Don't spread the meme virus!