China Coronavirus

[LCohen]

Well can you accept that absolutely nobody has claimed that NI mortality rate will be as high in 5-6 weeks as they have been at earlier stages?

I cannot accept that absolutely nobody has claimed that as there are loads of doom merchants out there who do think we are all going to die from it.

As I have said countless times before, the next 5/6 weeks will be telling. The virus is so widespread now up north that we are going to be able to quantify to some regard of how much of a danger it is when that time has passed.

Well you can at least accept that you cannot point to anyone who has claimed that the NI death rate in 5-6 weeks will be as high as it was at earlier stages?

Why are we going into massive lockdown then? It's projected by fear, I can understand that fear, I can understand that fear is the rationale behind more lockdown and restrictive measures but if the data bears out that the sort of consequences are nowhere near the fatality levels of the first wave then I think it will influence how we move forward.

We live with flu every year and it overwhelms the health system, it kills people, some are young, fit and healthy. That seems to be an acceptable risk - at which point does Covid become an acceptable risk. Is 1,000 deaths a year over 300k cases an acceptable risk for argument sake?

Respectfully I would ask you to answer the question.

You keep repeating your allusion that people ("doom merchants") have claimed that the death rate in NI will be as high in 5-6 weeks as it was earlier. So respectfully I ask you confirm that you have evidence of these claims and post it or acknowledge that you made it up and kept repeating it?

[LCohen]

What "experts" say masks don't work?

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-52153145

That was six months ago. Does he still believe that?

How do you explain places like New York, where cases plummeted following the state mandating the wearing of masks in public in April and where most people are actually adhering to mask wearing?

No one is saying masks alone are the panacaea. However, they've been standard practice in health care for decades to reduce the chances of staff infecting patients through exhalation of infectious droplets. Even if they're only 10% effective in reducing COVID transmission, that's still something worth pursuing, along with the social distancing, hand hygiene and so on.

You asked me for an expert who said masks don't work. There;s an expert who said it.

Here's another one.

https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/no-point-in-wearing-mask-sweden-covid/

So rather than trying to move the goalposts now, why don't you just accept that is significant difference of opinion from the "experts" on whether face masks actually work or not.

What are you on about, "moving the goalposts"?

First, most governments and public health agencies were reluctant to mandate masks for the public back in March and April because of the huge shortages at the time. Its perfectly valid to ask if the guy you posted from England still believes now what he was advocating for in April, especially given the trends in the disease and the increased availability of PPE.

Second, in that link Tegnell specifically refers to the plummeting cases in Sweden at the time (July), and Sweden was trying for herd immunity anyway. Tegnell has plenty of critics within Sweden, where cases have been far higher than its neighbours.

There's always going to be a few who go against the consensus, but you seem to be implying that the public health professionals and scientists are hopelessly confused and there are equal numbers advocating for and against mask wearing. That is not the case.

The absolute effectiveness can only be established through study and experimentation. In the meantime, the responsible thing to do is to err on the side of caution, use what we do know about airborne transmission and masks, and recommend/require their use, along with social distancing and the rest.

It's quite clear, you asked for an expert who disputed masks - I gave you one. You then moved the goalposts to say he changed his mind.

It's perfectly valid in your mind but that's also a subjective view that supports your argument and is not based on anything more than that.

There are plenty of experts who argue that masks are ineffective. The bottom line is that it's a minor inconvenience for most people to wear them so on the small chance they do slow it down experts recommend them but that doesn't mean they are an effective weapon against the virus as the experts are at odds on this - contrary to your wrongly asserted view as I have shown.

1. I did NOT say the English dude changed his mind. I questioned if he had (which you've quoted), given that the link you posted was from April 3. We're discussing this in October. A lot has happened since then. We now have six additional months of knowledge of how the disease works and how to combat and manage it. It would be unprofessional for any scientist or public health professional not to take what happened in that time into account.

2. You haven't shown any wrongly asserted view on my part. You seem to be saying that there are a significant number of experts who advocate against masks, but you haven't shown anything to support that. Tegnell is a very noted exception in this pandemic in that he is not only not recommending masks, but he is way looser with all of the other typical requirements. He is not a typical example. Outside of Scandinavia and China (and Ireland?), most of the planet has some kind of mandatory mask rules. The science may be inconclusive at this point, but they're still correctly erring on the side of caution in their advice.

You question me on what experts said masks don't work.

I provided you with one and then you tried to move the goalposts. I also provided you with another one.

It's clear as day that experts are divided on this, which you disputed so maybe in light of factual evidence of experts publicly voicing this opinion, you should accept that there are two differing fields of thoughts between experts.

Experts will divide on most things given there will always be an outlier somewhere. However if 90% of the experts claim one thing and only 10% the other. I would tend to take my chances with the 90%.

Also just on an aside, Professor Van-Tam has changed his viewpoint on masks. This is from 2 days ago. 

<sup>Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said the best way to keep transmission low and stop the NHS being overwhelmed was for people with symptoms to self-isolate and get a test, and for people to wash their hands, wear face coverings and maintain social distancing.

He also said that the country now has much better testing capabilities, knows more about the disease, and has better treatments than during the first wave.</sup>

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-england-has-reached-a-tipping-point-similar-to-first-wave-deputy-chief-medical-officer-says-12101356

I don't have any opinion either way on masks.

I wear them as they are only a minor inconvenience and if they help in any way it's not a problem but it's a classic example of how little clarity science has been able to provide thus far.

You seem to think that if science doesn't have all the answers it is letting us down. And that if the evidence isn't yet there then that is science's fault. And that if people change their mind in response to new or emerging evidence that their flip flopping.

So make a decision on masks, explain it, stick to it even if the evidence changes. That seems to be you attitude so live by it

What I am saying is some people seem to be under the illusion that life stops until science sorts the virus and eradicates it.

That is not happening in the short-medium term, there is no signs of science cracking it any time soon. Life has to go, we have to learn to live with the virus. The second wave is going to be telling but the WHO have criticised governments for using lockdowns to manage the virus.

I think in Feb of next year we will have a much better idea of how serious Covid really is from the data available, we can see fatality rates falling hugely across Europe during the second wave, if that trend continues then we can live with the virus until such time as science finally does get an answer and there is a very good chance science won't get that answer before the virus stops being an issue.

There are plenty of cases of previous viruses burning out before science was able to get the answer to them.

Hmmm. On viruses burning out post the plenty of evidence (be careful about Spanish Flu)

Also Life is not stopping.

More can be done to address quality of life during a period of restrictions so get angry about that.
More can be done to act on scientific advice and manage the situation. Things can and must be better coordinated. Get angry about that if must get angry.

But I guess you just want to be angry at scientists and will keep going at that

[LCohen]

In terms of treatments, vaccines and understanding it is critically important that science keeps trying. Blockheads will try to get in the way but we just have to expose their idiocy

On the economic issues how many jobs will be lost if we don't get COVID sorted? What are the prospects for the global or domestic economy if we can't control, significantly treat, cure or vaccinate against Covid?

That's all speculative, neither of us have the answer but do you think it is good for the human race to hide under the bed waiting for science to solve it?

The data on the consequences of the second wave surge in Europe should be the decisive factor on which avenue we take. If the current trends continue then it looks more and more likely we can live with the virus.

To describe the search for treatment, vaccines and a better understanding of the virus as speculative probably gives away your degree of understanding of science and indeed English.

But please don't let me deter you from answering the economic questions I posed

[LCohen]

Other half is positive, she's 27, no underlying conditions, doesnt smoke etc.
Symptoms started Monday morning, day 3 now and shes not fit to get out of bed.
This is something you want to avoid if you can help it.

That is how it was for me. The tiredness did improve daily, first 5 days I had to go back to bed around lunchtime each day and it would just come on very suddenly. Hopefully she is ok and if it follows my pattern it does improve significantly after 7 days

Have you had a flu (a proper one rather than your standard, head cold/chest infection) before and how do the symptoms compare?

I have had a proper flu before, she hasn't. From what I remember I couldn't eat with the flu, whereas she is eating although but alot.
Its similar I would say,  but then I know of a late 40s case with no underlying conditions who is in ICU, so it's hard to predict.

There's a lot of people who will get tetchy about comparing it to a flu but I don't think they realise that a flu can have fatal consequences even to fit and healthy people, Christopher Colhoun being a prime recent example of how it can impact a fit and healthy young man.

I don't think there is any adult or adolescent who does not know that the flu can be fatal.

I know plenty of people who reckon they have a flu 3 or 4 times a year and are in work many times with it.

I think you are being disingenuous.

If only they had a friend with the merest understanding of science.

An awful pity

[LCohen]

The best one of the lot for me is the no selling beer after 8pm in shops. Literally pointless. Almost like one can't go and buy it for the 8 hours prior.

Apparently not. One of the earlier Welsh regional restrictions was in part based upon evidence established via test, track and trace. They were able to identify links to clusters from people coming out of pubs and going on to other pubs or back to houses via the off licence.

The reason why a lot of clusters are linked to pubs is because they are using track and trace, they are following guidelines set down and are following up on the procedures..

Shops are still open and no track and trace systems seem to be in place, kids will be off for 2 weeks and that means they'll head to the shops! as they don't have to adhere to staying local (2 mile radius)

Punishing the pubs, who have worked very hard to make things safer is wrong

This is the trace track and trace based on mobile phone data. Not names/addresses given at the door

[Angelo]

Well can you accept that absolutely nobody has claimed that NI mortality rate will be as high in 5-6 weeks as they have been at earlier stages?

I cannot accept that absolutely nobody has claimed that as there are loads of doom merchants out there who do think we are all going to die from it.

As I have said countless times before, the next 5/6 weeks will be telling. The virus is so widespread now up north that we are going to be able to quantify to some regard of how much of a danger it is when that time has passed.

Well you can at least accept that you cannot point to anyone who has claimed that the NI death rate in 5-6 weeks will be as high as it was at earlier stages?

Why are we going into massive lockdown then? It's projected by fear, I can understand that fear, I can understand that fear is the rationale behind more lockdown and restrictive measures but if the data bears out that the sort of consequences are nowhere near the fatality levels of the first wave then I think it will influence how we move forward.

We live with flu every year and it overwhelms the health system, it kills people, some are young, fit and healthy. That seems to be an acceptable risk - at which point does Covid become an acceptable risk. Is 1,000 deaths a year over 300k cases an acceptable risk for argument sake?

Respectfully I would ask you to answer the question.

You keep repeating your allusion that people ("doom merchants") have claimed that the death rate in NI will be as high in 5-6 weeks as it was earlier. So respectfully I ask you confirm that you have evidence of these claims and post it or acknowledge that you made it up and kept repeating it?

Well why are people making completely unfounded assertions regarding the severity of Covid when its a novel virus that science is still trying to figure out?

We have to wait and see on that regard but data is telling us that the fatality levels are dropping immensely in certain European countries with regard to the second wave.

Belgium being a good example.

506 deaths so far from 165,880 cases from 1st August to present, a 0.3% fatality rate. If that data would further be explained by 40% of those victims have underlying health conditions with a life expectancy of under 1 year, 30% of those victims having a life expectancy of under 2 years and 20% of those victims having a life expectancy of 5 years with the remaining 10% being people with no underlying health conditions - does that then make it an acceptable risk?

At what time is Covid deemed an acceptable risk, much like season flu is? How do we qualify that or do we just continue to hide under the bed until science finds the answer.

[Angelo]

What "experts" say masks don't work?

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-52153145

That was six months ago. Does he still believe that?

How do you explain places like New York, where cases plummeted following the state mandating the wearing of masks in public in April and where most people are actually adhering to mask wearing?

No one is saying masks alone are the panacaea. However, they've been standard practice in health care for decades to reduce the chances of staff infecting patients through exhalation of infectious droplets. Even if they're only 10% effective in reducing COVID transmission, that's still something worth pursuing, along with the social distancing, hand hygiene and so on.

You asked me for an expert who said masks don't work. There;s an expert who said it.

Here's another one.

https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/no-point-in-wearing-mask-sweden-covid/

So rather than trying to move the goalposts now, why don't you just accept that is significant difference of opinion from the "experts" on whether face masks actually work or not.

What are you on about, "moving the goalposts"?

First, most governments and public health agencies were reluctant to mandate masks for the public back in March and April because of the huge shortages at the time. Its perfectly valid to ask if the guy you posted from England still believes now what he was advocating for in April, especially given the trends in the disease and the increased availability of PPE.

Second, in that link Tegnell specifically refers to the plummeting cases in Sweden at the time (July), and Sweden was trying for herd immunity anyway. Tegnell has plenty of critics within Sweden, where cases have been far higher than its neighbours.

There's always going to be a few who go against the consensus, but you seem to be implying that the public health professionals and scientists are hopelessly confused and there are equal numbers advocating for and against mask wearing. That is not the case.

The absolute effectiveness can only be established through study and experimentation. In the meantime, the responsible thing to do is to err on the side of caution, use what we do know about airborne transmission and masks, and recommend/require their use, along with social distancing and the rest.

It's quite clear, you asked for an expert who disputed masks - I gave you one. You then moved the goalposts to say he changed his mind.

It's perfectly valid in your mind but that's also a subjective view that supports your argument and is not based on anything more than that.

There are plenty of experts who argue that masks are ineffective. The bottom line is that it's a minor inconvenience for most people to wear them so on the small chance they do slow it down experts recommend them but that doesn't mean they are an effective weapon against the virus as the experts are at odds on this - contrary to your wrongly asserted view as I have shown.

1. I did NOT say the English dude changed his mind. I questioned if he had (which you've quoted), given that the link you posted was from April 3. We're discussing this in October. A lot has happened since then. We now have six additional months of knowledge of how the disease works and how to combat and manage it. It would be unprofessional for any scientist or public health professional not to take what happened in that time into account.

2. You haven't shown any wrongly asserted view on my part. You seem to be saying that there are a significant number of experts who advocate against masks, but you haven't shown anything to support that. Tegnell is a very noted exception in this pandemic in that he is not only not recommending masks, but he is way looser with all of the other typical requirements. He is not a typical example. Outside of Scandinavia and China (and Ireland?), most of the planet has some kind of mandatory mask rules. The science may be inconclusive at this point, but they're still correctly erring on the side of caution in their advice.

You question me on what experts said masks don't work.

I provided you with one and then you tried to move the goalposts. I also provided you with another one.

It's clear as day that experts are divided on this, which you disputed so maybe in light of factual evidence of experts publicly voicing this opinion, you should accept that there are two differing fields of thoughts between experts.

Experts will divide on most things given there will always be an outlier somewhere. However if 90% of the experts claim one thing and only 10% the other. I would tend to take my chances with the 90%.

Also just on an aside, Professor Van-Tam has changed his viewpoint on masks. This is from 2 days ago. 

<sup>Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said the best way to keep transmission low and stop the NHS being overwhelmed was for people with symptoms to self-isolate and get a test, and for people to wash their hands, wear face coverings and maintain social distancing.

He also said that the country now has much better testing capabilities, knows more about the disease, and has better treatments than during the first wave.</sup>

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-england-has-reached-a-tipping-point-similar-to-first-wave-deputy-chief-medical-officer-says-12101356

I don't have any opinion either way on masks.

I wear them as they are only a minor inconvenience and if they help in any way it's not a problem but it's a classic example of how little clarity science has been able to provide thus far.

You seem to think that if science doesn't have all the answers it is letting us down. And that if the evidence isn't yet there then that is science's fault. And that if people change their mind in response to new or emerging evidence that their flip flopping.

So make a decision on masks, explain it, stick to it even if the evidence changes. That seems to be you attitude so live by it

What I am saying is some people seem to be under the illusion that life stops until science sorts the virus and eradicates it.

That is not happening in the short-medium term, there is no signs of science cracking it any time soon. Life has to go, we have to learn to live with the virus. The second wave is going to be telling but the WHO have criticised governments for using lockdowns to manage the virus.

I think in Feb of next year we will have a much better idea of how serious Covid really is from the data available, we can see fatality rates falling hugely across Europe during the second wave, if that trend continues then we can live with the virus until such time as science finally does get an answer and there is a very good chance science won't get that answer before the virus stops being an issue.

There are plenty of cases of previous viruses burning out before science was able to get the answer to them.

Hmmm. On viruses burning out post the plenty of evidence (be careful about Spanish Flu)

Also Life is not stopping.

More can be done to address quality of life during a period of restrictions so get angry about that.
More can be done to act on scientific advice and manage the situation. Things can and must be better coordinated. Get angry about that if must get angry.

But I guess you just want to be angry at scientists and will keep going at that

See the problem on acting on scientific advice is that science has been contradicting itself and backtracking since the start. Open schools to close schools again, is it airborne or not, should we wear masks or not.

I'm not angry at science, but I'm not naive enough to want society to shut down until such time as science solves this. The signs from science is that the virus has it befuddled and any progress made with trying to eradicate in the 10 months to date has been extremely limited. So what do we do? Learn to live with it much like we do with seasonal flu or continue on lockdowns and restrictive measures that have huge economic and societal repercussions?

Science isn't the problem, relying solely on science as the solution is the problem as it doesn't seem equipped to give us an answer in a pressing timeframe.

[LCohen]

But there is absolutely nothing to say whatsoever that the consequences of contracting the flu is worse than covid and it won't be known for years so to have a few blowhards on the internet coming out and making such proclamations is absolutely absurd.

Which of the studies in the chart I posted above do you take issue with and what is wrong with their methodology, exactly?

I would say the fact that Covid is a novel virus that little is still known about and it impossible to make definitive conclusions on this. Look at the falling mortality rates that are being returned across Europe, it is defying any sort of logic to be making these types of conclusions at this juncture.

Time will tell us about Covid, we just don't know enough at the minute and it's idiotic to say otherwise.

Have you reviewed those studies yourself?

Quite incredible. Angelo cries time is of the evidence and science needs to get its collective finger out.

When confronted with scientific research he decries it as can't be right as it's too early to say.

Poisonous ignorance

Not at all.

I think it's insanity to be waiting years for science to figure out something that basic questions are causing them severe confusion.

Science's track record on solving infectious diseases is not good so people advocating us hiding under our beds until such time as science finds the solution should be put away in straight jackets.

The most important thing now is what the data says over the next few months about fatality levels, if the trends continues of fatality levels dropping hugely then it's something we can live with. We live with flu, something science has never been able to eradicate.

Staggering stuff.

How do you know it going to be years?
What you refuse to wait to say (randomly March 2021) because it could end up being March 2023 even though the period between now and March 2021 coincides with the northern winter?

Show me the balanced evidence of science's poor track record in "solving" infectious diseases?

Name the person telling you to hide under the bed at all never mind indefinitely?

You have a fixation on fatality rates and disease eradication. Flu has not been eradicated but we have had a succession of vaccines. What is you acceptable number of deaths for COVID? It's your question so presumably you will readily answer it!!! What is your stance on the non fatal health consequences of COVID?

[GetOverTheBar]

Reported by Rob O'Hanrahan on twitter here -

In the South (so you must assume the North isn't too much different).

522 outbreaks

352 Private Households
25 Schools
7 Resturant/Cafe
4 Pubs
3 Sporting/Fitness

[LCohen]

Is The flu is harder to catch than this virus?

Does it spread quicker?

I've had the flu once (I was 19) floored me for a few days, aching couldn't lift head off my pillow. Was bad, never had it since and I've been in big groups through the years, working as a teacher for many years and being out socially a lot!  I never got it again thankfully. So was I just lucky?

At present, probably. I don't know.

Some people here clearly think a flu is a headcold or general chest infection. I had the Aussie flu a couple of years back and it was the worst dose of anything I've ever had, floored me for a good week and I'd say it was three or four months before I was fully back to myself in terms of energy etc. Covid will impact people in different ways though, like the flu does.

We live with the flu though, if someone with underlying health conditions or old or in general poor health then it can have extreme consequences. There are a lot of parallels between it and the flu by the effects and the impacts, it's impossible to say if Covid is worse or not at this point. It's a novel virus so with time, you'd expect that we will be better equipped to treat it, deal with it and prevent it.

We'll have a better idea on the severity of Covid in the next few months.

Which people
On here think the flu is a head cold? Name one?

We vaccinate against flu. We don't treat contagious diseases with a vaccine the same as one that we are working on a vaccine. I'm sure you get the logic of that

You keep asking nonsense questions like which people which leads to me think you are not capable of anything close to an intelligent debate. Why don't you conduct an audit.

Here's an article for your world of ignorance and naivety.

https://www.health.com/condition/cold-flu-sinus/parents-dont-take-flu-seriously

The flu kills every year, vaccination or no vaccination. What is the acceptable level of risk? Why don't we go into lockdown every winter over the consequences of seasonal flu? Maybe you are now saying we should? At what cost does the world become consumed by Covid?

You confidently state "people on here ....." It's a logical question to ask you to name one. A question that you can't answer because it exposes your bogus argument

[LCohen]

Does the flu cripple the health service in the same way as Covid?

That's not the same as "Do people die from it?" Yes, they do but are they coming into hospitals in the same numbers meaning that beds and treatment aren't available to anyone else?

Statistically hospital beds come under increasing pressure every winter from the flu.

Clearly there is an acceptable level of death with the seasonal flu or everything would shut down, so I'm asking you what you deem an acceptable level of death with Covid? Or are we meant to sit on our hands until science solves it, which could be years, which could be never.

I don't think there is one. People with flu & Covid will be treated and the health service will try to save their lives. Unfortunately people will still die of both.
There is an attempt, via lockdown etc to lower Covid numbers in order to stop the hospitals from being overwhelmed.
The flu doesn't overwhelm the hospitals in the same way therefore a lockdown is not seen to be required for it.

Maybe not in the same way but the flu does overwhelm hospitals at Winter and the health service does become strained and deaths do occur due to this and this is deemed an acceptable level.

So back to my question, what is an acceptable level of death. Lockdown has huge negative drawbacks to people's livelihoods, the economy and wider social and mental health problems so at what point do we say this lockdown and restrictions are counter-productive on a societal wide basis? That's a very important discussion those in power need to be discussing now.

We have been told again and again by scientists and the WHO that there is no silver bullet for Covid, it's going to be here for the medium to long terms so we simply have to learn to live with it. Some countries are making a much better fist of it that others.

Cases on the rise are going to be an inevitability.

There seems to be conflicting problems on both sides of the border - here it is the economic repercussions of quelling the spread, down south it's their dysfunctional health service being unable to cope. I think we probably have 4x the level of Covid transmissions up here at the minute that they have down south.

It would be true to say that at points during the winter the health system is overwhelmed. It's is also true to say that the flu is a factor and some years a massive problem. It depends on the strain, the efficacy of the latest vaccination and even how early in the winter the flu arrives.

But there are wider factors at play over the winter due to the cold (the temperature, not the illness).

But we accept whatever threats and levels of risk seasonal flu brings with it.

At what level do we accept Covid?

We don't just accept the flu. We pour billions into vaccinations and trying to treat.

[LCohen]

Well can you accept that absolutely nobody has claimed that NI mortality rate will be as high in 5-6 weeks as they have been at earlier stages?

I cannot accept that absolutely nobody has claimed that as there are loads of doom merchants out there who do think we are all going to die from it.

As I have said countless times before, the next 5/6 weeks will be telling. The virus is so widespread now up north that we are going to be able to quantify to some regard of how much of a danger it is when that time has passed.

Well you can at least accept that you cannot point to anyone who has claimed that the NI death rate in 5-6 weeks will be as high as it was at earlier stages?

Why are we going into massive lockdown then? It's projected by fear, I can understand that fear, I can understand that fear is the rationale behind more lockdown and restrictive measures but if the data bears out that the sort of consequences are nowhere near the fatality levels of the first wave then I think it will influence how we move forward.

We live with flu every year and it overwhelms the health system, it kills people, some are young, fit and healthy. That seems to be an acceptable risk - at which point does Covid become an acceptable risk. Is 1,000 deaths a year over 300k cases an acceptable risk for argument sake?

Respectfully I would ask you to answer the question.

You keep repeating your allusion that people ("doom merchants") have claimed that the death rate in NI will be as high in 5-6 weeks as it was earlier. So respectfully I ask you confirm that you have evidence of these claims and post it or acknowledge that you made it up and kept repeating it?

Well why are people making completely unfounded assertions regarding the severity of Covid when its a novel virus that science is still trying to figure out?

We have to wait and see on that regard but data is telling us that the fatality levels are dropping immensely in certain European countries with regard to the second wave.

Belgium being a good example.

506 deaths so far from 165,880 cases from 1st August to present, a 0.3% fatality rate. If that data would further be explained by 40% of those victims have underlying health conditions with a life expectancy of under 1 year, 30% of those victims having a life expectancy of under 2 years and 20% of those victims having a life expectancy of 5 years with the remaining 10% being people with no underlying health conditions - does that then make it an acceptable risk?

At what time is Covid deemed an acceptable risk, much like season flu is? How do we qualify that or do we just continue to hide under the bed until science finds the answer.

Still not answering the question are you?

You made something up and keep getting caught out and don't have the wit to stop repeating it

[Milltown Row2]

The best one of the lot for me is the no selling beer after 8pm in shops. Literally pointless. Almost like one can't go and buy it for the 8 hours prior.

Apparently not. One of the earlier Welsh regional restrictions was in part based upon evidence established via test, track and trace. They were able to identify links to clusters from people coming out of pubs and going on to other pubs or back to houses via the off licence.

The reason why a lot of clusters are linked to pubs is because they are using track and trace, they are following guidelines set down and are following up on the procedures..

Shops are still open and no track and trace systems seem to be in place, kids will be off for 2 weeks and that means they'll head to the shops! as they don't have to adhere to staying local (2 mile radius)

Punishing the pubs, who have worked very hard to make things safer is wrong

This is the trace track and trace based on mobile phone data. Not names/addresses given at the door

Id imagine its a combination of both, I've been asked and given those details at the bar of my local, and when I've booked for food I've been asked the same. Our other local has also done the same... The bar owner on Nolan last night said they were using the app

[93-DY-SAM]

You keep asking nonsense questions like which people which leads to me think you are not capable of anything close to an intelligent debate. Why don't you conduct an audit.

Here's an article for your world of ignorance and naivety.

https://www.health.com/condition/cold-flu-sinus/parents-dont-take-flu-seriously

The flu kills every year, vaccination or no vaccination. What is the acceptable level of risk? Why don't we go into lockdown every winter over the consequences of seasonal flu? Maybe you are now saying we should? At what cost does the world become consumed by Covid?

You confidently state "people on here ....." It's a logical question to ask you to name one. A question that you can't answer because it exposes your bogus argument

Stop using the flu as something to compare this to in terms of effects, numbers etc. It is such a lazy argument to bring the flu into it. Is is nothing like the flu once and is a nasty nasty repository disease.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-covid-19-isnt-the-flu

https://www.facebook.com/publichealthagency/videos/1720107168155944

[LCohen]

What "experts" say masks don't work?

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-52153145

That was six months ago. Does he still believe that?

How do you explain places like New York, where cases plummeted following the state mandating the wearing of masks in public in April and where most people are actually adhering to mask wearing?

No one is saying masks alone are the panacaea. However, they've been standard practice in health care for decades to reduce the chances of staff infecting patients through exhalation of infectious droplets. Even if they're only 10% effective in reducing COVID transmission, that's still something worth pursuing, along with the social distancing, hand hygiene and so on.

You asked me for an expert who said masks don't work. There;s an expert who said it.

Here's another one.

https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/no-point-in-wearing-mask-sweden-covid/

So rather than trying to move the goalposts now, why don't you just accept that is significant difference of opinion from the "experts" on whether face masks actually work or not.

What are you on about, "moving the goalposts"?

First, most governments and public health agencies were reluctant to mandate masks for the public back in March and April because of the huge shortages at the time. Its perfectly valid to ask if the guy you posted from England still believes now what he was advocating for in April, especially given the trends in the disease and the increased availability of PPE.

Second, in that link Tegnell specifically refers to the plummeting cases in Sweden at the time (July), and Sweden was trying for herd immunity anyway. Tegnell has plenty of critics within Sweden, where cases have been far higher than its neighbours.

There's always going to be a few who go against the consensus, but you seem to be implying that the public health professionals and scientists are hopelessly confused and there are equal numbers advocating for and against mask wearing. That is not the case.

The absolute effectiveness can only be established through study and experimentation. In the meantime, the responsible thing to do is to err on the side of caution, use what we do know about airborne transmission and masks, and recommend/require their use, along with social distancing and the rest.

It's quite clear, you asked for an expert who disputed masks - I gave you one. You then moved the goalposts to say he changed his mind.

It's perfectly valid in your mind but that's also a subjective view that supports your argument and is not based on anything more than that.

There are plenty of experts who argue that masks are ineffective. The bottom line is that it's a minor inconvenience for most people to wear them so on the small chance they do slow it down experts recommend them but that doesn't mean they are an effective weapon against the virus as the experts are at odds on this - contrary to your wrongly asserted view as I have shown.

1. I did NOT say the English dude changed his mind. I questioned if he had (which you've quoted), given that the link you posted was from April 3. We're discussing this in October. A lot has happened since then. We now have six additional months of knowledge of how the disease works and how to combat and manage it. It would be unprofessional for any scientist or public health professional not to take what happened in that time into account.

2. You haven't shown any wrongly asserted view on my part. You seem to be saying that there are a significant number of experts who advocate against masks, but you haven't shown anything to support that. Tegnell is a very noted exception in this pandemic in that he is not only not recommending masks, but he is way looser with all of the other typical requirements. He is not a typical example. Outside of Scandinavia and China (and Ireland?), most of the planet has some kind of mandatory mask rules. The science may be inconclusive at this point, but they're still correctly erring on the side of caution in their advice.

You question me on what experts said masks don't work.

I provided you with one and then you tried to move the goalposts. I also provided you with another one.

It's clear as day that experts are divided on this, which you disputed so maybe in light of factual evidence of experts publicly voicing this opinion, you should accept that there are two differing fields of thoughts between experts.

Experts will divide on most things given there will always be an outlier somewhere. However if 90% of the experts claim one thing and only 10% the other. I would tend to take my chances with the 90%.

Also just on an aside, Professor Van-Tam has changed his viewpoint on masks. This is from 2 days ago. 

<sup>Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said the best way to keep transmission low and stop the NHS being overwhelmed was for people with symptoms to self-isolate and get a test, and for people to wash their hands, wear face coverings and maintain social distancing.

He also said that the country now has much better testing capabilities, knows more about the disease, and has better treatments than during the first wave.</sup>

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-england-has-reached-a-tipping-point-similar-to-first-wave-deputy-chief-medical-officer-says-12101356

I don't have any opinion either way on masks.

I wear them as they are only a minor inconvenience and if they help in any way it's not a problem but it's a classic example of how little clarity science has been able to provide thus far.

You seem to think that if science doesn't have all the answers it is letting us down. And that if the evidence isn't yet there then that is science's fault. And that if people change their mind in response to new or emerging evidence that their flip flopping.

So make a decision on masks, explain it, stick to it even if the evidence changes. That seems to be you attitude so live by it

What I am saying is some people seem to be under the illusion that life stops until science sorts the virus and eradicates it.

That is not happening in the short-medium term, there is no signs of science cracking it any time soon. Life has to go, we have to learn to live with the virus. The second wave is going to be telling but the WHO have criticised governments for using lockdowns to manage the virus.

I think in Feb of next year we will have a much better idea of how serious Covid really is from the data available, we can see fatality rates falling hugely across Europe during the second wave, if that trend continues then we can live with the virus until such time as science finally does get an answer and there is a very good chance science won't get that answer before the virus stops being an issue.

There are plenty of cases of previous viruses burning out before science was able to get the answer to them.

Hmmm. On viruses burning out post the plenty of evidence (be careful about Spanish Flu)

Also Life is not stopping.

More can be done to address quality of life during a period of restrictions so get angry about that.
More can be done to act on scientific advice and manage the situation. Things can and must be better coordinated. Get angry about that if must get angry.

But I guess you just want to be angry at scientists and will keep going at that

See the problem on acting on scientific advice is that science has been contradicting itself and backtracking since the start. Open schools to close schools again, is it airborne or not, should we wear masks or not.

I'm not angry at science, but I'm not naive enough to want society to shut down until such time as science solves this. The signs from science is that the virus has it befuddled and any progress made with trying to eradicate in the 10 months to date has been extremely limited. So what do we do? Learn to live with it much like we do with seasonal flu or continue on lockdowns and restrictive measures that have huge economic and societal repercussions?

Science isn't the problem, relying solely on science as the solution is the problem as it doesn't seem equipped to give us an answer in a pressing timeframe.

So of the "plenty of evidence" you mustered up precisely nothing. You make these wild assertions and abjectly fail to back it up.

When has science back tracked or contradicted itself. Point to the incidents and we can unpack them.

Point to these non scientific solutions and we will subject them to scrutiny. But you will have to spell them out first. You have danced around this long enough