Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - trueblue1234

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 112
1
General discussion / Re: The official Everton FC Supporters thread
« on: October 23, 2020, 08:34:01 PM »
Too right. Look what happened up the road. Might be no stopping it if itís not knocked on the head early!!

2
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?

You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think

Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.

Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?

Yes or no.

I've asthma, I get the flu jab every year. 

3
There has never been a vaccine process that has had as much resources and money thrown at it as this. That alone was going to significantly reduce the length of time for a vaccine.
If I was making a decision on whether to take it or not I'd need to know what stages were cut out of a normal process. Just saying it's happened too quickly doesn't cut it unless there's evidence to say processes were changed to try and fast track it. And if there is, you'd have to evaluate the risk factor of those changes. Were they just fast tracked administrate stages, or was it on the testing? Just saying it's too quick isn't really enough.

That said, I'd definitely be researching it before deciding to go ahead. The problem will be the amount of disinformation that will be out there. It'll be a nightmare.

4
General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus
« on: October 21, 2020, 04:42:44 PM »

I'm all on board for the fact the NHS urgently needs to review how they progress with operations and treatments. But are you querying the reduced limitations for visitors as well? Especially for critically ill?

Yes - if you were critically ill would you not like to see your son or daughter?

Of course you would. But that doesn't make it the right decision. There had to be limitations on family/ friends attending loved ones in hospital. One of the biggest mistakes at the start was not taking enough precautions in protecting the vulnerable. Limiting the number of people with access, limits the chances of Covid transfer for the patient. I can 100% understand that approach, albeit still have sympathy for the people going through it.

You obviously didn't go through it though, limitations does not mean no one.   Craigavon biggest outbreak was from nurses at a house party, but one can't comfort a parent.
I didn't go through it, that's a fair comment. So yes, from my perspective all I can do is try to evaluate how I think I would have reacted. It would have been a horrendous thing to go through and as I said you have my sympathies as does anyone else who went through it. People that I know were allowed 1/2 into see the family member that was sick. I think the hospitals had to try and prevent Covid entering the hospital and this was the most basic way to do it. I think had I a family member in hospital who was vulnerable I would have wanted them to take every precaution possible. But as you say maybe I'd have felt different if I'd been through what you have.
My own mother was due a hip replacement in March that was cancelled. It was re-scheduled to 13th September and then cancelled the week before again due to the current spike. Not life threatening surgery but it was to happen in altinagevlin. And I know I would selfishly have preferred as few visitors as possible on the ward if it meant reduced risk to her catching covid.

5
General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus
« on: October 21, 2020, 04:06:23 PM »

I'm all on board for the fact the NHS urgently needs to review how they progress with operations and treatments. But are you querying the reduced limitations for visitors as well? Especially for critically ill?

Yes - if you were critically ill would you not like to see your son or daughter?

Of course you would. But that doesn't make it the right decision. There had to be limitations on family/ friends attending loved ones in hospital. One of the biggest mistakes at the start was not taking enough precautions in protecting the vulnerable. Limiting the number of people with access, limits the chances of Covid transfer for the patient. I can 100% understand that approach, albeit still have sympathy for the people going through it.

 

6
General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus
« on: October 21, 2020, 03:55:03 PM »
I suspect those on here advocating lockdown to save the NHS hasn't had a family member seriously ill during the last 7 months, my wife and her siblings are doing 24/7 round the clock care for their father who is on palliative care, oxygen, morphine etc as if he was to go into hospital no one would be allowed in to see him.  The palliative care team don't visit, they zoom etc, granted one family member is a nurse, but been long time out of general practice, the NHS is only open for covid patients and the inhumanity of not allowing visits is heart wrenching.

Yes my dads in a bad way, still getting his visits from the cancer nurse and still getting appointments at the Cancer clinic...

He would be happier if we had a better handle on the situation so that he can have a better outcome in the long run with his extended family, at the minute due to the virus and it's effects on cancer patients it would possibly end his life sooner should he catch it by ones wanting to let her rip

God that is atrocious to take your fathers illness and weaponize it like that, I never once said let it rip, but we should let people live, vulnerable people can be protected without shutting down society,  I hope your father isn't suffering too much, it's tragic to be so ill and even more tragic in these strange times.

I'm not, you put up a statement saying care and home care visits are not being done, it is and visiting hospitals is not a closed place for anyone without covid, as cancer treatments are being carried out.. and I never said that you want to let her rip, other people have and that's who I'm referring too

Care homes are closed here, and if my father-in-law was in hospital no one would get to see him - that is fact!


My granny was in hospital about 6 weeks ago there, nothing Covid related or that. Only 1 person was allowed (who was nominated) was allowed into visit.

That's been standard since Covid and you wouldn't want too many people visiting wards in hospital anyways.. the Nominated person has worked well enough, ones have brought in their Ipads and face timed other family during it..

Care homes should be closed as they were the main reason death rates spiked so much...

Work well for patients with hearing and visual impairments!!

I'm all on board for the fact the NHS urgently needs to review how they progress with operations and treatments. But are you querying the reduced limitations for visitors as well? Especially for critically ill?

7
General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus
« on: October 20, 2020, 02:46:40 PM »
The "let it rip" merchants seem to have forgotten the awful scenes from Italy last spring, a Country which has a very good health service which was totally overcome as Covud was ripping.
They also overlook the fact that the restrictions lowered the rate of infection.
"Health Officials on a power trip".
Such a ludicrous comment straight from the Gemma school of right wing nut job fuckwittery.
The less people getting Covid translates into more beds for people with other illnesses and more ICU beds for people who need major operations etc.

But sod them just "let it rip" and sure all will be fine.

It is a headline one would expect to see in the Sun, disproportionate and made with the only rational to get a reaction, it is quite pathetic that folk go down this route - there is no end game here - no vaccine will come to our aid, we have to learn to live with it, but you conclude that that means let it rip!

we tried living with it... numbers increased again after lockdown 1 so living with it is effectively lerting it rip or herd immunity approach..

if there is a successful way to live with it i am sure we wpuld all love to hear it and so would the governments of the world.

We tried living with it?

Cases increased.

0.11 are in ICU.

Sweden are living with it at present. Their 14 day incidence rate is currently much lower than the rest of Europe.

What happens next time we come out of lockdown? Numbers surge back up again and we lock back down again, how on earth is this a viable short term solution. Crossing our fingers and hoping a vaccine comes is not a viable solution, it's absolutely insane.

bery selective quoting.. you can speculate to back you your viewpoint but suddenly its all guesswork when i ask you to example your living wiyh covid approach... also you stidys and experts are trustworthy but any that disagree with your opinion is guesswork!!!

, i am glad  that in the above post you finally acknowledge that if we come out of lockdown cases will surge back up again, when we go back to living with covid.. i.e your approach...

so your apprich will continue  the surge and our health is not capable of dealing with. as for you social distanicng washing hands etc.. we are doing that now it hasnt worked as people dont adhere for a variety of reasons..

finally, there are things we can do to support people with dperession, suffers of addiction or  domestic violance etc. we did it before and it still presists and we can do more if there is a will either during or after lockdown.

Selective.

You keeping pointing out to speculation but all you have offered to counter that is your speculation. I find it staggering you cannot see the irony there.

What also can't be sustained is coming in and out of lockdowns, lockdowns haven't worked - we went into one, came out of it and are now going back into one. So please God tell me, how the last lockdown actually managed to work?

There aren't things we can do to support them, domestic violence cases will inevitably rise with lockdowns and there's not a whole pile you can do?

So what's your strategy - remain in lockdown until there's a vaccine - how is that any sort of progressive long term solution?

Lockdowns do work. The first one worked perfectly, it got the R rate down so the NHS could cope.  Hopefully this one will work as well. Weíll probably need another short one around Christmas and maybe in February before the vaccine is rolled out in spring.

The NHS is under pressure every year due to government cuts, the nightingale hospitals remained largely empty - in that time all hospital appointments were cancelled, cancer diagnosis were missed, cancer treatment were stopped, my mother fell and broke her hip at Easter, I wasn't allowed in to see her but went to drop bags down on a Saturday evening A&E was empty - I was the only none medical person knocking around, disproportionate response is an understatement.

This is worthy of discussion. And I do think the NHS need to review how they are handling on going treatments of patients. As a complete shutdown is not right in my eyes. I think it needs to try to keep moving. However there has to be an understanding that NHS workers need to be protected as well, so there will be delays as compared to none covid times. I think some Doctors and surgeons have actually come out to say that they need to try and keep things moving as the backlog will be impossible otherwise. And I would hope that this is something that is being looked at.
One of the best ways of doing this is reducing the strain on the NHS so that more and more operations and treatments can be accommodated. One of the best ways of reducing the strain on the NHS is to reduce the impact of Covid. Covid patients ARE taking up a disproportionate segment of the NHS because they get priority. This happens with none covid patients as well. You can be scheduled for an operation and find out there's been a car crash and the theater is in use and have to be re-scheduled. If something urgent comes in then priorities change within hospitals. That's why reducing the numbers coming to the hospitals is vital. Lockdowns are far from ideal, and if there is a better method of reducing those numbers then I would love to hear it. But if the number of hospitalisations continue to increase, then something has to be done or cancer patients, selective surgeries etc will all be cancelled anyway AND we'll have a covid nightmare on top of that.

8
General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus
« on: October 20, 2020, 02:26:08 PM »
what happens when the numbers increase to a level that the health system cannot handle? we have seen this in other countries. what happens to other health services as the number increase? what happens the mental health of those who lose loved ones or worst are responsible for giving covid to a loved one who dies.. 

no one on here has denied there are negative aspect of lockdown. No one thinks it a great solution but better than the alterntive taking everything into consideration. i doubt anyone is happy about it but this seems beyond your understanding its easier to start name calling...

I don't know.

It's all speculation, I don't see lockdown being a better alternative to living with the virus and that's from the data we are getting at present.

It's all ifs, buts and maybes but there are a certain cohort of posters on here who know as little as the next man who are displaying bizarre levels of arrogance with absolutely no knowledge on anything and they refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences lockdowns and excessive restrictions have on society.

I'd be very interested to see how Slovakia do with their mass testing, it's the most progressive approach I have seen any European country take yet.

you seem very happy to speculate on the outcomes of lockdown?  why is it so hard to speculate on your approach!! which also has a certain level of restrictions.. the arrogence seems to come from you not others.

the data shows increaing numbers of cases... surely you must consider the outcome of that to use your own words people "refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences"

Very happy to speculate?

Well done on the most ironic comment on the thread. We are all speculating, all of us, by contending anything I say, you are by your very nature speculating. Saying domestic violence incidents rise and mental health issues are compounded by lockdowns is not speculation though, there is data there to back that assertion up, we will only know to what level in time. It is my view that the consequences of lockdowns and excessive restrictions do more harm than good, it is my view that we are getting too consumed by Covid that we cannot see the consequences of the measure we are taking to combat Covid. And all of us, across all sides are speculating.

Look at all the expert modellers predicting millions of deaths in the UK by x amount of time, how wrong have some of these projections been? And what did those experts do? They speculated, none of us have a golden ball that will tell us what happens so it's an absolute ridiculous contention to make.

The data shows increasing number of cases AND decreasing numbers of fatalties relative to those cases, dropping by double digit multiples all across Europe at present when we contrast with the first wave - that is what the CURRENT data is telling us. I'm looking at the big picture and that's why I'm leaning towards lockdowns and excessive restrictions causing a lot more harm than good. You seem to be solely focusing on Covid.

You've never addressed this question yet. At which point does Covid become an acceptable risk? We have acceptable risk with flu, every year we deem an acceptable level of death, healthcare consumption, health impacts with it and we live with it. At what level do we have to get with Covid before it becomes acceptable? Can you please answer this question? I've done you the courtesy of answering the same question you've posed to me on about 6 different occasions, can you now do me the same?

Itís quite likely that the expert modellers wouldíve been right but for lockdown measures, combined with masks and social distancing. The fatality rate falling can easily be explained by the fact that itís mainly younger people who are getting infected now and their immune system is better able to fight off the virus. At the start a good number of older people were exposed to the virus and a large number sadly died.

The danger of not having lockdowns is that the NHS becomes overwhelmed meaning that sick people (with all illnesses, not just covid) canít be treated. That will inevitably happen if the virus is allowed to spread unchecked. The aim of the lockdowns and other measures is mainly to ensure the hospitals donít have the situations we saw in March in Spain and Italy where patients were lying on hospital floors because all beds were taken.

Another important point about the virus is that itís really not like the flu. A lot of people are trying to minimise the risk by saying itís just a mild flu. There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world suffering from ďlong covidĒ. I know of 3 people who have terrible symptoms 6 months after they contracted the virus with no signs of these symptoms easing. None of the 3 had a particularly bad dose initially and werenít in hospital. I also know a cardiologist who works in the RVH and ha says there are quite a number of people coming into hospital with severe heart problems 4 or 5 months after getting covid. These were people who had mild symptoms or were asymptomatic. These arenít just anecdotes, Iíve also seen lots of reports of these issues in the papers. No one knows the long term effects of covid, even those who think theyíve got over it quickly may have problems waiting for them down the line.

The mood music around a vaccine is very good,  itís quite likely weíll have one for February/March of 2021. Short lockdowns are a necessary evil until then to ensure our NHS can cope.

On what basis is it quite likely right?

The thing about March and April is an outlier an anomaly. Spain have had nearly 3 times the no of positive cases in the past 2 months than they had back in March and April and the fatality rate per cases has fallen in double digit multiples - why is that? Surely that deserves to be highlighted and examined and the current data should be the one guiding our decisions rather than anomalies 6/7 months ago.

The mood around the vaccine. That's a mood - nothing is concrete but I'll put it to you this way. A vaccine comes out next year - I have two options:

a) Take a vaccine rushed through production stage, with very limited test results and no basis of potential side effects
b) Take my chances with a virus that probably presents nothing more that mild symptoms for 99.5% of my demograph

More testing.

Not up north. We are only doing 4-5k tests a day and returning circa 20% positive rates.

If you were to convert the fatality rates as accurate now and consider them consistent with the no of cases in the first wave it would mean that rather than 6,229 positive cases by the end of July we would actually would have had 150k people infected.

That's close to 10% of the population.

More testing is definitely part of the reason. In April we were testing under 1000 a day. It's not the only factor, There are other factors like improved treatment, lower age group of infected who are able to fight it better, lag in death rates compared to todays infection rates etc. But increased testing is definitely part of the reason we have higher case to death ratio. And yes I do believe there's been more infected in NI that was believed initially.

9
General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus
« on: October 20, 2020, 01:38:56 PM »
what happens when the numbers increase to a level that the health system cannot handle? we have seen this in other countries. what happens to other health services as the number increase? what happens the mental health of those who lose loved ones or worst are responsible for giving covid to a loved one who dies.. 

no one on here has denied there are negative aspect of lockdown. No one thinks it a great solution but better than the alterntive taking everything into consideration. i doubt anyone is happy about it but this seems beyond your understanding its easier to start name calling...

I don't know.

It's all speculation, I don't see lockdown being a better alternative to living with the virus and that's from the data we are getting at present.

It's all ifs, buts and maybes but there are a certain cohort of posters on here who know as little as the next man who are displaying bizarre levels of arrogance with absolutely no knowledge on anything and they refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences lockdowns and excessive restrictions have on society.

I'd be very interested to see how Slovakia do with their mass testing, it's the most progressive approach I have seen any European country take yet.

you seem very happy to speculate on the outcomes of lockdown?  why is it so hard to speculate on your approach!! which also has a certain level of restrictions.. the arrogence seems to come from you not others.

the data shows increaing numbers of cases... surely you must consider the outcome of that to use your own words people "refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences"

Very happy to speculate?

Well done on the most ironic comment on the thread. We are all speculating, all of us, by contending anything I say, you are by your very nature speculating. Saying domestic violence incidents rise and mental health issues are compounded by lockdowns is not speculation though, there is data there to back that assertion up, we will only know to what level in time. It is my view that the consequences of lockdowns and excessive restrictions do more harm than good, it is my view that we are getting too consumed by Covid that we cannot see the consequences of the measure we are taking to combat Covid. And all of us, across all sides are speculating.

Look at all the expert modellers predicting millions of deaths in the UK by x amount of time, how wrong have some of these projections been? And what did those experts do? They speculated, none of us have a golden ball that will tell us what happens so it's an absolute ridiculous contention to make.

The data shows increasing number of cases AND decreasing numbers of fatalties relative to those cases, dropping by double digit multiples all across Europe at present when we contrast with the first wave - that is what the CURRENT data is telling us. I'm looking at the big picture and that's why I'm leaning towards lockdowns and excessive restrictions causing a lot more harm than good. You seem to be solely focusing on Covid.

You've never addressed this question yet. At which point does Covid become an acceptable risk? We have acceptable risk with flu, every year we deem an acceptable level of death, healthcare consumption, health impacts with it and we live with it. At what level do we have to get with Covid before it becomes acceptable? Can you please answer this question? I've done you the courtesy of answering the same question you've posed to me on about 6 different occasions, can you now do me the same?

Itís quite likely that the expert modellers wouldíve been right but for lockdown measures, combined with masks and social distancing. The fatality rate falling can easily be explained by the fact that itís mainly younger people who are getting infected now and their immune system is better able to fight off the virus. At the start a good number of older people were exposed to the virus and a large number sadly died.

The danger of not having lockdowns is that the NHS becomes overwhelmed meaning that sick people (with all illnesses, not just covid) canít be treated. That will inevitably happen if the virus is allowed to spread unchecked. The aim of the lockdowns and other measures is mainly to ensure the hospitals donít have the situations we saw in March in Spain and Italy where patients were lying on hospital floors because all beds were taken.

Another important point about the virus is that itís really not like the flu. A lot of people are trying to minimise the risk by saying itís just a mild flu. There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world suffering from ďlong covidĒ. I know of 3 people who have terrible symptoms 6 months after they contracted the virus with no signs of these symptoms easing. None of the 3 had a particularly bad dose initially and werenít in hospital. I also know a cardiologist who works in the RVH and ha says there are quite a number of people coming into hospital with severe heart problems 4 or 5 months after getting covid. These were people who had mild symptoms or were asymptomatic. These arenít just anecdotes, Iíve also seen lots of reports of these issues in the papers. No one knows the long term effects of covid, even those who think theyíve got over it quickly may have problems waiting for them down the line.

The mood music around a vaccine is very good,  itís quite likely weíll have one for February/March of 2021. Short lockdowns are a necessary evil until then to ensure our NHS can cope.

On what basis is it quite likely right?

The thing about March and April is an outlier an anomaly. Spain have had nearly 3 times the no of positive cases in the past 2 months than they had back in March and April and the fatality rate per cases has fallen in double digit multiples - why is that? Surely that deserves to be highlighted and examined and the current data should be the one guiding our decisions rather than anomalies 6/7 months ago.

The mood around the vaccine. That's a mood - nothing is concrete but I'll put it to you this way. A vaccine comes out next year - I have two options:

a) Take a vaccine rushed through production stage, with very limited test results and no basis of potential side effects
b) Take my chances with a virus that probably presents nothing more that mild symptoms for 99.5% of my demograph

More testing.

10
General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus
« on: October 20, 2020, 12:26:15 PM »
The "let it rip" merchants seem to have forgotten the awful scenes from Italy last spring, a Country which has a very good health service which was totally overcome as Covud was ripping.
They also overlook the fact that the restrictions lowered the rate of infection.
"Health Officials on a power trip".
Such a ludicrous comment straight from the Gemma school of right wing nut job fuckwittery.
The less people getting Covid translates into more beds for people with other illnesses and more ICU beds for people who need major operations etc.

But sod them just "let it rip" and sure all will be fine.

It is a headline one would expect to see in the Sun, disproportionate and made with the only rational to get a reaction, it is quite pathetic that folk go down this route - there is no end game here - no vaccine will come to our aid, we have to learn to live with it, but you conclude that that means let it rip!

Can I ask why you state this? Is it based on anything?

11
Tyrone / Re: Tyrone Club Football and Hurling
« on: October 19, 2020, 12:45:29 PM »
An absolutely tragic loss with the sudden passing of Johnny Curran.
A real gentleman and a character, RIP Johnny.

+1 Terrible news.

12
General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus
« on: October 13, 2020, 04:27:54 PM »
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. 

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.


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.

It depends what standard you are holding science to. Science has been working on testing, track and trace, treatment of the virus, vaccines, virus transfer data  and plenty of other things. All this doesn't happen overnight regardless of the global impact. If you were expecting experts to have all the data ready within a month or two then I think you are holding them to impossible standards and they were always doomed to fail. That's not to say they haven't made mistakes, but mistakes when you don't have the right information is understandable.


13
General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus
« on: October 13, 2020, 04:12:31 PM »
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. 

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.


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

14
GAA Discussion / Re: NFL Division 1 - 2020
« on: October 07, 2020, 04:32:08 PM »
Still driving us mad on stolen-sheep  >:(
Big expert on the Virus these days.

I can imagine. Anyway less said the better about him. 

15
I see more talk of Liverpool being linked with Sancho next summer. What's the thoughts on that?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 112