Corona Virus

The problem that the layman, (me) has, is that there are so many opinions by "non experts" and so many differing "facts" by the "experts", that we really don't know what is fact and what is fiction. My own view is that most of everything I see, read and hear is fiction, because someone has always got an angle on making me believe it.

My opinion is, distance is good, washing hands is good, wearing a mask is bollocks.

 

I'm not a pollyanna but I'm grateful that I'm not quite so cynical. I believe that there continue to be honest reporters and public servants out there with ethics and the desire to report the news accurately and serve the public honorably. My (our) responsibility is to be an informed and discerning citizen and not just blame "the media" and "the politicians" in blanket fashion.

 

Check out this excellent article on masks.

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/what-s-the-deal-with-masks

 

I sorry to hear that dude, the mask (most... clinical grade ppe is different) isn’t there to stop you catching it... that’s what good hand washing is for... masks are to reduce the amount of viable viruses on surfaces and potential free floating from the wearer.

 

You are responding to things that I did not say. I did not quote figures "with gay abandon", I just passed on the government's own numbers In the hope that they might be useful information.

If we are beyond the peak why are face coverings necessary now when they were not required before the peak? (Although IIRC the peak actually occurred just before the first legislation)

I did not mention ventilator capacity, social distancing, outliers, or collateral damage.

When I referred to "not doing enough to shield some of those who were vulnerable because of culture and/or race" I was thinking of NHS staff, among others.

I did not mention shielding, other than indirectly in writing of the treatment of the elderly, thinking particularly of the way that they were first expelled from hospital, taking COVID-19 into care homes in order to protect the NHS, then, when in care homes, were refused admission to hospital to protect the NHS.

 

Looks like Spain is bouncing...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53540691

 

Good point, chiari1. And interestingly, this letter to the editor was on the Op-Ed page of our local paper this morning. I'M certainly not going to have surgery if my surgeon refuses to wear a mask or wash his or her hands. On the other hand, I don't want my surgeon to socially distance--at least not while operating on me.

 

It may be crap, but if it is, I prefer to think of it as informed crap.

To me, the numbers appear to indicate that currently there is little risk of encountering an infected person, a tiny risk of becoming infected, a miniscule risk of ending up in hospital, and an infinitesimal risk of needing a ventilator.

Your evaluation of the risk is different, that's all.

I should add that I think that we should have made more effort and spent more to protect those, like you, who are at greater risk, and I haven't even mentioned all those poor sods with other serious conditions, diagnosed or otherwise, who have been sacrificed "to protect the NHS'.

 

Don't get me wrong, the law says to wear one and I will where required, I just don't subscribe to it being such an important method of infection control. More like, mind control.

 

Luckily for you even if you do encounter an infected person the likelihood is they were not so stupid as to not wear a mask so their social conscience will protect you. As you clearly have no social conscience, if you do contract it and are asymptomatic you will contribute to someone else's pain and misery.......nice way to live.

 

The quoting with gay abandon is true if you look at the amount of posts you put up here over the last few days... with tons and tons of quotes so much so, that you gave this warning...
Some (OK, a lot of) reading for you, if you're interested in understanding how we have been manipulated (or experimented on, depending on your point of view).
I will be honest, there was too much for me to sift through!

You also said...
Firstly, I suspect that, after the relentless barrage of propaganda over the last 4 months, many, possibly most, people in England would vastly overestimate the numbers, and the risks that they face.
This suggests (to me) by using the word “propaganda” that you feel false and misleading information makes us react excessively cautiously to a relatively minor risk.
The risk is only reduced because of the action taken... I totally agree that the action should have been taken earlier... however, had not the actions I mentioned been taken, the situation could have been much worse... at the peak of the wave... my hospital was on the limit for critical care ventilator beds... we had stopped all but the very essential surgery and used all the anaesthetic machines as extra vents, we’d just got a batch of the extra vents that had been made in response to the crisis... most support wards were streamed to look after the none-vent patients but a lot were on supplementary O2... we were on the limit (briefly thank goodness) and to a person the staff said the equivalent of “This is unprecedented...” referring to to oddness of the disease and the health care response to it. The patients in the beds were not just elderly people...

Instead of the propaganda, just give us the facts, explain the true extent of the risks and exactly who needs to be protected, and let us make up our own minds.
Maybe we should have had a referendum?

I’m cool you having your own opinion on the Crisis... we appear to agree on some things... but the reason things currently look like it’s not an issue now is because of what has gone one before... personally, I don’t want to go there again.

Edit... I may be missing your point, in which case I apologise, if this is the case would you let me know your point in simple terms for me.

 

One of the easiest and most efficient way to protect those at greater risk is to to lower the overall infection rate in the whole community. But this would require being proactive rather than reactive. The most effective means to lower the overall infection rates in lieu of a vaccine are (1) social distancing, (2) wearing masks in public, (3) hand washing and hand sanitzer. I don't understand what sort of effort and spending would protect those at greater risk, as you suggest, garethr. Spending more on what exactly?

A couple of months ago I heard someone say that "those who are elderly or at greater risk should just stay home". To coin a phrase I've learned on this forum, that really boiled my pi*s. The basic message in that statement is that "my right to go maskless is more important that your right to safely leave your home".

My best friend is at high risk due to both her age and health issues. Recently she something that saddened me deeply. She said " I feel like a prisoner in my own home". Our governor has not mandated masks statewide and, after much pressure and Arizona being in the COVID "red zone" for weeks and weeks, he finally punted that responsibility to cities and counties. But for months he actually forbade localities the power to do that for their communities. Our county now has a mask mandate which has increased mask useage but but it's still inconsistent enough that my friend rarely leaves her home.

Edit: Just after posting the above message I saw this article related to Arizona in the New York Times. Seems some changes in our state's mitigation measures may be helping.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/...te=1&user_id=b596856af0a48bf37fcdb73cd764cd88

 

Not wishing to be stir bad feelings here, but if the masks make such a positive difference, shouldn't your friend feel secure if she wears a mask away from home?

 

Sorry mate but you're clearly not understanding the point of the mask. It is there predominantly to protect others not to protect the person wearing it therefore if they go out wearing their mask and no-one else is then the risk of contamination is still there.

 

So the virus will only pass through the mask in one direction?

 

In a sense yes, @Tallpaul. It has to do with aerosolization and particle size.

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/what-s-the-deal-with-masks

 

Those are terrific graphics, @Helmut Visor, especially the 2nd one. Thanks for posting!

 

Thank you.

 

You're welcome, Tallpaul.