Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[editor]

And here we go

 

[andysays]

One small piece of good news among all the shit

Covid: Masks to remain compulsory on London transport​

Face coverings must be worn on London's transport network despite restrictions easing on 19 July, London's mayor says. Sadiq Khan said he was not prepared to put Tube, tram and other transport users at risk by relaxing the rules on face coverings.

 

[redsquirrel]

By contrast I've just had an email from my employer, a university, welcoming the return to 'normal operations'. They are hedging their bets about the teaching, planning for a 'hybrid model' of online lectures but normal (large) seminars. There's also some horsewank about 'agile working', which amounts to doing your marking and preparation at home, but otherwise being in. In many ways that puts teaching staff in a much better position than other groups of workers with regard to risk. Also, I'm not griping for myself as I'm 60 and could go on the sick and take my pension if teaching without masks and social distancing becomes too stressful (I have a couple of health issues). It's more that universities are lining up to become major transmission centres again as students move into halls in a couple of months and then into 'normal' classrooms. Partying like it's 2020...

Had a spiky meeting with management on Monday where our utterly craven head of H&S repeated the gov's 'personal responsibility' line and lied that they cannot do anything about facemarks because the legislation is being removed. Twats

 

[Cloo]

One small piece of good news among all the shit

Covid: Masks to remain compulsory on London transport​

As I've said elsewhere, doubtless twats will now be tantruming that they won't use 'Khan's' , 'Marxist, oppressive transport system' now. Good - they can stay away so vulnerable people won't be housebound by those people's selfish behaviour.

 

[teqniq]

So there we have it. Libertarian vermin force Johnson's hand or at least that's what the article implies (use bypass paywalls to read the whole thing):

 

[two sheds]

"there’s no way we could have passed with Labour". Labour would have voted to scrap masks?

 

[bimble]

"there’s no way we could have passed with Labour". Labour would have voted to scrap masks?

No, just not enough Labour MPs

 

[teqniq]

"there’s no way we could have passed with Labour". Labour would have voted to scrap masks?

No, voting to continue restrictions and Johnson would have had to rely on Labour votes to continue them. That's what the article is saying anyway.

 

[teuchter]

What's the current state of evidence on masks, by the way? Is there strong evidence of significant benefit or is it more marginal? I realise that I wouldn't have an answer to this quesroom if challenged on it.

 

[bimble]

What's the current state of evidence on masks, by the way? Is there strong evidence of significant benefit or is it more marginal? I realise that I wouldn't have an answer to this quesroom if challenged on it.

i had a look for this the other day, lots of studies claiming they are very highly effective at the reducing the R, even only the low tech paper ones, but only if a v high % of people are wearing them.

eg )'The study, based on mathematical modelling, showed that if an entire population wore face coverings that were only 75% effective, it would bring the reproduction number (the R) from 4.0 to under 1.0, without the need for lockdowns..'

 

[teuchter]

i had a look for this the other day, lots of studies claiming they are very highly effective at the reducing the R, even only the low tech paper ones, but only if a v high % of people are wearing them.

eg )'The study, based on mathematical modelling, showed that if an entire population wore face coverings that were only 75% effective, it would bring the reproduction number (the R) from 4.0 to under 1.0, without the need for lockdowns..'

'based on mathematical modelling' suggests they are looking at population level effect but based on some assumptions about what a mask actually does in real life... I guess I'm curious to know how strong the evidence is there.

 

[andysays]

As I've said elsewhere, doubtless twats will now be tantruming that they won't use 'Khan's' , 'Marxist, oppressive transport system' now. Good - they can stay away so vulnerable people won't be housebound by those people's selfish behaviour.

I was thinking about including something along those lines in my post, TBH, but decided to stick to just the facts, in the knowledge that someone else would probably make that point.

 

[cupid_stunt]

'based on mathematical modelling' suggests they are looking at population level effect but based on some assumptions about what a mask actually does in real life... I guess I'm curious to know how strong the evidence is there.

There's a number of interesting links in this article.

COVID-19: Do face masks work? Here is what scientific studies say

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that wearing a mask reduced transmissions of COVID-19. Here are the studies that prove it.

news.sky.com

 

[2hats]

What's the current state of evidence on masks, by the way?

Post #157.

 

[bimble]

'based on mathematical modelling' suggests they are looking at population level effect but based on some assumptions about what a mask actually does in real life... I guess I'm curious to know how strong the evidence is there.

yep, i don't know. Havent heard of any controlled experiments that would give definitive number-shaped answers to this, the evidence all seems to be at scale, population level, like countries that introduced masks straight away faring much better etc.

 

[two sheds]

No, voting to continue restrictions and Johnson would have had to rely on Labour votes to continue them. That's what the article is saying anyway.

I still can't quite get my head round this. So more than 160 tory MPs would vote for removing restrictions? Even though most people in the country want to see at least some retained?

 

[teqniq]

I still can't quite get my head round this. So more than 160 tory MPs would vote for removing restrictions? Even though most people in the country want to see at least some retained?

Yeah it does seem somewhat unlikely. That's why i've used 'implies' and 'what the article is saying'. It could just as easily be Johnson & co lining up a plausible excuse. Plausible on the surface at least.

 

[two sheds]

Mind you "huge number of fuckwit Tory MPs" doesn't stretch the imagination any.

 

[bimble]

Mind you "huge number of fuckwit Tory MPs" doesn't stretch the imagination any.

There's the 'covid recovery group' anti lockdown pro FreEdom who have been there pissing inside Johnsons tent all year, might be some 70 tory Mps.

COVID Recovery Group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They (63 signatories) demanded back in Feb that all legal restrictions be lifted once all over 50s vaccinated.

Concerns raised over ‘dark money’ funding anti-lockdown MPs

Tory MP Steve Baker's Covid Recovery Group has received £10,000 in donations from an unregistered association. Experts say electoral law needs to change

www.opendemocracy.net

 

[gentlegreen]

I can't get over just how appallingly bad the mask advice was at the start of this - even from experts.
A massive cultural shift is needed.
At work in a university, surrounded by highly intelligent and otherwise lovely people, they would just let rip with their sneezes and as I've often said, the last 3 day viral infection I caught was from a post-grad life sciences student in November 2019.

 

[wtfftw]

Who had colleagues looking to get vaccinated? was it Sue ? friday at the tate is another event Pfizer vaccine clinic at Tate Modern

 

[StoneRoad]

My workshop manager is getting his second jab on Thursday ...

and I'm still encouraging the rest of the team to try for earlier appointments.

 

[Mr Retro]

What's the current state of evidence on masks, by the way? Is there strong evidence of significant benefit or is it more marginal? I realise that I wouldn't have an answer to this quesroom if challenged on it.

There is no randomised controlled study that proves the efficacy of masks. The only RCT that studied this, the Danmask-19 studies authors found "wearing a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect"

 

[Brainaddict]

There is no randomised controlled study that proves the efficacy of masks. The only RCT that studied this, the Danmask-19 studies authors found "wearing a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect"

You forgot some of the other choice quotes: "The main benefit of a surgical face mask is to protect others from droplet and aerosol spread, and not the wearer- the study was not designed to investigate this"

"The findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting." and "The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection."

 

[gentlegreen]

There are at least two maskless workmen in the house opposite having to squeeze in and out past the woman's oxygen tank - perhaps she's fully masked-up ..

 

[existentialist]

There is no randomised controlled study that proves the efficacy of masks. The only RCT that studied this, the Danmask-19 studies authors found "wearing a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect"

You don't think people might be looking for a slightly more credible source than you?

 

[existentialist]

You forgot some of the other choice quotes: "The main benefit of a surgical face mask is to protect others from droplet and aerosol spread, and not the wearer- the study was not designed to investigate this"

"The findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting." and "The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection."

Were he only capable of noticing, our funny little retro friend would now be experiencing that "owned" feeling

 

[Artaxerxes]

I can't get over just how appallingly bad the mask advice was at the start of this - even from experts.
A massive cultural shift is needed.
At work in a university, surrounded by highly intelligent and otherwise lovely people, they would just let rip with their sneezes and as I've often said, the last 3 day viral infection I caught was from a post-grad life sciences student in November 2019.

“this is a cold but we can’t prove masks reducing airborne vapour will solve it” - half of the scientific establishment

Oh Mate.

Its why I sigh when I see Twitter shouting about “EVERY THING WOULD BE FINE IF WE FOLLOWED THE SCIENCE”

 

[Mrs Miggins]

I just find all this arguing so exhausting now

 

[cupid_stunt]

Let’s meet back here in a month or so and see where we are. If deaths are above what would normally by associated with the approaching winter season I’ll admit I was wrong. When I’m right I’ll still be nice to youse

From 21st Sept., but you still haven't admitted you were wrong.

I’ll see you all back here on the 13th of October and we’ll see if we are at 50,000 cases and on track for 200 deaths a day.

From 22nd Sept., and, yet you didn't post again until June this year, you hid as cases went over 50k, and deaths over 1,200 a day.

You forgot some of the other choice quotes: "The main benefit of a surgical face mask is to protect others from droplet and aerosol spread, and not the wearer- the study was not designed to investigate this"

"The findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting." and "The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection."

You didn't expect this plonker to have read the whole report on the study, did you?

He, like the other covid loons, will just share the little quotes that they think supports their shitty attitudes, and ignore everything else, because they are basically total fuckwits.