Is the current aim to reduce or eliminate exposure to the virus?

[Chester1]

I wouldn't quite say that, but I would say that globalisation has gone too far, for instance we really need to cut down massively on "food miles" and primarily eat UK produced food, ideally even more locally produced than that. With regard to business, we need to reduce actual travel heavily, replacing it with teleconferencing and videoconferencing.

We could also do with getting our manufacturing industry back.

I agree it has gone to far but there are plenty of people who want it to stop. Just look at some of the suggestions in this thread. Those that think globalisation is over can join in shock with the people who think Coronavirus has put an end to HS2 and Brexit etc, when most stuff just restarts with some adaptions.

The problem with producing more food in the UK is simply a lack of fertile land. The least fertile 10% of our farmland accounts for approximately 1% of our food production and it requires vast subsidies to make that possible. Much of the rest is of low fertility, thats why we have a large amount of pastoral farming. We produce about 2/3rds of the amount of food we consume, very similar to the level during WW2. We have been net importers of grain since the late 1700s! We are not a country that can afford to live off its natural resources to have a good standard of living. We rely on global trade, if the consequence of that is living through pandemics then so be it.

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder the thread title is Is the current aim to reduce or eliminate exposure to the virus?

The forum has plenty of spare capacity for anyone to create a thread to discuss any topic for which we don't already have a thread

 

[krus_aragon]

But surely immunity isn't building up as we're all in lockdown.

It will be building up slowly, because we're not perfectly isolated from each other: we're still going out on essential journeys, and not everyone is following the social distancing rules perfectly. The virus still spreads with a reproduction rate between zero and one, its just that the rate of infection is slowing.

The rate at which the virus is currently spreading isn't enough to hit that herd immunity mark anytime soon, but it is low enough to keep things manageable for healthcare and social care services.

 

[404250]

The number of new cases info isn't quite as useful as a few suggest above as the number of tests conducted fluctuates and should be increasing. New cases reported could stay constant while actually decreasing at a good rate.

 

[edwin_m]

I agree the number of positive tests isn't very helpful. As the current aim is to keep things with in the capacity of the NHS, the most important statistics in the short term are hospital admissions and the number currently occupying hospital beds (and similar for intensive care). These will probably be roughly proportional to the total number of cases with a time lag, unless hospitals are overwhelmed, but we need antibody tests on a random sample of the entire population before we can know the constant of proportionality. Deaths will also be proportional but with a longer lag.

 

[HH]

It could be a lot longer than 18 months away. There is a lot of blind faith that science will find a way etc. It may very well do but we can't rely on that. I suspect that herd immunity through infection will be what ends the crisis.

Except that vaccine-induced immunity is a lot stronger than that from catching the virus. Relying on herd immunity (which we may have to, as a successful vaccine is not a given) is likely to mean waves of covid-19 infections for some time.

 

[MarkyT]

It will be building up slowly, because we're not perfectly isolated from each other: we're still going out on essential journeys, and not everyone is following the social distancing rules perfectly. The virus still spreads with a reproduction rate between zero and one, its just that the rate of infection is slowing.

The rate at which the virus is currently spreading isn't enough to hit that herd immunity mark anytime soon, but it is low enough to keep things manageable for healthcare and social care services.

Once R is lower than 1 reliably for a few weeks, the virus runs out of hosts and the number of infected cases will collapse rapidly until the virus is effectively eradicated. There is no guarantee a laissez-faire policy would result in herd immunity, and deaths from all causes at the moment are running at over double the rate usual at this time of year with lockdown, so extrapolate that over a long period and it could be a major cull of the population if the disease was just allowed to rip through the whole population unchecked as some on the right are discussing. Another factor worth discussing is the health effects on those that recover. Latest research from USA and Germany suggests that they could end up with irreparable lung damage and a lifetime of breathing difficulties, even those who only had very mild symptoms. There are glimmers of hope though as to how we could start to open up the economy. Universal mask wearing is promising, able to cut the probability of infection by up to 1000-fold in confined environments even with non medical coverings. The key there is to stop EVERYBODY, including the unknowingly infected, from ejecting droplets of spit and mucus from their mouths directly into the faces of others around them or onto surfaces that may be touched later. If you look at figures from the Far East and lately from Austria and Czechia, benefits of mandatory mask wearing are now becoming very clear. Such policies were how the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918 was finally defeated. A staged gradual reopening of the economy could then occur on a local basis, with testing and tracing employed to stamp on any new flare-ups as soon as they occur.

 

[yorkie]

Once R is lower than 1 reliably for a few weeks, the virus runs out of hosts and the number of infected cases will collapse rapidly until the virus is effectively eradicated...

I wish that was true, but it seems unlikely (see this video which I posted in this thread)

Universal mask wearing is promising..

But given the shortages how soon could that be? are you talking about reusable masks or single use masks? have you seen other posts on this topic? See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/exit-strategy-predictions.203336/page-9#post-4544580

 

[MarkyT]

I wish that was true, but it seems unlikely (see this video which I posted in this thread)

But given the shortages how soon could that be? are you talking about reusable masks or single use masks? have you seen other posts on this topic? See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/exit-strategy-predictions.203336/page-9#post-4544580

Clearly with the modem global economy it can never be eradicated everywhere worldwide, but the new normal has to be a higher level of caution in daily life. The Far Eastern protocols are the way ahead, incorporating mask wearing, obsessive cleaning of surfaces in public areas, testing and tracing etc. It will still be out there but outbreaks will be rare, limited and infrequent. Masks need not be certified disposable medical types, just as they weren't in 1918. N95s etc must be saved for medical and care workers and those at extra risk, although as the caseloads reduce, this need will also decline. The point is to stop large droplets coming out of the mouths of the often unknowingly infected, especially in confined environments like public transport. People can be encouraged to buy or make their own reusable masks that can be nearly as effective for this particular task, and you don't even have to rely on them following correct hygiene protocol, as long as they are wearing them and trapping those droplets. My mask protects you, your mask protects me.

 

[Bantamzen]

Clearly with the modem global economy it can never be eradicated everywhere worldwide, but the new normal has to be a higher level of caution in daily life. The Far Eastern protocols are the way ahead, incorporating mask wearing, obsessive cleaning of surfaces in public areas, testing and tracing etc. It will still be out there but outbreaks will be rare, limited and infrequent. Masks need not be certified disposable medical types, just as they weren't in 1918. N95s etc must be saved for medical and care workers and those at extra risk, although as the caseloads reduce, this need will also decline. The point is to stop large droplets coming out of the mouths of the often unknowingly infected, especially in confined environments like public transport. People can be encouraged to buy or make their own reusable masks that can be nearly as effective for this particular task, and you don't even have to rely on them following correct hygiene protocol, as long as they are wearing them and trapping those droplets. My mask protects you, your mask protects me.

Its worth pointing out that East Asian protocols have long been to wear masks when they have the symptoms of a cold or flu, not to prevent infection.

 

[MarkyT]

Its worth pointing out that East Asian protocols have long been to wear masks when they have the symptoms of a cold or flu, not to prevent infection.

Exactly what's required everywhere today, although some compulsion is required for the pig-headed.

 

[bramling]

Once R is lower than 1 reliably for a few weeks, the virus runs out of hosts and the number of infected cases will collapse rapidly until the virus is effectively eradicated. There is no guarantee a laissez-faire policy would result in herd immunity, and deaths from all causes at the moment are running at over double the rate usual at this time of year with lockdown, so extrapolate that over a long period and it could be a major cull of the population if the disease was just allowed to rip through the whole population unchecked as some on the right are discussing. Another factor worth discussing is the health effects on those that recover. Latest research from USA and Germany suggests that they could end up with irreparable lung damage and a lifetime of breathing difficulties, even those who only had very mild symptoms. There are glimmers of hope though as to how we could start to open up the economy. Universal mask wearing is promising, able to cut the probability of infection by up to 1000-fold in confined environments even with non medical coverings. The key there is to stop EVERYBODY, including the unknowingly infected, from ejecting droplets of spit and mucus from their mouths directly into the faces of others around them or onto surfaces that may be touched later. If you look at figures from the Far East and lately from Austria and Czechia, benefits of mandatory mask wearing are now becoming very clear. Such policies were how the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918 was finally defeated. A staged gradual reopening of the economy could then occur on a local basis, with testing and tracing employed to stamp on any new flare-ups as soon as they occur.

An interesting point regarding any potential long-term health damage to someone who does recover. This has been touched upon in the media from time to time, but the subject doesn’t seem to have received anything like the attention one would expect. I wonder if this may be because this is simply another major unknown in all this.

 

[yorkie]

An interesting point regarding any potential long-term health damage to someone who does recover. This has been touched upon in the media from time to time, but the subject doesn’t seem to have received anything like the attention one would expect. I wonder if this may be because this is simply another major unknown in all this.

This was mentioned in another thread.

Obviously it will take time to study long-term effects, but any lasting damage is only likely to affect a very small proportion of people.

Covid 19 can cause pneumonia but this will only be a small proportion of cases, and...
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea...oronavirus/what-coronavirus-does-to-the-lungs

While most people recover from pneumonia without any lasting lung damage, the pneumonia associated with COVID-19 may be severe. Even after the disease has passed, lung injury may result in breathing difficulties that might take months to improve...

So I don't think that it's something that fit and healthy people who are not in an 'at risk' group should start to panic about.

I do think there is a real risk here that people get too worried about potentially getting the virus to the extent that their worrying causes problems with their physical and mental health that could be far more damaging.

 

[bramling]

This was mentioned in another thread.

Obviously it will take time to study long-term effects, but any lasting damage is only likely to affect a very small proportion of people.

Covid 19 can cause pneumonia but this will only be a small proportion of cases, and...
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea...oronavirus/what-coronavirus-does-to-the-lungs

So I don't think that it's something that fit and healthy people who are not in an 'at risk' group should start to panic about.

I do think there is a real risk here that people get too worried about potentially getting the virus to the extent that their worrying causes problems with their physical and mental health that could be far more damaging.

*Personally*, I’m not *massively* worried about getting their virus myself as being relatively young and with no (known) underlying issues then I know the statistics are favourable to me.

However, I’d *prefer* not to be exposed to the risks of getting it if I can make what could be termed reasonable adjustments, at least in the shorter term. Like others on here I’m much more concerned with the possibility of getting it, knowingly or otherwise, and passing it on to someone who is a higher risk profile than myself. I have examples of such people in both my household and work, who don’t quite meet the criteria for shielding but are higher risk than myself on age grounds.

For the time being I’m happy to live with restrictions, and for me I don’t feel at this time this is having a massive impact on my wellbeing, apart from that I’m finding myself feeling a little drained. I attribute this to the monotony of the current situation where a typical week consists of work/work/work/work/work/home/home doing the same walks over and over, the same drive in each day, the same rigmarole every time one needs to go food shopping, et cetera. Likewise our first holiday of the year would have been in mid-May and I can’t see that going ahead, so this has come at a bad time in terms of the maximum length of time since previous extended time off work. However compared to NHS staff this is all small change, so all in all it’s not such a bad deal.

As things are at the moment it’s difficult to reconcile all these things, as greater freedom to move around would undoubtedly boost my wellbeing, but do I feel it’s more important than *reducing* (not eliminating) my risk of exposure to the virus? On that I’m less sure. In all honesty I don’t feel I / we have enough information to be able to make a fully informed choice.

 

[Meerkat]

If you look at figures from the Far East and lately from Austria and Czechia, benefits of mandatory mask wearing are now becoming very clear

Which figures are these that prove masks make a worthwhile difference?

 

[MarkyT]

Which figures are these that prove masks make a worthwhile difference?

I wouldn't normally link to this newspaper, but in this case I applaud their publishing of this article:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8236891/Does-wearing-facemask-REALLY-curb-coronavirus-outbreaks-Rates-countries-suggest-do.html

The group advises making 'reusable cotton masks from simple items you can find in your house', such as scarves or towels.

The campaigners stress that surgical masks and respirators should be reserved for health professionals.

Of course, they're not a magic bullet, and the measure needs to exist alongside others, and a general new normal of heightened caution and concern not only for our own safety but for that of others in all our actions.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm open to the arguments on facemasks.

If they enable us to get out and about, I'm all for it.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm open to the arguments on facemasks.

If they enable us to get out and about, I'm all for it.

I think they will be essential as the lockdown is gradually eased. For essential workers who have to travel and work on public transport, they are desperately needed NOW. The number of London's transport workers who have already been taken ill and died is a testament to the particular risks of that environment, to which all riders are clearly also exposed, some of them health workers travelling to hospitals and other care environments. Sadiq Khan has already asked the health secretary to make masks compulsory on London's transport network, but no word yet... I don't know whether TfL have the powers to do it themselves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think they will be essential as the lockdown is gradually eased. For essential workers who have to travel and work on public transport, they are desperately needed NOW. The number of London's transport workers who have already been taken ill and died is a testament to the particular risks of that environment, to which all riders are clearly also exposed, some of them health workers travelling to hospitals and other care environments. Sadiq Khan has already asked the health secretary to make masks compulsory on London's transport network, but no word yet... I don't know whether TfL have the powers to do it themselves.

Requiring them on public transport might have another side benefit - wearing one is not enjoyable, so it might cause people to choose other modes where they don't have to wear one for now. I doubt I will go off randomly riding trains (even where allowed) until mask use is no longer necessary. I'm not massively scared of catching COVID, however I am not going to do something for pleasure that would require an unpleasant thing to be done to do it - that would be like going and riding 153s for fun.

What I am slightly concerned about is a general requirement for wearing one outside, as this may pose issues with regard to exercise, certainly there's no way I can run with one, I can barely get enough air in without one (the joys of exercise induced asthma).

I also can't drive with one because the diversion of the air makes my glasses steam up! (Yes I've tried, I wore one the other day for some volunteering and didn't take it off when I got in the car, and had to remove it very quickly as it removed my ability to see! ) Don't know how glasses wearing medical staff avoid that being an issue.

 

[yorksrob]

I think they will be essential as the lockdown is gradually eased. For essential workers who have to travel and work on public transport, they are desperately needed NOW. The number of London's transport workers who have already been taken ill and died is a testament to the particular risks of that environment, to which all riders are clearly also exposed, some of them health workers travelling to hospitals and other care environments. Sadiq Khan has already asked the health secretary to make masks compulsory on London's transport network, but no word yet... I don't know whether TfL have the powers to do it themselves.

I don't know about the LU, but as the national railway network is private property, they could presumably refuse entry to anyone not wearing one if they chose.

 

[bramling]

Requiring them on public transport might have another side benefit - wearing one is not enjoyable, so it might cause people to choose other modes where they don't have to wear one for now. I doubt I will go off randomly riding trains (even where allowed) until mask use is no longer necessary. I'm not massively scared of catching COVID, however I am not going to do something for pleasure that would require an unpleasant thing to be done to do it - that would be like going and riding 153s for fun.

What I am slightly concerned about is a general requirement for wearing one outside, as this may pose issues with regard to exercise, certainly there's no way I can run with one, I can barely get enough air in without one (the joys of exercise induced asthma).

I also can't drive with one because the diversion of the air makes my glasses steam up! (Yes I've tried, I wore one the other day for some volunteering and didn't take it off when I got in the car, and had to remove it very quickly as it removed my ability to see! ) Don't know how glasses wearing medical staff avoid that being an issue.

I do think it's going to be very hard to get "buy-in" for all this when we've heard for so long about how ineffective masks are. I think it's going to be very difficult to effectively change that line at this late stage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do think it's going to be very hard to get "buy-in" for all this when we've heard for so long about how ineffective masks are. I think it's going to be very difficult to effectively change that line at this late stage.

I think the effectiveness thing is twofold. They aren't that effective for stopping you getting COVID unless they're proper medical grade ones. They are however fairly effective in any form for stopping you gobbing everywhere if you cough or sneeze.

 

[MarkyT]

Here's Peston interviewing a Scientist on the matter:

 

[bramling]

I don't know about the LU, but as the national railway network is private property, they could presumably refuse entry to anyone not wearing one if they chose.

I don't see it being a problem on any railway, however there's the age-old problem of enforcement. Very difficult to enforce at smaller stations, and engendering a conflict situation for staff - both in terms of potentially denying access to someone, or having to mediate when it inevitably kicks off as someone has a go at someone else not wearing a mask.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here's Peston interviewing a Scientist on the matter

He might as well interview a clown. I'm not believing a single thing Peston says. His conduct has been disgraceful and has shown himself to be woefully misinformed about just about everything.

What I will believe is links to peer-reviewed papers on the matter, or non-peer-reviewed ones from reputable sources like universities. Note: Medium is not a reputable source, anyone can publish anything on it, though there is *some* good stuff there.

 

[bramling]

He might as well interview a clown. I'm not believing a single thing Peston says. His conduct has been disgraceful and has shown himself to be woefully misinformed about just about everything.

What I will believe is links to peer-reviewed papers on the matter, or non-peer-reviewed ones from reputable sources like universities. Note: Medium is not a reputable source, anyone can publish anything on it, though there is *some* good stuff there.

Yes Peston seems to be the stereotypical case of a journalist who's done the "basic overview" course in something and then behaves like he's an expert. There's been a number of occasions through this where he's made a bit of fool of himself, and in my view has just wasted precious questioning-time.

 

[MarkyT]

I think the effectiveness thing is twofold. They aren't that effective for stopping you getting COVID unless they're proper medical grade ones. They are however fairly effective in any form for stopping you gobbing everywhere if you cough or sneeze.

Yes, that's the important factor. Hong Kong has now largely reopened. The Easter weekend was reportedly almost back to normal with many thousands of people on mass transit, trams and buses, in parks, shops and restaurants, all wearing masks and with businesses exercising almost OCD levels of cleanliness, wiping down surfaces every 30 minutes, handing out envelopes for customers to temporarily store their masks while eating in restaurants etc. They have since had not one, that's a big fat ZERO, confirmed new infections reported.

 

[MarkyT]

If you don't like him, don't listen to Peston. Listen to Jeremy Howard, the Scientist from the Masks 4 All movement instead.
Here's a comprehensive FAQ he prepared for skeptics about public mask-wearing:

Redirect

Wearing a mask decreases the number of people infected by an infectious mask wearer (“source control”), because it reduces by around 99% the number of droplets that are ejected during speech. It also probably somewhat decreases the likelihood of an uninfected wearer getting infected, although it’s less effective for this, since many of the droplets quickly evaporate into small droplet nuclei that are hard to block. Reducing the number of people infected has an exponential impact, because it decreases the effective reproduction rate, R.


About half of infections are from people that aren’t showing symptoms – so people that don’t know they’re sick are infecting others. Because masks are far more effective at blocking infection at the source, that means we need everyone to wear a mask in public, since otherwise unmasked people put those around them at risk.

 

[Meerkat]

Yes, that's the important factor. Hong Kong has now largely reopened. The Easter weekend was reportedly almost back to normal with many thousands of people on mass transit, trams and buses, in parks, shops and restaurants, all wearing masks and with businesses exercising almost OCD levels of cleanliness, wiping down surfaces every 30 minutes, handing out envelopes for customers to temporarily store their masks while eating in restaurants etc. They have since had not one, that's a big fat ZERO, confirmed new infections reported.

Correlation is not the same as causation

 

[Domh245]

Another factor when considering mask wearing in the UK vs East Asian countries is facial hair. I get the impression that more of the UK population has beards than in traditionally mask wearing countries, and particularly from the point of view of stopping infection from getting in, beards and masks do not get along (the mask being unable to seal properly over the beard). In terms of the slightly more effective "stop stuff getting out" approach, I suspect that beards reduce the effectiveness again albeit probably not enough to be an issue (although if you are coughing and sneezing in the mask with a beard, it won't be particularly pleasant!)

+1 for the glasses fogging up irritation as well - scarves are bad enough during winter!