Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The French culture is more 'romantic' if the right word, people are less likely to social distance there. Similar with Italy.
You have no evidence to state that face coverings have no impact. And I have never said about wearing a covering down the street. I'm talking about wearing a covering in a public place, inside especially.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So without a vaccine stuck in a vicious circle? What happened when we caught colds or flu did we grind to a halt? Come on now really?
Yet we are told not to socialise outside or mix with other households? Something wrong there don’t you think?
So in a list to blame for the virus spread is as follows, students pub goers care workers, seems like a list of making scapegoats here!
As for enjoying life, I have managed to get back to the gym but during lockdown I hadn’t much to do or go anywhere boredom set in.
I’m sure lockdown is trying to break the human spirit as that’s what it feels to me, I have lost faith in governments as well as politicians during this but they don’t seem to care
No, lockdown is to reduce the infection rate and critically to reduce hospital admissions. This is both a more infectious and potentially more serious virus than both cold and flu. That's why we need measures and why we have to adapt. I'm not afraid of making scapegoats, people who were reckless and ignored social distancing and face covering guidance have played their part in the second wave and the situation we're currently in.
Yes, and Swedes are all weirdo nomads. Tropes are not new ground I’m afraid. We could ask for the evidence that masks do anything instead of saying somebody to prove a negative, but this isn’t the first rodeo for anybody in this thread.
We don't move on from face coverings, not until there is a vaccine. A small price to pay in my opinion. As for lockdowns, a lot of that has to do with people's behaviour once we come out of this one. Nothing wrong with going out and socialising if people are sensible; people can still enjoy life and not be shut up in their homes. But as for going out getting drunk in big groups and throwing caution to the wind regarding social distancing..I believe this sort of thing has been one of the biggest factors in this second wave.
The French culture is more 'romantic' if the right word, people are less likely to social distance there. Similar with Italy.
You have no evidence to state that face coverings have no impact. And I have never said about wearing a covering down the street. I'm talking about wearing a covering in a public place, inside especially.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No, lockdown is to reduce the infection rate and critically to reduce hospital admissions. This is both a more infectious and potentially more serious virus than both cold and flu. That's why we need measures and why we have to adapt.
Yet where is the protection for other diseases out there, oh right ignore them
Lockdowns haven’t helped though have they when people physical and mental health play a part but as I say let’s ignore that as it’s not important as Covid, COVID-19, coronavirus (changes by day)
There is a lot of evidence that 'the viral dosage' is a big factor in how ill people get with this. An unknowing infected person may cough on the train or in a shop with people nearby. If they are wearing the face covering, it may not completely stop them from transmitting viral particles to someone else, but it is very likely it will reduce the number of particles they transmit by a large amount and so the people in close proximity are less likely to get seriously ill, if they pick it up at all. This links with hospital admissions.
I'd be interested if you could share some of this evidence about viral load. You'll forgive me for being sceptical, but there was nothing about viral load before masks were introduced - it was only after they were introduced and positive tests continued to increase that people started coming out with that argument. Almost as if they're desperately back pedalling to try and justify their enthusiasm for masks as the prevention line has proven to be rubbish
This isn't really correct, there were cases here in February but so few in number that 0% is near enough correct. The issue is that they increased so dramatically in March that with the data we see now in terms of how cases rise, it's fairly certain there were a large number of undetected cases present in March and most likely even in February or earlier.
Well, what I've said immediately above stands. And you've twisted what I said. I never suggested hiding behind a sofa. I said people should socialise, providing they're sensible about it.
I don't want longer or tougher lockdowns. But if it is a choice between wearing a face covering in a public place, or not doing so and potentially helping to cause higher transmission and thus more lockdowns, then I would go with the face covering option.
I'd like to see some good solid evidence of that statement as afraid I'm not convinced. We've had these wretched things for best part of four months and all we have to show for it is more lockdowns. If they were that great we wouldn't be in this position now. Don't blame non compliance as, from my observations, that's almost non existent.
Well, what I've said immediately above stands. And you've twisted what I said. I never suggested hiding behind a sofa. I said people should socialise, providing they're sensible about it.
Yet we are not allowed to socialise in pubs, clubs or other households unless in a bubble but please don’t blame people for getting drunk though as I take it they be enjoying themselves
Well, what I've said immediately above stands. And you've twisted what I said. I never suggested hiding behind a sofa. I said people should socialise, providing they're sensible about it.
I just totally disagree with your viewpoint as you have offered no evidence.
I don't care if I get the virus as I have a 99.7 chance of being fine. And I don't care about protecting others either. If they are worried they can stay at home.If I don't go out then life is unbearable.
I'd be interested if you could share some of this evidence about viral load. You'll forgive me for being sceptical, but there was nothing about viral load before masks were introduced - it was only after they were introduced and positive tests continued to increase that people started coming out with that argument. Almost as if they're desperately back pedalling to try and justify their enthusiasm for masks as the prevention line has proven to be rubbish
Well I can tell you I heard Dr Sarah Jarvis on Jeremy Vine talking about viral load and how it has an impact during the first lockdown, so well before the face covering rule came in.
Well I can tell you I heard Dr Sarah Jarvis on Jeremy Vine talking about viral load and how it has an impact during the first lockdown, so well before the face covering rule came in.
I'm not disputing that viral load will play an impact on the severity of the infection. It's the link that keeps being made between masks and reduced viral load, something that I didn't see reported on until after countries began making them compulsory. I certainly don't remember reduction of viral load as a selling point before masks were introduced...
No, lockdown is to reduce the infection rate and critically to reduce hospital admissions. This is both a more infectious and potentially more serious virus than both cold and flu. That's why we need measures and why we have to adapt. I'm not afraid of making scapegoats, people who were reckless and ignored social distancing and face covering guidance have played their part in the second wave and the situation we're currently in.
I'm not buying this I'm afraid, viruses do what viruses do, you can try social distancing, it will work at reducing transmission but it's just not possible all the time. People have lives, they need other humans and also some people have business to run. We can't stay 2m apart all the time, that's not being reckless that's being human. As for your beloved face coverings I have yet to see your scientific evidence. Also this isn't a second wave, that would mean the first finished, which it didn't so it's just a resurgence of what was already going on.
Yet we are not allowed to socialise in pubs, clubs or other households unless in a bubble but please don’t blame people for getting drunk though as I take it they be enjoying themselves
Well I can tell you I heard Dr Sarah Jarvis on Jeremy Vine talking about viral load and how it has an impact during the first lockdown, so well before the face covering rule came in.
Most of us are well aware of viral load so how does a mask being handled regularly transmitting viral load to the wearer's hands every time they take it off/put it on help? They are then likely to touch surfaces transmitting the virus and it's generally this that causes a number of transmissions.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Ok, let's just shut down society and stop people doing anything as that's what you seem to want as almost everyone else bar yourself appears to be a reckless individual who must be controlled?
I'm not disputing that viral load will play an impact on the severity of the infection. It's the link that keeps being made between masks and reduced viral load, something that I didn't see reported on until after countries began making them compulsory. I certainly don't remember reduction of viral load as a selling point before masks were introduced...
Most of us are well aware of viral load so how does a mask being handled regularly transmitting viral load to the wearer's hands every time they take it off/put it on help? They are then likely to touch surfaces transmitting the virus and it's generally this that causes a number of transmissions.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Ok, let's just shut down society and stop people doing anything as that's what you seem to want as almost everyone else bar yourself appears to be a reckless individual who must be controlled?
But people are, its however been the media spin of it thats the problem!
I admit that the UK does have a problem with it but to blame people like that for virus spreading is careless! Just like how on the other during the summer months pictures of people on beaches and the spin of the media in terms of surges etc, are we sure its the population thats controlling this virus or is it just media?
Like I mentioned before people/media had a go in terms of people protesting/marching and having a surge and look what happened not a zip in terms of increases afterwards or again is it just media being selective in what is deemed a protest/march to suit the narrative?
I read on social media about the recent protest in London people were getting knickers in a knot of the lack of wearing masks and the media themselves spun it as conspiracy theorists/anti vaxxers etc, yet in reality it will be a majority of people like myself wanting to know answers but again it suits the media narrative in that context doesn't it? Not wearing a mask equals a danger to the public but with other protests not much was mentioned as it depended on their cause.
I look at this whole thing alot more with an open mind and as far as I can make out the rules make no sense but the media just follow it anyway (no questions asked properly), and with people I have spoken to within my "social" circle they are seeing more to this than what we see, so I can see it being an awakening for some and to others.... you decide.
I just keep thinking about the first day I went on holiday to Spain this year. It was exactly the same day they mandated mask wearing everywhere except on the beach, or while eating, drinking or smoking. There was none of this exemption nonsense: if the police found you without a mask, you were told off with a Scarborough warning.
What actually happened was this. Most people had a mask, and I would say about 50% wore them all the time, others had them under the chin, but put them up if an official approached . Actually on trains, which in the Barcelona area were very busy but not full and standing, 90%.
I just keep thinking about the first day I went on holiday to Spain this year. It was exactly the same day they mandated mask wearing everywhere except on the beach, or while eating, drinking or smoking. There was none of this exemption nonsense: if the police found you without a mask, you were told off with a Scarborough warning.
What actually happened was this. Most people had a mask, and I would say about 50% wore them all the time, others had them under the chin, but put them up if an official approached . Actually on trains, which in the Barcelona area were very busy but not full and standing, 90%.
Even though the scientists were saying they have little or effect, or even that they may do more harm than good? Not to mention the fact that at the time masks were only slightly more available to the person on the street than hand gel.
The thing is where there's small impacts every week over time it can make a difference, in the greater scheme of things not much but to the individuals who aren't impacted (someone's mum doesn't die) it can make a big difference.
The problem is that proving that they work is hard in that the best results are going to come from locations where there's lots of virus (hospital wards), however that's not the setting that most people are in and rarely for the length of time where healthcare workers are.
However if you tried to test it in real world settings the risk level would be low and so you'd have inconclusive evidence.
What I would say is that most of the examples of testing done are on one half mask wearing (i.e. patient or staff, but not both), with either showing that there's the potential for them to be marginally better (95% certain range is mostly below 1 for staff wearing surgical masks and all below 1 for N95 masks - in a healthcare setting for influenza where you can't be sure if the source, so could include getting it from their children).
As such if one half wearing masks had the potential to be marginally better then it's likely that both parties wearing it could be that potential improves further (i.e. if both are wearing masks it could be that the 95% certain range falls enough that it suits entirely below 1).
If that has the potential to mean that we get the R value from 1.005 to 0.995 if we do everything else, that could result in instead of after 10 weeks the number of cases that week being 95 rather than 105 (starting cases being 100) then that's a better outcome, even if it makes the difference between 1 and 1.005 that's still going to be 20 fewer cases overall (yes out of 1,020) but as time moves forwards the differences start to get much bigger, after 30 weeks rather than being a difference of 5 it's 16 each week, with the difference in overall cases climbing to 226.
Of course it could well be that instead of the range being marginally above what the data shows that it could be marginally below what the data shows, especially outside of healthcare settings. The problem is that it would be hard to prove either way without significant trails within an area where culture is similar (which then gets hard as we'd be trying to prove that both parties wearing a mask helps and you'd likely get crossover between the groups of they were too close together).
Whilst there's going to be increased risk if people are behaving like a mask is giving them a much higher level of protection than it might do, that doesn't mean that everyone should stop doing everything within their power to keep to the rest of the guidance (limiting duration with others, limiting the total number of people you interact with, hand washing, limiting proximity to others, etc.). Now if that includes wearing a mask (which you put on/take off carefully, is replaced frequently, worn correctly, etc.) then the increased risk of wearing a mask should be zero and may marginally improve your chances of not catching it or at least not having such a bad case, then I'm going to take that chance.
However I would highlight that due to my lifestyle I rarely need to wear a mask day to day (less than half an hour a day, sometimes zero), however for others I can understand that where they have to wear it for longer than that or where it has implications for them (especially where people are rude to then about insisting that they should be wearing a mask) then I can see why they might not be so happy about wearing a mask and get cross at those who insist that they must wear one (especially from those with bad mask wearing habits).
However, even then if there's enough people who are willing to wear a mask during this Pandemic on the understanding that there's scope that it may help along with the other steps then that's likely to be enough to help a bit more. Yet if it doesn't help, then (as long as we follow the rest of the good practice - and that is critical, and it's likely that many who aren't and are wearing masks wouldn't if they're not wearing masks, so wouldn't have a discernable difference overall) as long as those wearing masks aren't rude to those not wearing masks (which is a very big IF, and a bigger ask than the keeping to the best practice guidelines for some) then what does it matter if others wear a mask?
It's one of these areas where (like the multiverse theory) where the science can suggest why it might be the case but because of the way things are is going to find it hard to provide hard evidence that it actual is the case.
As an example, in the natural history museum in Oxford there's a case which shows a selection of molluscs with a theoretical ancestor as there's been no examples of it found. Does that mean that there's no evidence for that ancestor and until it's been found we can't prove that the theory of evolution is true? No, it means that there's a gap and that gap is something which we are mindful of but the theory remains valid until there's evidence either way.
Chances are we'll never know, but we have to work on the theories that we have using the information that we have. It's why no one can prove that masks work, nor can those opposed prove that they don't work.
I can only say what my interpretation of the data shows, which is that masks may not have any benefit but there's more likely to be some benefit over none (again with the understanding that we follow good practice). If there's other data which shows (and increasing cases doesn't necessarily, unless you can show that there's a control group which didn't wear masks but had the same outcome, as it could just be that cases could have grown faster without masks or that people weren't following good practise including not wearing the masks correctly or where they should have been) that there's a probable outcome which is no better or worse without masks then those who disagree with me are likely to end up on the opposite side of the debate (as there's unlikely to be data which I can provide which shows anything like the level of improvement that you'd be willing to accept as proving that mask wearing is required).
However that should be fine*, as I'm sure that there's things that we do agree on, and that there's others who agree with me on this who disagree with me on other things.
* assuming that I don't go round upsetting too many of you too much and we can accept that we aren't going to see eye to eye on this matter.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'd be interested if you could share some of this evidence about viral load. You'll forgive me for being sceptical, but there was nothing about viral load before masks were introduced - it was only after they were introduced and positive tests continued to increase that people started coming out with that argument. Almost as if they're desperately back pedalling to try and justify their enthusiasm for masks as the prevention line has proven to be rubbish
The first doctor to try and highlight their concerns about a new illness in China died and the reasoning given was although he wasn't old and didn't have underlying heath conditions was because of viral exposure (potentially getting several lots of infection whilst treating ill people and maybe even whilst already starting to be ill himself giving his body little chance of dealing with the virus as more and more was being added to his system) I forget when that was, bit it was March/April time. The fact that it wasn't talked about in the context of masks until later doesn't mean that it's not a factor in if people get ill or even die (when otherwise they shouldn't).
We still know fairly little about the level of virus we need to be exposed to before we get ill, even the challenge studies are looking at this.
Interestingly in March there was some evidence that viral load may not have had an impact on outcomes, but then there's more recent studies which show the opposite.
Again it's an area where science is trying to get the information we need to fully understand what we're dealing with.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Most of us are well aware of viral load so how does a mask being handled regularly transmitting viral load to the wearer's hands every time they take it off/put it on help? They are then likely to touch surfaces transmitting the virus and it's generally this that causes a number of transmissions.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Ok, let's just shut down society and stop people doing anything as that's what you seem to want as almost everyone else bar yourself appears to be a reckless individual who must be controlled?
The current science evidence is that the risk from surfaces may have been overstated at the beginning of the Pandemic, however how much of that is due to the large amounts of alcohol hand wash which is in use making said surfaces more difficult for the virus to live on and be picked up by others isn't clear.
Handling of the mask should be on the ear loops or other areas away from where there's likely to be significant amounts of virus (i.e. not near your own eyes nose and mouth) and hands should be washed/hand gelled. As such even if surface transmissions were an issue the risk of contamination should be small if good practice is being followed.
(I would suggest that the lack of following of good practice, including or excluding masks, is something which many would highlight as a bigger issue than masks or no masks).
(I would suggest that the lack of following of good practice, including or excluding masks, is something which many would highlight as a bigger issue than masks or no masks).
I have had it but I'm still wearing a face covering in public because 1. I don't know my immunity level or how long it lasts for and 2. I want to 'do my bit' and help the fight both to reduce the infection rate and thus to get out of lockdown as soon as possible.
There is no reason for people to do a multiplicity of things. Like going to a theme park, swimming in the sea, sharing a funny anecdote, sharing a meal and a drink.... the list is endless. It’s called fun, and essential to the mental well-being of the soul. You should try it sometime
Wearing face coverings is a very small price to pay to help prevent the spread. I understand there are some valid exemptions as a legitimate reason not to, but I have little sympathy for the 'I'm not prepared to' or 'I feel uncomfortable with the idea of wearing a covering', or 'I don't want to be controlled like this' groups. Perhaps instead we should have longer and tougher lockdowns?
The way I see it, face coverings are a small sacrifice to make to help reduce the likelihood of much more draconian measures like long lockdowns. The fact is that the R rate now is a lot lower than it was in March and so there's a good chance this lockdown won't last longer than a month, as the R rate doesn't have to come down that much. I believe face coverings have helped to keep the rate from going wildly out of control as it did in March.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's a new virus and it's a learning curve for all of us. Early in the year it wasn't as clear how the virus transmitted particles. I trust the scientists have done their research thoroughly to have changed their stance and saying that face coverings do help.
Firstly there is no "the science", science isn't a binary, fixed point. Secondly there is very little, nay no evidence that masks work in non-medical scenarios, this has been covered time and again on this thread. Thirdly whilst this is a new virus, there is nothing new about how it spreads. It does exactly what all other viruses do, it spreads. Quite frankly the world has resorted to fear and stupidity in the misguided belief that this particular virus can be "beaten". Quite why is a question best put to the politicians that have made these decisions, but here is the bottom line. The virus cannot be beaten, especially with silly bits of cloth over people's faces. The statistics of it's spread post mandation proves that.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There is no reason for people to do a multiplicity of things. Like going to a theme park, swimming in the sea, sharing a funny anecdote, sharing a meal and a drink.... the list is endless. It’s called fun, and essential to the mental well-being of the soul. You should try it sometime
Perhaps you should try not resorting to making personal comments. Getting drunk lowers the inhibitions meaning people are more likely to flout social distancing and so more likely to infect someone else. That's why people should be responsible.
Perhaps you should try not resorting to making personal comments. Getting drunk lowers the inhibitions meaning people are more likely to flout social distancing and so more likely to infect someone else. That's why people should be responsible.
We all know that but people have had enough of restrictions, humans need human contact, we are social animals and no amount of preaching what we should be doing will change that. You can take the moral high ground but a lot of people's wellbeing is seriously suffering and so this is why restrictions are being ignored.
I agree it remains a theory. But your comparison falls down when governments and SAGE then go on to enforce rules and regulations that have a significant impact on people's lives on the basis of a theory that has been nowhere near proven (and no, hamsters or dummies in a lab don't count as high quality 'proof').
No it isn't s small price, being able to see people's faces is a very important part of human society.
Firstly there is no "the science", science isn't a binary, fixed point. Secondly there is very little, nay no evidence that masks work in non-medical scenarios, this has been covered time and again on this thread. Thirdly whilst this is a new virus, there is nothing new about how it spreads. It does exactly what all other viruses do, it spreads. Quite frankly the world has resorted to fear and stupidity in the misguided belief that this particular virus can be "beaten". Quite why is a question best put to the politicians that have made these decisions, but here is the bottom line. The virus cannot be beaten, especially with silly bits of cloth over people's faces. The statistics of it's spread post mandation proves that.
We all know that but people have had enough of restrictions, humans need human contact, we are social animals and no amount of preaching what we should be doing will change that. You can take the moral high ground but a lot of people's wellbeing is seriously suffering and so this is why restrictions are being ignored.
Well you've misinterpreted my point. My point is that to try to reduce infections and the resulting restrictions and thus improve people's well being, people should comply with the face covering guidelines. People are saying that face coverings aren't working because of the number of people infected now, but perhaps without them that number would be much much higher.
And we're not being asked to wear them all the time, just in public areas. To me lockdowns are a hardship, face coverings aren't. I trust the scientists and doctors and so should a lot of other people; the scientists know a lot more about epidemiology than joe public does.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
