So, coronavirus...

[frodder]

AstraZeneca (AZ) is thought to be leading the pack with their vaccine AZD1222. Their major clinical trial will recruit 30,000 participants – which is good. You can find the trial description on Clinicaltrials.gov. It goes by the snappy title ‘Phase III Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study of AZD1222 for the Prevention of COVID-19 in Adults.’ 1

You may be interested in the start and end date of this AZ trial:

Estimated Study Start Date: August 17, 2020

Estimated Primary Completion Date*: December 2, 2020

Estimated Study Completion Date: October 5, 2022

*date when all volunteers have been recruited onto the trial.

Eh? The phase III trial is completing in 2022?

[Bimbowomxn]

AstraZeneca (AZ) is thought to be leading the pack with their vaccine AZD1222. Their major clinical trial will recruit 30,000 participants – which is good. You can find the trial description on Clinicaltrials.gov. It goes by the snappy title ‘Phase III Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study of AZD1222 for the Prevention of COVID-19 in Adults.’ 1

You may be interested in the start and end date of this AZ trial:

Estimated Study Start Date: August 17, 2020

Estimated Primary Completion Date*: December 2, 2020

Estimated Study Completion Date: October 5, 2022

*date when all volunteers have been recruited onto the trial.

Eh? The phase III trial is completing in 2022?

The volunteers are contracted until then, and yes they date in 2022 seems to be correct.

[Saint]

AstraZeneca (AZ) is thought to be leading the pack with their vaccine AZD1222. Their major clinical trial will recruit 30,000 participants – which is good. You can find the trial description on Clinicaltrials.gov. It goes by the snappy title ‘Phase III Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study of AZD1222 for the Prevention of COVID-19 in Adults.’ 1

You may be interested in the start and end date of this AZ trial:

Estimated Study Start Date: August 17, 2020

Estimated Primary Completion Date*: December 2, 2020

Estimated Study Completion Date: October 5, 2022

*date when all volunteers have been recruited onto the trial.

Eh? The phase III trial is completing in 2022?

Even after the vaccine us approved, there will be ongoing studies on.longbterm effects, further boosters, and other interactions

[frodder]

Eh? The phase III trial is completing in 2022?

Even after the vaccine us approved, there will be ongoing studies on.longbterm effects, further boosters, and other interactions

Yes, phase IV post approval studying

[Ted.]

Eh? The phase III trial is completing in 2022?

Even after the vaccine us approved, there will be ongoing studies on.longbterm effects, further boosters, and other interactions

Yes, phase IV post approval studying

Don't take any notice of them, Bimbo.

[Bimbowomxn]

Even after the vaccine us approved, there will be ongoing studies on.longbterm effects, further boosters, and other interactions

Yes, phase IV post approval studying

Don't take any notice of them, Bimbo.

Take notice of what. ?

Are you taking the vaccine before it’s tested then?

[Ted.]

Yes, phase IV post approval studying

Don't take any notice of them, Bimbo.

Take notice of what. ?

Are you taking the vaccine before it’s tested then?

Any notice.

[Saint]

For reference, most vaccines are approved for general use after phase 3 and before phase 4. Almost every years flu vaccine for instance

[Bimbowomxn]

For reference, most vaccines are approved for general use after phase 3 and before phase 4. Almost every years flu vaccine for instance

Yep. It’s stage 3 finishing in 2022.....

[Saint]

For reference, most vaccines are approved for general use after phase 3 and before phase 4. Almost every years flu vaccine for instance

Yep. It’s stage 3 finishing in 2022.....

Phase 3 finishes once they have enough data to prove effectiveness. I can't recall the levels for the AZ trial, but for the two US candidates it's set at 150 infections or so.

[Insane_Homer]

https://www.ft.com/content/7bf2fbdc-a26 ... c15ecfc222

[Biffer]

The Harvard / Johnson&Johnson phase iii trial has been put on hold due to a severe adverse reaction. No details atm. Will likely restart in the next week or two.

[Bimbowomxn]

COVID - UK HOUSING SECRETARY JENRICK SAYS A CORNISH PASTY WITH CHIPS OR SIDE-SALAD COUNTS AS A "SUBSTANTIAL MEAL"

And a huge diet improvement in some places.

[Sandstorm]

I could eat a pasty now.

[Saint]

The Harvard / Johnson&Johnson phase iii trial has been put on hold due to a severe adverse reaction. No details atm. Will likely restart in the next week or two.

I;m of two minds about publishing things like this (just as with the Jenner/AZ trial)

On the one hand I'm glad they're doing this - they;re showing that they;re following proper protocols and procedures, despite all the political pressure they must be under to rush things through

On the other hand, people that don't take the time to understand the detail and just look at the headlines will take entirely the opposite message from this - the vaccine is dangerous, can't be trusted etc.

I really do think that this is one of those cases where a little bit of knowledge is a BAD thing

[Biffer]

The Harvard / Johnson&Johnson phase iii trial has been put on hold due to a severe adverse reaction. No details atm. Will likely restart in the next week or two.

I;m of two minds about publishing things like this (just as with the Jenner/AZ trial)

On the one hand I'm glad they're doing this - they;re showing that they;re following proper protocols and procedures, despite all the political pressure they must be under to rush things through

On the other hand, people that don't take the time to understand the detail and just look at the headlines will take entirely the opposite message from this - the vaccine is dangerous, can't be trusted etc.

I really do think that this is one of those cases where a little bit of knowledge is a BAD thing

Yeah, I know, but openness in this research is important, because if you don’t talk about them the conspiracy loons feel justified.

[Un Pilier]

The Harvard / Johnson&Johnson phase iii trial has been put on hold due to a severe adverse reaction. No details atm. Will likely restart in the next week or two.

I;m of two minds about publishing things like this (just as with the Jenner/AZ trial)

On the one hand I'm glad they're doing this - they;re showing that they;re following proper protocols and procedures, despite all the political pressure they must be under to rush things through

On the other hand, people that don't take the time to understand the detail and just look at the headlines will take entirely the opposite message from this - the vaccine is dangerous, can't be trusted etc.

I really do think that this is one of those cases where a little bit of knowledge is a BAD thing

It’s a fair point. Whilst I instinctively come down in favour of open-ness there is no question this “message” will be mis-interpreted, both intentionally and otherwise. Perhaps there is an opportunity for more careful presentation and education. Sort of “As part of standard clinical trial procedures, reactions so far are being assessed to ensure ...... etc.” I too am glad they seem to be doing this properly.

[frodder]

I could eat a pasty now.

Pre-Clinical Study Pasty I hope

[Bimbowomxn]

The Harvard / Johnson&Johnson phase iii trial has been put on hold due to a severe adverse reaction. No details atm. Will likely restart in the next week or two.

I;m of two minds about publishing things like this (just as with the Jenner/AZ trial)

On the one hand I'm glad they're doing this - they;re showing that they;re following proper protocols and procedures, despite all the political pressure they must be under to rush things through

On the other hand, people that don't take the time to understand the detail and just look at the headlines will take entirely the opposite message from this - the vaccine is dangerous, can't be trusted etc.

I really do think that this is one of those cases where a little bit of knowledge is a BAD thing

Indeed, politicians were 80% sure we would already have a vaccine in the UK just a few months ago.

[Saint]

The Harvard / Johnson&Johnson phase iii trial has been put on hold due to a severe adverse reaction. No details atm. Will likely restart in the next week or two.

I;m of two minds about publishing things like this (just as with the Jenner/AZ trial)

On the one hand I'm glad they're doing this - they;re showing that they;re following proper protocols and procedures, despite all the political pressure they must be under to rush things through

On the other hand, people that don't take the time to understand the detail and just look at the headlines will take entirely the opposite message from this - the vaccine is dangerous, can't be trusted etc.

I really do think that this is one of those cases where a little bit of knowledge is a BAD thing

Yeah, I know, but openness in this research is important, because if you don’t talk about them the conspiracy loons feel justified.

But if you do talk about them then they just think something even worse is being hidden.

The absolute key fact to a consipracy loon is that there is a conspiracy. There is always a conspiracy. There has always been and always will be a conspiracy. It really doesn't matter how open and honest you are

[Saint]

The Harvard / Johnson&Johnson phase iii trial has been put on hold due to a severe adverse reaction. No details atm. Will likely restart in the next week or two.

I;m of two minds about publishing things like this (just as with the Jenner/AZ trial)

On the one hand I'm glad they're doing this - they;re showing that they;re following proper protocols and procedures, despite all the political pressure they must be under to rush things through

On the other hand, people that don't take the time to understand the detail and just look at the headlines will take entirely the opposite message from this - the vaccine is dangerous, can't be trusted etc.

I really do think that this is one of those cases where a little bit of knowledge is a BAD thing

It’s a fair point. Whilst I instinctively come down in favour of open-ness there is no question this “message” will be mis-interpreted, both intentionally and otherwise. Perhaps there is an opportunity for more careful presentation and education. Sort of “As part of standard clinical trial procedures, reactions so far are being assessed to ensure ...... etc.” I too am glad they seem to be doing this properly.

In this twitter age, no-one has the attention span. They barely get beyond the headline FFS

[Bimbowomxn]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... pivot_.pdf


Mask are of little use.


SAGE.

[Mahoney]

Just searched for mask in there - I saw nothing suggesting they were of little use indoors. Little use outdoors, sure.

They suggested that extending the requirement for use of face covering indoors (e.g. shared offices, schools) would have low to moderate impact on transmission - not that the existing requirement has low impact.

It actually suggests the effectiveness of masks is what is allowing them to describe more draconian interventions as low impact; they say closing close-contact personal services (hairdressing, beauty therapy etc.) would have a low impact precisely because "CDC evidence suggests masks were effective at stopping transmission in a hair dressing salon", and likewise restricting public transport to key workers would not be of further help because the existing mask requirement is working at the current density of use of public transport.

[Northern Lights]

Interview in today's Times with Public Enemy No 1

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/time ... 805774_101

Sunetra Gupta interview: the scientist who says herd immunity is the answer
The professor believes new lockdowns will be devastating. She has been vilified as a result
Andrew Billen
Tuesday October 13 2020, 12.01am, The Times

Sunetra Gupta
JOHN ANGERSON FOR THE TIMES

Last week three leading scientists from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford declared that our governments had got it all wrong on Covid. “Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal,” they wrote, launching a controversial and counterintuitive campaign with glasses of champagne in the rooms of a free-market think tank in Massachusetts.

Yesterday we learnt that the British government will further curtail normal life for huge numbers in regions where the disease is heading out of control. Our trio see the rising infection rate rather differently: they believe that Covid-19 is running its predictable and finite course, and were it to be left largely alone there would soon develop an effective degree of communal (or, trigger word, “herd”) immunity. As it is, millions across the world will die, victims not of the disease, but of our response.

I am in the sitting room of the Oxford signatory, Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the university. She is a striking, persuasive woman who speaks Oxford English at high-table level. I ask how she feels about the prospect of more restrictions.

“I feel absolutely devastated,” she says, recalling that since she first spoke out, in spring, it has been out of terror of what lockdown will bring. “I was concerned, not just for the inner-city child sitting there out of school or people going to die at home, give birth on their own, worse still have miscarriages on their own. There was also, for me, India, which is where I come from. Visions of horror came to me of the people in slums. How can you tell someone who doesn’t have a home to stay at home?”

Her local paper, the Oxford Mail, last month wrote a brilliantly excoriating “apology” on behalf of partying students at Oxford Brookes University — a list of reasons that they were “sorry”, ending: “And if they are not sorry, they damn well should be.” As a teacher, Gupta hates the demonising.

“I think it’s absolutely shameful,” she says. “I think students don’t need to wear a facemask. There’s no risk to them. Furthermore, as we’ve said and stressed, the whole foundation of our argument is that if these students acquire immunity then we’ll be much further along in protecting those who are vulnerable.”

And those freshers, their noses pressed to the windows of cramped flats as they await their cold rations? “It’s criminal,” Gupta says. “I find it absolutely staggering that we could do that. I think students should be able to come back.”

The main risk would be to teachers such as herself, and it is a risk she would willingly accept. “We must stop assigning blame and guilt to young people: ‘You are going to cause Granny to die.’ Grannies and grandpas and other people die of flu every year in large numbers, and somebody is giving it to them, but as a society we absorb the blame.”

She does not choose to blame the government for the original lockdown, even if it was counterproductive. The scientists at Imperial College London who modelled that 500,000 people might have died without it could have been right. “What I think we need to stop now is instituting these new measures, which are really going to cause absolute havoc.

“The good news is that actually there is a way out that would also save us from corona deaths, we think, and that’s why we wrote that declaration. The people who were involved arrived at this conclusion completely independently. We didn’t sit down and discuss it. We found each other through what we published or through our voices on the internet or the public domain, and decided to come together because we felt there is a way out. That way out is afforded by natural immunity.”

Natural immunity is not a strategy in opposition to a vaccine, which is merely “a way of achieving immunity without the costs”. Gupta is working on a flu vaccine, and although at 55 she does not consider herself vulnerable, she would take a coronavirus vaccine if one was offered. On the other hand, she has not downloaded the NHS Covid-19 app because she does not think that testing and tracking everyone is “feasible”. She observes the rule of six because it is the law and she is no anarchist. In the same spirit she wears a mask where it is mandatory, although she thinks the evidence of their efficacy is “equivocal”.

With this virus come few certainties, she thinks (and, she adds, the language of certainty has unnecessarily enflamed the debate), but her theory of its progress in Britain seems to be this. First, rather than arriving in March and exploding, Covid more likely reached us in January and began a slower climb. In some parts it had reached a peak by lockdown, the middle of the first wave. Second, society has more immunity than we think. It comes not only from antibodies (the estimate that just 10 per cent of us has them does not take into account the capacity of “immunological memory” to release more), but from T-cells, which kill the virus from within infected cells. In addition, our existing immune response to past coronaviruses, such as those causing colds, are likely to have cross-reacted to fight Covid-19. Many get less ill than they might; some will be unable to get the disease at all.

“Our position is that we don’t know, but there’s a lot of evidence suggesting that immunity plays a role in bringing down epidemics. We’ve seen that happening around the world, and we’ve also seen that the lifting of lockdown in areas where the epidemic had raged, like New York, London, Stockholm, didn’t cause a huge rise in cases.”

The levels are going up now, though. “But cases will go up in the winter,” Gupta says.

So they are rising because we’re spending more time indoors, rather than because the lockdown was eased? “Well, the lockdown was eased some months ago, wasn’t it? We didn’t get ill and it wasn’t just because it was the summer, because people did get ill in Arizona and Mexico and places like that where it’s pretty damn hot.”

How long would her strategy take to work? “I’d like to think that by Christmas [the death rate] would be stable.”

Meaning? “We would have flu as our benchmark. We’d say, ‘What’s going on with flu?’ If it starts to edge above flu then we start to think a bit more carefully about what else we can do, but up to that point shielding the vulnerable as best we can is probably overall going to cause fewer deaths and less stress. That’s the message really.”

It is one for which she has been vilified. She has been written off as a “theoretician”, although she has been involved from the start in laboratory studies of the disease and in clinical trials. She has been accused of peddling pseudo-science. Her political persuasions have been assumed.

“I think it is just disgraceful that people should think it is acceptable to attack my motives, or — or to assign motives. Actually, they can’t find a motive. What would my motive be? But ad hominem attacks are really frightening.”

Gupta: “Our position is that we don’t know, but there’s a lot of evidence suggesting that immunity plays a role in bringing down epidemics”
Gupta: “Our position is that we don’t know, but there’s a lot of evidence suggesting that immunity plays a role in bringing down epidemics”
JOHN ANGERSON FOR THE TIMES
And they have upset her? “Of course. I am shocked. You’ve seen what’s out there. On Twitter we have been accused of lying. The Guardian printed a tweet that said our policy was grotesque. I guess that was at least attacking the policy, but there are people who specifically accuse us of lies. I don’t know what my motives would be. I am not seeking limelight or advancement. I have turned down several offers of head of college, mainly because I don’t want to do fundraising.”

It is time to discuss, as we say, “the optics” of the Great Barrington Declaration, its name taken from the small Massachusetts town where Gupta and her fellow rebels met. They were guests of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), a think tank promoting less government and open markets. Need I be worried about her politics?

“Personally, I am far to the left of Keir Starmer. OK? And please do print that. I believe in universal basic income. I believe in nationalisation of fundamental services. I am very, very strongly in favour of government intervention in public services and in spending.”

Of the trio, Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff is also “essentially a left-wing person”. They have “some divergence of political opinion perhaps” with the third member, Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya. The AIER, which Gupta calls free-market rather than libertarian — she shudders when I ask if she is a libertarian — merely sheltered them.

But she drank its champagne? “I drink a lot of people’s champagne.”

They then flew to Washington to meet President Trump’s Covid-adviser Scott Atlas, who was criticised last month by 78 of his former colleagues at Stanford’s medical school for his “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science”.

“What we’re trying to say here is that we have, we think, a solution to this problem,” Gupta says. “We’re going to have to collaborate.”

Gupta is a distinguished academic, the winner of the 2009 Royal Society Rosalind Franklin award for outstanding women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and also a writer, whose five novels, she says, are about the “human condition, which is another thing we’re completely neglecting”.

More than once in our conversation, and with some passion, she brings up the poor of India, the country where she grew up, the daughter of a university professor and his teacher wife. She arrived in Britain in 1987 via Princeton University. In 1994 she married Adrian Hill, a vaccinologist who is now director of the University of Oxford’s Jenner Institute. They have two daughters, the younger of whom completed her degree during lockdown in their home.

The inconvenience caused to the family, she knows, is nothing next to the cancer diagnoses and treatments that were lost, nor to the more than 100 million facing food insecurity as a result of Covid-19 policy decisions. (The World Bank estimates that as many as 150 million more people could be pushed into extreme poverty by next year.)

“Childhood vaccinations programmes were suspended. A million kids used to die from measles every year until fairly recently, when it’s come down to a quarter of a million. If next year a million children die from measles again, we will have ourselves to blame,” Gupta says.

This is not the first time Gupta has made the news. In 2000 the chairman of an appointment committee scurrilously claimed that she had won support for a readership post at Oxford by having a relationship with her head of department. It took eight months for Roy Anderson to retract and apologise for an allegation with “no foundation in truth whatsoever”. Anderson, who was found to have intimidated the appointments committee, resigned from Oxford and from the Wellcome Trust. I wonder if she knows that he is now a member of the government’s advisory group Sage, promoting the policies she despairs of. Shouldn’t his behaviour have disqualified him?

“Well, without answering that question, let me just say he behaved incredibly badly,” Gupta says. “He resigned from Oxford University for a variety of reasons, one of which was his defamation of me. I was very fortunate I had so much support from my colleagues and everything worked out. It could have been a disaster. But he was immediately appointed to Imperial [College London]. He then became the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence. He was then knighted. So Sage? It’s nothing.”

So why is she not on Sage herself, providing at the very least a critique of received Covid opinion?

“Why am I not on Sage?” She thinks for a second. “I have in my life generally avoided those sorts of positions. I think I have learnt that I am better able to contribute by doing basic science. But this is an unusual case where I think policy decisions are causing 130 million people to starve to death. I can’t just sit here and bury my head in the science.”

[Northern Lights]

Just searched for mask in there - I saw nothing suggesting they were of little use indoors. Little use outdoors, sure.

They suggested that extending the requirement for use of face covering indoors (e.g. shared offices, schools) would have low to moderate impact on transmission - not that the existing requirement has low impact.

It actually suggests the effectiveness of masks is what is allowing them to describe more draconian interventions as low impact; they say closing close-contact personal services (hairdressing, beauty therapy etc.) would have a low impact precisely because "CDC evidence suggests masks were effective at stopping transmission in a hair dressing salon", and likewise restricting public transport to key workers would not be of further help because the existing mask requirement is working at the current density of use of public transport.

It interesting that they make no judgement really on facemask currently used but then this is more on future measures being considered.

I not they specifically exclude economic impact in their considerations, i assume this must be done at cabinet level or fed in from somewhere else. On that i dont think it is fully being recognised that turning on and off sectors such as hospitality is, in my opinion increasing business failure as opposed to keeping them shut throughout and just killing confidence.

[Biffer]

Just searched for mask in there - I saw nothing suggesting they were of little use indoors. Little use outdoors, sure.

They suggested that extending the requirement for use of face covering indoors (e.g. shared offices, schools) would have low to moderate impact on transmission - not that the existing requirement has low impact.

It actually suggests the effectiveness of masks is what is allowing them to describe more draconian interventions as low impact; they say closing close-contact personal services (hairdressing, beauty therapy etc.) would have a low impact precisely because "CDC evidence suggests masks were effective at stopping transmission in a hair dressing salon", and likewise restricting public transport to key workers would not be of further help because the existing mask requirement is working at the current density of use of public transport.

It interesting that they make no judgement really on facemask currently used but then this is more on future measures being considered.

I not they specifically exclude economic impact in their considerations, i assume this must be done at cabinet level or fed in from somewhere else. On that i dont think it is fully being recognised that turning on and off sectors such as hospitality is, in my opinion increasing business failure as opposed to keeping them shut throughout and just killing confidence.

There are free market ideologues within the cabinet who believe it is perfectly possible to turn industries on and off, and that afterwards the market will provide. The same people are the ones who can't get their heads round there being shortages of PPE or reagents at various times because they feel the market will provide. They also don't realise that a perfect market doesn't fully meet supply in many cases - which isn't really an acceptable supply chain solution in health terms.

[Northern Lights]

Just searched for mask in there - I saw nothing suggesting they were of little use indoors. Little use outdoors, sure.

They suggested that extending the requirement for use of face covering indoors (e.g. shared offices, schools) would have low to moderate impact on transmission - not that the existing requirement has low impact.

It actually suggests the effectiveness of masks is what is allowing them to describe more draconian interventions as low impact; they say closing close-contact personal services (hairdressing, beauty therapy etc.) would have a low impact precisely because "CDC evidence suggests masks were effective at stopping transmission in a hair dressing salon", and likewise restricting public transport to key workers would not be of further help because the existing mask requirement is working at the current density of use of public transport.

It interesting that they make no judgement really on facemask currently used but then this is more on future measures being considered.

I not they specifically exclude economic impact in their considerations, i assume this must be done at cabinet level or fed in from somewhere else. On that i dont think it is fully being recognised that turning on and off sectors such as hospitality is, in my opinion increasing business failure as opposed to keeping them shut throughout and just killing confidence.

There are free market ideologues within the cabinet who believe it is perfectly possible to turn industries on and off, and that afterwards the market will provide. The same people are the ones who can't get their heads round there being shortages of PPE or reagents at various times because they feel the market will provide. They also don't realise that a perfect market doesn't fully meet supply in many cases - which isn't really an acceptable supply chain solution in health terms.

Who are they and have you got some minutes or quotes to back up this assertion?

I get the impression that there are more that are happy to lockdown because, possibly not their only focus but certainly the overriding one, is all about Covid and case load and dont care about the impact their decision making has on the economy, wider societal issues and other health outcomes such as:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... 805774_101

[yermum]

I like this model.

but of course because there are few double blind placebo trials of mask wearing some folk feel they shouldn't be used.

[Bimbowomxn]

Just searched for mask in there - I saw nothing suggesting they were of little use indoors. Little use outdoors, sure.

They suggested that extending the requirement for use of face covering indoors (e.g. shared offices, schools) would have low to moderate impact on transmission - not that the existing requirement has low impact.

It actually suggests the effectiveness of masks is what is allowing them to describe more draconian interventions as low impact; they say closing close-contact personal services (hairdressing, beauty therapy etc.) would have a low impact precisely because "CDC evidence suggests masks were effective at stopping transmission in a hair dressing salon", and likewise restricting public transport to key workers would not be of further help because the existing mask requirement is working at the current density of use of public transport.

Intervention Impact on COVID transmission
Requirement for use of face covering outdoors
Very Low impact on community transmission. High confidence. Low transmission rates outdoors and most risky contacts are made indoors. May have a small impact for those people who have to come into close contact with others.
Direct impact on COVID deaths and severe disease
Impact only through (very low) impact on transmission.
Non-COVID impact (incl. social and psychological; excl. economic)
Low impact.
There is evidence of anger between members of the community relating to face covering use / non-use that may be exacerbated if rationale is not accepted.
Equity issue: availability of face coverings for those with lowest resources.
Credibility/ trust in guidance will be an issue. Many in the public didn’t understand why the guidance changed on masks indoors and attributed this to the other inconsistency and incompetence in the government.
Implementation issues
Wearing facemasks outside of the house could complement existing government messaging of social responsibility if communicated alongside the effectiveness of masks in protecting others who are not infected.
However, there are also a number of issues, risks and potentially harmful behaviours associated with recommending or mandating use of facemasks which could reduce their effectiveness (e.g. misuse, use of ineffective homemade masks).
Moreover, it is critical that recommendations are seen to be based on the science and proportionate otherwise the legitimacy of. mask wearing overall will be compromised. Given that the evidence suggests outdoor spread to be very limited this may be seen. as an excessive measure

“Very low”.

[Bimbowomxn]

I like this model.

but of course because there are few double blind placebo trials of mask wearing some folk feel they shouldn't be used.

The real issue being that everyone wearing a mask throws the other slices away.

[Mahoney]

It interesting that they make no judgement really on facemask currently used but then this is more on future measures being considered.

It's not "more on" future measures being considered, it's totally on future measures being considered. So I don't think it's particularly interesting that they don't explicitly assess the value of current measures.

They do however implicitly assess it - twice. They consider it is sufficiently effective at reducing transmission in hair dressers and on public transport that closing hair dressers and stopping people using public transport would not have much further effect on transmission.

[Biffer]

It interesting that they make no judgement really on facemask currently used but then this is more on future measures being considered.

I not they specifically exclude economic impact in their considerations, i assume this must be done at cabinet level or fed in from somewhere else. On that i dont think it is fully being recognised that turning on and off sectors such as hospitality is, in my opinion increasing business failure as opposed to keeping them shut throughout and just killing confidence.

There are free market ideologues within the cabinet who believe it is perfectly possible to turn industries on and off, and that afterwards the market will provide. The same people are the ones who can't get their heads round there being shortages of PPE or reagents at various times because they feel the market will provide. They also don't realise that a perfect market doesn't fully meet supply in many cases - which isn't really an acceptable supply chain solution in health terms.

Who are they and have you got some minutes or quotes to back up this assertion?

I get the impression that there are more that are happy to lockdown because, possibly not their only focus but certainly the overriding one, is all about Covid and case load and dont care about the impact their decision making has on the economy, wider societal issues and other health outcomes such as:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... 805774_101

I could equally ask you Who are they and have you got some minutes or quotes to back this up?

I'm certain both views are in the cabinet. There were definite leanings of 'it's always private industry' in Johnson's conference speech, in particular wrt talking about vaccine development where he basically said it was private industry doing it (in truth the development is being done by the third sector i.e. universities, and private industry is doing the clinical trials and scale up activity - it's a proper private-public partnership). I think the free marketeers are less likely to stick their heads above the parapet though, because they are very likely to be pilloried, more so than those that favour lockdowns.

[Northern Lights]

There are free market ideologues within the cabinet who believe it is perfectly possible to turn industries on and off, and that afterwards the market will provide. The same people are the ones who can't get their heads round there being shortages of PPE or reagents at various times because they feel the market will provide. They also don't realise that a perfect market doesn't fully meet supply in many cases - which isn't really an acceptable supply chain solution in health terms.

Who are they and have you got some minutes or quotes to back up this assertion?

I get the impression that there are more that are happy to lockdown because, possibly not their only focus but certainly the overriding one, is all about Covid and case load and dont care about the impact their decision making has on the economy, wider societal issues and other health outcomes such as:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... 805774_101

I could equally ask you Who are they and have you got some minutes or quotes to back this up?

I'm certain both views are in the cabinet. There were definite leanings of 'it's always private industry' in Johnson's conference speech, in particular wrt talking about vaccine development where he basically said it was private industry doing it (in truth the development is being done by the third sector i.e. universities, and private industry is doing the clinical trials and scale up activity - it's a proper private-public partnership). I think the free marketeers are less likely to stick their heads above the parapet though, because they are very likely to be pilloried, more so than those that favour lockdowns.

Come now, you are the one boldly claiming these assertions, have you got anything or just shooting from the hip that you are quick to criticise the likes of Bimbo for doing?

I'm also not sure if our unis are really the 3rd sector these days, they seem far closer to private enterprise than say charties.

[Bimbowomxn]

Test and trace is difficult?

[Northern Lights]

It interesting that they make no judgement really on facemask currently used but then this is more on future measures being considered.

It's not "more on" future measures being considered, it's totally on future measures being considered. So I don't think it's particularly interesting that they don't explicitly assess the value of current measures.

They do however implicitly assess it - twice. They consider it is sufficiently effective at reducing transmission in hair dressers and on public transport that closing hair dressers and stopping people using public transport would not have much further effect on transmission.

Poor language on my part, I should have said, i would have found it interesting if they had analysed the effects to date and how successful they had been or otherwise.

[Biffer]

Who are they and have you got some minutes or quotes to back up this assertion?

I get the impression that there are more that are happy to lockdown because, possibly not their only focus but certainly the overriding one, is all about Covid and case load and dont care about the impact their decision making has on the economy, wider societal issues and other health outcomes such as:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... 805774_101

I could equally ask you Who are they and have you got some minutes or quotes to back this up?

I'm certain both views are in the cabinet. There were definite leanings of 'it's always private industry' in Johnson's conference speech, in particular wrt talking about vaccine development where he basically said it was private industry doing it (in truth the development is being done by the third sector i.e. universities, and private industry is doing the clinical trials and scale up activity - it's a proper private-public partnership). I think the free marketeers are less likely to stick their heads above the parapet though, because they are very likely to be pilloried, more so than those that favour lockdowns.

Come now, you are the one boldly claiming these assertions, have you got anything or just shooting from the hip that you are quick to criticise the likes of Bimbo for doing?

I'm also not sure if our unis are really the 3rd sector these days, they seem far closer to private enterprise than say charties.

Happy to say that's my opinion, which is formed from my view of the policy actions and their motivations. Are you willing to say the same about your own assertion in reply?

And I disagree with you about universities - I work in the academic sector and that's not my personal experience.

[ASMO]

Test and trace is difficult?

Obviously so given its total ineffectiveness thus far.

The more pertinant question to ask is why people do not want to download it? Is it because the government has a track record of failure in this space? A complete lack in the government not using the data for purposes other than for whhich it has been collected? i am sure there are many more.

I myself will not download it for the reasons listed above.

[Biffer]

Test and trace is difficult?

Obviously so given its total ineffectiveness thus far.

The more pertinant question to ask is why people do not want to download it? Is it because the government has a track record of failure in this space? A complete lack in the government not using the data for purposes other than for whhich it has been collected? i am sure there are many more.

I myself will not download it for the reasons listed above.

Might have something to do with the person in charge having been CEO of a company that had massive data leakage as well.

[Saint]

Test and trace is difficult?

Obviously so given its total ineffectiveness thus far.

The more pertinant question to ask is why people do not want to download it? Is it because the government has a track record of failure in this space? A complete lack in the government not using the data for purposes other than for whhich it has been collected? i am sure there are many more.

I myself will not download it for the reasons listed above.

The French app was amongst the last of the centralised apps n'est pas? Not the Apple/Google anonymous api version.

Have to say that in use, I've been impressed with the NHS app - far more useful that the Italian version that we downloaded and activated while in Venice last week (although I was impressed that Immuni had an English language version). And QR code check-in through the app is a big time saver, as well as being a decent safety factor when checking in

[Bimbowomxn]

Test and trace is difficult?

Obviously so given its total ineffectiveness thus far.

The more pertinant question to ask is why people do not want to download it? Is it because the government has a track record of failure in this space? A complete lack in the government not using the data for purposes other than for whhich it has been collected? i am sure there are many more.

I myself will not download it for the reasons listed above.

Might have something to do with the person in charge having been CEO of a company that had massive data leakage as well.

She wasn’t a helpful addition.....