NPR

Posted: **Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:20 pm**

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:19 pmHOW

It’s a remarkable figure isn’t it.

In the old days we’d be calling in the auditors to see who nicked it. My guess is PWC (or one of the other consultants) have a very good Xmas lined up.

But 10 bill was the figure given for the fails alone.

This is 432 quid per household in the UK.

Posted: **Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:51 pm**

According to an FOI request, 10.8 million on the IoW app, a further 25 million on the new version. So 35 million all in, give or take. Even Hancock couldn't survive a 10 billion boondoggle

Posted: **Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:04 pm**

That makes much more sense however test and trace has cost 12 billion according to the government.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... onomy-plan

Posted: **Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:19 pm**

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:52 pm
Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:21 pm So... £12,000,000,000 to get to this point of track and trace! Someone's done well out of this and it's not the taxpayer.
Did you mean to type twelve billion pounds there?

Oops, Sorry, I meant OVER £12 Billion

Mr Sunak added that the Government has now provided “over £12 billion for Test and Trace”.

Posted: **Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:28 pm**

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:05 pm The point is: They're not conflicting positions. If anything, it proves the opposite of your claim that "it's all political". This is an app being promoted by the Tory govt and people are willing to trust it precisely because it's open source, used with international collaboration, and does not try and harvest any details it does not need in order to operate. There's no shroud of secrecy, no bullshit, and no partisan political nonsense involved.

TORY GOVERNMENT BAD GRRR would see people rejecting it out of hand.

Feck me! You got Bimbot to accept a valid argument.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter- please let me have your Swiss bank account details for BACS purposes.

Posted: **Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:19 pm**

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:19 pm
Uncle fester wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:52 pm
Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:21 pm So... £12,000,000,000 to get to this point of track and trace! Someone's done well out of this and it's not the taxpayer.
Did you mean to type twelve billion pounds there?
Oops, Sorry, I meant OVER £12 Billion

Mr Sunak added that the Government has now provided “over £12 billion for Test and Trace”.

Test and trace is not the app.

Test and trace is the test centres, the labs, the contact centres, the app, and everything else

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:12 am**

Torygraph no less.

Face masks could be giving people Covid-19 immunity

Academics have suggested face masks may be inadvertently giving people Covid-19 immunity and making them get less sick from the virus.

but they don't work

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:30 am**

Academics.... (note not scientists).

“May”

Peer reviewed stuff right there.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:38 am**

Why's the Torygraph spreading these lies!?

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:44 am**

Meanwhile in the real world , students looking to spend Xmas at home with their families should book a cheap easyJet return flight to anywhere then on arrival back to the UK give their parents address for the legally enforceable quarantine.

Sorted for about 40:quid.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:45 am**

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:38 am Why's the Torygraph spreading these lies!?

“May” ...... covers that accusation .

And of course posted with out link or even any context, what are you hiding ?

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:13 am**

So lazy, it's like spoon feeding a toddler sometimes.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-heal ... searchers/

It comes as increasing evidence suggests that the amount of virus someone is exposed to at the start of infection - the “infectious dose” - may determine the severity of their illness. Indeed, a large study published in the Lancet last month found that “viral load at diagnosis” was an “independent predictor of mortality” in hospital patients.

Wearing masks could therefore reduce the infectious dose that the wearer is exposed to and, subsequently, the impact of the disease, as masks filter out some virus-containing droplets.

If this theory bears out, researchers argue, then population-wide mask wearing might ensure that a higher proportion of Covid-19 infections are asymptomatic.

Better still, as data has emerged in recent weeks suggesting that there can be strong immune responses from even mild or asymptomatic coronavirus infection, researchers say that any public health strategy that helps reduce the severity of the virus - such as mask wearing - should increase population-wide immunity as well.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:15 am**

If this hypothesis is borne out

Thank you

While this hypothesis needs to be backed up with more clinical study,

So there’s no clinical studies.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:16 am**

Meanwhile in the real world.

https://amp.blick.ch/news/wirtschaft/ge ... ssion=true

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:37 am**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:16 am Meanwhile in the real world.

https://amp.blick.ch/news/wirtschaft/ge ... ssion=true

So - don't touch them and wash (or discard) after every use. Makes sense.

Also - done by academics so doesn't count (allegedly)

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:37 am**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:30 am Academics.... (note not scientists).

That's an odd distinction to make. Plenty of scientists are academics. Plenty of academics are scientists. It just means they're not in industry, really.

In this case, the authors are Monica Gandhi, M.D., M.P.H., and George W. Rutherford, M.D. (the MPH stands for 'master of public health').

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:49 am**

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:37 am
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:30 am Academics.... (note not scientists).
That's an odd distinction to make. Plenty of scientists are academics. Plenty of academics are scientists. It just means they're not in industry, really.

In this case, the authors are Monica Gandhi, M.D., M.P.H., and George W. Rutherford, M.D. (the MPH stands for 'master of public health').

Pffft... academics

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:56 am**

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:37 am
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:30 am Academics.... (note not scientists).
That's an odd distinction to make. Plenty of scientists are academics. Plenty of academics are scientists. It just means they're not in industry, really.

In this case, the authors are Monica Gandhi, M.D., M.P.H., and George W. Rutherford, M.D. (the MPH stands for 'master of public health').

It’s not an odd distinction at all.

And we now know of course it’s a hypothetical idea with no science at all behind it.

And when you say “authors “ you don’t mean of a peer reviewed science piece .

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:58 am**

Enzedder wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:37 am
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:16 am Meanwhile in the real world.

https://amp.blick.ch/news/wirtschaft/ge ... ssion=true
So - don't touch them and wash (or discard) after every use. Makes sense.

Also - done by academics so doesn't count (allegedly)

Except these ones did actual readings.

“Discard after every use” indeed , actually change them t he minute they get wet. But hey “masks innit”

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:15 am**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:56 am
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:37 am
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:30 am Academics.... (note not scientists).
That's an odd distinction to make. Plenty of scientists are academics. Plenty of academics are scientists. It just means they're not in industry, really.

In this case, the authors are Monica Gandhi, M.D., M.P.H., and George W. Rutherford, M.D. (the MPH stands for 'master of public health').

It’s not an odd distinction at all.

And we now know of course it’s a hypothetical idea with no science at all behind it.

It is an odd distinction. Because it's a meaningless and incorrect one. Lots of really good science is performed by scientists in academia.

Hypotheses have a big role to play in science. It's incorrect to say there's no science at all behind it. It cites several studies [for example this one: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0002618 ], and then stresses the need for more studies aimed directly at resolving the hypotheses they have raised as a result of looking at the existing data and the science.

This is all part of the scientific process.

And when you say “authors “ you don’t mean of a peer reviewed science piece .

I mean the people who wrote the article that's been published in the NEJM.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:33 am**

Great stuff , I was wrong to separate academics, Thankyou for correcting me.

I was right that the “hypothesis “ has no scientific measurements or facts yet.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:42 am**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:33 am Great stuff , I was wrong to separate academics, Thankyou for correcting me.

I was right that the “hypothesis “ has no scientific measurements or facts yet.

It's wrong for anyone to be using this paper as proof, but their hypotheses are based on existing science.

i.e. it's not just been pulled out of thin air.

It'll be interesting to see where it goes from here.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:11 am**

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:42 am
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:33 am Great stuff , I was wrong to separate academics, Thankyou for correcting me.

I was right that the “hypothesis “ has no scientific measurements or facts yet.
It's wrong for anyone to be using this paper as proof, but their hypotheses are based on existing science.

i.e. it's not just been pulled out of thin air.

It'll be interesting to see where it goes from here.

The evidence regarding viral load is based upon science (not covid yet though), the evidence that masks lower the viral load a total guess and not based on science at all.

Where this will end up is mask being worn by law during all sorts of illness seasons , and it’s a f ucking disgrace.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:24 am**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:11 am
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:42 am
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:33 am Great stuff , I was wrong to separate academics, Thankyou for correcting me.

I was right that the “hypothesis “ has no scientific measurements or facts yet.
It's wrong for anyone to be using this paper as proof, but their hypotheses are based on existing science.

i.e. it's not just been pulled out of thin air.

It'll be interesting to see where it goes from here.

The evidence regarding viral load is based upon science (not covid yet though), the evidence that masks lower the viral load a total guess and not based on science at all.

Where this will end up is mask being worn by law during all sorts of illness seasons , and it’s a f ucking disgrace.

There's science on the efficacy of masks. One such study is referenced by the piece we're arguing about. Others I have posted in this thread.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:38 am**

The small dose hypothesis is interesting and has some degree of scientific validity - this is how smallpox immunisation originally worked, prior to the use of cowpox.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:42 am**

Looking at photos of pub chuck out time last night in London.

No wonder the virus is spreading, how the f---- can you social distance with that number of pub goers.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:28 am**

So, the 7 day average deaths is currently rising, sitting at 28 currently (up from single figures a mointh ago)

In context, that's roughly comparable to March 20th/21st or so. If we look at March 28th, the 7 day average had reached 174 - so in a weeks time we should start to get an idea of just how steep the second spike is looking like being. You would hope/expect that it would be nowhere near as steep due to the social distancing and mask wearing guidance, even before the rule of 6 and these latest restrictions start to mitigate things. And of course, treatment options are far better than back then, which should be worth a good 25% on the mortality rate just by themselves.

(all numbers based on the government's death within 28 days of a positive test rule)

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:49 pm**

Ah well, lockdown starts at 6pm tomorrow for me..

Arse..

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:18 pm**

Glaston wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:42 am Looking at photos of pub chuck out time last night in London.

No wonder the virus is spreading, how the f---- can you social distance with that number of pub goers.

I blame people having parties at home/Uni digs more than pubs. At least the pub environment tries to be Covid-safe and limit numbers/do table service. Plus people are more careful out in public in my experience.

At home and pissed up with mates?.....fugget about it!

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:33 pm**

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:18 pm
Glaston wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:42 am Looking at photos of pub chuck out time last night in London.

No wonder the virus is spreading, how the f---- can you social distance with that number of pub goers.
I blame people having parties at home/Uni digs more than pubs. At least the pub environment tries to be Covid-safe and limit numbers/do table service. Plus people are more careful out in public in my experience.

At home and pissed up with mates?.....fugget about it!

This is borne out in the statistics. Which is why the curfew is reactionary nonsense that potentially creates more not less cases.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:34 pm**

Glaston wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:42 am Looking at photos of pub chuck out time last night in London.

No wonder the virus is spreading, how the f---- can you social distance with that number of pub goers.

Yep, not a good look. Only two pwoplw with masks on in that shot

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:57 pm**

SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:34 pm
Glaston wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:42 am Looking at photos of pub chuck out time last night in London.

No wonder the virus is spreading, how the f---- can you social distance with that number of pub goers.
Yep, not a good look. Only two pwoplw with masks on in that shot

They’re out doors.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:03 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:57 pm
SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:34 pm
Glaston wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:42 am Looking at photos of pub chuck out time last night in London.

No wonder the virus is spreading, how the f---- can you social distance with that number of pub goers.
Yep, not a good look. Only two pwoplw with masks on in that shot

They’re out doors.

Well spotted.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:05 pm**

We don’t need to wear masks out doors. Why would you expect people to be wearing masks ?

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:24 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:05 pm We don’t need to wear masks out doors. Why would you expect people to be wearing masks ?

I know, I forgot and couldn't be arsed to edit when you pointed it out!!
Anyway the social distancing in the photo is shocking!!

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:40 pm**

SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:24 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:05 pm We don’t need to wear masks out doors. Why would you expect people to be wearing masks ?
I know, I forgot and couldn't be arsed to edit when you pointed it out!!
Anyway the social distancing in the photo is shocking!!

Agreed.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:29 pm**

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:06 pm**

Downloaded the App to IPhone. Downloaded and scanning in about 14 secs. Never had another app get up and running....sorry saving lives this quickly.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:13 pm**

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:06 pm Downloaded the App to IPhone. Downloaded and scanning in about 14 secs. Never had another app get up and running....sorry saving lives this quickly.

You go out ?

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:31 pm**

Studies confirm what some of us on this board researched and believed some months ago, Vitamin D provides some protection against the Corona Virus:

NPR

So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...