NPR

Jockaline wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:46 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:34 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:24 am

In two minds about this. It seems to me that there are a lot of people not isolating - I’ve said before that students in particular round here appear to be just going about their normal lives but with masks on - so how do we get compliance? But of course folk won’t use the app if they do this.

Students seem to be a real problem but we seem to be beating about the bush saying this

The blame isn't on the students though. In Oxford this weekend it was "matriculation" which is essentially a pub crawl with gowns on. The university offered a "virtual matriculation" but of course students wanted to go out and about with their new friends and parents wanted to picture their wee dears in robes in Oxford. You could do it virtually in a room on your own but you're missing out and nobody likes to miss out.

Who could have predicted students would party, try and squeeze the most of the restricted experience, mingle with anyone and everyone, try to enjoy being 18-21 away from home? Everyone. Who forced them to go to university? The government did to keep the real estate and education bubble afloat and not give universities money as they'd go bust without this farce of incubating and spreading covid in every major university city/town. They're all doing virtual lectures anyway. All this for the monies.

Agree, if I were in the hospitality sector I'd be livid. This was avoidable, it's up there with the care home fiasco.

Yep anyone either surprised or blaming the students for this cannot remember being 18-21 or was a boring fuck.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:17 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:50 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:23 pm There was a good post a few pages ago using a Swiss cheese slice analogy, masks are one layer of protection, used along with social distancing, lock downs, hand hygiene etc, together they provide the best protection we can come up with at this time

Masks can make those other slices weaker.

Why is everyone so convinced?

I can only speak for myself, I'm going by the best available advice at this time, from reading articles in publications such as Nature, BMJ, Scientific American, the evidence is stacking up heavily on one side.

Well, yeah, same here. That and the only person who I see banging on about it regularly is known trolling fuckwit.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:37 am

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:27 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:04 am



It’s this type of open minded democratic thought that means the latest science on masks cannot currently be published.

Well done

Publish on Twitter.....

They’re professional scientists......

No journal will publish it.

But... (also from scientists, not a politician's assistant)

Researchers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation recently estimated that if 95 percent of Americans wore masks, it could save up to 100,000 lives from COVID-19 by January 1.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:17 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:50 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:23 pm There was a good post a few pages ago using a Swiss cheese slice analogy, masks are one layer of protection, used along with social distancing, lock downs, hand hygiene etc, together they provide the best protection we can come up with at this time

Masks can make those other slices weaker.

Why is everyone so convinced?

I can only speak for myself, I'm going by the best available advice at this time, from reading articles in publications such as Nature, BMJ, Scientific American, the evidence is stacking up heavily on one side.

Reading articles,....

Has the science changed and been done (apart from the Danish one) , because the science as short a time ago (April 2020) said they were of little use, and we were advised as such by scientists and governments.

Enzedder wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:06 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:37 am

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:27 am

Publish on Twitter.....

They’re professional scientists......

No journal will publish it.

But... (also from scientists, not a politician's assistant)

Researchers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation recently estimated that if 95 percent of Americans wore masks, it could save up to 100,000 lives from COVID-19 by January 1.

I’d love to read the science and the tests etc.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:46 pm


I’d love to read the science and the tests etc.

Why have you ignored all the findings in the articles and links so far?

Don’t bother, I know why.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:07 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:46 pm


I’d love to read the science and the tests etc.

Why have you ignored all the findings in the articles and links so far?

Don’t bother, I know why.

He only has time to skim read.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:07 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:46 pm


I’d love to read the science and the tests etc.

Why have you ignored all the findings in the articles and links so far?

Don’t bother, I know why.

I want to know what changed in a couple of months, from being advised very clearly that they didn’t work to them being our saviour.

Also I’m confused we have a second wave post all of us wearing masks.

You’re ignoring the WHO advice from January

The information you say you want has already been provided

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:31 pm You’re ignoring the WHO advice from January

The information you say you want has already been provided

Was this before or after they said the virus couldn’t transmit between humans ?

I’m going with the chief medical officer in March.

The ignore function works well against idiotbot...

https://www.who.int/influenza/publicati ... cation/en/

Not effective. For flu.

From that link on ‘flu

RECOMMENDATION:
Face masks worn by asymptomatic people are conditionally recommended in severe epidemics or pandemics, to reduce transmission in the community. Disposable, surgical masks are recommended to be worn at all times by symptomatic individuals when in contact with other individuals. Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure.
Population: Population with symptomatic individuals; and general public for protection When to apply: At all times for symptomatic individuals (disposable surgical mask), and in
severe epidemics or pandemics for public protection (face masks)

That was before the work done this year

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:52 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:31 pm You’re ignoring the WHO advice from January

The information you say you want has already been provided

Was this before or after they said the virus couldn’t transmit between humans ?

I’m going with the chief medical officer in March.

Why March?

Why not take contemporary medical advice from the 1950s?

That would be just as scientific

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:46 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:52 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:31 pm You’re ignoring the WHO advice from January

The information you say you want has already been provided

Was this before or after they said the virus couldn’t transmit between humans ?

I’m going with the chief medical officer in March.

Why March?

Why not take contemporary medical advice from the 1950s?

That would be just as scientific

The bimbot is nothing, if not consistent in his cuntishness.

He expects knowledge to be like him, & not evolve over time.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:36 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:22 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:08 pm



The study that can't find a publisher...

Indeed.

No support for it from the public.

Democracy strikes again to defeat science!

what? It’s a science study......

Never mind.

I was just making the point that science isn't a popularity contest.

However, it's somewhat invalid because, although science doesn't care about public opinion, some degree of support from the relevant scientific community is needed for an idea to have traction, so I concede that the metaphor doesn't really work.

I suppose I'm trying to refer to the vast numbers of lay people who consider that access to the internet makes them experts on matters like virology and global warming and the concept that they can counter scientific opinion with weight of numbers.

It was your mention of "democratic thought" as a driver of the science behind the efficacy of masks which implied that the majority opinion should prevail that got me going down this path.

Bimbot waiting for a quote ping on his phone

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:46 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:52 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:31 pm You’re ignoring the WHO advice from January

The information you say you want has already been provided

Was this before or after they said the virus couldn’t transmit between humans ?

I’m going with the chief medical officer in March.

Why March?

Why not take contemporary medical advice from the 1950s?

That would be just as scientific

Well that’s clearly untrue.

If it is will you stop using a mask if the Danes conclude so?

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%).

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:55 am https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%).

I believe the theory is that Masks don't protect incoming but it to aid reduce the transmission from the mask wearer

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:06 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:55 am https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%).

I believe the theory is that Masks don't protect incoming but it to aid reduce the transmission from the mask wearer

No, in Denmark everyone only breathes in. Evolution in action.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:21 am

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:06 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:55 am https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

I believe the theory is that Masks don't protect incoming but it to aid reduce the transmission from the mask wearer

No, in Denmark everyone only breathes in. Evolution in action.

So that must mean Bimbot is Danish..

Always talking out of his arse..

Remember a little over a month ago when was adamant that talk of an impending second wave was bollocks..? Anyone that monumentally wrong can safely be ignored on everything else too.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:55 am https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%).

Nope.

You’re ignoring the updates to that five year old study.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:41 am

If it is will you stop using a mask if the Danes conclude so?

Whilst I enjoy a bit of internet chatroom ping pong as much as the next guy, in real life I tend to follow the weight of clinical evidence.

If the Danish study shows support for wearing masks, like the many others, will it change your view?

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:32 am Remember a little over a month ago when was adamant that talk of an impending second wave was bollocks..? Anyone that monumentally wrong can safely be ignored on everything else too.

In March Dumbot refused to believe the UK locking down a week earlier would have saved lives.

He’s been consistently wrong all the way through this but doesn’t have the self awareness to admit it to himself.

He’ll now come back with either a personal attack or something esoteric from six months ago which has a vague grain of truth.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:32 am Remember a little over a month ago when was adamant that talk of an impending second wave was bollocks..? Anyone that monumentally wrong can safely be ignored on everything else too.

We are a week past 50,000 cases a day.


There’s not a “ second wave” there’s no scale comparison.


I was in fact correct.


Now let’s discuss “false positives” ,

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:06 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:55 am https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%).

I believe the theory is that Masks don't protect incoming but it to aid reduce the transmission from the mask wearer

The particles move in both directions, only 3% apparently held up.

Muttonbird wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:18 am

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:32 am Remember a little over a month ago when was adamant that talk of an impending second wave was bollocks..? Anyone that monumentally wrong can safely be ignored on everything else too.

In March Dumbot refused to believe the UK locking down a week earlier would have saved lives.

Indeed. It wouldn’t have.

Not sending patients back to care homes on the other hand cost 1,000’s

Has it resorted to arguing with itself now?

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:37 am

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:06 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:55 am https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

I believe the theory is that Masks don't protect incoming but it to aid reduce the transmission from the mask wearer

The particles move in both directions, only 3% apparently held up.

Source or onto the proven liars list for you.

My mistake: you are there already.

Lions tour is surely off at this point?

PlanetGlyndwr wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:41 am Lions tour is surely off at this point?

Not cancelled yet. i don;t see them cancelling this till a lot closer to teh time - if there's a vaccine (even if only partially effective) and better treatments, together with some sort of rapid testing available, then it will go ahead. If not they'll only cancel 1-2 months before

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:50 am

PlanetGlyndwr wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:41 am Lions tour is surely off at this point?

Not cancelled yet. i don;t see them cancelling this till a lot closer to teh time - if there's a vaccine (even if only partially effective) and better treatments, together with some sort of rapid testing available, then it will go ahead. If not they'll only cancel 1-2 months before

The average age of a Lions touring fan (fag packet calculation) is probably 60+. Any of you Euros fancy catching Covid and having to be treated in a Johannesburg hospital?
I suspect your travel insurance will cost as much as the rest of your trip.

On the subject of face masks; a lot of the challenge in quantifying effectiveness is that it's not really known yet, and frankly won't be for a long time, what particle size the mask needs to stop. Most of the work done so far is on measuring the particle size a face mask allows through, and on that basis, a cloth mask is effectively going to be useless to stop COVID19 particles if they were expelled "naked". However, it's also know that that's NOT how they are expelled. They are exhaled/coughed etc in water particles. Cloth masks are at least partially effective at stopping these, particularly in larger sizes. Even if they're only marginally effective, they are worth wearing - IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER MEASURES. They are not a substitute for social distancing, sanitisation etc and should not be thought of that way.



Interestingly, a surgical mask appears to be near 100% effective at stopping COVID at source, whereas it appears to be less effective at stopping influenza. That's really not understand yet, but has been repeatedly proven in experiments

Another person to have Covid twice
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/54612253

Positive in Feb and positive now.

Bit worrying.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:54 am

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:50 am

PlanetGlyndwr wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:41 am Lions tour is surely off at this point?

Not cancelled yet. i don;t see them cancelling this till a lot closer to teh time - if there's a vaccine (even if only partially effective) and better treatments, together with some sort of rapid testing available, then it will go ahead. If not they'll only cancel 1-2 months before

The average age of a Lions touring fan (fag packet calculation) is probably 60+. Any of you Euros fancy catching Covid and having to be treated in a Johannesburg hospital?
I suspect your travel insurance will cost as much as the rest of your trip.

Your such a beacon of happiness and positivity.

Glaston wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:17 am Another person to have Covid twice
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/54612253

Positive in Feb and positive now.

Bit worrying.

completely asymptomatic".