NPR

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:11 am

Amethyst wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:05 am

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:56 am

One time use.

One time use can't be afforded by most. Wearing a cheap, proper visor = effective way of reducing spread of virus and cost-effective; wearing face mask/cloth = preparing for a beauty contest hoping you don't get infected/ could be expensive and out of reach for many. No-brainer. Use a proper, cheap visor

You asked why it wasn't necessary to decontaminate a mask. If you're washing a reusable mask properly you're effectively decontaminating it, this doesn't negate decontaminating a visor.

If people are wearing masks visors aren't necessary. If you want to cut about in one thats up to you.

Amethyst wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:09 pm

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:11 am

Amethyst wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:05 am

One time use can't be afforded by most. Wearing a cheap, proper visor = effective way of reducing spread of virus and cost-effective; wearing face mask/cloth = preparing for a beauty contest hoping you don't get infected/ could be expensive and out of reach for many. No-brainer. Use a proper, cheap visor

You asked why it wasn't necessary to decontaminate a mask. If you're washing a reusable mask properly you're effectively decontaminating it, this doesn't negate decontaminating a visor.

If people are wearing masks visors aren't necessary. If you want to cut about in one thats up to you.

It's easier and faster to decontaminate a visor than a cloth mask. Comprehendo? All I'm saying is that a visor is a better option for a lot of obvious reasons mentioned. But if a cloth mask floats your boat....

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:10 pm

Amethyst wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:09 pm

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:11 am

You asked why it wasn't necessary to decontaminate a mask. If you're washing a reusable mask properly you're effectively decontaminating it, this doesn't negate decontaminating a visor.

If people are wearing masks visors aren't necessary. If you want to cut about in one thats up to you.

It's easier and faster to decontaminate a visor than a cloth mask. Comprehendo? All I'm saying is that a visor is a better option for a lot of obvious reasons mentioned. But if a cloth mask floats your boat....

It doesn't matter if it's easier. It's not as good as preventing infection from spreading.

Amethyst wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:21 pmOf course it is ..for "sender AND "receiver"

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:29 am...

There's a reason why those doctors and nurses wear masks underneath.

When you say droplet, you're talking about a big old dollop of water you can see splatter on the visor after a sneeze aren't you.

The rest of us are talking about the sort of droplet you see when you breath out on a very cold day (those are actually bigger than the droplets we're talking about, which is why they're visible). The sort that form condensation when you breath on a piece of glass.

A visor will stop a big old bit of water splatting in your eyes. A mask will stop that droplet from shooting out in the first place.

A mask will also stop a shit ton more droplets that spread every time you breath, whereas they'd just go around a visor.

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:19 pm You're seriously asking me if I "comprehendo?"

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:22 pm

Amethyst wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:21 pmOf course it is ..for "sender AND "receiver"

No. It isn't.

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:29 am...

There's a reason why those doctors and nurses wear masks underneath.

When you say droplet, you're talking about a big old dollop of water you can see splatter on the visor after a sneeze aren't you.

The rest of us are talking about the sort of droplet you see when you breath out on a very cold day (those are actually bigger than the droplets we're talking about, which is why they're visible). The sort that form condensation when you breath on a piece of glass.

A visor will stop a big old bit of water splatting in your eyes. A mask will stop that droplet from shooting out in the first place.

A mask will also stop a shit ton more droplets that spread every time you breath, whereas they'd just go around a visor.

Amethyst wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:27 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:22 pm

Amethyst wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:21 pmOf course it is ..for "sender AND "receiver"

No. It isn't.

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:29 am...

There's a reason why those doctors and nurses wear masks underneath.

When you say droplet, you're talking about a big old dollop of water you can see splatter on the visor after a sneeze aren't you.

The rest of us are talking about the sort of droplet you see when you breath out on a very cold day (those are actually bigger than the droplets we're talking about, which is why they're visible). The sort that form condensation when you breath on a piece of glass.

A visor will stop a big old bit of water splatting in your eyes. A mask will stop that droplet from shooting out in the first place.

A mask will also stop a shit ton more droplets that spread every time you breath, whereas they'd just go around a visor.

You missed the part about wearing a PROPER visor. By the way - many doctors in Covid ICU's wear visors without masks. None of them wear ONLY a mask though as far as I have seen.

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:29 pm

Amethyst wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:27 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:22 pm

No. It isn't.

You missed the part about wearing a PROPER visor. By the way - many doctors in Covid ICU's wear visors without masks. None of them wear ONLY a mask though as far as I have seen.

You're going to need to show me some pictures of "proper" visors then.

And if you can show me some pictures of ICU Covid doctors without masks, that'd be great. Normal ICU/psych etc, sure, masks stop spit/fluids etc.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:39 pm Stop feeding the troll, lads. He's a tool.

Amethyst wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:42 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:39 pm Stop feeding the troll, lads. He's a tool.

So your contribution has regressed to talking kak. Doos, vokof from the thread if you don't have something constructive to contribute . Doos

Amethyst wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:23 pm

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:19 pm You're seriously asking me if I "comprehendo?"

Yes, I am actually starting to question your logical thinking ability.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on school reopenings:

"The science should not stand in the way of this.”

Koalabyte wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 12:42 am

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on school reopenings:

"The science should not stand in the way of this.”

Everything you need to know about the WH handling of the virus.

What a bimbo, as dumb as her boss.

CM11 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:55 am

Koalabyte wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 12:42 am

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on school reopenings:

"The science should not stand in the way of this.”

Everything you need to know about the WH handling of the virus.

What a bimbo, as dumb as her boss.

Wtf? That's a bizarre statement.

This is the bint who on her first day in the job walked into the WH briefing room & told them that she would, "never lie to them

Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:26 pm So the Imperial vaccine group have been advised to make their vaccine in the UK, to prevent the USA from simply buying it all up.

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:40 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:26 pm So the Imperial vaccine group have been advised to make their vaccine in the UK, to prevent the USA from simply buying it all up.

And the conversion of the US into "International pariah" is complete

The Druid wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:09 pm

This is the bint who on her first day in the job walked into the WH briefing room & told them that she would, "never lie to them

You would, you know you would.

Longshanks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:23 pm So this reporting of deaths from Covid-19 in England has Matt Hancock miffed. I think he's suggesting that in some deaths recorded the actual cause of death may not of been coronavirus, but that the person had the illness some time before they died, perhaps a month before. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have not recorded deaths in the same way so will make the ratio of deaths in England appear higher.

dpedin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:33 pm There is real problems with trying to compare covid19 deaths, best just to focus on excess deaths as this is a far more robust and reliable measure. Most countries across Europe have fairly robust death registration systems and if you allow for any time lags in registration it paints a fairly accurate picture. The UK doesn't do well when using this as a measure when compared against comparable european countries, Hancock is just trying to muddy the waters as the UK Gov is under pressure with comparing their performance against that of the devolved administrations. Releasing lock down in England so fast with the number of cases they still have looks pretty risky and even foolhardy, not quite in the Trump or Bolsano league but not far off!

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:01 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:33 pm There is real problems with trying to compare covid19 deaths, best just to focus on excess deaths as this is a far more robust and reliable measure. Most countries across Europe have fairly robust death registration systems and if you allow for any time lags in registration it paints a fairly accurate picture. The UK doesn't do well when using this as a measure when compared against comparable european countries, Hancock is just trying to muddy the waters as the UK Gov is under pressure with comparing their performance against that of the devolved administrations. Releasing lock down in England so fast with the number of cases they still have looks pretty risky and even foolhardy, not quite in the Trump or Bolsano league but not far off!

None of the excess deaths compared to the other regions was after the divergence in lockdown procedures. The attempt at othering here and has lighting the comparison is nasty and inaccurate.

US Covid 19 coronavirus data will now go straight to White House. What this means for the world
19 Jul, 2020 3:47pm

Led by physicians, scientists and epidemiologists, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is one of the most reliable sources of knowledge during disease outbreaks. But now, with the world in desperate need of authoritative information, one of the foremost agencies for fighting infectious disease has gone conspicuously silent.

For the first time since 1946, when the CDC came to life in a cramped Atlanta office to fight malaria, the agency is not at the front line of a public health emergency.

On April 22, CDC director Robert Redfield stood at the White House briefing room lectern and conceded that the coronavirus pandemic had "overwhelmed" the United States. Following Redfield at the podium, President Donald Trump said the CDC director had been "totally misquoted" in his warning that Covid-19 would continue to pose serious difficulties as the US moved into its winter 'flu season in late 2020.

Invited to clarify, Redfield confirmed he had been quoted correctly in giving his opinion that there were potentially "difficult and complicated" times ahead.

Trump tried a different tack. "You may not even have corona coming back," the president said, once again contradicting the career virologist. "Just so you understand."

The exchange was interpreted by some pundits as confirmation that the CDC's venerated expertise had been sidelined as the coronavirus continued to ravage the US.

In the latest development, the New York Times reported this week the CDC has even been bypassed in its data collection, with the Trump administration ordering hospitals to send Covid-19 data directly to the White House.

Diminished role
When facing previous public health emergencies, the CDC was a hive of activity, holding regular press briefings and developing guidance that was followed by governments around the world. But during the greatest public health emergency in a century, it appears the CDC has been almost entirely erased by the White House as the public face of the Covid-19 pandemic response.

This diminished role is obvious to former leaders of the CDC, who say their scientific advice has never before been politicised to this extent.
As the Covid-19 crisis was unfolding, several CDC officials issued warnings, only to promptly disappear from public view. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunisation and Respiratory Diseases, predicted on February 25 that the virus was not contained and would grow into a pandemic.

The stock market plunged and Messonnier was removed from future White House press briefings. Between March 9 and June 12 there was no CDC presence at White House press briefings on Covid-19.

The CDC has erred during the pandemic, most significantly in its initial efforts to develop a test for Covid-19. The testing kits proved to be faulty – a problem compounded by sluggish efforts to rectify the situation – and then by severe delays in distributing enough tests to the public.

But many public health specialists are nevertheless baffled by the CDC's low profile as the pandemic continues to sweep the globe.

"They have been sidelined," said Howard Koh, former US assistant secretary for health. "We need their scientific leadership right now."

What does it mean for the world?
The CDC being bypassed in the collection of Covid-19 data is another body blow to the agency's standing.

Hospitals have instead been ordered to send all Covid-19 patient information to a central database in Washington DC.

This will have a range of likely knock-on effects. For starters, the new database will not be available to the public, prompting inevitable questions over the accuracy and transparency of data which will now be interpreted and shared by the White House.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which issued the new order, says the change will help the White House's coronavirus task force allocate resources. But epidemiologists and public health experts around the world fear the new system will make it harder for people outside the White House to track the pandemic or access information.

This affects all nations, because one of the CDC's roles is to provide sound, independent public health guidance on issues such as infectious diseases, healthy living, travel health, emergency and disaster preparedness, and drug efficacy. Other jurisdictions can then adapt this information to their local context — expertise that has become even more essential during a pandemic, when uncertainty is the norm.

It is difficult to recall a previous public health emergency when political pressure led to a change in the interpretation of scientific evidence.

What happens next?
Despite the inevitable challenges that come with tackling a pandemic in real time, the CDC remains the best-positioned agency – not just in the US but the entire world – to help us manage this crisis as safely as possible.

In the absence of US leadership, nations should start thinking about developing their own national centres for disease control. In Australia's case, these discussions have been ongoing since the 1990s, stymied by cost and lack of political will.

Covid-19, and the current sidelining of the CDC, may be the impetus needed to finally dust off those plans and make them a reality.

dpedin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:33 pm There is real problems with trying to compare covid19 deaths, best just to focus on excess deaths as this is a far more robust and reliable measure. Most countries across Europe have fairly robust death registration systems and if you allow for any time lags in registration it paints a fairly accurate picture. The UK doesn't do well when using this as a measure when compared against comparable european countries, Hancock is just trying to muddy the waters as the UK Gov is under pressure with comparing their performance against that of the devolved administrations. Releasing lock down in England so fast with the number of cases they still have looks pretty risky and even foolhardy, not quite in the Trump or Bolsano league but not far off!

Jock42 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:42 pm Thats definitely been happening up here too, perhaps not to the same extent.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:01 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:33 pm There is real problems with trying to compare covid19 deaths, best just to focus on excess deaths as this is a far more robust and reliable measure. Most countries across Europe have fairly robust death registration systems and if you allow for any time lags in registration it paints a fairly accurate picture. The UK doesn't do well when using this as a measure when compared against comparable european countries, Hancock is just trying to muddy the waters as the UK Gov is under pressure with comparing their performance against that of the devolved administrations. Releasing lock down in England so fast with the number of cases they still have looks pretty risky and even foolhardy, not quite in the Trump or Bolsano league but not far off!

None of the excess deaths compared to the other regions was after the divergence in lockdown procedures. The attempt at othering here and has lighting the comparison is nasty and inaccurate.

MrMojo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:02 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:33 pm There is real problems with trying to compare covid19 deaths, best just to focus on excess deaths as this is a far more robust and reliable measure. Most countries across Europe have fairly robust death registration systems and if you allow for any time lags in registration it paints a fairly accurate picture. The UK doesn't do well when using this as a measure when compared against comparable european countries, Hancock is just trying to muddy the waters as the UK Gov is under pressure with comparing their performance against that of the devolved administrations. Releasing lock down in England so fast with the number of cases they still have looks pretty risky and even foolhardy, not quite in the Trump or Bolsano league but not far off!

Not quite as simple as that. The death figures in England are absurd and need fixing. As things stand, everyone who has ever tested positive for the virus will eventually become a Covid death statistic when they eventually die. It doesn't matter if they die of cancer, get hit by a bus, die of old age, shoot themselves.... they will get added to the number. The UK death number will therefore keep rising long after the virus is gone. This is clearly ridiculous. Given many of the positive tests are probably older folk and that they may have recovered from the virus (or never had any symptoms anyway) and they then died from something else, the UK death numbers are inflated compared to other countries. Probably not a huge difference but a difference nonetheless.