Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Mike4]

And here is an apparently well-informed opinion about face coverings that seems to be going viral.

This appears to be the source article:

https://www.kpcnews.com/opinions/articl ... 2aa8c.html

[Itsallaguess]

Moderator Message:
Following what seems to be a bit of a marked drift over recent weeks, can I politely remind Beerpig Snug posters on this thread to again be cognisant of the clear 'No Politics' rule in this particular virus-related thread title?

Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

For anyone wishing to debate politics in relation to the Covid virus, please use the following thread over on Polite Discussions -

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=21581

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[johnhemming]

And here is an apparently well-informed opinion about face coverings that seems to be going viral.

This appears to be the source article:

https://www.kpcnews.com/opinions/articl ... 2aa8c.html

Masks will have some impact, but there is no evidence that they reduce the number of deaths (or have reduced) from Covid-19. One assumes that our primary objective against which measures like this should be tested is reducing deaths.

I don't like wearing a mask, but I do so where legally required.

[servodude]

And here is an apparently well-informed opinion about face coverings that seems to be going viral.

This appears to be the source article:

https://www.kpcnews.com/opinions/articl ... 2aa8c.html

Masks will have some impact, but there is no evidence that they reduce the number of deaths (or have reduced) from Covid-19.

I don't like wearing one; but I accept the evidence that it "will have some impact", and can apply a proof by induction that it will therefore help regarding deaths (not everything has to be empirical - I've never seen anyone prove that COVID is not caused by 5G )
Indeed lots of modelling shows the impact would be significant at sufficient take up (equivalent to vaccine herd immunity at 90% adherence) - and without killing all your "at risk" population!

-sd

[johnhemming]

There is, of course, the test of the impact of covid on different countries some of which were masks and some of which did not.

[Mike4]

but there is no evidence that they reduce the number of deaths (or have reduced) from Covid-19. One assumes that our primary objective against which measures like this should be tested is reducing deaths.

I do find this line of argument disingenuous. People misinterpret statements such as "there is no evidence that they reduce the number of deaths" as saying "there is evidence they do not reduce the number of deaths".

But apart from that, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Just none of it double blind, placebo controlled and peer reviewed. Apart from in hamsters that is.

[johnhemming]

Indeed lots of modelling shows the impact would be significant at sufficient take up (equivalent to vaccine herd immunity at 90% adherence) - and without killing all your "at risk" population!

I would be interested in a link to that.

[88V8]

Apart from in hamsters that is.

I suppose there was a reason they couldn't use guinea pigs.

V8

[servodude]

Indeed lots of modelling shows the impact would be significant at sufficient take up (equivalent to vaccine herd immunity at 90% adherence) - and without killing all your "at risk" population!

I would be interested in a link to that.

I think it was covered by John Campbell on his YouTube channel with links to source etc.
Next time I'm at a PC I'll see if I can find a link to post here.
All the best
- sd

[johnhemming]

I do find this line of argument disingenuous. People misinterpret statements such as "there is no evidence that they reduce the number of deaths" as saying "there is evidence they do not reduce the number of deaths".

I think you are right to be suspicious about the phrasing.

In this instance we have the comparison between countries which does not demonstrate any difference. However, I don't think it would be right to claim that it demonstrates that there is no difference. Hence on this occasion it is not disingenuous, but is a correct description of the situation.

The same phraseology could be used where there is no factual results from experiments or otherwise that can be used to come to a conclusion and that arguably would be disingenous under some circumstances.

Obviously masks have some impact on transmission and that may slow up transmission, but it does not necessarily reduce the number of deaths in the long term. There was a group of scientists in the USA who looked at the evidence for masks reducing transmission.

[servodude]

Obviously masks have some impact on transmission and that may slow up transmission, but it does not necessarily reduce the number of deaths in the long term.

Neither would an active case count of 1 and an R of 1.. it would just take 2weeks * 7billion to infect everyone.

That's why the argument against masks seems a bit disingenuous; along the lines of "I accept they do something but in the end we're all dead" (sorry Mr Keynes)

Primum non nocere; and if that means putting on a face flap so be it

-sd

[BhotiPila]

New Zealand is up to 13 cases now, some speculation that incoming freight may have been the source. Meanwhile BBC is reporting:

". . . The authorities in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen say that a surface sample taken from some frozen chicken wings imported from Brazil has tested positive for coronavirus. . . . . ."
" .. . . A day earlier, Chinese state media reported that coronavirus had been found in the eastern city of Wuhu on the packaging of frozen shrimps imported from Ecuador... . . "
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-53730372

BP

[Mike4]

New Zealand is up to 13 cases now, some speculation that incoming freight may have been the source. Meanwhile BBC is reporting:

". . . The authorities in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen say that a surface sample taken from some frozen chicken wings imported from Brazil has tested positive for coronavirus. . . . . ."
" .. . . A day earlier, Chinese state media reported that coronavirus had been found in the eastern city of Wuhu on the packaging of frozen shrimps imported from Ecuador... . . "
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-53730372

BP

Ah brilliant, a completely new way of contracting the virus looks like emerging. Frozen foods, both the food itself and the packaging. In fact anything frozen that has been packed by someone infected, possibly.

ISTR reading some research Back In The Beginning that the lower the temperature, the longer the virus survives outside of a host. How can we have so totally overlooked this risk of transmission?!

[UncleEbenezer]

ISTR reading some research Back In The Beginning that the lower the temperature, the longer the virus survives outside of a host. How can we have so totally overlooked this risk of transmission?!

Have we? I thought it was more a case of accepting there are some things about which we really can't do anything. Doubly so if we abandon EU food production and safety standards, a question about which the government itself seems to face both ways.

[Mike4]

ISTR reading some research Back In The Beginning that the lower the temperature, the longer the virus survives outside of a host. How can we have so totally overlooked this risk of transmission?!

Have we? I thought it was more a case of accepting there are some things about which we really can't do anything. Doubly so if we abandon EU food production and safety standards, a question about which the government itself seems to face both ways.

Well yes, if it turns out you can catch it from 100 day old frozen food packets as well as people who spit at you whilst talking. A whole new way of transmitting infection that "science" has overlooked/ignored.

And if it turns out to be the case, why do you say can we do nothing about it? I shall certainly stop buying imported frozen food. Probably stop using all frozen food actually, until this transmission vector is better understood.

[UncleEbenezer]

ISTR reading some research Back In The Beginning that the lower the temperature, the longer the virus survives outside of a host. How can we have so totally overlooked this risk of transmission?!

Have we? I thought it was more a case of accepting there are some things about which we really can't do anything. Doubly so if we abandon EU food production and safety standards, a question about which the government itself seems to face both ways.

Well yes, if it turns out you can catch it from 100 day old frozen food packets as well as people who spit at you whilst talking. A whole new way of transmitting infection that "science" has overlooked/ignored.

And if it turns out to be the case, why do you say can we do nothing about it? I shall certainly stop buying imported frozen food. Probably stop using all frozen food actually, until this transmission vector is better understood.

Erm, you might need to cast your net wider than mere frozen food. Food that is frozen while it travels the world to be processed, but is then sold un-frozen in our supermarkets. Like Atlantic seafood shipped to Thailand for packaging, for instance? That would of course be locally caught, not imported!

[Bouleversee]

Mike 4 said:
"Well yes, if it turns out you can catch it from 100 day old frozen food packets as well as people who spit at you whilst talking. A whole new way of transmitting infection that "science" has overlooked/ignored.

And if it turns out to be the case, why do you say can we do nothing about it? I shall certainly stop buying imported frozen food. Probably stop using all frozen food actually, until this transmission vector is better understood."

If those people are wearing masks, their spit should remain inside their masks and be unlikely to reach you.

How do you know food frozen here isn't similarly affected? And don't we need to know how long the virus remains active after being defrosted and whether it was on the food or just on the packaging. In the case of the latter, we could just wear gloves to remove the packaging or wash our hands in warm water after doing so, safely dispose of the packaging and sterilise worktops and equipment. If shopping by home deliveries once a fortnight or so, it will be very difficult to avoid frozen food and won't any virus be destroyed by cooking anyway, so cooked prawns OK but not prawn cocktail? It's probably a good idea to wear gloves while storing frozen food in the freezer or indeed unpacking deliveries generally. I confess I have become more relaxed about such things. I used to wear gloves to read my newspapers but no longer do so as I think the risk is minimal. A timely reminder to be more careful and also to consider how much the hot weather may have contributed to reduced levels of infection and risks my increase as the weather gets colder.'

[servodude]

New Zealand is up to 13 cases now, some speculation that incoming freight may have been the source.

Notwithstanding that the virus has been shown to survive longer at lower temperatures, it's looking like the NZ outbreak was down to a quarantine breach; https://www.news.com.au/world/pacific/c ... c311f018a8

I'm sure they'll have more info soon

-sd

[88V8]

I've read somewhere that although the virus can survive on surfaces, it does not long do so in sufficient quantities to be a practical threat.
Or perhaps that too is now wrong.

V8

[BhotiPila]

New Zealand is up to 13 cases now, some speculation that incoming freight may have been the source.

Notwithstanding that the virus has been shown to survive longer at lower temperatures, it's looking like the NZ outbreak was down to a quarantine breach; https://www.news.com.au/world/pacific/c ... c311f018a8

I'm sure they'll have more info soon

-sd

Yes, it would be far better for it to be a quarantine breach and perhaps more likely; people being people. I guess the New Zealander's will be quite cross with whoever was responsible, if this was the case.
The BBC reports did say that despite intensive testing the Chinese had not found any people testing positive as a result of the contaminated food/packages.

BP