SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[Fully Fledged]

This is not the black and white argument that you make it out to be. There were (and remain) very real problems with wearing facial coverings that have been discussed in this thread already. What I hope has happened is that substantial evidence has come to light which demonstrates that the benefits of the public wearing facial coverings does indeed far outweigh the negatives. I also think you may want to reconsider the difference between gaining better insight in science based on new experiment or data and outright telling a lie. The guidance from the WHO regarding this particular issue seems to have been reasonable to me.

It was obvious from the beginning that masks along with the use of hand sanitisers would reduce the chance of catching an airborne virus. The fact that they said this was not the case was BS from the get go.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Its a crock of shit honestly. NHS staff were faced with disciplinary action by managers when wearing masks in work places outside of clinical work for creating "unnecessary panic" and now this u-turn

There's more though
https://nursingnotes.co.uk/news/healthcare-workers-self-isolate-colleague-tests-positivehancock/

Any health or social care worker with close proximity to a colleague who tests positive would need to self-isolate at home for 14 days, even if asymptomatic. This will be disastrous. I mean I've never had lunch for more than 15 minutes in a hospital-based job in the NHS but in our work environments it is impossible to socially distance. I work in A&E in majors department and its not possible there if you want to use computers to chase things for patients to social isolate in that fast paced environment or when you're waiting to present a case. And entire teams during ward rounds and handovers having to self-isolate will be disastrous.

It was the biggest issue around April, the sheer number of nurses and doctors absent meant insane rota gaps and the most enormous toll on health workers. I'm talking anaesthetic registars working 24 hour shifts, my medical registrar nearly delirious from dehydration. And if we hit a second wave they want to decimate the NHS frontline again.

They make up shit as they go along honestly.

I know that you guys have had it insanely hard from the beginning. The fact that you didn't have enough PPE never mind there be enough for the public was a massive failing by the government.

 

[11101]

I honestly think it's never been properly under control in Lombardy. The rest of the country is mainly seeing low numbers in both infections and deaths. @11101 lives in Lombardy, so is better-informed than me - but I can't say it's not worrying.

See how it goes over the next few days but I think at the moment it's a quirk in the data. Each province in Lombardy reports in patches. One day they have 5 cases, 50 the next, then 5 again the day after. I'm not sure why that happens, but today 3 of the bigger provinces all had spikes together.

There is also the testing. 20,000 were done today vs 3,000 yesterday. It skews the numbers but they can only test people who ask for it, and they are also ramping up the random serological tests.

Bergamo is the big problem imo. They have driven case numbers since day 1 and continue to do so. They should have been isolated months ago.

 

[0le]

It was obvious from the beginning that masks along with the use of hand sanitisers would reduce the chance of catching an airborne virus. The fact that they said this was not the case was BS from the get go.

In all honesty I don't think it is as obvious as you make it out to be. But you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[arnie_ni]

2nd wave for Italy?

Can you have a second wave this soon? Wouldnt it still be the first?

 

[Smores]

That is precisely the point I was making. If you can't say either way, then it seems reasonable to not issue advice stating they should be compulsory.

From the WHO perspective agreed as it's not like they ever advised against the measure. They always said for those sick there's some benefit although minor.

For the UK government though they should have just gone with balance and recognised any benefit was worth it.

 

[Fully Fledged]

In all honesty I don't think it is as obvious as you make it out to be. But you are entitled to your opinion.

It's not obvious that when a virus is airborne covering your mouth and nose will reduce the chance of infection? seriously?

 

[F-Red]

It's been noticeable for a while that the decline in hospital admissions, that the press conferences keep talking about, has looked dangerously close to a plateau in the north-west. Some local authorities (like Bury) outright recommended that schools delayed any return for pupils (other than the existing key worker and vulnerable pupil provision) until at least the 15th June, others have just urged caution. In practice though, most schools (at the decision of the governors and teachers) haven't opened, saying they need more time to prepare.

Across the North West generally it looks like only about 8% of schools did actually open to the extra pupils in Y1/Y6 this week. The government might look at those graphs and see "control" - looks like Manchester is looking at them and seeing "right on the edge."
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c.../north-west-schools-snub-governments-18366392

The biggest issues are in the Blackpool and Barrow areas of the North West, people get a bit Manchester centric when we mention North West. Those two areas a huge contributor to the stats we're seeing for the North West currently.

 

[0le]

It's not obvious that when a virus is airborne covering your mouth and nose will reduce the chance of infection? seriously?

As far as I can tell from the media, there is limited (or no?) science available to show whether people touch their faces more often as a result of wearing facial coverings. Or whether behavioural habits change (i.e. neglecting social distancing and interaction). So any benefit of preventing exhalation of droplets using facial coverings, (or inhalation if you wear the appropriate mask) may actually be outweighed by some of those issues. Of course the alternative may be true as well - that the benefits of facial coverings far outweigh these negatives. Up until now, the WHO have not made facial coverings compulsory so in that respect, I think it was reasonable. Why that has changed based on the new evidence I don't know.

For the UK government though they should have just gone with balance and recognised any benefit was worth it.

I am torn between two minds here. I agree in principal, but I can also foresee people ignoring lockdown measures far earlier than what actually occurred under the false pretence that facial coverings would mean they are "completely protected". It sounds silly I know, but sadly I just don't have much trust in the public anymore. I also have concerns that despite the advice being for facial coverings, people may still bulk purchase industry masks which are needed for healthcare professionals that even until yesterday, remains in short supply in some areas.

 

[Fully Fledged]

As far as I can tell from the media, there is limited (or no?) science available to show whether people touch their faces more often as a result of wearing facial coverings. Or whether behavioural habits change (i.e. neglecting social distancing and interaction). So any benefit of preventing exhalation of droplets using facial coverings, (or inhalation if you wear the appropriate mask) may actually be outweighed by some of those issues. Of course the alternative may be true as well - that the benefits of facial coverings far outweigh these negatives. Up until now, the WHO have not made facial coverings compulsory so in that respect, I think it was reasonable. Why that has changed based on the new evidence I don't know.

There is a report out stating that if you come in contact with someone with Covid19 that the chances of catching the virus is 17% if you do not wear a mask and 3% if you do.
The touching your face part of it is why I said in conjunction with using hand sanitiser. If you clean your hands before touching your face it doesn't matter. People touch their faces whether they wear masks or not.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

The mask thing is so odd, you’d think it’d be simple one way or the other and the official recommendations more consistent.

Another recommendations (not-official) was to wear glasses instead of contacts, but I touch my face around my eyes way more often when I’m wearing my glasses. So do glasses physically block viral transmission to your eyes? Hell if I know...

 

[0le]

There is a report out stating that if you come in contact with someone with Covid19 that the chances of catching the virus is 17% if you do not wear a mask and 3% if you do.
The touching your face part of it is why I said in conjunction with using hand sanitiser. If you clean your hands before touching your face it doesn't matter. People touch their faces whether they wear masks or not.

Well having just looked at that paper, which is here, it seems to be a review which was only published on 01 June 2020. If this evidence was not available previously, how can the WHO make the recommendation that facial coverings should be compulsory in public? If the WHO has changed its position based on this study (if we assume its a good study and for now I will assume this is to be the case), then in my view that is how science should be.

If there is a large study that was carried out that showed similar findings many weeks ago and the WHO ignored it, then your point may have better traction. There may well be for all I know but I am not a biologist or epidemiologist so I wouldn't know.

There is also a caveat in that study:

For the general public, evidence shows that physical distancing of more than 1 m is highly effective and that face masks are associated with protection, even in non-health-care settings, with either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton ones, although much of this evidence was on mask use within households and among contacts of cases.

Wearing masks outdoors will probably have less benefit than wearing it indoors.

EDIT:
Infact, if you read the introduction of the paper:

Any recommendations about social or physical distancing, and the use of face masks, should be based on the best available evidence. Evidence has been reviewed for other respiratory viral infections, mainly seasonal influenza,12,13 but no comprehensive review is available of information on SARS-CoV-2 or related betacoronaviruses that have caused epidemics, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). We, therefore, systematically reviewed the effect of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on transmission of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV.

So up until this point, we've not had much evidence at all. So your point about it being "obvious" and the scientists being "liars" is one I simply do not understand.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Well having just looked at that paper, which is here, it seems to be a review which was only published on 01 June 2020. If this evidence was not available previously, how can the WHO make the recommendation that facial coverings should be compulsory in public? If the WHO has changed its position based on this study (if we assume its a good study and for now I will assume this is to be the case), then in my view that is how science should be.

If there is a large study that was carried out that showed similar findings many weeks ago and the WHO ignored it, then your point may have better traction. There may well be for all I know but I am not a biologist or epidemiologist so I wouldn't know.

There is also a caveat in that study:


Wearing masks outdoors will probably have less benefit than wearing it indoors.

Because it's obvious. If something is airborne that can kill you the easiest way for it to get into your body is through your nose or mouth so cover them up.

 

[0le]

Because it's obvious. If something is airborne that can kill you the easiest way for it to get into your body is through your nose or mouth so cover them up.

No one is disputing the standards of the industry masks themselves in terms of what they were designed for. The points raised earlier were discussing whether wearing masks leads to behavioural changes. It is these behavioural changes where there may be dispute.

 

[Dancfc]

I am starting to think that we are the only country actually reporting anything close to accurate figures, and many would say we are still under reporting. Italy, particularly, and Spain were totally engulfed by coronavirus, yet their deaths per million population are now both below that of the UK, where, whilst stretched, the NHS did not hit anything close to breaking point and the Nightingale hospitals were not significantly utilised.

The other thing I have realised is that there is a lag of up to 2 weeks between the reduction in new cases and the reduction in casualties. The same thing happened in both Italy & Spain, where the number of new cases was falling significantly, but the death rate didn't seem to change for days and days.

Apparently Spain have changed their ways of reporting and someone (all be it on another forum so 'just' someone like me or you) crunched the numbers and came to the conclusion that if the UK did it In the same way the deaths reported on Wednesday would have been 20 (was 359).

 

[jojojo]

Apparently Spain have changed their ways of reporting and someone (all be it on another forum so 'just' someone like me or you) crunched the numbers and came to the conclusion that if the UK did it In the same way the deaths reported on Wednesday would have been 20 (was 359).

If you do Spain's numbers based on totals coming in from the regions their total deaths per day look to be under 50/day. We'll see that suddenly appear as a spike of 300/400 on their total soon.

The change in the way Spain presents its data nationally has annoyed the press enough that they've started collating it themselves. Valencia province (about 5 million people) are now running at around 10 deaths for the week - mostly in care homes. But numbers are higher in some other areas (noticeably Madrid and Catalonia) so there's a lot of worry about what will happen as people start to pour out to the coastal resorts as travel restrictions between regions ease.

In terms of the big picture though, Spain and UK have been comparable overall, but with deaths more localised in Spain. At this point Spain are probably about two weeks further down the curve than the UK with everyone looking nervously at the R value and tourism.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

There is a report out stating that if you come in contact with someone with Covid19 that the chances of catching the virus is 17% if you do not wear a mask and 3% if you do.
The touching your face part of it is why I said in conjunction with using hand sanitiser. If you clean your hands before touching your face it doesn't matter. People touch their faces whether they wear masks or not.

That headline figure of 17% to 3% is based on data from HCWs wearing N95 respirator masks. And at the beginning of the pandemic there weren’t enough of these in almost any country to meet the needs of people working in hospitals. So if the general public started buying them in large numbers we’d have been goosed. Besides, they’re difficult to put on/off, expensive, can’t be reused and are VERY uncomfortable to wear. But yes, everybody knows they could help stop you catching the virus. That’s why they were used in hospitals!

The data on “face coverings” which is what the UK public are being asked to wear is much less cut and dried. They probably make very little difference to your chances of getting infected. The reason they’re recommended is because they might stop you passing the virus on to other people. There’s not much hard data on how effective they are at doing this but there’s almost no downside, so is worth trying.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

It's not obvious that when a virus is airborne covering your mouth and nose will reduce the chance of infection? seriously?

Totally agree. If it is worn correctly and correctly handled after use it offers a level of protection.

Just shows how the mixed messages cause confusion.

 

[0le]

Totally agree. If it is worn correctly and correctly handled after use it offers a level of protection.

Just shows how the mixed messages cause confusion.

There are no "mixed messages" or "confusion" regarding how effective a mask is if worn correctly and handled correctly. The points being discussed precisely include the notion that members of the public may be unable to wear them correctly amongst other things.

 

[hobbers]

There are no "mixed messages" or "confusion" regarding how effective a mask is if worn correctly and handled correctly. The points being discussed precisely include the notion that members of the public may be unable to wear them correctly amongst other things.

And change their behaviour because they think they can get away with it if they wear a mask.

i.e. attending a protest march of thousands of people.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

And change their behaviour because they think they can get away with it if they wear a mask.

i.e. attending a protest march of thousands of people.

Yeah, I remember bringing up the behavioural change risk much earlier in this thread. I had no idea we would end up with such an obvious example this quickly.

 

[Fully Fledged]

No one is disputing the standards of the industry masks themselves in terms of what they were designed for. The points raised earlier were discussing whether wearing masks leads to behavioural changes. It is these behavioural changes where there may be dispute.

As you said nobody disputes that masks work so why set policy on unproven behavioural science? The experts from the parts of Asia that had suffered from SARS were saying that masks save lives yet we went with anecdotal evidence that people might touch their faces more or might get closer to each other.
My own experience from work, where mask wearing is optional, the people who wear masks take it more seriously and are more aware about the dangers. They carry hand gel, use it regularly and move back from groups that cluster too closely together.

 

[Pexbo]

Yeah, I remember bringing up the behavioural change risk much earlier in this thread. I had no idea we would end up with such an obvious example this quickly.

Just my opinion but I don’t think the masks made a difference in the decision to protest. The protests would have happened on the same scale without masks, it’s just some comfort that lots of people are wearing masks and it hopefully has an effect even if it’s minuscule.

 

[onemanarmy]

We finally got some more updates as how Belgium has such a high mortality rate. We knew we counted different from other countries but it was never really clear.

Of the total 9,580 persons who died, 48% died in the hospital, 50% in a residential care center, 0.5% in other residential groups, and 0.6% at home and elsewhere. Most hospital deaths (95%) are confirmed cases. Deaths in residential care centers included 26% confirmed cases and 74% suspected cases.

 

[sullydnl]

We finally got some more updates as how Belgium has such a high mortality rate. We knew we counted different from other countries but it was never really clear.

Of the total 9,580 persons who died, 48% died in the hospital, 50% in a residential care center, 0.5% in other residential groups, and 0.6% at home and elsewhere. Most hospital deaths (95%) are confirmed cases. Deaths in residential care centers included 26% confirmed cases and 74% suspected cases.

How does Belgium's excess deaths look? Presumably if their figures are including more suspected cases than other countries then they should look better in terms of the amount of unexplained excess deaths?

 

[0le]

As you said nobody disputes that masks work so why set policy on unproven behavioural science? The experts from the parts of Asia that had suffered from SARS were saying that masks save lives yet we went with anecdotal evidence that people might touch their faces more or might get closer to each other.
My own experience from work, where mask wearing is optional, the people who wear masks take it more seriously and are more aware about the dangers. They carry hand gel, use it regularly and move back from groups that cluster too closely together.

Your own experience at work should be a good example to you which demonstrates that some people can and do take it seriously and others...less so, for whatever reasons.

 

[redshaw]

How does Belgium's excess deaths look? Presumably if their figures are including more suspected cases than other countries then they should look better in terms of the amount of unexplained excess deaths?

It's roughly the same. Belgium's reporting is very accurate.

This has been known for a few months and not sure how the previous poster missed it however. At around 6000 deaths I read a breakdown of care home, community and hospital deaths from Belgium of similar percentages.

 

[sullydnl]

Thread about the way Spain are presenting their data, as mentioned above.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

How does Belgium's excess deaths look? Presumably if their figures are including more suspected cases than other countries then they should look better in terms of the amount of unexplained excess deaths?

Belgium’s excess deaths are huge. They’re big outliers, only slightly less than UK (which has highest excess deaths in Europe, by a country mile)

 

[Dumbstar]

Thread about the way Spain are presenting their data, as mentioned above.

As much as the UK is culpable, at least they're pretty much giving reasonably accurate numbers. I expect Spain and Italy to reveal some ridiculously inflated stats in 6-12 months time. Same as Russia and USA.

 

[11101]

As much as the UK is culpable, at least they're pretty much giving reasonably accurate numbers. I expect Spain and Italy to reveal some ridiculously inflated stats in 6-12 months time. Same as Russia and USA.

Are they? For weeks they weren't counting all sorts of deaths and had no idea how widespread it was. Excess deaths are huge.

Italy simply lost control early on. They have been releasing accurate figures for a long time now though.

 

[Dumbstar]

Are they? For weeks they weren't counting all sorts of deaths and had no idea how widespread it was. Excess deaths are huge.

Italy simply lost control early on. They have been releasing accurate figures for a long time now though.

Always wanted to ask, are Italy (and Spain) now releasing care home and in the home deaths?

 

[Dancfc]

Are they? For weeks they weren't counting all sorts of deaths and had no idea how widespread it was. Excess deaths are huge.

Italy simply lost control early on. They have been releasing accurate figures for a long time now though.

Excess deaths isn't nesseserily covid, especially now and coming up.

Apparently since lockdown 64k less people have been given a cancer diagnosis than usual in the same time frame, it's only a matter of time before that oversight comes home to roost.

We could be looking at excess deaths for many months after this pandemic, if not years.

 

[jojojo]

Always wanted to ask, are Italy (and Spain) now releasing care home and in the home deaths?

Spain are. However probably the easiest way to look at things is through the excess death numbers.

There the UK is up around 60k (compared to the 40k headline), Spain around 43k (compared to 28k) and Italy 47k (compared to 34k).

In other words it looks like they are all potentially underreporting, or seeing massive secondary effects. The UK is not being "too honest" - it's looking like the other two, and it had around two weeks more warning of the danger.

https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441

 

[Relevated]

Can i just ask

Is a second wave guaranteed to come

And if it is guaranteed then is it guaranteed that it's gonna be more deadly than the first?

Or is that all scare mongering?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Excess deaths isn't nesseserily covid, especially now and coming up.

Apparently since lockdown 64k less people have been given a cancer diagnosis than usual in the same time frame, it's only a matter of time before that oversight comes home to roost.

We could be looking at excess deaths for many months after this pandemic, if not years.

Absolutely. Although, if anything, lockdown helped keep down non-covid deaths in the short term. For example, in Ireland our excess deaths are more or less zero. When we know for a fact that covid has killed 000s of people.

The only explanation for this is that keeping cars off the road, people out of pubs and reduced transmission of non-covid infectious diseases has avoided a shit-load of preventable deaths.

 

[redshaw]

Are they? For weeks they weren't counting all sorts of deaths and had no idea how widespread it was. Excess deaths are huge.

Italy simply lost control early on. They have been releasing accurate figures for a long time now though.

Excess deaths stop at 31st of March for Italy, they won't divulge anymore for months now. It's estimated to be 50k but we'll have to wait an see.

Spain have 43k excess deaths but only report 27k so far. At least they and UK give out the info, we had to wait for Spain but UK have been giving out excess deaths figures and deaths certs mentioned with covid the whole time.

 

[Smores]

Can i just ask

Is a second wave guaranteed to come

And if it is guaranteed then is it guaranteed that it's gonna be more deadly than the first?

Or is that all scare mongering?

The answer to all three is entirely dependant on the efficacy of the controls and compliance to them.

It seems like most authorities have genuine concern that a second wave is likely at some point this year. Only the fringe experts say otherwise.

I've not seen much to say if it will be worse but I'd imagine it's unlikely as we're more prepared. More sick but less dead would be my completely bollocks guess.

 

[Carolina Red]

6 of the 7 highest single day case totals in South Carolina have happened in the past week. My wife’s ICU has gone from 0 Covid cases in 10 days to having 4 back on ventilators in the last 3 days.

Memorial Day was 2 weeks ago.

 

[Stactix]

Uncle was found dead in his flat, we obviously suspected covid but up until last friday that didn't seem to be the case.
Died April 5-6th.. 2months later confirmed covid..
the feck.