Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Bruce Wayne]

So you subscribe to the narrative/they intentionally led people up the garden path then.

Billions spent every year and they couldn't decide (or publicly admit) whether masks were effective in a pandemic or whether pubs were any worse or better than an indoor arena.

[Edit] It also wasnt indoor vs outdoor, it was small crowds (pubs) vs large crowds (indoor arenas).

No, I don't think they were leading people up the garden path. I think at the time, a few things were believed. 1) There was a huge shortage in clinical-grade masks in hospitals and other care settings. 2) It was far from clear how effective masks were outside of those clinical settings. 3) The fabric DIY masks that were being fashioned in countries that did adopt default mask wearing were even more uncertain in terms of their efficacy.

Those three things combined to prompt the WHO and others to recommend masks not be worn in the early months of the pandemic. Now, not only has the global supply chain adapted such that the supply of masks is not such an issue, but there is also more science to suggest that covid might operate slightly differently to other airborn viruses, and therefore masks might be more useful, hence the advice has changed.

 

[Kenshin]

What I don't understand is how much they changed the narrative around stadiums and masks.

I mean, why didn't WHO and our leading medical experts make such a massive u-turn on what you'd think are pretty basic stuff? Like whether masks are effective?

Like so;



I remember this woman swearing blind that large crowds aren't as bad as smaller environments like pubs. She was also totally against masks.

Yet pubs opened a lot earlier than stadiums/arenas but here she is, again with her wisdom...

The funny thing with the masks is that they do t make any sense. Why not at the start but now ? As much as people don't want to accept that notion it's ridiculous that wearing them now is seen as a nesessity yet 4 months ago when thousands were dying they weren't?

Plus the official who stance is that they have no solid evidence they help.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

No, I don't think they were leading people up the garden path. I think at the time, a few things were believed. 1) There was a huge shortage in clinical-grade masks in hospitals and other care settings. 2) It was far from clear how effective masks were outside of those clinical settings. 3) The fabric DIY masks that were being fashioned in countries that did adopt default mask wearing were even more uncertain in terms of their efficacy.

Those three things combined to prompt the WHO and others to recommend masks not be worn in the early months of the pandemic. Now, not only has the global supply chain adapted such that the supply of masks is not such an issue, but there is also more science to suggest that covid might operate slightly differently to other airborn viruses, and therefore masks might be more useful, hence the advice has changed.

So they factored in access to masks and the shortage when they were adamant prior June that masks weren't useful?

And as the supply chain caught up, it was a case of 'Now the lemmings can have access to a mask, we can admit they're actually useful?'

So what is it? Ignorance (didn't genuinely know masks would help), narrative (not enough masks, conserve what we have, timing of masks as a visual stimuli/reassurance), or both?

WHO/PHE didn't just say masks weren't effective, they also said masks were actually harmful. That's some u-turn in a number of months.

I've always found it baffling how there wasn't clarity/global consensus on masks in a pandemic - pandemics aren't new, hence WHO/Billions spent every year and this virus isn't particularly revolutionary.

What about prior Covid-19, when the demand wasn't there - surely given the billions spent every year they'd have known whether masks would be effective in a pandemic? China knew.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

The funny thing with the masks is that they do t make any sense. Why not at the start but now ? As much as people don't want to accept that notion it's ridiculous that wearing them now is seen as a nesessity yet 4 months ago when thousands were dying they weren't?

Plus the official who stance is that they have no solid evidence they help.

Exactly - did they genuinely not think masks would help, or did they think there wasn't enough masks and timing wise it would be more useful to demand masks later on.

 

[Deleted member 48881]

The funny thing with the masks is that they do t make any sense. Why not at the start but now ? As much as people don't want to accept that notion it's ridiculous that wearing them now is seen as a nesessity yet 4 months ago when thousands were dying they weren't?

Plus the official who stance is that they have no solid evidence they help.

Exactly, completely ridiculous. Not to mention old folks who see me not wearing a mask in my fave park run away from me as if I am an insect...

 

[Amw79]

Exactly - did they genuinely not think masks would help, or did they think there wasn't enough masks and timing wise it would be more useful to demand masks later on.

They wanted the masks for front line people, so lied to everyone by saying they were ineffective for the general population.

Comes down to not trusting the public to accept the priority of allocation, and the bad politics of telling people “yeah, masks are important, but we haven’t got enough so please don’t get them yet.”

 

[Bruce Wayne]

So they factored in access to masks and the shortage when they were adamant prior June that masks weren't useful?

And as the supply chain caught up, it was a case of 'Now the lemmings can have access to a mask, we can admit they're actually useful?'

So what is it? Ignorance (didn't genuinely know masks would help), narrative (not enough masks, conserve what we have, timing of masks as a visual stimuli/reassurance), or both?

WHO/PHE didn't just say masks weren't effective, they also said masks were actually harmful. That's some u-turn in a number of months.

I've always found it baffling how there wasn't clarity/global consensus on masks in a pandemic - pandemics aren't new, hence WHO/Billions spent every year and this virus isn't particularly revolutionary.

What about prior Covid-19, when the demand wasn't there - surely given the billions spent every year they'd have known whether masks would be effective in a pandemic? China knew.

Not sure if I'm not making myself clear or not here

This is what the WHO said in March:

Who should wear a mask:

• Those who are sick. WHO officials recommended those infected with the COVID-19 coronavirus to wear masks to prevent spreading it to someone else.
• Those who are home caregivers for those who are sick. People caring for the sick should wear masks to protect themselves and to prevent further transmission throughout a family unit. Mask wearing has become critical in these situations, thanks to lockdown, said Michael J. Ryan, Chief Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, since most of the new transmissions are happening at the family level. “In some senses,” he said, “the transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into the family unit.”
• Those who are frontline healthcare workers. Right now the people most at risk from this virus are frontline healthworkers who are exposed to the virus "every second of every day", Ryan also said.

The message there is quite clear. For the general public, if no symptoms were present, they didn't think it was worth wearing a mask. For health staff, they most definitely recommended wearing a mask, but there were difficulties securing supplies, with the demand from members of the public not helping.

As Covid is a relatively new virus, this advice has evolved, not least due to findings such as those showing that people can be highly contagious in the days before they exhibit symptoms. Equally, there is an understanding that the virus can be transmitted through tiny particles in the air, which are particularly likely to be an issue in enclosed spaces.

This isn't just a British thing, as in March, there were but a handful of nations advocating mask wearing, but now there are well over 100 doing so.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

They wanted the masks for front line people, so lied to everyone by saying they were ineffective for the general population.

Comes down to not trusting the public to accept the priority of allocation, and the bad politics of telling people “yeah, masks are important, but we haven’t got enough so please don’t get them yet.”

Bingo!

 

[COYBL25]

Exactly, completely ridiculous. Not to mention old folks who see me not wearing a mask in my fave park run away from me as if I am an insect...

I get this every day when I`m out running mate, you can see the fear in their eye, even though you`re a hundred yards or more away from them.

I always slow down and give them a massive wide berth, but even them some of them will either almost jump into the bushes or press themselves up against a wall.

I`m thinking of getting a T shirt specially made for my runs, bearing the logo - " MAKE WAY FOR THE MURDERER ".

 

[Bruce Wayne]

 

[Kenshin]

Given the constant talk of second waves, worse in the winter, no cure for another year, 2nd lockdowns , local lock downs, spikes in cases etc.

Here's something to ponder.

What if far more of the population have immunity to it than statistics tell us?

Is it at all possible back in march-may when the virus was rampant that many more got the virus asymptomatic wise? That this second wave is highly dependant on a pandemic not spreading to more people than we actually know of?

If you weren't sick you wouldn't have got a test at any point, therefore wouldn't have had a clue about it.

So what if all of this fear mongering is just that, and we are actually at the arse end of all of this rather than having to fear for the future?

 

[Goat]

Given the constant talk of second waves, worse in the winter, no cure for another year, 2nd lockdowns , local lock downs, spikes in cases etc.

Here's something to ponder.

What if far more of the population have immunity to it than statistics tell us?

Is it at all possible back in march-may when the virus was rampant that many more got the virus asymptomatic wise? That this second wave is highly dependant on a pandemic not spreading to more people than we actually know of?

If you weren't sick you wouldn't have got a test at any point, therefore wouldn't have had a clue about it.

So what if all of this fear mongering is just that, and we are actually at the arse end of all of this rather than having to fear for the future?

And what if its just the beginning?

 

[YoboCopter]

And what if its just the beginning?

The numbers wouldnt be down from 1k a day to about 6

 

[brieverton]

Given the constant talk of second waves, worse in the winter, no cure for another year, 2nd lockdowns , local lock downs, spikes in cases etc.

Here's something to ponder.

What if far more of the population have immunity to it than statistics tell us?

Is it at all possible back in march-may when the virus was rampant that many more got the virus asymptomatic wise? That this second wave is highly dependant on a pandemic not spreading to more people than we actually know of?

If you weren't sick you wouldn't have got a test at any point, therefore wouldn't have had a clue about it.

So what if all of this fear mongering is just that, and we are actually at the arse end of all of this rather than having to fear for the future?

There were seroprevalence studies suggesting the incidence was between just 1-2% of the population, and across the globe, the highest reported incidence was somewhere around 5% I think. This will increase obviously as restrictions ease, but not to a large degree I would imagine. Sweden would be the most interesting country to monitor in this regard, albeit I disagree profoundly with their approach to Covid.

I think the best thing we could hope for is a natural weakening in virulence over time. There were some indications of this in Italy in recent times, in that the viral load of those tested positive was on average, significantly lower than at peak levels in March and April.

The under-45s now make up the bulk of those testing positive and one would expect a high degree of asymptomatic transmission from them, with associated far lower hospitalisation and death rates in that age cohort, but the risk remains very high for the elderly and medically vulnerable. One would hope that also a decreased viral load would be statistically significant, if the hospitalisation/death rates don't start to increase markedly once again.

Other than that, there seems to be no other game in town short of a viable vaccine. We are at least 12 months from that point, if not longer.

 

[Kenshin]

And what if its just the beginning?

Then we will find out soon enough fella.

The numbers wouldnt be down from 1k a day to about 6

Given there is what , 64 million people in the country give or take, 1000 positive tests isn't really here nor there. Especially given hospital cases aren't increasing so people aren't getting seriously ill all of a sudden. Death rates down from 1000 to 10, 99% decrease.

What would have been the infection numbers back in April? I'd wager if they were testing everyone then , thousands upon thousands more, otherwise that wouldn't make sense.

We still aren't testing everyone in the country so we still have no idea of numbers and have not done since the beginning.