Absolutely... I love the 1920's art deco period of furniture/design. And pretty dancing ladies. I'll drink to that.
Tier 4
- Thread starter bp122
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
There may be no proof but it is a reasonable surmise, on the basis of what is known. Actual proof would be extremely difficult to obtain so an estimate of probability has to do instead.
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
Or perhaps a computer model, we have seen how accurate they are.
porker
Established Member
Well my 17 yr old daughter is booked in for a C19 test tomorrow as she is showing symptoms and we have had two notification that she has been contact traced to two kids at her school that testing positive, so we'll soon know what we're getting for Xmas
billw
The Tattooed One
I have to say I'm perplexed by the comparisons of death rates in previous years to try and figure out the effect of the virus. Surely that's next to impossible even to estimate?
We've got more people so death rates should go up, but people live longer so they come down, then there's a more diverse ethnic mix, changes in poverty levels, all the less-common causes of death that might peak and trough in a given year.
Sounds like you might as well just guess.
We've got more people so death rates should go up, but people live longer so they come down, then there's a more diverse ethnic mix, changes in poverty levels, all the less-common causes of death that might peak and trough in a given year.
Sounds like you might as well just guess.
Not as simple as that though is it. Wearing a mask changes behaviour, it makes people feel safe so they get closer to other people, it also forces people to keep touching and adjusting the bloody thing so they are contaminating their hands and face.
It's a reasonable surmise that a mask might stop the spread through your breath but could actually increase the spread through other vectors.
Interesting to note that there was no change in infection rates after masks were made mandatory, nor do they seem to be helping now.
niemeyjt
Established Member
The issue is not my re-entry and quarantine on medical grounds.
My complaint that you missed is that others can skip the rules based on social or economic criteria - and until someone explains to me how a wealthy businessman, for example, is immune and no risk I condemn Boris for applying the rules in a discriminatory manner. The virus is indiscriminate.
It's very difficult and made even more complex by the fact that every year we get better at keeping old, vulnerable people alive. Be this through medical treatments or vaccines for flu and other illnesses. Historically over the last 5 years we have had very little winter sickness and consequently we have built up a large stock of old and vulnerable people who in previous years would have long since succumbed to something nasty. Thus when we get a new virus strike (sometimes that is just a new strain of flu) there are a lot of people who are going to die from it. This is why the average age of a C19 death is 83. The longer we live, the more of these kinds of pandemics we will see.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Not true. Previous pandemics have largely affected the young — the polio outbreaks of the 1950s mainly hit children under five; the devastating 1918-19 flu killed millions of young adults.
Luckily every year we get better at keeping young, vulnerable people alive too.
What I said is perfectly true, as is what you said. Nowhere in my post did I say that young people never die, I was talking specifically about illnesses that affect the old.
Last edited:
Nigel Burden
Established Member
I had Polio in 1956 three weeks after starting school aged five. I was one of the lucky ones, only suffering temporary paralysis and making a full recovery. At the same time in the next ward there was a boy from the next village who had contracted Typhoid.
Nigel.
It is very difficult to run controlled studies (if that is what you mean) on masking effectively, as the groups have to be huge. There is a lot of other evidence - summarised here:
Report on Face Masks for the General Public - An Update | Royal Society DELVE Initiative (rs-delve.github.io)
As you are dead against lockdown as well, you may find the chart below of some interest (it's from a paper which modelled mandatory masking and found that with 90% adoption/compliance the effect would be greater than lockdown).
The wearing of masks is not effective on it's own when you look at the way they are worn by the public they are largely pointless. There are even doubts that they are effective in operating theatres. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery
So no actual evidence to back up your claim then?
niemeyjt
Established Member
I see those with their noses hanging out of the top of the masks. That's gonna work well - given one of the places they test for the virus is up your nose!
Jameshow
Established Member
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55411323
The excess deaths are approx 80000 so far since march. That's with the two lockdowns and tiers.
How much will it be before the vaccine takes effect 160000???
How much would it have been without lockdowns and tiers? 1million?
Makes you think...
Cheers James
Read the Royal Society paper I posted - heaps of evidence. Science is not purely about controlled trials.
Jameshow
Established Member
Stupid thing about masks is that there might not have been much evidence in the first lockdown but the there's was no downside so it would have been an easy public health win!
I wonder if they were scared that there would not have been enough for hospitals.
Hindsight is always 2020!!!
Cheers James
I wonder if they were scared that there would not have been enough for hospitals.
Hindsight is always 2020!!!
Cheers James
First rule is do no harm. People don't wear masks by default. Not advising people to wear masks changes nothing, as does advising people to not wear masks. No change from default.
Advising people to wears marks, and it causes 0.01% increase in infection, is bad.
Advising people to wear masks and it causes a 0.01% reduction in infection, is good.
So no masks until the data demonstrates a beneficial effect, however slight. Data takes time to gather, analyse, and review. It's as simple as that.
Advising people to wears marks, and it causes 0.01% increase in infection, is bad.
Advising people to wear masks and it causes a 0.01% reduction in infection, is good.
So no masks until the data demonstrates a beneficial effect, however slight. Data takes time to gather, analyse, and review. It's as simple as that.
No without lockdown and tiers the number would be the same and the big flaw is adding the words covid 19 to a death certificate is a back covering exercise, it will never be checked and cause of death is usually only a best guess in most cases.
- Status
