BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Jul 21 - 11:31 AM

Sandra, I've always loved the photos of people recreating famous paintings. These are very clever and you know they kept the kids entertained and connected for the time it took to consider which work and then to stage it. (And this is shared to my Facebook friends!)

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 16 Jul 21 - 11:25 AM

something lighter - Competition challenges Sydneysiders to recreate artworks during lockdown

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Jul 21 - 11:23 AM

From that Onion piece:

Q: What should we do to curb its spread?
A: All the same things we haven’t been doing.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jul 21 - 08:57 AM

Steven Colbert on global Covid news

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jul 21 - 07:41 AM

https://www.theonion.com/what-to-know-about-the-delta-covid-variant-1847213234

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 21 - 09:47 PM

Starting with Missouri the outbreaks are in crises and have maxed out care. Secret vaccines are being offered since vaccination is so unpopular there. This time would qualify as a massive global second wave.
2 more to go is my guess.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 21 - 10:47 AM

I correctly deduced that anyway.
Tennesee has banned outreach and information promotion on all vaccines.
That'll learn em.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 21 - 05:24 AM

Nigel, I corrected it, the corrected version DID appear here, but someone deleted it and left the "wrong" version in place! It should have started "We were told last week..."

---

Mea culpa. Tried to put the correction on the right part of the statement. Sorry. ---mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jul 21 - 04:49 AM

The Government makes as much sense as that last post ;)

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 21 - 11:14 AM

We're we're time last week that the legal requirement to wear masks would end on the 19th. We were told that we are "expected" to wear masks after the 19th. This government knows not its arse from its elbow. More to come...

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 21 - 11:05 AM

No it isn't. And I only had my second jab six weeks ago.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jul 21 - 10:48 AM

It is legal and appropriate for Steve to get a booster vaccine as soon as now. But we still have a delay over here.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Jos
Date: 11 Jul 21 - 02:37 AM

To be on topic – it seems you can catch two variants of covid at the same time. Only one recorded case so far, but not everyone's infection gets tested, so it's possibly more common.

On swearing, I remember a very self-righteous neighbour complaining about the language she had heard in the street, saying:
"I was so shocked. I have never heard such language before in my life, and I don't know what those words mean!"

Yeah ... right.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jul 21 - 07:58 PM

Thank God for atheism is all I can say...

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Jul 21 - 07:49 PM

Swearing is swearing. I'm an atheist also, and don't worry about the origins of many of the curse words in use today.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jul 21 - 05:41 PM

Just like Richard Dawkins, I have never claimed to be a "total atheist." Anyways, that's a bit off-topic as it happens... By the way, Nigel, blasphemy me arse!

I may have deleted the NHS COVID-19 app, but I still have the regular NHS app, with which I can order my prescriptions, etc., and that one contains my vaccination history, so I can show anyone who wants to know that I've had two jabs.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Jos
Date: 10 Jul 21 - 05:37 PM

I believe 'Goodbye', which atheists might use without a second thought, means 'God be with you'. To be more secular, one could say 'Fare well', but somehow that has an air of finality about it, as if you are not going to meet again.
But at least 'God be with you' doesn't specify which god you mean (unlike references to 'Baby Jesus').

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jul 21 - 05:10 PM

”I'm guessing that "for chrissake" is intended to mean "For Christ's sake".
Someone who claims to be totally atheist should not use this expression!”

It’s a strange phenomenon, Nigel. I have a rabidly-ætheist friend who frequently appeals to “Baby Jesus, forgive me!”. Weird or what?

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Jul 21 - 04:14 PM

Fortunately I don't get offended by blasphemy, but . . .
I have had the NHS COVID-19 app until now (which alerts you if someone who has tested positive has been hanging around you, detected by Bluetooth on both persons' phones), but I've deleted it. I haven't been "pinged" (i.e., ordered to self-isolate) due to a close COVID contact, but I was ordered to self-isolate for 10 days when I reported a high temperature (which turned out to be the start of a dose of cellulitis). I went for a proper test (not those free ones you can order which are unreliable), which proved negative, so the app then let me off the hook. Well I've had both my jabs now and I really don't want to know any more if an infected person has been near me, and I certainly don't want to be told to lock myself away for 10 days. The government is thinking of tinkering with the app to make it "less sensitive," in an attempt to stop people from deleting it. I mean, for chrissake...

I'm guessing that "for chrissake" is intended to mean "For Christ's sake".
Someone who claims to be totally atheist should not use this expression!

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Jos
Date: 10 Jul 21 - 03:06 PM

I haven't got the NHS app, and I haven't got a 'smart' phone so I couldn't have it anyway. My phone is a means of communication, not a means of control.

I am particularly concerned by suggestions that people might not be allowed into bars and restaurants (or theatres, concerts etc.) without having the app in order to prove they have been vaccinated. Supposedly, this would be a measure to encourage young people to get vaccinated. The real effect would be to force many people to have a smartphone and an app, through which their whereabouts and even some of their behaviour could be traked and traced.

Maybe I am being paranoid. But then again, maybe they really are out to get me along with the rest of us.

In any case, by the time I had paid for the smartphone, I would have spent the money that I could have used going to the pub, eating out or going to a concert, so I am NOT going to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Jul 21 - 11:43 AM

The Delta variant is becoming the most prominent in many US communities now, and it's beginning to sound like those places are having to cycle through the hyper-vigilant activities (distance, masks, staying out-of-doors). I haven't heard of any shut downs so far.

That ED side effect was discussed on the news but I can't find it on the site that I think carried it. It points to the long term vascular problems associated with COVID-19. I guess you couldn't call this a part of "long COVID," though. Just thinking out loud. . .

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jul 21 - 09:17 AM

I have had the NHS COVID-19 app until now (which alerts you if someone who has tested positive has been hanging around you, detected by Bluetooth on both persons' phones), but I've deleted it. I haven't been "pinged" (i.e., ordered to self-isolate) due to a close COVID contact, but I was ordered to self-isolate for 10 days when I reported a high temperature (which turned out to be the start of a dose of cellulitis). I went for a proper test (not those free ones you can order which are unreliable), which proved negative, so the app then let me off the hook. Well I've had both my jabs now and I really don't want to know any more if an infected person has been near me, and I certainly don't want to be told to lock myself away for 10 days. The government is thinking of tinkering with the app to make it "less sensitive," in an attempt to stop people from deleting it. I mean, for chrissake...

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Jul 21 - 05:09 PM

Anti-vaxxer'a droop

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jul 21 - 03:42 PM

Covid booster shots are good for seniors who show waning immunity after 6 months. The FDA hasn't any final reccomendations on the booster yet.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 21 - 10:24 PM

I'm already seeing prompts to get this year's flu shot, as of July 1. I don't know if it is even in the pharmacy yet.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jul 21 - 10:15 PM

Justice, understanding and fairness is already in short supply.
When everything is about you, the world feels like there is even less justice, understanding or fairness. The more you repeatedly hector about a minor slight, if there even is one, the less empathy the world will extend. These are things we should have learned in kindergarten. You might think the squeaky wheel gets the oil but sometimes it just heats up, catches fire and destroys itself.

Pfizer recommends a third shot for maximum immunity to Covid.










There feels like there is little understanding

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 21 - 10:07 PM

I don't delete things that I disagree with. I delete things that are extremely rude, that go against the general Mudcat community standards, and the bickering and personal attacks. It used to be a regular thing that posts would disappear from when you hit "send" to when the page reloaded. That still happens on occasion. And I'm starting to see a few double posts that the system used to have all of the time until that glitch was fixed. Maybe it's unfixed.

---

Edited note: The last time you had something deleted on this thread was May 6, when you were duking it out with Donuel.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 21 - 08:12 PM

I think the chance that this thread will ever prove worth the moderation, or even the time it takes to read it and select what points you want to fight about, is close to zilch.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 21 - 06:14 PM

You deleted a long and carefully-prepared post of mine, simply because it got your goat because you don't agree with me about masks. Not because I was rude or offensive to you (as you feel free to be with me...), but because, well, you don't agree with me about masks. Because, in some weird way, you think that if I were the world boss I'd be a mass-murderer because I don't think masks are much use and that rigorous science has yet to support mask-wearing. In spite of my repeatedly telling you that I respect anyone who wants to wear masks and that I've been as mask-obedient as anyone you know, even those with haloes over their heads. I can't delete you but you can delete me. Fine. Well I do know Geoff, and, though he doesn't post very often in this section, and though we are far from conspiratorially in league with each other, I can assure you that he is articulate, thoughtful, measured and erudite. As I said, Maggie, please do your job, unpaid though it be, properly.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 21 - 01:20 PM

Enough of one-upping each other. Steve, if something is disputed and an answer is provided, then it doesn't make sense to remove the remark being answered to. In response to your accusation, no, your remarks weren't removed.

I don't know who Geoff Wallis is, but he, I am sure, knows how to use copy and paste to put in a link if it hasn't been made a hot link for him. Unpleasant? It takes one to know one, apparently. Any more speculating about moderation and your posts will be deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 21 - 01:06 PM

You can suspect all you want, but you're not offering anything other than your own high opinion of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 21 - 08:38 AM

I don't know how many more times I have to tell you that I am not a COVID-denier nor an anti-vaxxer (I was first in the queue for my jabs), that I respect people who wish to continue to wear masks and that I have NOT ONCE broken a mask rule, or any other rule. Never mind seeing things through your US lens (a well-recognised failing of your country). Just read what I say and respond to that, civilly and in a measured fashion. Injections of emotion into debates about the science lose you the argument there and then. I love to be disagreed with but I don't like to be called silly, irrational or the purveyor of bullshit simply because you don't agree with me. And then deleted so that readers of the other point of view can't see what I've said to cause such responses. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jul 21 - 07:50 AM

Steve I am sure you were careful regarding your remarks but again I remind you that in the US it is seen through the lens of ignorant no mask anti vaxxing Trumpists. They are not helping anyone.
On again off again lockdowns are more frustrating imo.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 21 - 06:50 AM

"Leave it to Steve - he makes irrational statements..."

You are not entitled to make offensive remarks (and more than just this one) then delete my carefully-argued responses and regard yourself as fair-minded. You have taken to deleting stuff simply because you don't agree with it. If I'm irrational, you are immature. I've responded to your points about masks without insulting you and, unlike you, I commented on your links. The science regarding masks is not settled, there is room for polite disagreement but you don't want views other than yours to be considered. Please do your job properly.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 04:37 PM

Certain sources like the National Science Foundation have their idiocyncracies. For example while announcing new discoveries some labs are succint but have their hand out for a grant so they have the same three justifications they know the NSF is looking for.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 04:18 PM

Geoff Wallis, I am retired from an academic research library where I worked with peer review papers we published for the university. I dig up papers in scholarly sources. Did you follow any of the DOI: numbers to see where they come from? I thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 03:44 PM

Getting information on the pandemic is a bit like living downstream from a dam that is rumored to have a huge crack in it. Instead of asking if the rumor is peer reveiwed you should get your ass up to the dam to see for yourself. If you see a crack with water coming out, get the fuck out. Don't debate, don't hesitate. Its your fate to google Conspiracy or Dr. Fauci or just move upstream.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 03:28 PM

Now 32,500/day.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 02:56 PM

Maggie, I don't think I was being irrational.by advocating enabling opening up society by continuing with personal preventative measures. We have around 28,000-29,000 new cases per day in UK compared with Czech Republic with around 105-110.

At the same time the UK is talking about charging people for antigen testing in order to discourage people from taking responsibility for public health even further.

It is almost as if johnson has taken trumps place on the dark side.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 02:07 PM

SRS,

Have any of the studies which you've cited/cut-and-pasted from been subject to peer review?

If not, they're speculative and/or advisory with qualifications at best and nugatory at worst.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 10:44 AM

Leave it to Steve - he makes irrational statements, I post a link to answers, and he choses to misrepresent the papers in the results. Asking me to prove he's wrong, he's not interested in proving he's correct, he keeps pushing the same tired politically-motivated line.

Well, Maggie, you post sources without comment. I've perused some of them and they largely confirm what I've been saying about the evidence: that most of it is observational, that randomised control testing is not possible because of the ethical deficiency of having an "unprotected" control group. Making real-life extrapolations as to efficacy from laboratory testing of various types of masks is not justified.

BS. Just nonsense. A point made here says that the efficacy of masks can't be taken in isolation - you also need to consider social distancing and handwashing, etc, but given the severity of the pandemic, each is equally important. Here are some abstracts and highlights from the top few papers in that list that came out in 2021:


An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19 January 26, 2021    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014564118

Abstract
The science around the use of masks by the public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. In this narrative review, we develop an analytical framework to examine mask usage, synthesizing the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: population impact, transmission characteristics, source control, wearer protection, sociological considerations, and implementation considerations. A primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is via respiratory particles, and it is known to be transmissible from presymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, and asymptomatic individuals. Reducing disease spread requires two things: limiting contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and other measures and reducing the transmission probability per contact. The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. Because many respiratory particles become smaller due to evaporation, we recommend increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage: mask wearing by infectious people (“source control”) with benefits at the population level, rather than only mask wearing by susceptible people, such as health care workers, with focus on individual outcomes. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.


Face masks against COVID-19: Standards, efficacy, testing and decontamination methods June 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2021.102435

Highlights
• Universal face masking as a low-cost strategy to mitigate virus transmission

• Interdisciplinary systematic review on face masking against COVID-19

• Standards for various face masks and their fundamental filtration mechanisms

• Empirical methods for determining mask integrity and particle filtration efficiency

• Decontamination methods that allow for the reuse of traditionally disposable masks



Why does the spread of COVID-19 vary greatly in different countries? Revealing the efficacy of face masks in epidemic prevention   January 14, 2021   DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268821000108

Abstract
The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is highly contagious, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by it has forced many countries to adopt ‘lockdown’ measures to prevent the spread of the epidemic through social isolation of citizens. Some countries proposed universal mask wearing as a protection measure of public health to strengthen national prevention efforts and to limit the wider spread of the epidemic. In order to reveal the epidemic prevention efficacy of masks, this paper systematically evaluates the experimental studies of various masks and filter materials, summarises the general characteristics of the filtration efficiency of isolation masks with particle size, and reveals the actual efficacy of masks by combining the volume distribution characteristics of human exhaled droplets with different particle sizes and the SARS-CoV-2 virus load of nasopharynx and throat swabs from patients. The existing measured data show that the filtration efficiency of all kinds of masks for large particles and extra-large droplets is close to 100%. From the perspective of filtering the total number of pathogens discharged in the environment and protecting vulnerable individuals from breathing live viruses, the mask has a higher protective effect. If considering the weighted average filtration efficiency with different particle sizes, the filtration efficiencies of the N95 mask and the ordinary mask are 99.4% and 98.5%, respectively. The mask can avoid releasing active viruses to the environment from the source of infection, thus maximising the protection of vulnerable individuals by reducing the probability of inhaling a virus. Therefore, if the whole society strictly implements the policy of publicly wearing masks, the risk of large-scale spread of the epidemic can be greatly reduced. Compared with the overall cost of social isolation, limited personal freedoms and forced suspension of economic activities, the inconvenience for citizens caused by wearing masks is perfectly acceptable.


This in particular helps because it has a good photo illustration of with and without masks, and types of masks:

Protection From COVID-19: The Efficacy of Face Masks February 5, 2021 doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0119

Abstract
Background
Since the beginning of 2020 the SARS-CoV-2 virus has spread to nearly every country in the world. The mainly airborne pathogen has led to large numbers of deaths, principally in elderly and vulnerable segments of the population. Protective vaccines have recently become available, but it is not yet clear whether and when population-wide immunity will be achieved. The existence of evidence for the protective effect of masks covering the mouth and nose is a topic of public debate.

Methods
A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed. Data from the German Robert Koch Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were also taken into account.

Results
When talking, as many as 20 000 droplets ranging in size from 20 to 500 µM are released every second. According to PCR tests, the amount of virus exhaled is highest immediately before the onset of symptoms. No randomized trials have been conducted on the effect of masks covering the mouth and nose. A meta-analysis of 29 studies on infection with SARS-CoV-2, SARS, or MERS revealed that type N-95 masks (corresponding approximately to FFP-2), surgical masks, or similar multilayer cotton masks can greatly reduce the infection risk for the wearers (RR 0.34 [0.26; 0.45], with moderate heterogeneity [I2 = 48%]). Model experiments and case reports suggest that masks covering the mouth and nose afford considerable protection against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other airborne diseases by reducing release of and exposure to potentially infectious droplets; in addition, infections that do occur take a milder course. A limitation of the studies analyzed is that in most cases, this effect cannot be viewed in isolation from the protective impact of other measures (distancing, hygiene precautions).

Conclusion
It can plausibly be assumed that consistent use of masks covering the mouth and nose can play an important role in containing the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Since the outbreak in Wuhan (China) in early 2020, SARS-CoV-2 has spread into a pandemic. The pathogen is mostly transmitted via the respiratory route. It has caused many deaths, especially in older and vulnerable populations. Vaccines have become available recently, but it is not known how quickly vaccinations will help to establish immunity at the population level (1). The most important protective measures against infection with SARS-CoV-2 include:

Adhering to safe minimum distances

Complying with hygiene measures, and

Wearing a face covering over nose and mouth (mask).

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 10:42 AM

...... and use a hand gel dispenser is hardly onerous

I always made an effort to find and use the hand-gel each time I went into a shop. Sometimes this meant several applications in one shopping trip. This resulted in my skin drying out and cracking at the side of my finger nails. It was really painful, especially when eating citrus fruit or anything pickled. The solution was to use copious amounts of hand cream when I got home but it took a long time to clear up.

I still use the hand gel but a little more judiciously. If I am shopping round and go into several shops to compare prices without touching anything, I will use it in the first shop then maybe once again later in my tour. I think I am clued up enough to make these decisions for myself.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 05:31 AM

We can continue to open-up tourism, retail and hospitality, etc, but relaxing public health measures such as wearing masks, checking into venues with NHS app is downright bizarre, and threatens to undo the benefit of the sacrifices we have made for nearly a year and a half. it is like saying that it should no longer be necessary to wear seatbelts because wearing seatbelts has reduced the number of deaths in road accidents.

Taking half a minute to scan a barcode and use a hand gel dispenser is hardly onerous. Also if people are no longer required to use face coverings on public transport, shouldn't the driver then be held personally liable for people spreading covid in tube/train carriages and on buses?

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 04:45 AM

It's an inconvenience all right. But I think the point that the increase in cases is no longer matched by similar increases in serious illness and death, thanks to the vaccines, is sound. A similarly sound point is in the question, if we don't do it now, when will we do it? Can we really go on like this for ever? If we have to live with the disease, there will always be spikes, as with flu in winter. So let's get everybody vaccinated. Information, advice and vaccination have got to be the way forward in my opinion, not constant resort to repressive restrictions.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 03:30 AM

June 2021 - covid cases 8,000ish per day, PM decides that the time is not right to fully relax public health measures.
July 2021 - 28,000 cases a day, expected to rise to 50,000 by 21 July and 100,000+ by the end of the month, PM decides that public health measures must end whatever the outcome.

Does this mean that the 'science' Johnson has been guided by is a detail analysis of the likely headlines in the popular press. Surely then it makes sense to make murdoch head of the NHS .because as far as the government is concerned he is a worlds leading expert on health.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 06:36 PM

Well, Maggie, you post sources without comment. I've perused some of them and they largely confirm what I've been saying about the evidence: that most of it is observational, that randomised control testing is not possible because of the ethical deficiency of having an "unprotected" control group. Making real-life extrapolations as to efficacy from laboratory testing of various types of masks is not justified. Everything depends on how people use or misuse the masks, and that includes replacing them with clean ones at extremely frequent intervals. That largely does not happen. Just walk around your town and watch what people do. By the way, medical sources, rather than independent scientific sources, have a dog in the fight in that their need, as they see it, to protect their health service takes high priority. Recommending masks, to them, is a way of playing safe and they won't be adopting the same level of objective rigour as independent scientists would do. Now I am not saying that I KNOW that masks don't work (though I THINK that they are next to useless, a very different thing). But I am saying that compelling people to wear masks is in no way justified by scientific evidence, and that governments enforcing mask-wearing are acting beyond morality in my opinion. My view all along has been that the role of governments in this pandemic should have included giving public information, advice and guidance (and free masks). I suggest that a good campaign along those lines would have resulted in a very high level of public compliance, without the potential resentment (and cheating) that enforcement would cause. Neither you nor I can ever know whether doing this, that or the other, or not doing, would cause more deaths, because the alternatives can't be simultaneously tried.   And, one more time, when you force people to wear masks you are forcing 99 people out of a hundred who are harmless to others to do something that is useless for them and useless for others. I can't see how anyone can think that that's right. Advice and persuasion, never coercion.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 02:03 PM

The Pfizer is still effective in preventing severe illness from the Delta varient but the effectiveness rating goes down to 90 %.
Non symptomtic Covid contagiousness among the vaccinated is extremely rare. So if a vaccinated parent is carrying non symptomatic Delta even non vaccinated kids are almost never infected.

US asians 80% vaccinated
blacks 30%
overall 68% (the red states still lag behind)

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 01:31 PM

Google Scholar: face masks efficacy during COVID-19 raw results.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 01:23 PM

Leenia, I bet that the issue of being a trumper or antivaxxer is NOT the main issue that is important to the Missouri couple. Its the Race issue that reigns over their life. The other little issues pale in comparison even if it raises other risks. Trump is only their current great white hope. Anyone else who could better satisfy their immediate racial concerns and fears could be preferred over Trump. Is it worth their child's illness? No but they were in for a penny, in for a pound.
I say diversity is good for everything and everybody but some can't see it that way because of legacy or poor teaching.

Subject: RE: BS: New news on the pandemic COVID-19
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 01:14 PM

It would be very good if you could actually address substantive points in people's posts, Donuel, rather than making unwitty and unclever little snipes. Think you can manage that? For a change??