Coronavirus | Page 42 | Vital Football

Coronavirus

SwedishImp said:
Some interesting stuff here from CDC research and data, especially on infection to fatality rate and likelihood of transmissions from asympomatics:

https://www.sciencealert.com/40-of-people-with-covid-19-don-t-have-symptoms-latest-cdc-estimate-says

On other business, what are thoughts on here re the new face mask rule in the UK? As an outsider, I don't really understand why it's coming in now when cases and especially deaths have come down so much. Yesterday was the lowest death count since lockdown started I believe... seems a strange time to dish out £100 fines for people going shopping without a mask?
Click to expand...

It's quite typical of our current government to want to add things as it goes along so that the exit policy is different to that we started with. Face masks should have been done earlier, though their value is limited to reducing the risk of passing it on if you have it, and why we need a run up to the date when they are mandatory is just ridiculous. But they do give that little bit of reassurance to other members of the public so it really is a no brainer in confined spaces
 
57harry said:
Well I don't know where you are getting that infections are bottoming out-the 7 day moving average fell by 28% since the end of June, continuing its downward trend.Like wise the death toll is falling about 24 % a week. The virus is petering out quite rapidly. There is no evidence that a significant second wave will come
Click to expand...

Yet BBC (Jermiah central, I know) leads on its website today with "Millions go back into lockdown around the world".

Whether by choice or incompetence, the UK is behind most other countries in dealing with this, any increases arising out of easing of restrictions are yet to emerge. This 'little flu' isn't done yet, there's certainly no evidence that a significant second wave will not come either.
 
SwedishImp said:
Some interesting stuff here from CDC research and data, especially on infection to fatality rate and likelihood of transmissions from asympomatics:

https://www.sciencealert.com/40-of-people-with-covid-19-don-t-have-symptoms-latest-cdc-estimate-says

On other business, what are thoughts on here re the new face mask rule in the UK? As an outsider, I don't really understand why it's coming in now when cases and especially deaths have come down so much. Yesterday was the lowest death count since lockdown started I believe... seems a strange time to dish out £100 fines for people going shopping without a mask?
Click to expand...

Hancock stated that death rates for retail workers significantly higher than general population. Should have done this when we reopened. It's not about protecting you it's about protecting the retail workers

Mr Hancock told the Commons: "The death rate of sales and retail assistants is 75% higher amongst men and 60% higher amongst women than in the general population."
 
If a second wave arises, it may well be in the winter. We'll see.

However, for all those that opposed lock-down (Yes, I'm looking at you, harry57), the reason infection and death rates are in decline is because of, er, lock-down.

If you want see a country still knee-deep in the first wave, take a look at the USA. They didn't implement lock-down effectively and lifted it far too early.
 
NottyImp said:
If a second wave arises, it may well be in the winter. We'll see.

However, for all those that opposed lock-down (Yes, I'm looking at you, harry57), the reason infection and death rates are in decline is because of, er, lock-down.

If you want see a country still knee-deep in the first wave, take a look at the USA. They didn't implement lock-down effectively and lifted it far too early.
Click to expand...

Well that is the point-there is no link between lock down severity and death toll and case levels.So you cannot say this is decline is due to lockdown. If you look at the countries that did not have lockdown ,as well as the US states that didn't, you will see no link. Take the example of Sweden,with no lockdown,where deaths and case levels have fallen to near zero. The path of the virus is pretty much the same whatever. Where it does stand out is South Korea,who did not have lock down and they are streets ahead of anyone else.

I agree the US has had an increase in cases-we will have to see how long this recent trend lasts.However their death toll is much less than ours.Overall thier trend is showing a broadly flat shape.
 
57harry said:
Well that is the point-there is no link between lock down severity and death toll and case levels.So you cannot say this is decline is due to lockdown. If you look at the countries that did not have lockdown ,as well as the US states that didn't, you will see no link. Take the example of Sweden,with no lockdown,where deaths and case levels have fallen to near zero. The path of the virus is pretty much the same whatever. Where it does stand out is South Korea,who did not have lock down and they are streets ahead of anyone else.

I agree the US has had an increase in cases-we will have to see how long this recent trend lasts.However their death toll is much less than ours.Overall thier trend is showing a broadly flat shape.
Click to expand...

Utter bollocks. Provide sources or shut up. It's a virus that spreads through human contact so the notion that lock-down- that specifically limits human contact - doesn't prevent infection is complete and utter nonsense.

Frankly, you've been wrong on every post on this thread and proven to be so time and again. You have shown no understanding of disease spread and epidemiology and just keep repeating your uninformed ignorant crap.

You're either stupid or deliberately malign.
 
So, Harry57, how does Sweden compare to other Nordic countries who applied a proper lock-down? Stop repeating your lies.
 
The notion that not preventing the spread of a disease results in better outcomes is inherently absurd.

On that basis, we should all actively choose to infect ourselves with bubonic plague, Ebola and aids.

Don't listen to harry57. He will kill you.
 
What I would say is you need to do some proper research based on the actual results which cover 200 countries, rather than copy and pasting alarmist crap from the Guardian and the discredited Imperial College
 
57harry said:
What I would say is you need to do some proper research based on the actual results which cover 200 countries, rather than copy and pasting alarmist crap from the Guardian and the discredited Imperial College
Click to expand...

Go ahead. Cite your peer-reviewed sources.

None of my sources quoted above are from the Guardian. Stop lying.
 
Here's the first point you need to address:

How does not preventing the spread of disease improve outcomes?
 
I have made them dozens of times before and I am not going to regurtitate them again.I suggest you read them. If you cannot take criticism don't give it out.
 
57harry said:
I have made them dozens of times before and I am not going to regurtitate them again.I suggest you read them. If you cannot take criticism don't give it out.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not good enough. Cite your sources clearly explaining their relevance, answer the questions put to you or shut the fuck up.

You're choice.
 
Here's the first point you need to address:

How does not preventing the spread of disease improve outcomes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.