Coronavirus - Part Two.

[RJRB]

24 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

But wasn't that fabric masks?  There's a huge difference between a bit of cloth and proper protection, but they all get lumped into the "mask" category.

I believe that it referred to any type of mask,but now it seems the official line is that basic paper and fabric masks do offer some benefit.

The general public would still find it difficult to obtain the medical grade masks which are reserved for front line workers.

[Pettytom]

2 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

 

 

 

I don't think a vaccine will lead to 'normal'. Especially if, as many are anticipating, the authorities make the vaccine compulsory for everyone- if you think there is an issue with those labelled as 'anti-vacc' now, I can guarantee there will be a severe escalation if the authorities try to impose a mandatory coronavirus vaccine [probably yearly] on everyone.

There is no need to make vaccinations compulsory. Obviously, people have freedom of choice when it comes to their own health.

 

Personally, I’ll be having any vaccine they come up with, in order to protect my health and yours. It would be nice if you would afford me the same courtesy.

 

Of course, I’d hope that the government would protect those who have been vaccinated from those who haven’t. That might concentrate the minds of the anti-vaxxer lunatics.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Pettytom

[Thirsty Relic]

We were told early on in this pandemic by a range of medical experts not to expect any kind of reliable vaccination against Covid-19 for many years.  Of course there are many rival research and industry bodies trying to develop one, and many businesses that stand to make billions should they be able to sell something purporting to be a vaccine.  We were also told that testing a supposed vaccine also would take a minimum of a year after it had been developed. 

 

Are we really meant to believe that there is a vaccine, tested and ready to use?

 

Of course, politicians and Governments are ready to splash the cash, businesses ready to supply something to sell and many profits on, and many desperate people willing to act as guinea pigs.

 

While I hope a real vaccine is eventually developed, I am old enough to remember Thalidimide and other medical disasters, so I certainly won't be at the front of the queue to test one out.

[Becky B]

5 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Just want to pick up one point. 

 

"Normal" will only return until there is a proven vaccine which could be months, years or decades away.   Wearing a mask will make no difference to that timeline.  

 

Masks were about reducing speed of the outbreak and avoid swamping health services .  For all I very much support their use - I think it's important that people remember that masks don't mean immunity the virus.  

 

We all need to accept that is is our "normal" now and will be for some time. 

And wearing it underneath your  nose, or round your chin, is probably worse than not wearing one at all...

3 hours ago, RJRB said:

I believe that it referred to any type of mask,but now it seems the official line is that basic paper and fabric masks do offer some benefit.

The general public would still find it difficult to obtain the medical grade masks which are reserved for front line workers.

The FFP3 masks are particularly unpleasant to wear, as well.  Not something you can wear all day, if you think face covering masks are bad...

[El Cid]

6 hours ago, RJRB said:

At the time when reported infections were accelerating day by day in the UK we were being told by the authorities that the evidence was that masks had little benefit .

Some accepted this but others could not follow the logic.

We only need a litle benefit to keep the R below ONE.

[Tomm06]

5 hours ago, enntee said:

Yes.

They should remain isolated if they are so vulnerable.

Till when. The BBC every now and then say there are promising trials under way. Thank the good Lord we have the experts on here (who I can only assume work in the Covid-19 vaccine and testing sector) who say a vaccine is unlikely to appear for years or even at all. 

 

So in the event our 'experts' are right, do they isolate till they die of another cause? Stick them on benefits or disability if they can't work and forget about them? 

 

This really isn't too difficult, we have the rules in place now so follow them. If you disagree with them you're entirely within your right to stay in and (preferably in my opinion) shut up and deal with it. Personal responsibility has to factor in to it. Right now it has never been easier to be able to remain indoors forever. 

[Baron99]

Have you all received your letter from SCC's Director of Public Health, Greg Fell?  They can't say that many have been missed out, as well as being in English, there are contact details set out in 10 other languages. 

 

The document still states you should maintain the 2m distance, whenever you can; continue to wash your hands & "Continue to use face coverings if in a crowded indoor public space (if able to do so) and when you can't keep a safe distance from others."

 

And "Covid-19 loves the 3Cs.  You are most at risk in:

Crowded gatherings

Confind spaces

Close contact." 

 

There, perfectly clear.  You've be told. 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Baron99

[redruby]

10 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Just want to pick up one point. 

 

"Normal" will only return until there is a proven vaccine which could be months, years or decades away.   Wearing a mask will make no difference to that timeline.  

 

Masks were about reducing speed of the outbreak and avoid swamping health services .  For all I very much support their use - I think it's important that people remember that masks don't mean immunity the virus.  

 

We all need to accept that is is our "normal" now and will be for some time. 

Yes. Unfortunately the benefits of face coverings are modest and I’m pretty sure were only made mandatory in certain settings for the government to seen as doing something and as an attempt to give people more confidence to get out and about more to kickstart the economy.  Whist I’m not anti face covering, I do think many people massively overestimate their benefits.  

[Pettytom]

26 minutes ago, redruby said:

Yes. Unfortunately the benefits of face coverings are modest and I’m pretty sure were only made mandatory in certain settings for the government to seen as doing something and as an attempt to give people more confidence to get out and about more to kickstart the economy.  Whist I’m not anti face covering, I do think many people massively overestimate their benefits.  

There is quite a lot of evidence accumulating that the use of face coverings does make a significant difference. They aren’t a solution alone, but allied with social distancing and hand washing, they are useful.

 

Some studies have suggested that everyone wearing a face covering would be more effective than another lockdown in slowing the spread of the virus.

 

Here is a Sky news article, with plenty of links to follow, if you are interested in the latest research:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-what-does-the-science-actually-say-about-face-masks-11931121

[Dardandec]

17 hours ago, Halibut said:

It's remarkable that someone with an apparent interest can be so ill-informed. The short answer to that that question is no.

Ill-informed? I use this gov site for testing information - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-getting-tested "Who can be tested? Anyone with symptoms can get a coronavirus test, whatever their age."Maybe you should contact them and tell them they are ill informing people.

 

I get the "tell them you have a cough to get one" how many people do you know who voluntarily got tested with no symptoms?  Could it potently take a test away from someone who does really need one? If it was negative do I need to get it done again tomorrow as I might be asymptomatic then? You are obviously an expert in this field, educate me.