Coronavirus - Part Two.

[redruby 272]

2 hours ago, Pettytom said:

You’ve said this repeatedly.

 

Do you have any proof for your claim?

Apelike has already given several sources for this. This is starting to go round in circles now and is getting boring so let’s just agree to differ.  

[Pettytom 1]

2 minutes ago, redruby said:

Apelike has already given several sources for this. This is starting to go round in circles now and is getting boring so let’s just agree to differ.  

He hasn’t. 
 

But if you’ve nothing to add, I guess that we should move on.

[tinfoilhat 11]

So Mr bank of England says that furlough should end in October - despite great swathes of the economy not being even allowed to trade. Some jobs could become redundant.

 

BBC News - Bank of England boss Bailey backs end of furlough scheme
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53675467

 

Not sure he should be in his job frankly. 

[Pettytom 1]

1 minute ago, tinfoilhat said:

So Mr bank of England says that furlough should end in October - despite great swathes of the economy not being even allowed to trade. Some jobs could become redundant.

 

BBC News - Bank of England boss Bailey backs end of furlough scheme
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53675467

 

Not sure he should be in his job frankly. 

He’s no need to be in his job. He’s so highly paid that he should be able to survive for a while without a salary. Maybe that’s a thing to look at.

 

I think we will enter a new phase with some limited support for some sectors. We can’t possibly be imagining a future without theatres for example. Even so, it’s not unreasonable to encourage people in such industries to seek alternative employment.

I can’t see how we get big crowds together for quite some time, so sport, theatre, and large social events are going to need support for some time yet. That doesn’t mean that the Government has to bankroll all of the employees though.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 minute ago, Pettytom said:

He’s no need to be in his job. He’s so highly paid that he should be able to survive for a while without a salary. Maybe that’s a thing to look at.

 

I think we will enter a new phase with some limited support for some sectors. We can’t possibly be imagining a future without theatres for example. Even so, it’s not unreasonable to encourage people in such industries to seek alternative employment.

I can’t see how we get big crowds together for quite some time, so sport, theatre, and large social events are going to need support for some time yet. That doesn’t mean that the Government has to bankroll all of the employees though.

You should probably start. Start imagining life with only 2 professional football leagues. No big live music venues.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's pretend the £1.5bn keeps all the theatres open. They aren't self sufficient. They need freelancers (left to rot, completely) for make up, lighting, set building companies. Are the touring companies getting any help? No, the money is keeping the theatres open. So they're working at Tesco, if they're lucky. 

 

That's one sliver of one industry. If you are going to cut people off at the knees, let them work and open everything up. There's not a week that goes by at the moment of some retailer or restaurant chain laying off hundreds or thousands AND THEY CAN OPEN. 

 

That said, if you have spare land you can convert for landfill I can probably fill it for you by Christmas. That's going to be a growth industry!

[redruby 272]

20 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

He hasn’t. 
 

But if you’ve nothing to add, I guess that we should move on.

Post 603? 

[Pettytom 1]

2 hours ago, redruby said:

Post 603? 

You have evidence mixed up with selective quoting and confirmation bias.

 

Here. Oxford University say this:
 

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-face-masks-and-coverings-work-act-now#

 

Stanford, UCSF, Melbourne, all say the same.

 

It is noticeable that nobody is demanding scientific evidence that hand hygiene and social distancing work.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Pettytom

[Becky B 31]

55 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

You have evidence mixed up with selective quoting and confirmation bias.

 

Here. Oxford University say this:
 

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-face-masks-and-coverings-work-act-now#

 

Stanford, UCSF, Melbourne, all day the same.

 

It is noticeable that nobody is demanding scientific evidence that hand hygiene and social distancing work.

 

 

I suppose there's already evidence for hand hygiene reducing the spread of infection.  In nearly 20 years of infection control training, every time we are told that hand hygiene is the most important part of infection control...

[Pettytom 1]

16 minutes ago, Becky B said:

I suppose there's already evidence for hand hygiene reducing the spread of infection.  In nearly 20 years of infection control training, every time we are told that hand hygiene is the most important part of infection control...

Agreed. 
 

I’ve seen some startling simulations of the way that simply washing hands slows the spread of infection. I was just pointing out that the antimaskers are happy to accept other measures without question 

 

Social distancing is different though. Nobody seems to know the optimum distance. Equally, nobody questions it’s efficacy.

 

As a side note, I’d be interested in your view of hand sanitising, as a health professional. It seems to me that we risk a new generation of superbugs by repeatedly using alcohol gels in a slipshod way. 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Pettytom

[redruby 272]

10 hours ago, Pettytom said:

You have evidence mixed up with selective quoting and confirmation bias.

 

Here. Oxford University say this:
 

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-face-masks-and-coverings-work-act-now#

 

Stanford, UCSF, Melbourne, all day the same.

 

It is noticeable that nobody is demanding scientific evidence that hand hygiene and social distancing work.

 

 

Confirmation basis!!  The words pot, kettle and black come to mind. 
In the supermarket the other day, my face covering slipped a bit and I automatically put my hand (which had touched a basket and several items I’d picked up) to my face to adjust it touching my nose and close to my eye in the process.  I wouldn’t have done that without the face covering. OK, that was my fault for not having a loose face covering and forgetting not to touch my face. Fair enough, I should have been more careful but in reality this kind of thing happens inadvertently all the time and is difficult to account for in a scientific study. And I’ve seen plenty of people pulling  done face masks to have a chat. Like the fact they have a mask (even though it’s tucked under their) makes them responsible people protecting others from their germs.  Face coverings are useful to some extent but they are far from being the most important aid to preventing Covid spreading. 

8 hours ago, redruby said:

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by redruby

[apelike 10]

4 hours ago, melthebell said:

so youre purely trolling with your anti mask stance. thought so

I am pointing out the failure in the figures in answer to pettytom who stated they make a significant difference as there is no data to back that up and considering I have already stated I wear one I am hardly anti mask, so yet another strawman from you saying I am anti mask.

Edited August 6, 2020 by apelike

[melthebell 862]

4 minutes ago, apelike said:

I am pointing out the failure in the figures in answer to pettytom who stated they make a significant difference as there is no data to back that up and considering I have already stated I wear one I am hardly anti mask, so yet another strawman from you saying I am anti mask.

arguing the toss for the sake of it, youve been poo pooing mask wearing for months, again, safer to wear a mask...or not wear a mask?