Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Longcol 596]

46 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Again, that's not saying that 25% of the population are especially vulnerable to covid- it's saying that "We estimated that 1·7 billion (UI 1·0–2·4) people, comprising 22% (UI 15–28) of the global population, have at least one underlying condition that puts them at increased risk of severe COVID-19 if infected (ranging from <5% of those younger than 20 years to >66% of those aged 70 years or older). "

 

When it says "We estimated that 349 million (186–787) people (4% [3–9] of the global population) are at high risk of severe COVID-19 and would require hospital admission if infected (ranging from <1% of those younger than 20 years to approximately 20% of those aged 70 years or older)."

 that is referring to the vulnerable- note they make up 4%, not 25%.

So it's only people being hospitalised who are "vulnerable"?

 

What is the difference between "increased risk of severe covid 19 if infected" and "vulnerable"?

46 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

You wanted names of scientists/experts who disagree/d with some aspects of lockdown- there are many, he is one of them.

And his advice appears to have been wanting given Swedens high mortality rate compared to neighbours.

 

Links to any others?

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Longcol

[whiteowl 54]

There has been some concern about when (if!) we get a contact tracing app, people without smart phones being excluded. Singapore seems to have come up with a potential solution to this with a Covid tracing token :

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-54206824

[Lockjaw 11]

16 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

No. They are filters, a consequence of evolution, finely tuned to a balance between filtering out potentially harmful substances, without going so far that it affects the organisms health adversely.

 

Crucially, they are very different from sheets of fabric- if sheets of fabric were optimal, then we would have evolved to have something similar to sheets of fabric covering our mouths and noses- we don't, hence, they aren't [optimal].

 

Dave, you seem to be ascribing some level of perfection to the process of evolution which just isn't there. 

 

If evolution was perfect we wouldn't, for instance have the entrance to our digestive tract right next to our the entrance to our respiratory system.  That's just asking for trouble.

[onewheeldave 22]

10 minutes ago, Lockjaw said:

Dave, you seem to be ascribing some level of perfection to the process of evolution which just isn't there. 

 

If evolution was perfect we wouldn't, for instance have the entrance to our digestive tract right next to our the entrance to our respiratory system.  That's just asking for trouble.

Evolution does pretty well IMO.

 

I suspect that, when all relevant factors are taken into account, the positions of our mouth and nose are pretty much optimal. 

 

Where would you place them?

[tinfoilhat 11]

42 minutes ago, Lockjaw said:

Dave, you seem to be ascribing some level of perfection to the process of evolution which just isn't there. 

 

If evolution was perfect we wouldn't, for instance have the entrance to our digestive tract right next to our the entrance to our respiratory system.  That's just asking for trouble.

I bet he wears shoes though. And a coat when it’s cold despite us living in a fairly temperate country.

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, whiteowl said:

There has been some concern about when (if!) we get a contact tracing app, people without smart phones being excluded. Singapore seems to have come up with a potential solution to this with a Covid tracing token :

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-54206824

Which keeps a precise record of your whereabouts. Cant see that being very popular over here!

[Lockjaw 11]

44 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Evolution does pretty well IMO.

 

I suspect that, when all relevant factors are taken into account, the positions of our mouth and nose are pretty much optimal. 

 

Where would you place them?

Ha ha!  I knew you'd ask that.  I don't know, I'm neither evolution or a deity.  I was merely, and pretty effectively, pointing out the fallacy in your suggestion that evolution gets everything "right".

 

Now then, here's an interesting unforseen consequence of wearing face masks:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

[Thirsty Relic 208]

2 hours ago, whiteowl said:

There has been some concern about when (if!) we get a contact tracing app, people without smart phones being excluded. Singapore seems to have come up with a potential solution to this with a Covid tracing token :

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-54206824

Could you really see youngsters happily carrying them with them to meet up with their mates in gangs on street corners or in each others houses, knowing that the devices would provide evidence of where they were?  Would ordinary people be happy carrying one with them to snoop on who they meet and where?

[Litotes 63]

42 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

Could you really see youngsters happily carrying them with them to meet up with their mates in gangs on street corners or in each others houses, knowing that the devices would provide evidence of where they were?  Would ordinary people be happy carrying one with them to snoop on who they meet and where?

You means like mobile phones do at the moment...?

[whiteowl 54]

57 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

Could you really see youngsters happily carrying them with them to meet up with their mates in gangs on street corners or in each others houses, knowing that the devices would provide evidence of where they were?  Would ordinary people be happy carrying one with them to snoop on who they meet and where?

I think they're more aimed at the older generation who are less likely to have a smartphone.

[apelike 10]

3 hours ago, Lockjaw said:

Now then, here's an interesting unforseen consequence of wearing face masks:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Its not a very well written article.

 

Its still a hypothesis and one of the doctors involved even states "... that the commentary has its limitations and should not be construed as anything other than a theory."

 

The data is also about wearing masks of different grades and not face coverings though, ie just a piece of ungraded cloth. It also talks about reducing the viral load that the wearer is exposed to as opposed to face coverings which are meant to help stop the viral load being expelled outwards into the surrounding air. We already know that surgical masks do work and that's why they are used in hospitals etc.

 

Notice this bit at the end....

 

"In a coronavirus outbreak on a closed Argentinian cruise ship, for example, where passengers were provided with surgical masks and staff with N95 masks, the rate of asymptomatic infection was 81 per cent. This is compared with 20 per cent in earlier cruise ship outbreaks without universal masking."

 

So in order to have any beneficial effect nationally everybody need to wear a graded surgical mask.

 

1 hour ago, Litotes said:

You means like mobile phones do at the moment...?

No as you can turn off location tracking on a mobile phone.

Edited September 20, 2020 by apelike

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, whiteowl said:

I think they're more aimed at the older generation who are less likely to have a smartphone.

In the UK the percentage of those over 16 that don't have a mobile phone now is very low at around 3%.