Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Details to follow.

Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

He hasn’t. 
 

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

Post 603? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Pettytom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Pettytom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by redruby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 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#

And they also state to start off with this..

 

"Cloth face masks and coverings for the general public are effective in improving: i) source protection, i.e., reduced virus transmission from the wearer when they are of optimal material and construction and fitted correctly; and ii) wearer protection, i.e., reduced rate of infection of those who wear them."

 

 

Just now, melthebell said:

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?

Notice that I have never stated that people should not wear one though!;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, apelike said:

And they also state to start off with this..

 

"Cloth face masks and coverings for the general public are effective in improving: i) source protection, i.e., reduced virus transmission from the wearer when they are of optimal material and construction and fitted correctly; and ii) wearer protection, i.e., reduced rate of infection of those who wear them."

 

 

You might like to read it all.

 

There is also a link to the full report, if you are truly interested. 
 

Or, you could just cherry pick a few out of context quotes.

 

I’m done with the argument now. I’ll leave the evidence in here and hope that those who are undecided will actually read it properly, I’ve learned from past interactions with you that you’ll just keep on arguing, regardless of the weight of evidence against you.

 

Have a nice evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

You might like to read it all.

I have as I also have the 37 page PDF and the bit I quoted is from their Executive Summary of it.

 

Which also includes this bit that I missed out in my past reply.

 

"Optimal cloth face coverings are made from specific material (e.g., high grade cotton), hybrid and multilayer constructions (e.g., silk-cotton) and need to be fitted correctly."

 

In any case have a good one too... :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all. Just to add, bought a pack of the common blue disposable masks from Aldi the other day, or at least I thought I had! Upon closer inspection I found that the word “mask “was completely absent from the packaging. They were described as face coverings and specifically stated as not being PPE. To me this seems aimed at passing current rules rather than offering any protection. I’m no expert so would guess they’re probably better than nowt but the moral is read the packaging before you buy. Or in my case remember my glasses! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.