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

Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pettytom said:

I don’t think that any such thing is obvious from this thread. I’m very interested in the unsubstantiated claims that some people are making.

 

Why do you think that 2m social distancing  is more important/effective than wearing a face covering?

Because it very difficult for the virus to transmit at a 2m distance.  What concerns me is the notion that wearing a face covering makes social distancing less important (particulary indoors and even more so in a crowded indoor environment).  And touching/contaminating/unclean face masks add risks as I’ve previously said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, redruby said:

Because it very difficult for the virus to transmit at a 2m distance.  What concerns me is the notion that wearing a face covering makes social distancing less important (particulary indoors and even more so in a crowded indoor environment).  And touching/contaminating/unclean face masks add risks as I’ve previously said.

Now I’m really interested. You (and many others) are happy to accept 2m social distancing as important, but not face covering. Both without recourse to any evidence.

 

I’d respectfully suggest that keeping 2m or more away from someone who is wearing a face covering would serious reduce your chance of catching the virus.  Likewise if your face is also covered, the other person’s risk reduces.
 

And that’s what it’s all about really. Take as many measures as you can. In tandem, they make a big difference. There’s research to back up all those claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pettytom said:

There is no difference.

 

A virus is a germ.

 

A bacterium is a germ.

 

Some fungi are germs.

Ahh yes, I see what you mean.

Share this post


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

Now I’m really interested. You (and many others) are happy to accept 2m social distancing as important, but not face covering. Both without recourse to any evidence.

 

I’d respectfully suggest that keeping 2m or more away from someone who is wearing a face covering would serious reduce your chance of catching the virus.  Likewise if your face is also covered, the other person’s risk reduces.
 

And that’s what it’s all about really. Take as many measures as you can. In tandem, they make a big difference. There’s research to back up all those claims.

For what seems like the trillionth time, I’m not ANTI fave coverings. I just worry about the way people seem to consider wearing one as being more important than social distancing and dismiss concerns about the risks of improper face covering use. And I particularly dislike the abuse some people with non visible disabilities have had to put up with for not wearing one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, redruby said:

For what seems like the trillionth time, I’m not ANTI fave coverings. I just worry about the way people seem to consider wearing one as being more important than social distancing and dismiss concerns about the risks of improper face covering use. And I particularly dislike the abuse some people with non visible disabilities have had to put up with for not wearing one.

I’m not suggesting that you are anti face coverings. I’m trying to explore why you feel that 2m social distancing is more important. 
 

I think they are both important. Along with hand hygiene, testing and  track/trace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, redruby said:

For what seems like the trillionth time, I’m not ANTI fave coverings. I just worry about the way people seem to consider wearing one as being more important than social distancing and dismiss concerns about the risks of improper face covering use. And I particularly dislike the abuse some people with non visible disabilities have had to put up with for not wearing one.

they are ALL important.........the main point is, not EVERYWHERE you can observe 2m distance, supermarket aisles as you are passing others might be a prime example, a face covering does help as you may pass somebody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My thoughts on this is that indoor, crowded environments are by a long way the biggest risk. Social distancing largely prevents this risk without adding other risks. A face covering can give some protection to others but can add other risks through improper use. 

Edited by redruby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, petemcewan said:

Hurrah!

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/11/russia-claims-to-have-registered-first-coronavirus-vaccine.html

 

 

"No data has yet been published by the researchers and the long-term effects and safety of this possible vaccine currently remain unclear."

Aye, Russians have a great track record with pharma R&D....

 

...as attested by their widespread banning from a plethora of international sports events in recent years, never mind second (non-)medical uses of Pollonium ;):D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, petemcewan said:

Hurrah!

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/11/russia-claims-to-have-registered-first-coronavirus-vaccine.html

 

 

"No data has yet been published by the researchers and the long-term effects and safety of this possible vaccine currently remain unclear."

Not hurrah yet I'm afraid.  The new vaccine has been approved for use, but that's before it's even completed full safety testing, let alone efficacy testing. 

 

Testing comes in phases.  First come the basic 'does the molecule kill people' tests, which are all pre-clinical, then there are 4 formalised phases.

 

Phase 1 is safety testing for different doses and dosage regimes in healthy volunteers.  For this to progress further, the safety data should follow up these patients for over a year before licensing, which clearly hasn't happened in this case (but there may have been special dispensation to compress these phases, given the immediacy of the need).

 

Phase 2 is where they work out in a few volunteers (who are likely to have the disease in question) whether the drug has any of the effects that they are looking for, and at which doses, and if the side effects are sufficiently low to allow them to move onto phase 3.   About 60% of all drugs are withdrawn after phase 2 trials as non-viable.

 

Phase 3 includes a lot more patients, refining the dosage and reproducing the phase 2 trials on a much larger basis to check that the small scale results were not incorrect and that there aren't safety or side effect concerns when given to much bigger groups of patients.

 

After this has been done it is usually submitted to the licensing authorities with all of the trial data already collected.  Only about 30% of drugs that get as far as phase 3 trials pass this stage.

 

After phase 3 and licensing then phase 4 post-marketing surveillance can begin on the first patients to have the drug administered for real.  Most companies will then continue to perform trials in as many different scenarios and clinical settings as they can, for years after licensing.

 

If you haven't even started phase 3 trials then as far as I'm concerned, you're claiming success which is at best hopeful and circumstantial.  It may possibly be useless, or create side effects in a wider range of patients that we simply aren't aware of yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, petemcewan said:

Hurrah!

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/11/russia-claims-to-have-registered-first-coronavirus-vaccine.html

 

 

"No data has yet been published by the researchers and the long-term effects and safety of this possible vaccine currently remain unclear."

Yeah - Putin is upping the odds with Trump and pushing the USA towards an untested vaccine / bleach in time for the presidential elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Longcol said:

Yeah - Putin is upping the odds with Trump and pushing the USA towards an untested vaccine / bleach in time for the presidential elections.

Wouldn't surprise me if Trump awards a vaccine licence to Domestos.

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.