ref:all you effing leftie know-alls...

Tinhatter

Tinhatter

Roofer
'sir' keir,soho ,andy 'eye brows' burnham et al,please explain what you would do to sort this virus out,
please stop your anti tory bile and tell us how you would manage the situation,won't hold my breath.....
 
TAKE THE MASKS OFF AND GET ON WITH LIFE. FUCK BILL GATES.

I don't think they'd do that but that's what we should do. We should tell the government to fuck off, labour and conservatives. They're a bunch of self serving snakes and liars.
 
Tinhatter said:
'sir' keir,soho ,andy 'eye brows' burnham et al,please explain what you would do to sort this virus out,
please stop your anti tory bile and tell us how you would manage the situation,won't hold my breath.....
Click to expand...
Well I'm no leftie know-all...but perhaps one step in the right direction would be to give procurement contracts to long-standing companies with a track record of success - and not funnel away hundreds of millions to newly formed companies that happen to be friends/spouses/went to Eton of cabinet ministers but that have ZERO knowledge about health-care products or distribution. And maybe stop lying through their teeth. And u-turning every few days. Prolly best not to have your chief advisor piss off 2/3rds of the population too. And stop avoiding popular media outlets because they ask difficult questions...questions you either cannot answer or have to lie to.

(of course there are far deeper issues at play here than some virus...but the above might at least lessen the idea that we are being run by a bunch of lying, money-grabbing treasonous bastards)

(not sure Starmer is actually a leftie either. I think he might be a Tory plant. The "opposition" is pathetic)
 
Last edited:
Got through Asian flu and Hong Kong flu
There was an epidemic in the 70,s as well
Influenza spirals around for years then lapses
 
Masks are to lessen the risk of the wearer passing on an infection to another. That’s why they wear them in hospitals - to protect the patient not the nurse. Therefore, no-one wearing masks increases risk of an infected person (a student for example) passing infection on if the student doesn’t wear a mask and they/you are close enough, for long enough to become infected.

Many posters would be seem to be (well) over 60 and as such would seem to be most at risk of death if they catch COVID-19. QED less posters. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but someday (The Simpson’s)
 
  1. Face masks do not decrease your oxygen intake
  2. They also do not make you retain more carbon dioxide than usual
  3. Oxygen and CO2 are very small, so they can easily pass through a face mask
  4. Droplets are much larger in comparison, and they cannot pass easily through a face mask
  5. Wearing face coverings now helps us get back to normal sooner
Dont just take my word for it....

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Face masks have negligible negative effect on CO2 and O2 levels

A new study tests whether wearing face masks limits the gas exchange involved in breathing and finds that it does not — even in people with lung disease.
www.medicalnewstoday.com www.medicalnewstoday.com

www.bbc.co.uk

Coronavirus: 'Deadly masks' claims debunked

The BBC's anti-disinformation team has been investigating misleading health claims about wearing face coverings.
www.bbc.co.uk

Killer COVID-19 Masks? The Truth About Trapped Carbon Dioxide | Hartford HealthCare | CT

Learn more about News Detail at hartfordhealthcare.org
hartfordhealthcare.org hartfordhealthcare.org

Do face masks make you retain carbon dioxide?

Do face masks impede your breathing or make you retain carbon dioxide (CO2)? Intensive Care Unit physician Greg Schmidt, MD, settles the argument for us in this Epi Explains video.
uihc.org uihc.org
 

Rapid Response:​

Covid-19: important potential side effects of wearing face masks that we should bear in mind​

​


Dear Editor
In their editorial to the BMJ,[1] Greenhalgh et al. advise that surgical masks should be worn in public to prevent some transmission of covid-19, adding that we should sometimes act without definitive evidence, just in case, according to the precautionary principle. The Authors quote a definition of the precautionary principle found on Wikipedia, “a strategy for approaching issues of potential harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking.”
However, while no single formulation of that principle has been universally adopted,[2] the precautionary principle aims at preventing researchers and policy makers from neglecting potentially-harmful side effects of interventions. Before implementing clinical and public health interventions, one must actively hypothesise and describe potential side effects and only then decide whether they are worth being quantified on not.
Most scientific articles and guidelines in the context of the covid-19 pandemic highlight two potential side effects of wearing surgical face masks in the public, but we believe that there are other ones that are worth considering before any global public health policy is implemented involving billions of people.
The two potential side effects that have already been acknowledged are:
(1) Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security and make people adopt a reduction in compliance with other infection control measures, including social distancing and hands washing.[3]
(2) Inappropriate use of face mask: people must not touch their masks, must change their single-use masks frequently or wash them regularly, dispose them correctly and adopt other management measures, otherwise their risks and those of others may increase.[3,4]
Other potential side effects that we must consider are:
(3) The quality and the volume of speech between two people wearing masks is considerably compromised and they may unconsciously come closer. While one may be trained to counteract side effect n.1, this side effect may be more difficult to tackle.
(4) Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes. This generates an uncomfortable feeling and an impulse to touch your eyes. If your hands are contaminated, you are infecting yourself.
(5) Face masks make breathing more difficult. For people with COPD, face masks are in fact intolerable to wear as they worsen their breathlessness.[5] Moreover, a fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled at each respiratory cycle. Those two phenomena increase breathing frequency and deepness, and hence they increase the amount of inhaled and exhaled air. This may worsen the burden of covid-19 if infected people wearing masks spread more contaminated air. This may also worsen the clinical condition of infected people if the enhanced breathing pushes the viral load down into their lungs.
(5B) The effects described at point 5 are amplified if face masks are heavily contaminated (see point 2)
(6) While impeding person-to-person transmission is key to limiting the outbreak, so far little importance has been given to the events taking place after a transmission has happened, when innate immunity plays a crucial role. The main purpose of the innate immune response is to immediately prevent the spread and movement of foreign pathogens throughout the body.[6] The innate immunity’s efficacy is highly dependent on the viral load. If face masks determine a humid habitat where the SARS-CoV-2 can remain active due to the water vapour continuously provided by breathing and captured by the mask fabric, they determine an increase in viral load and therefore they can cause a defeat of the innate immunity and an increase in infections. This phenomenon may also interact with and enhance previous points.
In conclusion, as opposed to Greenhalgh et al., we believe that the context of the current covid-19 pandemic is very different from that of the “parachutes for jumping out of aeroplanes”,[7] in which the dynamics of harm and prevention are easy to define and even to quantify without the need of research studies. It is necessary to quantify the complex interactions that may well be operating between positive and negative effects of wearing surgical masks at population level. It is not time to act without evidence.
References
1 Greenhalgh T, Schmid MB, Czypionka T, et al. Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis. BMJ 2020;:m1435. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1435
2 Vu YA, London WM, Vu YA, et al. Precautionary Principle. 2013;:9780199756797–0046. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756797-0046
3 Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in healthcare settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. https://www.who.int/publications-detail/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-th...(2019-ncov)-outbreak (accessed 18 Apr 2020).
4 Desai AN, Aronoff DM. Masks and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Published Online First: 17 April 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.6437
5 Kyung SY, Kim Y, Hwang H, et al. Risks of N95 Face Mask Use in Subjects With COPD. Respir Care 2020;:respcare.06713. doi:10.4187/respcare.06713
6 Chen Y, Zhou Z, Min W. Mitochondria, Oxidative Stress and Innate Immunity. Front Physiol 2018;9:1487. doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.01487
7 Potts M, Prata N, Walsh J, et al. Parachute approach to evidence based medicine. BMJ 2006;333:701–3. doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7570.701
 
To the people that think wearing a face mask reduces the amount of oxygen getting to your brain, I’m afraid that ships already sailed.
 
There are many things that have happened over the last 6 plus month that are open to debate, masks, social distancing etc.

And there are some that are not. For example...

Why did PHE/NHS send older folk, many with obvious infections back to the care homes?
Why did they deny older people and other high risk groups effective prophylactics and treatment at the onset of symptoms?
Why was Covid included on death certificates at virtually every opportunity?
Why was the NHS shut down for the treatment of serious illness such as heart disease, cancer and others?
Why is the normal increase in deaths at this time of the year being portrayed as a 'second wave'.

All to generate fear and compliance so that the people accept whatever comes next.

That will be the interesting bit.
 
You’re arguing a different point to me there, Mac. Most of that may be true, but the main thing is its purpose isn’t for protecting youRs elf, it’s protecting other people who come into contact with you.
But I’m sure you knew that.
If people have problems with masks there is an alternative. I’ve seen a lot of folks in the hospitality industry wearing visors.

Interested to know what the “whatever comes next“ will be. I’m sure someone will be happy to point it out when it happens.
 
We may be able to learn things from Japan. Culturally they are different over there and serious infections and deaths are very low (around 1600) for a population of 38 million.

Absolutely everybody wears a mask bar a very occasional person. They aren't averse to it like some of us in the West. They don't touch each other socially like we do in the West either. No hand shaking, no hugs, no public kissing. They bow to each other and don't get close to each other when greeting. Which means they are unlikely to receive a high dose of the virus and they therefore develop milder infections or are asymptomatic.

Nobody talks on trains. They are silent. As shouting/talking loudly can propel viruses in greater amounts/to further distances this helps.

They ventilate their houses and spend a lot of time outdoors and have a diet rich in vitamin D. They eat shitloads of fish there.

Yet when a recent study in Tokyo looked for the presence of antibodies in the population, 50% were shown to test positive for it.

So a large proportion of people have had at least some infection and can now consider themselves immune, probably for some considerable time.

I'm not saying this is proof and it may prove that there is a different reason over time as to why the Japanese have done so well to contain the virus but it is certainly food for thought.

Edited to also say that they have a track and trace system there that actually works and mandatory 14-day quarantine for all travellers entering the country. You have to stay in a quarantine hotel on arrival and are not allowed to leave.
 

Resurgence of covid-19 in Japan​

BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3221 (Published 18 August 2020)Cite this as: BMJ 2020;370:m3221

  1. Kazuki Shimizu, researcher1 2,
  2. George Wharton, senior lecturer in practice1,
  3. Haruka Sakamoto, project researcher3,
  4. Elias Mossialos, Brian Abel-Smith professor of health policy1
  5. Author affiliations
  6. Correspondence to: K Shimizu k.shimizu1@lse.ac.uk
The government looks set to repeat its mistakes
Japan has seen a resurgence of covid-19, and the effective reproduction number has been above 1 for two months. The daily confirmed cases reached nearly 2000 in early August.1
Since the start of the pandemic the country has focused on controlling clusters of more than five covid-19 cases and preventing environmental transmission in the “3Cs”: closed spaces, crowded places, and close contact settings.2 Initially, early detection of clusters and investigation of linkages between clusters helped reduce the spread of infection. But it couldn’t prevent the surge in incidence that began around mid-March. The declaration of a state of emergency in April helped control the pandemic’s trajectory,3 although the measures lacked legal authority and depended on citizens’ self-restraint. The state of emergency was lifted in late May.
Failings in the government’s early handling of the crisis have exacerbated the pandemic’s overall effect and resulted in 8.22 covid-19 deaths per million people: the third highest rate in the Western Pacific region after Philippines and Australia.1

What went wrong​

Clear lessons have emerged from Japan’s response to the first wave of covid-19. Firstly, Japan made insufficient effort to expand laboratory testing.2 Lack of capacity meant many requests for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing from doctors were rejected by the public health centres that govern community response to covid-19. This led to an increase in the number of undiagnosed cases, which in turn increased both community acquired and hospital acquired infections.4Health system capacity was therefore diverted away from other essential health services.
Public health centres were overwhelmed by mid-March, as Japan relied on inefficient paper based systems for reporting patients’ information. Use of manual data systems has resulted in inaccuracies and duplication of records.
Although citizens were asked to voluntarily avoid the 3Cs,2 behaviour modification campaigns were not effective in the early phase of the pandemic. As the Japanese authorities failed to introduce clear incentives to encourage public adherence, most people did not change their behaviour promptly.5 Closely linked to this, the government’s communication strategy was inadequate, even during the state of emergency. Messages to avoid the 3Cs were clear,2 but the importance of physical distancing, washing hands frequently, staying home, and protecting health systems were not communicated persuasively enough to change behaviours.
Japan’s response was also affected by tension between the politics and the science of the pandemic. An expert committee established as a subsidiary of the cabinet was insufficiently independent to provide truly impartial advice. The committee lacked representatives from essential disciplines such as economics, behavioural science, and communication, and decision making processes were poorly explained. For example, the committee’s recommendation that social contact should decrease by 80% was later weakened by the government to “a minimum of 70%, or ideally 80%” without further clarification.6
Finally, the government lacked accountability and transparency. For example, the decision to postpone the Tokyo 2020 Olympics and Paralympics was made abruptly without explaining how the decision had been reached.7 Moreover, the prime minister undermined adherence to measures introduced under Japan’s state of emergency by describing it as “different from a lockdown as we are seeing take place overseas.”6 Visits to workplaces and public transport hubs initially decreased by only 23% and 46%, respectively.8
The Japanese healthcare system was pushed to near collapse by inadequate human resources and personal protective equipment (PPE) in late April.2 Healthcare workers were blamed for the chaos, and many were bullied and harassed as a result.9

Scrutiny, transparency​

Detailed scrutiny of the government’s handling of the pandemic is essential to learn from earlier mistakes. Instead, however, the government abolished its expert committee in June,10 reducing scrutiny and transparency still further. Worse, as covid-19 surged in late July, Japan launched a domestic tourism campaign that encouraged people to travel freely throughout the country while failing to tackle the many public health problems that remained.11 The number of PCR tests is currently limited to fewer than 40 000 a day,12 and the capacity of both hospitals and isolation facilities may be insufficient to cope with the resurgence. There has been scant discussion of how to expand testing, and digitalisation remains a work in progress.
Centrally coordinated command and control structures and unambiguous communication are vital to persuade the public to change its behaviour. Expanding testing capacity, implementing widespread testing for asymptomatic people, and effective contact tracing, isolation, and quarantine are also critical, along with fully digital epidemiology to monitor changes in the reproduction number and to inform an effective response. Logistics must be strengthened to allow faster and more responsive procurement of PPE, essential to protect frontline workers and patients.
Unless the Japanese government shifts from cluster based countermeasures to a response based on the above principles, examines and learns from previous mistakes, and deploys cutting edge science such as genetic sequencing and big data analytics, Japan’s health services will be overwhelmed again and more lives will be needlessly lost in the months ahead.

Footnotes​

  • Competing interests: We have read BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare no conflicts of interest. KS receives research support from the Rotary Foundation, Japan Student Services Organisation, and British Council Japan Association.
  • Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ's website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

References​

  1. ↵
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. COVID-19 situation update worldwide, as of 10 August 2020. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases

  2. ↵
    1. Hayasaki E
    . Covid-19: how Japan squandered its early jump on the pandemic. BMJ2020;369:m1625.doi:10.1136/bmj.m1625 pmid:32332010
    FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  3. ↵
    1. Looi MK
    . Covid-19: Japan ends state of emergency but warns of “new normal”. BMJ2020;369:m2100.doi:10.1136/bmj.m2100 pmid:32457055
    FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    1. Furuse Y,
    2. Sando E,
    3. Tsuchiya N,
    4. et al
    . Clusters of coronavirus disease in communities, Japan, January-April 2020. Emerg Infect Dis2020;26. doi:10.3201/eid2609.202272. pmid:32521222
    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. ↵
    Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. Results of national survey for COVID-19 countermeasures, 30 Apr 2020 [in Japanese]. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_11109.html

  6. ↵
    Press conference by the prime minister regarding the declaration of a state of emergency, 7 Apr 2020. https://japan.kantei.go.jp/98_abe/statement/202004/_00001.html

  7. ↵
    Shimizu K, Devoid I. The 2020 Olympics and Paralympic Games and COVID-19. BMJ Opinion, 7 May 2020. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjgh/2020/05/07/the-2020-olympics-and-paralympic-games-covid-19/

  8. ↵
    Google. Covid-19 community mobility reports, 17 Apr 2020. https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-17_JP_Mobility_Report_en.pdf

  9. ↵
    Frontline health workers in Japan face discrimination over virus. Kyodo News 2020 May 29. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/...-in-japan-face-discrimination-over-virus.html

  10. ↵
    Cabinet Secretariat. The gist of minister’s press conference [in Japanese]. 24 Jun 2020. https://corona.go.jp/news/pdf/daijin_youshi_0624.pdf

  11. ↵
    Japan kicks off domestic tourism campaign as critics point to virus surge. Reuters July 2020 Jul 22. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...urism-campaign-amid-virus-surge-idUSKCN24N0JE

  12. ↵
    Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. Open data. Number of PCR testing, 9Aug 2020. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/pcr_tested_daily.csv
 
With respect Mac that report is from 2 months ago and the situation has moved on. The expected surge didn't materialise over the last 2 months despite concern there and instead cases remain low and serious infections are also low for a dense population. They don't see the same problems that large American/British/European cities are seeing and interestingly they haven't had a lockdown in the last 2 months.

Much of what I wrote was theorising but I thought it would be interesting to look and try and find reasons why they have done so well recently to see if we can learn anything about how our approach differs in this country and why we have a much higher infection rate and death rate than some other countries.

Here's the study concerning antibody levels if you want to have a look.

 
Last edited:
If we can accept that ALL the figures are false, then we have to believe that everything they force on us for another reason. I cannot understand for the life of me why people want to argue in favour of a thing that doesn't stack up, when the slightest bit of logic is used its easy to prove false This scam is now hanging on a threat, the only thing thats keeping it alive is the people who are still swallowing the lies. The term for this is "waking people up", but we have to accept that some can't be woke and critical mass when reached will bring them along.
 
Figures or not, It doesnt help when you bring in rules closing hospitality with a delay I emendation, giving a chance for all the youngsters to have a last blast in the city, like what happened in Liverpool last night.
 
Here's the thing - who gains from promoting anti-masking? The prevalence of lots of cut and paste articles here suggest that this is in someones interest to fund and is tapping into a ready potential market of adherents.
 
homes said:
Here's the thing - who gains from promoting anti-masking? The prevalence of lots of cut and paste articles here suggest that this is in someones interest to fund and is tapping into a ready potential market of adherents.
Click to expand...
Well it looks like I’m the one doing cut and pastes on this thread- for info purposes I may add.
So can you please explain what you mean? I don’t get it.
 
You and others can access lots of material which takes a particular point of view. I'm simply questioning the motivation of the original source and positing that perhaps you're being played by (another) Man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top