Beyond Covid

[keys]

We need now to learn that people have to manage their own health needs and it can be done.

To a large extent you are right, on the assumption that purpose of NHS is to provide health care for all UK citizens.

It is frustrating to see dedicated staff trying to cope with inadequate facilities, and at the same time a minority of patients wasting valuable resources because the service is free on demand.

A chronic example of this is excessive alcohol consumption. The consequences range from unpleasant to life changing. The same applies to nicotine addiction. The damage from tobacco products is well documented, and e-cigarettes are not a safe alternative.

Obesity is a sign of poor choices, and often a path to diabetes or other serious health problems. These issues consume a lot of NHS resources, and cause a lot of distress to families concerned. Two common factors stand out - they are largely self inflicted and treatment is free.

A 10p tax on plastic bags brought about a paradigm shift. It makes you wonder what an enduring appreciation of the NHS could achieve. We are very fortunate to have free health care based on individual need.

 

[websaway]

To a large extent you are right, on the assumption that purpose of NHS is to provide health care for all UK citizens.

It is frustrating to see dedicated staff trying to cope with inadequate facilities, and at the same time a minority of patients wasting valuable resources because the service is free on demand.

A chronic example of this is excessive alcohol consumption. The consequences range from unpleasant to life changing. The same applies to nicotine addiction. The damage from tobacco products is well documented, and e-cigarettes are not a safe alternative.

Obesity is a sign of poor choices, and often a path to diabetes or other serious health problems. These issues consume a lot of NHS resources, and cause a lot of distress to families concerned. Two common factors stand out - they are largely self inflicted and treatment is free.

A 10p tax on plastic bags brought about a paradigm shift. It makes you wonder what an enduring appreciation of the NHS could achieve. We are very fortunate to have free health care based on individual need.

Agree entirely and the main point I make is that the more you increase the capacity of the NHS the more demands are made of it. It's a bottomless pit. Blair achieved the same with benefits, the more he expanded it the more people became dependent on it. Unfortunately these issues are a political football and it's more a case of some not wishing to arrive at a solution.

 

[websaway]

I have to smile. Experts are saying that if you wear a mask you don't transmit the virus to others. Doesn't that mean if everyone wore a mask nobody would catch it.

How can admin disagree with this ?

 

[dee]

A mask helps reduce the spread when used correctly and put on/taken off correctly. Bearing in mind, it's not used correctly or put on/taken off correctly by the average person in most cases.

True...although a mask of any description helps. One of the major reasons being that subconsiously and actually you touch your face less. Its not just about catching spit.

 

[websaway]

Most probably because the vast majority of 'experts' are not saying that?

Are you sure you've seen an expert say something along the lines of 'wear a mask and that way nobody will catch it.' or have you maybe misquoted/taken some context out of what was said by accident? It would help reduce the spread but would never stop it.

A mask helps reduce the spread when used correctly and put on/taken off correctly. Bearing in mind, it's not used correctly or put on/taken off correctly by the average person in most cases.

That's a very respectful response to my post thanks for that.
You immediately misquoted me. I said if you wear a mask you will not transmit the virus.
I am astonished at the amount of people who talk about any subject and need evidence beyond reasonable doubt that this or that is the case. The reason many people live successful lives is because they use common sense. I won't get into the discussion of which expert said this and which expert said that. But if you wear a mask and it stops you passing the virus on to someone else, which common sense tells me it generally will,and then if every other person wears mouth and nose covering the virus would generally not be transmitted. Why would I need an expert to tell me that in the first place.

 

[websaway]

You mean you haven't heard experts saying that; therefore you will not get into discussions about it.

"I said if you wear a mask you will not transmit the virus." - Where you're getting that from, or why you're even saying I have no idea.

Wearing a mask does not stop you from transmitting the virus. You're either wording it completely wrong to what you actually mean or you don't have any basic knowledge of how things like this spread.

Wearing a mask does not stop you from transmitting the disease. Reduces the spread of it, potentially in the right conditions, yes. Stops it from transmitting though? Wrong and extremely dangerous thing to say and suggest.

No it's dangerous saying what you are saying. A mask has to be better than no mask. Not wearing a mask is irresponsible even if it only reduces it by 0.1% Which is doesn't, it reduces the risk of transmitting it by an unknown factor, maybe 100%. If you need an expert to conclusively prove anything like this then that's your problem.

 

[websaway]

What you're saying there isn't aligning with what I've said or what you've said. I'm not sure if maybe you're misreading what you've said and I've said, as it doesn't add up.

You've gone from saying "if you wear a mask you will not transmit the virus" to "Not wearing a mask is irresponsible even if it only reduces it by 0.1% Which is doesn't, it reduces the risk of transmitting it by an unknown factor, maybe 100%" -- That doesn't make sense.

You've gone from saying that if you wear a mask, you will not transmit the virus to then saying that it reduces the risk of transmitting it by an unknown factor, maybe 100%.

So now I'm starting to think maybe you misexplained what you said originally. I'm not sure what you think I said is dangerous either as I haven't said you shouldn't wear a mask.

I said , you said ,did say, didn't say. who said, doesn't make sense, which expert, misexplained.
All statements to create on going argument. I am not an intellectual but hey I didn't need an expert to say washing your hands was a good Idea and reduces the risk of transferring crap into your mouth, it's something many of us have been doing for all time. And I don't need any expert to tell me anything that is plain old common sense, successful people have been using common sense for centuries and it comes with experience.

 

[keys]

Will we forgive China and resume trade as before?

CCP are on the receiving end of much blame and condemnation for their part in the current pandemic. It seems that anyone trying to defend them would be only doing so to protect personal or business interests. Here is a blunt interpretation of CCP strategy, from Colonel Richard Kemp CBE,

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[dee]

Will we forgive China and resume trade as before?

Can't see it. I think there'll possible be a change based purely on supply chain for large manufacturing companies. Before this pandemic hit the West, lots of manufacturing chains in US especially ground to a halt waiting for parts from China as they were lowest price suppliers. There were lots of expensive paperweights sitting around waiting for cheap Chinese circuit boards etc.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Will we forgive China and resume trade as before?

Course we will...isn't the UK the biggest market in Europe for German goods and has been for decades? The 5 biggest selling cars in America are all Japanese.

 

[Gill]

I'm a little bit confused.

I'm not sure why I'm arrogant or someone who thinks he knows it all, purely because I've pointed out that someone originally said that wearing a mask means you will not transmit the virus but then went on to counter reply saying the complete opposite.

I'm just trying to protect people.

Taken from the Guardian ...

"Wearing a face mask is certainly not an iron-clad guarantee that you won’t get sick – viruses can also transmit through the eyes and tiny viral particles, known as aerosols, can penetrate masks. However, masks are effective at capturing droplets, which is a main transmission route of coronavirus, and some studies have estimated a roughly fivefold protection versus no barrier alone (although others have found lower levels of effectiveness).

If you are likely to be in close contact with someone infected, a mask cuts the chance of the disease being passed on. If you’re showing symptoms of coronavirus, or have been diagnosed, wearing a mask can also protect others. So masks are crucial for health and social care workers looking after patients and are also recommended for family members who need to care for someone who is ill – ideally both the patient and carer should have a mask."

No doubt you've read some scientific paper on the subject and count yourself an expert but as @websaway pointed out, common sense, the Guardian and others tell us that wearing a mask - no matter how ineffective - is preferable to not wearing a mask so I'd argue that makes you a danger to the public, not @websaway!

 

[newguy]

I'm still confused as it appears you haven't read what Websaway was saying.

Websaway stated first that wearing a mask means you will NOT transmit the virus. What you just posted agrees with what I was saying in that Websaway was wrong.

It helps reduce the risk of spread, but wearing it does NOT mean you will not transmit the virus.

I agree wholeheartedly that people should wear a mask, because even if it reduced the spread by 1%, it's worth it in my opinion.

You seem annoyed at me for calling Websaway out on what he said and then go and post information that agrees with my point. It doesn't make sense.

I think he put it in overly absolutist terms but that essentially you both agree that wearing a mask is a good idea!

Logically if someone with covid-19 and someone without it both wear a mask, i would think it'd significant reduce the chance of transmission. Maybe that'd be less effective in some environments (say in a restaurant or pub where you'd have to remove the mask for a period of time anyway), but I can definitely see a case for saying that everyone should wear a mask in public and on public transport. And of course it'll stop people touching a surface, then their own face. Supply might be an issue but if we can reduce the r0 value via this approach and increased testing we might be able to keep things stable or even get on top of this!

 

[Edwin]

I think one of the issues about mask-wearing is, what are you comparing it to?

For example, right now non-essential shops are closed. So the chances of someone catching a virus inside a non-essential shop is 0%. But if mask-wearing becomes compulsory, does that encourage the UK government to allow non-essential shops to reopen? In which case, what is the new danger level? It clearly won't be 0%, but something greater than 0%, even with the masks. Is that danger low enough to make reopening such shops "safe"?

Similar logic applies to all situations, from group gatherings to transport to events. Right now, most of the risks are at or close to 0% because they're closed, cancelled or reserved for essential key workers only. But what happens when you loosen the restrictions, even with masks in the mix?

Secondly, will some people behave "more recklessly" with masks on than if they weren't wearing them? And will that added recklessness in a minority more than offset the overall greater safety offered by mask-wearing?

(Personally, I think it would be good for everyone to wear masks, but it's not a straightforward situation for the government to figure out because mask-wearing will invariably affect other factors too. If we were like Japan or other Asian countries in which mask-wearing were habitual, there would be much less to worry about. But we're not.)

 

[newguy]

I think one of the issues about mask-wearing is, what are you comparing it to?

For example, right now non-essential shops are closed. So the chances of someone catching a virus inside a non-essential shop is 0%. But if mask-wearing becomes compulsory, does that encourage the UK government to allow non-essential shops to reopen? In which case, what is the new danger level? It clearly won't be 0%, but something greater than 0%, even with the masks. Is that danger low enough to make reopening such shops "safe"?

Similar logic applies to all situations, from group gatherings to transport to events. Right now, most of the risks are at or close to 0% because they're closed, cancelled or reserved for essential key workers only. But what happens when you loosen the restrictions, even with masks in the mix?

Secondly, will some people behave "more recklessly" with masks on than if they weren't wearing them? And will that added recklessness in a minority more than offset the overall greater safety offered by mask-wearing?

(Personally, I think it would be good for everyone to wear masks, but it's not a straightforward situation for the government to figure out because mask-wearing will invariably affect other factors too. If we were like Japan or other Asian countries in which mask-wearing were habitual, there would be much less to worry about. But we're not.)

These are salient points and there is clearly a balance to be achieved over time. Beyond a point it could be argued that all businesses become essential. As in, non essential shops aren't going to be shut in say 3 months time, because it would be an economically unsustainable position (and would itself have a knock on effect on health and wellbeing). As such, when the numbers drop to say 200-300, I think they will gradually start to open up. In that new reality we'll have to do all that we can to keep the numbers low (masks, increased testing, crowd size limits) and then rely on the infrastructure we've put in place in the hope that everyone in need of treatment can receive it. As it's new territory, I don't think there are firm right or wrong answers to an approach though, even this one, and there is sadly no solution that leaves us unscathed.

 

[Gill]

No it's dangerous saying what you are saying. A mask has to be better than no mask. Not wearing a mask is irresponsible even if it only reduces it by 0.1% Which is doesn't, it reduces the risk of transmitting it by an unknown factor, maybe 100%. If you need an expert to conclusively prove anything like this then that's your problem.

if you wear a mask and it stops you passing the virus on to someone else, which common sense tells me it generally will

The main thrust of his posts is the advocacy of wearing masks in public to reduce the risk of contracting or transferring the virus, he's actually very vague on the effectiveness - 0.1% to 100%. Your decision to focus on just one line was pure virtue signalling exemplified by your "I'm just trying to protect people" post.

You'll have to have the last word but I won't be drawn into your petty semantics.

 

[newguy]

https://chaohanoi.com/2020/04/24/2-hanoi-kids-use-lucky-money-to-send-20000-face-masks-to-uk/ -
2 Hanoi kids use ‘lucky money’ to send 20,000 face masks to UK

 

[websaway]

You're still not reading or looking at what was said. It appears you're jumping into a conversation without actually reading all of what was said. I actually agree with all that side of things.

My point was this that he originally said:



There is no 'petty' semantics about that. He didn't originally say anything about effectiveness. He literally said that the 'experts' are saying that wearing a mask will mean you will not transmit it.

When I pulled him on what experts are saying that, he started replying with silly things ignoring the question.

When I posed that what he was saying in different replies where polar opposites, he again ignored the question.

It appears that it all boils down to him saying the wrong thing by accident. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is actually what I said.

"I have to smile. Experts are saying that if you wear a mask you don't transmit the virus to others. Doesn't that mean if everyone wore a mask nobody would catch it."

the experts said that you would not transmit the virus.
I had to smile, that suggests that the comment was not really open to be forensically examined, it was an observation of what was being said and I did not wish to argue with you. Again common sense can create a multitude of benefits including not arguing about everything that anyone might casually post. Especially when there is not much to be gained by either party.
I

 

[BREWSTERS]

In Germany, a mask requirement was introduced in public transport and in retail outlets. The president of the World Medical Association, Frank Montgomery, has criticized this as „wrong“ and the intended use of scarves and drapes as „ridiculous“. In fact, studies show that the use of masks in everyday life does not bring measurable benefits to healthy and asymptomatic people, which is why the Swiss infectiologist Dr. Vernazza spoke of a „media hype“. Other critics speak of a symbol of „forced, publicly visible obedience“.

Source: https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

 

[BREWSTERS]