Wuhan Killer Sneeze (thanks Tea)

[slackk]

I don't need to assert equivalence at all, it's well established that these discussions are based on hypothetical references to external sources and how ideas are interpreted to further an argument. There is an unsolicited graph from an unknown location that shows big Swedish cases numbers and there is the established concept that "deaths lag behind cases," so we are allowed to move on without establishing any substance either way. That's how covid discussions work.

Lockdown is not necessary in the UK, for instance - the case-rate increase was decreasing before lockdown.

For example.

*

Personally I just want to get on with things and would like to see a mitigation strategy from somewhere for once.

Being anti-lockdown is an admirable cause in a sense because we are just expressionist animals really and that's a cool thing to be in general. But, I just don't see anyone with any competent strategies attempting to further the discourse. Where are the people with practical knowledge and applicable skills attempting to resolve the issue. The narrative is led by quasi-right ghouls and spectres with no real applicable evidence.

The real dynamic risk assessments validate the usage of good quality masks and its plain to see that it's the case. People* have worked with respirable diseases/fibres for years and PPE is actually a piece of piss solution to the issue. Wear a decent mask and have a basic understanding of physics and you should understand the weight of the virus and how it's mitigated. But the widespread anti-lockdown argument can't be allowed to validate the concept of the mask because of some semi-conceptual orthodoxy wherein it is a dismissal of unknown liberty.

I dunno it just seems like it's easier to maintain an opposition using oblique dismissal strategies like "Sweden!!" rather than creation of practical solutions to the problem. Where are the RAMS

I think pubs and restaurants are fucked for now but otherwise I'd like to get on with life.

 

[Mr. Tea]

@luka Yeah, right. Scale Taiwan's deaths to our country's population and you're looking at 21 vs. 50,000 - you really think that's solely down to authoritarianism?

More like governmental competence?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

@slackk The Great Barrington Declaration is the thing you're looking for.

Our government's guidance says that there is 'weak evidence of a small effect' for masks while Oxford CEBM say cloth masks increase the risks of infection - that's why masks are contentious.

Our cases went down before masks were mandated and have increased since the mandate.

 

[Mr. Tea]

People* have worked with respirable diseases/fibres for years and PPE is actually a piece of piss solution to the issue. Wear a decent mask and have a basic understanding of physics and you should understand the weight of the virus and how it's mitigated.

I did have a bit of a facepalm when @mixed_biscuits said "masks don't work because the virus can get through the gaps between the fibres".

 

[mixed_biscuits]

 

[slackk]

The "Great Barrington Declaration" is not a risk assessment though is it, it's an internet petition.

I am talking about real-world risk assessments intended to rag-score potential risks and introduce mitigation strategies to lower the risk scoring.

An American chart talking about N95 filters is well in keeping with the general declarative spirit of affairs so I will allow you to submit it in good faith, but they wouldn't be used over if we were talking about a realistic European winter risk assessment. That's an American respirator and has less coverage than your European standard P3.

It's quite easy to talk about the reality of filter protection and how control limits exist in work environments. Most risks are mitigated by filtered mask usage, and if we were serious about trying to exist in a busy environment without lockdown these ideas could be easily utilised.

But the anti-lockdown ideal mentions none of it, just wants us to run around with no protection strategy. It's such a curious moment in time, I dunno. Great trolling in many regards but it does speak to a real ignorance in a lot of people I think. I guess it depends what type of environments you've worked in, what kind of lifestyles you've been exposed to. Anyway

 

[mixed_biscuits]

The anti-lockdown 'ideal' is a straw man.

SAGE's minutes leading up to lockdown 1 discuss pros and cons of a vast array of measures without ever calling for a universal lockdown; it was all quite rational and calm before the government came down with a case of the hysterics.

The mask thing was in response to Mr Tea. Don't think the govt have produced a risk assessment but here's something from the WHO:

 

[slackk]

For example.

Things like RR619 should have been seized upon by your anti-lockdown arguments and weaponised in the way Sweden has been. Tell the government to fuck off, buy some masks, crack on. Properly risk assessed, it could have argued down local EHOs long enough to develop a consensus and your arguments could have been swinging and banging.

Instead the discussion point is "let's get sick"

I dunno man

 

[mixed_biscuits]

That sounds good...so why haven't the government suggested that?

Also: why are people allowed to wear masks that are so much less effective?

 

[slackk]

The anti-lockdown 'ideal' is a straw man.

I think the opposite, it has become a common consensus with refined arguments at this point. Certainly in shit whatsapp groups or those weird twitter/Facebook memes, it's become very honed it seems to me.

 

[slackk]

That sounds good...so why haven't the government suggested that?

Also: why are people allowed to wear masks that are so much less effective?

The UK is generally ran by a group of incompetent tarts who have no real world experience. Think that becomes more apparent by the day. They thought Dominic Cummings was a mastermind.

Very good at dodgy money grafting though.

 

[slackk]

The finnish covid sniffer dogs is why I meant to post in here anyway. Thought that was cool

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Real talk:

 

[Mr. Tea]

View attachment 5080

So, if only the infected person wears a mask, and it's a simple cotton mask and not proper PPE or anything, then the amount of virus inhaled by someone else is reduced by over half? And if both are wearing cotton masks, it's reduced by two thirds? Of course it's not a magic bullet but I don't see how that isn't better than nothing at all? I know that you understand the maths well enough to know that this sort of difference gets magnified with every generation of potential spread, so the effectiveness in reducing the spread through a population is probably greater than these numbers would imply.

The use of logarithmic scales is also pretty dishonest, in this context.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

So, if only the infected person wears a mask, and it's a simple cotton mask and not proper PPE or anything, then the amount of virus inhaled by someone else is reduced by over half? And if both are wearing cotton masks, it's reduced by two thirds? Of course it's not a magic bullet but I don't see how that isn't better than nothing at all? I know that you understand the maths well enough to know that this sort of difference gets magnified with every generation of potential spread, so the effectiveness in reducing the spread through a population is probably greater than these numbers would imply.

Yes, that's a potential benefit (with those numbers from ideal wear in lab conditions)...now, list the vast number of drawbacks, whether Covid-related or not.

The use of logarithmic scales is also pretty dishonest, in this context.

That graphic was from a pretty dry lab study - it's not meant to be polemical afaik.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Everything you post is polemical!

 

[Mr. Tea]

What at are these "vast drawbacks" with masks? They're a bit of a pain and I don't like wearing them, but I don't call that a "vast drawback". Yeah yeah, I know, it means you can't lipread. We both know you're not actually a deaf rights activist. What else.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

What at are these "vast drawbacks" with masks? They're a bit of a pain and I don't like wearing them, but I don't call that a "vast drawback". Yeah yeah, I know, it means you can't lipread. We both know you're not actually a deaf rights activist. What else.

Oxford CEBM: 'cloth masks increase the risk of infection' What else do you need?

 

[Mr. Tea]

What is the supposed mechanism for this? You've just posted a plot showing that even non-medical masks are fairly effective at blocking viruses.

 

[vimothy]

this is obviously an argument that's not going to be resolved any time soon. I think it makes more sense to assume the worst case and then ask, what's the correct course of action? what's the correct trade off between personal safety and personal freedoms?