Covid-19 response

[Amity Island]

Presumably you are still breathing and talking? Aerosols don’t just come from coughs and sneezes you know. Yes it makes them travel further and faster so increases infectivity but just breathing does it too.

Early studies are a bit worthless. A lot of “didn’t know” and even more “don’t want it to be airborne” mentality. They simply didn’t look for it in many cases. At first they thought it was solely fomites (touch) hence the washing hands emphasis. Never a bad thing but will do next to nothing for aerosols.

But how would a mask prevent transmission of "breathing" asymptomatic people?

The early study from Wuhan is large enough in scale to be reliable and the conclusion was asymptomatic transmission doesn't happen. Even if it did happen then as Fauci said, it's not the driver of a pandemic. Therefore, asking those who are sick to stay home is sufficient to reduce the burden on the nhs, without wrecking the country.

 

[Dragonheart]

I don’t agree it was enough to simply ask that. Not do I agree just being big means that study is reliable. But I’m not about to go round in circles with you again.


And a decent quality well fitting mask hugely reduces how many aerosols are released into a room. Numerous studies show this. The lower the number of particles the less likely someone else will catch it from you. Even lower if the the non infected person has the same filters over their face. No method is perfect. Lots of layers of protection, each with their own benefits and disadvantage, hopefully close the majority of the holes. Look at the Swiss cheese layered up models

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Therefore, asking those who are sick to stay home is sufficient to reduce the burden on the nhs, without wrecking the country.

Doubt it. Isolation was always something of a problem, with people who knew they should isolate not feeling able to. Can you imagine how much worse that would be if you asked anyone with any symptoms to isolate?

I think there's still a question about how common asymptomatic transmission is, but it seems pretty uncontroversial that pre-symptomatic transmission happens which makes it all a bit moot even if you believed the government might have supported people who had symptoms to isolate.

 

[Amity Island]

I don’t agree it was enough to simply ask that. Not do I agree just being big means that study is reliable. But I’m not about to go round in circles with you again.


And a decent quality well fitting mask hugely reduces how many aerosols are released into a room. Numerous studies show this. The lower the number of particles the less likely someone else will catch it from you. Even lower if the the non infected person has the same filters over their face. No method is perfect. Lots of layers of protection, each with their own benefits and disadvantage, hopefully close the majority of the holes. Look at the Swiss cheese layered up models

Hi,

That's fine, we don't have to agree.

I still don't think it was absolutely necessary to employ all those the drastic, unproven, ridiculous measures and wreck the country for generations to "protect the nhs". Simply asking those with symptoms to stay at home would have made a sufficient impact to reduce cases, as weve always known it's coughs and sneezes spread diseases.

On the masks.
The Cochrane review concluded that the scientfic evidence was inconclusive on masks worn by the public during a pandemic.


The actual specific laboratory studies on the actual masks themselves gave this conclusion.


"Tests on multiple copies of different masks demonstrated consistent performance of N95s, but considerably greater variability within the other classes of masks tested, leading to uncertainty in the degree of protection that they would provide."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02786826.2021.2003291

 

[Amity Island]

Doubt it. Isolation was always something of a problem, with people who knew they should isolate not feeling able to. Can you imagine how much worse that would be if you asked anyone with any symptoms to isolate?

Well, the alternative is what we got, a country ruined for generations, all for an nhs that is still ruined.

In terms of getting the sick to isolate (those coughing and sneezing, not any symptom), it became abundantly clear during the pandemic that people did a very good job of policing each other! Neighbours were more than happy to tell on each other, if you coughed on a train you were given evil looks, people and families fell out over differing opinion.

Going by the comments and responses on this forum. To me it feels like many people wanted, were in favour of all the rules and devastation. Happy to see the Country ruined to protect the NHS when it was ruined anyway.

 

[Amity Island]

In an article published this week, the author has just suddenly came to the realisation on looking back on the covid narrative that it didn't add up.

Here, they look back, from the very beginning, including, amongst many other things the choreographed dancing doctors and nurses etc.

"What’s striking about the iconic images from the pandemic is how contrived and artificial they now appear. These photos were presented as “breaking news” but now it seems that nearly all of the iconic images of the pandemic were elaborately staged to tell a particular story and achieve certain political outcomes."

Above All Else, It was a Spectacle ⋆ Brownstone Institute

The Powers That Be use propaganda because it works. Images are powerful things. Photos and videos operate on the subconscious level.

brownstone.org

 

[Robin]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Dragonheart]

Simply asking those with symptoms to stay at home would have made a sufficient impact to reduce cases

But we did that (and more) and cases were still catastrophic at some points so we know that alone wouldn’t work.

The Cochrane review concluded that the scientfic evidence was inconclusive on masks worn by the public during a pandemic.

No it didn’t! It said the guidance/mandates was inconclusive - not that masking was inconclusive. Widely misquoted by anti maskers. This article gives an explanation https://abcnews.go.com/Health/masks-effective-study-respected-group-misinterpreted/story

and I already said decent masks, like n95, not the baggy, incorrectly worn, cloth or mesh rubbish some people wore. Some countries mandated n95 or equivalent as they realised it mattered.

Going by the comments and responses on this forum. To me it feels like many people wanted, were in favour of all the rules and devastation.

Hardly. Some of us just think they got different things wrong than you think they did. Disagreeing with you doesn’t mean agreeing with them. It’s not binary or that simplistic. They could and should have made other more effective but less devastating choices. And some of that devastation would have happened (and did in other places) even where different actions were taken.

 

[Amity Island]

But we did that (and more) and cases were still catastrophic at some points so we know that alone wouldn’t work.

That's because they weren't all "cases". They were measuring positive tests, not necessarily cases. How can one have a case of something if they have no symptoms??? Try ringing in sick to work and tell them you are off with a "case" of flu, but have no symptoms.

The test didn't show if someone was infectious either.

The number of cycles used was according to Fauci unreliable at anything over 35. The tests were regularly ran at cycles of between 40 and 45, that's a billion repeats to be able to find a sufficient particle size to enable a positive result. At 45 cycles, one could find a trace of almost anything in anyone.

No it didn’t! It said the guidance/mandates was inconclusive - not that masking was inconclusive. Widely misquoted by anti maskers. This article gives an explanation https://abcnews.go.com/Health/masks-effective-study-respected-group-misinterpreted/story

and I already said decent masks, like n95, not the baggy, incorrectly worn, cloth or mesh rubbish some people wore. Some countries mandated n95 or equivalent as they realised it mattered.

We agree on this, the results were inconclusive because it relied upon the way masks are worn by the general public, not the mask itself. And the second link I gave also concluded N95 masks showed some benefit, but the cloth and medical spatter masks less so.

That said, a mask will never work (prevent transmission) for anyone not infected, which is effectively what they did by mandating everyone to wear a mask.

The same strategy was used for the vaccines, recommending vaccination for everyone, regardless if one had already had covid, regardless of their age, health, risk etc. Worse still, was not only did they ignore pre, innate and acquired immunity, those who wanted to rely on their acquired immunity were ALL classed as anti vaxxers, a truly despicable act of hate and anti-science. Just cos one turns down down the offer of a second car, (when you already have a suitable car) doesn't make you anti car!

The truth isn't about been anti anything.

 

[Dragonheart]

No I not talking about solely positive tests (presymptomatic and asymptomatic). Don’t put words into my mouth please. I’m talking about cases of sick and dead people. Those numbers were catastrophic at times. And the “cases” without symptoms - at the point of the positive test - help cause sick and dead people if/when they transmit the virus onwards. How are these repeated explanations not sinking in?

You’ve used that argument before and had the flaw in it pointed out before but you keep using it. same with what the cochrane report did and didnt say and the one about masks in themselves not being perfect. Masks help but aren’t perfect. Nothing is. Said over and over again but you seem to expect perfection from any suggested measure. Again overly simplistic, binary thinking and quite frankly daft.

Of course if you don’t have the virus any and all measures are unnecessary in preventing community spread of a disease. (Another ridiculous argument/statement as no one says otherwise) But you don’t know at any given time who does and who doesn’t have it - that’s why everyone was asked to wear them, in case that have it. It also gives some protection to the wearer, depending on style and fit how much

I agree, I was puzzled how recent prior infection was ignored as an immune situation.

 

[Dragonheart]

And I’ve just realised I’ve been sucked into pointless debate again with someone with fixed views so I’m walking away again to save my blood pressure

 

[Amity Island]

And I’ve just realised I’ve been sucked into pointless debate again with someone with fixed views so I’m walking away again to save my blood pressure

Hi,

All I have suggested was an alternative to wrecking the country (to protect the nhs), by instead just asking those coughing and sneezing to stay at home (to protect the nhs). This I thought was quite a sensible approach. Which clearly hasn't gone down well on here.

I've presented the study which showed:

"A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission."

This is where I stand, we don't have to agree.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

All I have suggested was an alternative to wrecking the country (to protect the nhs), by instead just asking those coughing and sneezing to stay at home (to protect the nhs). This I thought was quite a sensible approach. Which clearly hasn't gone down well on here.

I think it would have been a good idea. I think it probably wouldn't have been sufficient, but it would have been a good idea anyway, but would have required support that the government definitely wasn't interested in providing.

 

[Dragonheart]

by instead just asking those coughing and sneezing to stay at home (to protect the nhs). This I thought was quite a sensible approach.

They did that. (And more) And it still wasn’t enough wasn’t enough.

Nothing to do with it “not going down well“ or not.

and regardless of your view on asymptomatic - there’s still presymptomatic that’s inarguable and highly relevant.

 

[Amity Island]

Study out this week shows many people already had immunity to the "novel" sarscov2 virus, even though at the time we were all told we didn't. No prior immunity was one of the apparent reasons lockdowns were brought in. This pre-existing immunity was suggested at the time (in 2020) by many doctors based on the fact that, sarscov2 will have some similarities to other corona-viruses. However, this was ignored by just about every media, medical and official organisation throughout the entire pandemic, along with the fact that T-cells (not antibodies) were also disregarded, which are the key to long lasting naturally acquired immunity (sars 1 had shown people with T-Cells 17 years after infection), along with constant denial of natural immunity, denial and slandering/mocking of all and any other possible treatments for covid.

Study:

"It's as if these T cells, even when encountering the virus for the first time, can recognize it due to its similarity to the common cold viruses they've already combated.

Jill Hollenbach, PhD, MPH, the study's lead researcher, explained it this way: "If you have an army that's able to recognize the enemy early, that's a huge advantage. It's like having soldiers that are prepared for battle and already know what to look for, and that these are the bad guys."

The genetic mutation, known as HLA-B*15:01, is relatively common, being present in about 10% of the study's participants. Carriers of this mutation don't avoid the virus itself, but they do sidestep the symptoms - from a runny nose to a slightly sore throat.

Hollenbach's team discovered that 20% of participants who remained symptom-free after contracting the virus carried at least one copy of the HLA-B*15:01 variant."

MSN

 

[Jodee]

I think we all need to be cautious, particularly those who are dealing with multiple chronic illness as well as diabetes, I shall certainly be shielding again this Winter, for myself personally I am not prepared to take the risk. I shall be wearing a mask again when in crowded public places when I am not totally shielding, although I do avoid crowded public places as a precaution.

I have been reading about a deadly virus overseas that is killing up to 40% of people infected, (Its already in many countries overseas) they said its only a question of time before it arrives in UK. Of course its hard to know what is fake news or not these days and BBC are very selective in what they report and choose not to report. I guess ZOE and Dr John Campbell and similar resources may be a good indication.

Stay well and safe everyone.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

However, this was ignored by just about every media, medical and official organisation throughout the entire pandemic

I remember it being on the news. I think the problem was that it was (like many other ideas at the time) largely speculative. (I remember it being suggested as a possible explanation for why children weren't so affected by the virus (the idea being that they had colds more often than adults), though I think other explanations are preferred.)

The paper was covered on the latest TWiV: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-1028/

 

[Amity Island]

I remember it being on the news. I think the problem was that it was (like many other ideas at the time) largely speculative. (I remember it being suggested as a possible explanation for why children weren't so affected by the virus (the idea being that they had colds more often than adults), though I think other explanations are preferred.)

The paper was covered on the latest TWiV: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-1028/

Bruce, even to this day, the reasons for the boosters is because of "waning antibodies", no mention of t-cells.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Bruce, even to this day, the reasons for the boosters is because of "waning antibodies", no mention of t-cells.

Yes, because that's what the boosters are for: an extra month or three of raised antibodies.

For the general public three doses are enough to provide long term protection (largely, though not exclusively, through T-cells). For some people boosters are appropriate, perhaps because their immune system isn't great (so provoking it again might help), or because that extra few months of reduced risk of infection is significant. The last reason is why it's offered to all of us: for most of us infection's not likely to be a serious risk, but being sick sucks even more when you have diabetes.

 

[Amity Island]

Yes, because that's what the boosters are for: an extra month or three of raised antibodies.

For the general public three doses are enough to provide long term protection (largely, though not exclusively, through T-cells). For some people boosters are appropriate, perhaps because their immune system isn't great (so provoking it again might help), or because that extra few months of reduced risk of infection is significant. The last reason is why it's offered to all of us: for most of us infection's not likely to be a serious risk, but being sick sucks even more when you have diabetes.

I agree with that. But there has been a general lack of interest in anything regarding natural immunity thoughout, especially given the virus had been circulating for at least a year before vaccines became available (around a hundred schools were closed in the US for "flu" like outbreaks from November 2019 onwards). It's never been part of any strategy for dealing with the pandemic, along with some ludicrous claims made by doctors and officials about people having covid19 without ever having any symptoms (asymptomatic).

Have you ever heard of anyone having flu without symptoms?