Covid-19 response

everydayupsanddowns said:
But doesn’t the rise in cases that (inevitably) followed the Eat Out to Help Out scheme also demonstrate the increase in transmission when people showing no symptoms of the virus are encouraged to get out and about and meet and mingle together.

The fact that the scheme seems to have been kept from Van Tam and Vallance, who say they would definitely have advised against if they had been consulted, seems very deliberate to me.

Eat Out was surely an attempt to pacify some voices in the Conservative party who were more worried about the economy than they were about the risks of transmission of the virus between people who thought they ‘were fine’ (or just didn’t care).

It was an arrogant risk. It felt like a risk at the time to me. And it massively backfired, leading to more dramatic measures being required in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Hi Mike,

Yes, we could draw that conclusion that it was well people spreading the virus (personally I think it unlikely), but we don't know exactly how many of those people eating out to help had symptoms. As Fauci made clear, in all the history of airborne respiratory viruses, its always been those with symptoms who are the main drivers of the spread.

What is clear is, no mistakes were made. Every decision, every policy, mandate and strategy was intentional. I doubt anybody will be held responsible for anything.
 
MikeyBikey said:
I think my point still stans even if they only found out in the TV! If they were not lacking in moral fibre and backbone they would have spoken up at the time. Surely Sunak's time as PM is limited! Threw of the four people I knew that died of COVID died at the end of 2020 or early 2021!
Click to expand...
I agree with that, people are free to make challenges at any point, known as integrity. I think many people failed to speak up about many things during the pandemic, too concerned with their own jobs etc.
 
Amity Island said:
I agree with that, people are free to make challenges at any point, known as integrity. I think many people failed to speak up about many things during the pandemic, too concerned with their own jobs etc.
Click to expand...

It seems to me both being medically qualified they have broken the Hippocratic Oath!
 
MikeyBikey said:
It seems to me both being medically qualified they have broken the Hippocratic Oath!
Click to expand...
You make a valid point. To act or not take action (turn a blind eye) to anything which somebody is directly involved in which results in harm to peoples health, wellbeing or mental health would be in contravention to their oath, integrity, morals and profession. It's essential people speak up, even if it means they risk losing their job.
 
everydayupsanddowns said:
But doesn’t the rise in cases that (inevitably) followed the Eat Out to Help Out scheme also demonstrate the increase in transmission when people showing no symptoms of the virus are encouraged to get out and about and meet and mingle together.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. I'm pretty sure people who looked at the data carefully didn't see that it had much of an effect epidemiologically, and I think the public health people who thought it was a dumb idea were worried much more that encouraging people to mix indoors in a pandemic is just bad advice.

Some others have commented that it was poor economic policy, too: if you wanted to encourage people to use those sorts of venues, the venues should have been encouraged to promote the safety measures they were using (and to extend them), and that would have been much more appealing than money.

At the time numbers were very low so I'm not at all surprised that they rose. That might have surprised the various commentators that thought we'd reached herd immunity, but I doubt it was a surprise to anyone else.

So it was kind of a stupid policy, but probably one that didn't have that much of an effect. So maybe the CMO and CSO might have commented publicly against it and/or resigned, but I'm not sure it's a major failing on their part that they didn't. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have changed anything at all about the policy.

Seems pretty stupid of Boris Johnson to claim (under oath) that he had discussed it with them if that wasn't the case. But then that's not out of character either.
 
Amity Island said:
The difference between expectation, lab studies and real world results.

Scientists conduct study to prove HEPA filters reduce rates of Covid infection, accidentally find the opposite.

www.eugyppius.com

Scientists conduct study to prove HEPA filters reduce rates of Covid infection, accidentally find the opposite

Yet another illustration of how incredibly stupid The Science has become.
www.eugyppius.com www.eugyppius.com
Click to expand...
You mean this study? https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/7/e072284 - which doesn’t contain the hyperbole and cherry picking your link does. It also has this very sensible conclusion

Conclusions While HEPA filters can significantly reduce the viral load in room air, this does not lead to reduced COVID-19 prevalence in the selected kindergartens in Germany. It is known that contagion mainly occurs via direct face-to-face air exchange during play and that the contaminated air does not necessarily pass through the filter prior to air exchange between children. The use of HEPA filters may also lead to a sense of security, leading to reduced preventive behaviour.​

As ever with such reports you can always find an opposing one like this https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/covi...ucing-transmission-of-respiratory-infections/

Crucially, to either position, these reports talk about filtration not about ventilation. Good ventilation with fresh air seems to be universally supported, even in the most critical studies of filtration.
 
HSSS said:
You mean this study? https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/7/e072284 - which doesn’t contain the hyperbole and cherry picking your link does. It also has this very sensible conclusion

Conclusions While HEPA filters can significantly reduce the viral load in room air, this does not lead to reduced COVID-19 prevalence in the selected kindergartens in Germany. It is known that contagion mainly occurs via direct face-to-face air exchange during play and that the contaminated air does not necessarily pass through the filter prior to air exchange between children. The use of HEPA filters may also lead to a sense of security, leading to reduced preventive behaviour.​
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are trying to show.

Arent these two quotes effectively saying the same thing?

"Scientists conduct study to prove HEPA filters reduce rates of Covid infection, accidentally find the opposite."

And

"While HEPA filters can significantly reduce the viral load in room air, this does not lead to reduced COVID-19 prevalence"

Thus, in real situations, the hepa filtration didn't reduce covid prevalence.
 
HSSS said:
Good ventilation with fresh air seems to be universally supported.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Hence, why lockouts and not lockins (lockdowns) are clearly the obvious strategy. Plenty of fresh air, exercise, sunshine, vit d not lockdowns.
 
Amity Island said:
I don't understand what you are trying to show.

Arent these two quotes effectively saying the same thing?

"Scientists conduct study to prove HEPA filters reduce rates of Covid infection, accidentally find the opposite."

And

"While HEPA filters can significantly reduce the viral load in room air, this does not lead to reduced COVID-19 prevalence"

Thus, in real situations, the hepa filtration didn't reduce covid prevalence.
Click to expand...
Your claim appeared to say the filters themselves don’t work. In actuality they didn’t even get chance to be employed in that very physically close situation. Useful to know for similar situations to avoid the neglect of other measures which is touted as the explanation

Each setting will have different needs. Another enclosed space where physical contact is less yet fresh air flow is reduced could yield very different results.

As ever context is important and trying to selectively apply one small scale study to every situation isn’t a robust argument. Also using the Swiss cheese model lays applies. The more methods that are considered and employed the less the failings of each matter

Odd that the Houses of Parliament have had upgraded air filtration since covid if it is useless or makes things worse eh?
 
Amity Island said:
Absolutely. Hence, why lockouts and not lockins (lockdowns) are clearly the obvious strategy. Plenty of fresh air, exercise, sunshine, vit d not lockdowns.
Click to expand...
Should we all live, work, study and play in tents in the next pandemic?

In essence I agree. In practice that’s much harder to achieve in many situations. Blimey schools wouldn’t even open windows in classrooms let alone teach outdoors. Workplaces and hospitals wont set up outdoors either.
 
HSSS said:
Your claim appeared to say the filters themselves don’t work. In actuality they didn’t even get chance to be employed in that very physically close situation. Useful to know for similar situations to avoid the neglect of other measures which is touted as the explanation

Each setting will have different needs. Another enclosed space where physical contact is less yet fresh air flow is reduced could yield very different results.

As ever context is important and trying to selectively apply one small scale study to every situation isn’t a robust argument. Also using the Swiss cheese model lays applies. The more methods that are considered and employed the less the failings of each matter

Odd that the Houses of Parliament have had upgraded air filtration since covid if it is useless or makes things worse eh?
Click to expand...
I agree with what you are saying. The point is that what may seem like an obvious and very convincing idea or concept to most (hepa air filtration would reduce covid) turns out to be a false premise, for all the reasons you gave.
 
HSSS said:
Odd that the Houses of Parliament have had upgraded air filtration since covid if it is useless or makes things worse eh?
Click to expand...
Does m.p's giving themselves an exemption in the houses of parliament (which they did after the safe and effective vaccines were rolled out) mean that the vaccines are useless too?
 
Amity Island said:
The point is that what may seem like an obvious and very convincing idea or concept to most (hepa air filtration would reduce covid) turns out to be a false premise
Click to expand...
In that one situation it didn't work. Doesn't mean it wouldn't work at Davos, say (where it was used), or in the Houses of Parliament. Or in secondary schools, for that matter.
 
HSSS said:
Should we all live, work, study and play in tents in the next pandemic?
Click to expand...
No but one would expect the government to encourage getting out, fresh air, sun, vit d, exercise. Instead the police chased down people running alone in the hills.
 
Amity Island said:
Does m.p's giving themselves an exemption in the houses of parliament (which they did after the safe and effective vaccines were rolled out) mean that the vaccines are useless too?
Click to expand...
As I understand it that was a technicality. MPs aren't employed in the same sense so can't be subject in the same way to the rules.
 
Bruce Stephens said:
As I understand it that was a technicality. MPs aren't employed in the same sense so can't be subject in the same way to the rules.
Click to expand...
M.P's said it would be unethical to undergo a medical procedure (vaccine) to attend the houses of parliament. Yet; were quite happy to have covid passports, mandates and attempts to mandate all the doctors and nurses too.
 
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
No but one would expect the government to encourage getting out, fresh air, sun, vit d, exercise. Instead the police chased down people running alone in the hills.
Click to expand...
Clutching at straws here. Very few would agree with the decisions of those few officers. Almost everyone would agree outside exercise is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top