Covid-19 response

Amity Island said:
I post virus came from lab, you post a Lancet opinion saying the opposite, that it came from nature.
Click to expand...

You posted the Lancet link?

Amity Island said:
Such great lengths were made to cover this up. The Lancet also joined in with their statement.

"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin"
Click to expand...
(my emphasis)

I just wondered if you had decoded the slightly weird sentence structure and thought they were saying they didn’t think it was of natural origin. Which to my understanding wasn’t what the sentence meant.

I suppose on a personal (not DUK) level I am just cautious about links and threads which are posted on the Diabetes UK forum which can be read by members, guests, and visitors - and may be perceived to be ”what the DUK forum thinks”. So sometimes I think it is helpful to link to what I believe to be consensus views (lockdowns were a difficult but necessary public health measure, masks were a helpful precaution, had some benefits, and were not dangerous, and so on).

To be candid I‘m not really sure how this thread connects with my experience of living with diabetes day to day any more. Lab leak or natural overspill doesn‘t really impact my diabetes management - and that’s what I think most members are here for?

I think I will leave this thread alone now. My contribution is clearly not welcome.
 
Last edited:
everydayupsanddowns said:
To be candid I‘m not really sure how this thread connects with my experience of living with diabetes day to day any more. Lab leak or natural overspill doesn‘t really impact my diabetes management - and that’s what I think most members are here for?
Click to expand...
Mike, please can you clarify this for us all. I had always (I might be wrong) been on the understanding that the forum is for people "with" diabetes, not just for "diabetics"?

The reason I ask is, even from day 1 of diagnosis, I've never seen myself as "disabled" a "victim" or a "diabetic". It's just part and parcel of life. The forum is intentionally split into many, many, themes and headings. I would hate to think one can only discuss ones diabetes problems on the forum.

I see myself as far more than just a "diabetic".
 
Amity Island said:
They mandated masks when according to the w.h.o had no evidence they would work for the public during a pandemic, and confirmed again in the Cochrane review this month.
Click to expand...
However, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library, Dr. Karla Soares-Weiser, issued a statement on March 10 to say the analysis had been misinterpreted and that the review didn't find that masks do not work.

Rather it looked at how effective masking programs, like mandates, were at slowing the spread of respiratory viruses and, from there, found the results to be inconclusive.



In April 2020 when we were told no need to mask there were still a huge amount of unknowns. At that point there was a severe shortage of Ppe for the overwhelmed hospitals. Asking the public not to use them then was undoubtedly connected, at least in part with this advice. As undoubtedly was the widespread denial of aerosol transmission of the virus (later proven), with all the focus being on fomites and handwashing. There was also no precedent for widespread masking when sick, outside of some Asian countries.

Masking of health workers to protect their patients from any virus the hcp might carry is a well established infection control measure. It has also been used extensively - with better masks - to protect the hcp, long before sars cov2.

So the mandates of basic masks were intended to reduce the amount of virus being passed from someone infected with it to the air around them and on to other by limiting their droplets. Admittedly not an infallible measure even when worn properly, but study after study does show significantly reduced viral particles emitted into the surroundings by properly made and worn masks. However when worn under the nose or chin, or made of highly porous fabrics it’s not surprising they do little.

Using the latter situation as proof masks don’t reduce infection is stupidly bad science, it merely proves the humans didn’t use them correctly, which takes us back to the cochranre report‘s true meaning.
 
Amity Island said:
There is no evidence that shielding benefited vulnerable people during the Covid pandemic, according to a study.

The study found the Covid rate was higher among those shielding - 5.9% compared to 5.7%.

www.bbc.com

Covid: No evidence shielding helped - Swansea uni study

Researchers find there was a higher Covid rate among those shielding in Wales than in other people.
www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
From that same link

“We have to remember that people who were included in the shielded list were clinically vulnerable and having a lot of contact with health services so if they were for instance admitted to hospital, they'd be having a Covid test.
"Whereas in the general population, Covid tests were fewer - we can't find a positive test if there was no test done. There is some uncertainty around these results."
Prof Snooks also emphasised that the shielding group was "a lot sicker than the non-shielding group".”
 
One aspect of the pandemic rarely being discussed is its ongoing health effects on those that have had the virus. A significant minority (numbers vary considerably) suffer harm that extends beyond the acute illness of a few days/weeks duration (definitions and extent of harm varies significantly here too).

Potentially several million in the uk alone are feeling the effects for a lot longer. Some of those are suffering in ways that limit their ability to socialise, exercise, work or live anything like the life they had before the virus. Studies are showing that each exposure increases the odds of this happening.

Studies are also showing various body organs sustain damage that results in ongoing conditions (diabetes, cvd, kidney failure etc), sometimes not becoming apparent for some months afterward. These conditions are rarely going to be listed as a covid consequence and are flying under the radar as such for too many people. Studies have also shown it can occur after comparatively mild cases even in the healthy young.

Much noise is made about similar potential effects in the vaccinated (along with demands for investigation) but not in the infected, which is far more proven medically speaking. Why not? The lives of those concerned, the effect on the economy and NHS will be felt for many years to come.

When almost everyone has had, and will likely get the virus again, even a small % falling into this badly effected group can add up to large numbers as the starting pool is just about everyone.
 
HSSS said:
However, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library, Dr. Karla Soares-Weiser, issued a statement on March 10 to say the analysis had been misinterpreted and that the review didn't find that masks do not work.

Rather it looked at how effective masking programs, like mandates, were at slowing the spread of respiratory viruses and, from there, found the results to be inconclusive.



In April 2020 when we were told no need to mask there were still a huge amount of unknowns. At that point there was a severe shortage of Ppe for the overwhelmed hospitals. Asking the public not to use them then was undoubtedly connected, at least in part with this advice. As undoubtedly was the widespread denial of aerosol transmission of the virus (later proven), with all the focus being on fomites and handwashing. There was also no precedent for widespread masking when sick, outside of some Asian countries.

Masking of health workers to protect their patients from any virus the hcp might carry is a well established infection control measure. It has also been used extensively - with better masks - to protect the hcp, long before sars cov2.

So the mandates of basic masks were intended to reduce the amount of virus being passed from someone infected with it to the air around them and on to other by limiting their droplets. Admittedly not an infallible measure even when worn properly, but study after study does show significantly reduced viral particles emitted into the surroundings by properly made and worn masks. However when worn under the nose or chin, or made of highly porous fabrics it’s not surprising they do little.

Using the latter situation as proof masks don’t reduce infection is stupidly bad science, it merely proves the humans didn’t use them correctly, which takes us back to the cochranre report‘s true meaning.
Click to expand...
My (all be it plain English) written point:

"They mandated masks when according to the w.h.o had no evidence they would work for the public during a pandemic, and confirmed again in the Cochrane review this month"

is along the same lines as the as the Cochrane review conclusion of the public wearing masks:

"We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.'

That is; do they have any impact on a pandemic if worn by the public?
 
HSSS said:
In April 2020 when we were told no need to mask there were still a huge amount of unknowns. At that point there was a severe shortage of Ppe for the overwhelmed hospitals.
Click to expand...
Despite the widespread belief that hospitals were over run, hospitals were quiet in both A&E departments and beds in Wards at this time with the "stay at home" message certainly being driven home.

"Official figures state 40.9 per cent of acute beds unoccupied — about four times the normal number."

www.hsj.co.uk

NHS hospitals have four times more empty beds than normal

Tens of thousands of NHS hospital beds remain unoccupied amid the coronavirus crisis - about four times the normal number - due to huge ongoing efforts to free up space, and a slowdown in admissions from other causes.
www.hsj.co.uk www.hsj.co.uk

"By early April 2020 (during the first lockdown) weekly appointments fell by over 40 per cent, and weekly attendances fell by over 50 per cent compared to these previous averages."

digital.nhs.uk

Impact of COVID-19 - NHS England Digital

Hospital Outpatient Activity 2020-21
digital.nhs.uk digital.nhs.uk

HSSS said:
Asking the public not to use them then was undoubtedly connected, at least in part with this advice.
Click to expand...
No mention of these -- ppe shortages -- in any statements given to the public see below.

3 April 2020: England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jonathan Van Tam tells a televised briefing: “we do not recommend face masks for general wearing.”

3 April 2020: Professor Jason Leitch (Scotland’s Clinical Director) makes an unequivocal statement that, “The global evidence is masks in the general population don’t work.”

16 April 2020: Transport Secretary Grant Shapps tells ITV wearing masks would be “counterproductive… the suggestions people would make their own masks; whether it’s clothing and that sort of thing which doesn’t really provide that much protection. Secondly, the way people take it off can sometimes do the reinfection. Thirdly it can provide a false sense of security.”

23 April 2020: UK Chief Scientific Officer Patrick Vallance tells televised briefing, “the evidence on masks has always been quite weak, quite variable… there’s no real trials on it.”

24 April 2020: Health Secretary Matt Hancock tells LBC, “the evidence for the use of masks by the general public, especially outdoors, is extremely weak.”

HSSS said:
As undoubtedly was the widespread denial of aerosol transmission of the virus (later proven)
Click to expand...
Proven where? Which clinical study shows that a virus can be spread by aerosols?
 
HSSS said:
So the mandates of basic masks were intended to reduce the amount of virus being passed from someone infected with it to the air around them and on to other by limiting their droplets. Admittedly not an infallible measure even when worn properly, but study after study does show significantly reduced viral particles emitted into the surroundings by properly made and worn masks. However when worn under the nose or chin, or made of highly porous fabrics it’s not surprising they do little.

Using the latter situation as proof masks don’t reduce infection is stupidly bad science, it merely proves the humans didn’t use them correctly, which takes us back to the cochranre report‘s true meaning.
Click to expand...
For me the best option to help flatten the curve would of been be to ask those sick with covid to stay at home.
Simple, honest and effective.
 
Amity Island said:
My (all be it plain English) written point:

"They mandated masks when according to the w.h.o had no evidence they would work for the public during a pandemic, and confirmed again in the Cochrane review this month"

is along the same lines as the as the Cochrane review conclusion of the public wearing masks:

"We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.'

That is; do they have any impact on a pandemic if worn by the public?
Click to expand...
Ok to save further cherry picking this is the whole statement Issued by the reviewers and explains more why they are uncertain for people to draw their own conclusions from. And in plain English this means the lack of conclusion is due to the limitations the studies reviewed had, not about the science itself. It says nothing about the actual effectiveness of masks as a result as some many are trying to imply.

“Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.
It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.
The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: 'The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.' Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm.
The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that 'We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.' This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.”


So it says there is inconclusive evidence if the promotion program worked (which includes the public messaging), not if masks work. If only 43% wore masks in the most weighted program to me that suggests the promotion wasn’t very successful rather than showing masks don’t work. They can’t work if not worn, at or or properly. The fact that most people retain their first message on a subject more strongly than any subsequent ones means the initial don’t bother/it’s ineffective/it’s all about hand washing not the air message stuck even when disproved. Add to that how politicalised the whole issue was/is, saying more about trust in the government’s concerned than the science.

Amity Island said:
That is; do they have any impact on a pandemic if worn by the public?
Click to expand...
That question isn’t answered by this review.
 
HSSS said:
One aspect of the pandemic rarely being discussed is its ongoing health effects on those that have had the virus. A significant minority (numbers vary considerably) suffer harm that extends beyond the acute illness of a few days/weeks duration (definitions and extent of harm varies significantly here too).
Click to expand...
We need to make clear the distinction between a virus and an illness/disease. Testing positive, without any symptoms does not confirm covid19. Which incidentally, is precisely what they did! Telling people they had covid19 when they weren't even sick. How can one have a case of covid19, if you don't have any symptoms? Same with the deaths attributed to covid19 based solely on a positive test done within 28 days.
 
Amity Island said:
Despite the widespread belief that hospitals were over run, hospitals were quiet in both A&E departments and beds in Wards at this time with the "stay at home" message certainly being driven home.

"Official figures state 40.9 per cent of acute beds unoccupied — about four times the normal number."

www.hsj.co.uk

NHS hospitals have four times more empty beds than normal

Tens of thousands of NHS hospital beds remain unoccupied amid the coronavirus crisis - about four times the normal number - due to huge ongoing efforts to free up space, and a slowdown in admissions from other causes.
www.hsj.co.uk www.hsj.co.uk

"By early April 2020 (during the first lockdown) weekly appointments fell by over 40 per cent, and weekly attendances fell by over 50 per cent compared to these previous averages."

digital.nhs.uk

Impact of COVID-19 - NHS England Digital

Hospital Outpatient Activity 2020-21
digital.nhs.uk digital.nhs.uk


No mention of these -- ppe shortages -- in any statements given to the public see below.

3 April 2020: England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jonathan Van Tam tells a televised briefing: “we do not recommend face masks for general wearing.”

3 April 2020: Professor Jason Leitch (Scotland’s Clinical Director) makes an unequivocal statement that, “The global evidence is masks in the general population don’t work.”

16 April 2020: Transport Secretary Grant Shapps tells ITV wearing masks would be “counterproductive… the suggestions people would make their own masks; whether it’s clothing and that sort of thing which doesn’t really provide that much protection. Secondly, the way people take it off can sometimes do the reinfection. Thirdly it can provide a false sense of security.”

23 April 2020: UK Chief Scientific Officer Patrick Vallance tells televised briefing, “the evidence on masks has always been quite weak, quite variable… there’s no real trials on it.”

24 April 2020: Health Secretary Matt Hancock tells LBC, “the evidence for the use of masks by the general public, especially outdoors, is extremely weak.”


Proven where? Which clinical study shows that a virus can be spread by aerosols?
Click to expand...
Just as well other bed usage was reduced as so many of the medics were either sick themselves or working on covid wards. With all non essential admissions cancelled you would expect the usual wards be be less occupied.

Of course they didn’t mention the lack of PPE. To admit they failed to prepare and protect the medics would hardly help them politically. One thing we agree on is the lack of transparency in their decision making. And remember “Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence”

Just about any medical text about virus’ will detail about their transmission methods, including aerosol. This was the case long before sars cov2. I’m not sure what source you’d find acceptable. You seem in opposition for political reasons which science will never refute

I am not a fan of some of the choices the government made and how many went against common sense or science as it is currently known. Many of my complaints will be either different to yours or believing they should have been done in the opposite direction you do. A few I even agree with you. I say this to clarify I don’t fall for the party line any more than you. Others might say we each believe a different conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
HSSS said:
Just as well other bed usage was reduced as so many of the medics were either sick themselves or dealing working on covid wards. With all non essential admissions cancelled you would expect the usual wards be be less occupied.

Of course they didn’t mention the lack of PPE. To admit they failed to prepare and protect the medics would hardly help them politically. One thing we agree on is the lack of transparency in their decision making. And remember “Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence”

Just about any medical text about virus’ will detail about their transmission methods, including aerosol. This was the case long before sars cov2. I’m not sure what source you’d find acceptable. You seem in opposition for political reasons which science will never refute

I am not a fan of some of the choices the government made and how many went against common sense or science as it is currently known. Many of my complaints will be either different to yours or believing they should have been done in the opposite direct you do. A few I even agree with you. I say this to clarify I don’t fall for the party line any more than you. Others might say we each believe a different conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
I felt (from day 1) something was "off" with the whole pandemic, and as time went on, it only strengthened that feeling. It wasn't just one thing, because these things kept on happening, relentlessly to this day. I've covered most of them on the forum over past 3 years.

Say if someone you knew and trusted, let you down once, you may think nothing of it perhaps make excuses and move on, but if that person let you down, lied to you, did the very opposite of what you would expect of them, misled you over and over an over again, you'd begin to wonder what the heck was going on.
 
Amity Island said:
I felt (from day 1) something was "off" with the whole pandemic, and as time went on, it only strengthened that feeling. It wasn't just one thing, because these things kept on happening, relentlessly to this day. I've covered most of them on the forum over past 3 years.

Say if someone you knew and trusted, let you down once, you may think nothing of it perhaps make excuses and move on, but if that person let you down, lied to you, did the very opposite of what you would expect of them, misled you over and over an over again, you'd begin to wonder what the heck was going on.
Click to expand...
Which again is a political issue not a medical/scientific one. Lack of faith in the government is not at all shocking at this point and I’d say the norm rather than the exception looking at polling.

I’ve not been around on this forum for long to see your personal views but I’ve seen similar elsewhere since the start. I’m not making excuses and forgiving them either. I just don’t necessarily agree with where or why they got things wrong in all cases.

As I said a few points I’d even agree with. Eg once you’d run and survived (hopefully and without ongoing issues) the gauntlet of infection then to ignore the natural immunity gained for things like vaccine passports made no sense especially in the earlier stages when reinfection with those variants was uncommon. Omicron changed the odds there somewhat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top