Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 It's taken them until now to decide on such a simple concept as a face mask, so how you expect any conclusion to be reached on airborne particles I really don't know. both hands and a map comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 15 minutes ago, Man On The Clapham Omnibus said: It's taken them until now to decide on such a simple concept as a face mask, so how you expect any conclusion to be reached on airborne particles I really don't know. both hands and a map comes to mind. There is also the part of the article that says airborne particles goes against the accepted opinion that diseases like influenza and similar are communicated via large droplets. So for Covid-19 to be different is a new idea that casts doubts on the old accepted opinion. The article does go on to say: The WHO is following the available evidence, and has moderated its earlier opposition to the idea that the virus might spread through aerosols, according to Allegranzi. She says that although the WHO acknowledges that airborne transmission is plausible, current evidence falls short of proving the case. She adds that recommendations for physical distancing, quarantine and wearing masks in the community are likely go some way towards controlling aerosol transmission if it is occurring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonPeffers Posted July 11, 2020 Author Share Posted July 11, 2020 When I hear "we have followed the best science and done the right thing at the right time" I do scratch my head and wonder why UK deaths per million are 86 times that of Japan. I am reminded of André Previn in the famous Morecambe and Wise "all the right notes" comedy sketch......start 1min 18 sec in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonPeffers Posted July 15, 2020 Author Share Posted July 15, 2020 Today https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53415030 "Coronavirus: Matt Hancock rejects face masks and coverings for offices" "There are no plans to make face coverings mandatory for office workers in England, Matt Hancock has said. The health secretary told the BBC people working in offices would not need to cover up" "There is a difference between visiting a shop for a few minutes and working alongside colleagues at a desk for several hours, he told BBC Breakfast." "When you're in close proximity with somebody that you have to work closely to, if you're there for a long time with them, then a mask doesn't offer that protection". Let me get this right.....DON'T wear a mask for a 4-6 hrs at work in an office but DO wear a mask on a plane for 4-6 hrs (although it can be removed to consume food and drink purchased on the plane) and DO wear a mask when in a shop for a few minutes. Also a shop will usually have a plastic screen to protect workers and customers. Confusing messaging IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 Very... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_l Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 It all makes perfect sense, making workplaces safe is something for the employer and employee to work together on, a combination of measures such as screens, distancing, masks if people are in and out, work patterns, all sorts of options, since only they know the environment, let them make it safe. Making mask compulsory in offices would be a nonsense without a complex set of rules about screens, distances, how many in an office, how far apart, for how long. Besides, most offices are like a ‘bubble’ a bit like my house, I meet the same small number of people, not several hundred potential carriers. For shops and planes, buses, the opposite, I am statistically hundreds of times more likely to meet a carrier, albeit for a shorter time, public transport in particular, people wandering up and down at the perfect height for me to inhale their breath. I will most likely cross paths with several hundred strangers a day, I can’t arrange for them to all keep their distance, If I get it from them I have no way of knowing until I have further spread it (as opposed to a colleague having it, I would know in an instant) I think if they realise that we cannot evaluate a relatively straightforward scenario and plot a reasonably safe way through it they will shortly be taking our cars off us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 I agree with jim_l completely on his assessment of the message and even a few minutes thought shows it to be sensible. The press however are not focused on sensible and even handed scrutiny of the message, the common sense required to understand it or the supporting facts. They are more focused on nicking the nerdy kids lunch money and raiding the tuck shop before going back to disrupting science class. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonPeffers Posted July 16, 2020 Author Share Posted July 16, 2020 21 hours ago, jim_l said: It all makes perfect sense, making workplaces safe is something for the employer and employee to work together on, a combination of measures such as screens, distancing, masks if people are in and out, work patterns, all sorts of options, since only they know the environment, let them make it safe. Making mask compulsory in offices would be a nonsense without a complex set of rules about screens, distances, how many in an office, how far apart, for how long. Besides, most offices are like a ‘bubble’ a bit like my house, I meet the same small number of people, not several hundred potential carriers. For shops and planes, buses, the opposite, I am statistically hundreds of times more likely to meet a carrier, albeit for a shorter time, public transport in particular, people wandering up and down at the perfect height for me to inhale their breath. I will most likely cross paths with several hundred strangers a day, I can’t arrange for them to all keep their distance, If I get it from them I have no way of knowing until I have further spread it (as opposed to a colleague having it, I would know in an instant) I think if they realise that we cannot evaluate a relatively straightforward scenario and plot a reasonably safe way through it they will shortly be taking our cars off us. I am not convinced Jim. The incubation period for COVID-19, which is the time between exposure to the virus (becoming infected) and symptom onset, is on average 5-6 days, however can be 2 to 14 days. During this period, also known as the “pre-symptomatic” period, some infected persons can pass on the infection. This means you won't necessarily "know in an instant" if a colleague infects you because of delayed symptoms for the colleague and then yourself. Also sometimes no symptoms (asymptomatic) but still infectious. Not every office is a small bubble and a large call centre with 1000 employees, some 24 hour working, clearly needs to stop hot desking and ensure equipment sanitisation to ensure covid safe. Not every employer is ideal in safety terms and many workplaces are non-unionised so little in terms of an effective voice. That is before we consider the type of employer in MP Andrew Bridgen's article https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/07/andrew-bridgen-3.html Just as the schools were earlier somehow supposed to 'magic up' double the number of classrooms and teachers to allow for classes of 15 pupils. Needless to say the 'plan' failed and schoolkids largely did not return before the Summer break. The failure was not because of an absence of guidelines but because there was no central planning to secure additional space for classrooms and the return of retired teachers to provide cover. You say Jim "For shops and planes, buses, the opposite, I am statistically hundreds of times more likely to meet a carrier, albeit for a shorter time, public transport in particular".....as against offices if I read correctly. Do you have statistics relating to such transmission? Data released on Monday showed Leicester has seen its infection rate fall from 156.8 per 100,000 people in the seven days to 26 June, to 114.3 in the seven days to 10 July. Slightly bizarre Leicester situation over lockdown where neighbouring houses are in different post codes so one house in lockdown but next door not or a street divided over lockdown rules....see https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8475981/The-Leicester-lockdown-divide.html and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/leicester-lockdown-map-boundary-postcode-bowhill-grove-coronavirus-cases-latest-a9598926.html Health Sec. to make announcement at 5pm today on Leicester lockdown. "I think if they realise that we cannot evaluate a relatively straightforward scenario and plot a reasonably safe way through it they will shortly be taking our cars off us". Careful now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonPeffers Posted July 16, 2020 Author Share Posted July 16, 2020 from https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/inactivated-flu-vaccine I noticed 2016/2017 flu season was worse (than 2017/18) for over aged over 65, flu vaccine effectiveness as rated nil effectiveness for that season. How effective is the NHS flu immunisation programme? The flu vaccine works better in some years than others (see ‘Why do we need the flu vaccine every year?’ below). Across all age groups including children, the flu vaccine prevented 52% of flu cases in 2015-16, 40% of flu cases in 2016-17, 15% of flu cases in 2017-2018 and 44% of flu cases in 2018-19 (see research by Public Health England on the effectiveness of flu vaccines in the 2015-16 season , 2016-17 season , 2017-2018 season and 2018-19 season). Protection from the flu virus varies for different age groups. In children aged 2-17, the flu vaccine prevented 66% of flu cases in 2016-17, 27% of flu cases in 2017-18, and 49% of flu cases in 2018-19. However, in the over 65 age group the inactivated flu vaccine worked less well than it did in other adults and children. In 2016-17, the data suggest that the inactivated flu vaccine did not work at all in people aged over 65, whilst in 2017-2018 it resulted in slightly better results in that age group(aged over 65, 10.1% effectiveness). Due to the lower effectiveness of the inactivated flu vaccine in older people, a vaccine containing an adjuvant was introduced for the 2018-19 season. This is a substance that strengthens and lengthens the immune response to the vaccine and resulted in better prevention of flu in people aged 65 or over in 2018-19. The adjuvanted vaccine is still recommended for this age group in the 2019-20 season. It is not understood why flu vaccines do not work so well in older adults. However, this reinforces the importance of vaccinating children and healthcare workers, both of whom can help to stop the spread of flu to older adults. We now live in hope of an effective covid-19 vaccine and promising noises from the Oxford group and we await more information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_l Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 2 hours ago, DonPeffers said: Not every office is a small bubble “Not every office…” Don, exactly, there is nothing that applies to every office, so we issue guidelines and people do what is proportionate, rather than draconian measures that affect people that don’t need to be affected. “Not every employer is ideal in safety terms” - So rather than deal with that as an issue we legislate in a way that makes millions of workers uncomfortable all day? not for me. What people won’t do, it is human nature, is follow a set of rules they don’t perceive to be necessary, so we target what we can convince most people is necessary. If you make the case for offices then factories are the same aren’t, they, infinitely variable in the risk and what makes sense in managing it. If them, what what next? The position of the WHO now is that the peak shedding of viral load is the day before, and on the day, of the onset of symptoms, instantly was the wrong word choice but in an office, I have quick and effective identify and isolate options. They also believe that transmission in cases that remain asymptomatic throughout is rare. It is never going to be about stopping every case, it is about putting the brakes on the spread. In my opinion, mask for everyone in every office, no, uncomfortable, draconian and ineffective. Mask where other measures aren’t enough, yes. In shops and public transport, so much of what I have said above doesn’t apply. Crossing paths with many more people, no control over the environment, no options to assess and take steps. If any of the hundreds I cross paths with gets symptoms they have no idea who I am. Importantly, nobody is asking you to wear a mask for 30 or 40 hours a week. Truth is, there are hundreds of permutations of how and where we live, empty big house, crowded small house, who we live with, young, elderly, infirm, etc. Similar for work, hundreds of different environments. There was no point at which we could realistically expect the government to write a ‘prescription for survival’, what we have is the highway code, you still have to get in the car and drive. Being told to wear a mask in some circumstances is the equivalent of ‘wear a seat belt’ Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_l Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 1 hour ago, DonPeffers said: However, in the over 65 age group the inactivated flu vaccine worked less well than it did in other adults and children. In 2016-17, the data suggest that the inactivated flu vaccine did not work at all in people aged over 65, So, if you stop 50% of cases in the children and grandchildren, how many cases do you prevent in the grandparents, for whom the flu is potentially lethal? If it is ineffective in the over 65's (meaning that the incidence in vaccinated and unvaccinated over 65's is the same) that doesn't mean you can't halve the number of over 65's getting it. None of the above data suggests that , once they have caught it, vaccinated over 65's don't have better outcomes. Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 Excellent and eminently sensible analysis of the available data, government messages and human behavior and how these elements come together... or not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 Not every employer is ideal in safety terms and many workplaces are non-unionised so little in terms of an effective voice. I just read the above.. how can you make such a one sided statement..clearly not factual.. Many non unionised offices have better more effective voices than the unionised offices I have seen! Just had to pont that out.. Otherwise do carry on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 Let me bring a 'truth' to your attention chaps: From here in case you thought it of doubtful provenance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pistonbroke Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 Nice spiel for all water filter salesmen ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.