Coronavirus COVID-19 Thread
- Thread starter Jolly_Green_Giant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus virus wuflu
Thanks, I appreciate your patience with me, you're spot on - Perhaps this will be better for communicating not to go somewhere or what you can do when you get somewhere - I don't expect blockades on Liverpools boarders but probbably road signs saying "Teir 3 lockdown restrictions apply" or something like that...?Even if its tier 3, pub can remain open if it serves food
We'll see how effective it is, considering it's to avoid a national lockdown. Apparently Sage recommended a "Circuit Breaker" national lockdown of only 14 days to at least get cases back under control. The dice has been rolled, lets see where it goes :)
PeppaPigKilla
Admiral
In my job i work in peoples homes and Liverpool is an area i cover, nothing changes for me apparently
Take care dude, none of this makes the faintest lick of sense as to how or why it's transpiring as it is
I'm guessing Nottingham for the next Tier 3.
Context. What Vos said is
The article points out also that scientific consensus is that masks work to reduce the viral load that you might receive. Even cloth masks. It is not a guarantee that you will not be exposed to the virus, neither is an N95 respirator. Neither is hand washing, for that matter. The goal of these measures is to reduce the viral load hopefully to something your immune system can handle. You can still get COVID, no matter what precautions you take, but there are things like this you can do to reduce the risk you take, and the risk you present to others around you.
Why this coronavirus mutation is not cause for alarm
There’s no solid evidence that the coronavirus has become more deadly or transmissible. Here’s why such fears arise with every epidemic.
www.nationalgeographic.com
Coronavirus is NOT mutating to become more potent
Britain's leading researchers published a review article on the genetic evolutionary history of SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes Covid-19.
The virus which causes Covid-19, called SARS-CoV-2, is mutating at an unusually slow rate, a new study finds.
We are in the midst of a American election... the President has recovered almost fully... and people in the media are going to find another way to spin this to keep people paralyzed with fear and scared of the next boogieman. Fear serves as an emotion and is not rational.
I did not read that there was any consensus as to how if at all effective masks are at reducing infection rates, there is the possibility that they do offer some reduction but nothing definitive as of yet. It could very well be that masks in of themselves are not very effective and most of the virus transmission reduction is caused by the fact the masks reminds people to be mindful of washing their hands and social distancing There is consensus that masks do reduce the number aerosolized particles based upon the particle size, when limiting the virus spread vector. And they did mention one of several clinical trials that have shown masks are effective and reducing infection rate in animals. But you have to remember these studies are on animals in their own cages and the only means for virus propagation is by aerosolized particles.
I am in no way suggestion that people don't wear masks as I view them as being cheap and mostly harmless (there is the study that shows people touch their face more often when wearing a mask then not wearing a mask so would increase the contact based virus transmission potential, as well as a mask retaining the virus from a sneeze/cough/talking and allow for easier transmission from mask touching to common contact surface touching) I am mostly just concerned that we might be focus on the wrong virus transmission vector and come to find out that all of our political infighting and scientific debate was over a vector that only accounted for 1% of transmission and even though masks stopped 25% of that its still a very small number impacted where we could have been focused on the 99% infection transmission and managed to reduce it by 1% and had a far larger impact. Until we know how the virus spreads there are just to many unknowns. With that being said I am eagerly awaiting the study from Denmark as well as several other studies that are looking at mask usage in the wild which can help say if masks are helping even if we don't understand how the virus spreads.
I’m pretty sure the current government’s plan of saying there’s nothing to worry about and they’re the greatest in the world is going to work better.
View: https://youtu.be/2Ge__twjDp8
Who is driving the US protests against coronavirus lockdown? – video explainer
Guardian US writer Adam Gabbatt explains where the recent anti-quarantine protests originated and who is behind them
www.theguardian.com
When tech companies decide your news and your views...
FUCK slow Joe! He lucked out with H1-N1 and left our PPE supply depleted.
That said... this IS not a Slow Joe propaganda website. Please refrain from this.
Who is driving the US protests against coronavirus lockdown? – video explainer
Guardian US writer Adam Gabbatt explains where the recent anti-quarantine protests originated and who is behind them
When tech companies decide your news and your views...
View attachment 18961
Attachments
I think that if that’s the policy then it’s relevant to conversation regardless of any editorial I post about it.
You're the officer... game on if you want this thread to turn into a text brawl.
Read the article. Top line, immediately below the title.I did not read that there was any consensus as to how if at all effective masks are at reducing infection rates, there is the possibility that they do offer some reduction but nothing definitive as of yet. It could very well be that masks in of themselves are not very effective and most of the virus transmission reduction is caused by the fact the masks reminds people to be mindful of washing their hands and social distancing There is consensus that masks do reduce the number aerosolized particles based upon the particle size, when limiting the virus spread vector. And they did mention one of several clinical trials that have shown masks are effective and reducing infection rate in animals. But you have to remember these studies are on animals in their own cages and the only means for virus propagation is by aerosolized particles.
I am in no way suggestion that people don't wear masks as I view them as being cheap and mostly harmless (there is the study that shows people touch their face more often when wearing a mask then not wearing a mask so would increase the contact based virus transmission potential, as well as a mask retaining the virus from a sneeze/cough/talking and allow for easier transmission from mask touching to common contact surface touching) I am mostly just concerned that we might be focus on the wrong virus transmission vector and come to find out that all of our political infighting and scientific debate was over a vector that only accounted for 1% of transmission and even though masks stopped 25% of that its still a very small number impacted where we could have been focused on the 99% infection transmission and managed to reduce it by 1% and had a far larger impact. Until we know how the virus spreads there are just to many unknowns. With that being said I am eagerly awaiting the study from Denmark as well as several other studies that are looking at mask usage in the wild which can help say if masks are helping even if we don't understand how the virus spreads.
That is the perspective of the entire article. There were some doubts expressed, however they were more along the lines of there are problems with some fabrics and the way people wear masks. The article also covers the expectations of what protection a mask provides. The goal of wearing a mask is to reduce the viral load, both of exhaled, but also of inhaled viral particles. Not to prevent transmission, but to reduce it. Hopefully to a level which your immune system can handle, but if not it can still reduce the impact of the virus. Fewer virions infecting you is better.
The assumption that they don't know the vectors by which this virus is spread is incorrect. They do. It's eyes, nose and mouth. The virus has other minor vectors, open wounds for example, but primarily it's eyes, nose and mouth. If you pull your mask off "because it's not comfortable", than you need to look into a different mask. We should also be protecting our eyes far more than we normally do. It turns out you can make an effective face covering that protects your eyes using an empty 2 liter soda bottle. Glasses can help too.
And yes, hand washing is important too. Frequently. 20 seconds or so per hour is not going to kill anyone but not doing so might. And the vector is not scratching your face. It's rubbing your eyes, or picking your nose, or sticking your finger in your mouth. Two of those are hard to do while wearing a mask. The third, well at least if you're wearing a mask you don't have 3. If you wear glasses, that might be at least partially covered.
As tempting as that sounds, I’m trying to find a similar video about the current administration’s policy.
Are you sure you can be objective... because the current administration has checked the boxes you displayed in your video. Sound like plagiarism - something he knows a lot about finishing last in his class.
The current policy at https://faq.coronavirus.gov/symptoms-and-testing/#should-i-be-tested-for-covid-19 includes “Most people have mild illness and can recover at home without medical care and may not need to be tested.”
The current public health advice discourages people from getting tested meaning the actual number of cases is unknown.
You made that assumption... if you are sick for fuck sake, go get tested.
Most sane Americans know... you do what you need to do... not what the govt says. Why Americans distrust the government, it is not our desire to be told what and when to do something. I know other populations are conditioned to trust their government is going to do the right thing... but that is not always the case - example Germany in 1930s. I thought Aussies were more in tune to that unlike Canada.