Coronavirus

[Ldr]

Fair to say there is a lot of lessons that can be learned from covid.

[ncRover]

Billy

You did what I asked you not to. You go find the issue with the Cochrane review then.

Not much to say on my first few points either? Maybe one day you’ll say “yeah you’ve got a point there actually I was wrong”.

Do you think we should reduce the national speed limit to 30 mph? You must think it’s rather selfish that people put other’s lives in danger to get to work on time.

Should those with smoking induced lung cancer not receive NHS care? These people knew the risks but put pressure on state healthcare, no?

Or maybe we should mandate exercise to take pressure off the NHS?

Or are these hypotheticals too much of an infringement on personal freedom and responsibility for you?

[ravenrover]

Nc.

Of course it isn't irrelevant. It establishes the principle that there are actions which Society is prepared to penalise people for because of their negative effects on Society. The fact that this specific one is labelled "crime" is neither simply a matter of degree.

Tommy, you are right that that is a far closer example. The problem with your balanced solution of course is that it wouldn't work. All pubs would allow smoking just as they did before. If there'd been a market opportunity for non-smoking pubs without the legal sanction, someone would have filled it.

The smoking ban is an interesting one, because it's positive effects are twofold - 1) Non smokers aren't exposed to smoke. 2) Over time, the number of smokers reduces, leading to better overall health outcomes for the population at large. That second one is a major positive for Society and reduces unnecessary cost burdens on the health service. (The argument that smokers pay for their own treatment through high taxes doesn't stand up. If they didn't smoke, they would have more money to spend on other goods and services, which would both be an overall economic stimulus and also be taxed itself, wile they were requiring less attention from the health service, therefore putting a lower demand on that tax income.) That second point is a major reason why Society had a right to expect everyone to take sensible precautions against COVID - because the selfish minority that didn't were choosing to impose higher costs on the rest of Society.

There's a similar rationale for the compulsory use of seat belts. If you don't wear a seat belt and you choose to risk getting your face mangled in a car crash when you could have taken very simple steps to avoid that, you impose a very high cost on Society for your subsequent health care. Society therefore has a right to impose a sanction on those stupid and selfish enough to insist on their right to not wear a seat belt.

The New Inn in Appletreewick was a no smoking pub years before the ban came in

[Ldr]

NC it was never about science, it was about compliance

[i_ateallthepies]

"Do you still think it’s 95% efficacy for stopping transmission? Yes reduced risk you’ll say but not much"

Really? Really???

If the vaccines were 'not much' better than nothing at all how come it's taken China a year and a half longer than the rest of the world to get on top of Covid?

[ncRover]

"Do you still think it’s 95% efficacy for stopping transmission? Yes reduced risk you’ll say but not much"

Really? Really???

If the vaccines were 'not much' better than nothing at all how come it's taken China a year and a half longer than the rest of the world to get on top of Covid?

Yes, the amount of vaccinated people who got covid last year was huge. I was talking about transmission not protection.

Unless you have some evidence for your counter claim that isn’t excessive question marks.

[ncRover]

The vaccine saved thousands and thousands of lives

[danumdon]

Billy

You did what I asked you not to. You go find the issue with the Cochrane review then.

Not much to say on my first few points either? Maybe one day you’ll say “yeah you’ve got a point there actually I was wrong”.

Do you think we should reduce the national speed limit to 30 mph? You must think it’s rather selfish that people put other’s lives in danger to get to work on time.

Should those with smoking induced lung cancer not receive NHS care? These people knew the risks but put pressure on state healthcare, no?

Or maybe we should mandate exercise to take pressure off the NHS?

Or are these hypotheticals too much of an infringement on personal freedom and responsibility for you?

You should know by now, every one else does, BST only answer's your post when he has something to pontificate about, rarely answers anything you ask unless its to bollock you for having an opinion that's counter to his.

In effect he's always right, come what may, anything else is just an irrelevance in Billyworld®

Yes it's that bad.

[TommyC]

Nc.

Of course it isn't irrelevant. It establishes the principle that there are actions which Society is prepared to penalise people for because of their negative effects on Society. The fact that this specific one is labelled "crime" is neither simply a matter of degree.

Tommy, you are right that that is a far closer example. The problem with your balanced solution of course is that it wouldn't work. All pubs would allow smoking just as they did before. If there'd been a market opportunity for non-smoking pubs without the legal sanction, someone would have filled it.

The smoking ban is an interesting one, because it's positive effects are twofold - 1) Non smokers aren't exposed to smoke. 2) Over time, the number of smokers reduces, leading to better overall health outcomes for the population at large. That second one is a major positive for Society and reduces unnecessary cost burdens on the health service. (The argument that smokers pay for their own treatment through high taxes doesn't stand up. If they didn't smoke, they would have more money to spend on other goods and services, which would both be an overall economic stimulus and also be taxed itself, wile they were requiring less attention from the health service, therefore putting a lower demand on that tax income.) That second point is a major reason why Society had a right to expect everyone to take sensible precautions against COVID - because the selfish minority that didn't were choosing to impose higher costs on the rest of Society.

There's a similar rationale for the compulsory use of seat belts. If you don't wear a seat belt and you choose to risk getting your face mangled in a car crash when you could have taken very simple steps to avoid that, you impose a very high cost on Society for your subsequent health care. Society therefore has a right to impose a sanction on those stupid and selfish enough to insist on their right to not wear a seat belt.

The New Inn in Appletreewick was a no smoking pub years before the ban came in

Yes I can't say I'm convinced with argument that it had to be a blanket smoking ban because anything more balanced "wouldn't have worked". I think that's nonsense.

By 2007 we were well on the road to smoking being socially unacceptable. It was already not permitted in many many hospitality settings anyway, particularly multiple large restaurant chains and other hospitality venues. Advertising had been banned years before that I think and the public were far more educated as to the damage they were doing to themselves. We would have ended up where we are now even if we had permitted smoking in hospitality venues along the lines I suggested above.

Once again its an argument that nothing other than total state mandated bans and interventionism would work. Exactly the same argument as used in regards pandemic.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy.

So I ask again. Why weren't there hundreds and thousands of pubs, clubs, restaurants and cafes rushing to offer smoke-free experiences before the ban? And more to the point, what was going to be the mechanism that encouraged them to make that move, if not legislation?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Raven. I'll take that as one example. But it is a tiny exception to the general rule.

[ravenrover]

That is all it was meant as it was probably the only pub in the country to do so
New Inn 1971 no smoking I remember the landlord doing publicity as Nosmo King

[i_ateallthepies]

Yours is a twisted logic, TommyC.  Without the state mandated ban we would still have a smoking free-for-all in pubs.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Billy

You did what I asked you not to. You go find the issue with the Cochrane review then.

Not much to say on my first few points either? Maybe one day you’ll say “yeah you’ve got a point there actually I was wrong”.

Do you think we should reduce the national speed limit to 30 mph? You must think it’s rather selfish that people put other’s lives in danger to get to work on time.

Should those with smoking induced lung cancer not receive NHS care? These people knew the risks but put pressure on state healthcare, no?

Or maybe we should mandate exercise to take pressure off the NHS?

Or are these hypotheticals too much of an infringement on personal freedom and responsibility for you?

NC.

Did you read the report Heneghan is referring to? Because he's at it again.

The Authors' Conclusions section in the report says on line 1. "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."

There's a section where the authors are asked to give key messages in plain language for non-experts.

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

No mention of any of that in Heneghan's Tweets. It's scarcely believable that he is still listened to by anyone. I don't know if he was once a good scientist who has gone off the rails, or if he was always like this, but this is simply awful.

[Nudga]

For every Heneghan there's a Neil Ferguson and Devi Sridhar.

[ncRover]

For every Heneghan there's a Neil Ferguson and Devi Sridhar.

Did Devi summarise this key piece of research?

[ncRover]

BST

Yes I did.

A cochrane systematic review is as gold standard as you can get.

On your first point, that’s just research language. It is the done thing in research to list any potential biases the author feels their work could even remotely become subject to. That is why such a review of (78) randomised controlled trials is the gold standard, because that massively negates potential bias in some lower quality studies that may be included. But of course, bias can work both ways and always tends to favour the general scientific consensus (in this case, mask wearing).

On your second point, that just backs up mine that there is insufficient evidence to prove their worth? Thank you for highlighting the N95s ineffectiveness as they were held up as the best.

It found use for hand hygiene though - solid settled science. But that was probably offset in the community during the pandemic by people breathing in to a mask then touching them their pockets and wearing them multiple times. But hey ho, the public and Good Morning Britain angry mob had to make sure the government was “doing something”.

Can you find anything in there to justify the mandate of masks? The public shaming of those who didn’t wear one? Or the fear of getting near those who didn’t wear them? Or the environmental cost of their manufacture and disposal?

As mentioned in my previous post, do you think it was justified to make people think natural immunity (more solid settled science) didn’t matter and that the virus would be dangerous for years on end?

[SydneyRover]

One doesn't actually need science to show that a correctly selected and properly fitted mask prevent inhalation of fine particles of any type. Therefore it is common sense that a wearer would have some degree of protection, depending on the mask and the airborne particle.

The only time I can think of that a mask would not be advisable is when using certain types of poison baits.

[drfchound]

But weren’t masks supposed to protect others, not the wearer.

[BillyStubbsTears]

NC.

You're arguing retrospectively.

Back at the time of the epidemic, the position of the very same authors was different.

In the Cochrane report of 2009, they said clearly and unambiguously "Hygiene and physical barriers, especially handwashing, wearing masks, and isolation of potentially infected patients, are effective in preventing the spread of viral infections".

Furthermore of course, there is a strong physically based argument why we should presume that masks work - because the virus is spread by airborne droplets, so anything that can stop the droplets getting into the air ought to be beneficial.

In the middle of a crisis, you look for the best information you have, and if you're sensible, you apply the precautionary principle - if there's any uncertainty, err in the side of safety.

If it finally turns out that masks are useless at preventing the spread, that's fine. We'd know that for the next time. But that report adds nothing to that understanding. Despite Heneghan's shockingly bad push.

I'm not entirely sure why we are arguing on this point.

[BillyStubbsTears]

One doesn't actually need science to show that a correctly selected and properly fitted mask prevent inhalation of fine particles of any type. Therefore it is common sense that a wearer would have some degree of protection, depending on the mask and the airborne particle.

The only time I can think of that a mask would not be advisable is when using certain types of poison baits.

Exhalation, not inhalation was the bigger gain. It was about protecting others, more than one's self.

[SydneyRover]

Presumable that's why all those that can wear a mask in a confined space should.

[i_ateallthepies]

But weren’t masks supposed to protect others, not the wearer.

Exactly correct.  The primary purpose of these types of facemark is the protection of the wearer so it would be reasonable to expect that correctly worn the mask would afford the wearer some degree of added protection but nevertheless in the case of the pandemic their purpose was to reduce the escape of virus carrying airborne particles from infected people coughing and sneezing.

[SydneyRover]

correct and going back to bp's point, 'how do you know that you haven't passed it on if you don't know if you've got/had covid, if the there are droplets in the air I'd rather have a mask on.

[mugnapper]

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-no-longer-a-global-health-emergency-world-health-organisation-says-12871889

Is it time to declare this thread officially closed?
I wonder if in years to come, Social Historians will use this thread in any way?

[Nudga]

Maybe we should open up a new thread about the 2k excess weekly deaths and have a weekly death count update?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Finally copped a dose after avoiding it for nearly 4 years.

So far it's feeling similar to the worst flu I've ever had.

[Nudga]

"thank God I had my 4 doses or it could have been a lot worse"

I say that in jest bst, hope you're better for the Peterborough match.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Cheers Nudga. I'm assuming I won't survive, so it's been nice knowing you.

[Bentley Bullet]

Here's a tip for you, toughen up a bit by pretending you're from Bentley.

Get well soon BST.