The case for and against the effectiveness of face coverings and the mandating of their use

[35B]

If you do trust vaccines, why would a healthy vaccinated person wear a mask? It makes no sense.

Just picking on one core question - because vaccines are imperfect (don't provide sterilising immunity, don't work in a proportion of recipients), and the experience of Covid even for someone fully vaccinated can be deeply unpleasant.

That's not a case of not trusting vaccines, but of taking what the wearer believes to be a reasonable precaution for (depending on their point of view) either their own benefit or that of those around them.

As a student, I was taught that to get a right answer, you need both the right logic and the right premise. If your premise is that masks are effective, then it is logical to wear them to supplement the effect of vaccines in a part-vaccinated world; if your premise is that they are ineffective, then wearing them is pointless or worse. The logic in both cases is the same - that the preventative effect of mask wearing is conditional on how well that type of mask works - but the premises are fundamentally different, and therefore you and @Green tractor are almost certain to be unable to come to an agreement on the point.

 

[yorkie]

Just picking on one core question - because vaccines are imperfect (don't provide sterilising immunity, don't work in a proportion of recipients), and the experience of Covid even for someone fully vaccinated can be deeply unpleasant.

It is not fair to refer to vaccines as "imperfect" for this reason; vaccines are intended to protect against severe disease and the Sars-CoV-2 vaccines we have are highly effective at achieving that.

You say they "don't work" in a proportion of recipients, however as was posted on this forum a few weeks ago, even people who are immunocompromised get good protection from the vaccines, albeit not the excellent protection most of us benefit from.

The chances of a "deeply unpleasant" infection are vastly reduced in a vaccinated person; even an unvaccinated person is highly likely to be asymptomatic or have mild symptoms so you are talking about a small proportion of people. But those people cannot avoid a natural infection eventually; even if they wore effective masks when out and about, the virus is becoming endemic and we cannot avoid infections.

Once people have been vaccinated and naturally infected, their immune response will be even broader and any further infections will be milder.

That's not a case of not trusting vaccines, but of taking what the wearer believes to be a reasonable precaution for (depending on their point of view) either their own benefit or that of those around them.

It is a case of not trusting vaccines. If you trust the vaccine why would you wear one? The argument that you wear one for the benefit of others is ludicrous, given the high levels of vaccination we have and the fact that anyone who is immunocompromised or distrusting of vaccines could choose to protect themselves by wearing an effective FFP3 mask.

The idea that the rest of us should be wearing standard masks in order to ostensibly protect people who are apparently somehow vulnerable and have either chosen not to be vaccinated and/or chosen not to wear an effective mask is completely ludicrous.

As a student, I was taught that to get a right answer, you need both the right logic and the right premise.

If only this was practised!

If your premise is that masks are effective, then it is logical to wear them to supplement the effect of vaccines in a part-vaccinated world;

FFP3 masks are effective but that does not mean it is logical for a regular healthy person to wear one. While in the UK it is irrelevant what the levels of vaccination are in the rest of the world; anyone who by now has not been vaccinated is either young/healthy enough not to be at all likely to be seriously ill or has chosen not to get the vaccine. Either way anyone who deems themselves at risk could choose to wear an effective mask if they wish to do so. You are therefore making a false premise unless you are specifically taking about an individual who is at risk who chooses to wear an effective mask themselves; that is sensible and proportionate. The mass wearing of masks by others is not.

if your premise is that they are ineffective, then wearing them is pointless or worse.

Standard masks are ineffective and I agree it is pointless or worse.

The logic in both cases is the same - that the preventative effect of mask wearing is conditional on how well that type of mask works - but the premises are fundamentally different, and therefore you and @Green tractor are almost certain to be unable to come to an agreement on the point.

Indeed; we know that FFP3 masks are highly effective and we know that anyone who requires additional protection can choose to wear one, the debate is effectively about whether standard loose fitting flimsy masks should be worn by healthy people and there is no rationale or evidence to support this.

 

[35B]

It is not fair to refer to vaccines as "imperfect" for this reason; vaccines are intended to protect against severe disease and the Sars-CoV-2 vaccines we have are highly effective at achieving that.

You say they "don't work" in a proportion of recipients, however as was posted on this forum a few weeks ago, even people who are immunocompromised get good protection from the vaccines, albeit not the excellent protection most of us benefit from.

The chances of a "deeply unpleasant" infection are vastly reduced in a vaccinated person; even an unvaccinated person is highly likely to be asymptomatic or have mild symptoms so you are talking about a small proportion of people. But those people cannot avoid a natural infection eventually; even if they wore effective masks when out and about, the virus is becoming endemic and we cannot avoid infections.

Once people have been vaccinated and naturally infected, their immune response will be even broader and any further infections will be milder.


It is a case of not trusting vaccines. If you trust the vaccine why would you wear one? The argument that you wear one for the benefit of others is ludicrous, given the high levels of vaccination we have and the fact that anyone who is immunocompromised or distrusting of vaccines could choose to protect themselves by wearing an effective FFP3 mask.

The idea that the rest of us should be wearing standard masks in order to ostensibly protect people who are apparently somehow vulnerable and have either chosen not to be vaccinated and/or chosen not to wear an effective mask is completely ludicrous.


If only this was practised!


FFP3 masks are effective but that does not mean it is logical for a regular healthy person to wear one. While in the UK it is irrelevant what the levels of vaccination are in the rest of the world; anyone who by now has not been vaccinated is either young/healthy enough not to be at all likely to be seriously ill or has chosen not to get the vaccine. Either way anyone who deems themselves at risk could choose to wear an effective mask if they wish to do so. You are therefore making a false premise unless you are specifically taking about an individual who is at risk who chooses to wear an effective mask themselves; that is sensible and proportionate. The mass wearing of masks by others is not.


Standard masks are ineffective and I agree it is pointless or worse.


Indeed; we know that FFP3 masks are highly effective and we know that anyone who requires additional protection can choose to wear one, the debate is effectively about whether standard loose fitting flimsy masks should be worn by healthy people and there is no rationale or evidence to support this.

You demonstrate my point; because you differ in view, the dialogue is of the deaf.

I stand by my description of the vaccines; they do exactly as you say, but the protection they provide is incomplete. I know two people who have had Covid when fully jabbed; one “only” endured something very much like flu, the other was hospitalised and on oxygen. People will legitimately be concerned about their risk of being such an exception, even if that reaction is not logical.

I spoke to a colleague yesterday about possibly meeting back in the office. I was surprised by how uncomfortable she was at the thought of returning, and just how focused she was on conditions on public transport; it reminded me of how broad a spectrum of views there are, and how a degree of sensitivity matters.

For reference, when I went to London yesterday, I wore a mask (homemade double layer face covering with metal noseband) where obliged to (Tube, in the office, TfL rail class 315) but not where it was a matter of choice.

 

[yorkie]

You demonstrate my point; because you differ in view, the dialogue is of the deaf.

Or is it because you differ in view?

I stand by my description of the vaccines; they do exactly as you say, but the protection they provide is incomplete.

The only way to "complete" (broaden) the immune response afforded by the vaccines is to get a natural infection.

I know two people who have had Covid when fully jabbed; one “only” endured something very much like flu, the other was hospitalised and on oxygen. People will legitimately be concerned about their risk of being such an exception, even if that reaction is not logical.

They were extremely unlucky; the vaccines are highly effective. If you are using this as justification to wear masks indefinitely, then I cannot agree. It is not based on any logic whatsoever; I am glad we agree on that point!

I spoke to a colleague yesterday about possibly meeting back in the office. I was surprised by how uncomfortable she was at the thought of returning, and just how focused she was on conditions on public transport; it reminded me of how broad a spectrum of views there are, and how a degree of sensitivity matters.

This is due to poor messaging by a variety of people; if you are using this as justification for keeping masks then again I cannot agree. It is counter-productive as mask wearing symbolifies not only authoritarianism but mistrust in the vaccines as well as an expression that things are not normal.

For reference, when I went to London yesterday, I wore a mask (homemade double layer face covering with metal noseband) where obliged to (Tube, in the office, TfL rail class 315) but not where it was a matter of choice.

That is some progress at least!

Possibly. But the point about Heneghan stands - not just wrong, but in some of his writing, deliberately misrepresenting study outcomes to make a partisan point (e.g. his Spectator piece on the Danmask study). So, without comment on the strength of the study he points to in the linked tweet, or of it's outcomes, his comment has a definite ring of he would say that, wouldn't he.

Do you make similar criticisms of Greenhalgh and other members of the pro-mask brigade? Prof Henegan is far more balanced than the likes of Greenhalgh and her ilk

As for the specific conclusions of that paper, I note that it casts doubt on all forms of in-school mitigation, and instead emphasises that "reducing the number of direct non-household contacts is associated with lower risk of Covid-19 in the school and general infection for the individual". In the context of pandemic control, that statement could be read as implying that keeping children out of school may be the better policy - something that I suspect many on here (myself included) would be extremely uncomfortable with.

I do not think you can interpret it that way, but I agree that schools must remain open. Given they must remain open, it is pointless to continue the charade of masks, bubbles and other nonsense which is very damaging to children.

 

[Cdd89]

I know two people who have had Covid when fully jabbed

There’s every chance that you know more people who had Covid when fully jabbed, but who would have been asymptomatic.

 

[kristiang85]

I stand by my description of the vaccines; they do exactly as you say, but the protection they provide is incomplete. I know two people who have had Covid when fully jabbed; one “only” endured something very much like flu, the other was hospitalised and on oxygen. People will legitimately be concerned about their risk of being such an exception, even if that reaction is not logical.

Indeed it is not logical. Whilst this is unfortunate, and vaccines are not 100% effective, we cannot continue to live like it is Ebola on our doorstep. Peoples' assessment of risk really is skewed now - if they treated roads like COVID, they'd never get in a car.

The government really needs to get the messaging out there that the 'fear' of COVID is in itself unhealthy, and in the long run will damage the population in general far more than COVID ever will.

 

[Bantamzen]

I stand by my description of the vaccines; they do exactly as you say, but the protection they provide is incomplete. I know two people who have had Covid when fully jabbed; one “only” endured something very much like flu, the other was hospitalised and on oxygen. People will legitimately be concerned about their risk of being such an exception, even if that reaction is not logical.

So you are wanting a 100% guaranteed zero risk of illness or your money back vaccine? Well good luck with that then! I know that you know this but it is not the vaccine that deals with the virus, it is the response of the person's immune system to the vaccine that builds protection. So if someone's immune system doesn't respond as expected, is that a failing of the vaccine or the simple reality that our immune systems are vastly complex, and pretty much unique to every single person.

I'm afraid this continues to add to my suspicions that you are rooting for your "wait and see until the data* in is" policy, something you've been pushing directly or indirectly for most of these threads whilst continuing to pretend you are not.

(*Though what data you are wanting to wait for has never been entirely clear)

 

[Yew]

I stand by my description of the vaccines; they do exactly as you say, but the protection they provide is incomplete.

Unfortunately, we have to accept that we can never be completely safe, and no vaccine will be completely effective. For the most part, even before the vaccination programme is complete, we're seeing deaths reduced massively relative to the number of cases. We're starting to reach 'overall no worse than flu' (which can be a very serious disease in the vulnerable) terratory.

 

[35B]

Or is it because you differ in view?

I expressed my view of masks in my previous post.

They were extremely unlucky; the vaccines are highly effective. If you are using this as justification to wear masks indefinitely, then I cannot agree. It is not based on any logic whatsoever; I am glad we agree on that point!

I agree, they were.

This is due to poor messaging by a variety of people; if you are using this as justification for keeping masks then again I cannot agree. It is counter-productive as mask wearing symbolifies not only authoritarianism but mistrust in the vaccines as well as an expression that things are not normal.

I don't know my colleague's reasoning, but rather you than me to tell her that she has fallen prey to poor messaging. I don't suggest it's the basis for a requirement to retain masks - I was careful to comment on mask wearing, not wider public policy - but goes towards an understanding of why views of both hazard and response differ.

Do you make similar criticisms of Greenhalgh and other members of the pro-mask brigade? Prof Henegan is far more balanced than the likes of Greenhalgh and her ilk

I tend to filter out the hysterical voices at the extremes of the Covid debate, whether the "authoritarians" at Independent SAGE or the "eugenicists" supporting GBD. I comment specifically on Heneghan because he had been someone I respected and paid attention to until he demonstrated his true colours.

I do not think you can interpret it that way, but I agree that schools must remain open. Given they must remain open, it is pointless to continue the charade of masks, bubbles and other nonsense which is very damaging to children.

I don't interpret it that way, because I acknowledge that the study was finite in it's scope and wasn't set up to assess that effect. It would however be a logical hypothesis given their conclusions - and one that I know both from what my kids tell me and the information I've seen about the pupils where I'm a governor would come at a very high cost. There is - which links back to vaccination - a wider challenge as to what the right approach is to Covid and children, one in which meaningful information is sadly lacking.

So you are wanting a 100% guaranteed zero risk of illness or your money back vaccine? Well good luck with that then! I know that you know this but it is not the vaccine that deals with the virus, it is the response of the person's immune system to the vaccine that builds protection. So if someone's immune system doesn't respond as expected, is that a failing of the vaccine or the simple reality that our immune systems are vastly complex, and pretty much unique to every single person.

I'm afraid this continues to add to my suspicions that you are rooting for your "wait and see until the data* in is" policy, something you've been pushing directly or indirectly for most of these threads whilst continuing to pretend you are not.

(*Though what data you are wanting to wait for has never been entirely clear)

Unfortunately, we have to accept that we can never be completely safe, and no vaccine will be completely effective. For the most part, even before the vaccination programme is complete, we're seeing deaths reduced massively relative to the number of cases. We're starting to reach 'overall no worse than flu' (which can be a very serious disease in the vulnerable) terratory.

I agree and, no, I neither want nor expect a 100% guarantee - I am fully aware that no such thing exists, and that the factors you describe can't fail to limit the effectiveness of vaccinations. My observation, rooted in my belief that Covid is becoming endemic and something we will have to learn to live with, is that the impact of cases like those of my acquaintances on themselves and those around them is inevitably going to lead to concern given what has happened here over the last 18 months. It is nonetheless disappointing that the vaccines' effect on transmission is not as great as had been hoped for, and therefore that they are unlikely to bear down as heavily on Covid as was once hoped.

 

[Horizon22]

I expressed my view of masks in my previous post.

I agree, they were.

I don't know my colleague's reasoning, but rather you than me to tell her that she has fallen prey to poor messaging. I don't suggest it's the basis for a requirement to retain masks - I was careful to comment on mask wearing, not wider public policy - but goes towards an understanding of why views of both hazard and response differ.

People generally have a poor understanding of risk. For Covid many generally seem to feel they are more at risk than perhaps they actually are. That's a complex thing to work out why - its probably cultural, social and based on the combined messaging of the past 18 months.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree and, no, I neither want nor expect a 100% guarantee - I am fully aware that no such thing exists, and that the factors you describe can't fail to limit the effectiveness of vaccinations. My observation, rooted in my belief that Covid is becoming endemic and something we will have to learn to live with, is that the impact of cases like those of my acquaintances on themselves and those around them is inevitably going to lead to concern given what has happened here over the last 18 months. It is nonetheless disappointing that the vaccines' effect on transmission is not as great as had been hoped for, and therefore that they are unlikely to bear down as heavily on Covid as was once hoped.

Did we ever expect the vaccine to have that effect on transmission though? By its very nature it enables our immune systems to react, but that doesn't necessarily mean the virus won't spread. If it takes the body a short while to ramp up then there will always be a window for the virus to replicate and transmit. But once the immune system kicks in, it will prevent most people from getting seriously ill. I thought that was quite clear from the outset?

 

[35B]

People generally have a poor understanding of risk. For Covid many generally seem to feel they are more at risk than perhaps they actually are. That's a complex thing to work out why - its probably cultural, social and based on the combined messaging of the past 18 months.

I agree completely.

Did we ever expect the vaccine to have that effect on transmission though? By its very nature it enables our immune systems to react, but that doesn't necessarily mean the virus won't spread. If it takes the body a short while to ramp up then there will always be a window for the virus to replicate and transmit. But once the immune system kicks in, it will prevent most people from getting seriously ill. I thought that was quite clear from the outset?

My thoughts of vaccines are based on those like the measles vaccine, which are very good at stopping spread of disease in a way that the Covid vaccines are not. Part of my adaptation, and I think that of others, is to the behaviour of the Covid vaccines which don't appear to have the same blocking power.

 

[Green tractor]

Ferguson's death predictions versus reality:

Foot and mouth : 150,000. Actual less than 200

BSE: 50,000. Actual 177

Bird Flu: 150,000. Actual 282

Swine Flu 65,000. Actual 457

Covid 500,000

Right....

BSE;
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... heep_flock)
“Extending the analysis to consider absolute risk, we estimate the 95% confidence interval for future vCJD mortality to be 50 to 50,000 human deaths considering exposure to bovine BSE alone, with the upper bound increasing to 150,000 once we include exposure from the worst-case bovine BSE scenario examined.”

177 is between 50 and 50000 so I don’t really see how this is inaccurate. The numbers quoted basically say we don't know, and are all but useless, but 177 is within that range.

Covid;

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

If I am reading it right, on page 13 with a assumed R0 of 2.6, if we do social distancing, Case isolation in the home, Voluntary home quarantine but keep schools open we can expect there to be 120,000 deaths over a 2 year period. Looks like their estimates were not high enough to me.

the 500,000 figure was if nobody changed their behaviour.

If anybody would like to provide links to any of the other papers I will happily read them, I managed to find the above 2 easily online.

The problem is UCL produce a paper which gives a range of projections based on different inputs. The media then choose the scariest numbers to print as it makes a good story.

Also in the case of BSE (my family are farmers) measures were taken to stop the potential spread to humans; all cattle over 30 months were incinerated for a number of years at the end of their lives, and certain high risk tissues (mainly brains and spinal cord) were banned from entering the food chain.

 

[Yew]

177 is between 50 and 50000 so I don’t really see how this is inaccurate. The numbers quoted basically say we don't know, and are all but useless, but 177 is within that range.

I feel like 3 orders of magnitude isn't really a prediction.

 

[adc82140]

Right....

BSE;
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... heep_flock)
“Extending the analysis to consider absolute risk, we estimate the 95% confidence interval for future vCJD mortality to be 50 to 50,000 human deaths considering exposure to bovine BSE alone, with the upper bound increasing to 150,000 once we include exposure from the worst-case bovine BSE scenario examined.”

177 is between 50 and 50000 so I don’t really see how this is inaccurate. The numbers quoted basically say we don't know, and are all but useless, but 177 is within that range.

Covid;

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

If that's the standard of his work, then I stand by my comments.

I'm going say that the Epsilon variant will kill between 1 and 1 million people in the UK. Where's my Imperial College professorship?

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree completely.

My thoughts of vaccines are based on those like the measles vaccine, which are very good at stopping spread of disease in a way that the Covid vaccines are not. Part of my adaptation, and I think that of others, is to the behaviour of the Covid vaccines which don't appear to have the same blocking power.

Are measles and covid comparable? And does the MMR vaccine actually stop spread, or is it just very effective at stopping the onset of the illness?

Right....

BSE;
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... heep_flock)
“Extending the analysis to consider absolute risk, we estimate the 95% confidence interval for future vCJD mortality to be 50 to 50,000 human deaths considering exposure to bovine BSE alone, with the upper bound increasing to 150,000 once we include exposure from the worst-case bovine BSE scenario examined.”

177 is between 50 and 50000 so I don’t really see how this is inaccurate. The numbers quoted basically say we don't know, and are all but useless, but 177 is within that range.

Covid;

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

If I am reading it right, on page 13 with a assumed R0 of 2.6, if we do social distancing, Case isolation in the home, Voluntary home quarantine but keep schools open we can expect there to be 120,000 deaths over a 2 year period. Looks like their estimates were not high enough to me.

the 500,000 figure was if nobody changed their behaviour.

If anybody would like to provide links to any of the other papers I will happily read them, I managed to find the above 2 easily online.

The problem is UCL produce a paper which gives a range of projections based on different inputs. The media then choose the scariest numbers to print as it makes a good story.

Also in the case of BSE (my family are farmers) measures were taken to stop the potential spread to humans; all cattle over 30 months were incinerated for a number of years at the end of their lives, and certain high risk tissues (mainly brains and spinal cord) were banned from entering the food chain.

Right, my football team play away at Leyton Orient at the weekend. So my model predicts that we might score between 1 and 1,000.goals, and if we actually get 3 that demonstrates my model is working well. I'm sure bookies up and down the land would accept that as a fair bet.

OK, we know that was a not a realistic range for football. However the giving a potential range of 50 to 50,000 estimated deaths, and the final toll just happening to hit the bottom of that estimated range does not exactly instill confidence in those models used. It's the scientific equivalent of playing pin the tail on the donkey.

 

[35B]

Are measles and covid comparable? And does the MMR vaccine actually stop spread, or is it just very effective at stopping the onset of the illness?

They are both diseases, easily transmitted, and capable of causing death. More to the point, I use measles as my example because it's the paradigm that I have in mind when talking about vaccination. I presume that measles vaccination, through MMR or otherwise, is sterilising immunity that prevents spread, rather than preventing the onset of illness but I stand to correction.

 

[Green tractor]

If that's the standard of his work, then I stand by my comments.

I'm going say that the Epsilon variant will kill between 1 and 1 million people in the UK. Where's my Imperial College professorship?

Are you currently having an affair with a married woman?

 

[Bantamzen]

They are both diseases, easily transmitted, and capable of causing death. More to the point, I use measles as my example because it's the paradigm that I have in mind when talking about vaccination. I presume that measles vaccination, through MMR or otherwise, is sterilising immunity that prevents spread, rather than preventing the onset of illness but I stand to correction.

I asked that question because there are other viruses that spread / mutate quite readily despite there being vaccines, influenza for example.

 

[bramling]

People generally have a poor understanding of risk. For Covid many generally seem to feel they are more at risk than perhaps they actually are. That's a complex thing to work out why - its probably cultural, social and based on the combined messaging of the past 18 months.

Agree on both the points made here. The news coverage certainly isn’t presenting things in a way which assists people in making a balanced risk assessment. I’m not sure if it’s still the case, but certainly earlier on in this it was the case that a lot of people were under false impressions regarding some of the risk statistics.

One thing I'd very much welcome is some proper analysis of how many of the Covid deaths involve people who previously had serious underlying conditions. For me this is very important to both understanding the level of risk and accepting any restrictions. The info we get in this respect is very vague. In essence I'd like to know what proportion of the death figures involve people who already had a limited life expectancy.

 

[johnnychips]

If that's the standard of his work, then I stand by my comments.

I'm going say that the Epsilon variant will kill between 1 and 1 million people in the UK. Where's my Imperial College professorship?

I predict Sheffield United will score between 0 and 6 goals this weekend. Where is my Match Of the Day pundit spot and £16M a year? Seriously, this virus is unpredictable, but it does seem that it is becoming more transmissible but less serious. This is nature, and we will have to learn to live with it.

If people want to wear masks, fine, but the idea it prevents others from catching your germs becomes untenable as more and more people don’t wear them, and cases don’t skyrocket.

 

[adc82140]

Just seen Lewis Hamilton give an interview on Sky Sports. He was wearing a mask. Firstly the interview was taking place outside, so I have no idea why he thought it was necessary, and secondly, he was continually fiddling with it and touching his face, rendering the whole exercise pointless. F1 are the worst for virtue signalling. I wonder if it's got something to do with trying to repent for all the years they were a fag advertising billboard with wheels.

 

[DustyBin]

Just seen Lewis Hamilton give an interview on Sky Sports. He was wearing a mask. Firstly the interview was taking place outside, so I have no idea why he thought it was necessary, and secondly, he was continually fiddling with it and touching his face, rendering the whole exercise pointless. F1 are the worst for virtue signalling. I wonder if it's got something to do with trying to repent for all the years they were a fag advertising billboard with wheels.

There’s one particular driver in the BTCC who is always masked, although in his case I suspect he wears it to publicise one of his sponsors as their name is plastered across it! As for Hamilton, I’d expect no less to be honest!

 

[yorkie]

...It is nonetheless disappo
inting that the vaccines' effect on transmission is not as great as had been hoped for, and therefore that they are unlikely to bear down as heavily on Covid as was once hoped...

Are measles and covid comparable?...

I asked that question because there are other viruses that spread / mutate quite readily despite there being vaccines, influenza for example.

The purpose of a vaccine is to prevent serious illness; anything else is a bonus. It is not surprising that a vaccine reduces the chances of a Sars-CoV-2 infection but does not eliminate it; the 4 existing HCoVs reinfect us on a regular basis in a state of seasonal endemic equilibrium. We can have excellent immunity to a Coronavirus but still get infected; the key issue here is that the more immunity we build up the milder the effects of the virus. The only way out is to reach endemic equilibrium. The best way to achieve that is for as many people as possible to be vaccinated and also to accept that natural infections are unavoidable and will act as a booster in unvaccinated individuals.

People generally have a poor understanding of risk. For Covid many generally seem to feel they are more at risk than perhaps they actually are. That's a complex thing to work out why - its probably cultural, social and based on the combined messaging of the past 18 months.

Yes this is true; people not only perceive certain risks to be much higher than others, but deaths or injury/illness are seen as more acceptable in some areas than others. For example society now seems deems an influenza death to be more acceptable than a Covid death in a similar way to death on the roads being more acceptable than a rail related death.

If future Covid deaths reach the levels of Influenza deaths we had a few years ago (measured in a like for like way and assuming the average age of deaths is similar) then it should be the same level of acceptability to society (e.g. we do not close down society and harm kids in order to keep older people from dying from 'flu) but the reality is that some people who accepted such levels of flu deaths will not accept the same levels of death due to Covid and will call for restricting the freedoms of the general population as a result.

We need to recognise that the highly vocal hysterical people who call for authoritarian measures are extremely illogical and we need to push back against them.

Just seen Lewis Hamilton give an interview on Sky Sports. He was wearing a mask. Firstly the interview was taking place outside, so I have no idea why he thought it was necessary, and secondly, he was continually fiddling with it and touching his face, rendering the whole exercise pointless. F1 are the worst for virtue signalling. I wonder if it's got something to do with trying to repent for all the years they were a fag advertising billboard with wheels.

He is an absolute virtue signaller. Still, at least the virtue signalling mask wearing prevented him catching the virus. Oh, wait....

 

[yorksrob]

Just seen Lewis Hamilton give an interview on Sky Sports. He was wearing a mask. Firstly the interview was taking place outside, so I have no idea why he thought it was necessary, and secondly, he was continually fiddling with it and touching his face, rendering the whole exercise pointless. F1 are the worst for virtue signalling. I wonder if it's got something to do with trying to repent for all the years they were a fag advertising billboard with wheels.

I wonder if Bernie would approve !

 

[kristiang85]

Just seen Lewis Hamilton give an interview on Sky Sports. He was wearing a mask. Firstly the interview was taking place outside, so I have no idea why he thought it was necessary, and secondly, he was continually fiddling with it and touching his face, rendering the whole exercise pointless. F1 are the worst for virtue signalling. I wonder if it's got something to do with trying to repent for all the years they were a fag advertising billboard with wheels.

It's Lewis Hamitlon, so doesn't surprise me one bit. This is the bloke who a couple of weeks ago was showing off his environmental credentials by posting a photo of him feeding his poor dog a vegan meal.... Whilst sat in leather seats on a private jet. Same with the mask - all show, but utterly pointless.

Although in his defence, I think f1 are still quite hot on drivers and staff wearing masks as they do get special dispensation in some countries to race on that basis, but it does seem to have relaxed recently and other drivers wear them less, certainly outside.

 

[hst43102]

It's Lewis Hamitlon, so doesn't surprise me one bit. This is the bloke who a couple of weeks ago was showing off his environmental credentials by posting a photo of him feeding his poor dog a vegan meal.... Whilst sat in leather seats on a private jet. Same with the mask - all show, but utterly pointless.

Not wishing to drag this thread off topic, but that sounds absolutely disgusting. Surely that's animal cruelty?

 

[greyman42]

One thing I'd very much welcome is some proper analysis of how many of the Covid deaths involve people who previously had serious underlying conditions. For me this is very important to both understanding the level of risk and accepting any restrictions. The info we get in this respect is very vague. In essence I'd like to know what proportion of the death figures involve people who already had a limited life expectancy.

I also think this analysis would be very helpful. I don't know how much information was recorded regarding the health of people who died of Covid but i suspect the government would rather sweep it under the carpet than make it public.

 

[DustyBin]

I also think this analysis would be very helpful. I don't know how much information was recorded regarding the health of people who died of Covid but i suspect the government would rather sweep it under the carpet than make it public.

I'd also be keen to see this data. On a related note, I'd like to see a more accurate metric of recording covid deaths because "within 28 days of a positive test" tells us very little. I've had this debate with people previously (on this very forum in fact!) and they've insisted that to be registered as a covid death, covid must have been a contributory factor. My understanding (supported by a couple of doctors I've spoken to) is that covid simply has to be mentioned on the death certificate, which doesn't necessarily mean it was a contributory factor. Bearing in mind the world revolves around covid, what are the chances of a person dying within 28 days of a positive test and the doctor NOT mentioning it? Anecdotally, I know somebody who went into hospital to die (there's no way to sugar coat the situation, that's how it was) and contracted covid in hospital. They were counted as a covid death which further supports the point. I've said it before, but with circa 1500 deaths every day in the UK and covid in general circulation, there is always going to be covid deaths using the existing metric. The situation needs reviewing; the time for inflating the figures to scare people is over (if there ever was a time) and people should be able to make their own assessment based on accurate data.

 

[takno]

I'd also be keen to see this data. On a related note, I'd like to see a more accurate metric of recording covid deaths because "within 28 days of a positive test" tells us very little. I've had this debate with people previously (on this very forum in fact!) and they've insisted that to be registered as a covid death, covid must have been a contributory factor. My understanding (supported by a couple of doctors I've spoken to) is that covid simply has to be mentioned on the death certificate, which doesn't necessarily mean it was a contributory factor. Bearing in mind the world revolves around covid, what are the chances of a person dying within 28 days of a positive test and the doctor NOT mentioning it? Anecdotally, I know somebody who went into hospital to die (there's no way to sugar coat the situation, that's how it was) and contracted covid in hospital. They were counted as a covid death which further supports the point. I've said it before, but with circa 1500 deaths every day in the UK and covid in general circulation, there is always going to be covid deaths using the existing metric. The situation needs reviewing; the time for inflating the figures to scare people is over (if there ever was a time) and people should be able to make their own assessment based on accurate data.

There are two different sets of death stats. The within 28 days figures are the ones which are relentlessly trumpeted in the press. For these there is no need for Covid to be any kind of factor at all - just dying within 28 days of a test is enough. With the current high numbers of positive tests that means you'd expect something like 20 a day just on average, and more if the people getting tests skew a littoe towards people who are going to hospital for something else.

On addition the ONS publish the death registrations every couple of weeks. In these there isn't actually any need for a positive Covid test at all - a doctor just has to decide that in their professional opinion (a professional opinion that's backed by a professional qualification and isn't given lightly) Covid was a contributing factor in the death