"Covid rising in England" - let's stop the fear mongering

[david1212]

Also, all ten Ambulance services are currently on the highest level of alert, down to Covid staff shortages and the heatwave.
.....

A core reason for this is ambulances often not being able to arrive at a hospital, hand over the patient right away or even a short wait, replenish any supplies used and head off to their next call out if not be on standby. If as numerous reports there are waits of several hours a crew might only handle one patient in a full shift.

It's not (just) underfunding - they also need to look at what they spend the funding on. Especially multiple tiers of management, and unnecessary posts like 'EDI Managers' which have appeared from nowhere over the past few years and of which there are now loads, on decent salaries.

For several years up to 2006 I worked for a health service supplier.

If the NHS UK, or NHS England directly bought in bulk I'm sure they could have got better prices from the manufacturer or UK importer. Add on the margin of anything upto 500% e.g. cost of £1 for a pack of 5 and sold at £5 for a pack of 5. No or little discount for 100 packs on one order. A set of components costing ~£15 then assembled and packed in under 10 minutes sold for £60. Plenty of scope to save.

For budgeting the NHS increasing wanted a fixed price package for equipment an 12 months of consumables. The latter were only delivered when called off by a local hospital or home care not to a fixed schedule. The core equipment supplied sometimes was in use 24/7 but mostly no more than 12/7. Compare to a fleet of cars. The provider costs based on every car covering 20,000 miles a year yet the actual average across the fleet is 12,000miles a year. Again additional cost.

Follow on from the above. Homecare was changed from NHS hospital staff to a contracted private provider. This achieved the management objective of cutting a budget. The care provider does not have a pool of eqipment to simply swap out, service then put into stock. Instead care provider contacts equipment provider to deliver a loan item, collect item for service, carry out service, return serviced item and collect loan item. The loan item then has to be cleaned. The patient could be 200 miles from the equipment provider. Using couriers rarely worked well particularly return of serviced item and collection of loan. Hence a driver employed. All the cost of course to the care provider and onto NHS. One Christmas day we heard of £40/hour for a district nurse - this is pre 2006 remember.

I don't think anyone on here denies that FFP3 standard masks IF worn and stored properly AND changed regularly can help to protect the wearer and delay infection, however if they aren't then I don't see how they can help. I would also say that if masks are so important why did infection rates rise after they were mandated and fall again after the mandate stopped? Also why did the health authorities initially say masks weren't necessary then change their minds after other places mandated them?

Exactly.

Recall too the case rate differences from last July when generally some form of face covering was no longer mandatory in England but still so in Scotland and Wales. There was not a corrolation that fitted in with this.

 

[MikeWM]

Anyone who still thinks that masks do *anything* useful should look at the many graphs @ianmsc has posted to twitter over the past two years.

Hundreds and hundreds of graphs from around the world, that show real-world evidence that masks do absolutely nothing to help infection rates, severity of infection, or deaths.

We did the experiment. It failed miserably, just as the scientific consensus pre-2020 told us it would.

 

[GC class B1]

I doubt churches for example would have implemented a face covering policy for as long as they did if it was obvious that they had no effect at the time. It wasn't about stopping transmission; the point is whether they helped reduce potential viral load and I don't see evidence that they weren't at least partially effective in this purpose.

You have used mixed up logic here and are using a double negative. It is correct that lack of evidence of something occurring does not prove that it does not occur. However, it is not possible to see evidence that masks aren’t at least partially effective - they either reduce transmission or they don’t. Evidence can be produced by proper controlled trials that something does or doesn’t work or show that it may partially work but does not achieve what was expected.

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't know if there is proven evidence, but sometimes you can think about it logically and any kind of covering over the nose and mouth is likely to at least reduce the number of viral particles (especially bigger particles) that transfer from one person to another through these.

You can when you understand exactly how small a virus is. It's probably fine for stopping flies going in your mouth but as for viruses that's another matter but then even a fly can crawl behind the mask!!

 

[yorkie]

I doubt churches for example would have implemented a face covering policy for as long as they did if it was obvious that they had no effect at the time.

Some organisations were keen to get in board the virtue signalling bandwagon.

It wasn't about stopping transmission; the point is whether they helped reduce potential viral load and I don't see evidence that they weren't at least partially effective in this purpose.

We now know that SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted through aerosol particles. Flimsy, loose fitting masks are not effective for, not designed to, filter such particles, which not only go through the small holes in the makes but also go around the sides of the masks.

If anyone distrust vaccines enough to want to wear a mask, they can get protection for themselves by wearing a tight fitting FFP2/3 mask; there is no need for anyone else to wear any sort of mask.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

We were refused boarding of our Ryanair flight at Stansted by the gate attendant on Monday 4th as we (party of four) did not have face masks.

She (who did not have one on herself) said, "Do you have face masks?" to which I told her no, and that they were not required nor legal in July 2022, and she told us she would not let us board the flight. Panicking, I asked if I could dash back to the WHSmith (not in Departures, but one next to the gates) and we were told no, as the flight would soon be closing.

Fortunately a very kind woman also boarding the flight overhead and produced four masks for us which we gratefully received and then promptly put away as no one else - crew included - was wearing one on the flight!

That woman would have unnecessarily caused us to miss our flight had the other passenger not rescued us. It's mid July 2022!

 

[Philip]

You can when you understand exactly how small a virus is. It's probably fine for stopping flies going in your mouth but as for viruses that's another matter but then even a fly can crawl behind the mask!!

The purpose of face coverings was to protect others, not so much the wearer. You can't say that wearing a mask correctly didn't partially reduce the amount of viral particles coming out of the nose or mouth of someone infected with coronavirus. Even without evidence the other way you had to play the percentages at the time and until the vaccines were rolled out then masks had their place in helping to reduce the number of people becoming seriously ill or dying.

 

[DustyBin]

I don't know if there is proven evidence, but sometimes you can think about it logically and any kind of covering over the nose and mouth is likely to at least reduce the number of viral particles (especially bigger particles) that transfer from one person to another through these.

You appear to be overlooking the fact that SARS-Cov-2 is airborne and does is not transmitted via droplets as first thought. Surgical masks, cloth face coverings etc. are completely ineffective at preventing this mode of transmission.

There is lots of anecdotal evidence that flimsy face coverings don’t reduce transmission. The point made in other posts about mask mandates having on the face of it the opposite effect, is not the only evidence that they have negligible if any effect on reducing transmission. My wife and myself don’t wear masks as we are exempt in the terms of the original mandate and neither of us have caught covid as far as we are aware. My sister in law’s family wore masks and caught what we assume is Omicron earlier this year. The key point is despite many of us looking for evidence that surgical or similar masks reduce transmission, we have not been able to find any credible evidence that they are in any way effective. So the government and some experts have inflicted a mentally damaging restriction on the population without any scientific support simply to be seen to be doing something.

I agree, and it's easy to lose sight of the real question here which is: Do masks (of any type, arguably) reduce transmission in a community setting? to which the answer is no. There is simply no correlation between the introduction of mask mandates and reduced transmission. Even in Germany where they mandated FFP2s, which in theory should reduce transmission, there was no noticeable benefit as we're dealing with a community setting and not a controlled environment.

This is the point many of us on here make repeatedly; if an individual wishes to protect themselves when entering what they perceive to be a high risk environment, they can do so by wearing a properly fitted FFP3. Mandating face coverings in an attempt to reduce transmission at population level however is a complete waste of time.

 

[Cdd89]

The purpose of face coverings was to protect others, not so much the wearer. You can't say that wearing a mask correctly didn't partially reduce the amount of viral particles coming out of the nose or mouth of someone infected with coronavirus.

You certainly can. Consider two people sitting side by side (such as on a tube train). No mask means exhalations are projected forwards, with a small amount going toward each side. A loosely-worn cloth or surgical mask means exhalations are mostly projected toward the left and the right, directly toward those sitting adjacent.

Surely you can see how this could be harmful, and only a tightly-fitting effective mask would be useful; which the vast majority did not wear? But instead we imposed ineffective masks based on “common sense”. Intervening without clear evidence of benefit can be very harmful.

 

[Philip]

Some organisations were keen to get in board the virtue signalling bandwagon.

Rather a lot of virtue signalling considering mask wearing in churches was nationwide and applied strictly - and the vast majority of parishioners went along with it; they're not all either virtue signallers of paranoid. I think you'll find it was more to do with protecting everyone present in the building; how effective it was is open to debate of course.

 

[Huntergreed]

Rather a lot of virtue signalling considering mask wearing in churches was nationwide and applied strictly - and the vast majority of parishioners went along with it; they're not all either virtue signallers of paranoid. I think you'll find it was more to do with protecting everyone present in the building; how effective it was is open to debate of course.

Anyone who has a basic understanding of science and even a slightly critical mind can easily analyse the wealth of real world data that we now have can conclude very easily that masks have absolutely no significant effect on transmission.

Feel free to present evidence to the contrary, however the large number of mandates applied have collectively demonstrated that they achieve nothing whatsoever (look at Scotland vs England for example).

The reason for mandates was partially virtue signalling (people and businesses like to be seen to be “doing the right thing”, and imposing mask mandates did just that) and partly psychological (although they didn’t achieve much, many were misled into thinking that masks made a big difference, so mandating them helps people to “feel safer” regardless of their actual impact).

 

[Philip]

If loose-fitting masks had been proven to be completely ineffective then the mandate for them would not have been imposed, due to the environmental impact of plastic wastage and the effect they could have on people's mental health - either the surgical grade masks would have been made mandatory or there would have been no mask mandate at all.

 

[kez19]

If loose-fitting masks had been proven to be completely ineffective then the mandate for them would not have been imposed, due to the environmental impact of plastic wastage and the effect they could have on people's mental health - either the surgical grade masks would have been made mandatory or there would have been no mask mandate at all.

Looking at what you say in the bigger picture I didn't see those in media or the politicians jumping on the bandwagon of wearing masks until last year whilst in other settings were told too - doesn't that not raise even an eyebrow? It does for me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2022 ==

The purpose of face coverings was to protect others, not so much the wearer. You can't say that wearing a mask correctly didn't partially reduce the amount of viral particles coming out of the nose or mouth of someone infected with coronavirus. Even without evidence the other way you had to play the percentages at the time and until the vaccines were rolled out then masks had their place in helping to reduce the number of people becoming seriously ill or dying.

Was it really? I am highly doubtful on that front, as I look back on it I didn't see no politician let alone in the media (including tv shows), seemed concerned by wearing masks, even looking at the press conferences the only time they took them off to put them back up was to answer a question, it just comes across more now as if its all been a bit of media drama/soap show - the public have been the plebs whilst those in control walk.

As the classic example by ITV News last year that i'll raise again: reporter out in open standing outside a bus stop telling those that come off a bus they should have wore a mask (yet she was maskless in the report), but this to me was media dictating to the public what we should have done - double standards? The media are happy to say these things but they contradict themselves and have done for the last couple years.

 

[GC class B1]

If loose-fitting masks had been proven to be completely ineffective then the mandate for them would not have been imposed, due to the environmental impact of plastic wastage and the effect they could have on people's mental health - either the surgical grade masks would have been made mandatory or there would have been no mask mandate at all.

I hope one message from this pandemic is that governments must provide scientific evidence that any proposed restrictions will be sufficiently beneficial that they outweigh the inevitable harms. If the evidence is not produced, I believe compliance will be low. The ship has sailed where the population will trust what government and so called experts tell us to do without clearly presented evidence that supports the course of action. This is a lesson for us all and I hope the covid enquiry take note.

 

[kez19]

I hope one message from this pandemic is that governments must provide scientific evidence that any proposed restrictions will be sufficiently beneficial that they outweigh the inevitable harms. If the evidence is not produced, I believe compliance will be low. The ship has sailed where the population will trust what government and so called experts tell us to do without clearly presented evidence that supports the course of action. This is a lesson for us all and I hope the covid enquiry take note.

The thing was (saying this in Scotland though - was when evidence was asked it was never out, it was more hearsay), i'm sure the one thing I remember was that people going to the gym were being blamed for spreading it to then later be said it was false, so how do we know who is being truthful or not? Even I have lost trust in both politicians and media.

Was it not the same I believe with even Dr Hilary on GMB (don't watch programme anyway), but on youtube one minute he says masks do nothing then maybe few weeks later says they do? I doubt its down to change in circumstances but I just find it strangely odd and at same time how quick the public went with it.

 

[Eyersey468]

I hope one message from this pandemic is that governments must provide scientific evidence that any proposed restrictions will be sufficiently beneficial that they outweigh the inevitable harms. If the evidence is not produced, I believe compliance will be low. The ship has sailed where the population will trust what government and so called experts tell us to do without clearly presented evidence that supports the course of action. This is a lesson for us all and I hope the covid enquiry take note.

I agree, just saying oh well this action might help simply isn't good enough.

 

[Jimini]

You certainly can. Consider two people sitting side by side (such as on a tube train). No mask means exhalations are projected forwards, with a small amount going toward each side. A loosely-worn cloth or surgical mask means exhalations are mostly projected toward the left and the right, directly toward those sitting adjacent.

My personal favourite was hairdressers wearing visors, thus projecting all of their breath due south, straight onto the person they were supposedly wearing said visor to protect.

 

[DustyBin]

If loose-fitting masks had been proven to be completely ineffective then the mandate for them would not have been imposed, due to the environmental impact of plastic wastage and the effect they could have on people's mental health - either the surgical grade masks would have been made mandatory or there would have been no mask mandate at all.

They were introduced as the government wanted to be seen to be doing something, and also to increase the perceived threat. You may recall that the WHO advice changed from "don't wear a mask" to "wear a mask" overnight. There was no new evidence it was a knee-jerk reaction.

Surgical masks are no better than cloth face coverings (I suspect you actually mean FFP2s and FFP3s, but as per my previous post the former achieved nothing when mandated in Germany).

 

[greyman42]

Rather a lot of virtue signalling considering mask wearing in churches was nationwide and applied strictly - and the vast majority of parishioners went along with it; they're not all either virtue signallers of paranoid. I think you'll find it was more to do with protecting everyone present in the building; how effective it was is open to debate of course.

And how do you know that?

 

[Richard Scott]

The purpose of face coverings was to protect others, not so much the wearer. You can't say that wearing a mask correctly didn't partially reduce the amount of viral particles coming out of the nose or mouth of someone infected with coronavirus. Even without evidence the other way you had to play the percentages at the time and until the vaccines were rolled out then masks had their place in helping to reduce the number of people becoming seriously ill or dying.

That's what you were told, unfortunately the reality is different. They neither protect you nor others unless, as has been said many times, you have a tight fitting FFP2/3 mask. I've done lots of research so please stop regurgitating useless information that was peddled by politand media.

 

[greyman42]

The purpose of face coverings was to protect others, not so much the wearer. You can't say that wearing a mask correctly didn't partially reduce the amount of viral particles coming out of the nose or mouth of someone infected with coronavirus. Even without evidence the other way you had to play the percentages at the time and until the vaccines were rolled out then masks had their place in helping to reduce the number of people becoming seriously ill or dying.

If people who were overweight and leading unhealthy lifestyles had changed their ways then this would have greatly reduced their risk of becoming seriously ill or dying.

 

[Philip]

That's what you were told, unfortunately the reality is different. They neither protect you nor others unless, as has been said many times, you have a tight fitting FFP2/3 mask. I've done lots of research so please stop regurgitating useless information that was peddled by politand media.

Whilst he doesn't seem to get good reviews in these parts, I believe Prof Chris Whitty is a professional and well respected epidemiologist and without any hidden agenda - and before vaccines really took hold he was advising people to wear masks and not saying that loose fitting masks were useless. He is not advocating masks now and hasn't done for some time, so I trust what he says.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2022 ==

If people who were overweight and leading unhealthy lifestyles had changed their ways then this would have greatly reduced their risk of becoming seriously ill or dying.

Changing lifestyle or your health isn't something which happens overnight, whereas this was about protecting people right there and right then.

 

[Huntergreed]

Whilst he doesn't seem to get good reviews in these parts, I believe Prof Chris Whitty to be a professional and well respected scientist and without any hidden agenda - and before vaccines really took hold he was advising people to wear masks and not saying that loose fitting masks were useless. He is not advocating masks now and hasn't done for some time, so I trust what he says.

So you are basing your opinion on trust and others rather than conducting any research and critical analysis to allow you to form your own opinion?

No offence intended to you directly, but its the fact that so many simply rely on the information they are spoonfed from the media and “experts” these days (and a lack of enthusiasm to conduct any independent research) that have lead to the majority being mislead and developing misguided opinions about the pandemic over the past 2 years.

Changing lifestyle or your health isn't something which happens overnight, whereas this was about protecting people right there and right then.

Agreed, but it’s hugely unlikely that wearing a piece of cloth has saved any lives. The best way to protect yourself is to eat healthily, exercise often, and stay positive about things.

 

[MikeWM]

Whilst he doesn't seem to get good reviews in these parts, I believe Prof Chris Whitty to be a professional and well respected scientist and without any hidden agenda - and before vaccines really took hold he was advising people to wear masks and not saying that loose fitting masks were useless. He is not advocating masks now and hasn't done for some time, so I trust what he says.

4 March 2020:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-uk-news-professor-chris-whitty-no-masks-advice-a9374086.html

Coronavirus: Chief medical officer tells public not to wear masks

England’s chief medical officer has warned the public wearing face masks will do little to combat the ongoing coronavirus outbreak.

Professor Chris Whitty told Sky News on Wednesday that wearing a face mask had almost no effect on reducing the risk of contracting the illness.

Prof Whitty said: “In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that.”

Nothing changed in our understanding of the virus after that, apart from some highly politicised papers from places such as the Royal Society that claimed to show masks worked (actually the papers didn't show that at all despite the claims, as we've demonstrated on here many times) and the WHO changing their advice for what was admitted were 'political rather than scientific' reasons.

 

[greyman42]

Whilst he doesn't seem to get good reviews in these parts, I believe Prof Chris Whitty to be a professional and well respected scientist and without any hidden agenda - and before vaccines really took hold he was advising people to wear masks and not saying that loose fitting masks were useless. He is not advocating masks now and hasn't done for some time, so I trust what he says.

If Witty had been honest and said that we should wear FFP3 masks and that they had to be worn correctly, handled correctly and replaced often, do you think there would have been much of a take up?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2022 ==

Changing lifestyle or your health isn't something which happens overnight, whereas this was about protecting people right there and right then.

It would of made sense to start straight away and would provide benefits straight away.

 

[Philip]

So you are basing your opinion on trust and others rather than conducting any research and critical analysis to allow you to form your own opinion?

No offence intended to you directly, but its the fact that so many simply rely on the information they are spoonfed from the media and “experts” these days (and a lack of enthusiasm to conduct any independent research) that have lead to the majority being mislead and developing misguided opinions about the pandemic over the past 2 years.

The cliche 'I'm not a doctor' falls into this category; basically why not trust the advice of the experts who have spent years of research and training getting to the position they hold, often with previous experience.

4 March 2020:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-uk-news-professor-chris-whitty-no-masks-advice-a9374086.html



Nothing changed in our understanding of the virus after that, apart from some highly politicised papers from places such as the Royal Society that claimed to show masks worked (actually the papers didn't show that at all despite the claims, as we've demonstrated on here many times) and the WHO changing their advice for what was admitted were 'political rather than scientific' reasons.

In early March 2020 there were still a lot of unknown factors and it was only in the months that followed that viral load was discovered to be a key factor. He wasn't advising people not to wear loose fitting coverings in the second half of 2020 and this was because by then more was known about the virus, including that whilst masks didn't prevent transmission they were likely to reduce the load.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2022 ==

If Witty had been honest and said that we should wear FFP3 masks and that they had to be worn correctly, handled correctly and replaced often, do you think there would have been much of a take up?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2022 ==

Yes, because people trust the experts usually. I don't think he was dishonest at any point.

 

[MikeWM]

In early March 2020 there were still a lot of unknown factors and it was only in the months that followed that viral load was discovered to be a key factor.

You're suggesting that the *Chief Medical Officer* didn't know in March 2020 that viral load was a factor in how seriously you got a respiratory disease? Really?

 

[DustyBin]

You're suggesting that the *Chief Medical Officer* didn't know in March 2020 that viral load was a factor in how seriously you got a respiratory disease? Really?

That's a good point....

It's also worth noting that viral load peaks up to a week after initial infection and is dependent on a number of factors (as is the eventual clinical outcome), of which "was the individual wearing a mask?" isn't one.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2022 ==

I don't think he was dishonest at any point.

What about the misleading graphs presented by him and Valance? Was that not dishonest?

 

[greyman42]

Yes, because people trust the experts usually. I don't think he was dishonest at any point.

So why did he not suggest that people only wear the effective FFP3 mask?

 

[Richard Scott]

Whilst he doesn't seem to get good reviews in these parts, I believe Prof Chris Whitty is a professional and well respected epidemiologist and without any hidden agenda - and before vaccines really took hold he was advising people to wear masks and not saying that loose fitting masks were useless. He is not advocating masks now and hasn't done for some time, so I trust what he says.

Believe what you like but proper science is based on repeated results so afraid one opinion/theory is worthless.