Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not really. I'll leave that to the "experts"

If you recall back in the early days of the pandemic there was a lot of mention about 'viral load' and 'shedding'.

One of the purported characteristics of Covid-19 was that it caused a high level of viral shedding early in the infection.

It's generally assumed that your chcance of being infected isn't just based on coming into contact with a viral pathogen - but the quantity.
 
Wonder if Boris was doing it just for social media followers?

Had he been fined and then gone to the press to talk about it, then maybe! :D

I personally don't think he should have done that, as it sets the wrong example.

What puzzles me is mask wearing and social distancing is often cited as the reason flu/ influenza has now mysteriously disappeared but those same measures do not seem too effective against Covid-19. Any thoughts why this would be?
I think there are a few considerations.

Prior to COVID-19 people wouldn’t think twice about going to work, the shops, a restaurant, the cinema, the theatre, or even an old people’s home with a cough, cold or sniffly nose.

Similarly they would openly sneeze or cough, maybe covering their mouth or maybe not, maybe with a tissue or probably not, but either way touching anything or everything afterwards.

Likewise washing hands for many people would be a reluctant fast-as-you-can task if someone has seen or heard that you went for a wee, but if they could get away with it then what’s the harm in skipping.

For many, personal space was open to all, not just at home but at work too. Hugging, kissing, shaking hands - without washing them - “squeezing up” in meeting rooms, public transport and lifts.

I could go on, but all of those things - and many more - are things which the majority of people are guilty of doing - and not doing them will have affected the transmission of the flue and common cold.

Also, I believe that the flu and common cold are spread by droplets propelled by sneezing and coughing, and perhaps coming into contact with fluids through touch if then touching the mouth or nose.

In addition to being a visual reminder to keep distance, wash hands, and do the right thing, a mask slows down those droplets and catches what could end up on the hand or tissue.

Some droplets will pass through the mask, and some will find their way out through other means, but keeping distance and regularly washing hands will reduce transmission further.

Could the same be true of COVID-19?

Possibly, and that’s why we’re asked to wear masks. However if COVID-19 is more infectious and doesn’t rely upon sneezing or coughing, then masks may be a less effective barrier than it is for flu.

It’s a hypothesis at least.
 
COVID-19-related deaths (by date reported):

37877336-9133439-image-a-43_1610392145239.jpg


Still going up, sadly.....
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

400 healthy under 60's died since this the start of this Virus

78,000 Deaths related to smoking alone?

Thousands of Businesses shut for good

Loss of Basic Human rights

I think we need a different approach to this Virus and credible information to work with.
 
I personally don't think he should have done that, as it sets the wrong example.
Although I know there’s a few willing to turn a blind eye to the government's handling of Covid, this is just another example of “do as I say, not as I do” that was present with the Cummings debacle.

If you want people to do as you ask you have to be a shining example and beyond reproach otherwise you get people thinking “well, if he can, why can’t I?” and then we’re back to square one with people doing as they see fit.

I also think, certainly with what they say they’re trying to achieve with this lockdown, that defined boundaries with no ambiguity need to set like in Scotland where there’s a 5 mile rule.
 
What puzzles me is mask wearing and social distancing is often cited as the reason flu/ influenza has now mysteriously disappeared but those same measures do not seem too effective against Covid-19. Any thoughts why this would be?
This has puzzled me more and more as the winter weeks have gone on.

Sounds macabre but will the lack of flu deaths reduce the total deaths? I think it’s likely if we say there’s an average of 20k a year?

Or maybe - just maybe - some of the Covid deaths are actually flu related deaths but aren’t being picked up as being so and going down as Covid.

It’ll probably take a year or so for the full picture to become clear but there’s definitely something amiss; it might be simply that Covid is a “stronger” virus and doesn’t allow flu to spread?
 
COVID-19-related deaths (by date reported):

37877336-9133439-image-a-43_1610392145239.jpg


Still going up, sadly.....
there were over 1000 deaths reported on 4 consecutive days - 6, 7, 8 and 9 January - during which the press was predicting an even more horrendous Armageddon

for 10 and 11 January, deaths reported are around 550 a day

seems clear that the 4 days of over 1000 was just the lag in reporting over the Christmas and New Year period
 
Had he been fined and then gone to the press to talk about it, then maybe! :D

I personally don't think he should have done that, as it sets the wrong example.


I think there are a few considerations.

Prior to COVID-19 people wouldn’t think twice about going to work, the shops, a restaurant, the cinema, the theatre, or even an old people’s home with a cough, cold or sniffly nose.

Similarly they would openly sneeze or cough, maybe covering their mouth or maybe not, maybe with a tissue or probably not, but either way touching anything or everything afterwards.

Likewise washing hands for many people would be a reluctant fast-as-you-can task if someone has seen or heard that you went for a wee, but if they could get away with it then what’s the harm in skipping.

For many, personal space was open to all, not just at home but at work too. Hugging, kissing, shaking hands - without washing them - “squeezing up” in meeting rooms, public transport and lifts.

I could go on, but all of those things - and many more - are things which the majority of people are guilty of doing - and not doing them will have affected the transmission of the flue and common cold.

Also, I believe that the flu and common cold are spread by droplets propelled by sneezing and coughing, and perhaps coming into contact with fluids through touch if then touching the mouth or nose.

In addition to being a visual reminder to keep distance, wash hands, and do the right thing, a mask slows down those droplets and catches what could end up on the hand or tissue.

Some droplets will pass through the mask, and some will find their way out through other means, but keeping distance and regularly washing hands will reduce transmission further.

Could the same be true of COVID-19?

Possibly, and that’s why we’re asked to wear masks. However if COVID-19 is more infectious and doesn’t rely upon sneezing or coughing, then masks may be a less effective barrier than it is for flu.

It’s a hypothesis at least.
Yes so the physical inventions and infection control regimes used in shops, public transport and other public spaces (where masks & distancing are mandated) has inadvertently worked very effectively for flu / influenza but less so for Covid-19.

Then we have the largely clinical environment of a hospital / healthcare setting where around 25% of all UK Covid-19 cases are occuring. An environment where ill people will be gathered together so the risk of infection is greater than outside a healthcare setting but the physical interventions and infection control regime will be far more strictly enforced.
 
Last edited:
This has puzzled me more and more as the winter weeks have gone on.

Sounds macabre but will the lack of flu deaths reduce the total deaths? I think it’s likely if we say there’s an average of 20k a year?

Or maybe - just maybe - some of the Covid deaths are actually flu related deaths but aren’t being picked up as being so and going down as Covid.

It’ll probably take a year or so for the full picture to become clear but there’s definitely something amiss; it might be simply that Covid is a “stronger” virus and doesn’t allow flu to spread?
Flu/ Influenza is a common cause of pneumonia and effects children, pregnant women & the elderly with pre existing comorbidities.

Covid-19 also leads to pneumonia but the difference is in the demographic. Generally only the elderly demographic with pre exisitng comorbidites will be effected by Covid-19.

So the lack of children and pregnant women with pneumonia is an indicator that flu/ influenza is not having an effect as it would normally at this time of year as a seasonal pathogen.

A comparison between winter 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 statistics for child and preganant women pneumonia cases or mortality should show this change.
 
Good point. So a tipping point in herd/ community immunity may have been reached for flu/ influenza.

Possibly - through vaccination - see my previous post.
 
Mitigation versus Suppression. Why do you want to shift the focus onto a discussion on the mitigation of a disease versus the suppression of a disease. The points i have made are not changed by either. The largest percentage of all cause deaths will still occur in January, the physical interventions to prevent infection would be in place in clinical settings under both regimes resulting in reduced capacity and the false positive rate and cycle threshold will still be an unknown.

So why mitigate a non-existent problem in the first place? Mitigation (like suppression) is only relevant if there's a pandemic or epidemic about - we never contemplated the measures proposed in The Great Barrington Declaration (or just general lockdowns) to mitigate (or supress) the Flu - so is COVID-19 is no worse than the seasonal Flu, why propose any if these mitigations for COVID-19?

The consequences of applying The Great Barrington Declaration (or lockdowns) are grave - not something we should be implementing to mitigate against just another common Flu.

Unless, what you are in fact suggesting is that COVID-19 is indeed a highly contagious and deadly disease, that was so far successfully kept at bay by suppression (lockdowns) - suppression that you propose to replace with mitigation (The Great Barrington Declaration) in order to continue keeping the number of cases down while not adversely affecting the entire population?

The latter could reconcile your posts supporting The Great Barrington Declaration with your posts regarding the 'false positives' explanation for the high PCR positive test results (suggesting that COVID-19 isn't at all widespread at current).

This would also tally well with your posts suggesting that the government should adhere to Pfizer's recommendations and provide maximum protection to those getting vaccinated.

But other than that - I.e. that your view is that the suppression measures put in place since March are successful and this is the reason that we don't see the effects of the pandemic or epidemic - it is difficult to reconcile your posts promoting mitigation and vaccinating for a problem you say does not actually exist.

Again, I am trying to understand how you see the current situation, but I'm struggling to put together a coherent picture based on your posts.
 
For those inclined to the satisfying and easy pastime of blaming "rule breakers" for the spread of Covid-19, and/or those who are of the view that greater specificity in the "rules" regarding outdoor activity is needed, I commend consideration of this Opinion piece by Stephen Reicher, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St. Andrews, and John Drury, School of Psychology, University of Sussex, published in the BMJ:

 
On the subject of transmission paths and transmission risks, I've previously lamented the lack of "official" advice that provides any quantification. So I was pleased to have found this paper prepared by EMG and NERVTAG and published on 6th November:


Another paper which goes rather further (there is a significant overlap suggesting that there is at least some commonality of authorship although I have not confirmed that) is this one:


...that contains much important information and includes several recommendations that seem eminently sensible, including that:

policymakers and health experts can help the public differentiate between lower-risk and higher-risk activities and environments and public health messages could convey a spectrum of risk to the public to support engagement in alternatives for safer interaction, such as in outdoor settings. Without clear public health communication about risk, individuals may fixate on unlikely sources of transmission—such as outdoor activities—while undervaluing higher-risk settings, such as family and friend gatherings and indoor settings.
which is exactly what I've been banging on about for months.
 
Possibly - through vaccination - see my previous post.
Despite there being little trace of flu / influenza in the Southern Hemisphere's winter this year which is how a vaccine would be formulated for the Northern Hemisphere 3 months later.

There is also the issue of summer influenza in the UK which in July 2020 was killing 5 times more people than Covid-19. In the week ending 31 July, the Office for National Statistics tallies for cause of death (as measured by mentions on death certificates): influenza and pneumonia 928 deaths; Covid-19 193 deaths.

 
Last edited:
So why mitigate a non-existent problem in the first place? Mitigation (like suppression) is only relevant if there's a pandemic or epidemic about - we never contemplated the measures proposed in The Great Barrington Declaration (or just general lockdowns) to mitigate (or supress) the Flu - so is COVID-19 is no worse than the seasonal Flu, why propose any if these mitigations for COVID-19?

The consequences of applying The Great Barrington Declaration (or lockdowns) are grave - not something we should be implementing to mitigate against just another common Flu.

Unless, what you are in fact suggesting is that COVID-19 is indeed a highly contagious and deadly disease, that was so far successfully kept at bay by suppression (lockdowns) - suppression that you propose to replace with mitigation (The Great Barrington Declaration) in order to continue keeping the number of cases down while not adversely affecting the entire population?

The latter could reconcile your posts supporting The Great Barrington Declaration with your posts regarding the 'false positives' explanation for the high PCR positive test results (suggesting that COVID-19 isn't at all widespread at current).

This would also tally well with your posts suggesting that the government should adhere to Pfizer's recommendations and provide maximum protection to those getting vaccinated.

But other than that - I.e. that your view is that the suppression measures put in place since March are successful and this is the reason that we don't see the effects of the pandemic or epidemic - it is difficult to reconcile your posts promoting mitigation and vaccinating for a problem you say does not actually exist.

Again, I am trying to understand how you see the current situation, but I'm struggling to put together a coherent picture based on your posts.
The Nightingale diagram demonstrates there was a health crisis in April 2020.

The consequences of the GBD are not grave. Allowing society to function while sheltering those most at risk of serious illness / death is far removed from the chosen path of suppression until vaccination that is currently destroying the UK economy.

Suppression or delaying the spread of a virus does not lead to a solution, it does not lead towards the development of immunity. Instead it hinders the development of community immunity making a health crisis worse. It relies on a vaccine as the only solution. Now we have a Pfizer "vaccine" that may only prevent symptoms and not provide aquired immunity. Look up the definition of vaccine "A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease".

 
Nice. One of the reasons i got a Rohloff was i hate adjusting gears. Knowing you have perfect gearchanges all the time is a game changer. For a mtb the sealed Rohloff gearbox means weather does not matter anymore and i can change gears when stationary even from gear 1 to gear 14. Probably be too heavy for a road bike though.
I have a Shimano Alfine 11-speed for similar reasons: perfect changes every time, never gets gummed up with grit in winter. And only just over 3lbs in weight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom