Coronavirus

[mids]

The problem for the far, extreme, authoritarian, endless lockdown left is that Oakshott is very much a lockdown skeptic.

[moggyonspeed]

Merely a label.

Other nations, that is to say countries other than Trump's and Johnson's oh-so-libertarian (what a joke!) societies, locked down earlier, harder and also tested anything that moved. You can see the results for yourself in the US and the UK's death rates compared to others, making your defence of the indefensible rather strange but, I guess, to be expected.

Not locking down schools early enough was also a Tory fiasco. Whilst kids' natural immunity and resistance to COVID was a good thing, it led Gavin Williamson into a false sense of security in assuming that, because they may not have exhibited symptoms, they were an insignificant threat. How utterly naive, when these same kids turned out to be rather good spreaders of the virus - and yet you support them.

[mids]

Testing you say? Really? We had one of the most extensive testing regimes in the world. Far more advanced than pitiful Geurmany, for example. Also, in terms of lockdowns, international comparisons had us pretty much in the middle of the pack in terms of timing and depth. Do you really not know this?

[flatandy]

Oakeshott is a terrible person. As someone observed elsewhere, Hancock complaining that she leaked his texts is very much “I’m surprised this leopard ate my face” territory.

[mids]

This is interesting. Masks probably don't do any good. Better evidence is needed to say for sure but it's not looking good for masks.

"Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks



We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence)."


www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

[flatandy]

Does that test bi-directionality? Or does it just test whether the mask-wearer is protected?

[moggyonspeed]

Mar 2, 2023 11:52:23 GMT mids said:

Testing you say? Really? We had one of the most extensive testing regimes in the world. Far more advanced than pitiful Geurmany, for example. Also, in terms of lockdowns, international comparisons had us pretty much in the middle of the pack in terms of timing and depth. Do you really not know this?

You're missing the point - deliberately.

In health, outcomes are one of the most effective bellwethers you have, and the numbers speak for themselves:

Deaths (Mar.'20 to Dec. '21): Germany 114,000; UK 150,000

... based on ...

Population: Germany 83M; UK 68M
Hospital beds: 487,000; 141,000
Hospital beds/1000: 5.8; 2.1
ICU beds: 25,000; 4,500
ICU beds/100,000: 29.8; 6.6

Notions of UK "testing", timing and depth are red herrings, used perhaps to hide the fact that Germany's higher taxes (affordable through higher productivity) are able to pay for a FAR better health service delivering demonstrably better outcomes.

Numbers don't lie, but some will lie about these same numbers.

[mids]

Seems to be a bit of a mix but ultimately their question was about whether masks "interrupt or reduce the spread". Quite a lot of the studies seem to be on health care workers who might be more exposed but who also should be better at wearing masks. Quite a few were set in the community where it's less easy to control who (else) wears a mask. Community based studies will be better at testing their effectiveness in the community whereas studies on health care worker situations will be best for that. It's hard to see the outcome changing much. I think if we were going to see an effect, it would have shown up here. They also looked at handwashing which did have a small protective effect.

[mids]

Mar 2, 2023 13:27:09 GMT moggyonspeed said:

Mar 2, 2023 11:52:23 GMT mids said:

Testing you say? Really? We had one of the most extensive testing regimes in the world. Far more advanced than pitiful Geurmany, for example. Also, in terms of lockdowns, international comparisons had us pretty much in the middle of the pack in terms of timing and depth. Do you really not know this?

You're missing the point - deliberately.

In health, outcomes are one of the most effective bellwethers you have, and the numbers speak for themselves:

Deaths (Mar.'20 to Dec. '21): Germany 114,000; UK 150,000

... based on ...

Population: Germany 83M; UK 68M
Hospital beds: 487,000; 141,000
Hospital beds/1000: 5.8; 2.1
ICU beds: 25,000; 4,500
ICU beds/100,000: 29.8; 6.6

Notions of UK "testing", timing and depth are red herrings, used perhaps to hide the fact that Germany's higher taxes (affordable through higher productivity) are able to pay for a FAR better health service delivering demonstrably better outcomes.

Numbers don't lie, but some will lie about these same numbers.

Ah. Not only have you moved the goalposts, you've changed the game too. Just to remind you, it was you that first mentioned testing. Also, bellwether? Bellend, more like. I'm not sure if that's in any way relevant but I wanted to say it anyway.

[moggyonspeed]

Ha! And now I know you're beaten.

The worrying thing for you is that your beloved government has killed off a significant proportion of the elderly demographic that you rely on. Such a shame they won't see those sunlit uplands they probably voted for (that said, you can't either). Who will vote Tory now? Well, there's you ...

[voice]

It's a weird thing looking back, a new virus we hadn't expected or knew very much about, similar to SARS and MERS but much more virulent and deadly. This lead to a lot of attempted mitigation that in hindsight were nit that effective, most cloth masks, masking outdoors (always absurd) wearing gloves sanitizing everything we touched, and so on, though rather than this been seen as a learning response to a new problem it's seen as the science and public health being incompetent and wrong, or when advice changed as we knew more this again rather than been seen as a good thing was proof the experts were all over the place.

Meanwhile on the otherside it was all miracle cures and quick fix solutions that while never been shown to gave worked are still been touted by covid deniers, from hours dewormer to the Barrington declaration of let her rip.

[mids]

There was a lot of erring on the side of caution, which is understandable but it may also be the case that there was a reluctance to change the public health message when it looked like the evidence was changing. A lot of loons on both sides tried to make political hay. There was a real authoritarian streak shown by some too. Some people seemed to delight in the idea of a lockdown.

[flatandy]

Mar 2, 2023 18:00:23 GMT mids said:

There was a lot of erring on the side of caution, which is understandable but it may also be the case that there was a reluctance to change the public health message when it looked like the evidence was changing. A lot of loons on both sides tried to make political hay. There was a real authoritarian streak shown by some too. Some people seemed to delight in the idea of a lockdown.

Until the last sentence, I think this is entirely correct.

I'd argue that there was a large amount of non-understandable, non-data-backed excessive caution from some people early on.

[mids]

You were almost right apart from your first phrase. Started off badly then managed to pull it back.

[voice]

The Strongest Evidence Yet That an Animal Started the Pandemic
A new analysis of genetic samples from China appears to link the pandemic’s origin to raccoon dogs.

For three years now, the debate over the origins of the coronavirus pandemic has ping-ponged between two big ideas: that SARS-CoV-2 spilled into human populations directly from a wild-animal source, and that the pathogen leaked from a lab. Through a swirl of data obfuscation by Chinese authorities and politicalization within the United States, and rampant speculation from all corners of the world, many scientists have stood by the notion that this outbreak—like most others—had purely natural roots. But that hypothesis has been missing a key piece of proof: genetic evidence from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China, showing that the virus had infected creatures for sale there.

This week, an international team of virologists, genomicists, and evolutionary biologists may have finally found crucial data to help fill that knowledge gap. A new analysis of genetic sequences collected from the market shows that raccoon dogs being illegally sold at the venue could have been carrying and possibly shedding the virus at the end of 2019. It’s some of the strongest support yet, experts told me, that the pandemic began when SARS-CoV-2 hopped from animals into humans, rather than in an accident among scientists experimenting with viruses.

“This really strengthens the case for a natural origin,” says Seema Lakdawala, a virologist at Emory University who wasn’t involved in the research. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist involved in the research, told me, “This is a really strong indication that animals at the market were infected. There’s really no other explanation that makes any sense.”

The findings won’t fully silence the entrenched voices on either side of the origins debate. But the new analysis may offer some of the clearest and most compelling evidence that the world will ever get in support of an animal origin for the virus that, in just over three years, has killed nearly 7 million people worldwide.

www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/03/covid-origins-research-raccoon-dogs-wuhan-market-lab-leak/673390/?fbclid=IwAR232LLJl6kHgrxOkwJrteBk8mO0eO4Lm-2FQ7ZJ8PnCPZN5-fgC8soMgQI

though we know that no amount of evidence will ever be enough for those who've spent 3 years clinging to the lab leak/release conspiracy

[mids]

"A new analysis of genetic sequences, funded by the CCP..."

[ootlg]

Just another rumour. And why would the lab leak theory be a conspiracy? Because it clashes with entrenched beliefs?

[flatandy]

There’s a lot of “could” and “might” in that, like in every report at the moment on the origins.

[flatandy]

Mar 17, 2023 10:46:54 GMT ootlg said:

Just another rumour. And why would the lab leak theory be a conspiracy? Because it clashes with entrenched beliefs?

Because most of the lab-leak crazies are claiming a conspiracy. They have been claiming that China deliberately produced a weaponised virus, and that the weaponised virus was either accidentally spilled or, they also claim, deliberately sent out with a goal of destroying China’s enemies.

Which is down in the under-1% likelihood range.

There does seem to be a moderate chance that somebody doing some basic research into coronavirii f**k*d up and it go out, and China is embarrassed by that and trying to conceal it. But that’s not the politicised argument used by the lab leak loons over the last couple of years.

And it’s still more likely that the origination was the same as other virii in the past.

[ootlg]

Virii - I like that.