Non - Pandemic

dsr-burnley said:
You're still working on the basis that to judge real-world conditions, real world testing is not as good as laboratory theory. I don't agree.

Which is the better way to assess how transmissible a disease is - to put several thousand people into a closed environment and see which of two groups catches it more; or to measure droplets in a lab?

You haven't even explained what the 80% reduction is reduced from. Is it from normal light breathing, from heavy breathing, from coughing, from sneezing - 50% of what?
Click to expand...

It's a percentage, it's a drop from 100%
 
northstandmark said:
Your logic works perfectly in a pre vaccine world where Person A and Person B have a roughly equal ability to catch, carry, and spread Covid.

That is no longer the case, once vaccinated we know you're less likely to catch covid, and if you do you are less likely to transmit it as well. There's a 94% reduction in transmission from asymptomatic carriers, for example.

Now, you can apply your logic on top of the % reductions that vaccines provide of course, but how far do we take that? Well it probably depends on the situation.

Seems to me there will be some scenarios there the additional protection to you and others of a mask will be of some benefit, over and above the herd being vaccinated.

So if you have a sniffle and are getting on public transport - please wear a mask. Maybe we should all wear them on public transport at peak times? Also other scenarios where it's illogical and done for the sake of being seen to do it.

Remember, what is a minor inconvenience to you and me may be more problematic to others. Some people need nonverbal cues. For some people a lack of masks makes them more anxious, or more confident. And for others the sight of masks on everyone makes them more anxious, or more confident. I think it's something we just have to tiptoe through and see how things go.
Click to expand...

Eventually that may be true but currently with existing restrictions infections are skyrocketting again.

As for the inconvience angle I guess it's one of those things where it's hard to guage without experiencing it yourself. I have a deaf friend who relies quite heavily on lip reading and she would rather I shout at her than remove my mask which is my most extreme personal example of mask difficulties so probably biases my viewpoint.
 
dsr-burnley said:
You're still working on the basis that to judge real-world conditions, real world testing is not as good as laboratory theory. I don't agree.

Which is the better way to assess how transmissible a disease is - to put several thousand people into a closed environment and see which of two groups catches it more; or to measure droplets in a lab?

You haven't even explained what the 80% reduction is reduced from. Is it from normal light breathing, from heavy breathing, from coughing, from sneezing - 50% of what?
Click to expand...
The crew of a us naval vessel are unlikely to match the demographics of the general population.
A clear statement from SAGE should remove all the confusion.
 
stanthevan said:
I've noticed that the most vociferous anti maskers all hold right wing views and we all know that being selfish and voting Conservative go hand in hand.
Click to expand...

Probably because you ignore any evidence that contradicts your worldview and your attempts to paint yourself as morally superior.
 
Last edited:
JIMNNINA said:
The crew of a us naval vessel are unlikely to match the demographics of the general population.
A clear statement from SAGE should remove all the confusion.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the lab test that measured a reduction of 50% of droplets, used a droplet emitter that was representative of the demographics of the general population?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
So is the article you are questioning, it's got links to all of the studies. Maybe try answering your banal questions yourself before posting them on here and ignoring the answers you get.
Click to expand...

Answers on the performance of cobra, sage, nervtag seem to be in short supply.

Pointing to better or worse performance in other countries isnt really the answer, bit like the grenfell enquiry/inquiry saying cladding was even worse in other countries so nothing to see here.
 
JIMNNINA said:
Answers on the performance of cobra, sage, nervtag seem to be in short supply.

Pointing to better or worse performance in other countries isnt really the answer, bit like the grenfell enquiry/inquiry saying cladding was even worse in other countries so nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

I think you've got me confused with someone else Jim. I've never had a conversation about cobra, sage or nervtag in my life.

Anyway why have you completely ignored what I've just said and are trying to create arguments I've not made rather than answering the point in hand?

Presumably Scott Parker is going to plan what he wants to achieve this season and any comparison with the achievements of other clubs at the end of the season is a distraction tactic?
 
JIMNNINA said:
Answers on the performance of cobra, sage, nervtag seem to be in short supply.

Pointing to better or worse performance in other countries isnt really the answer, bit like the grenfell enquiry/inquiry saying cladding was even worse in other countries so nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

You need to get over it. You’ve given an unbalanced view since day one. You’ve failed to be positive about anything even the vaccine roll out. The vaccines are what are providing us with July 19th unlocking. We are going to have to live with this for a while longer yet. You harping on and quoting ******************************** all the time isn’t going to change a thing or bring about an early general election, of which your beloved labour still won’t stand a chance.

No one cares about you constantly quoting emergency planning, sage, cobra or anything else. It’s pointless. Just move on.
 
billythekid said:
Are 100,000 cases a day acceptable in this ‘experiment’ and the people being the guinea pigs?
Click to expand...
Provided the vaccines give protection against serious illness and death then I would say yes.
A difficult decision though trying to balance up the economy which after all pays for the NHS, peoples jobs and mortgages and general well being against the risk of the pandemic.
The thing that will be unbearable is the hysterics of the media that will follow;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;