Mutating Corona Virus

[honeybee13]

Err, further up the thread somewhere. I saw it on Twitter and can't remenber where now.

[honeybee13]

Here it is, I posted it on 19th July.

 

[hightail]

TJ, the reason I used the term 'very vulnerable' is because I have huge empathy for those who are having lived with someone going through chemo  and little patience with the vast majority who declared themselves exempt from mask wearing.  They are the very people who could wear a mask but chose not to because they liked the idea of being special and above the rules.  There is a large crossover of those who would label themselves vulnerable when it suits them and do nothing to protect others while expecting others to protect them.

[tobyjugg2]

as pics aren't allowed anymore and probably nobody would open a pdf making the effort pointless

 

Neither person wearing a mask = 90% risk of transmission

Just None infected person wearing a mask = 30% risk of transmission

 

Just infected person wearing mask = 5% risk of transmission

- 6 times LESS likely to transmit than just the 'others wearing masks

 

Both/all wearing masks = 1.5% risk of transmission

- 12 times LESS likely for transmission of the virus than just 'others wearing masks

 

 

ah redundant - HB found it

Edited August 4, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

TJ, are you saying you can't see the graphic I just put up? Fwiw, I open pdf files if people post them.

[tobyjugg2]

16 minutes ago, hightail said:

TJ, the reason I used the term 'very vulnerable' is because I have huge empathy for those who are having lived with someone going through chemo  and little patience with the vast majority who declared themselves exempt from mask wearing.  They are the very people who could wear a mask but chose not to because they liked the idea of being special and above the rules.  There is a large crossover of those who would label themselves vulnerable when it suits them and do nothing to protect others while expecting others to protect them.

 

I think no-one should be exempt, and those who simply chose NOT to wear masks indoors in busy places are worse whether the law 'allows it' or not.

 

As bad or worse than someone driving through a supermarket car park on a video call on their phone.

At least the potential car victims can see and hear the car coming and actually have a chance of jumping out of the way - a covid victim is blindsided and likely to take it home to infect their loved ones

- all for want of wearing a mask while in a supermarket or bus.

Edited August 4, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

56 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

TJ, are you saying you can't see the graphic I just put up? Fwiw, I open pdf files if people post them.

I posted that in tandum and saw your post after

 

Just a sec HB .. sorting out the TTIP pdf ...

 

.. oops to big for the site :-)

Edited August 4, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[hightail]

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

all for want of wearing a mask while in a supermarket or bus.

As far as I can see the majority still are - and I'm just back in from a supermarket trip.

 

Where I've got incredibly frustrated is the kneejerk reaction to the announcement it would no longer be compulsory as if we would go from hero to zero in one quick jump.  The situation whenever I was out and about was that around 15% never did, another 30% or so had them pulled down so didn't cover both nose and mouth.  Those are the people who will give them up completely.  You may say it was better than nothing and maybe so but in reality the change is not as great as it seems.  There never was 100% compliance.

 

Things are also different now in that many of us are vaccinated and even the not so good vaccines do seem to offer worthwhile protection.

Edited August 4, 2021 by hightail

[tobyjugg2]

kneejerk reaction? - you talking about johnson removing the need for masks I assume, and the 'kneejerk reaction of an increase in not wearing masks?

 

I'm seeing, and seen, nothing like those figures you state although I realise that the situation differs around the country and even from town to town. Much better compliance - until now

 

 

All this is moot as the simple, most effective way to reduce transmission *even better than jabs* is if everyone wears masks indoors in busy places

Jabs would seem to only roughly half the transmission rate ... and not that with certain vaccine/strain mixes,

see the graphic for mask wearing

 

The ONLY 'justification' I can see to drop mask wearing - is to INCREASE coronavirus transmission.

and I see no credible reason to think that is a useful outcome, let alone the lack of any apparent management of or preparation for that outcome.

let alone the risk of mutating a number of really bad strains or even 'the big one' out of that policy.

 

If it was gaining time to ramp up mitigations and NHS preparedness ...  .. but thats already been thrown away repeatedly

Edited August 4, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

add this

 

"Border Force was instructed to stop checking the Covid status of passengers from green or amber-list nations on 19 July, when most lockdown restrictions were lifted in England. This means there is also no official check on whether these travellers have booked Covid tests or filled in passenger locator forms to say where in the UK they will isolate if necessary"

 

red list? Why would anyone travel to the UK from a red list country when there are so many others to route through

-  a country hopping traveler to and from wherever he likes

 

 

 

MPs call for action to end ‘chaotic’ scenes at borders ahead of relaxation of travel rules

WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK

---

Authorities losing track of people entering country with virus, union warns

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

"After all but declaring victory over the virus earlier this year, Israel is set to reintroduce restrictions. The measures include requiring vaccines and masks for more kinds of gatherings, a work-from-home policy and more sweeping travel restrictions."

-NYT

[tobyjugg2]

In 2005 a blueprint was drawn up to fight a coronavirus – then it was ‘lost’

WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK

---

The Coronavirus Files: After Sars swept across the globe, the UK drew up a plan for fighting an airborne virus arriving in Britain from China. The 2005...

 

 

[brassnecked]

We utterly deplore this reckless vaccine rollout to children | The Conservative Woman

WWW.CONSERVATIVEWOMAN.CO.UK

---

We utterly deplore this reckless vaccine rollout to children

 

Found this on Twitter, Thoughts folks?   We can follow the need to vaccinate adults,  and the rollout seems to be bearing fruit, but maybe children who may be more at risk from the vaccine is a step too far?

[tobyjugg2]

only a brief view so far but certainly seems a con-wom

 

Mix and match stats to suit

adverse reactions to a tiny % of adults presented to imply/infer/link that its referring to kids,

none of the recent study stuff which despite being VERY conservative and risk averse (in the real meaning) still show that Infections and spread in children and young adults is increasing immensely with new variants

 

* long covid is still a significant issue even in the very conservative and limited studies

 

I understand the conservative stances when dealing with kids, but the latest stats and info needs to be used, not miss-presenting out of date stuff that was never really 'in date'

 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

note there are no links to real studies.reports to support the rhetoric - its just an opinion piece, and a bad opinion IMO

 

Its the same sort of stuff Connif does - report false stats with circular support from other niche nuts if anything at all

See also piers Corbyn

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

I think it was the Washington Post that said earlier that a lot of the studies on covid effects and vaccination on the under 18s are from the UK and being read worldwide. So no excuse for a UK based organisation not to read them.

 

ETA: Has anyone spoken to people who don't want to be vaccinated? A friend of ours who's a doctor has had to stop talking to her grandchildren about it because they only want to believe what they read on social media, stuff like Bill Gates wanting to track them or being turned magnetic.

 

I spoke to a friend who's 30-ish and she thinks it will stop her having children if she's vaxxed.

[tobyjugg2]

Israel is one of a number of 'more reliable' sources IMO - too much political interference with the UK reports (IMCCO)

 

note a number of US and other journals are qualifying 'differing reports'/implying 'take with a pinch of salt' with some of their UK stats/claims reporting

Some gently/some more clearly

Edited August 5, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

14 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

I spoke to a friend who's 30-ish and she thinks it will stop her having children if she's vaxxed.

 

I can actually part understand that.

The reports on tests to see what the best 'vax interval' are for pregnant women are not presented  well

[honeybee13]

Interesting. I haven't seen anything on that. This lady did say that there isn't enough information, but then there's also the concern that pregnant ladies who catch covid can be very ill and it can affect the babies.

[brassnecked]

Its problematic as no long term data, and Phase 3 trials are on until 2023, so no concrete data on anything as yet realistically.

[tobyjugg2]

just google 'pregnant vaccine; and see all the wordpress.com 'vaccine causes 4 out 5 miscarriages depopulation agenda etc

 

Those sites are IMO criminal, and wordpress.com should be prosecuted with no freedom to lie through our teeth excuses

 

Real sites with real info are swamped

Edited August 5, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[brassnecked]

Needs a proper examination of data and allow the facts to be settled. Test the pro's and Cons.

[tobyjugg2]

46 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Its problematic as no long term data, and Phase 3 trials are on until 2023, so no concrete data on anything as yet realistically.

??

Expand please

 

there are hundreds of millions of people vaccinated, many millions of which were pregnant

That the vaccines are as yet emergency approval largely due to very proper procedures and processes doesn't dent the real world data?

 

That there are no long term results from the 'new' mrna vaccines is true, although the technology itself is not new, it is new to application although is one of the longest used and more closely monitored of them all

 

There are years and years of data on adenovirus vaccines - including some known barriers re the body fighting the 'carrier' we have yet to hit

 

That they all carry some risks is unquestionable, as there is with absolutely everything including eating one heinz bean.

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

43 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Needs a proper examination of data and allow the facts to be settled. Test the pro's and Cons.

 

yes it does - openly/transparently and honestly

but IMO there is enough data to declare minimal risk for the gains

 

and both the UK and Germany shamefully rejected temporary removal of patent rights - despite the UK's program receiving massive international funding - pfiser largely didnt

Edited August 5, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

BN

Just occurred to me

that the UK granted emergency approval to the O/AZ vaccine apparently based on VERY few results (was it about 80?) and those quite clearly open to question (see prior links) is unusual

- all the others I've seen, even chinese, had far more stringent Emergency approval criteria. Not sure about the Russian one.

 

Certainly cause some for concern and truly shocking and trust destroying regarding a UK/Oxford brand

 

Has the O/AZ been given the EA even now by the US ? Not last I looked.