Coronavirus outbreak

[Joey Shabadoo]

Nearby pub advertising that they will do an Eat Out To Help Out offer once lockdown lifted. Has anyone got links that explain whether that is a good or bad idea?

Maybe show them this -

A restaurant I've visited a few times in Spain. They gave out free food to any who needed it, recognising that Covid has caused hardship for many in the community they are part of. People queued along the street to be given food parcels - "no questions asked, without prejudice".

If restaurants here did this, they might find themselves quite popular after this is all over.

 

[alicat]

Work is allowed under current restrictions?

Perhaps, but has the virus been told?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Perhaps, but has the virus been told?

I don't think you can expect people to stop doing things which are clearly within the current rules?

There's risk with everything; cleaning a house should be very low risk (very easy to distance, very low numbers of potential exposures, mask wearing easy to implement) ?

Attending the House of Commons, just for instance, would seem far, far higher risk, and that's still continuing.

 

[kingrollo]

I think I must be the only one who would forgoe Christmas - for a vaccine in spring and a normal summer ?

 

[pawl]

I think I must be the only one who would forgoe Christmas - for a vaccine in spring and a normal summer ?

I’m with you on that one.

 

[mjr]

BBC today with more crony PPE contract headlines, ahead of Audit Office (I think) report publication.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54975507
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54974373
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54978460

Dido told to quarantine by the app. Anyone want to bet she was in another room near an app user who tested positive? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54985232

 

[kingrollo]

I’m with you on that one.

I mean like how many times have you felt a bit rough over Christmas - but got your shoot together and gone to MIL for boxing Day lunch etc, etc,

 

[mjr]

I mean like how many times have you felt a bit rough over Christmas - but got your shoot together and gone to MIL for boxing Day lunch etc, etc,

Shoots will probably still be allowed to get together, knowing this Etonian government

 

[mjr]

BBC today with more crony PPE contract headlines, ahead of Audit Office (I think) report publication.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54975507
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54974373
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54978460

Continuing the farce, Boris has now declared that he is "proud" that his government were overcharged like this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54988822

 

[tom73]

Seeing a lot more cases in lot worse state been on mostly all out support last week or so.
No sooner I get in Mrs 73 is out the door she was over ran with cases last time now we both are .
Why can't the government just grow a pair and be clear the idea of a 5 day max 10 people Christmas idea is pie in the sky.
On the same day the BMA spell it out what real risk we are in coming out of lock down with no plan. We got this "idea" leaking out
Christmas day is what ever day people want it be expecting everyone to play by the rules before and after so Boris can save Christmas.
Just won't happen it's not happening now we blow it big time last lockdown and we are going to do it all over again.
The idea the "vaccine lone ranger" will ride into town and save us in a matter of weeks or by spring is not helping either.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Police aware it's still open.

Then maybe local paper will be interested

 

[bitsandbobs]

Now we have the Danish mask fiasco where they cannot get a medical journal to publish their findings, so we can safely surmise that they have arrived at a negative conclusion. However, I am happy to believe that there may be a concurrent study with a positive conclusion. The censorship is wrong.

Now published. Limited evidence of protection to wearer. The study did not look at whether masks prevented those infected with Covid19 from infecting other people.

Some limitations to the study: low compliance and low level of Covid19.

Last word to the lead author: “Even a small degree of protection is worth using the face masks,” says Dr. Henning Bundgaard, professor of Cardiology at Rigshospitalet in Denmark and lead author of the study, “because you are protecting yourself against a potentially life-threatening disease."

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

 

[tom73]

It was not published by a medical journal because it lacks a few key things to make it credible.
Any new starter uni student can find issues with it never mind a journal.
DANMASK19 was an unblinded RCT of surgical mask wearing to test if they protect the wearer, did not look at source control, Which is the whole point of mass face covering wearing. led from a Copenhagen hospital and recruiting ~6000 people via media ads.
No involvement of a clinical trials unit
No data monitoring group
No reference to CONSORT criteria
No formal ethics approval.
It ran for 30 days which is too short given the incubation period maybe up to 14 days. So some may test positive after study ended.
Covid was also running at low numbers at the time of the study.
It doesn't even look like a risk assessment was carried out the volunteers either.
it's not a credible study it's not censorship it's the job of credible journals to reject articles if they don't meet even minimum standards.
Any new student can find issues with it never mind a journal.

 

[raleighnut]

I’m with you on that one.

Me too.

 

[Wobblers]

Now published. Limited evidence of protection to wearer. The study did not look at whether masks prevented those infected with Covid19 from infecting other people.

Some limitations to the study: low compliance and low level of Covid19.

Last word to the lead author: “Even a small degree of protection is worth using the face masks,” says Dr. Henning Bundgaard, professor of Cardiology at Rigshospitalet in Denmark and lead author of the study, “because you are protecting yourself against a potentially life-threatening disease."

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Statistically speaking, this study shows that there was no difference between those wearing a mask and those not. In other words, mask wearing is ineffective in preventing infection. Except... the study followed people who wore masks outside of their homes. Given that it's believed that many - probably most - get infected in a domestic setting where masks aren't worn, this is a significant shortcoming. Furthermore, it's hypothesised that a mask will reduce the number of viruses the wearer is exposed to, which in turn is likely to result in milder illness - this effect was not looked at.

Interesting, but I don't think this study is particularly illuminating: we need larger studies where the environment of the participants (when they're both masked and unmasked) is controlled.