"When you get a vaccine, how will you priortise who gets it first?"
perhaps we can cross that bridge in 12 months when we have one.
That's like asking JFK after his famous speech launching the space programme, when the first man from the moon come back what will the main course of the welcome home dinner be....
"When you get a vaccine, how will you priortise who gets it first?"
perhaps we can cross that bridge in 12 months when we have one.
There's an entire area of research into prioritising vaccination groups. The HPA (now PHE) got its modellers and health economists to figure out the optimal strategy for the 2009 pandemic influenza, no doubt they'll be doing the same this time round.
For that, they vaccinate kids because even though the direct benefits of protecting children from flu are relatively small, it's believed to have a big impact on reducing transmission.
I'm not sure the eggheads have a very clear idea about who's transmitting the COVID around yet, though ...
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authoritis", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
I'd have thought reducing infection chance through the nose and mouth via wearing a mask would be more effective than not wearing a mask at all though. Of course it could pop into your eyes but I'd have thought that's less likely than a nasal or oral infection. Wear a mask but act like you don't have one on could be the best advice. People also need to learn not touch their face first - a mask is like the advanced driver's course after the beginner's no face touching one.
Whether masks reduce the chance of you being infected is less important than the fact they very definitely limit your chance of SPREADING the disease, through coughs and sneezes - that's the fundamental point which westerners seem to find very hard to grasp (ie: we ask what will benefit me as an individual, not what will benefit society)
So that guy over there in a mask is doing YOU a favour. You are less likely to catch the bug from him, if he is infected, because his sneeze is muffled. Why not return the favour, and wear a mask, so you are less likely to kill HIM?
Then get everyone to do it, as a favour to everyone else, and bingo we are on the way to being South Korea, not Ecuador.
The flip side is, you touch and fiddle with the mask you've just made wet by coughing into it, as you walk out of the carriage you hold on to one of the grab rails before pressing the button to open the door...
Also the issue of whether you change your behaviour while wearing a mask. Seems pretty likely to me the average Joe will change it in some respects.
There are prima facie benefits to the masks, but I can understand why scientists don't feel happy being drawn about their net effect based on the currently available evidence. And particularly for "home-made masks" which will be of highly variable composition.
Any barrier to coughs and sneezes is better than none at all. No one is coughing into their elbows (what an absurd suggestion that was, tho it shows that barriers work)
So: put a bloody bandana on.
Another positive effect of masks is that they make you conscious of your face and that you should not touch your mouth with your hands. Masks are a constant reminder of that.
This is simplistic - the science is more nuanced - but it is still persuasive
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
You know that uneasy sense we all have (whether openly admitted or not) that Germany does everything apart from winning WW1s and WW2s significantly better than us?
Coronavirus has not done much to quell it, has it?
We didn't win WW1 or WW2 - the Allied coalitions did (and WW1 was a close shave more than once). Which completes your point nicely.
OK, but I'm claiming it for these purposes since we're very light otherwise.
There's the whole creative arts area, I suppose. I rate us better than Germany there.
I'm not sure even on that. Creative Arts is a big topic.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authorities" still resisting universal mask usage.
Against them we now have the USA (and the CDC), the governments of France, Korea, Germany, Austria, Taiwan, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Singapore, Spain, Hong Kong, etc etc etc, even the BMJ within the UK now supports mask wearing. The governor of New York is now imposing mask wearing. The mayor of London, despite being an idiot, now sees it as necessary.
Incidentally, the argument the WHO now uses against masks is that "anyway, the virus can also infect you through the eyes", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
It is controversial but my point is the cost and how much will it cost HMG or consumers per week and how are the numbers required sourced and where
Well, we are about to spend a third of a trillion pounds supporting the economy.
How much is a mask if manufactured at scale? 5p? 50p?
We could spend five billion on fifty billion masks, bringing forward the moment we can ease lockdown, and still save money
Only if it works and where do we get the constant supply
I have now told you about ninety times. Just make your own and it is better than nothing.
I am aware of your obsession over masks but I am not convinced that widescale use of masks will make the difference you maintain
In confined spaces and of course medical locations it may well have a benefit but it is not the silver bullet you think it is.
A sneeze velocity is 70mph and masks do not 100% stop the spread and of course most people touch their face and masks multiple times negating their effectiveness
I have made it clear that WHO do not recommend them, a sneeze travels at 70mph making a mask less than secure and most everyone continually touch their mouth and face
There are times in medical environments and close contact when their use is justified but mandating the use to the public is a big step and is not proven
And with respect I am not concerned that some will disagree with me and I am responding to the Eadric
What do you think the velocity of the sneeze has to do with it? Masks filter particles based on size, not speed. If anything the high distance that sneezes travel is an argument to wear a mask.
You are, very uncharacteristically, talking total nonsense.
It is very simple. Anyone who has been elected President twice is ineligible to be President again.
They are therefore ineligible to be Vice President.
They could still hold cabinet rank, or serve as Speaker, or as President Pro Tempore of the Senate (improbable though the last would be) but they would not be in the presidential line of succession.
This is for the very good and obvious reason that otherwise a Putin or a Roosevelt could, on serving two terms, nominate themselves as VP, get re-elected and force their stooge to resign, thus resuming the presidency.
The Supreme Court wouldn’t even bother to hear arguments. They would strike such a nomination down as unconstitutional.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authorities" still resisting universal mask usage.
Against them we now have the USA (and the CDC), the governments of France, Korea, Germany, Austria, Taiwan, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Singapore, Spain, Hong Kong, etc etc etc, even the BMJ within the UK now supports mask wearing. The governor of New York is now imposing mask wearing. The mayor of London, despite being an idiot, now sees it as necessary.
Incidentally, the argument the WHO now uses against masks is that "anyway, the virus can also infect you through the eyes", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
It is controversial but my point is the cost and how much will it cost HMG or consumers per week and how are the numbers required sourced and where
Well, we are about to spend a third of a trillion pounds supporting the economy.
How much is a mask if manufactured at scale? 5p? 50p?
We could spend five billion on fifty billion masks, bringing forward the moment we can ease lockdown, and still save money
Only if it works and where do we get the constant supply
I would have thought even with our depleted manufacturing base there are companies who could tool up to deliver enormous amounts of a simple product there is suddenly a vast demand for.
Quite. It seems to me a no brainer.
We have factories lying idle. We have the government paying young healthy people to do nothing.
Pay them, instead, to go into the factories (at appropriate social distance) and make masks. Billions of 'em.
We did this in war and this is as bad as a war.
Kaiser Wilhelm employed young unemployed people to build a ship canal near here. Maybe Boris could employ unemployed youngsters to build HS2 :-)
On masks the advice is variable at present and we are entirely in line with WTO recommendations
Masks must be available in medical locations and high risk areas
It is under review
And that is the view I support
At the very least, we need to be planning to be able to mass produce them. We can't get caught out like PPE, where the big UK company has their Chinese plant seized or the testing where we were too slow to put call out to the private sector.
"When you get a vaccine, how will you priortise who gets it first?"
perhaps we can cross that bridge in 12 months when we have one.
There's an entire area of research into prioritising vaccination groups. The HPA (now PHE) got its modellers and health economists to figure out the optimal strategy for the 2009 pandemic influenza, no doubt they'll be doing the same this time round.
For that, they vaccinate kids because even though the direct benefits of protecting children from flu are relatively small, it's believed to have a big impact on reducing transmission.
I'm not sure the eggheads have a very clear idea about who's transmitting the COVID around yet, though ...
The difference is that there is a limited stock of ordinary vaccine and prioritisation usually means who gets it and who doesn't. In this scenario the government would be buying ~30m doses and inoculating the whole non-immune population within a few months. I don't think it really matters who gets it first.
"When you get a vaccine, how will you priortise who gets it first?"
perhaps we can cross that bridge in 12 months when we have one.
There's an entire area of research into prioritising vaccination groups. The HPA (now PHE) got its modellers and health economists to figure out the optimal strategy for the 2009 pandemic influenza, no doubt they'll be doing the same this time round.
For that, they vaccinate kids because even though the direct benefits of protecting children from flu are relatively small, it's believed to have a big impact on reducing transmission.
I'm not sure the eggheads have a very clear idea about who's transmitting the COVID around yet, though ...
The difference is that there is a limited stock of ordinary vaccine and prioritisation usually means who gets it and who doesn't. In this scenario the government would be buying ~30m doses and inoculating the whole non-immune population within a few months. I don't think it really matters who gets it first.
You bet the journalists will make a big deal of it...
Their education system is tons better. And no silly fetish for privates.
One could go on. One has, really.
Er...the takeup of private education in Germany is 50% than in the UK. 9% instead of 6%.
And that figure is worse than it looks as the number of foreign students in Germany is far smaller than in the UK.
But not a clung-to perk of the affluent as here. Low (often nominal) fees. Heavily subsidized. Not elitist. Take the less able. Almost quasi state in a sense. Very much part of the whole rather than the schools equivalent of a gated community. Just not like our jet powered (!) inequality machine at all.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authoritis", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
I'd have thought reducing infection chance through the nose and mouth via wearing a mask would be more effective than not wearing a mask at all though. Of course it could pop into your eyes but I'd have thought that's less likely than a nasal or oral infection. Wear a mask but act like you don't have one on could be the best advice. People also need to learn not touch their face first - a mask is like the advanced driver's course after the beginner's no face touching one.
Whether masks reduce the chance of you being infected is less important than the fact they very definitely limit your chance of SPREADING the disease, through coughs and sneezes - that's the fundamental point which westerners seem to find very hard to grasp (ie: we ask what will benefit me as an individual, not what will benefit society)
So that guy over there in a mask is doing YOU a favour. You are less likely to catch the bug from him, if he is infected, because his sneeze is muffled. Why not return the favour, and wear a mask, so you are less likely to kill HIM?
Then get everyone to do it, as a favour to everyone else, and bingo we are on the way to being South Korea, not Ecuador.
The flip side is, you touch and fiddle with the mask you've just made wet by coughing into it, as you walk out of the carriage you hold on to one of the grab rails before pressing the button to open the door...
Also the issue of whether you change your behaviour while wearing a mask. Seems pretty likely to me the average Joe will change it in some respects.
There are prima facie benefits to the masks, but I can understand why scientists don't feel happy being drawn about their net effect based on the currently available evidence. And particularly for "home-made masks" which will be of highly variable composition.
Any barrier to coughs and sneezes is better than none at all. No one is coughing into their elbows (what an absurd suggestion that was, tho it shows that barriers work)
So: put a bloody bandana on.
Another positive effect of masks is that they make you conscious of your face and that you should not touch your mouth with your hands. Masks are a constant reminder of that.
This is simplistic - the science is more nuanced - but it is still persuasive
Their education system is tons better. And no silly fetish for privates.
One could go on. One has, really.
Er...the takeup of private education in Germany is 50% than in the UK. 9% instead of 6%.
And that figure is worse than it looks as the number of foreign students in Germany is far smaller than in the UK.
But not a clung-to perk of the affluent as here. Low (often nominal) fees. Heavily subsidized. Not elitist. Take the less able. Almost quasi state in a sense. Very much part of the whole rather than the schools equivalent of a gated community. Just not like our jet powered (!) inequality machine at all.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
The other new patients announced on Friday are 27 community cases and 37 work permit holders who did not stay in dormitories. There is also one imported case. Of the new cases, 31 per cent are currently unlinked.
The paragraph above is a bit ominous. Especially the last bit. Suggests they can't keep playing whack-a-mole with the outbreaks forever.
Singaporeans have a funny attitude towards their migrant workers. Sort of "in Singapore, but not of Singapore". Shunt a lot of them away into very cramped dormitories so they're out of sight and out of mind, although, as above, not all of the migrant workers live there. I upset one middle-class Singaporean who told me "everyone" in Singapore has a live-in maid, by which she meant "everyone who's anyone", but I pointed out that barring some form of Droste Effect of Servitude it was unlikely that the live-in maids had live-in maids.
For the purpose of infection control, you've got to count them as human beings. Or if that's a bit radical for you, at least recognise them as potential hosts of the disease... Out of sight, out of mind doesn't really work anymore.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authoritis", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
I'd have thought reducing infection chance through the nose and mouth via wearing a mask would be more effective than not wearing a mask at all though. Of course it could pop into your eyes but I'd have thought that's less likely than a nasal or oral infection. Wear a mask but act like you don't have one on could be the best advice. People also need to learn not touch their face first - a mask is like the advanced driver's course after the beginner's no face touching one.
Whether masks reduce the chance of you being infected is less important than the fact they very definitely limit your chance of SPREADING the disease, through coughs and sneezes - that's the fundamental point which westerners seem to find very hard to grasp (ie: we ask what will benefit me as an individual, not what will benefit society)
So that guy over there in a mask is doing YOU a favour. You are less likely to catch the bug from him, if he is infected, because his sneeze is muffled. Why not return the favour, and wear a mask, so you are less likely to kill HIM?
Then get everyone to do it, as a favour to everyone else, and bingo we are on the way to being South Korea, not Ecuador.
The flip side is, you touch and fiddle with the mask you've just made wet by coughing into it, as you walk out of the carriage you hold on to one of the grab rails before pressing the button to open the door...
Also the issue of whether you change your behaviour while wearing a mask. Seems pretty likely to me the average Joe will change it in some respects.
There are prima facie benefits to the masks, but I can understand why scientists don't feel happy being drawn about their net effect based on the currently available evidence. And particularly for "home-made masks" which will be of highly variable composition.
Any barrier to coughs and sneezes is better than none at all. No one is coughing into their elbows (what an absurd suggestion that was, tho it shows that barriers work)
So: put a bloody bandana on.
Another positive effect of masks is that they make you conscious of your face and that you should not touch your mouth with your hands. Masks are a constant reminder of that.
This is simplistic - the science is more nuanced - but it is still persuasive
The question is how the positives and negatives balance out, and I fear that's not a straightforward calculation.
Coughing into a paper tissue which you immediately dispose of ("catch it, bin it, kill it") seems preferable to coughing into a fabric handkerchief for all the obvious hygienic reasons. Coughing into a handkerchief you've tied over your mouth, hmm. How many people are going to touch it - I know you say it makes you more conscious of it, but plenty of people seen "in the wild" seem to have an urge to adjust it? And I suspect that's going to be even stronger with the home-made masks rather than the professional products which are designed to fit.
People with a mask seem to think they dont need to social distance, its probably unconscious but its clear just from daily exercise walks. They think they are safe and will forget about all the other more important safety measures.
Like a lot of these measures, masks aren't a magic bullet. There is clearly issues with people wearing them too long, continually readjusting them etc.
But they definitely minimize the spray from when somebody coughs or sneezes. That has to be a good thing, especially in enclosed high density settings, such a train.
The evidence I have read is (other than the really high end ones) they are really about minimizing the chance you infect somebody else, not stopping you getting it. Your masks protects me, my mask protects you.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authorities" still resisting universal mask usage.
Against them we now have the USA (and the CDC), the governments of France, Korea, Germany, Austria, Taiwan, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Singapore, Spain, Hong Kong, etc etc etc, even the BMJ within the UK now supports mask wearing. The governor of New York is now imposing mask wearing. The mayor of London, despite being an idiot, now sees it as necessary.
Incidentally, the argument the WHO now uses against masks is that "anyway, the virus can also infect you through the eyes", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
It is controversial but my point is the cost and how much will it cost HMG or consumers per week and how are the numbers required sourced and where
Well, we are about to spend a third of a trillion pounds supporting the economy.
How much is a mask if manufactured at scale? 5p? 50p?
We could spend five billion on fifty billion masks, bringing forward the moment we can ease lockdown, and still save money
Only if it works and where do we get the constant supply
I have now told you about ninety times. Just make your own and it is better than nothing.
I am aware of your obsession over masks but I am not convinced that widescale use of masks will make the difference you maintain
In confined spaces and of course medical locations it may well have a benefit but it is not the silver bullet you think it is.
A sneeze velocity is 70mph and masks do not 100% stop the spread and of course most people touch their face and masks multiple times negating their effectiveness
I note that that infographic talks about surgical masks, not about masks made at home from an old skirt.
Possibly not all the different if the homemade ones are constructed well (several layers, and/or incorporating non-woven material. Surgical masks are pretty basic.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
But they definitely minimize the spray from when somebody coughs or sneezes. That has to be a good thing, especially in enclosed high density settings, such a train.
Anyone who is coughing and sneezing shouldn't be on the train in the first place. Also some f@ckwits are going to think its ok to go out if symptomatic as long as they are wearing a mask.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authoritis", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
I'd have thought reducing infection chance through the nose and mouth via wearing a mask would be more effective than not wearing a mask at all though. Of course it could pop into your eyes but I'd have thought that's less likely than a nasal or oral infection. Wear a mask but act like you don't have one on could be the best advice. People also need to learn not touch their face first - a mask is like the advanced driver's course after the beginner's no face touching one.
Whether masks reduce the chance of you being infected is less important than the fact they very definitely limit your chance of SPREADING the disease, through coughs and sneezes - that's the fundamental point which westerners seem to find very hard to grasp (ie: we ask what will benefit me as an individual, not what will benefit society)
So that guy over there in a mask is doing YOU a favour. You are less likely to catch the bug from him, if he is infected, because his sneeze is muffled. Why not return the favour, and wear a mask, so you are less likely to kill HIM?
Then get everyone to do it, as a favour to everyone else, and bingo we are on the way to being South Korea, not Ecuador.
The flip side is, you touch and fiddle with the mask you've just made wet by coughing into it, as you walk out of the carriage you hold on to one of the grab rails before pressing the button to open the door...
Also the issue of whether you change your behaviour while wearing a mask. Seems pretty likely to me the average Joe will change it in some respects.
There are prima facie benefits to the masks, but I can understand why scientists don't feel happy being drawn about their net effect based on the currently available evidence. And particularly for "home-made masks" which will be of highly variable composition.
Any barrier to coughs and sneezes is better than none at all. No one is coughing into their elbows (what an absurd suggestion that was, tho it shows that barriers work)
So: put a bloody bandana on.
Another positive effect of masks is that they make you conscious of your face and that you should not touch your mouth with your hands. Masks are a constant reminder of that.
This is simplistic - the science is more nuanced - but it is still persuasive
Maybe important, but the dominant factor? Given how well Germany has been doing, I don't think so.
How well Germany is doing??
Not compared to South Korea. They are not even in the same league. Korea is miles ahead.
Germany:
138,000 cases; 4,200 deaths
South Korea:
10,600 cases; 230 deaths
Ah, I thought it was doing far better than that, my apologies. I still remain unconvinced that masks are a panacea, and that it is more down to the response of the government in terms of confinement or mass testing that has more of an effect.
Now it is one thing to perhaps not go around tarring people because they were once a member of a political party, but I think when you used to be an MP and now again running for political office, some context is required.
“Dr Paul Williams is a former MP and joins me from the clinic in Stockport in which he is now working”
The BBC came so close to identifying his allegiances, yet again failed to mention that not only was he a Labour MP, he is currently the Labour candidate campaigning to become a Police and Crime Commissioner.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authoritis", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
I'd have thought reducing infection chance through the nose and mouth via wearing a mask would be more effective than not wearing a mask at all though. Of course it could pop into your eyes but I'd have thought that's less likely than a nasal or oral infection. Wear a mask but act like you don't have one on could be the best advice. People also need to learn not touch their face first - a mask is like the advanced driver's course after the beginner's no face touching one.
Whether masks reduce the chance of you being infected is less important than the fact they very definitely limit your chance of SPREADING the disease, through coughs and sneezes - that's the fundamental point which westerners seem to find very hard to grasp (ie: we ask what will benefit me as an individual, not what will benefit society)
So that guy over there in a mask is doing YOU a favour. You are less likely to catch the bug from him, if he is infected, because his sneeze is muffled. Why not return the favour, and wear a mask, so you are less likely to kill HIM?
Then get everyone to do it, as a favour to everyone else, and bingo we are on the way to being South Korea, not Ecuador.
The flip side is, you touch and fiddle with the mask you've just made wet by coughing into it, as you walk out of the carriage you hold on to one of the grab rails before pressing the button to open the door...
Also the issue of whether you change your behaviour while wearing a mask. Seems pretty likely to me the average Joe will change it in some respects.
There are prima facie benefits to the masks, but I can understand why scientists don't feel happy being drawn about their net effect based on the currently available evidence. And particularly for "home-made masks" which will be of highly variable composition.
Any barrier to coughs and sneezes is better than none at all. No one is coughing into their elbows (what an absurd suggestion that was, tho it shows that barriers work)
So: put a bloody bandana on.
Another positive effect of masks is that they make you conscious of your face and that you should not touch your mouth with your hands. Masks are a constant reminder of that.
This is simplistic - the science is more nuanced - but it is still persuasive
Maybe important, but the dominant factor? Given how well Germany has been doing, I don't think so.
How well Germany is doing??
Not compared to South Korea. They are not even in the same league. Korea is miles ahead.
Germany:
138,000 cases; 4,200 deaths
South Korea:
10,600 cases; 230 deaths
Ah, I thought it was doing far better than that, my apologies. I still remain unconvinced that masks are a panacea, and that it is more down to the response of the government in terms of confinement or mass testing that has more of an effect.
Germany is running at 300 deaths a day now.
You can do all the testing you like, but once community spread becomes widespread it is very difficult. South Korea managed to stop this ever happening.
But there is no chance of 12 months. None whatsever.
Not only will we have no economy left and be utterly bankrupt, but half the population will be requiring psychiatric care.
Almost certainly a reference to the need for the vulnerable to be isolated longer than the rest - as with so much journalism now to be hyped out of all sense of reality.
Like a lot of these measures, masks aren't a magic bullet. There is clearly issues with people wearing them too long, continually readjusting them etc.
But they definitely minimize the spray from when somebody coughs or sneezes. That has to be a good thing, especially in enclosed high density settings, such a train.
The evidence I have read is (other than the really high end ones) they are really about minimizing the chance you infect somebody else, not stopping you getting it. Your masks protects me, my mask protects you.
If I had to bet on it, I suspect @eadric is largely on the money, provided he's willing to accept it's just a small part of the overall solution.
But I'm thinking about the scientific endorsement. I'm struggling to see how the scientific advisers are going to be able to sign off something like "you should wear a mask in the office and on the train, we don't believe there is a need for masks when you're going for a walk, if you use a mask you must follow the approved procedure for taking it off to avoid contamination" or whatever form of definitive statement the politicians might be hoping for.
Testing the mechanics of what a mask lets through or blocks is fairly straightforward, until you get in to the issue of homemade masks at any rate. But figuring out how often untrained users touch their mask, observing and recording behaviour around social distancing, that stuff is fiddly. And then doing the cost-benefit calculation to work out whether additional transmission from eg contaminated surfaces cancels out the benefits of reduced transmission from sneezing in different kinds of environments is going to be a nightmare. What Sadiq Khan sees as common-sense, essentially "something has got to be nothing and several countries which have been successful in containing the spread are using masks in the general population", is not a tickbox exercise for the eggheads.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authoritis", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
I'd have thought reducing infection chance through the nose and mouth via wearing a mask would be more effective than not wearing a mask at all though. Of course it could pop into your eyes but I'd have thought that's less likely than a nasal or oral infection. Wear a mask but act like you don't have one on could be the best advice. People also need to learn not touch their face first - a mask is like the advanced driver's course after the beginner's no face touching one.
Whether masks reduce the chance of you being infected is less important than the fact they very definitely limit your chance of SPREADING the disease, through coughs and sneezes - that's the fundamental point which westerners seem to find very hard to grasp (ie: we ask what will benefit me as an individual, not what will benefit society)
So that guy over there in a mask is doing YOU a favour. You are less likely to catch the bug from him, if he is infected, because his sneeze is muffled. Why not return the favour, and wear a mask, so you are less likely to kill HIM?
Then get everyone to do it, as a favour to everyone else, and bingo we are on the way to being South Korea, not Ecuador.
The flip side is, you touch and fiddle with the mask you've just made wet by coughing into it, as you walk out of the carriage you hold on to one of the grab rails before pressing the button to open the door...
Also the issue of whether you change your behaviour while wearing a mask. Seems pretty likely to me the average Joe will change it in some respects.
There are prima facie benefits to the masks, but I can understand why scientists don't feel happy being drawn about their net effect based on the currently available evidence. And particularly for "home-made masks" which will be of highly variable composition.
Any barrier to coughs and sneezes is better than none at all. No one is coughing into their elbows (what an absurd suggestion that was, tho it shows that barriers work)
So: put a bloody bandana on.
Another positive effect of masks is that they make you conscious of your face and that you should not touch your mouth with your hands. Masks are a constant reminder of that.
This is simplistic - the science is more nuanced - but it is still persuasive
Maybe important, but the dominant factor? Given how well Germany has been doing, I don't think so.
How well Germany is doing??
Not compared to South Korea. They are not even in the same league. Korea is miles ahead.
Germany:
138,000 cases; 4,200 deaths
South Korea:
10,600 cases; 230 deaths
Ah, I thought it was doing far better than that, my apologies. I still remain unconvinced that masks are a panacea, and that it is more down to the response of the government in terms of confinement or mass testing that has more of an effect.
Germany is running at 300 deaths a day now.
You can do all the testing you like, but once community spread becomes widespread it is very difficult. South Korea managed to stop this ever happening.
Yeah, my point is that I think it was the testing and tracing that caused that, not the wearing of masks.
Like a lot of these measures, masks aren't a magic bullet. There is clearly issues with people wearing them too long, continually readjusting them etc.
But they definitely minimize the spray from when somebody coughs or sneezes. That has to be a good thing, especially in enclosed high density settings, such a train.
The evidence I have read is (other than the really high end ones) they are really about minimizing the chance you infect somebody else, not stopping you getting it. Your masks protects me, my mask protects you.
I think like many problems there won't be a silver bullet (barring a successful vaccine test and September manufacturing start) but changing a bunch of small things will make a big overall difference. It's the same reason why we need to close the border, I'm sure the government are correct that importing 20-30 positive cases per day from overseas travellers isn't a huge deal but it is a continuing source of the virus. Masks are another area where a small reduction in transmission can have a very positive long term effect.
I'm not a huge fan of them, but if that's what's necessary to get out of purgatory then so be it. Same with travel bans and closing the border. It's not my preferred way forwards as I can't wait to go to the family holiday home in Sicily this summer, but if it means getting back to normal life I'm sure I'll survive
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authoritis", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
I'd have thought reducing infection chance through the nose and mouth via wearing a mask would be more effective than not wearing a mask at all though. Of course it could pop into your eyes but I'd have thought that's less likely than a nasal or oral infection. Wear a mask but act like you don't have one on could be the best advice. People also need to learn not touch their face first - a mask is like the advanced driver's course after the beginner's no face touching one.
Whether masks reduce the chance of you being infected is less important than the fact they very definitely limit your chance of SPREADING the disease, through coughs and sneezes - that's the fundamental point which westerners seem to find very hard to grasp (ie: we ask what will benefit me as an individual, not what will benefit society)
So that guy over there in a mask is doing YOU a favour. You are less likely to catch the bug from him, if he is infected, because his sneeze is muffled. Why not return the favour, and wear a mask, so you are less likely to kill HIM?
Then get everyone to do it, as a favour to everyone else, and bingo we are on the way to being South Korea, not Ecuador.
The flip side is, you touch and fiddle with the mask you've just made wet by coughing into it, as you walk out of the carriage you hold on to one of the grab rails before pressing the button to open the door...
Also the issue of whether you change your behaviour while wearing a mask. Seems pretty likely to me the average Joe will change it in some respects.
There are prima facie benefits to the masks, but I can understand why scientists don't feel happy being drawn about their net effect based on the currently available evidence. And particularly for "home-made masks" which will be of highly variable composition.
Any barrier to coughs and sneezes is better than none at all. No one is coughing into their elbows (what an absurd suggestion that was, tho it shows that barriers work)
So: put a bloody bandana on.
Another positive effect of masks is that they make you conscious of your face and that you should not touch your mouth with your hands. Masks are a constant reminder of that.
This is simplistic - the science is more nuanced - but it is still persuasive
Maybe important, but the dominant factor? Given how well Germany has been doing, I don't think so.
How well Germany is doing??
Not compared to South Korea. They are not even in the same league. Korea is miles ahead.
Germany:
138,000 cases; 4,200 deaths
South Korea:
10,600 cases; 230 deaths
Ah, I thought it was doing far better than that, my apologies. I still remain unconvinced that masks are a panacea, and that it is more down to the response of the government in terms of confinement or mass testing that has more of an effect.
Germany is running at 300 deaths a day now.
You can do all the testing you like, but once community spread becomes widespread it is very difficult. South Korea managed to stop this ever happening.
Yeah, my point is that I think it was the testing and tracing that caused that, not the wearing of masks.
Given South Korea has all the contact tracing data, I would be interested to know how many people an individual is infecting in various settings. I would be surprised if they don't know already know this.
The German also have a decent idea, as they have taken a sample of their big testing pools and gone through and tried to identify where people picked it up. Not as accurate as South Korea, but they must be able to produce some estimate.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
I think he thinks that Tom Brown's Schooldays is contemporary reporting.
Now about that windfall tax to ensure we continue to get world class journalism....
Indeed - the idea that newspapers have been a more accurate and reliable source of unbiased news regarding the pandemic is laughable. Indeed a windfall tax the other way would make more sense to discourage gullible folk from wasting their money - unless there's another run [ pun intended] on toilet paper!
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
You know that uneasy sense we all have (whether openly admitted or not) that Germany does everything apart from winning WW1s and WW2s significantly better than us?
Coronavirus has not done much to quell it, has it?
We didn't win WW1 or WW2 - the Allied coalitions did (and WW1 was a close shave more than once). Which completes your point nicely.
OK, but I'm claiming it for these purposes since we're very light otherwise.
There's the whole creative arts area, I suppose. I rate us better than Germany there.
I'm not sure even on that. Creative Arts is a big topic.
It is. I'm perhaps just thinking of the areas that I'm mainly interested in.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
But our ones are as you describe too - at least some are. Or at least they were when I was at one 30 years ago. Granted they were considerably more middle class than the population at large - though certainty not exclusively so - but typically people lived in suburban three bed semis, not country piles. There were lots of scholarships (I was one). Eton and Harrow are not typical of British private schools.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
But our ones are as you describe too - at least some are. Or at least they were when I was at one 30 years ago. Granted they were considerably more middle class than the population at large - though certainty not exclusively so - but typically people lived in suburban three bed semis, not country piles. There were lots of scholarships (I was one). Eton and Harrow are not typical of British private schools.
Of course. They are not all the same. I fully acknowledge this.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
Did you know the civil service now bans applicants from stating their alma mater?
What was the crap in the press conference about there being no demand for testing ?
Probably kinda inevitable? The demand is limited by new patients, which seems to be flat or on the down slope, and NHS workers have a fixed number of drive-through sites.
Then suddenly 3ish days again test capacity doubles overnight, it's not going to instantly all be filled.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
19% of A-level entries are from private schools. One third are on bursaries.
As for Oxbridge, the real issue is they let in so many utter duds (Exhibits A and B - Cummings and Burgon). Admittedly, many of them were privately educated.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
I quite like the way Germany offers successful alternatives to university (they have a very low % of 18 year olds heading off to uni compared to other developed countries) due to good vocational education, but the Gymnasium system that serves as a feeder to the universities (not the only route in these days but still an important one) is rather dodgier than the old British grammar system or what's left of it.
At least the grammars had 11+ which provided standardised admissions criteria. Yes it helps if mummy and daddy have lots of time to read to you as a youngster or structure your study or you went to a nice school (even a prep school) or had a tutor or just got lucky with your genes. But the criteria are there, and surviving grammar schools often have a very high % of students who are ethnic minority - plenty of ambition Asian parents or well-heeled and strict West Africans who do their best to get their kids into the system. In Germany, where selection - and hence the path of much of the rest of your life - is set down by fuzzy criteria and what teachers decide is best for you, then there's plenty of room for discrimination. This report is pretty damning for example, with only 3% of Lebanese and 13% of Turkish ethnicity kids going to Gymnasium compared to 24% of all children. The Netherlands has a similar system with Moroccan kids being largely blocked from their equivalent grammar/university-feeder system.
"Coronavirus can survive exposure to temperatures of up to 140°F (60°C) for relatively long periods of time, a study has demonstrated.
The finding suggests that standard measures used for disinfection in research labs — heating to such a temperature for an hour — are ineffective against COVID-19.
Instead, to kill the pathogen, researchers found that they had to maintain temperatures of 198°F (92°C) for a quarter of an hour."
I have no idea what the Gov't strategy on masks is all about It should be part of the out of lockdown strategy. Even America where people are going around with socks and snorkels and catalytic converters on their heads isn't a bad strategy for at least a modicum of protection. Unless we go for herd immunity.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authoritis", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
I'd have thought reducing infection chance through the nose and mouth via wearing a mask would be more effective than not wearing a mask at all though. Of course it could pop into your eyes but I'd have thought that's less likely than a nasal or oral infection. Wear a mask but act like you don't have one on could be the best advice. People also need to learn not touch their face first - a mask is like the advanced driver's course after the beginner's no face touching one.
Whether masks reduce the chance of you being infected is less important than the fact they very definitely limit your chance of SPREADING the disease, through coughs and sneezes - that's the fundamental point which westerners seem to find very hard to grasp (ie: we ask what will benefit me as an individual, not what will benefit society)
So that guy over there in a mask is doing YOU a favour. You are less likely to catch the bug from him, if he is infected, because his sneeze is muffled. Why not return the favour, and wear a mask, so you are less likely to kill HIM?
Then get everyone to do it, as a favour to everyone else, and bingo we are on the way to being South Korea, not Ecuador.
The flip side is, you touch and fiddle with the mask you've just made wet by coughing into it, as you walk out of the carriage you hold on to one of the grab rails before pressing the button to open the door...
Also the issue of whether you change your behaviour while wearing a mask. Seems pretty likely to me the average Joe will change it in some respects.
There are prima facie benefits to the masks, but I can understand why scientists don't feel happy being drawn about their net effect based on the currently available evidence. And particularly for "home-made masks" which will be of highly variable composition.
Any barrier to coughs and sneezes is better than none at all. No one is coughing into their elbows (what an absurd suggestion that was, tho it shows that barriers work)
So: put a bloody bandana on.
Another positive effect of masks is that they make you conscious of your face and that you should not touch your mouth with your hands. Masks are a constant reminder of that.
This is simplistic - the science is more nuanced - but it is still persuasive
Maybe important, but the dominant factor? Given how well Germany has been doing, I don't think so.
How well Germany is doing??
Not compared to South Korea. They are not even in the same league. Korea is miles ahead.
Germany:
138,000 cases; 4,200 deaths
South Korea:
10,600 cases; 230 deaths
Ah, I thought it was doing far better than that, my apologies. I still remain unconvinced that masks are a panacea, and that it is more down to the response of the government in terms of confinement or mass testing that has more of an effect.
Germany is running at 300 deaths a day now.
You can do all the testing you like, but once community spread becomes widespread it is very difficult. South Korea managed to stop this ever happening.
300?
Arent you just picking up BH lag figures from a couple of days ago
"Coronavirus can survive exposure to temperatures of up to 140°F (60°C) for relatively long periods of time, a study has demonstrated.
The finding suggests that standard measures used for disinfection in research labs — heating to such a temperature for an hour — are ineffective against COVID-19.
Instead, to kill the pathogen, researchers found that they had to maintain temperatures of 198°F (92°C) for a quarter of an hour."
The news on running out of overalls is a disaster. Hancock needs to fall over this. It's in his shop. Why didn't he ask for industry assistance in early Feb, get stocked up and get manufacturing ready to deliver in early April. The call went out in late March aiui which is way too late in the day, we won't see the results of that for another two weeks at least.
"Coronavirus can survive exposure to temperatures of up to 140°F (60°C) for relatively long periods of time, a study has demonstrated.
The finding suggests that standard measures used for disinfection in research labs — heating to such a temperature for an hour — are ineffective against COVID-19.
Instead, to kill the pathogen, researchers found that they had to maintain temperatures of 198°F (92°C) for a quarter of an hour."
(D Mail)
So summer ain’t gonna make no difference.
Not unless climate change is totally out of control by June.
The news on running out of overalls is a disaster. Hancock needs to fall over this. It's in his shop. Why didn't he ask for industry assistance in early Feb, get stocked up and get manufacturing ready to deliver in early April. The call went out in late March aiui which is way too late in the day, we won't see the results of that for another two weeks at least.
Much easier to manufacture than ventilators too. Quite why they didn't replicate this effort here is beyond me.
What was the crap in the press conference about there being no demand for testing ?
Probably kinda inevitable? The demand is limited by new patients, which seems to be flat or on the down slope, and NHS workers have a fixed number of drive-through sites.
Then suddenly 3ish days again test capacity doubles overnight, it's not going to instantly all be filled.
No, it is not inevitable.
Testing ‘demand’ is largely driven by government policy. They planned for a ramp up in capacity; they don’t seem to have planned how to use it - and they have had weeks.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authorities" still resisting universal mask usage.
Against them we now have the USA (and the CDC), the governments of France, Korea, Germany, Austria, Taiwan, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Singapore, Spain, Hong Kong, etc etc etc, even the BMJ within the UK now supports mask wearing. The governor of New York is now imposing mask wearing. The mayor of London, despite being an idiot, now sees it as necessary.
Incidentally, the argument the WHO now uses against masks is that "anyway, the virus can also infect you through the eyes", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
It is controversial but my point is the cost and how much will it cost HMG or consumers per week and how are the numbers required sourced and where
Well, we are about to spend a third of a trillion pounds supporting the economy.
How much is a mask if manufactured at scale? 5p? 50p?
We could spend five billion on fifty billion masks, bringing forward the moment we can ease lockdown, and still save money
Only if it works and where do we get the constant supply
I have now told you about ninety times. Just make your own and it is better than nothing.
I am aware of your obsession over masks but I am not convinced that widescale use of masks will make the difference you maintain
In confined spaces and of course medical locations it may well have a benefit but it is not the silver bullet you think it is.
A sneeze velocity is 70mph and masks do not 100% stop the spread and of course most people touch their face and masks multiple times negating their effectiveness
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
Did you know the civil service now bans applicants from stating their alma mater?
I didn't. First instinct, I like it. I also like the idea that top tier unis should limit private school places to 10%. That would be an exocet to the sector, I think.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authoritis", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
I'd have thought reducing infection chance through the nose and mouth via wearing a mask would be more effective than not wearing a mask at all though. Of course it could pop into your eyes but I'd have thought that's less likely than a nasal or oral infection. Wear a mask but act like you don't have one on could be the best advice. People also need to learn not touch their face first - a mask is like the advanced driver's course after the beginner's no face touching one.
Whether masks reduce the chance of you being infected is less important than the fact they very definitely limit your chance of SPREADING the disease, through coughs and sneezes - that's the fundamental point which westerners seem to find very hard to grasp (ie: we ask what will benefit me as an individual, not what will benefit society)
So that guy over there in a mask is doing YOU a favour. You are less likely to catch the bug from him, if he is infected, because his sneeze is muffled. Why not return the favour, and wear a mask, so you are less likely to kill HIM?
Then get everyone to do it, as a favour to everyone else, and bingo we are on the way to being South Korea, not Ecuador.
The flip side is, you touch and fiddle with the mask you've just made wet by coughing into it, as you walk out of the carriage you hold on to one of the grab rails before pressing the button to open the door...
Also the issue of whether you change your behaviour while wearing a mask. Seems pretty likely to me the average Joe will change it in some respects.
There are prima facie benefits to the masks, but I can understand why scientists don't feel happy being drawn about their net effect based on the currently available evidence. And particularly for "home-made masks" which will be of highly variable composition.
Any barrier to coughs and sneezes is better than none at all. No one is coughing into their elbows (what an absurd suggestion that was, tho it shows that barriers work)
So: put a bloody bandana on.
Another positive effect of masks is that they make you conscious of your face and that you should not touch your mouth with your hands. Masks are a constant reminder of that.
This is simplistic - the science is more nuanced - but it is still persuasive
Maybe important, but the dominant factor? Given how well Germany has been doing, I don't think so.
How well Germany is doing??
Not compared to South Korea. They are not even in the same league. Korea is miles ahead.
Germany:
138,000 cases; 4,200 deaths
South Korea:
10,600 cases; 230 deaths
Ah, I thought it was doing far better than that, my apologies. I still remain unconvinced that masks are a panacea, and that it is more down to the response of the government in terms of confinement or mass testing that has more of an effect.
Germany is running at 300 deaths a day now.
You can do all the testing you like, but once community spread becomes widespread it is very difficult. South Korea managed to stop this ever happening.
300?
Arent you just picking up BH lag figures from a couple of days ago
Germany appears to have had 300 plus on April 8 14 and 15 - the highest being April 8
Yesterday was 248 today is currently at 141 but may increase
"Coronavirus can survive exposure to temperatures of up to 140°F (60°C) for relatively long periods of time, a study has demonstrated.
The finding suggests that standard measures used for disinfection in research labs — heating to such a temperature for an hour — are ineffective against COVID-19.
Instead, to kill the pathogen, researchers found that they had to maintain temperatures of 198°F (92°C) for a quarter of an hour."
(D Mail)
So summer ain’t gonna make no difference.
posted the first time this data came up.
"I'd need to check but I think killing viruses is always difficult. The whole 'sun will burn it away' line is based around an increase in temperature (which can damage virus and reduce its effectiveness sat on a surface etc), an increase in sunlight (which breaks bonds) and also changes in human behaviour.
I would expect that, for most viruses, you need much higher temperatures to kill but smaller temperatures will interfere with its reproductive system significantly enough. "
Everyone saying 8 April was peak but that's potentially highly misleading - date of death 15 April has the 2nd highest number of deaths reported within two days.
It's arguable 8 April was a slight outlier on the upside and that broad picture is of a plateau with no significant move downwards at all.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
Did you know the civil service now bans applicants from stating their alma mater?
I didn't. First instinct, I like it. I also like the idea that top tier unis should limit private school places to 10%. That would be an exocet to the sector, I think.
I'm a state educated Oxford grad who thinks it's a thoroughly disgusting policy. What would be better is if they stopped insisting on degrees for jobs that simply involve writing emails and going to meetings (known as the Senior Civil Service).
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
I quite like the way Germany offers successful alternatives to university (they have a very low % of 18 year olds heading off to uni compared to other developed countries) due to good vocational education, but the Gymnasium system that serves as a feeder to the universities (not the only route in these days but still an important one) is rather dodgier than the old British grammar system or what's left of it.
At least the grammars had 11+ which provided standardised admissions criteria. Yes it helps if mummy and daddy have lots of time to read to you as a youngster or structure your study or you went to a nice school (even a prep school) or had a tutor or just got lucky with your genes. But the criteria are there, and surviving grammar schools often have a very high % of students who are ethnic minority - plenty of ambition Asian parents or well-heeled and strict West Africans who do their best to get their kids into the system. In Germany, where selection - and hence the path of much of the rest of your life - is set down by fuzzy criteria and what teachers decide is best for you, then there's plenty of room for discrimination. This report is pretty damning for example, with only 3% of Lebanese and 13% of Turkish ethnicity kids going to Gymnasium compared to 24% of all children. The Netherlands has a similar system with Moroccan kids being largely blocked from their equivalent grammar/university-feeder system.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
Did you know the civil service now bans applicants from stating their alma mater?
I didn't. First instinct, I like it. I also like the idea that top tier unis should limit private school places to 10%. That would be an exocet to the sector, I think.
It is fairly easy to spot the privately educated applicants when I am doing the Medical School interviews. It is usually obvious from the extracurricular activities etc.
Everyone saying 8 April was peak but that's potentially highly misleading - date of death 15 April has the 2nd highest number of deaths reported within two days.
It's arguable 8 April was a slight outlier on the upside and that broad picture is of a plateau with no significant move downwards at all.
Yes, it looks like this is a peak like Table Mountain rather than Mont Blanc.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
19% of A-level entries are from private schools. One third are on bursaries.
As for Oxbridge, the real issue is they let in so many utter duds (Exhibits A and B - Cummings and Burgon). Admittedly, many of them were privately educated.
Steering clear of detail, can I just ask you this -
(i) Private school use should be encouraged. (ii) Private school use should be discouraged. (iii) Private school use is not a matter for government.
Will help me put your comments on this topic in context.
The new coronavirus can survive long exposure to high temperatures, according to an experiment by a team of French scientists.
Professor Remi Charrel and colleagues at the Aix-Marseille University in southern France heated the virus that causes Covid-19 to 60 degrees Celsius (140 Fahrenheit) for an hour and found that some strains were still able to replicate. The scientists had to bring the temperature to almost boiling point to kill the virus completely, according to their non-peer-reviewed paper released on bioRxiv.org on Saturday.
The team in France infected African green monkey kidney cells, a standard host material for viral activity tests, with a strain isolated from a patient in Berlin, Germany. The cells were loaded into tubes representing two different types of environments, one “clean” and the other “dirty” with animal proteins to simulate biological contamination in real-life samples, such as an oral swab.
After the heating, the viral strains in the clean environment were thoroughly deactivated. Some strains in the dirty samples, however, survived. The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.
There had been hope that hotter weather, such as that in Singapore or northern hemisphere countries heading into summer, might reduce the spread of Covid-19. The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.
The 60-degrees Celsius, hour-long protocol has been adapted in many testing labs to suppress a wide range of deadly viruses, including Ebola. For the new coronavirus, this temperature may be enough for samples with low viral loads because it could kill a large proportion of the strains. But it may be dangerous for samples with extremely high amounts of the virus, according to the researchers.
The French team found a higher temperature could help solve the problem. For instance, heating the samples to 92 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes rendered the virus completely inactive.
“The results presented in this study should help to choose the best suited protocol for inactivation in order to prevent exposure of laboratory personnel in charge of direct and indirect detection of Sars-CoV-2 for diagnostic purpose,” wrote the authors.
NHS Trust chief asks for Burberry's phone number because he's running out of gowns and hasnt enough for the weekend. Government issues guidance 10 mins before briefing to ask our heroes to use inferior alternatives to gowns if they run out. Swab testers sent home early because no swabs to test. Testing centres set up with capacity of 18000 doing 2000 due to lack of demand but turning away NHS workers without an appointment Face masks in public, dismissed by government weeks ago, now set to become policy. Deaths in homes not included in daily figures official figures still saying 2% of deaths are from care homes even though Scotland which is more up to date say its 25%.
This PPE shit could really start to hurt the government soon.
People understand that this virus is unprecedented, they know the govt is learning on the job, but a failure to provide basic things like gowns and masks is just inept.
They've had months now.
I reckon I could have run the country better since early Feb, in between hangovers. I would have made sure we had enuff bloody masks.
We have loads of masks, aprons, gloves. It is the long sleeved protective gowns that are like gold dust at present
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
Then let’s start with that statistic. At any one time 7% of students “ go private“. The total number of students who are educated privately at some point is more like twice that, particularly by the time you get to sixth form.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
Then let’s start with that statistic. At any one time 7% of students “ go private“. The total number of students who are educated privately at some point is more like twice that, particularly by the time you get to sixth form.
Indeed. My mum was appalled to find out a lot of kids at Godalming sixth form college had been at RGS Guildford until the age of 16. Interestingly a colleague of mine told me that it was the opposite where she grew up. So poor were the sixth form college options where she was, a lot kids went private 17-18.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
Did you know the civil service now bans applicants from stating their alma mater?
I didn't. First instinct, I like it. I also like the idea that top tier unis should limit private school places to 10%. That would be an exocet to the sector, I think.
If twice that percentage are at private schools then that seems very harsh.
This PPE shit could really start to hurt the government soon.
People understand that this virus is unprecedented, they know the govt is learning on the job, but a failure to provide basic things like gowns and masks is just inept.
They've had months now.
I reckon I could have run the country better since early Feb, in between hangovers. I would have made sure we had enuff bloody masks.
We have loads of masks, aprons, gloves. It is the long sleeved protective gowns that are like gold dust at present
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
Then let’s start with that statistic. At any one time 7% of students “ go private“. The total number of students who are educated privately at some point is more like twice that, particularly by the time you get to sixth form.
According to Mumsnet 16% of 6th formers are at private schools.
Where do you stand on this one generally?
Do you think they are (net net) a good thing or a bad thing?
This PPE shit could really start to hurt the government soon.
People understand that this virus is unprecedented, they know the govt is learning on the job, but a failure to provide basic things like gowns and masks is just inept.
They've had months now.
I reckon I could have run the country better since early Feb, in between hangovers. I would have made sure we had enuff bloody masks.
We have loads of masks, aprons, gloves. It is the long sleeved protective gowns that are like gold dust at present
Is it safe to work in ICU with masks but no long sleeved protective gowns?
Are the alternatives suggested by the Govt as safe and in plentiful supply?
This PPE shit could really start to hurt the government soon.
People understand that this virus is unprecedented, they know the govt is learning on the job, but a failure to provide basic things like gowns and masks is just inept.
They've had months now.
I reckon I could have run the country better since early Feb, in between hangovers. I would have made sure we had enuff bloody masks.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
Then let’s start with that statistic. At any one time 7% of students “ go private“. The total number of students who are educated privately at some point is more like twice that, particularly by the time you get to sixth form.
According to Mumsnet 16% of 6th formers are at private schools.
Where do you stand on this one generally?
Do you think they are (net net) a good thing or a bad thing?
My view is coloured by the fact that if I ever leave my current job in a state school I want to be able to get a job in a fee paying one...
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
19% of A-level entries are from private schools. One third are on bursaries.
As for Oxbridge, the real issue is they let in so many utter duds (Exhibits A and B - Cummings and Burgon). Admittedly, many of them were privately educated.
Steering clear of detail, can I just ask you this -
(i) Private school use should be encouraged. (ii) Private school use should be discouraged. (iii) Private school use is not a matter for government.
Will help me put your comments on this topic in context.
Private schooling is a scapegoat for a variety of complex societal problems none of which would be markedly different if it was banned or taxed into oblivion. As we may indeed be about to find out, given most of them have shaky finances already and this pandemic is going to kill off many of them.
It is also highly misleading to think of all private schools as conforming to some sort of set pattern. That’s lazy and unhelpful. You have Eton or Wellington who select the wealthiest by ability, and then you have RGS Worcester, with 81% SEND. You have Denstone, with its amazing facilities, and Lichfield Cathedral on a cramped inner city site in several badly maintained medieval houses.
What I do say, quite categorically, is that most private schools are totally unsuitable for being brought into the state sector (their classrooms simply aren’t big enough) but if they were eliminated the pressure on the state sector would massively increase to the extent that in some areas - London or Bristol - it might well implode entirely.
If you really want to eliminate private schools, don’t talk about bans or taxes or structures. Cut the maximum class size in the state sector to 18 and then you would see a huge difference. Moreover, many more private schools probably would follow the lead of Bristol Cathedral or Royal Wolverhampton then and join (or rejoin) the state sector.
This PPE shit could really start to hurt the government soon.
People understand that this virus is unprecedented, they know the govt is learning on the job, but a failure to provide basic things like gowns and masks is just inept.
They've had months now.
I reckon I could have run the country better since early Feb, in between hangovers. I would have made sure we had enuff bloody masks.
Every country is in the same boat afaics
Maybe, but we didn't have to be. The UK (along with a few other European nations) has got manufacturing capacity that can be redirected. It has worked for ventilators with deliveries of the first approved new design starting next week. There's no reason it couldn't work with PPE.
Have you ever come across the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Yes. Nice one. But I'm not anti private schools in principle, I'm anti our ones. The way WE have things arranged. However after yesterday people have heard enough from me on this topic until at least Sunday.
It seems to me that you’re more anti a caricature of private schools based on a few particular examples. If I match what you say about private schools to the ones in Staffordshire, the only one I recognise is Denstone and possibly Abbotsholme (which is a business so probably doesn’t come under your particular pet hate). Lichfield, St Dominic's Brewood, Chase Academy Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Newcastle under Lyme all operate in much the same way you describe German private schools, with this crucial difference - they take no money from the state.
You're getting bogged down.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
Did you know the civil service now bans applicants from stating their alma mater?
I didn't. First instinct, I like it. I also like the idea that top tier unis should limit private school places to 10%. That would be an exocet to the sector, I think.
It is fairly easy to spot the privately educated applicants when I am doing the Medical School interviews. It is usually obvious from the extracurricular activities etc.
Yes, I suppose that is a bit of a flaw here. Still what can you do. You can't dispense with interviews, I don't suppose.
Does medicine have a pronounced over-representation from the privately educated, would you say?
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authorities" still resisting universal mask usage.
Against them we now have the USA (and the CDC), the governments of France, Korea, Germany, Austria, Taiwan, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Singapore, Spain, Hong Kong, etc etc etc, even the BMJ within the UK now supports mask wearing. The governor of New York is now imposing mask wearing. The mayor of London, despite being an idiot, now sees it as necessary.
Incidentally, the argument the WHO now uses against masks is that "anyway, the virus can also infect you through the eyes", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
It is controversial but my point is the cost and how much will it cost HMG or consumers per week and how are the numbers required sourced and where
Well, we are about to spend a third of a trillion pounds supporting the economy.
How much is a mask if manufactured at scale? 5p? 50p?
We could spend five billion on fifty billion masks, bringing forward the moment we can ease lockdown, and still save money
Only if it works and where do we get the constant supply
I have now told you about ninety times. Just make your own and it is better than nothing.
I am aware of your obsession over masks but I am not convinced that widescale use of masks will make the difference you maintain
In confined spaces and of course medical locations it may well have a benefit but it is not the silver bullet you think it is.
A sneeze velocity is 70mph and masks do not 100% stop the spread and of course most people touch their face and masks multiple times negating their effectiveness
This PPE shit could really start to hurt the government soon.
People understand that this virus is unprecedented, they know the govt is learning on the job, but a failure to provide basic things like gowns and masks is just inept.
They've had months now.
I reckon I could have run the country better since early Feb, in between hangovers. I would have made sure we had enuff bloody masks.
Germany are going to make 50 million masks a week by August. I fear we will be having discussions by then why in the UK nobody can get a mask.
How long can a mask be used for
Just 2 a day for our population is nearly 1 billion a week if my maths are right
It depends. There are masks designed to be reusable many times, and others which are throwaway. But the idea of everyone wearing masks in public (especially indoors) is more to limit the amount of transmission from anyone infected than protect a given individual wearing a mask. Research suggests that even the simplest masks have some efficacy in this respect.
I do not like masks and of course in China and the the far east they are generally worn because of the pollution.
However if they were mandated for use by the public when out and about the numbers required are huge. I do not know the cost of a mask, but scale that up for the population over weeks and even months and we are talking of a lot of money, so the science needs to be right.
At present the WHO are not recommending the use of masks
The WHO (along with parts of the British government) are just about the last "authorities" still resisting universal mask usage.
Against them we now have the USA (and the CDC), the governments of France, Korea, Germany, Austria, Taiwan, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Singapore, Spain, Hong Kong, etc etc etc, even the BMJ within the UK now supports mask wearing. The governor of New York is now imposing mask wearing. The mayor of London, despite being an idiot, now sees it as necessary.
Incidentally, the argument the WHO now uses against masks is that "anyway, the virus can also infect you through the eyes", quite ignoring the central idea that masks stop the SPREAD.
It is controversial but my point is the cost and how much will it cost HMG or consumers per week and how are the numbers required sourced and where
Well, we are about to spend a third of a trillion pounds supporting the economy.
How much is a mask if manufactured at scale? 5p? 50p?
We could spend five billion on fifty billion masks, bringing forward the moment we can ease lockdown, and still save money
Only if it works and where do we get the constant supply
I have now told you about ninety times. Just make your own and it is better than nothing.
I am aware of your obsession over masks but I am not convinced that widescale use of masks will make the difference you maintain
In confined spaces and of course medical locations it may well have a benefit but it is not the silver bullet you think it is.
A sneeze velocity is 70mph and masks do not 100% stop the spread and of course most people touch their face and masks multiple times negating their effectiveness
Comments
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X10000320?via=ihub
They then extended this approach to look at who to vaccinate for the seasonal flu.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001527#pmed.1001527-World2
For that, they vaccinate kids because even though the direct benefits of protecting children from flu are relatively small, it's believed to have a big impact on reducing transmission.
I'm not sure the eggheads have a very clear idea about who's transmitting the COVID around yet, though ...
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/coronavirus-singapore-reports-623-new-cases-mostly-foreign-workers-in-dormitories
You are, very uncharacteristically, talking total nonsense.
It is very simple. Anyone who has been elected President twice is ineligible to be President again.
They are therefore ineligible to be Vice President.
They could still hold cabinet rank, or serve as Speaker, or as President Pro Tempore of the Senate (improbable though the last would be) but they would not be in the presidential line of succession.
This is for the very good and obvious reason that otherwise a Putin or a Roosevelt could, on serving two terms, nominate themselves as VP, get re-elected and force their stooge to resign, thus resuming the presidency.
The Supreme Court wouldn’t even bother to hear arguments. They would strike such a nomination down as unconstitutional.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1251138462968922119?s=21
On masks the advice is variable at present and we are entirely in line with WTO recommendations
Masks must be available in medical locations and high risk areas
It is under review
And that is the view I support
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1251182763975327745
The bit that would be worrying me...
The other new patients announced on Friday are 27 community cases and 37 work permit holders who did not stay in dormitories. There is also one imported case. Of the new cases, 31 per cent are currently unlinked.
The paragraph above is a bit ominous. Especially the last bit. Suggests they can't keep playing whack-a-mole with the outbreaks forever.
Singaporeans have a funny attitude towards their migrant workers. Sort of "in Singapore, but not of Singapore". Shunt a lot of them away into very cramped dormitories so they're out of sight and out of mind, although, as above, not all of the migrant workers live there. I upset one middle-class Singaporean who told me "everyone" in Singapore has a live-in maid, by which she meant "everyone who's anyone", but I pointed out that barring some form of Droste Effect of Servitude it was unlikely that the live-in maids had live-in maids.
For the purpose of infection control, you've got to count them as human beings. Or if that's a bit radical for you, at least recognise them as potential hosts of the disease... Out of sight, out of mind doesn't really work anymore.
But they definitely minimize the spray from when somebody coughs or sneezes. That has to be a good thing, especially in enclosed high density settings, such a train.
The evidence I have read is (other than the really high end ones) they are really about minimizing the chance you infect somebody else, not stopping you getting it. Your masks protects me, my mask protects you.
Surgical masks are pretty basic.
“Dr Paul Williams is a former MP and joins me from the clinic in Stockport in which he is now working”
The BBC came so close to identifying his allegiances, yet again failed to mention that not only was he a Labour MP, he is currently the Labour candidate campaigning to become a Police and Crime Commissioner.
https://order-order.com/2020/04/17/bbc-news-gp-standing-labour-candidate/
You can do all the testing you like, but once community spread becomes widespread it is very difficult. South Korea managed to stop this ever happening.
But I'm thinking about the scientific endorsement. I'm struggling to see how the scientific advisers are going to be able to sign off something like "you should wear a mask in the office and on the train, we don't believe there is a need for masks when you're going for a walk, if you use a mask you must follow the approved procedure for taking it off to avoid contamination" or whatever form of definitive statement the politicians might be hoping for.
Testing the mechanics of what a mask lets through or blocks is fairly straightforward, until you get in to the issue of homemade masks at any rate. But figuring out how often untrained users touch their mask, observing and recording behaviour around social distancing, that stuff is fiddly. And then doing the cost-benefit calculation to work out whether additional transmission from eg contaminated surfaces cancels out the benefits of reduced transmission from sneezing in different kinds of environments is going to be a nightmare. What Sadiq Khan sees as common-sense, essentially "something has got to be nothing and several countries which have been successful in containing the spread are using masks in the general population", is not a tickbox exercise for the eggheads.
I'm not a huge fan of them, but if that's what's necessary to get out of purgatory then so be it. Same with travel bans and closing the border. It's not my preferred way forwards as I can't wait to go to the family holiday home in Sicily this summer, but if it means getting back to normal life I'm sure I'll survive
The German also have a decent idea, as they have taken a sample of their big testing pools and gone through and tried to identify where people picked it up. Not as accurate as South Korea, but they must be able to produce some estimate.
Eton and Harrow are not typical of British private schools.
7% of kids go private. Almost half of Oxbridge places go to them.
Oxbridge supplies our elite.
We start there.
Then suddenly 3ish days again test capacity doubles overnight, it's not going to instantly all be filled.
As for Oxbridge, the real issue is they let in so many utter duds (Exhibits A and B - Cummings and Burgon). Admittedly, many of them were privately educated.
At least the grammars had 11+ which provided standardised admissions criteria. Yes it helps if mummy and daddy have lots of time to read to you as a youngster or structure your study or you went to a nice school (even a prep school) or had a tutor or just got lucky with your genes. But the criteria are there, and surviving grammar schools often have a very high % of students who are ethnic minority - plenty of ambition Asian parents or well-heeled and strict West Africans who do their best to get their kids into the system. In Germany, where selection - and hence the path of much of the rest of your life - is set down by fuzzy criteria and what teachers decide is best for you, then there's plenty of room for discrimination. This report is pretty damning for example, with only 3% of Lebanese and 13% of Turkish ethnicity kids going to Gymnasium compared to 24% of all children. The Netherlands has a similar system with Moroccan kids being largely blocked from their equivalent grammar/university-feeder system.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1251193050946297859
Not posted today I don't think?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/04/17/bank-englands-andrew-bailey-tells-government-step-payouts-risk/
"Coronavirus can survive exposure to temperatures of up to 140°F (60°C) for relatively long periods of time, a study has demonstrated.
The finding suggests that standard measures used for disinfection in research labs — heating to such a temperature for an hour — are ineffective against COVID-19.
Instead, to kill the pathogen, researchers found that they had to maintain temperatures of 198°F (92°C) for a quarter of an hour."
(D Mail)
Arent you just picking up BH lag figures from a couple of days ago
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern?lang=en
Testing ‘demand’ is largely driven by government policy. They planned for a ramp up in capacity; they don’t seem to have planned how to use it - and they have had weeks.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1251202010059288583?s=19
Yesterday was 248 today is currently at 141 but may increase
I think we would happily take the German figures
"I'd need to check but I think killing viruses is always difficult. The whole 'sun will burn it away' line is based around an increase in temperature (which can damage virus and reduce its effectiveness sat on a surface etc), an increase in sunlight (which breaks bonds) and also changes in human behaviour.
I would expect that, for most viruses, you need much higher temperatures to kill but smaller temperatures will interfere with its reproductive system significantly enough. "
Everyone saying 8 April was peak but that's potentially highly misleading - date of death 15 April has the 2nd highest number of deaths reported within two days.
It's arguable 8 April was a slight outlier on the upside and that broad picture is of a plateau with no significant move downwards at all.
Good thing? Bad thing? Or just thing?
(i) Private school use should be encouraged.
(ii) Private school use should be discouraged.
(iii) Private school use is not a matter for government.
Will help me put your comments on this topic in context.
The new coronavirus can survive long exposure to high temperatures, according to an experiment by a team of French scientists.
Professor Remi Charrel and colleagues at the Aix-Marseille University in southern France heated the virus that causes Covid-19 to 60 degrees Celsius (140 Fahrenheit) for an hour and found that some strains were still able to replicate. The scientists had to bring the temperature to almost boiling point to kill the virus completely, according to their non-peer-reviewed paper released on bioRxiv.org on Saturday.
The team in France infected African green monkey kidney cells, a standard host material for viral activity tests, with a strain isolated from a patient in Berlin, Germany. The cells were loaded into tubes representing two different types of environments, one “clean” and the other “dirty” with animal proteins to simulate biological contamination in real-life samples, such as an oral swab.
After the heating, the viral strains in the clean environment were thoroughly deactivated. Some strains in the dirty samples, however, survived. The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.
There had been hope that hotter weather, such as that in Singapore or northern hemisphere countries heading into summer, might reduce the spread of Covid-19.
The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.
The 60-degrees Celsius, hour-long protocol has been adapted in many testing labs to suppress a wide range of deadly viruses, including Ebola. For the new coronavirus, this temperature may be enough for samples with low viral loads because it could kill a large proportion of the strains. But it may be dangerous for samples with extremely high amounts of the virus, according to the researchers.
The French team found a higher temperature could help solve the problem. For instance, heating the samples to 92 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes rendered the virus completely inactive.
“The results presented in this study should help to choose the best suited protocol for inactivation in order to prevent exposure of laboratory personnel in charge of direct and indirect detection of Sars-CoV-2 for diagnostic purpose,” wrote the authors.
Government issues guidance 10 mins before briefing to ask our heroes to use inferior alternatives to gowns if they run out.
Swab testers sent home early because no swabs to test.
Testing centres set up with capacity of 18000 doing 2000 due to lack of demand but turning away NHS workers without an appointment
Face masks in public, dismissed by government weeks ago, now set to become policy.
Deaths in homes not included in daily figures official figures still saying 2% of deaths are from care homes even though Scotland which is more up to date say its 25%.
What a complete f**king fiasco
At any one time 7% of students “ go private“. The total number of students who are educated privately at some point is more like twice that, particularly by the time you get to sixth form.
https://twitter.com/Dani_L_112/status/1251151855847010310?s=20
Where do you stand on this one generally?
Do you think they are (net net) a good thing or a bad thing?
Are the alternatives suggested by the Govt as safe and in plentiful supply?
It is also highly misleading to think of all private schools as conforming to some sort of set pattern. That’s lazy and unhelpful. You have Eton or Wellington who select the wealthiest by ability, and then you have RGS Worcester, with 81% SEND. You have Denstone, with its amazing facilities, and Lichfield Cathedral on a cramped inner city site in several badly maintained medieval houses.
What I do say, quite categorically, is that most private schools are totally unsuitable for being brought into the state sector (their classrooms simply aren’t big enough) but if they were eliminated the pressure on the state sector would massively increase to the extent that in some areas - London or Bristol - it might well implode entirely.
If you really want to eliminate private schools, don’t talk about bans or taxes or structures. Cut the maximum class size in the state sector to 18 and then you would see a huge difference. Moreover, many more private schools probably would follow the lead of Bristol Cathedral or Royal Wolverhampton then and join (or rejoin) the state sector.
Does medicine have a pronounced over-representation from the privately educated, would you say?
Ah, my coat.