This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
You claimed the PPE “clearly does not offer any protection”. That is not true.
It doesn’t offer as good protection as better specced items, but you can’t prove that it offers none.
I am aware of that, but a mask has been sold as offering protection, when it still leaves you 47 times more likely to catch covid than someone not in that position. That is not something that should qualify as PPE. Its like saying wearing 5 jumpers will help stop a bullet. Its not as good as a bullet proof vest but it still offers a tiny amount of protection. How is that an argument?
If without a harness your risk from falling from scaffolding is a million times higher than your risk of falling at ground level - but with a harness your risk from falling from scaffolding is 47x higher than your risk of falling at ground level - so 99.995% of the risk of being on scaffolding has been eliminated . . . then I wonder if @NerysHughes would deem the harness worthless?
This post just sums up how daft you are. Do you have any H & S qualifications?
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
You claimed the PPE “clearly does not offer any protection”. That is not true.
It doesn’t offer as good protection as better specced items, but you can’t prove that it offers none.
I am aware of that, but a mask has been sold as offering protection, when it still leaves you 47 times more likely to catch covid than someone not in that position. That is not something that should qualify as PPE. Its like saying wearing 5 jumpers will help stop a bullet. Its not as good as a bullet proof vest but it still offers a tiny amount of protection. How is that an argument?
Of course it should qualify as PPE.
If jumping out of an aeroplane with a parachute leaves you 47x more likely to die than someone who doesn't jump out of an aeroplane, does that make parachutes worthless.
To compare working in a Covid ward with not working in a Covid ward as a baseline is intellectually bankrupt.
I do not recall SKS giving the Welsh or Scots permish to finish early at work when their teams were playing.
Maybe Keir Starmer has got contacts in Scotland who've told him about all the German flags that are currently flying in people's gardens, as they are where my sister lives in Dundee. Funnily enough the very same gardens were festooned with "Yes" banners in 2014, conspicuously-consumerist Christmas style. Sick or what.
When someone is as disgustingly unpleasant as that, it's always somebody else's fault - and almost always the fault of whoever they're being so disgustingly unpleasant towards. Takes time to wrap your head around the bigoted "mind".
Funnily enough, when the English behave like that to the Scots or Welsh, it is just "bantz" rather than "disgustingly unpleasant".
Go read some of the postings on pb.com after the Welsh game.
Now that I am off work thanks to kindly old SKS, I should be able to get my German flag up in my garden in time.
I have to agree re the puerile jokes about the Welsh, French etc. Attention seeking rather than genuine spite I’d say though
But I'm concerned about a teacher in fear of his life in the UK because a mob in that same constituency have barbaric views that were rightly ridiculed in Life of Brian.
If without a harness your risk from falling from scaffolding is a million times higher than your risk of falling at ground level - but with a harness your risk from falling from scaffolding is 47x higher than your risk of falling at ground level - so 99.995% of the risk of being on scaffolding has been eliminated . . . then I wonder if @NerysHughes would deem the harness worthless?
This post just sums up how daft you are. Do you have any H & S qualifications?
Yes.
You are not being agreed with by anyone because you are full of shit. If a job is inherently incredibly dangerous like working in a Covid ward then risk assessments are about reducing that risk as much as possible. If an action reduces risk by 90% and there's nothing better available then you should take that action, it doesn't make that action worthless just because there's still some risk left behind.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
Well precisely, you can have the best system in the world but if people are going off "feelings" then the systems won't work.
Flood gates exist for a reason. 🤦♂️
I have a lot of sympathy for that politician
Make a positive decision that results in a lot of deaths makes you feel personally culpable vs “shit happens” if you do nothing
But it also means they are not suitable for high office
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
You claimed the PPE “clearly does not offer any protection”. That is not true.
It doesn’t offer as good protection as better specced items, but you can’t prove that it offers none.
I am aware of that, but a mask has been sold as offering protection, when it still leaves you 47 times more likely to catch covid than someone not in that position. That is not something that should qualify as PPE. Its like saying wearing 5 jumpers will help stop a bullet. Its not as good as a bullet proof vest but it still offers a tiny amount of protection. How is that an argument?
No what you are saying is that if someone wearing a bullet proof vest going somewhere with an active shooter is 47 times more likely to be shot and hurt than someone not facing an active shooter, then that means the bullet proof vest should not qualify as PPE.
You can't take not being in the situation as the baseline to judge the PPE.
Rather than criticise Labour’s stirring of religious hatred in Batley & Spen, Sir Keir has chosen to retweet this
‘ On July 1st, vote for unity over division. Vote for a candidate who knows this community, understands this community and will still be here in this community long after the outsiders and cameras have gone’
Narendra Modi has made a career out of stirring religious hatred. As Chief Minister of the Indian state of Gujarat he presided over communal violence that left 1,000-2,000 dead. The US State Department banned Modi from travelling to the US on the basis of his alleged role in the attacks. The UK and several other European countries also imposed a travel ban on him. Academic Martha Nussbaum writes that "there is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government." The UK government has seen fit to get as close as possible to the Modi government, even while Modi has pushed through new measures constraining the civil rights of religious minorities in India. (And even at the expense of UK public health, delaying putting India on the red list as the Delta variant became widespread in India). So I don't think it is problematic to draw attention to the Tories' policy of sucking up to Modi, especially in the context of the Tories' shameful record on Islamophobia. And labelling criticism of Modi as religious hatred is - dare I say it - simply gas-lighting when Modi himself is demonstrably guilty of stirring up religious hatred in India. Folks on here are always saying judge people by what they do, not the colour of their skin or their religion. But it seems that Modi can't be criticised, because he's a Hindu.
Completely missing the point
This is like Corbyn era Labour putting a pic of a Tory with Netanyahu on a leaflet going for the Muslim vote. You can say this or that about Israel, but it would be fanning the flames, and many people would be livid about it. What it shows is both Corbyn and Starmer era Labour use enemies of Islam as bait for the Muslim Vote.
This after Sir Keir explicitly said “ We must not allow issues of the sub-continent to divide communities here” last year
"bait for the Muslim vote" - because Muslims can't be trusted to vote properly on the same basis as everyone else, right? The Tories have a terrible record on Islamophobia, as internal critics like Lady Warsi have pointed out. If they don't want that being referred to in leaflets from their opponents then they need to address the issue more seriously. If the photo was just some random Indian politician I would say the leaflet was straying into sectarianism. But it is making a serious and valid point about Tory Islamophobia, and the relationship with Modi is part of that. You should educate yourself about the kind of person Modi is before you declare all criticism of him out of bounds.
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
I think you are dealing with too little information and just focusing on the '47 times' figure. People who do jobs that involve risk are always much more likely to be impacted than someone who isn't involved no matter how good the safety regime is. Eg A coalminer or scaffolder are much more than 47 times more at risk than me as I have no plans of going down a coalmine or up scaffolding.
My risk is limited to breaking the fall of the scaffolder as he falls from the scaffolding onto me.
You really haven't worked in the H & S world that exists now. A scaffolder must wear a harness attached to a fixed point at all times, meaning that he cannot fall. I recommend a read of H & S Advisor. https://www.safety-adviser.co.uk/
You really don't understand numbers do you? I don't care if he wears a thousand harnesses his risk is more than 47 times mine because I am not going up scaffolding!
People have died from falling from scaffolding in the UK this year already so the risk is not zero. I won't because I am not going up it, so the risk is clearly nearly infinitely greater (not 47 time, but near infinity).
I tell you wot why don't you compare the insurance risk of a scaffolder compared to a desk worker of specifically falling from scaffolding.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
Well precisely, you can have the best system in the world but if people are going off "feelings" then the systems won't work.
Flood gates exist for a reason. 🤦♂️
I have a lot of sympathy for that politician
Make a positive decision that results in a lot of deaths makes you feel personally culpable vs “shit happens” if you do nothing
But it also means they are not suitable for high office
Yes - it's part of the job. But many people live by "I feel".
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
The baseline is not PPE vs not doing the job. It is PPE vs not having PPE.
If the job is essential then carrying out work even with PPE can be more dangerous than not carrying out work - but if that work is esssential it still needs to be done.
My whole point is that masks were sold to the public as a tool to prevent infection.
I find it astonishing that there is defence of something on here that leaves the user 47 times more likely to be infected than someone not in that position. 47 times more likely means that it does not work as an item of PPE.
The Government has announced that senior executives can temporarily leave quarantine in England if they are undertaking business activities which will bring 'significant economic benefit' to the economy.
I do not recall SKS giving the Welsh or Scots permish to finish early at work when their teams were playing.
Maybe Keir Starmer has got contacts in Scotland who've told him about all the German flags that are currently flying in people's gardens, as they are where my sister lives in Dundee. Funnily enough the very same gardens were festooned with "Yes" banners in 2014, conspicuously-consumerist Christmas style. Sick or what.
When someone is as disgustingly unpleasant as that, it's always somebody else's fault - and almost always the fault of whoever they're being so disgustingly unpleasant towards. Takes time to wrap your head around the bigoted "mind".
Funnily enough, when the English behave like that to the Scots or Welsh, it is just "bantz" rather than "disgustingly unpleasant".
Go read some of the postings on pb.com after the Welsh game.
Now that I am off work thanks to kindly old SKS, I should be able to get my German flag up in my garden in time.
On inter-UK nations rivalry:
I was a child in the 80s and 90s, but my memory is that we English always supported the Scots, Welsh and Irish at football when they were playing other countries. Nowadays, it feels like the peripherally committed still support the Welsh and to a lesser extent the Northern Irish, are just the positive side of neutral on the RoI, and on balance negative on the Scots. It's not impossible to cheer a side whose supporters actively want to see you lose. But the Scots are just so relentless about it, all the time.
For rugby, it's very different. Wales have always been England's big rival in my lifetime: Wales have always been a good side, and for the majority of English people Wales is closer: many English people involved in rugby will have played against Welsh sides at some point.
A completely unnecessary insult of the harmlessly utterly bonkers but yes.
David I have been mostly absent recently but I gather you had a health scare from comments I read. Hope you are well now?
Also I thought you made a very thoughtful post on the transgender issue the other day which I saw embedded in umpteen replies. I was too lazy to keep scrolling to like it, so take this as a like.
Reading The Grocer's article on the growing labour shortage in the food industry. Have I got this right that the government are paying EU migrants £3,000 to leave the UK?
Not quite sure how to break this to you remaining amoral loyal Tories, but that is a carbon copy of a BNP policy...
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
You claimed the PPE “clearly does not offer any protection”. That is not true.
It doesn’t offer as good protection as better specced items, but you can’t prove that it offers none.
I am aware of that, but a mask has been sold as offering protection, when it still leaves you 47 times more likely to catch covid than someone not in that position. That is not something that should qualify as PPE. Its like saying wearing 5 jumpers will help stop a bullet. Its not as good as a bullet proof vest but it still offers a tiny amount of protection. How is that an argument?
No what you are saying is that if someone wearing a bullet proof vest going somewhere with an active shooter is 47 times more likely to be shot and hurt than someone not facing an active shooter, then that means the bullet proof vest should not qualify as PPE.
You can't take not being in the situation as the baseline to judge the PPE.
A very good analogy but a waste of time.
@NerysHughes Just think about what Philip has said here. Clearly walking in front of a snipper with a bullet proof vest on is riskier than not doing so. Agree?
By your logic you would choose not to wear the vest?
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
The baseline is not PPE vs not doing the job. It is PPE vs not having PPE.
If the job is essential then carrying out work even with PPE can be more dangerous than not carrying out work - but if that work is esssential it still needs to be done.
My whole point is that masks were sold to the public as a tool to prevent infection.
I find it astonishing that there is defence of something on here that leaves the user 47 times more likely to be infected than someone not in that position. 47 times more likely means that it does not work as an item of PPE.
You're full of shit. That's not how statistics work. Protection is rarely 100% and doesn't need to be 100% to be considered protective.
A condom is 97% effective but if in a year you have sex 100 times with a condom you're infinitely more likely to face a pregnancy than if you never have sex in that year - and far less likely to face a pregnancy than if you have sex 100 times without any form of protection.
Nice, do you read some of your posts??
You are comparing simething in a condom that is 97% effective with a mask whose percentage effectiveness would be below 1%. Do you not get the concept of 47 times more likely to catch Covid than some not in that position?
I do risk assessments daily, I could never, ever recommend PPE which left some twice as likely to be affected by the risk than someone not doing the work and you are defending something that leaves the user 47 times more likley to affected. And Im full of shit??
Yes, you are.
If the best PPE was freely available I’m sure it would have been used. But it wasn’t. However COVID patients needed to be cared for. So they used the best PPE they had.
Your stat just proves that the best available PPE didn’t do a perfect job. It doesn’t prove it offered no protection. And it doesn’t prove that a better alternative was no care for COVID patients
If without a harness your risk from falling from scaffolding is a million times higher than your risk of falling at ground level - but with a harness your risk from falling from scaffolding is 47x higher than your risk of falling at ground level - so 99.995% of the risk of being on scaffolding has been eliminated . . . then I wonder if @NerysHughes would deem the harness worthless?
This post just sums up how daft you are. Do you have any H & S qualifications?
Labour have basically done their job of providing a decent standard of workplace legislation, all they have left is giving people the day off when England play
Reading The Grocer's article on the growing labour shortage in the food industry. Have I got this right that the government are paying EU migrants £3,000 to leave the UK?
Not quite sure how to break this to you remaining amoral loyal Tories, but that is a carbon copy of a BNP policy...
So if BNP policy was to ban smoking in the workplace, you would say "oh no we can't gave that we must let the workers choke"? What a ridiculous philosophy to live your life by.
Good policy is good policy no matter who comes up with.
I was a child in the 80s and 90s, but my memory is that we English always supported the Scots, Welsh and Irish at football when they were playing other countries. Nowadays, it feels like the peripherally committed still support the Welsh and to a lesser extent the Northern Irish, are just the positive side of neutral on the RoI, and on balance negative on the Scots. It's not impossible to cheer a side whose supporters actively want to see you lose. But the Scots are just so relentless about it, all the time.
I watched a few of England's World Cup 2018 matches in Edinburgh pubs where I was the only England supporter in the establishment.
Watched us lose the semi-final in a back garden with a collection of nationalities: Dutch, German, French, Scottish - all of them rooting for Croatia. Didn't bother me. The essence of competition is that there are two sides. Can't have one if no-one is on the other side.
I was rooting for Scotland in their games because I wanted to, not because I thought there'd be some bizarre quid pro quo where Scots would support England in return.
Reading The Grocer's article on the growing labour shortage in the food industry. Have I got this right that the government are paying EU migrants £3,000 to leave the UK?
Not quite sure how to break this to you remaining amoral loyal Tories, but that is a carbon copy of a BNP policy...
So if BNP policy was to ban smoking in the workplace, you would say "oh no we can't gave that we must let the workers choke"? What a ridiculous philosophy to live your life by.
Good policy is good policy no matter who comes up with.
Yep. Pay to send the forriners home is a good policy. If you are a "rule Britannia pure bred Anglo-Saxon boo the England team" racist perhaps.
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
You claimed the PPE “clearly does not offer any protection”. That is not true.
It doesn’t offer as good protection as better specced items, but you can’t prove that it offers none.
I am aware of that, but a mask has been sold as offering protection, when it still leaves you 47 times more likely to catch covid than someone not in that position. That is not something that should qualify as PPE. Its like saying wearing 5 jumpers will help stop a bullet. Its not as good as a bullet proof vest but it still offers a tiny amount of protection. How is that an argument?
Procurement managers are sophisticated enough to understand that “protection” doesn’t equal “100% protection”
If without a harness your risk from falling from scaffolding is a million times higher than your risk of falling at ground level - but with a harness your risk from falling from scaffolding is 47x higher than your risk of falling at ground level - so 99.995% of the risk of being on scaffolding has been eliminated . . . then I wonder if @NerysHughes would deem the harness worthless?
This post just sums up how daft you are. Do you have any H & S qualifications?
Reading The Grocer's article on the growing labour shortage in the food industry. Have I got this right that the government are paying EU migrants £3,000 to leave the UK?
Not quite sure how to break this to you remaining amoral loyal Tories, but that is a carbon copy of a BNP policy...
So if BNP policy was to ban smoking in the workplace, you would say "oh no we can't gave that we must let the workers choke"? What a ridiculous philosophy to live your life by.
Good policy is good policy no matter who comes up with.
That's rather amusing, given the history! Hitler, probably by preference was anti-smoking, and German science in the 30's was pointing that way on health grounds, and therefore 'hostility' to smoking was regarded with suspicion in some Allied quarters. Consequently it took longer than advisable to create an antismoking climate of opinion in the UK. Churchill's famous cigar smoking probably didn't help, either, of course.
I see we've reached the 'Why don't them Scots cnuts support us? I always support them Scots cnuts though they're shit and will inevitably get knocked out' stage of an international tournament. I'm a great respecter of traditions!
a) Do you agree that the patients needed looking after?
I assume you do.
b) To look after the patients using the available PPE put the doctors and nurses at 47 times the risk than not looking after them i.e. being elsewhere.
c) The fact you don't have is the risk of looking after them without the PPE.
If c) > b) and if a) is unacceptable then you have no choice but to do b).
Reading The Grocer's article on the growing labour shortage in the food industry. Have I got this right that the government are paying EU migrants £3,000 to leave the UK?
Not quite sure how to break this to you remaining amoral loyal Tories, but that is a carbon copy of a BNP policy...
So if BNP policy was to ban smoking in the workplace, you would say "oh no we can't gave that we must let the workers choke"? What a ridiculous philosophy to live your life by.
Good policy is good policy no matter who comes up with.
Yep. Pay to send the forriners home is a good policy. If you are a "rule Britannia pure bred Anglo-Saxon boo the England team" racist perhaps.
Never said it is a good policy or not.
Just that something is not a bad policy simply because it was proposed by your enemies.
Reading The Grocer's article on the growing labour shortage in the food industry. Have I got this right that the government are paying EU migrants £3,000 to leave the UK?
Not quite sure how to break this to you remaining amoral loyal Tories, but that is a carbon copy of a BNP policy...
So if BNP policy was to ban smoking in the workplace, you would say "oh no we can't gave that we must let the workers choke"? What a ridiculous philosophy to live your life by.
Good policy is good policy no matter who comes up with.
That's rather amusing, given the history! Hitler, probably by preference was anti-smoking, and German science in the 30's was pointing that way on health grounds, and therefore 'hostility' to smoking was regarded with suspicion in some Allied quarters. Consequently it took longer than advisable to create an antismoking climate of opinion in the UK. Churchill's famous cigar smoking probably didn't help, either, of course.
Exactly. It was a stupid idea to delay smoking restrictions just because "the Nazis would have done that".
A completely unnecessary insult of the harmlessly utterly bonkers but yes.
David I have been mostly absent recently but I gather you had a health scare from comments I read. Hope you are well now?
Also I thought you made a very thoughtful post on the transgender issue the other day which I saw embedded in umpteen replies. I was too lazy to keep scrolling to like it, so take this as a like.
I had a problem with blood clots on my lungs but I am on the mend. A bit tired and breathless but getting there.
I found the transgender debate genuinely interesting although I can fully understand that many choose to steer clear of such treacherous waters.
Trying a new visualisation, because I wanted to add the hospital occupancy levels AND a comparison with the September/October second wave.
I've started this wave at the low point (the 7-day-average of cases bottomed out on 3rd of May). I started the second wave at the point where its seven-day average of cases was the same (which happened to be the 30th of August).
(Second wave chosen because the first wave did not have sufficient measuring of cases, and the December/January wave built on the preceding September/October wave without time to allow hospital admissions to drop - and the cases numbers never did drop to comparable levels, anyway)
Multi-coloured graphs show cases-to-hospitalisations over the same period of elapsed time, with hospitalisations lagged 7 days from cases. The grey graphs beneath show hospital occupancy against those dates.
(NB: It should be borne in mind that: 1 - The situation on the right is with far fewer restrictions than the one on the left 2 - The variant circulating on the right is far more infections and spreads more quickly 3 - The variant on the right is twice as likely to hospitalise someone than the one on the left
But when you tip £30bn+ a year of taxpayers money into a market, it's not going to be calm.
This year we have (estimated):
£3-5 bn lower Stamp Duty returns due to the higher threshold). Something towards £30bn in Main Dwelling CGT Exemption. (was 24bn in around 2018) Whatever Help-to-Buy costs. Plus all the oldies, such as Right-to-Buy and so on. And tiddlers such as VAT and CIL exemption for self-builders etc.
It's clear what needs to be done with the money side of things.
a) Do you agree that the patients needed looking after?
I assume you do.
b) To look after the patients using the available PPE put the doctors and nurses at 47 times the risk than not looking after them i.e. being elsewhere.
c) The fact you don't have is the risk of looking after them without the PPE.
If c) > b) and if a) is unacceptable then you have no choice but to do b).
Its also possible that a lot of transmission in hospitals occurred in staff rest areas (lunch, tea breaks etc).
Trying a new visualisation, because I wanted to add the hospital occupancy levels AND a comparison with the September/October second wave.
I've started this wave at the low point (the 7-day-average of cases bottomed out on 3rd of May). I started the second wave at the point where its seven-day average of cases was the same (which happened to be the 30th of August).
(Second wave chosen because the first wave did not have sufficient measuring of cases, and the December/January wave built on the preceding September/October wave without time to allow hospital admissions to drop - and the cases numbers never did drop to comparable levels, anyway)
Multi-coloured graphs show cases-to-hospitalisations over the same period of elapsed time, with hospitalisations lagged 7 days from cases. The grey graphs beneath show hospital occupancy against those dates.
(NB: It should be borne in mind that: 1 - The situation on the right is with far fewer restrictions than the one on the left 2 - The variant circulating on the right is far more infections and spreads more quickly 3 - The variant on the right is twice as likely to hospitalise someone than the one on the left
Looks like vaccines work)
Are the blue and dashed lines the wrong way round on the graph on the left?
What we really, really need is for these numpties to be offering up bets so we can take some money off them and they learn to be less stupid.
This is the graph from the study quoted in the Herald. It's the worst kind of shitty reporting.
They even compare 'may hit 100,000 per week', with a current level of 3,000 per day to make it sound bigger.
It's all up there with media squeezing out sensationalist reports of "Reproduction Rate could be 1", when the scientists were reporting "0.7 to 1.0", with the central tendency around 0.85.
Trying a new visualisation, because I wanted to add the hospital occupancy levels AND a comparison with the September/October second wave.
I've started this wave at the low point (the 7-day-average of cases bottomed out on 3rd of May). I started the second wave at the point where its seven-day average of cases was the same (which happened to be the 30th of August).
(Second wave chosen because the first wave did not have sufficient measuring of cases, and the December/January wave built on the preceding September/October wave without time to allow hospital admissions to drop - and the cases numbers never did drop to comparable levels, anyway)
Multi-coloured graphs show cases-to-hospitalisations over the same period of elapsed time, with hospitalisations lagged 7 days from cases. The grey graphs beneath show hospital occupancy against those dates.
(NB: It should be borne in mind that: 1 - The situation on the right is with far fewer restrictions than the one on the left 2 - The variant circulating on the right is far more infections and spreads more quickly 3 - The variant on the right is twice as likely to hospitalise someone than the one on the left
Looks like vaccines work)
Are the blue and dashed lines the wrong way round on the graph on the left?
Nope. Hospitalisations did indeed out-accelerate cases in the October surge. And started from a higher level versus cases: the starting point for comparison was the 7-day-average of cases, then cases were set to the same scale for both. Then hospitalisations were set to a scale where they started at the same height, proportionately, as cases on the current wave; the scale on hospital admissions was then read over to the left hand side so they don't start at exactly the same level against cases last time
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
You claimed the PPE “clearly does not offer any protection”. That is not true.
It doesn’t offer as good protection as better specced items, but you can’t prove that it offers none.
I am aware of that, but a mask has been sold as offering protection, when it still leaves you 47 times more likely to catch covid than someone not in that position. That is not something that should qualify as PPE. Its like saying wearing 5 jumpers will help stop a bullet. Its not as good as a bullet proof vest but it still offers a tiny amount of protection. How is that an argument?
With the added caveat that you have to be working in a Covid ward for you to be 47 times more likely to catch covid.
Trying a new visualisation, because I wanted to add the hospital occupancy levels AND a comparison with the September/October second wave.
I've started this wave at the low point (the 7-day-average of cases bottomed out on 3rd of May). I started the second wave at the point where its seven-day average of cases was the same (which happened to be the 30th of August).
(Second wave chosen because the first wave did not have sufficient measuring of cases, and the December/January wave built on the preceding September/October wave without time to allow hospital admissions to drop - and the cases numbers never did drop to comparable levels, anyway)
Multi-coloured graphs show cases-to-hospitalisations over the same period of elapsed time, with hospitalisations lagged 7 days from cases. The grey graphs beneath show hospital occupancy against those dates.
(NB: It should be borne in mind that: 1 - The situation on the right is with far fewer restrictions than the one on the left 2 - The variant circulating on the right is far more infections and spreads more quickly 3 - The variant on the right is twice as likely to hospitalise someone than the one on the left
Looks like vaccines work)
Are the blue and dashed lines the wrong way round on the graph on the left?
Nope. Hospitalisations did indeed out-accelerate cases in the October surge. And started from a higher level versus cases: the starting point for comparison was the 7-day-average of cases, then cases were set to the same scale for both. Then hospitalisations were set to a scale where they started at the same height, proportionately, as cases on the current wave; the scale on hospital admissions was then read over to the left hand side so they don't start at exactly the same level against cases last time
I'm confused about the solid/translucent colours used in the two charts - are they inconsistent then? Is it that the lower value each day is plotted with the solid colour? The last week on the chart on the left is presumably the "extra" week of case data (without the lagged hospitalisation data) but the colours aren't matching with the chart on the right (presumably because there are "fewer" scaled cases than hospitalisations), but I'm finding the difference confusing for making a visual comparison between the two graphs.
Trying a new visualisation, because I wanted to add the hospital occupancy levels AND a comparison with the September/October second wave.
I've started this wave at the low point (the 7-day-average of cases bottomed out on 3rd of May). I started the second wave at the point where its seven-day average of cases was the same (which happened to be the 30th of August).
(Second wave chosen because the first wave did not have sufficient measuring of cases, and the December/January wave built on the preceding September/October wave without time to allow hospital admissions to drop - and the cases numbers never did drop to comparable levels, anyway)
Multi-coloured graphs show cases-to-hospitalisations over the same period of elapsed time, with hospitalisations lagged 7 days from cases. The grey graphs beneath show hospital occupancy against those dates.
(NB: It should be borne in mind that: 1 - The situation on the right is with far fewer restrictions than the one on the left 2 - The variant circulating on the right is far more infections and spreads more quickly 3 - The variant on the right is twice as likely to hospitalise someone than the one on the left
Looks like vaccines work)
Are the blue and dashed lines the wrong way round on the graph on the left?
Nope. Hospitalisations did indeed out-accelerate cases in the October surge. And started from a higher level versus cases: the starting point for comparison was the 7-day-average of cases, then cases were set to the same scale for both. Then hospitalisations were set to a scale where they started at the same height, proportionately, as cases on the current wave; the scale on hospital admissions was then read over to the left hand side so they don't start at exactly the same level against cases last time
I'm confused about the solid/translucent colours used in the two charts - are they inconsistent then? Is it that the lower value each day is plotted with the solid colour? The last week on the chart on the left is presumably the "extra" week of case data (without the lagged hospitalisation data) but the colours aren't matching with the chart on the right (presumably because there are "fewer" scaled cases than hospitalisations), but I'm finding the difference confusing for making a visual comparison between the two graphs.
The one with the lower numbers is in full colour; the one with higher numbers is translucent, otherwise the lower levels become invisible; it's very inconvenient that hospitalisations went up faster than cases back in the second wave - probably as Alpha was becoming dominant from a low level, and caused more hospitalisations-per-case than did Original Covid.
I did struggle to try and make them exactly equivalent, but it was impossible due to that. The colours at the furthest right should be equivalent, but the lack of translucency for the cases on the left side mean that the violet colour is less faded and looks very similar to the faded purple of hospitalisations. Hmm. Needs more thought.
Comments
If jumping out of an aeroplane with a parachute leaves you 47x more likely to die than someone who doesn't jump out of an aeroplane, does that make parachutes worthless.
To compare working in a Covid ward with not working in a Covid ward as a baseline is intellectually bankrupt.
But I'm concerned about a teacher in fear of his life in the UK because a mob in that same constituency have barbaric views that were rightly ridiculed in Life of Brian.
You are not being agreed with by anyone because you are full of shit. If a job is inherently incredibly dangerous like working in a Covid ward then risk assessments are about reducing that risk as much as possible. If an action reduces risk by 90% and there's nothing better available then you should take that action, it doesn't make that action worthless just because there's still some risk left behind.
Its rarely possible to remove all risk.
Make a positive decision that results in a lot of deaths makes you feel personally culpable vs “shit happens” if you do nothing
But it also means they are not suitable for high office
You can't take not being in the situation as the baseline to judge the PPE.
The Tories have a terrible record on Islamophobia, as internal critics like Lady Warsi have pointed out. If they don't want that being referred to in leaflets from their opponents then they need to address the issue more seriously.
If the photo was just some random Indian politician I would say the leaflet was straying into sectarianism. But it is making a serious and valid point about Tory Islamophobia, and the relationship with Modi is part of that. You should educate yourself about the kind of person Modi is before you declare all criticism of him out of bounds.
People have died from falling from scaffolding in the UK this year already so the risk is not zero. I won't because I am not going up it, so the risk is clearly nearly infinitely greater (not 47 time, but near infinity).
I tell you wot why don't you compare the insurance risk of a scaffolder compared to a desk worker of specifically falling from scaffolding.
For goodness sake.
For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com
I was a child in the 80s and 90s, but my memory is that we English always supported the Scots, Welsh and Irish at football when they were playing other countries. Nowadays, it feels like the peripherally committed still support the Welsh and to a lesser extent the Northern Irish, are just the positive side of neutral on the RoI, and on balance negative on the Scots.
It's not impossible to cheer a side whose supporters actively want to see you lose. But the Scots are just so relentless about it, all the time.
For rugby, it's very different. Wales have always been England's big rival in my lifetime: Wales have always been a good side, and for the majority of English people Wales is closer: many English people involved in rugby will have played against Welsh sides at some point.
Also I thought you made a very thoughtful post on the transgender issue the other day which I saw embedded in umpteen replies. I was too lazy to keep scrolling to like it, so take this as a like.
Not quite sure how to break this to you remaining amoral loyal Tories, but that is a carbon copy of a BNP policy...
@NerysHughes Just think about what Philip has said here. Clearly walking in front of a snipper with a bullet proof vest on is riskier than not doing so. Agree?
By your logic you would choose not to wear the vest?
Rational?
If the best PPE was freely available I’m sure it would have been used. But it wasn’t. However COVID patients needed to be cared for. So they used the best PPE they had.
Your stat just proves that the best available PPE didn’t do a perfect job. It doesn’t prove it offered no protection. And it doesn’t prove that a better alternative was no care for COVID patients
Labour have basically done their job of providing a decent standard of workplace legislation, all they have left is giving people the day off when England play So if BNP policy was to ban smoking in the workplace, you would say "oh no we can't gave that we must let the workers choke"? What a ridiculous philosophy to live your life by.
Good policy is good policy no matter who comes up with.
PS I have a maths degree.
Watched us lose the semi-final in a back garden with a collection of nationalities: Dutch, German, French, Scottish - all of them rooting for Croatia. Didn't bother me. The essence of competition is that there are two sides. Can't have one if no-one is on the other side.
I was rooting for Scotland in their games because I wanted to, not because I thought there'd be some bizarre quid pro quo where Scots would support England in return.
Churchill's famous cigar smoking probably didn't help, either, of course.
I'm a great respecter of traditions!
Last attempt to explain this:
a) Do you agree that the patients needed looking after?
I assume you do.
b) To look after the patients using the available PPE put the doctors and nurses at 47 times the risk than not looking after them i.e. being elsewhere.
c) The fact you don't have is the risk of looking after them without the PPE.
If c) > b) and if a) is unacceptable then you have no choice but to do b).
Just that something is not a bad policy simply because it was proposed by your enemies.
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1409792982203703300?s=20
I found the transgender debate genuinely interesting although I can fully understand that many choose to steer clear of such treacherous waters.
I've started this wave at the low point (the 7-day-average of cases bottomed out on 3rd of May).
I started the second wave at the point where its seven-day average of cases was the same (which happened to be the 30th of August).
(Second wave chosen because the first wave did not have sufficient measuring of cases, and the December/January wave built on the preceding September/October wave without time to allow hospital admissions to drop - and the cases numbers never did drop to comparable levels, anyway)
Multi-coloured graphs show cases-to-hospitalisations over the same period of elapsed time, with hospitalisations lagged 7 days from cases.
The grey graphs beneath show hospital occupancy against those dates.
(NB: It should be borne in mind that:
1 - The situation on the right is with far fewer restrictions than the one on the left
2 - The variant circulating on the right is far more infections and spreads more quickly
3 - The variant on the right is twice as likely to hospitalise someone than the one on the left
Looks like vaccines work)
But when you tip £30bn+ a year of taxpayers money into a market, it's not going to be calm.
This year we have (estimated):
£3-5 bn lower Stamp Duty returns due to the higher threshold).
Something towards £30bn in Main Dwelling CGT Exemption. (was 24bn in around 2018)
Whatever Help-to-Buy costs.
Plus all the oldies, such as Right-to-Buy and so on.
And tiddlers such as VAT and CIL exemption for self-builders etc.
It's clear what needs to be done with the money side of things.
Much more significant than eg Triple Lock.
They even compare 'may hit 100,000 per week', with a current level of 3,000 per day to make it sound bigger.
It's all up there with media squeezing out sensationalist reports of "Reproduction Rate could be 1", when the scientists were reporting "0.7 to 1.0", with the central tendency around 0.85.
I did struggle to try and make them exactly equivalent, but it was impossible due to that.
The colours at the furthest right should be equivalent, but the lack of translucency for the cases on the left side mean that the violet colour is less faded and looks very similar to the faded purple of hospitalisations.
Hmm. Needs more thought.