Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

All things Rugby
ovalball
Posts: 13038
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by ovalball »

Image
iarmhiman
Posts: 44570
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by iarmhiman »

The current vaccines are showing reduced efficacy against infection from variants but still successful against severe disease.


It's going the same way influenza did
Dozy
Posts: 855
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Dozy »

paddyor wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:56 pm The Russian vaccine looks like utter dogshit. Who was boosting that?

https://twitter.com/hildabast/status/13 ... 27713?s=20
I pictured you having some sort of aggressive facial tick when you say dogshit.

https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine/stat ... 62727?s=19

https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine/stat ... 98978?s=19

https://www.newsweek.com/mexico-ignorin ... ssion=true
User avatar
jambanja
Posts: 5496
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: The other side of midnight

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by jambanja »

Dozy wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:26 am
paddyor wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:56 pm The Russian vaccine looks like utter dogshit. Who was boosting that?

https://twitter.com/hildabast/status/13 ... 27713?s=20
I pictured you having some sort of aggressive facial tick when you say dogshit.

https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine/stat ... 62727?s=19

https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine/stat ... 98978?s=19

https://www.newsweek.com/mexico-ignorin ... ssion=true
:lol: :lol: Bot will bot
Dozy
Posts: 855
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Dozy »

jambanja wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:27 am
Dozy wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:26 am
paddyor wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:56 pm The Russian vaccine looks like utter dogshit. Who was boosting that?

https://twitter.com/hildabast/status/13 ... 27713?s=20
I pictured you having some sort of aggressive facial tick when you say dogshit.

https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine/stat ... 62727?s=19

https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine/stat ... 98978?s=19

https://www.newsweek.com/mexico-ignorin ... ssion=true
:lol: :lol: Bot will bot
You do know those who call everything they don't like a bot are a bit mad. 🤣
C69
Posts: 41464
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by C69 »

iarmhiman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:18 pm The current vaccines are showing reduced efficacy against infection from variants but still successful against severe disease.


It's going the same way influenza did
Really?
Please explain...
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 11675
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Frodder »

C69 wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:04 am
iarmhiman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:18 pm The current vaccines are showing reduced efficacy against infection from variants but still successful against severe disease.


It's going the same way influenza did
Really?
Please explain...
A seasonal disease controlled by vaccines?
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 33233
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

bimboman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:12 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:40 pm
bimboman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:12 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:06 pm Study showing Elimination is the best method for dealing with COVID on Health, economy and Civil Liberties:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 8/fulltext


It cannot be eliminated.
Lack of understanding on display.


So our chief medical officer and scientist are wrong. What don’t they understand?
And yet you oppose them on doing lockdowns and COVID precautions :lol:
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 15844
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

https://www.thelocal.fr/20210429/latest ... -june-9th/

Nice
There is no compulsory quarantine for arrivals in France from the US, UK, Australia or New Zealand, but people coming from a non-EU country are asked to self-isolate for 7 days on arrival. This can be done at an address of their choice.
The poor Aussies and Kiwis won't be allowed out for a while though.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 33233
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

Sandstorm wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:34 pm
bimboman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:21 pm The virus is endemic in the U.K. it cannot be eliminated.
Another grand proclamation here, folks.
Bimboman can't understand the issue of reviewing their prior actions, even if they can't all be taken now.
User avatar
jambanja
Posts: 5496
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: The other side of midnight

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by jambanja »

Dozy wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:36 am
jambanja wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:27 am
Dozy wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:26 am
paddyor wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:56 pm The Russian vaccine looks like utter dogshit. Who was boosting that?

https://twitter.com/hildabast/status/13 ... 27713?s=20
I pictured you having some sort of aggressive facial tick when you say dogshit.

https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine/stat ... 62727?s=19

https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine/stat ... 98978?s=19

https://www.newsweek.com/mexico-ignorin ... ssion=true
:lol: :lol: Bot will bot
You do know those who call everything they don't like a bot are a bit mad. 🤣
And those that are bots are a lot worse than a bit mad, clinically insane possibly, but if the pay’s good then why not
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

eldanielfire wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:21 am
Sandstorm wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:34 pm
bimboman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:21 pm The virus is endemic in the U.K. it cannot be eliminated.
Another grand proclamation here, folks.
Bimboman can't understand the issue of reviewing their prior actions, even if they can't all be taken now.


So again our chief science officers are suddenly not to be believed ?

It’s their not my proclamation.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 33233
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

bimboman wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:37 am
eldanielfire wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:21 am
Sandstorm wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:34 pm
bimboman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:21 pm The virus is endemic in the U.K. it cannot be eliminated.
Another grand proclamation here, folks.
Bimboman can't understand the issue of reviewing their prior actions, even if they can't all be taken now.


So again our chief science officers are suddenly not to be believed ?

It’s their not my proclamation.
I'm saying in retrospect you can see what looked to be the right or most pragmatic advice at the time is later corrected.
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

And yet you oppose them on doing lockdowns and COVID precautions :lol:

Wrong , I oppose the method and enforcement of lockdowns and particular that the impact of the actions hasn’t been taken into account.

And yes I oppose the mass masking particularly of children. That’s sensible and in fact was science consensus until middle of last year. There’s been absolutely no science regarding the Change.

This constant misrepresentation demonstrates that the zero COVID bed wetters actually have no arguments. J
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

eldanielfire wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:40 am
bimboman wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:37 am
eldanielfire wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:21 am
Sandstorm wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:34 pm
bimboman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:21 pm The virus is endemic in the U.K. it cannot be eliminated.
Another grand proclamation here, folks.
Bimboman can't understand the issue of reviewing their prior actions, even if they can't all be taken now.


So again our chief science officers are suddenly not to be believed ?

It’s their not my proclamation.
I'm saying in retrospect you can see what looked to be the right or most pragmatic advice at the time is later corrected.


Which has nothing to do with it now being “endemic “.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

bimboman wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:41 am
And yet you oppose them on doing lockdowns and COVID precautions :lol:

Wrong , I oppose the method and enforcement of lockdowns and particular that the impact of the actions hasn’t been taken into account.

And yes I oppose the mass masking particularly of children. That’s sensible and in fact was science consensus until middle of last year. There’s been absolutely no science regarding the Change.

This constant misrepresentation demonstrates that the zero COVID bed wetters actually have no arguments. J
This is incorrect.
You have been shown numerous times the science demonstrating masks reduce the infection rate.
User avatar
AD345
Posts: 1470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by AD345 »

Blackrock Bullet wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:20 am https://www.thelocal.fr/20210429/latest ... -june-9th/

Nice
There is no compulsory quarantine for arrivals in France from the US, UK, Australia or New Zealand, but people coming from a non-EU country are asked to self-isolate for 7 days on arrival. This can be done at an address of their choice.
The poor Aussies and Kiwis won't be allowed out for a while though.
Not quite correct

There are no restrictions on Kiwi's leaving NZ
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 21133
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Enzedder »

Image
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Farva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 1:53 am
bimboman wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:41 am
And yet you oppose them on doing lockdowns and COVID precautions :lol:

Wrong , I oppose the method and enforcement of lockdowns and particular that the impact of the actions hasn’t been taken into account.

And yes I oppose the mass masking particularly of children. That’s sensible and in fact was science consensus until middle of last year. There’s been absolutely no science regarding the Change.

This constant misrepresentation demonstrates that the zero COVID bed wetters actually have no arguments. J
This is incorrect.
You have been shown numerous times the science demonstrating masks reduce the infection rate.


There’s been no science that says an old cloth or a cheap pretend medical mask have any affect on infection rates.

There’s been science stating that there’s no affect for the wearer of the mask.

I’ll repeat there’s no actual peer reviewed proper studies at all.

Masks are a placebo.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

bimboman wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 8:16 am
Farva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 1:53 am
bimboman wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:41 am
And yet you oppose them on doing lockdowns and COVID precautions :lol:

Wrong , I oppose the method and enforcement of lockdowns and particular that the impact of the actions hasn’t been taken into account.

And yes I oppose the mass masking particularly of children. That’s sensible and in fact was science consensus until middle of last year. There’s been absolutely no science regarding the Change.

This constant misrepresentation demonstrates that the zero COVID bed wetters actually have no arguments. J
This is incorrect.
You have been shown numerous times the science demonstrating masks reduce the infection rate.


There’s been no science that says an old cloth or a cheap pretend medical mask have any affect on infection rates.

There’s been science stating that there’s no affect for the wearer of the mask.

I’ll repeat there’s no actual peer reviewed proper studies at all.

Masks are a placebo.
The study you refer to, as you have posted it before, states there isn’t a lot of cidence that masks protect the person wearing.
That’s fine. I don’t have an issue with that. It completely misses the point of why we wear masks, which is to prevent others in case of you having COVID (and not knowing it). Studies have been done that show it works.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41790 ... ks-prevent

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content ... d3083.full

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... id19/90765

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html

Rebuttal of the study you previously posted: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

And so on.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

So we have, in one corner, Bimboman with no medical experience, citing one widely rebutted study, stating that masks don’t work.

In the other corner, we have every major world organisation dedicated to health, the majority of experts in universities around the world, and the weight of evidence, in the other, stating cloth masks do.

I agree, it’s pretty difficult to figure out who to believe.
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 2390
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Muttonbirds »

I see there was a big warehouse rave in Liverpool. Great for the kids but how is this a good idea in Covid ravaged Europe?

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/thousa ... 021-04-30/
ovalball
Posts: 13038
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by ovalball »

Muttonbirds wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:17 am I see there was a big warehouse rave in Liverpool. Great for the kids but how is this a good idea in Covid ravaged Europe?

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/thousa ... 021-04-30/
The article you linked appears to answer your question well enough.
towny
Posts: 21691
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by towny »

Question - can someone point me to a study that relates to the ability children have to transmit the virus? The stuff I’ve seen from 2020 showed that primary school teachers and nursery staff had lower rates of infection than the general population despite them staying open and no ability to work from home. This leads to assumption that young kids aren’t good hosts or transmitters or something, right?

My wife got Covid from work (co-worker didn’t yet have symptoms) and gave it to me, but the kids didn’t miss a beat. By rights they should have spread it to everyone at nursery and school but apparently not.

I’m not saying that this is evidence- I’m keen on seeing data.
User avatar
P in VG
Posts: 2945
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:22 pm
Location: Gogledd Cymru

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by P in VG »

Farva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:14 am
bimboman wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 8:16 am
Farva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 1:53 am
bimboman wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:41 am
And yet you oppose them on doing lockdowns and COVID precautions :lol:

Wrong , I oppose the method and enforcement of lockdowns and particular that the impact of the actions hasn’t been taken into account.

And yes I oppose the mass masking particularly of children. That’s sensible and in fact was science consensus until middle of last year. There’s been absolutely no science regarding the Change.

This constant misrepresentation demonstrates that the zero COVID bed wetters actually have no arguments. J
This is incorrect.
You have been shown numerous times the science demonstrating masks reduce the infection rate.


There’s been no science that says an old cloth or a cheap pretend medical mask have any affect on infection rates.

There’s been science stating that there’s no affect for the wearer of the mask.

I’ll repeat there’s no actual peer reviewed proper studies at all.

Masks are a placebo.
The study you refer to, as you have posted it before, states there isn’t a lot of cidence that masks protect the person wearing.
That’s fine. I don’t have an issue with that. It completely misses the point of why we wear masks, which is to prevent others in case of you having COVID (and not knowing it). Studies have been done that show it works.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41790 ... ks-prevent

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content ... d3083.full

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... id19/90765

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html

Rebuttal of the study you previously posted: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

And so on.
:lol: Headshot.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

towny wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:00 am Question - can someone point me to a study that relates to the ability children have to transmit the virus? The stuff I’ve seen from 2020 showed that primary school teachers and nursery staff had lower rates of infection than the general population despite them staying open and no ability to work from home. This leads to assumption that young kids aren’t good hosts or transmitters or something, right?

My wife got Covid from work (co-worker didn’t yet have symptoms) and gave it to me, but the kids didn’t miss a beat. By rights they should have spread it to everyone at nursery and school but apparently not.

I’m not saying that this is evidence- I’m keen on seeing data.
Seems like they can, but are less likely to.
Are kids any more or less likely than adults to spread coronavirus?

Most children who become infected with the COVID-19 virus have no symptoms, or they have milder symptoms such as low-grade fever, fatigue, and cough. Early studies suggested that children do not contribute much to the spread of coronavirus. But more recent studies raise concerns that children could be capable of spreading the infection.

Though the recent studies varied in their methods, their findings were similar: infected children had as much, or more, coronavirus in their upper respiratory tracts as infected adults.

The amount of virus found in children — their viral load — was not correlated with the severity of their symptoms. In other words, more virus did not mean more severe symptoms.

Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does not prove that children are infectious. However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases ... k-and-kids
towny
Posts: 21691
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by towny »

Farva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:07 am
towny wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:00 am Question - can someone point me to a study that relates to the ability children have to transmit the virus? The stuff I’ve seen from 2020 showed that primary school teachers and nursery staff had lower rates of infection than the general population despite them staying open and no ability to work from home. This leads to assumption that young kids aren’t good hosts or transmitters or something, right?

My wife got Covid from work (co-worker didn’t yet have symptoms) and gave it to me, but the kids didn’t miss a beat. By rights they should have spread it to everyone at nursery and school but apparently not.

I’m not saying that this is evidence- I’m keen on seeing data.
Seems like they can, but are less likely to.
Are kids any more or less likely than adults to spread coronavirus?

Most children who become infected with the COVID-19 virus have no symptoms, or they have milder symptoms such as low-grade fever, fatigue, and cough. Early studies suggested that children do not contribute much to the spread of coronavirus. But more recent studies raise concerns that children could be capable of spreading the infection.

Though the recent studies varied in their methods, their findings were similar: infected children had as much, or more, coronavirus in their upper respiratory tracts as infected adults.

The amount of virus found in children — their viral load — was not correlated with the severity of their symptoms. In other words, more virus did not mean more severe symptoms.

Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does not prove that children are infectious. However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases ... k-and-kids
Thanks for that!

They’re capable of spreading it but data says they don’t contribute much to the spread. 👍
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 2390
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Muttonbirds »

ovalball wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:53 am
Muttonbirds wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:17 am I see there was a big warehouse rave in Liverpool. Great for the kids but how is this a good idea in Covid ravaged Europe?

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/thousa ... 021-04-30/
The article you linked appears to answer your question well enough.
I don't think you can toy with this virus. It'll win in the short to medium term. Trialling a spreader event still with active cases seems full of holes to me.
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 11675
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Frodder »

Muttonbirds wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:18 am
ovalball wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:53 am
Muttonbirds wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:17 am I see there was a big warehouse rave in Liverpool. Great for the kids but how is this a good idea in Covid ravaged Europe?

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/thousa ... 021-04-30/
The article you linked appears to answer your question well enough.
I don't think you can toy with this virus. It'll win in the short to medium term. Trialling a spreader event still with active cases seems full of holes to me.
With the UK infection rates bottomed out then we'll never have these events using that logic
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 33233
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

Enzedder wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 7:59 am Image
:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 2390
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Muttonbirds »

Frodder wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:27 am
Muttonbirds wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:18 am
ovalball wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:53 am
Muttonbirds wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:17 am I see there was a big warehouse rave in Liverpool. Great for the kids but how is this a good idea in Covid ravaged Europe?

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/thousa ... 021-04-30/
The article you linked appears to answer your question well enough.
I don't think you can toy with this virus. It'll win in the short to medium term. Trialling a spreader event still with active cases seems full of holes to me.
With the UK infection rates bottomed out then we'll never have these events using that logic
Oh well, good luck.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 33233
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

P in VG wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:05 am
Farva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:14 am
bimboman wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 8:16 am

There’s been no science that says an old cloth or a cheap pretend medical mask have any affect on infection rates.

There’s been science stating that there’s no affect for the wearer of the mask.

I’ll repeat there’s no actual peer reviewed proper studies at all.

Masks are a placebo.
The study you refer to, as you have posted it before, states there isn’t a lot of cidence that masks protect the person wearing.
That’s fine. I don’t have an issue with that. It completely misses the point of why we wear masks, which is to prevent others in case of you having COVID (and not knowing it). Studies have been done that show it works.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41790 ... ks-prevent

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content ... d3083.full

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... id19/90765

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html

Rebuttal of the study you previously posted: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

And so on.
:lol: Headshot.
He has joined the 'I got a headshot on Bimboman' club. It grows day by day :lol:
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

eldanielfire wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:41 am
P in VG wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:05 am
Farva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:14 am
bimboman wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 8:16 am

There’s been no science that says an old cloth or a cheap pretend medical mask have any affect on infection rates.

There’s been science stating that there’s no affect for the wearer of the mask.

I’ll repeat there’s no actual peer reviewed proper studies at all.

Masks are a placebo.
The study you refer to, as you have posted it before, states there isn’t a lot of cidence that masks protect the person wearing.
That’s fine. I don’t have an issue with that. It completely misses the point of why we wear masks, which is to prevent others in case of you having COVID (and not knowing it). Studies have been done that show it works.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41790 ... ks-prevent

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content ... d3083.full

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... id19/90765

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html

Rebuttal of the study you previously posted: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

And so on.
:lol: Headshot.
He has joined the 'I got a headshot on Bimboman' club. It grows day by day :lol:


There’s no recent peer reviewed science there. But hey lots of propaganda so it must be true,

Linda peebles.

https://www.nature.com/search?author=%2 ... Peeples%22


:lol:

https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

This study is dong all the work here, however many times it’s reported and linked in various formats.
Not a randomized trial, but analysis found benefit to controlling transmission

“Droplets”
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

As for “headshot”

Not one link to peer reviewed science.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

bimboman wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 12:08 pm As for “headshot”

Not one link to peer reviewed science.
Again, dribbling.

Articles are written. They are then published. They can be peer reviewed and if wrong discredited.
An example of this discrediting is the article you posted and refer to. It was discredited.
The articles I posted have been published. There is no discrediting.
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Farva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 12:28 pm
bimboman wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 12:08 pm As for “headshot”

Not one link to peer reviewed science.
Again, dribbling.

Articles are written. They are then published. They can be peer reviewed and if wrong discredited.
An example of this discrediting is the article you posted and refer to. It was discredited.
The articles I posted have been published. There is no discrediting.


Sorry, 1/2 those articles are from general journalism not peer reviewed science.

The article from the BMJ did not discredit the PEER reviewed university study it tried to discredit the reporting of the actual study.

You seem to be struggling between reporting and actual university output.

There’s been no peer reviewed science you’ve linked..... it seems you’re struggling
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

Around half are papers. The rest are articles. The articles provide links to papers. Do I need to post the actual papers?

Now. We know the way that masks prevent spread. Covid is a respiratory disease that is spread by the virus attached to droplets. These droplets come from breathing out. Cloth masks reduce droplets by capturing them. You can tell this as the inside of the mask is a little wet when you take it off.
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Farva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 12:50 pm Around half are papers. The rest are articles. The articles provide links to papers. Do I need to post the actual papers?

Now. We know the way that masks prevent spread. Covid is a respiratory disease that is spread by the virus attached to droplets. These droplets come from breathing out. Cloth masks reduce droplets by capturing them. You can tell this as the inside of the mask is a little wet when you take it off.

And this protection from the “droplets” only works in one direction. ?

And sorry, the “attached to droplets” nonsense if you actually compare the size of the mesh vs the size of a virus and the “droplets” the size disparity is similar to a mosquito flying through a chain link fence.


Oh, and the “papers” you’ve linked are not peer reviewed studies at all. So not really science.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 13183
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Mog The Almighty »

Frodder wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:15 am
C69 wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:04 am
iarmhiman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:18 pm The current vaccines are showing reduced efficacy against infection from variants but still successful against severe disease.


It's going the same way influenza did
Really?
Please explain...
A seasonal disease controlled by vaccines?
Triggered. How dare anyone compare it to some other respiratory infection with markedly similar symptoms when we all know its more like a mix between the bubonic plague and the zombie apocalypse.
User avatar
Clouseau
Posts: 1050
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clouseau »

What's the difference between a research article and a research paper ?
Post Reply