PT today
 

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 14:36, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:20:21 on Wed, 17
Jun 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked:

The silly cloth things that people wear walking around Tesco are
useless.

Â*On what basis did you reach that conclusion?Â* As long as they're at
leastÂ* two layers thick, they'll do the job they're intended to do.

Lull people into a false sense of security, yes. They're excellent at
that. I for one am not so easily fooled.

Perhaps the message that they aren't intended to protect the wearer,
hasn't got through?

This is a wonderful commentary on the ability of the general public to
"act like grown-ups" and make sensible decisions based on the perceived
risks, when they fall at the first fence like this.

I am perfectly capable of acting like a grown-up by making my own
decisions and not wearing something I know to be useless. If you think
they work then wear one, but don't come anywhere near me with it on.

Why would you be afraid if a mask wearer came anywhere near you?

PT today
 

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:50:29 on Wed, 17
Jun 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked:

Functional..? NONE of the ridiculous things being worn by the public at
large are remotely functional.

Â*In what sense?

In the sense that people have them on for.

Unless you are a medical professional or you have the training to use
the correct mask in the correct way (including disposal) then it isn't
going to be any use.

Once you touch them, then they are contaminated, and so are your hands
and anything you touch.

You are addressing the wrong function. Masks for travellers aren't PPE,
they are to stop coughs and sneezes *BY THE WEARER*, spreading the
disease. Also by the wearer not so easily touching their mouth/nose and
then wiping their snot on the surroundings.

This is, incidentally, why a DIY dust mask with a valve in it is "the
wrong way round". But they are still better than nothing.

Oh believe what you like, I give up.


So what do you believe?

As far as I can tell, you don't want to wear a mask because they're hot and
uncomfortable. I agree.

But I don't then dream up increasingly bizarre 'dog-ate-my-homework'
reasons for not doing so. Have I missed any of yours:

- Only trained medical staff with PPE training are capable of wearing
masks.

- They don't protect the wearer. No, they're not claimed to do so.

- It will prevent autistic people forming deep and personal relationships
with people they casually encounter on public transport. These are the same
people who don't relate to other people, anyway, with or without masks,
right?

- They give wearers a false sense of security.

- They will contaminate the hands of infected wearers. Really?

- They will make everyone look like street robbers.

- They will prevent deaf people from lip reading essential announcements
on public transport.

PT today
 

Roland Perry wrote:

No they aren't. The majority are DIY dusk-masks, and the vent is to let
the moist air out.

Which kind of puts to rest the argument that masks protect others.

PT today
 

Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

No they aren't. The majority are DIY dusk-masks, and the vent is to let
the moist air out.

Which kind of puts to rest the argument that masks protect others.

The moist exhaled air will obviously get out anyway, but any form of face
covering that makes the droplets follow a more tortuous route will reduce
the distance they are projected. That's all that these face coverings for
the general public are expected to do. They are not medical grade PPE.

PT today
 

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:57, Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:19:13 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:11, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 12:50, tim... wrote:

but they are meant to stop you contaminating someone else

not the other way round

So how are they going to do that, when you are infected and touch your
mask then touch something else..?


An infected person's hands would be contaminated anyway, so they certainly
don't make things worse. But they do greatly reduce the distance that
droplets are projected, which is all they're meant to do.

Possibly. But they still lull people into a false sense of security.

How do you know? And do you mean the wearers, or others in their
vicinity?

Because that's what placebos do. They make people think they're cured,
or protected or whatever.

I cannot deal with people face to face unless I can *see* their face.
And how is a deaf person supposed to lip-read..?

How often do you need to speak to a deaf person?

Irrelevant. And *how dare you* insult a large proportion of the
population..? For all you know, one or more of my family could be deaf,
or my friends. Yes, I do have some, what about you..?

And you haven't answered my question about those of us who cannot relate
to people when we cannot see their faces. It frightens me and I am not
alone. There are many people out there with similar mental health
conditions. Mine is autism, what's yours..?



Impatience, especially with the growing number of people who reckon they
have mental issues of some kind and expect society to work around their
foibles , mental health problems seem to be spreading among the population
quicker than Covid 19 and its become fashionable .
It detracts from the genuine cases who have real issues .

And I’ll, have a Gin and Tonic please.

GH

PT today
 

In message , at 15:18:40 on Wed, 17
Jun 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked:
On 17/06/2020 14:36, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:20:21 on Wed, 17
Jun 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked:

The silly cloth things that people wear walking around Tesco are
useless.

*On what basis did you reach that conclusion?* As long as they're
at least* two layers thick, they'll do the job they're intended to do.

Lull people into a false sense of security, yes. They're excellent
at that. I for one am not so easily fooled.
Perhaps the message that they aren't intended to protect the wearer,
hasn't got through?
This is a wonderful commentary on the ability of the general public
to "act like grown-ups" and make sensible decisions based on the
perceived risks, when they fall at the first fence like this.

I am perfectly capable of acting like a grown-up by making my own
decisions and not wearing something I know to be useless.

In a nutshell, you just contradicted yourself in one sentence.

If you think they work then wear one,

Actually, I'm more likely to wear the sort of mask the Minister said we
shouldn't - one of those rectangular blue surgical masks. Like the less
comfortable FFP2 dust mask, I have long[1] had a few in my DIY drawer
(for use when sanding lead paint, or cutting chipboard).

but don't come anywhere near me with it on.

If I encounter you on public transport I'd expect almost everyone to be
wearing some sort of face covering. Playing whack-a-mole with me isn't
going to help much.

[1] Some, so long that elastic has perished sigh
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

In message , at 15:25:36 on Wed, 17 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:36:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:20:21 on Wed, 17
Jun 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked:

The silly cloth things that people wear walking around Tesco are useless.

On what basis did you reach that conclusion? As long as they're at
least two layers thick, they'll do the job they're intended to do.

Lull people into a false sense of security, yes. They're excellent at
that. I for one am not so easily fooled.

Perhaps the message that they aren't intended to protect the wearer,
hasn't got through?

Of course it hasn't got through. Do you think all those mask wearing
bed wetters who cross the road when someone approaches them do it for
the other person?

I'd expect them to be doing it because they understand that such masks
aren't PPE, and therefore they have to avoid the oncoming person. Or it
could just be that they want to keep 2m away.

This is a wonderful commentary on the ability of the general public to
"act like grown-ups" and make sensible decisions based on the perceived
risks, when they fall at the first fence like this.

Plenty of the general public are making sensible decisions - they're ignoring
the 2m nonsense and not wearing idiotic masks.

Demonstrating that they are unable to act like grown-ups.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

In message prlkef5vnm4qb5pg81dq2u1sr1fh7vjho6@None, at 12:49:14 on
Wed, 17 Jun 2020, Arthur Conan Doyle remarked:

No they aren't. The majority are DIY dusk-masks, and the vent is to let
the moist air out.

Which kind of puts to rest the argument that masks protect others.

That's just one type of mask, and even so it will help capture the worst
of any coughs or sneezes, and also help stop the wearer touching their
face and transferring virus to the hands, to then spread on hard
surfaces.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:36:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:20:21 on Wed, 17
Jun 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked:

The silly cloth things that people wear walking around Tesco are useless.

On what basis did you reach that conclusion? As long as they're at
least two layers thick, they'll do the job they're intended to do.

Lull people into a false sense of security, yes. They're excellent at
that. I for one am not so easily fooled.

Perhaps the message that they aren't intended to protect the wearer,
hasn't got through?

Of course it hasn't got through. Do you think all those mask wearing bed wetters
who cross the road when someone approaches them do it for the other person?

No, but they may have noticed that you weren't wearing a mask. They crossed
the road for protection from *you*.


This is a wonderful commentary on the ability of the general public to
"act like grown-ups" and make sensible decisions based on the perceived
risks, when they fall at the first fence like this.

Plenty of the general public are making sensible decisions - they're ignoring
the 2m nonsense and not wearing idiotic masks.

PT today
 

Marland wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:57, Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:19:13 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:11, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 12:50, tim... wrote:

but they are meant to stop you contaminating someone else

not the other way round

So how are they going to do that, when you are infected and touch your
mask then touch something else..?


An infected person's hands would be contaminated anyway, so they certainly
don't make things worse. But they do greatly reduce the distance that
droplets are projected, which is all they're meant to do.

Possibly. But they still lull people into a false sense of security.

How do you know? And do you mean the wearers, or others in their
vicinity?

Because that's what placebos do. They make people think they're cured,
or protected or whatever.

I cannot deal with people face to face unless I can *see* their face.
And how is a deaf person supposed to lip-read..?

How often do you need to speak to a deaf person?

Irrelevant. And *how dare you* insult a large proportion of the
population..? For all you know, one or more of my family could be deaf,
or my friends. Yes, I do have some, what about you..?

And you haven't answered my question about those of us who cannot relate
to people when we cannot see their faces. It frightens me and I am not
alone. There are many people out there with similar mental health
conditions. Mine is autism, what's yours..?



Impatience, especially with the growing number of people who reckon they
have mental issues of some kind and expect society to work around their
foibles , mental health problems seem to be spreading among the population
quicker than Covid 19 and its become fashionable .
It detracts from the genuine cases who have real issues .

And I’ll, have a Gin and Tonic please.


That's very relevant. During the lockdown, I've discovered the delights of
Fentiman's tonics — they make Fevertree look pedestrian. And Orange
Marmalade Welsh gin!

PT today
 

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:52:07 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:25:36 on Wed, 17 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:36:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:20:21 on Wed, 17
Jun 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked:

The silly cloth things that people wear walking around Tesco are useless.


On what basis did you reach that conclusion? As long as they're at
least two layers thick, they'll do the job they're intended to do.

Lull people into a false sense of security, yes. They're excellent at
that. I for one am not so easily fooled.

Perhaps the message that they aren't intended to protect the wearer,
hasn't got through?

Of course it hasn't got through. Do you think all those mask wearing
bed wetters who cross the road when someone approaches them do it for
the other person?

I'd expect them to be doing it because they understand that such masks
aren't PPE, and therefore they have to avoid the oncoming person. Or it
could just be that they want to keep 2m away.

This is a wonderful commentary on the ability of the general public to
"act like grown-ups" and make sensible decisions based on the perceived
risks, when they fall at the first fence like this.

Plenty of the general public are making sensible decisions - they're ignoring
the 2m nonsense and not wearing idiotic masks.

Demonstrating that they are unable to act like grown-ups.

Grown ups understand risks are part of life and get on with it. Pensioners
with health complications are highly likely to die of flu yet you never saw a
flurry of masks and 2m distancing appear every time a flu bug passes through
even though they're highly contagious.

PT today
 

Roland Perry wrote:
,

Actually, I'm more likely to wear the sort of mask the Minister said we
shouldn't - one of those rectangular blue surgical masks. Like the less
comfortable FFP2 dust mask, I have long[1] had a few in my DIY drawer
(for use when sanding lead paint, or cutting chipboard).

One of my activities frequently involves needle gunning steelwork which
throws up a fair amount of fine oxide particles and which makes any mucous
issue look like it did following a trip London 4 decades ago before
emissions were reduced.
By a stroke of luck when on of the facilities involved in the missis care
work was closed down a year ago the building contents was being emptied
mainly into a skip which one naturally delves through and I found about
50 boxes of those types of mask with each box holding 50 of them so I took
them for the task mentioned. Still have about 45 boxes left. Did think
about offering them to some people who were desperate for them but given
their provenance of being acquired from a skip and a period in a garden
shed where there is a small possibility that rodents may have been in
contact with the boxes decided a receiver would say “thanks “and then bin
them . So I’ve kept them and now have a good supply for the foreseeable
future, if just used for travel and shopping a decade at least.

The packs of disposable latex gloves also acquired we have gone through
quicker as they can be worn while painting or keeping hands clean while
gardening etc.

GH

PT today
 

Recliner wrote:
Marland wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:57, Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:19:13 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:11, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 12:50, tim... wrote:

but they are meant to stop you contaminating someone else

not the other way round

So how are they going to do that, when you are infected and touch your
mask then touch something else..?


An infected person's hands would be contaminated anyway, so they certainly
don't make things worse. But they do greatly reduce the distance that
droplets are projected, which is all they're meant to do.

Possibly. But they still lull people into a false sense of security.

How do you know? And do you mean the wearers, or others in their
vicinity?

Because that's what placebos do. They make people think they're cured,
or protected or whatever.

I cannot deal with people face to face unless I can *see* their face.
And how is a deaf person supposed to lip-read..?

How often do you need to speak to a deaf person?

Irrelevant. And *how dare you* insult a large proportion of the
population..? For all you know, one or more of my family could be deaf,
or my friends. Yes, I do have some, what about you..?

And you haven't answered my question about those of us who cannot relate
to people when we cannot see their faces. It frightens me and I am not
alone. There are many people out there with similar mental health
conditions. Mine is autism, what's yours..?



Impatience, especially with the growing number of people who reckon they
have mental issues of some kind and expect society to work around their
foibles , mental health problems seem to be spreading among the population
quicker than Covid 19 and its become fashionable .
It detracts from the genuine cases who have real issues .

And I’ll, have a Gin and Tonic please.


That's very relevant. During the lockdown, I've discovered the delights of
Fentiman's tonics — they make Fevertree look pedestrian. And Orange
Marmalade Welsh gin!




I have had some of their products on occasions , ISTR they do quite a good
Ginger Beer.
Their main market seemed to be in the sort of tea room or “farm shop� that
accompanies a stately home or gardens where premium products can command
the higher prices asked , and Waitrose.
Fevertree were fortunate to be the new kid on the block with a good product
just as Gin in various flavours became the fashionable drink, and
persuading people that you need different flavoured Tonics
for different styles of Gin was a good move and the older company has
probably benefited from that.

GH

PT today
 

In message , at 09:00:59 on Thu, 18 Jun
2020, remarked:

This is a wonderful commentary on the ability of the general public to
"act like grown-ups" and make sensible decisions based on the perceived
risks, when they fall at the first fence like this.

Plenty of the general public are making sensible decisions - they're ignoring
the 2m nonsense and not wearing idiotic masks.

Demonstrating that they are unable to act like grown-ups.

Grown ups understand risks are part of life and get on with it. Pensioners
with health complications are highly likely to die of flu yet you never saw a
flurry of masks and 2m distancing appear every time a flu bug passes through
even though they're highly contagious.

But this isn't seasonal flu (which those pensioners are highly likely to
have been vaccinated against), it's Coronovirus.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

wrote in message ...
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:52:07 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:25:36 on Wed, 17 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:36:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:20:21 on Wed, 17
Jun 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked:

The silly cloth things that people wear walking around Tesco are
useless.


On what basis did you reach that conclusion? As long as they're at
least two layers thick, they'll do the job they're intended to do.

Lull people into a false sense of security, yes. They're excellent at
that. I for one am not so easily fooled.

Perhaps the message that they aren't intended to protect the wearer,
hasn't got through?

Of course it hasn't got through. Do you think all those mask wearing
bed wetters who cross the road when someone approaches them do it for
the other person?

I'd expect them to be doing it because they understand that such masks
aren't PPE, and therefore they have to avoid the oncoming person. Or it
could just be that they want to keep 2m away.

This is a wonderful commentary on the ability of the general public to
"act like grown-ups" and make sensible decisions based on the perceived
risks, when they fall at the first fence like this.

Plenty of the general public are making sensible decisions - they're
ignoring
the 2m nonsense and not wearing idiotic masks.

Demonstrating that they are unable to act like grown-ups.

Grown ups understand risks are part of life and get on with it. Pensioners
with health complications are highly likely to die of flu yet you never
saw a
flurry of masks and 2m distancing appear every time a flu bug passes
through
even though they're highly contagious.

because most of them went for their free inoculation

HTH

tim

PT today
 

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:47:56 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message ...
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:52:07 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:25:36 on Wed, 17 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:36:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:20:21 on Wed, 17
Jun 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked:

The silly cloth things that people wear walking around Tesco are
useless.


On what basis did you reach that conclusion? As long as they're at
least two layers thick, they'll do the job they're intended to do.

Lull people into a false sense of security, yes. They're excellent at
that. I for one am not so easily fooled.

Perhaps the message that they aren't intended to protect the wearer,
hasn't got through?

Of course it hasn't got through. Do you think all those mask wearing
bed wetters who cross the road when someone approaches them do it for
the other person?

I'd expect them to be doing it because they understand that such masks
aren't PPE, and therefore they have to avoid the oncoming person. Or it
could just be that they want to keep 2m away.

This is a wonderful commentary on the ability of the general public to
"act like grown-ups" and make sensible decisions based on the perceived
risks, when they fall at the first fence like this.

Plenty of the general public are making sensible decisions - they're
ignoring
the 2m nonsense and not wearing idiotic masks.

Demonstrating that they are unable to act like grown-ups.

Grown ups understand risks are part of life and get on with it. Pensioners
with health complications are highly likely to die of flu yet you never
saw a
flurry of masks and 2m distancing appear every time a flu bug passes
through
even though they're highly contagious.

because most of them went for their free inoculation

Which often doesn't work and frequently makes people ill so they don't bother.

HTH.

PT today
 

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:22:10 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:00:59 on Thu, 18 Jun
2020, remarked:

This is a wonderful commentary on the ability of the general public to
"act like grown-ups" and make sensible decisions based on the perceived
risks, when they fall at the first fence like this.

Plenty of the general public are making sensible decisions - they're
ignoring
the 2m nonsense and not wearing idiotic masks.

Demonstrating that they are unable to act like grown-ups.

Grown ups understand risks are part of life and get on with it. Pensioners
with health complications are highly likely to die of flu yet you never saw a
flurry of masks and 2m distancing appear every time a flu bug passes through
even though they're highly contagious.

But this isn't seasonal flu (which those pensioners are highly likely to
have been vaccinated against), it's Coronovirus.

It is, a virus that unlike flu produces no symptoms in the vast majority of
people and in the ones that do get symptoms they're usually mild. Excuse me
if I don't panic about it. Sometimes I think that given half a chance the
government and BBC would play the Jaws music in the background whenever they
talked about it, its become that farcically overplayed.

PT today
 

On 18/06/2020 09:11, Recliner wrote:
Marland wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:57, Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:19:13 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:11, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 12:50, tim... wrote:

but they are meant to stop you contaminating someone else

not the other way round

So how are they going to do that, when you are infected and touch your
mask then touch something else..?


An infected person's hands would be contaminated anyway, so they certainly
don't make things worse. But they do greatly reduce the distance that
droplets are projected, which is all they're meant to do.

Possibly. But they still lull people into a false sense of security.

How do you know? And do you mean the wearers, or others in their
vicinity?

Because that's what placebos do. They make people think they're cured,
or protected or whatever.

I cannot deal with people face to face unless I can *see* their face.
And how is a deaf person supposed to lip-read..?

How often do you need to speak to a deaf person?

Irrelevant. And *how dare you* insult a large proportion of the
population..? For all you know, one or more of my family could be deaf,
or my friends. Yes, I do have some, what about you..?

And you haven't answered my question about those of us who cannot relate
to people when we cannot see their faces. It frightens me and I am not
alone. There are many people out there with similar mental health
conditions. Mine is autism, what's yours..?



Impatience, especially with the growing number of people who reckon they
have mental issues of some kind and expect society to work around their
foibles , mental health problems seem to be spreading among the population
quicker than Covid 19 and its become fashionable .
It detracts from the genuine cases who have real issues .

And I’ll, have a Gin and Tonic please.


That's very relevant. During the lockdown, I've discovered the delights of
Fentiman's tonics — they make Fevertree look pedestrian. And Orange
Marmalade Welsh gin!



IIRC Fentiman's also do a very nice ginger beer.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

PT today
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/06/2020 09:11, Recliner wrote:
Marland wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:57, Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:19:13 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:11, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 17/06/2020 12:50, tim... wrote:

but they are meant to stop you contaminating someone else

not the other way round

So how are they going to do that, when you are infected and touch your
mask then touch something else..?


An infected person's hands would be contaminated anyway, so they certainly
don't make things worse. But they do greatly reduce the distance that
droplets are projected, which is all they're meant to do.

Possibly. But they still lull people into a false sense of security.

How do you know? And do you mean the wearers, or others in their
vicinity?

Because that's what placebos do. They make people think they're cured,
or protected or whatever.

I cannot deal with people face to face unless I can *see* their face.
And how is a deaf person supposed to lip-read..?

How often do you need to speak to a deaf person?

Irrelevant. And *how dare you* insult a large proportion of the
population..? For all you know, one or more of my family could be deaf,
or my friends. Yes, I do have some, what about you..?

And you haven't answered my question about those of us who cannot relate
to people when we cannot see their faces. It frightens me and I am not
alone. There are many people out there with similar mental health
conditions. Mine is autism, what's yours..?



Impatience, especially with the growing number of people who reckon they
have mental issues of some kind and expect society to work around their
foibles , mental health problems seem to be spreading among the population
quicker than Covid 19 and its become fashionable .
It detracts from the genuine cases who have real issues .

And I’ll, have a Gin and Tonic please.


That's very relevant. During the lockdown, I've discovered the delights of
Fentiman's tonics — they make Fevertree look pedestrian. And Orange
Marmalade Welsh gin!



IIRC Fentiman's also do a very nice ginger beer.


I think that was their original product from 1905. The company did go
dormant in the mid '60s, but was resurrected in 1988 by founder Thomas
Fentiman's great grandson.

PT today
 

In article , writes
It is, a virus that unlike flu produces no symptoms in the vast majority of
people and in the ones that do get symptoms they're usually mild. Excuse me
if I don't panic about it. Sometimes I think that given half a chance the
government and BBC would play the Jaws music in the background whenever they
talked about it, its become that farcically overplayed.

Excess deaths this year, compared with the 5 year average, are greater
than the Blitz and more than half the UK civilian deaths in WW2. That's
not trivial or overplayed.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

PT today
 

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 23:14:02 +0100
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
In article , writes
It is, a virus that unlike flu produces no symptoms in the vast majority of
people and in the ones that do get symptoms they're usually mild. Excuse me
if I don't panic about it. Sometimes I think that given half a chance the
government and BBC would play the Jaws music in the background whenever they
talked about it, its become that farcically overplayed.

Excess deaths this year, compared with the 5 year average, are greater
than the Blitz and more than half the UK civilian deaths in WW2. That's
not trivial or overplayed.

Deaths are up by 25% on this time last year. Its hardly the zombie apocalypse.
Yes it would probably be higher without lockdown but I suspect not much given
how many people ignored it anyway.

PT today
 

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 10:58:10 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 23:14:02 +0100
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
In article , writes
It is, a virus that unlike flu produces no symptoms in the vast majority of
people and in the ones that do get symptoms they're usually mild. Excuse me
if I don't panic about it. Sometimes I think that given half a chance the
government and BBC would play the Jaws music in the background whenever they
talked about it, its become that farcically overplayed.

Excess deaths this year, compared with the 5 year average, are greater
than the Blitz and more than half the UK civilian deaths in WW2. That's
not trivial or overplayed.

Deaths are up by 25% on this time last year. Its hardly the zombie apocalypse.
Yes it would probably be higher without lockdown but I suspect not much given
how many people ignored it anyway.

Particularly, if the growing suspicions that the virus arrived here
earlier than previously thought, and via many more people, are proven
right, then the input data in the models was probably wrong. The virus
might have been spreading much longer, and with more points of origin,
than thought, and therefore more slowly than calculated. Or more
people than thought have fought it off, without showing antibodies to
it. So the IC model's apoplectic forecast of explosive growth might
have been based on the wrong initial data.

From your favourite tabloid:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/the-costs-are-too-high-the-scientist-who-wants-lockdown-lifted-faster-sunetra-gupta

PT today
 

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:37:34 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 10:58:10 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 23:14:02 +0100
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
In article , writes
It is, a virus that unlike flu produces no symptoms in the vast majority of
people and in the ones that do get symptoms they're usually mild. Excuse me
if I don't panic about it. Sometimes I think that given half a chance the
government and BBC would play the Jaws music in the background whenever they

talked about it, its become that farcically overplayed.

Excess deaths this year, compared with the 5 year average, are greater
than the Blitz and more than half the UK civilian deaths in WW2. That's
not trivial or overplayed.

Deaths are up by 25% on this time last year. Its hardly the zombie apocalypse.

Yes it would probably be higher without lockdown but I suspect not much given
how many people ignored it anyway.

Particularly, if the growing suspicions that the virus arrived here
earlier than previously thought, and via many more people, are proven
right, then the input data in the models was probably wrong. The virus
might have been spreading much longer, and with more points of origin,
than thought, and therefore more slowly than calculated. Or more
people than thought have fought it off, without showing antibodies to
it. So the IC model's apoplectic forecast of explosive growth might
have been based on the wrong initial data.

Well indeed. And given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can
say that the model needed a bit of tweaking.

From your favourite tabloid:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...high-the-scien
tist-who-wants-lockdown-lifted-faster-sunetra-gupta

To be fair I mentally divide Guardian journalists into the science journos
who know what they're talking about the woken idiots who make up the rest.

PT today
 

In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that rate.

PT today
 

In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

The question is, how much of that was sheer incompetence, and how much
trying to manage the degree of panic?
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

The question is, how much of that was sheer incompetence, and how much
trying to manage the degree of panic?

Well, there's certainly plenty of incompetence on display in 'Appless
Hancock's department:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/19/100000-coronavirus-antibody-tests-gathering-dust-warehouses/

Macclesfield-based medical supplier Avonchem is currently sitting on
100,000 antibody tests it bought from US firm CTK Biotech.

It says the tests could be used to help identify individuals who have had
the virus and are unlikely to get it again, giving employers, schools and
health services vital information needed to reopen the economy.

Avonchem contacted the Government in March, offering to supply the
finger-prick test, but has still not secured Public Health England (PHE) or
Department of Health (DoH) approval for the kits, despite the test being
approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
and being widely used in other countries.

The pin-prick test is 99.4 per cent accurate, according to independent
verification obtained by Avonchem, with results available in 10 to 15
minutes. But the firm now warns it may have to ship the tests overseas if
it can not secure the necessary approval for their use in this country in
the near future.

James Gray, the managing director of Avonchem, told The Telegraph: "We're
not interested in profiteering. We want to do the right thing and give the
Government the opportunity to use them, but their lack of interest and
engagement until now has been very sad and frustrating."

It comes as the Government faces growing questions about its approach to
the purchase of antibody testing, after it emerged that PHE's coronavirus
test misses a third of positive results.

PT today
 

In message , at 09:56:43 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:

Avonchem contacted the Government in March, offering to supply the
finger-prick test, but has still not secured Public Health England (PHE) or
Department of Health (DoH) approval for the kits, despite the test being
approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

What jurisdiction are they based in?

and being widely used in other countries.

--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:56:43 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:

Avonchem contacted the Government in March, offering to supply the
finger-prick test, but has still not secured Public Health England (PHE) or
Department of Health (DoH) approval for the kits, despite the test being
approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

What jurisdiction are they based in?

You've obviously been learning from Tim — who is 'they'?



and being widely used in other countries.

PT today
 

In message , at 10:17:46 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Avonchem contacted the Government in March, offering to supply the
finger-prick test, but has still not secured Public Health England (PHE) or
Department of Health (DoH) approval for the kits, despite the test being
approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

What jurisdiction are they based in?

You've obviously been learning from Tim — who is 'they'?

MHRA, the word immediately before my "What..."

[Even I can work out the PHE and DoH are based in the UK]
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

On 20/06/2020 11:28, Roland Perry wrote:
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/medicines-and-healthcare-products-regulatory-agency

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

PT today
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2020 11:28, Roland Perry wrote:
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/medicines-and-healthcare-products-regulatory-agency


I assumed that even Roland could work out that the MHRA was based in the
UK.

PT today
 

On 20/06/2020 11:43, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2020 11:28, Roland Perry wrote:
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/medicines-and-healthcare-products-regulatory-agency


I assumed that even Roland could work out that the MHRA was based in the
UK.


Though the following is relevant to your earlier post:

Published 29 May 2020

The MHRA is asking providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody
testing services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick, to
temporarily stop providing this service until home collection of this
sample type has been properly assessed and validated for use with these
laboratory tests.

This does not affect rapid, point of care tests or laboratory tests
performed using blood taken from the vein.

The Agency has recently updated its guidance on home antibody testing
kits, to ensure that the public and industry have the latest information
on the reliability of test results and what they mean.

Graeme Tunbridge, MHRA Interim Director of Devices, comments:

Patient safety and public health are our main priorities and it is in
the interests of everyone for antibody tests to be as reliable and
meaningful as they can be.

There are several UK providers of testing services who offer COVID-19
antibody testing using a fingerprick sample of capillary blood collected
in a small container.

We are asking all providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody
testing services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick to
temporarily stop providing this service until home collection of this
sample type has been properly assessed and validated for use with these
laboratory tests.

Use of unvalidated sample types may lead to unreliable results and as
such we are working closely with the service providers, laboratories and
test manufacturers to resolve the regulatory and patient safety issues.

People who have purchased one of these sampling kits, and received an
antibody test result, should not consider the result to be reliable and
should not take any action based on it.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

PT today
 

In message , at 11:36:00 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:
On 20/06/2020 11:28, Roland Perry wrote:
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...-healthcare-pr
oducts-regulatory-agency

I wonder what have to say about their classification of these tests as
OK being dismissed by other parts of the medical establishment?

Or are we only hearing one side of the story.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

In message , at 10:43:26 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2020 11:28, Roland Perry wrote:
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

UK

https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...d-healthcare-p
roducts-regulatory-agency

I assumed that even Roland could work out that the MHRA was based in the
UK.

You'd have saved typing by saying "UK" the first time I asked.

Still having a bad day?
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

In message , at 11:50:44 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:
We are asking all providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody
testing services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick to
temporarily stop providing this service until home collection of this
sample type has been properly assessed and validated for use with these
laboratory tests.

Use of unvalidated sample types may lead to unreliable results and as
such we are working closely with the service providers, laboratories
and test manufacturers to resolve the regulatory and patient safety
issues.

People who have purchased one of these sampling kits, and received an
antibody test result, should not consider the result to be reliable and
should not take any action based on it.

Ah!! So there is another side to this story. I thought so.
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2020 11:43, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2020 11:28, Roland Perry wrote:
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/medicines-and-healthcare-products-regulatory-agency


I assumed that even Roland could work out that the MHRA was based in the
UK.


Though the following is relevant to your earlier post:

Not really. The type of test on offer isn't affected by this warning.


Published 29 May 2020

The MHRA is asking providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody
testing services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick, to
temporarily stop providing this service until home collection of this
sample type has been properly assessed and validated for use with these
laboratory tests.

This does not affect rapid, point of care tests or laboratory tests
performed using blood taken from the vein.

The Agency has recently updated its guidance on home antibody testing
kits, to ensure that the public and industry have the latest information
on the reliability of test results and what they mean.

Graeme Tunbridge, MHRA Interim Director of Devices, comments:

Patient safety and public health are our main priorities and it is in
the interests of everyone for antibody tests to be as reliable and
meaningful as they can be.

There are several UK providers of testing services who offer COVID-19
antibody testing using a fingerprick sample of capillary blood collected
in a small container.

We are asking all providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody
testing services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick to
temporarily stop providing this service until home collection of this
sample type has been properly assessed and validated for use with these
laboratory tests.

Use of unvalidated sample types may lead to unreliable results and as
such we are working closely with the service providers, laboratories and
test manufacturers to resolve the regulatory and patient safety issues.

People who have purchased one of these sampling kits, and received an
antibody test result, should not consider the result to be reliable and
should not take any action based on it.

PT today
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:50:44 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:
We are asking all providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody
testing services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick to
temporarily stop providing this service until home collection of this
sample type has been properly assessed and validated for use with these
laboratory tests.

Use of unvalidated sample types may lead to unreliable results and as
such we are working closely with the service providers, laboratories
and test manufacturers to resolve the regulatory and patient safety
issues.

People who have purchased one of these sampling kits, and received an
antibody test result, should not consider the result to be reliable and
should not take any action based on it.

Ah!! So there is another side to this story. I thought so.

Sigh Yet again you've failed to read something you're arguing with. You
very obviously didn't read the original story. I suppose it saves time:
you've already decided to argue, so why waste time reading the thing you're
arguing against?

PT today
 

In message , at 11:20:18 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:50:44 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:
We are asking all providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody
testing services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick to
temporarily stop providing this service until home collection of this
sample type has been properly assessed and validated for use with these
laboratory tests.

Use of unvalidated sample types may lead to unreliable results and as
such we are working closely with the service providers, laboratories
and test manufacturers to resolve the regulatory and patient safety
issues.

People who have purchased one of these sampling kits, and received an
antibody test result, should not consider the result to be reliable and
should not take any action based on it.

Ah!! So there is another side to this story. I thought so.

Sigh Yet again you've failed to read something you're arguing with. You
very obviously didn't read the original story. I suppose it saves time:
you've already decided to argue, so why waste time reading the thing you're
arguing against?

There's nothing in the story from The Telegraph which confirms their
test is *not* one of the kind the MHRA are now saying not to use.

What is might say is their importation was probably before the quoted
MHRA doubts at the end of May - the month of March was mentioned. (And
they've been "collecting dust" so won't have arrived recently).
--
Roland Perry

PT today
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:20:18 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:50:44 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:
We are asking all providers of laboratory-based COVID-19 antibody
testing services using capillary blood collected by a fingerprick to
temporarily stop providing this service until home collection of this
sample type has been properly assessed and validated for use with these
laboratory tests.

Use of unvalidated sample types may lead to unreliable results and as
such we are working closely with the service providers, laboratories
and test manufacturers to resolve the regulatory and patient safety
issues.

People who have purchased one of these sampling kits, and received an
antibody test result, should not consider the result to be reliable and
should not take any action based on it.

Ah!! So there is another side to this story. I thought so.

Sigh Yet again you've failed to read something you're arguing with. You
very obviously didn't read the original story. I suppose it saves time:
you've already decided to argue, so why waste time reading the thing you're
arguing against?

There's nothing in the story from The Telegraph which confirms their
test is *not* one of the kind the MHRA are now saying not to use.

I think you need a drive to Barnard Castle. Then read it again. Or for the
first time.


What is might say is their importation was probably before the quoted
MHRA doubts at the end of May - the month of March was mentioned. (And
they've been "collecting dust" so won't have arrived recently).