New coronavirus in/from China

[Little John]

Below are 35 peer-reviewed research articles related to the uselessness of wearing face masks in relation to Covid19 and the science of face masks.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18500410/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00173017
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18331781/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35797-3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577#T1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28039289/
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20584862/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29855107/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29678452/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25806411/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23108786/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25858901/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5333967/
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
https://vimeo.com/424254660
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v= ... _permalink
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0t84p6H4XA
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2749214
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epd ... jebm.12381
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/11/3/494/397025
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 011-9056-7

[Catweazle]

Below are 35 peer-reviewed research articles related to the uselessness of wearing face masks in relation to Covid19 and the science of face masks.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18500410/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00173017
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18331781/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35797-3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577#T1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28039289/
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20584862/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29855107/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29678452/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25806411/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23108786/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25858901/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5333967/
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
https://vimeo.com/424254660
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v= ... _permalink
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0t84p6H4XA
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2749214
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epd ... jebm.12381
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/11/3/494/397025
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 011-9056-7

I'm not sure I need to read 35 studies, so I just looked at the first one on the list, from 2015, and read their later additions re Covid19.

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

It states quite clearly that cloth masks aren't as effective as medical masks in a medical environment, and suggests that cloth masks should be multi-layer. I knew that, but it's worth repeating - if you need better protection then you need to wear a close fitting mask with decent filtration, not something you made from an old sock.

[clv101]

I'm not sure I need to read 35 studies, so I just looked at the first one on the list, from 2015, and read their later additions re Covid19.

I just read the last on on LJ's list. It makes ZERO mention of masks or any form of face covering. It is a review paper from 2011 looking at many studies, many decades old, concerning controlled experiments of infecting people with a whole range of different viruses.

It is not "related to the uselessness of wearing face masks in relation to Covid19 [or] the science of face masks" as LJ claimed.

Serious questions LJ - who compiled this list? - where did you get it from? - why are you sharing it without reading it first?

[Snail]

I picked one at random. About sleep apnoea, so I thought they have a point. But to be fair it's about increased co2 levels due to impaired breathing.

I checked some more, and they're relevant. So what if some are more relevant than others. Or, were published before 2020 and don't mention covid-19.

I think some people are being overly picky, much like those fact checking websites which focus on one aspect to rubbish the whole.

With facemasks, there's little evidence/credible research for the types of mask most people are now using. Cute face mask wearing hamsters (turns out they actually didnt) don't count. It was a rubbish study.

Wearing facemasks didn't keep small retail open either.

Wearing them outside is now the fashion; something mooted in a further tightening. This is something I wouldn't even countenance. As has been only allowing people out once a week. Sorry, but no.

Also, people here have never said do nothing. Sweden remains an excellent counter example. It's still not very dangerous for the vast majority of people. Care home infections and deaths have continued to be high. The evidence for long covid is rather short. A rushed vaccine is, well, a rushed vaccine (if asked by a worried 70 y/o I'd tellem it's up to you but I would take it).

Me, I've decided to take the easy option and try to ignore much of the madness. A cop out. I'm off to practice old joe clark and shady grove on the banjo I made during the first lockdown.

[Catweazle]

I picked one at random.

Good idea, I got "Effects of Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) on N95 Respirator Filtration Performance and Structural Integrity"

Interesting.

[PS_RalphW]

There seems to be a lot more concern about the 'Brazilian varient', with a new UK travel ban.

I have not seen any analysis of which if any new mutation set is causing the surge of cases in Brazil, which is in SH summer. There are reports that the new varient is widely infecting people who have been infected with earlier varient, which has bad implications for the current batch of vaccines.

If this virus can mutate into new, more infectious, vaccine proof forms faster than we can develop new vaccines, we will end up with herd immunity the hard way, or the virus will become endemic and permanently reduce average life expectancy.

This needs to be monitored closely.

[clv101]

And it's the abject failure of Brazil that gave the virus the huge number of hosts, facilitating this mutation. Same with the UK.

There are consequences upon consequences for failing to control early spread.

[Catweazle]

Covid has been described as a fairly slow mutating virus, because it has effective replication of RNA - most are faithfull copies. However, the more cases in the wild the more mutations will occur. It's purely a numbers game.

[Little John]

You **************************************** (Edited to remove insults -KN)

This virus is overwhelmingly likely to:

(a) over time evolve towards less lethal strains

(b) previous strains will, all other things being equal, provide, at the very least, partial immunity to subsequent strains.

Just like the 1918 influenza virus, whose viral descendants are still with us.

Just like all other corona viruses

However, even if there were to be significantly dangerous strains along the way to it evolving towards being just another seasonal virus for which there was significant partial to whole herd immunity (which there are currently no signs of other than for a relatively tiny and completely identifiable section of the population), that is still not good reason to reduce our economy to rubble and condemn the poorest, as per f***ing usual, to inter-generational poverty for decades to come, not to mention the stripping away all of the liberties won the hard way by our ancestors.

The truth is, despite all of the negative and spiritually alienating aspects of modern life, in purely material terms we have become soft and weak. We have forgotten what our ancestors knew only too well. That life is sometimes hard.

And so we all expect and demand that we should not have to face the prospect that sometimes things come along that mean people are going to die and sometimes, in times of war for example, lots of people are going to die well before their time.

But now, a significant portion of the population are so transfixed with terror at the prospect that a relatively small number of people, already naturally nearing the very end of their life, may be at some risk of losing a few months to a year off that life (notwithstanding that life expectancy has actually risen in only the last 20 years by more than the size of that risk), that they are prepared to see their freedoms stripped away and their descendants beggared for generations to come in order to not have to face that fear.

Our grand-kids will not forgive us for allowing this to be done to us and, ultimately, them.

Nor should they.

[Little John]

The Stamford University report states lockdowns don't work.

As usual, on the MSM, we only hear one side of the story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xerC-BR ... 3wqzlU3rIw

[PS_RalphW]

Aside from his statistics being incorrect, Dr Lee’s reasoning to discount the previous five-year average as a point of comparison is also questionable.

To suggest the entire five-year block from 2015-2019 is anomalous and incomparable because the level of deaths was lower than in previous years seems to ignore the fact that, over time, populations change, medical technology improves, public behaviour alters, and the expected death rate may well be affected as a result.

The data shows that, far from 2015-2019 being an anomaly, this period continues the pattern of death rates in the last four weeks of the year falling since the early 1990s.

https://fullfact.org/health/covid-death ... talkradio/

[PS_RalphW]

This virus is overwhelmingly likely to:

(a) over time evolve towards less lethal strains

There is vey little evolutionary pressure on this virus to become less lethal at the moment. The virus has approximately a 1% CFR in the Western population which is older, more overweight, more diabetes and many other diseases of modern society, than Asian, and especially African nations, which are showing lower CFRs.

The virus is spread by social contact, and this is predominantly between people of working age and children. Older people are generally retired and are limiting social contact more than younger people, not least out of self interest.

A recent study estimated that nearly 60% of infections were from people who were asymptomatic at the time.

In other words, at present the virus kills at most 1% of its hosts, and that 1% is much less effective at transmitting the disease than the 99% who survive. There is currently strong evolutionary pressure to increase the infectiousness as we have seen with several more infectious strains becoming dominant in different countries.

In the longer term less lethal forms might evolve, but we are talking about the damage the virus is doing in the coming 3 - 6 months, not so much future years or decades.

[Little John]

This virus is overwhelmingly likely to:

(a) over time evolve towards less lethal strains

A recent study estimated that nearly 60% of infections were from people who were asymptomatic at the time. ....

Bollocks. either because no such study exist. Or because they have not found that at all. Which you give the game away on with the use of the word "estimated"

Link?

Additionally, if you think linking to a "full facts" refutation made by a spotty liberal student typing in his mothers basement in his underpants for a few extra dollars on behalf of a corporate mass media agenda that is fast becoming the West's version of "Pravda"against a peer reviewed study coming out of Stanford university, then you are an even bigger fool than I imagined you to be.

[adam2]

"UK to close all travel corridoors from Monday" Various media report.
I suspect that it wont mean ALL travel and that various exemptions and loopholes will exist.

[PS_RalphW]

Bollocks. either because no such study exist. Or because they have not found that at all. Which you give the game away on with the use of the word "estimated"

Link?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane ... le/2774707

The baseline assumptions for the model were that peak infectiousness occurred at the median of symptom onset and that 30% of individuals with infection never develop symptoms and are 75% as infectious as those who do develop symptoms. Combined, these baseline assumptions imply that persons with infection who never develop symptoms may account for approximately 24% of all transmission. In this base case, 59% of all transmission came from asymptomatic transmission, comprising 35% from presymptomatic individuals and 24% from individuals who never develop symptoms. Under a broad range of values for each of these assumptions, at least 50% of new SARS-CoV-2 infections was estimated to have originated from exposure to individuals with infection but without symptoms.

Additionally, if you think linking to a "full facts" refutation made by a spotty liberal student typing in his mothers basement in his underpants for a few extra dollars on behalf of a corporate mass media agenda that is fast becoming the West's version of "Pravda"against a peer reviewed study coming out of Stanford university, then you are an even bigger fool than I imagined you to be.

Ha ha ha ha