Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

I told you.


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, cica said:

This is a partial model. Is there strong evidence that masks reduce spreading of diseases? End-to-end model - comparing mask usage to sickness. I didn't think there was and I've been reading about this stuff since way before Covid-19. There are studies comparing common cold in Asian countries where they already have a culture of wearing a mask when sick to rest of the world. There have been studies of surgeons and masks.

Things like risk compensation which is surely a real phenomenon completely mess with models not to mention the fact that when people are in close proximately there are other vectors of transmission that may dwarf aerosol transmission.

I think you need to be a bit more honest with yourself and everyone that these are partial models and there just isn't much relevant evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

I think you need to be more honest with yourself, your post is just uninformed supposition  

If you are waiting for some double blind randomised test, you will be waiting for ever. There have been several studies published that show mask wearing helps and that most of the benefit comes from them reducing the amount of virus circulating, so even the people incapable of wearing their own mask correctly are protected to an extent. As for risk compensation, up to a point that is good as what that means is allowing people to get back to a more normal life.    

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, Confusion of VIs said:

I think you need to be more honest with yourself, your post is just uninformed supposition  

If you are waiting for some double blind randomised test, you will be waiting for ever. There have been several studies published that show mask wearing helps and that most of the benefit comes from them reducing the amount of virus circulating, so even the people incapable of wearing their own mask correctly are protected to an extent. As for risk compensation, up to a point that is good as what that means is allowing people to get back to a more normal life.    

   

You're welcome to be specific about which part is uninformed supposition. Again, you're referring to a partial model. I'm not waiting for anything - I simply look at what is there and is relevant and logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cica said:

You're welcome to be specific about which part is uninformed supposition. Again, you're referring to a partial model. I'm not waiting for anything - I simply look at what is there and is relevant and logical.

"Things like risk compensation which is surely a real phenomenon completely mess with models not to mention the fact that when people are in close proximately there are other vectors of transmission that may dwarf aerosol transmission."

All uniformed supposition. NB no one has ever claimed that aerosol transmission is the, or even, a main vector. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

This - it's the black and white oversimplified extreme if you're not aligned with my view you're at the opposite extreme that I often complain about

I agree people have a right to a viewpoint and they tend to be shades of grey not the black & white they flows through these posts.

I have also said I find your view 'disagree but comply with law' a pragmatic middleground.

Where I disagree with people is in the I refuse to comply camp and where we seem to get facts batted away or ignore when they don't fit a narrative.

In fact Riedquat I think the only bit of reasoning you propse I dispute is if we haven't read got any expertise in risk we don't understand it, yet when I reveal any background and justifications it is expert bias and thinking being an 'expert' ( which I don't claim to be only an insight) makes my opinion more valid. Neither are true but it makes an impossible position. But as said you generally appear to talk sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Definitely.

My problem is with people who think we should still do them even if they help by 0.15% or 0.00015% just because those numbers are greater than zero, without taking into account the costs of doing the things.

There is a reason that builders wear hard hats, and accountants don't, even though occasionally accountants bump their head on the corner of their desk picking up a pen from the floor.

Very Good ! Your last line 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Why not minimise them? Well that depends on how much difference doing so actually makes in whatever the particular situation actually is, whether it's sensible, marginal, or ridiculous, but those considerations don't match the 21st century view of "one size fits all, better just in case."

A problem with "you wouldn't dream in the 21st century..." is that so much of the 21st century has gone down the path of "just in case" that it's starting to have a boy who cried wolf effect. Another one extreme or the other example there I think, the defenders of it have a tendency to point to past times when things were unquestionably too far in the other direction.

Good point - perhaps the pendulum has gone too far in reaction to the opposite previously 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The wearing of masks in crowded environments reduces transmission by a lot more than 15%.

There is no gold standard test that can put an exact number on it as there are just too many variables, but I did post a report on the CV thread that said mandatory mask wearing reduces spread by up to 80%, with over two thirds of the benefit coming from the masks reducing the amount of airborne virus. It also said that if +90% could be persuaded to wear masks where social distancing was not possible/practical lockdowns would be unnecessary. 

 

Good to know - This little mini debate has got all the polite grownups out - the trolls will be along soon 😃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

"Things like risk compensation which is surely a real phenomenon completely mess with models not to mention the fact that when people are in close proximately there are other vectors of transmission that may dwarf aerosol transmission."

All uniformed supposition. NB no one has ever claimed that aerosol transmission is the, or even, a main vector. 

 

Risk compensation is definitely real. It may explain why there is no evidence masks are effective apart from a partial model. There’s nothing uninformed about this - the opposite in fact. I read a lot of literature and studies - even before this started - and even on masks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Locke said:

The risk to healthy young people is close to nil and so

Just on this point and by no means a trend, mentioned to add a clarification what close to nil can be - a friend and former colleague, very fit triathlete and planning to enter Marathon des Sables ( extreme endurance race) went down with it. 30s no history and doctors cannot find underlying condition that made susceptible.  Could be fitness training exertion but contracted under lockdown when gyms shut 

Recovered after 4 wks ventilated, dislocated shoulder and knee during turning while sedated. Has lung damage likely permanent to one, recovering damage in other.

Just because you appear healthy and condition free doesn't mean you are ok. In many cases the science says lower risk, but the virus mutates by nature and also why the first confirmed secondary ( though weaker) infection has occured in a 30 something HK resident. Ironically they travelled as thought safe, were tested in airport and were asymptomatic with different strain. Not unusual in other coronavirus cases.

Early days but aligns with flu style models.

Edited by Staffsknot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

but those considerations don't match the 21st century view of "one size fits all, better just in case."

Just on this one as I've tried to emphasise before the current broadbrush approach is probably by design. For a risk plan to be effective it needs to be simple and understandible.

If we add caveats or exemptions people get confused. Loopholes get exploited, someone misunderstands and that spreads as fact. 

You want the man or woman on the street to be able to follow it without needing a second thought - ie not saying use your judgement or anything ambiguous. God knows the current lot have managed enough of that by changing slogans.

Confusion kills, simplicity saves. It may seem unfair but it makes it workable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/08/2020 at 12:49, GeneCernan said:

Masks are there to subjugate, humiliate and get people used to compliance. 

If they were that big a deal people would have to wear them all winter to help fight seasonal flu etc....

It can feel like this

 

A large portion of the population are political crusaders. Always looking for a cause to be self righteous about. It could be the environment, equality, burning witches or covering up the legs on tables to prevent offence. Really, deep down, they just want a bit of attention. Reasonable people who just want to be left alone tend to just avoid them. They take this as support.

If this were a really serious disease I would support such measures as compulsory mask wearing, queues everywhere and shutting the entire country down. But it would need to be a much worse disease than this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Care to quantify a death / infection rate you would say is worth a lockdown / these measures. Rough figures or % is fine just so we know your position

I guess I'd support the measures imposed now for a disease similar to the Spanish flu. For Smallpox, Ebola or The Black Death pretty much anything would be on the table. Interestingly the face mask issue is all over Zerohedge. There's a video of a woman being attacked by police for wearing a mask incorrectly. Also riot police raiding a cafe to impose their views.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/women-beaten-spanish-cops-not-properly-wearing-face-masks

Here's the riot police video.

 

Crazy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

So anything under 200k deaths is a no then ( Spanish flu ) would be your figure.

Of course not. A disease with serious effects that does not cause death could provoke a response. It all depends. In the case of the sniffle going around at the moment I feel people should simply get on with it.

Woman being attacked for not wearing a mask

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Biggus said:

Of course not. A disease with serious effects that does not cause death could provoke a response

Just wondering how nearly quarter of the Spanish Flu UK death total as reported is a sniffle, especially given survivor reported long-term impacts. Let's not debate the veracity of numbers let's assume accurate for this hypothetical lockdown yes or no.

So if say 50k UK deaths by end is that sufficient? Say same again for long-term chronic suffering / residual effects does that sway it? That worth locking down or not in your opinion?

Just trying to deal in absolutes rather than generalisms at what point a pandemic is downgraded to sniffle and what level of death / serious illness is acceptible.

Does age ranges or demographics have any part in forming the figures? Is it more OK if they are pensioners but less ok if they are majority teenagers? Maybe bit more pallatible if they had underlying health conditions?

Just trying to establish your comfort zone on morbidity / severe illness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Biggus said:

It can feel like this

 

A large portion of the population are political crusaders. Always looking for a cause to be self righteous about. It could be the environment, equality, burning witches or covering up the legs on tables to prevent offence. Really, deep down, they just want a bit of attention. Reasonable people who just want to be left alone tend to just avoid them. They take this as support.

If this were a really serious disease I would support such measures as compulsory mask wearing, queues everywhere and shutting the entire country down. But it would need to be a much worse disease than this.

 

Who's the one with the fake persecution complex? All you're being asked to do is wear a mask occasionally to protect the vulnerable. Asians are frankly astonished at the politicisation of the issue. Another example of the West's moral and intellectual decline.

And this while you're contributing to a forum whose central cause is a political crusade against the generational inequalities of the UK housing market! One can only conclude that deep down all you really want is a bit of attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Who's the one with the fake persecution complex? All you're being asked to do is wear a mask occasionally to protect the vulnerable. Asians are frankly astonished at the politicisation of the issue. Another example of the West's moral and intellectual decline.

:D :D :D

Although I suppose getting whinged at for not shutting up and meekly obeying, for expecting a case to be made for compulsion based on more than circumstantial evidence and extrapolating conclusions on the basis of assumptions that apparently shouldn't be questioned is a sign of moral and intellectual decline somewhere.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

One can only conclude that deep down all you really want is a bit of attention.

Zug he may well turn out to be a troll, but let's at least let him state how many folk need to die or suffer harm before he / she thinks two pints in the Dog & Duck is a price too high.

While that number remains elusive it can be invoked as proportionate. People get more concerned when folks are comfy with 100k casualty rate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police should be cracking down on mask wearing like they do speeding. It wouldn’t take long for people to get the message.

I am currently sunning myself in Portugal. The police here do not **** about. Some a**hat brits decided to tell the local mall security guard to **** off when he asked them to put masks on. They thought they had got away with it until they came out and all got arrested. People cheered.

Proper funny and justice served, they had to leave their trolleys full of beer that they just paid for and spend the night in the cells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil's up!

Trouble in't hurricane latitudes.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/finance/markets/wti-crude-oil-price-hits-five-month-highs-as-us-producers-cut-output-ahead-of-hurricane/ar-BB18mQ75

Quote

WTI Crude: Oil prices rose to a five-month high on Tuesday as U.S. producers shut most offshore output in the Gulf of Mexico ahead of Hurricane Laura even as rising coronavirus cases in Asia and Europe capped gains. Brent futures rose 73 cents, or 1.6%, to settle at $45.86 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude rose 73 cents, or 1.7%, to settle at $43.35.

That was the highest closes for both benchmarks since March 5, the day before Saudi Arabia and Russia failed to agree on a new plan to cut output and about a week before the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic.

U.S. producers cut crude output ahead of Hurricane Laura at a rate approaching the level of 2005`s Hurricane Katrina and also halted most oil refining along the Texas/Louisiana coast.

Laura is expected to strengthen into a major hurricane with 115 mile per hour (185 kph) winds before it strikes the coast near the Texas-Louisiana border early Thursday, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center.

On Tuesday, producers had evacuated 310 offshore facilities and shut 1.56 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude output, 84% of Gulf of Mexico`s offshore production, near the 90% outage that Katrina brought 15 years ago.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exxon Mobile dropped from the Dow after 92 years.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Exxon-Mobil-dropped-from-the-Dow-after-92-years-15512970.php

Quote

While Exxon Mobil was worth more than $450 billion as recently as 2014, according to Bloomberg News, the stock had fallen throughout the six years before 2020 and is down another 40 percent since January.

So much for $100 bbl oil... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Zug he may well turn out to be a troll, but let's at least let him state how many folk need to die or suffer harm before he / she thinks two pints in the Dog & Duck is a price too high.

While that number remains elusive it can be invoked as proportionate. People get more concerned when folks are comfy with 100k casualty rate. 

You tell me. How many deaths would you allow before implimenting the type of measure we''ve seen?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.