A week in politics

Harvey

I ❤️ ASDA Magazine
Actually something I like to do when bored is sing "Krishnan Guru-Murthy" to the chorus from 'Don't You Want Me' by the Human League

Try it, it's fun!
 

Dr Sheldon Cooper

Geoff Thomas
So this is true - if a body is larger than the gaps in the face covering then it will stop it. And this certainly applies to droplets if they are captured in the fabric.

So what about when a droplet is hit by the mask fabric, which can in some cases (where it isn't captured) have an effect like a larger lump of flour being put through a sieve, where the mask would actually aerosolise the droplet allowing some of the droplet to then pass through the mask (this is where the multi-layer masks help more, of course). And virus not in aerosols or droplets which pass through unfiltered.

Yes, it has an effect, and the effect is probably worth it in the correct circumstances. But it isn't a protecting veil and shouldn't be treated as such.

Then there's always the issue of people who don't store their mask properly when taking it off, which means that both the mask and where it's put (for example a pocket, or a table in a pub) are at high risk of contaminating each other. So, if someone has covid, and wears their mask to the pub, their mask has covid in it because they coughed or dropletted in it, they sit down at the table in the pub, take the mask off and put it on the table, the covid then comes off the mask onto the table... when they finished at the pub the next person comes in, puts their mask on the table.. they don't have covid but in doing so their mask is now covered in covid off the previous person (because the table wasn't sanitised) and then they put the mask over their face meaning they get infected. The improper mask usage has then basically spread covid (even though airborne transmission is more likely than fomites anyway so it's somewhat hypothetical and the person with covid would probably have infected the pub anyway).

What benefit a mask does have is increased by using good masks and doing it properly. Which is probably why the benefits in somewhere like Germany with a more sensible mask mandate would be more obvious than somewhere like here where simply putting any old shit over your face (if you're lucky and it's not on your chin or over your mouth and not your nose) and doing what the fuck you want with it when it's not there is thought fine by most people.

And that really, is part of the problem.
No-one claimed that face coverings gave complete protection, like all PPE they provide a reduction in risk. Anyway face coverings (rather than PPE) were not intended to reduce the risk to the wearer rather than others than would be showered in a saliva/covid mist when you cough or sneeze (if infected). Being a PPE person I wore higher spec stuff than the usual cloth face covering that would have some beneficial effect but not what you would call protection. If you saw the virtual space suits you had to wear for protection against aerosol producing procedures in the NHS that's the level you'd have to go to for protection.

PPE.jpg
 

Statto

Free Kick Specialist
No-one claimed that face coverings gave complete protection, like all PPE they provide a reduction in risk. Anyway face coverings (rather than PPE) were not intended to reduce the risk to the wearer rather than others than would be showered in a saliva/covid mist when you cough or sneeze (if infected). Being a PPE person I wore higher spec stuff than the usual cloth face covering that would have some beneficial effect but not what you would call protection. If you saw the virtual space suits you had to wear for protection against aerosol producing procedures in the NHS that's the level you'd have to go to for protection.
Yeah I'm aware of this. And with anything, the reduction of risk has to be weighed up against the other effects of doing it (whether or not they are beneficial, and whether or not they are clinical).

In reality you do need multiple layers of PPE on than just any face covering/mask and even wearing full hazmat protection or even a full on gas mask isn't always going to stop something as small as a virus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that surgeons tend to wear the surgical masks more to stop them getting splattered with blood and other fluids from the patient and vice versa, than to prevent or even primarily reduce spread of viruses from them to the patient and vice versa.

The whole thing got amplified with people (probably more mask zealots like Michie and her ilk than actual virologists) making out masks were much more effective than they actually are, probably also to increase compliance with the measure, forgetting we actually eased the first set of restrictions without masks at all, and even when people like Whitty, Harries, Van Tam had previously said that mass mask wearing (as opposed to those actually with covid) was ineffective generally, but then part of the issue there was with testing and people with minimal or no virus symptoms people didn't know who had the virus and who didn't.
 

Statto

Free Kick Specialist
Strange she couldn't wait to end freedom of movement

Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk
Yes, but that's a two way street isn't it?

I was watching Rich House Poor House earlier. This woman from the poor side (to make the binary decision) had two kids, one was hypermobile and had ADHD, both young (5 and 7) and as is often the case on this the rich side had made the wealth themselves too. She didn't work, and wasn't particularly well brought-up from her accent, but was clearly way more intelligent than that, and was totally capable of it. But, they did make the point that with the allowances she got for not working, for her two lads, and especially for the DLA for the elder one, if she took a full time job, she'd be worse off.

Now she does deserve these benefits, as the kid was clearly needing the assistance, but this is the culture - some people on benefits milk the system, granted, but some would lose what they are entitled to and be worse off because they chose to work instead.

So we have a fairly sizeable group on benefits who could work but would lose out if they chose to. This lady's DLA for her lad shouldn't be something she loses if she chooses to take a job and pay back into the system. The lad is still disabled whatever she does, and needs support for this. Despite her employment status or otherwise, the kids also need a roof and a stable life. I may be a capitalist but these issues need help so people can maximise their potential. If she was able to (without prejudice to her entitlements) do some office work whilst the kids are at school, from home if necessary, she would be helping out within her childcare requirements.

The same goes for a lot of things, it was said that lockdowns and Brexit first of all made EU workers go home and then provided little incentive for them to come back and work menial jobs. But I don't see the population here stepping up to fill this, as though picking potatoes on a farm is less worth their time than staying on benefits watching Jeremy Kyle all day. So as you were.
 

Huxley

John Robertson
Yes, but that's a two way street isn't it?

I was watching Rich House Poor House earlier. This woman from the poor side (to make the binary decision) had two kids, one was hypermobile and had ADHD, both young (5 and 7) and as is often the case on this the rich side had made the wealth themselves too. She didn't work, and wasn't particularly well brought-up from her accent, but was clearly way more intelligent than that, and was totally capable of it. But, they did make the point that with the allowances she got for not working, for her two lads, and especially for the DLA for the elder one, if she took a full time job, she'd be worse off.

Now she does deserve these benefits, as the kid was clearly needing the assistance, but this is the culture - some people on benefits milk the system, granted, but some would lose what they are entitled to and be worse off because they chose to work instead.

So we have a fairly sizeable group on benefits who could work but would lose out if they chose to. This lady's DLA for her lad shouldn't be something she loses if she chooses to take a job and pay back into the system. The lad is still disabled whatever she does, and needs support for this. Despite her employment status or otherwise, the kids also need a roof and a stable life. I may be a capitalist but these issues need help so people can maximise their potential. If she was able to (without prejudice to her entitlements) do some office work whilst the kids are at school, from home if necessary, she would be helping out within her childcare requirements.

The same goes for a lot of things, it was said that lockdowns and Brexit first of all made EU workers go home and then provided little incentive for them to come back and work menial jobs. But I don't see the population here stepping up to fill this, as though picking potatoes on a farm is less worth their time than staying on benefits watching Jeremy Kyle all day. So as you were.

If rich people and huge corporations paid the tax they should nobody would begrudge someone gaming the system for an extra few quid. Those people are not the ones preventing us from having a well run nhs etc…
 

Lefkasman

Steve Chettle
Yes, but that's a two way street isn't it?

I was watching Rich House Poor House earlier. This woman from the poor side (to make the binary decision) had two kids, one was hypermobile and had ADHD, both young (5 and 7) and as is often the case on this the rich side had made the wealth themselves too. She didn't work, and wasn't particularly well brought-up from her accent, but was clearly way more intelligent than that, and was totally capable of it. But, they did make the point that with the allowances she got for not working, for her two lads, and especially for the DLA for the elder one, if she took a full time job, she'd be worse off.

Now she does deserve these benefits, as the kid was clearly needing the assistance, but this is the culture - some people on benefits milk the system, granted, but some would lose what they are entitled to and be worse off because they chose to work instead.

So we have a fairly sizeable group on benefits who could work but would lose out if they chose to. This lady's DLA for her lad shouldn't be something she loses if she chooses to take a job and pay back into the system. The lad is still disabled whatever she does, and needs support for this. Despite her employment status or otherwise, the kids also need a roof and a stable life. I may be a capitalist but these issues need help so people can maximise their potential. If she was able to (without prejudice to her entitlements) do some office work whilst the kids are at school, from home if necessary, she would be helping out within her childcare requirements.

The same goes for a lot of things, it was said that lockdowns and Brexit first of all made EU workers go home and then provided little incentive for them to come back and work menial jobs. But I don't see the population here stepping up to fill this, as though picking potatoes on a farm is less worth their time than staying on benefits watching Jeremy Kyle all day. So as you were.
There aren't many farms in the middle of Manchester which has been mentioned umpteen times before.

Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom