Generic Virus Thread

[blandy]

I googled your WHO quote and it says "Despite consistent evidence as to SARS-CoV-2 contamination of surfaces and the survival of the virus on certain surfaces," - which is rather more balanced than the short paraphrase/extract used.

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Yeah, I know - my point was about the words " the WHO had not found a single instance of the virus being transmitted by a fomite" - clearly that's tosh on multiple levels - the WHO isn't looking for evidence, evidence can only really be gathered by a clinical trial and so on. I don't think the initial wording you used is of any value to the discussion, because it neither re-enforces, expands upon nor contradicts anything being said. Accepting you were just relaying in brief something you'd heard or read - it's not a dig at you, HV.

I think you're being somewhat pernickety, and it's not 'tosh on multiple levels' (you have found one level, that I am using a shorthand form of 'the WHO have not found' as a shorter way of saying 'the WHO, summarising the evidence available from academic sources four months into the pandemic, note that that evidence has not found'). I am happy to revise the sentence, if you like, to:

'It is a fact that the WHO, summarising the evidence available from academic sources four months into the pandemic, note that those studies have not found any direct evidence of fomite transmission, which stands in direct contrast to ample evidence which has been found of aerosol transmission.'

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

I googled your WHO quote and it says "Despite consistent evidence as to SARS-CoV-2 contamination of surfaces and the survival of the virus on certain surfaces," - which is rather more balanced than the short paraphrase/extract used.

I literally quoted exactly that line on the previous page.

[Genie]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I literally quoted exactly that line on the previous page.

But you keep leaving out the reason why they say there is not categoric evidence 

Quote

Despite consistent evidence as to SARS-CoV-2 contamination of surfaces and the survival of the virus on certain surfaces, there are no specific reports which have directly demonstrated fomite transmission. People who come into contact with potentially infectious surfaces often also have close contact with the infectious person, making the distinction between respiratory droplet and fomite transmission difficult to discern. However, fomite transmission is considered a likely mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2,

 

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

This is vastly different to how I perceive their approach to the corollafungus.

Being deliberately simplistic in my explanation, I see it like this.

1. When it started scientists provided data and analysis to the Gov't. The national mood was of "OK, we need to follow the advice from the scientists and Gov't". Labour said very little, other than to broadly support the steps being taken - after all that was the science advice. It was also tactically correct.

2. The next stage from Labour was to ask for information from the Government - questions. Questions about PPE, Care homes and so on.

3. As it's gone on Labour has started more and more to criticise and expose Government and individual incompetence, inconsistency, hypocrisy and so on, while still accepting that the response and actions need to take into account the science, but they've also pushed for more economic help for those hit by it.

I don't see labour's response as ideological - either centrist or leftist - just as pragmatist, if you like. There is this virus and it's leading to a need for [these] things to happen. Other than not being critical enough of Cronyism, power grabbing and all the shenanigans and incompetence for my personal liking I don't fault Labour's overall response and don't see it as a left/right thing anyway. It's kind of the role of the opposition to hold the government to account on this, not to attempt to force a "left wing" alternative philosophy.

But I guess we all see things differently.

You sound like me trying to justify Labour's brexit policy when Corbyn was in charge.

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, Genie said:

But you keep leaving out the reason why they say there is not categoric evidence

Because there is not the same issue with demonstrating aerosol transmission, which has been done repeatedly in the academic literature this year.

I also want to redirect this conversation away from simply being about what the WHO say. As noted before, the WHO are neither infallible, nor above trimming their sails to fit the prevailing political winds when the occasion demands. I am not remotely invested in whether there have been zero cases of transmission via fomites or a small number - the argument is that focusing on fomites ahead of aerosol transmission is bad, not that fomite transmission is impossible.

I started this by stating what I knew, and saying people could let me know if they have seen in reliable academic sources anything to the contrary. Instead we have ended up quibbling about parsing lines in sources I have provided. If you can demonstrate - with reference to recent, quality sources - that fomite transmission should be a major source of concern, or that transmission is *not* primarily driven by a minority of 'super spreaders' (the initial claims, which I stand by) then please do so. If not, then I will respectfully withdraw from the conversation at this point, as I don't want to go round and round on this all afternoon.

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, darrenm said:

You sound like me trying to justify Labour's brexit policy when Corbyn was in charge.

I'm (I think) merely commenting that I don't see their policy as ideological. I think I typed that I don't think they've been nearly critical enough of the failings, the secret deals and pocket filling and so on. I think I also said I don't agree with some of their approach - I'm genuinely not trying to "justify" it. I was taking issue with / struggling to understand how it was somehow distanced from left wing, when I can't see how a left wing approach to what the Gov't has done is even relevant.

Longer term there's all sorts of left wing things I'd like to see, but in the shorter term - say the next 6-12 months (and the last 8 months) talking about draining the swamp while we're up to our necks in alligators is of no immediate help. We're in the "do practical things" stage - medical and track and trace and targetted measures and restrictions.

Of course it's absolutely apparent that the Tories have started from a place of their own making having wrecked and hacked at the NHS, local services, local Gov't, Social care...over-centralisation...loads of things where they've been awful. Labour could and should (IMO) be making constructive arguments around that, around the death toll, clearly identifying the tories as having blood on their hands whilst filling their cronies and donor's pockets with juicy contracts, which in turn lead to terrible outcomes for people, and all the while seeking every means possible to deny scrutiny, to distract attention...loads of stuff. They're vile. Labour should be saying all this...(and probably will in due course)

But like I say, I was just commenting that the approach Starmer has taken to the measures the Tories have taken isn't ideological one way or the other (for me).

I can say "You effed up  when you lost 16,000 positive cases from Track and Trace" and whatever I think about Privatising the NHS or nationalising Rail or whatever is kind of just opinion and nothing really of use in the short term, fighting those alligators.

p.s. Corbyn didn't have a Brexit policy

 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

2 hours ago, Genie said:

where it’s having a negative impact.

I think it's a combination of a lot of things altogether over 6 months chipping away at the restrictions and their perceived success rate.

It might also be the population.  If some old people are disregarding the guidelines for example (And by definition infecting others),  even though they know it will probably kill them if they get it is not something a government, advert  or leaflet can fix.

[Xann]

Southern just served up a half sized train in the.day.

The elderly and maskless youth all mushed up together.in packed carriages.

[NurembergVillan]

Dodgy bastards.

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Dodgy bastards.

Wow, so the result will be same amount of people but in a reduced number of pubs. That should work well.

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Dodgy bastards.

Same energy:

 

[Davkaus]

Are they *trying* to be terrible at government? 

[Genie]

13 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Dodgy bastards.

How can we do something, without actually doing anything, and actually make the situation worse?

UK Government: Hold my beer and £2.99 ham and eggs...

[Genie]

Just now, Davkaus said:

Are they *trying* to be terrible at government? 

They are the equivalent of Jose trying to get the sack after signing a new 5 year deal.

[Davkaus]

I didn't realise we were talking about the highest level of restrictions here. Simply astonishing. 

"The “very high” alert level will apply where transmission rates are rising most rapidly and where the NHS could soon be under unbearable pressure without further restrictions"

But sure, get yourself down to the shops, and stop in for a pint if you like. Only if you order some chips and a burger though. 

[Genie]

So in the very highest band where the NHS can be soon overrun you can still go on an all dayer at the pub (as long as you eat)?

What can’t you do that you can do now?

[Xann]

13 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Are they *trying* to be terrible at government? 

It's not a government, it's a robbery.

[Straggler]

6 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

Such a good post, I'm not even going to selectively quote the bits about moths or doners.

I would like to blame angry typing, but truth is I'm crap at spelling.

[Chindie]

The situation is worse than it was in March and therefore we must act.

At the very strictest level, we're going to do **** all.

Fantastic.