On 05/01/2022 19:03, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <sRVsRwEGMc1hFwSj@brattleho.plus.com>,
> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> But does the smiley mean that you now actually understand how masks
>> can help to reduce the spread of the virus?
>
> No, certainly not.
>
> Graphs of infections in countries with masks mandates shows clearly
> that in the real world, they do nothing.

They show nothing of the sort. They show that each country's situation
is a complex interaction of many factors, and no *SINGLE* measure -
whether it be masks, lockdowns, vaccinations, etc - is sufficient on
its own. What is needed is a combination of measures, each making its
contribution, and one of those is wearing masks in public places.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 05/01/2022 20:10, Pamela wrote:
>
> On 19:06 5 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>
>> In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
>>>> using chain link fencing to stop flies.
>>>
>>> The virus is carried on water droplets.
>>
>> Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks makes
>> no difference.

Upthread you wrote ...

On 05/01/2022 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
> quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it would
> be all over the media and it isn't.

.... but that argument is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways;
equally there is no quality data from anywhere that shows masks don't
work otherwise it would be all over the media and it isn't.

> Do graphs show respirator masks or surgical saliva masks?
>
> FFP3 respirators are so widely available that I use only those now.

Yes, and do the graphs take account of the sort of environments the
masks are mandated in or not, the presence or not of other measures such
as lockdowns, working from home, population demographics, etc, etc, etc.

The joke is that one can't tell anything as detailed as whether masks
work or not just by comparing two countries happening to have different
mask regimes, because a great deal more than just the mask regimes will
differ between them, and the results of the comparison will be the
result of *ALL* the differing factors.

The even bigger joke is that he insists on comparing the UK and Germany,
and when you do that, the country with a tougher mask regime has the
lowest infection and associated rates, which runs completely counter to
his attempted claims!

Bob is a bigoted ignoramus who understands SFA even about how to apply
what used to be called 'common sense', let alone actual science!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 20:50:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>> Graphs of infections in countries with masks mandates shows clearly
>> that in the real world, they do nothing.
>
>They show nothing of the sort. They show that each country's situation
>is a complex interaction of many factors, and no *SINGLE* measure -
>whether it be masks, lockdowns, vaccinations, etc - is sufficient on
>its own. What is needed is a combination of measures, each making its
>contribution, and one of those is wearing masks in public places.

There's a difference between theory and the real world. In theory if
you create a law, everybody will follow it and things will change for
the better, but this doesn't always happen.

For example, theory says that if you make addictive drugs illegal it
will save lives because people won't be taking the drugs, but in
reality though a few lives may be saved some people will take the
drugs anyway and many more lives will be lost or destroyed through
collateral effects, so the law has actually made things worse.

Rod.

On 05/01/2022 23:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 20:50:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>

[Quoting broken - Bob LieToThem wrote:]

>>> Graphs of infections in countries with masks mandates shows clearly
>>> that in the real world, they do nothing.
>>
>> They show nothing of the sort. They show that each country's situation
>> is a complex interaction of many factors, and no *SINGLE* measure -
>> whether it be masks, lockdowns, vaccinations, etc - is sufficient on
>> its own. What is needed is a combination of measures, each making its
>> contribution, and one of those is wearing masks in public places.
>
> There's a difference between theory and the real world. In theory if
> you create a law, everybody will follow it and things will change for
> the better, but this doesn't always happen.

Sure, no law is perfect to begin with, and no population obeys it
perfectly either, but that is not an argument for doing away with all
laws, and ...

> For example, theory says that if you make addictive drugs illegal it
> will save lives because people won't be taking the drugs, but in
> reality though a few lives may be saved some people will take the
> drugs anyway and many more lives will be lost or destroyed through
> collateral effects, so the law has actually made things worse.

.... you often make these claims which are nothing better than your
opinions stated as if they were fact. If you want them to have the
status of fact, supply some supporting evidence in their favour. I note
that you have failed to do so.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 05/01/2022 17:44, williamwright wrote:
> On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
>> It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
>> using chain link fencing to stop flies.
>
> The virus is carried on water droplets.
>
> Bill

True. The virus multiplies in the respiratory tract which is covered in
mucus, so the virus is only able to escape a host person by being
water-borne.

The other point so often overlooked by the anti-mask brigade is that
the mask is effective in trapping the virus in water droplets in
*exhaled* air. The information that the public should remember is that
"your mask protects me and my mask protects you". Those who regard a
mask as being their own protection have got it wrong.

It only takes one person (knowingly or unknowingly) with the virus
refusing to wear a mask, to pass the virus on to any number of other
people wearing masks[1]. Something more anti-social is difficult to imagine.

[1] A case in point is that after the first lock-down ended and people
could travel again, a few holiday-makers returning to the UK from Ibiza
who refused to wear a mask on the plane passed the virus on to almost
every other passenger on that plane.

Jim

On 05/01/2022 23:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> For example, theory says that if you make addictive drugs illegal it
> will save lives because people won't be taking the drugs, but in
> reality though a few lives may be saved some people will take the
> drugs anyway

That is true. But the law making it an offence does deter some, and
thus the current situation ensures that it is not as many people who
would take such drugs if that course of action was legal.

> and many more lives will be lost or destroyed through
> collateral effects

.... if more people took such drugs. The thing about addictive drugs is
that getting off them once addicted is difficult. Addictive drugs cost
money and burglaries, shoplifting, mugging and similar means to raise
enough for the next "fix" will increase in direct proportion to the
number of people addicted.

> so the law has actually made things worse.

That is an assumption not backed by real life.

Jim

On 05/01/2022 19:06, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
>>> It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
>>> using chain link fencing to stop flies.
>
>> The virus is carried on water droplets.
>
> Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks makes
> no difference.
>
> Bob.
>
Sorry Bob but the virus is carried on water droplets.

Bill

On 21:03 5 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:

> On 05/01/2022 20:10, Pamela wrote:
>>
>> On 19:06 5 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>>
>>> In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
>>>>> using chain link fencing to stop flies.
>>>>
>>>> The virus is carried on water droplets.
>>>
>>> Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks
>>> makes no difference.
>
> Upthread you wrote ...
>
> On 05/01/2022 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
> >
> > Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
> > quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it
> > would be all over the media and it isn't.
>
> ... but that argument is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways;
> equally there is no quality data from anywhere that shows masks
> don't work otherwise it would be all over the media and it isn't.
>
>> Do graphs show respirator masks or surgical saliva masks?
>>
>> FFP3 respirators are so widely available that I use only those now.
>
> Yes, and do the graphs take account of the sort of environments the
> masks are mandated in or not, the presence or not of other measures
> such as lockdowns, working from home, population demographics, etc,
> etc, etc.
>
> The joke is that one can't tell anything as detailed as whether
> masks work or not just by comparing two countries happening to have
> different mask regimes, because a great deal more than just the mask
> regimes will differ between them, and the results of the comparison
> will be the result of *ALL* the differing factors.
>
> The even bigger joke is that he insists on comparing the UK and
> Germany, and when you do that, the country with a tougher mask
> regime has the lowest infection and associated rates, which runs
> completely counter to his attempted claims!
>
> Bob is a bigoted ignoramus who understands SFA even about how to
> apply what used to be called 'common sense', let alone actual
> science!

Bob feeds his worries on material from those social media swamps where
Covidiots congregate and then echoes that lunacy here. His
arguments are almost identical in content and timing to the
weird Covid memes discussed in the stranger parts of the Internet.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 23:50:39 +0000, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>On 05/01/2022 23:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> For example, theory says that if you make addictive drugs illegal it
>> will save lives because people won't be taking the drugs, but in
>> reality though a few lives may be saved some people will take the
>> drugs anyway
>
>That is true. But the law making it an offence does deter some, and
>thus the current situation ensures that it is not as many people who
>would take such drugs if that course of action was legal.

"Legal" doesn't mean "encouraged". It simply means "not illegal".
There are plenty of stupid or dangerous things that are not illegal,
but not everybody does them. I don't smoke for example, even though it
would be perfectly legal for me to do so, and I know I'm not alone in
this. I know plenty of others who don't smoke, and who would have no
interest in poisoning their brains with any other recreational drugs
either, even if they were legal. The people who want to do these
things do them anyway, and don't pay attention to any laws. For some
people, there is an extra appeal to doing something simply *because*
it's illegal and they wouldn't be interested otherwise.

>> and many more lives will be lost or destroyed through
>> collateral effects
>
>... if more people took such drugs. The thing about addictive drugs is
>that getting off them once addicted is difficult. Addictive drugs cost
>money and burglaries, shoplifting, mugging and similar means to raise
>enough for the next "fix" will increase in direct proportion to the
>number of people addicted.

I strongly suspect it would be nothing like "direct proportion".
"Exponential" might be closer to how it is related. One burglary
doesn't only affect one person. One druggie with a lifetime
involvement in theft, mugging, and perhaps prostitution, will
adversely affect the lives of a huge number of other people.

>> so the law has actually made things worse.
>
>That is an assumption not backed by real life.
>
>Jim

It's an assumption based on observation of real life. I've known
people who have been burgled or attacked or had their cars or other
items stolen, and I've seen how they were affected. You never forget
something like that. In some cases the financial effects can be
severe, and if the attack or theft etc involves a business it can
affect everyone who works there. I don't know how many of these
particular incidents involved druggies, but any increase in lawless
behaviour is bad for everyone.

Rod.

In article <pn1btg1lv6od7gdl9rfm93889m33v567gc@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart

> Commanding an entire population to do something doesn't work either.

You missed out "sometimes". :-)

Yes, it is true that some people drive dangerously, or burgle houses, etc,
despite laws/rules saying they should not. This isn't a particularly good
'reason' for deciding to abandon all rules or laws, though.

> The trouble with scientific "experts" is that they're often specialists
> as well, so if you ask them for advice on something they may only
> consider it on the basis of their own narrow range of expertise.

Yes, many things "may" be true. But that isn't a symptom for "nothing is
true". And the trouble with "non-experts" is they may have an inflated
view of their own ability to be correct in a field they are unknowingly
mistaken about. Whereas scientific experts tend - as a part of the process
of science - check each others work in a critical way, looking for mistakes
or omissions to fix. Indeed, that's the day job for science researchers.

I snipped your rants to highlight the basic logical flaws you based them
upon. HTH :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> [Rant snipped]

> Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. ...

Yawn.

> "Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.

....and to do that you have to give references to your source material. Not
just spout vague and sweeping claims about them.

> Questioning science is how you do science.

....which is the big weakness in many of your own assertions which you
present as absolute 'truth' whilst showing no way to 'question' them.

And, you also need to understand the science. Not just mention non-science
like the 'two point paper' because it fits what you (wish to) believe. And
you also need to read - and understand - surveys like the book you're
terrified of reading on climate change.

If you practiced what you sometimes (inaccurately) preach your postings
might be more useful. As it is, your postings make quite clear that you
start off from you *political* viewa and pick/'interpret' any 'science' to
get the answer you want. That isn't "questioning science" but denialism
prompted by what you wish to believe for your own reasons.

Of course, if you expect others to check ('question') your views via the
sources you'd need to be doing the same... as per that book you dismiss
which contains hundreds of references and some useful info. But which you
know is a 'Bible' on the basis of not reading it!

So there is some ironic hypocricy in your telling others about how science
operates, given that you refuse to do what you say. (And, yes, over time I
- and JJ - have read many of the items you've referenced. And found them to
be junk or misrepresented.)

So get back to us when you actually practice what you sometimes preach.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <8o8ctgpuvj1s9dt30lo1pckjgkskhrf6t2@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 20:50:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:

> >> Graphs of infections in countries with masks mandates shows clearly
> >> that in the real world, they do nothing.
> >
> >They show nothing of the sort. They show that each country's situation
> > is a complex interaction of many factors, and no *SINGLE* measure -
> >whether it be masks, lockdowns, vaccinations, etc - is sufficient on
> >its own. What is needed is a combination of measures, each making its
> >contribution, and one of those is wearing masks in public places.

> There's a difference between theory and the real world. In theory if you
> create a law, everybody will follow it and things will change for the
> better, but this doesn't always happen.

Yes, *some* people will refuse to wear a mask, or get vaccinated. Just as
*some* people drive dangerously without regard for others. But many people
*will* wear masks, get vaccinated, and behave responsibly. And that in turn
will reduce deaths and pressure on the NHS, etc.

The plain truth is that masks, social distancing, regular testing, and
vaccines can and do all help provided a fair number of people adopt these
measures.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sr5a2k$abb$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> The other point so often overlooked by the anti-mask brigade is that
> the mask is effective in trapping the virus in water droplets in
> *exhaled* air. The information that the public should remember is that
> "your mask protects me and my mask protects you". Those who regard a
> mask as being their own protection have got it wrong.

IIUC the effectiveness is significantly higher for exhaled air than for
inhailed. But it still has some effect in reducing an inhaled loading. So
although I agree with the above, wearing one does also help you to reduce
the chance of being infected. Thus is worth doing for yourself as well as
for others around you.

Given that people become infectious before they get symptoms, though, it
makes sense for people to wear them by default.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j3n1d4Fiv9eU1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 05/01/2022 19:06, Bob Latham wrote:
> > In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
> > williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
> >>> It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
> >>> using chain link fencing to stop flies.
> >
> >> The virus is carried on water droplets.
> >
> > Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks makes
> > no difference.
> >
> > Bob.
> >
> Sorry Bob but the virus is carried on water droplets.

I don't doubt that that happens but I do doubt it's exclusive. So
presumably then if we all wore masks there is no need to work from
home and all the graphs showing countries with mandated N95 masks
doing just the same as everyone else is fake news.

Bob.

On 11:36 6 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
> In article <j3n1d4Fiv9eU1@mid.individual.net>,
> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 05/01/2022 19:06, Bob Latham wrote:
>> > In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> > williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> >> On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
>> >>> It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks.
>> >>> Like using chain link fencing to stop flies.
>> >
>> >> The virus is carried on water droplets.
>> >
>> > Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks
>> > makes no difference.
>> >
>> > Bob.
>> >
>> Sorry Bob but the virus is carried on water droplets.
>
> I don't doubt that that happens but I do doubt it's exclusive. So
> presumably then if we all wore masks there is no need to work from
> home and all the graphs showing countries with mandated N95 masks
> doing just the same as everyone else is fake news.
>
> Bob.

Bob, do your graphs avoid the influence of conflating factors? Can you
specify which charts you keep referring to.

A recent BMJ graphic shows mask wearing is significant ...

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/375/bmj-2021-068302/F1.large.jpg

On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 13:12:49 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>> Commanding an entire population to do something doesn't work either.
>
>You missed out "sometimes". :-)
>
>Yes, it is true that some people drive dangerously, or burgle houses, etc,
>despite laws/rules saying they should not. This isn't a particularly good
>'reason' for deciding to abandon all rules or laws, though.

There is a strong argument for reconsidering laws that are ignored by
such a large number of people as to risk damaging respect for the law
in general. Laws can only work in a democracy if the majority agree
with them. They're supposed to be enacted on our behalf and in our
interests by our chosen representatives after all, not dictated to us
by people who make them up for their own purposes.

Rod.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:58:25 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>The plain truth is that masks, social distancing, regular testing, and
>vaccines can and do all help provided a fair number of people adopt these
>measures.

The plain truth is that "social distancing" is one of the most
chilling Orwellian oxymorons I've ever heard. That, and covering our
faces by government decree has made the last couple of years the most
depressing time I can remember. I'm retired, so as long as my savings
can last longer than me I should be "alright Jack", but it's sad to
see businesses folding everywhere and some individuals having to
survive on a pittance with no prospect of work. Nobody can plan
anything expensive in advance in case it has to be cancelled by the
government changing the rules yet again with no advance warning, and
in fact a piece of junkmail I received the other day was an offer of
"covid insurance" against this very occurrence, which I suppose was
only a matter of time. There have always been risks associated with
everything we do, and I think it's time we accepted this and got on
with normal life.

Rod.

On 06/01/2022 14:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> There have always been risks associated with
> everything we do, and I think it's time we accepted this and got on
> with normal life.

The trouble with that attitude is that between 149,000 and 173,000 of us
have not been able to get on with normal life, in many, many cases
simply because of the selfishness of others.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 14:52 6 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:58:25 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>The plain truth is that masks, social distancing, regular testing,
>>and vaccines can and do all help provided a fair number of people
>>adopt these measures.
>
> The plain truth is that "social distancing" is one of the most
> chilling Orwellian oxymorons I've ever heard. That, and covering our
> faces by government decree has made the last couple of years the
> most depressing time I can remember. I'm retired, so as long as my
> savings can last longer than me I should be "alright Jack", but it's
> sad to see businesses folding everywhere and some individuals having
> to survive on a pittance with no prospect of work. Nobody can plan
> anything expensive in advance in case it has to be cancelled by the
> government changing the rules yet again with no advance warning, and
> in fact a piece of junkmail I received the other day was an offer of
> "covid insurance" against this very occurrence, which I suppose was
> only a matter of time. There have always been risks associated with
> everything we do, and I think it's time we accepted this and got on
> with normal life.
>
> Rod.

Could you still be in the early stages of Kubler-Ross grief, unable to
accept that the old desired way of life is not coming back?

On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 15:55:45 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 06/01/2022 14:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>> There have always been risks associated with
>> everything we do, and I think it's time we accepted this and got on
>> with normal life.
>
>The trouble with that attitude is that between 149,000 and 173,000 of us
>have not been able to get on with normal life, in many, many cases
>simply because of the selfishness of others.

Rught now I don't see selfishness preventing us from geting back to
normal. I see draconian governmental rules that don't seem to be
achieving anything. At the start it was just pure incompetence in how
it was handled, and now it just looks like too little, too late. They
all seem to be drunk with power and clinging to the last vestige of it
that they think they can justify. Nobody who seizes power ever wants
to relinquish it, regardless of reason.

I'm not party to any more specialised scientific research results or
statistics than anyone else can read about in the papers, but speaking
from my own personal experience, I've known far more people who have
died from cancers, heart attacks and even a couple of road traffic
accidents than I've known who have died from covid, the latter figure
currently standing at zero, zilch, absolutely none at all, and yet I'm
supposed to be scared of it. There are people dying all the time all
over the place from all manner of things (normally about ten thousand
a week in the UK apparently) but any rational assessment of the risk
of dying from covid versus the risk of dying from anything else leads
to the inevitable conclusion that it's insignificant. I know I'll die
of something some day, as we all have to accept, but although I don't
know what it will be, I can be nearly certain what it won't be.

Rod.

In article <cmudtg5dnfrk7q5a25dthaah9m1qe1u8qp@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >Yes, it is true that some people drive dangerously, or burgle houses,
> >etc, despite laws/rules saying they should not. This isn't a
> >particularly good 'reason' for deciding to abandon all rules or laws,
> >though.

> There is a strong argument for reconsidering laws that are ignored by
> such a large number of people as to risk damaging respect for the law in
> general. Laws can only work in a democracy if the majority agree with
> them.

I suspect most people agree that burglary should be illegal and offenders
prosecuted. I doubt the burglars - or reckless speeding drivers - would
outvote the more sensible people.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <s3vdtgdjnslj7gck3m6tlm68ncec57m2a9@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:58:25 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> >The plain truth is that masks, social distancing, regular testing, and
> >vaccines can and do all help provided a fair number of people adopt these
> >measures.

> The plain truth is that "social distancing" is one of the most
> chilling Orwellian oxymorons I've ever heard.

That may well be true for you. But to me it seems a fairly daft assertion
given the context of a serious infectious disease, etc.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 06/01/2022 17:36, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 15:55:45 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/01/2022 14:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> There have always been risks associated with
>>> everything we do, and I think it's time we accepted this and got on
>>> with normal life.
>>
>> The trouble with that attitude is that between 149,000 and 173,000 of us
>> have not been able to get on with normal life, in many, many cases
>> simply because of the selfishness of others.
>
> Rught now I don't see selfishness preventing us from geting back to
> normal.

That's a misunderstanding of what I wrote. You only have to compare our
death rates with other countries, we are currently 30th in the table but
in the past have been as high as 1st, to realise that a great many
people in this country have died unnecessarily and avoidably. Besides
government incompetence, particularly at the start of the pandemic, a
large measure of blame for this must be written down to the selfishness
of members of the public who wouldn't accept some self-sacrifice for the
greater public good - such as wearing face-masks properly in public
places, failing to self-isolate when they have symptoms or when
otherwise required, failing to self-test before and after travel &/or
failing to report and alter behaviour after a +ve result, etc.

> I see draconian governmental rules that don't seem to be
> achieving anything. At the start it was just pure incompetence in how
> it was handled, and now it just looks like too little, too late. They
> all seem to be drunk with power and clinging to the last vestige of it
> that they think they can justify. Nobody who seizes power ever wants
> to relinquish it, regardless of reason.

No, at worst it's just continued incompetence, but much more likely a
lack of good data about the omicron variant, which is rightly called a
'variant of concern', upon which to formulate policy.

There was quite a lot about omicron on last week's Science In Action,
but some findings are mutually contradictory, while others seem to ring
true with known experience so far. It seems to affect the upper airways
in the lung better than previous variants, one study suggested 70%
better, but is less good at infecting deep lung tissue, and this might
explain why it seems to be highly infectious but less able to cause
serious disease, as largely was the South African experience. However,
although SA are ahead of us in the omicron wave, it's not necessarily a
useful comparison for determining policy in the UK, because it has a
younger population, and one which has suffered covid-19 already at a
very high rate, which means both that many of those who were most
vulnerable have unfortunately already died, while those that remain have
natural levels of immunity from having suffered the disease and
recovered from it. Here in the UK, we have an older population
demographic, most of us have not had the disease, and what immunity
there is comes mostly from vaccines. Lab tests have shown that the
first two vaccines don't seem to provide much protection against
omicron, while a third, which usually in the UK has been of a different
type, does seem to provide an encouraging protective response against it.

So the government is almost certainly receiving conflicting information
about this variant, and therefore is unable to formulate policy. This
being so, they appear to be carrying on the same for now, perhaps until
they have better information, and actually I think that is the correct
response. We don't want to ease up restrictions only to have to tighten
them again, but equally we don't want to tighten them in over reaction
if there's not actually a need to do so.

> I'm not party to any more specialised scientific research results or
> statistics than anyone else can read about in the papers, but speaking
> from my own personal experience, I've known far more people who have
> died from cancers, heart attacks and even a couple of road traffic
> accidents than I've known who have died from covid, the latter figure
> currently standing at zero, zilch, absolutely none at all, and yet I'm
> supposed to be scared of it. There are people dying all the time all
> over the place from all manner of things (normally about ten thousand
> a week in the UK apparently) but any rational assessment of the risk
> of dying from covid versus the risk of dying from anything else leads
> to the inevitable conclusion that it's insignificant. I know I'll die
> of something some day, as we all have to accept, but although I don't
> know what it will be, I can be nearly certain what it won't be.

But that's just one man's experience, others may report differently.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12:34 5 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 11:27:40 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
>> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>[Rant snipped]
>>
>>Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
>>quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it would
>>be all over the media and it isn't.
>>
>>Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting infected
>>and they don't stop you giving it to someone else. Therefore meeting
>>crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't safe, it's nonsense.
>>Look at the logic not the agenda.
>>
>>"Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
>>Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
>>questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to
>>be questioned.
>>
>>
>>Bob.
>
> Commanding an entire population to do something doesn't work either.
> Some of them won't get the mesage. Some of them won't understand the
> message. Some of them won't be able to afford to follow it, some
> won't follow it correctly, and some will simply forget or not
> bother. Maybe some will have moral, cultural or religious objections
> too; religion has a track record of objecting to all manner of
> things on the basis of no logical reasoning whatever. Also, the very
> fact that the command is in the form of a draconian edict of dubious
> legality given to a population accustomed to democratic freedoms
> that their parents or grandparents fought and died for will cause
> many to protest on that basis alone, alarmed at the threat of those
> freedoms being lost by stealth. Therefore whatever you command will
> not be done by 100% of the population and it will be folly to base
> any calculations on an assumption that it has.

Our Covid regulations were passed in Parliament by democratically
elected representatives just like any other law, albeit with less
debate on account of the circumstances.

There will never be 100% agreement and there will always be those who
break the law, which is one reason we why we have courts. If members
of the public don't like a particular law and can't wait for the next
election they can recall their MP if sufficient people agree.

There will always be some people who object to a law but democracy
means the majority prevail.

In this country we have treated Covid offenders with a very light
touch compared to many neighbouring European countries which are
currently managing to control the spread of the disease better.

I would go further and support any proposal to penalise those who
exploit moral hazard by not getting vaccinated while veryone else
dose. We are not used to paying for healthcare in this country but it
may not be a bad idea to bill the unvaccinated who acquire Covid and
need hospital treatment.

In article <0u8etg1nd2rn0fum0mad9dg1chsio0u1ic@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 15:55:45 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:

> >On 06/01/2022 14:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >>
> >> There have always been risks associated with everything we do, and I
> >> think it's time we accepted this and got on with normal life.
> >
> >The trouble with that attitude is that between 149,000 and 173,000 of
> >us have not been able to get on with normal life, in many, many cases
> >simply because of the selfishness of others.

> Rught now I don't see selfishness preventing us from geting back to
> normal. I see draconian governmental rules that don't seem to be
> achieving anything.

I tend to see some people whinging that reality doesn't behave as they wish
it did! :-)

> There are people dying all the time all over the place from all manner
> of things (normally about ten thousand a week in the UK apparently)

The real 'cost' (in human lives) of covid will emerge from the "Excess
Death" figures when they can be collated. That will then show how many
deaths have occurred because of missed tests, etc, that means conditions
weren't found and treated soon enough, etc.

Saying that "everyone dies eventually" tends not to help much when a death
could have been 'postponed' for many extra years of healthy life. But if
you wish to volunteer to never seek help from the NHS, I guess that's your
choice provided you don't affect anyone else.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html