Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:03:25 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>
>>>> Very little, in fact. Mask wearing provides minimal protection: Omicron
>>>> spread at lightning speed even when people were
>>>> all wearing masks.
>>>
>>> Which just shows that vulnerable people can’t rely on masks to protect
>>> them, only social isolation in the case where the infection is rife.
>>
>> Yes, that's true.
>>
>
> No, proper FFP3 masks worn correctly prevent infection. That’s what the
> vulnerable need to wear. It’s unrealistic to expect everyone else to shut
> down normal life. Doing that would damage the economy in the long term and
> ultimately kill many more people as we would be able to afford less health
> care for the majority in the long term.

Returning late to this, for which I apologise. Neither my friends’ 3yo
immunosuppressed granddaughter, nor her dementing 90 great grandmother can
consistently wear an FFP3 mask. Their freedom, and those of the people in
contact with them, is inherently restricted.

> There’s plenty of other infectious diseases out there that can be very
> harmful to the immuno compromised. Why pick on just covid as being bad for
> such folk?

Because last week 1 in 11 people in Scotland were infected with COVID-19 -
it’s hugely more widespread than anything else at the moment.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:03:25 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very little, in fact. Mask wearing provides minimal protection: Omicron
>>>>> spread at lightning speed even when people were
>>>>> all wearing masks.
>>>>
>>>> Which just shows that vulnerable people can’t rely on masks to protect
>>>> them, only social isolation in the case where the infection is rife.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's true.
>>>
>>
>> No, proper FFP3 masks worn correctly prevent infection. That’s what the
>> vulnerable need to wear. It’s unrealistic to expect everyone else to shut
>> down normal life. Doing that would damage the economy in the long term and
>> ultimately kill many more people as we would be able to afford less health
>> care for the majority in the long term.
>
>Returning late to this, for which I apologise. Neither my friends’ 3yo
>immunosuppressed granddaughter, nor her dementing 90 great grandmother can
>consistently wear an FFP3 mask. Their freedom, and those of the people in
>contact with them, is inherently restricted.
>
>> There’s plenty of other infectious diseases out there that can be very
>> harmful to the immuno compromised. Why pick on just covid as being bad for
>> such folk?
>
>Because last week 1 in 11 people in Scotland were infected with COVID-19 -
>it’s hugely more widespread than anything else at the moment.

And that's presumably with much more mask wearing in Scotland than in England?

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 03:08:15 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:23:32 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 22:15:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 21:54:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 20:46:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:53:01 +0100, Recliner
>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <t1o8bo$p0d$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:41:44 on Sat, 26 Mar
>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <atoe0djbfzse$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 19:37:01 on Thu, 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:06:55 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I first saw them at scale in a pub which had just reopened with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringent Covid precautions. Tables separated, pre-booked only, one-way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, one person in toilets at a time, table service only etc. It was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not at all clear what protection they gave either the waitresses or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was when we were fed the 'droplets' theory, science is now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reluctantly moving to the aerosol idea where earlier instructions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean surfaces and wash hands have given way to more emphasis on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ventilation and effective masks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose I always did think it was mainly transmitted by the smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>> droplets know trendily known as aerosols, rather than spit and sneeze.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still wouldn't want a Covid person to spit in my face though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Breathing in your direction might be worse.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2metres, 30 seconds, and both masked, shouldn't be an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, probably not, but nor would spitting in those circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Saliva is generally a far better carrier of infection if it lands on
>>>>>>>>> targer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you sure that's true of Covid? It's an airborne virus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't just airborne. The virus is present in saliva, mucous and
>>>>>>> other bodily secretions. The difference with saliva (in original form)
>>>>>>> is the practical need for more direct transmission from infection
>>>>>>> source to entry route (e.g. snogging, spitting on target etc.) than is
>>>>>>> needed with aerosols which generally require a relatively longer
>>>>>>> presence to enable infection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would virus particles present in saliva get into a potential victim's
>>>>>> airway?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your airway starts at your nose and mouth. Coughing and sneezing can
>>>>> cause a heavier and more concentrated stream of saliva than you get
>>>>> with an aerosol.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The virus can spread from an infected person?s mouth or nose in small
>>>>> liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe.
>>>>> Another person can then contract the virus when infectious particles
>>>>> that pass through the air are inhaled at short range (this is often
>>>>> called short-range aerosol or short-range airborne transmission) or if
>>>>> infectious particles come into direct contact with the eyes, nose, or
>>>>> mouth (droplet transmission)."
>>>>> https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A mask wearer is presumably reasonably well protected against droplets
>>>> landing on their mouth or nostrils and then breathing in the particles. Is
>>>> there any evidence that the virus can be transmitted via the eyes?
>>>>
>>> Your eyes drain internally to your nose via the nasolacrimal duct;
>>> infection via the eye itself is less common. Eye protection is
>>> standard kit for ambulance and first aid personnel dealing with
>>> potential COVID patients.
>>>
>>
>>Is that precaution based on actual evidence of risk from Covid, or simple
>>(sensible) caution all infections?
>>
>The eye and associated areas have been regarded as a viable route of
>infection for over a century :-
>https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/220430
>
>>One thing we do know is that a lot of the often misinformed
>>Covid precautions have at least protected against other illnesses in the
>>last two years. For example, all that hand sanitisng didn't do much to
>>block Covid but probably reduced food poisoning.
>>
>Without experimenting you have no proof for that. COVID was known to
>persist longer on non-absorbent surfaces (e.g. handrails, door handles
>etc.) while alcohol is efficient in destroying membranes that hold
>viruses together as well as being a long-proven general antiseptic.

I'm asking what actual research has been done about how Covid is spread. Or are they just assuming it's similar to other
diseases (when we know it's not)?

>Hand sanitising doesn't work when people don't practise it and I have
>been around long enough to see that there are plenty of people who are
>best described as selfish filthy bastards when it comes to considering
>community hygeine.

Yes, I agree that hand sanitising is good for public health, but just question whether it does much to slow the spread
of Covid specifically. Has anyone done any actual research? They certainly hadn't when the advice was first given.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:03:25 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very little, in fact. Mask wearing provides minimal protection: Omicron
>>>>>> spread at lightning speed even when people were
>>>>>> all wearing masks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which just shows that vulnerable people can’t rely on masks to protect
>>>>> them, only social isolation in the case where the infection is rife.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, proper FFP3 masks worn correctly prevent infection. That’s what the
>>> vulnerable need to wear. It’s unrealistic to expect everyone else to shut
>>> down normal life. Doing that would damage the economy in the long term and
>>> ultimately kill many more people as we would be able to afford less health
>>> care for the majority in the long term.
>>
>> Returning late to this, for which I apologise. Neither my friends’ 3yo
>> immunosuppressed granddaughter, nor her dementing 90 great grandmother can
>> consistently wear an FFP3 mask. Their freedom, and those of the people in
>> contact with them, is inherently restricted.
>>
>>> There’s plenty of other infectious diseases out there that can be very
>>> harmful to the immuno compromised. Why pick on just covid as being bad for
>>> such folk?
>>
>> Because last week 1 in 11 people in Scotland were infected with COVID-19 -
>> it’s hugely more widespread than anything else at the moment.
>
> And that's presumably with much more mask wearing in Scotland than in England?
>

Presumably. I haven’t been to England recently but reports from people who
have suggest almost nil mask wearing at present. In Scotland it’s still
pretty high because there are still legal requirements.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:03:25 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very little, in fact. Mask wearing provides minimal protection: Omicron
>>>>>>> spread at lightning speed even when people were
>>>>>>> all wearing masks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which just shows that vulnerable people can’t rely on masks to protect
>>>>>> them, only social isolation in the case where the infection is rife.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, proper FFP3 masks worn correctly prevent infection. That’s what the
>>>> vulnerable need to wear. It’s unrealistic to expect everyone else to shut
>>>> down normal life. Doing that would damage the economy in the long term and
>>>> ultimately kill many more people as we would be able to afford less health
>>>> care for the majority in the long term.
>>>
>>> Returning late to this, for which I apologise. Neither my friends’ 3yo
>>> immunosuppressed granddaughter, nor her dementing 90 great grandmother can
>>> consistently wear an FFP3 mask. Their freedom, and those of the people in
>>> contact with them, is inherently restricted.
>>>
>>>> There’s plenty of other infectious diseases out there that can be very
>>>> harmful to the immuno compromised. Why pick on just covid as being bad for
>>>> such folk?
>>>
>>> Because last week 1 in 11 people in Scotland were infected with COVID-19 -
>>> it’s hugely more widespread than anything else at the moment.
>>
>> And that's presumably with much more mask wearing in Scotland than in England?
>>
>
> Presumably. I haven’t been to England recently but reports from people who
> have suggest almost nil mask wearing at present.

Yes, no more than about 25% of public transport users or supermarket
shoppers wear masks now in England, and it's falling. They were supposedly
compulsory on TfL services until a few weeks ago, but usage had been
steadily declining in recent months, and there was no enforcement.

> In Scotland it’s still
> pretty high because there are still legal requirements.

Despite which, Covid prevalence is higher in Scotland. So much for masks
protecting against Covid!

My guess is that Scottish mask wearing simply delayed the latest virus peak
by a week or two beyond when it would have arrived naturally.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:18:20 +0100, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 03:08:15 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:23:32 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 22:15:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 21:54:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 20:46:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:53:01 +0100, Recliner
>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <t1o8bo$p0d$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:41:44 on Sat, 26 Mar
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <atoe0djbfzse$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 19:37:01 on Thu, 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:06:55 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I first saw them at scale in a pub which had just reopened with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringent Covid precautions. Tables separated, pre-booked only, one-way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, one person in toilets at a time, table service only etc. It was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not at all clear what protection they gave either the waitresses or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was when we were fed the 'droplets' theory, science is now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reluctantly moving to the aerosol idea where earlier instructions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean surfaces and wash hands have given way to more emphasis on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ventilation and effective masks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose I always did think it was mainly transmitted by the smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> droplets know trendily known as aerosols, rather than spit and sneeze.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still wouldn't want a Covid person to spit in my face though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Breathing in your direction might be worse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2metres, 30 seconds, and both masked, shouldn't be an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, probably not, but nor would spitting in those circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Saliva is generally a far better carrier of infection if it lands on
>>>>>>>>>> targer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that's true of Covid? It's an airborne virus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It isn't just airborne. The virus is present in saliva, mucous and
>>>>>>>> other bodily secretions. The difference with saliva (in original form)
>>>>>>>> is the practical need for more direct transmission from infection
>>>>>>>> source to entry route (e.g. snogging, spitting on target etc.) than is
>>>>>>>> needed with aerosols which generally require a relatively longer
>>>>>>>> presence to enable infection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would virus particles present in saliva get into a potential victim's
>>>>>>> airway?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your airway starts at your nose and mouth. Coughing and sneezing can
>>>>>> cause a heavier and more concentrated stream of saliva than you get
>>>>>> with an aerosol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The virus can spread from an infected person?s mouth or nose in small
>>>>>> liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe.
>>>>>> Another person can then contract the virus when infectious particles
>>>>>> that pass through the air are inhaled at short range (this is often
>>>>>> called short-range aerosol or short-range airborne transmission) or if
>>>>>> infectious particles come into direct contact with the eyes, nose, or
>>>>>> mouth (droplet transmission)."
>>>>>> https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A mask wearer is presumably reasonably well protected against droplets
>>>>> landing on their mouth or nostrils and then breathing in the particles. Is
>>>>> there any evidence that the virus can be transmitted via the eyes?
>>>>>
>>>> Your eyes drain internally to your nose via the nasolacrimal duct;
>>>> infection via the eye itself is less common. Eye protection is
>>>> standard kit for ambulance and first aid personnel dealing with
>>>> potential COVID patients.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Is that precaution based on actual evidence of risk from Covid, or simple
>>>(sensible) caution all infections?
>>>
>>The eye and associated areas have been regarded as a viable route of
>>infection for over a century :-
>>https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/220430
>>
>>>One thing we do know is that a lot of the often misinformed
>>>Covid precautions have at least protected against other illnesses in the
>>>last two years. For example, all that hand sanitisng didn't do much to
>>>block Covid but probably reduced food poisoning.
>>>
>>Without experimenting you have no proof for that. COVID was known to
>>persist longer on non-absorbent surfaces (e.g. handrails, door handles
>>etc.) while alcohol is efficient in destroying membranes that hold
>>viruses together as well as being a long-proven general antiseptic.
>
>I'm asking what actual research has been done about how Covid is spread. Or are they just assuming it's similar to other
>diseases (when we know it's not)?
>
There is plenty of research material available but as a novel disease
it is currently more heavily based on observation and experience.
>
>>Hand sanitising doesn't work when people don't practise it and I have
>>been around long enough to see that there are plenty of people who are
>>best described as selfish filthy bastards when it comes to considering
>>community hygeine.
>
>Yes, I agree that hand sanitising is good for public health, but just question whether it does much to slow the spread
>of Covid specifically. Has anyone done any actual research? They certainly hadn't when the advice was first given.
>
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/897598/S0574_NERVTAG-EMG_paper_-_hand_hygiene_010720_Redacted.pdf

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:03:25 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>>>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>>>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>>>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>>>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very little, in fact. Mask wearing provides minimal protection: Omicron
>>>>>>>> spread at lightning speed even when people were
>>>>>>>> all wearing masks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which just shows that vulnerable people can’t rely on masks to protect
>>>>>>> them, only social isolation in the case where the infection is rife.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, proper FFP3 masks worn correctly prevent infection. That’s what the
>>>>> vulnerable need to wear. It’s unrealistic to expect everyone else to shut
>>>>> down normal life. Doing that would damage the economy in the long term and
>>>>> ultimately kill many more people as we would be able to afford less health
>>>>> care for the majority in the long term.
>>>>
>>>> Returning late to this, for which I apologise. Neither my friends’ 3yo
>>>> immunosuppressed granddaughter, nor her dementing 90 great grandmother can
>>>> consistently wear an FFP3 mask. Their freedom, and those of the people in
>>>> contact with them, is inherently restricted.
>>>>
>>>>> There’s plenty of other infectious diseases out there that can be very
>>>>> harmful to the immuno compromised. Why pick on just covid as being bad for
>>>>> such folk?
>>>>
>>>> Because last week 1 in 11 people in Scotland were infected with COVID-19 -
>>>> it’s hugely more widespread than anything else at the moment.
>>>
>>> And that's presumably with much more mask wearing in Scotland than in England?
>>>
>>
>> Presumably. I haven’t been to England recently but reports from people who
>> have suggest almost nil mask wearing at present.
>
> Yes, no more than about 25% of public transport users or supermarket
> shoppers wear masks now in England, and it's falling. They were supposedly
> compulsory on TfL services until a few weeks ago, but usage had been
> steadily declining in recent months, and there was no enforcement.
>
>> In Scotland it’s still
>> pretty high because there are still legal requirements.
>
> Despite which, Covid prevalence is higher in Scotland. So much for masks
> protecting against Covid!
>
> My guess is that Scottish mask wearing simply delayed the latest virus peak
> by a week or two beyond when it would have arrived naturally.
>
>

Having been in Glasgow last weekend and Edinburgh the previous one, it’s
fairly obvious what the transmission routes are. Folk might wear a mask in
the shops, but as soon as they are in a restaurant or pub/bar off they
come. These establishments seem very well patronised. I think I still stand
by that remark that people divide into two groups, those that have had
Omicron and those that will get it. As far as I can see the only way of
avoiding that situation is a permanent lockdown. That’s clearly not
sustainable. Strangely enough, I’ve so far avoided it, though I’ve had a
nasty cold.

Mask wearing just puts off when you might get covid, it doesn’t prevent you
from ultimately being infected. It’s unfortunate if you suffer badly when
becoming infected, but I’ve yet to see a plausible alternative to the
current situation.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:53:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:53:01 +0100, Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <t1o8bo$p0d$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:41:44 on Sat, 26 Mar
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <atoe0djbfzse$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 19:37:01 on Thu, 24
>>>>>>>> Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:06:55 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I first saw them at scale in a pub which had just reopened with
>>>>>>>>>> stringent Covid precautions. Tables separated, pre-booked only, one-way
>>>>>>>>>> system, one person in toilets at a time, table service only etc. It was
>>>>>>>>>> not at all clear what protection they gave either the waitresses or
>>>>>>>>>> customers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That was when we were fed the 'droplets' theory, science is now
>>>>>>>>> reluctantly moving to the aerosol idea where earlier instructions to
>>>>>>>>> clean surfaces and wash hands have given way to more emphasis on
>>>>>>>>> ventilation and effective masks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose I always did think it was mainly transmitted by the smaller
>>>>>>>> droplets know trendily known as aerosols, rather than spit and sneeze.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still wouldn't want a Covid person to spit in my face though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Breathing in your direction might be worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2metres, 30 seconds, and both masked, shouldn't be an issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, probably not, but nor would spitting in those circumstances.
>>>>>
>>>> Saliva is generally a far better carrier of infection if it lands on
>>>> targer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you sure that's true of Covid? It's an airborne virus.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's definitely present in saliva, because the tests I used to do through
>> work just required a spit sample.
>>
>
>I know, but the question is whether it can be transmitted that way?
>
You will have a hard time finding respiratory tract infections which
cannot be transferred via saliva but it will depend on the degree of
presence of the infection in the saliva. Even organisms such as HIV
which is regarded as practically intransmissable via saliva are not
totally impossible to transmit, especially if e.g. the potential
transmission route is compromised by skin breaches, sores, gum/dental
imperfections etc.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:03:25 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>>>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>>>>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>>>>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>>>>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>>>>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>>>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>>>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>>>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Very little, in fact. Mask wearing provides minimal protection: Omicron
>>>>>>>>> spread at lightning speed even when people were
>>>>>>>>> all wearing masks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which just shows that vulnerable people can’t rely on masks to protect
>>>>>>>> them, only social isolation in the case where the infection is rife.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that's true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, proper FFP3 masks worn correctly prevent infection. That’s what the
>>>>>> vulnerable need to wear. It’s unrealistic to expect everyone else to shut
>>>>>> down normal life. Doing that would damage the economy in the long term and
>>>>>> ultimately kill many more people as we would be able to afford less health
>>>>>> care for the majority in the long term.
>>>>>
>>>>> Returning late to this, for which I apologise. Neither my friends’ 3yo
>>>>> immunosuppressed granddaughter, nor her dementing 90 great grandmother can
>>>>> consistently wear an FFP3 mask. Their freedom, and those of the people in
>>>>> contact with them, is inherently restricted.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There’s plenty of other infectious diseases out there that can be very
>>>>>> harmful to the immuno compromised. Why pick on just covid as being bad for
>>>>>> such folk?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because last week 1 in 11 people in Scotland were infected with COVID-19 -
>>>>> it’s hugely more widespread than anything else at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> And that's presumably with much more mask wearing in Scotland than in England?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Presumably. I haven’t been to England recently but reports from people who
>>> have suggest almost nil mask wearing at present.
>>
>> Yes, no more than about 25% of public transport users or supermarket
>> shoppers wear masks now in England, and it's falling. They were supposedly
>> compulsory on TfL services until a few weeks ago, but usage had been
>> steadily declining in recent months, and there was no enforcement.
>>
>>> In Scotland it’s still
>>> pretty high because there are still legal requirements.
>>
>> Despite which, Covid prevalence is higher in Scotland. So much for masks
>> protecting against Covid!
>>
>> My guess is that Scottish mask wearing simply delayed the latest virus peak
>> by a week or two beyond when it would have arrived naturally.
>>
>>
>
> Having been in Glasgow last weekend and Edinburgh the previous one, it’s
> fairly obvious what the transmission routes are. Folk might wear a mask in
> the shops, but as soon as they are in a restaurant or pub/bar off they
> come. These establishments seem very well patronised. I think I still stand
> by that remark that people divide into two groups, those that have had
> Omicron and those that will get it.

The former group might actually consist of two sub-groups: those that know
they've had Omicron, and those who've had it without realising. I might
just have moved from the second of those to the first.

> As far as I can see the only way of
> avoiding that situation is a permanent lockdown. That’s clearly not
> sustainable. Strangely enough, I’ve so far avoided it, though I’ve had a
> nasty cold.

Might that have been Omicron without your even realising? I wouldn't have
known if an NHS Covid app ping on Saturday hadn't prompted me to do a test
yesterday. I might have had previous infections without knowing.

>
> Mask wearing just puts off when you might get covid, it doesn’t prevent you
> from ultimately being infected. It’s unfortunate if you suffer badly when
> becoming infected, but I’ve yet to see a plausible alternative to the
> current situation.

Yup. The Chinese are still fighting to maintain their Zero-Covid strategy,
but it's looking increasingly futile.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/28/shanghai-to-lock-down-millions-for-mass-testing-as-chinas-covid-cases-surge>

It's meant, for example, that the Tesla giga-factory has had to close.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>>> When would you prefer railways to be maintained?
>>
>>
>> I've very unhappy about the way the maintenance is being done in the
>> West Country.

>

>>
>
> That's unfortunate, but the railway can't predict everyone's travel
> patterns.
>
>> Closing a newly reopened branch
>
> I can't yet find out what the work is, but if you remind me in a couple of
> weeks I'll check.
>

IIRC it is mainly more track replacement and a few associated works , that
laid last year replaced track that was too far gone to be used at all but
the initial adoption of a two hourly timetable allowed retention of some
track that was ok but subject to speed restriction so the line could reopen
earlier than originally anticipated.. Replacing it will allow those
restrictions to be lifted which will allow trains to proceed up and down
from Crediton sufficiently swiftly that the promise for a 1 train per
hour timetable can be introduced which has always been the plan.*
The reopening last November was way ahead of the original estimate of 2023
so that the line has been available already and will be again after half
term week is a bonus.

A lot of the regular users of the Barnstaple line and possibly now the
Okehampton one are students to Schools and Colleges at Crediton and Exeter
,doing the work during half term week affects them the least .

* A top and tailed rail tour with Class 50’s made its way there on
Saturday , no time to visit the town as to fit in between service trains it
could only stay minutes . Unlikely there will be any more
while Okehampton remains the railhead as the hourly service once it starts
won’t leave a path
available for such visits.

GH

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> When would you prefer railways to be maintained?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've very unhappy about the way the maintenance is being done in the
>>> West Country.
>
>>
>
>>>
>>
>> That's unfortunate, but the railway can't predict everyone's travel
>> patterns.
>>
>>> Closing a newly reopened branch
>>
>> I can't yet find out what the work is, but if you remind me in a couple of
>> weeks I'll check.
>>
>
> IIRC it is mainly more track replacement and a few associated works , that
> laid last year replaced track that was too far gone to be used at all but
> the initial adoption of a two hourly timetable allowed retention of some
> track that was ok but subject to speed restriction so the line could reopen
> earlier than originally anticipated.. Replacing it will allow those
> restrictions to be lifted which will allow trains to proceed up and down
> from Crediton sufficiently swiftly that the promise for a 1 train per
> hour timetable can be introduced which has always been the plan.*
> The reopening last November was way ahead of the original estimate of 2023
> so that the line has been available already and will be again after half
> term week is a bonus.
>
> A lot of the regular users of the Barnstaple line and possibly now the
> Okehampton one are students to Schools and Colleges at Crediton and Exeter
> ,doing the work during half term week affects them the least .
>
>
> * A top and tailed rail tour with Class 50’s made its way there on
> Saturday , no time to visit the town as to fit in between service trains it
> could only stay minutes . Unlikely there will be any more
> while Okehampton remains the railhead as the hourly service once it starts
> won’t leave a path
> available for such visits.

I think that tour sold out very quickly, mainly for that reason.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/03/2022 13:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <190dku9sht17s$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 12:06:18 on Tue, 22
>> Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:13:01 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of areas 10%
>>>> of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
>>>> apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.
>>>
>>> Strange that we've eliminated smallpox, ebola, even measles to some
>>> extent, but given up on covid.
>>
>> It takes a generation (or more) to eradicate a disease. And then you can
>> only do the ones which aren't mutating in real time.
>>
>> There was a TV commercial last night saying that Covid vaccinations
>> <quote> like all others wear off so need to be boosted.
>>
>> That'll be news to people given HPV which I think they've now decided is
>> a once-a-lifetime jab.
> Quite a few vaccines need topping up, IIRC yellow fever only lasts 7
> years. Cut yourself on a rusty nail and you'll get a tetanus booster and
> so on.

For tetanus, only if it’s more than 10(?) years since your last on or if
you’ve not had 5 jabs in your lifetime, after which the immunity is
considered permanent. When I was growing up that 10 year interval was 5
years.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 28/03/2022 11:15, Recliner wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
>>> martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> The railways need to catch up with the idea leisure journeys not make a
>>>> much higher proportion of their passengers.
>>>
>>> So, on this basis, how would you schedule essential engineering
>>> works?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'd put the week/two week blockades into a boring bit of the calendar when
>> mostly commuters will be travelling (who will put up with it and come
>> back), rather than across Christmas/Easter/Half Term.
>>
>
> Isn't that how major works are increasingly being scheduled these days? It
> also cuts costs and makes the work more predictable doing it that way.
>
Bristol Temple Meads was virtually closed throughout the school summer
holidays last year.

I would suggest this caused inconvenience to the maximum possible
numbers of long distance travellers passing through Bristol. I'm sure
any other time of the year would reduce that impact. January and
February seems far more sensible to me.

On 28/03/2022 17:29, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:03:25 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very little, in fact. Mask wearing provides minimal protection: Omicron
>>>>>>> spread at lightning speed even when people were
>>>>>>> all wearing masks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which just shows that vulnerable people can’t rely on masks to protect
>>>>>> them, only social isolation in the case where the infection is rife.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, proper FFP3 masks worn correctly prevent infection. That’s what the
>>>> vulnerable need to wear. It’s unrealistic to expect everyone else to shut
>>>> down normal life. Doing that would damage the economy in the long term and
>>>> ultimately kill many more people as we would be able to afford less health
>>>> care for the majority in the long term.
>>>
>>> Returning late to this, for which I apologise. Neither my friends’ 3yo
>>> immunosuppressed granddaughter, nor her dementing 90 great grandmother can
>>> consistently wear an FFP3 mask. Their freedom, and those of the people in
>>> contact with them, is inherently restricted.
>>>
>>>> There’s plenty of other infectious diseases out there that can be very
>>>> harmful to the immuno compromised. Why pick on just covid as being bad for
>>>> such folk?
>>>
>>> Because last week 1 in 11 people in Scotland were infected with COVID-19 -
>>> it’s hugely more widespread than anything else at the moment.
>>
>> And that's presumably with much more mask wearing in Scotland than in England?
>>
>
> Presumably. I haven’t been to England recently but reports from people who
> have suggest almost nil mask wearing at present. In Scotland it’s still
> pretty high because there are still legal requirements.
>

I went to England today by train to University railway station. UNI is
the three letter code for Roland.

Everyone wore masks in the university building I went to because that is
a requirement. A few people wore masks elsewhere but not many.

On 28/03/2022 22:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 11:15, Recliner wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The railways need to catch up with the idea leisure journeys not
>>>>> make a
>>>>> much higher proportion of their passengers.
>>>>
>>>> So, on this basis, how would you schedule essential engineering
>>>> works?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd put the week/two week blockades into a boring bit of the calendar
>>> when
>>> mostly commuters will be travelling (who will put up with it and come
>>> back), rather than across Christmas/Easter/Half Term.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that how major works are increasingly being scheduled these
>> days?  It
>> also cuts costs and makes the work more predictable doing it that way.
>>
> Bristol Temple Meads was virtually closed throughout the school summer
> holidays last year.
>
> I would suggest this caused inconvenience to the maximum possible
> numbers of long distance travellers passing through Bristol.  I'm sure
> any other time of the year would reduce that impact.  January and
> February seems far more sensible to me.
>
>

Whilst winter may be better from a pax point of view, depending on the
works to be done, winter is far worse - dark, wet, snow, ice etc.

--
Colin

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 22:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> On 28/03/2022 11:15, Recliner wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The railways need to catch up with the idea leisure journeys not
>>>>>> make a
>>>>>> much higher proportion of their passengers.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, on this basis, how would you schedule essential engineering
>>>>> works?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd put the week/two week blockades into a boring bit of the calendar
>>>> when
>>>> mostly commuters will be travelling (who will put up with it and come
>>>> back), rather than across Christmas/Easter/Half Term.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that how major works are increasingly being scheduled these
>>> days?  It
>>> also cuts costs and makes the work more predictable doing it that way.
>>>
>> Bristol Temple Meads was virtually closed throughout the school summer
>> holidays last year.
>>
>> I would suggest this caused inconvenience to the maximum possible
>> numbers of long distance travellers passing through Bristol.  I'm sure
>> any other time of the year would reduce that impact.  January and
>> February seems far more sensible to me.
>>
>>
>
> Whilst winter may be better from a pax point of view, depending on the
> works to be done, winter is far worse - dark, wet, snow, ice etc.

Agreed, work is much more productive in the summer months.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 17:29, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:03:25 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>>>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>>>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>>>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>>>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very little, in fact. Mask wearing provides minimal protection: Omicron
>>>>>>>> spread at lightning speed even when people were
>>>>>>>> all wearing masks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which just shows that vulnerable people can’t rely on masks to protect
>>>>>>> them, only social isolation in the case where the infection is rife.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, proper FFP3 masks worn correctly prevent infection. That’s what the
>>>>> vulnerable need to wear. It’s unrealistic to expect everyone else to shut
>>>>> down normal life. Doing that would damage the economy in the long term and
>>>>> ultimately kill many more people as we would be able to afford less health
>>>>> care for the majority in the long term.
>>>>
>>>> Returning late to this, for which I apologise. Neither my friends’ 3yo
>>>> immunosuppressed granddaughter, nor her dementing 90 great grandmother can
>>>> consistently wear an FFP3 mask. Their freedom, and those of the people in
>>>> contact with them, is inherently restricted.
>>>>
>>>>> There’s plenty of other infectious diseases out there that can be very
>>>>> harmful to the immuno compromised. Why pick on just covid as being bad for
>>>>> such folk?
>>>>
>>>> Because last week 1 in 11 people in Scotland were infected with COVID-19 -
>>>> it’s hugely more widespread than anything else at the moment.
>>>
>>> And that's presumably with much more mask wearing in Scotland than in England?
>>>
>>
>> Presumably. I haven’t been to England recently but reports from people who
>> have suggest almost nil mask wearing at present. In Scotland it’s still
>> pretty high because there are still legal requirements.
>>
>
> I went to England today by train to University railway station. UNI is
> the three letter code for Roland.
>
> Everyone wore masks in the university building I went to because that is
> a requirement. A few people wore masks elsewhere but not many.

Yes, that sounds typical: most people do wear masks when it's compulsory on
private property, but few do otherwise. I suppose most people still respect
its rules in the university, but fewer did on TfL trains when they still
required masks.

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> When would you prefer railways to be maintained?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've very unhappy about the way the maintenance is being done in the
>>> West Country.
>
>>
>
>>>
>>
>> That's unfortunate, but the railway can't predict everyone's travel
>> patterns.
>>
>>> Closing a newly reopened branch
>>
>> I can't yet find out what the work is, but if you remind me in a couple of
>> weeks I'll check.
>>
>
> IIRC it is mainly more track replacement and a few associated works , that
> laid last year replaced track that was too far gone to be used at all but
> the initial adoption of a two hourly timetable allowed retention of some
> track that was ok but subject to speed restriction so the line could reopen
> earlier than originally anticipated.. Replacing it will allow those
> restrictions to be lifted which will allow trains to proceed up and down
> from Crediton sufficiently swiftly that the promise for a 1 train per
> hour timetable can be introduced which has always been the plan.*
> The reopening last November was way ahead of the original estimate of 2023
> so that the line has been available already and will be again after half
> term week is a bonus.
>
> A lot of the regular users of the Barnstaple line and possibly now the
> Okehampton one are students to Schools and Colleges at Crediton and Exeter
> ,doing the work during half term week affects them the least .
>
>
> * A top and tailed rail tour with Class 50’s made its way there on
> Saturday , no time to visit the town as to fit in between service trains it
> could only stay minutes . Unlikely there will be any more
> while Okehampton remains the railhead as the hourly service once it starts
> won’t leave a path
> available for such visits.
>

More on that tour, from UKRT's FB group:

We are still buzzing after yesterday's fabulous 'Springtime Hoovering in
Devon'. It really was a railtour to remember.

The fantastic weather and hard work from all those involved meant that
despite a later than planned finish to the day there were smiles all round.

We are very proud to announce that our charity raffle raised over £1500 for
The British Red Cross Ukraine Crisis Appeal. The generosity of our loyal
customers is truly admirable.

A surprise highlight of the day was the unveiling of a memorial plaque for
the late John Farrow which will be displayed on the signal box at
Okehampton, a place the boss was particularly fond of. Many thanks to Phil
Swallow for arranging this.

Special thanks go Ian Loveday and his team of volunteers who supported the
usual dream team of UKR stewards on what was a seriously busy day. Also
deserving of our gratitude are Paul, Graham, Julie and the team at CRD LTD,
Dom and the team at Nemesis Rail, and finally all involved from GBRF, GWR,
Network Rail, and the Class Fifty Alliance.👏

——

This final rail tour to Okehampton was in part a celebration of the
first-ever rail tour organised by the late John Farrow, 47 years ago:
http://www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk/70s/750316lv.html

Fittingly, his daughter, Liz, who now runs UKRT, unveiled the memorial
plaque for the much-missed John Farrow:
<https://www.facebook.com/UKRailtours/photos/pcb.4783726948391434/4783726665058129/>

Am 28.03.2022 um 19:18 schrieb Charles Ellson:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:18:20 +0100, Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 03:08:15 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:23:32 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 22:15:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 21:54:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 20:46:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:53:01 +0100, Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <t1o8bo$p0d$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:41:44 on Sat, 26 Mar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <atoe0djbfzse$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 19:37:01 on Thu, 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:06:55 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I first saw them at scale in a pub which had just reopened with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringent Covid precautions. Tables separated, pre-booked only, one-way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, one person in toilets at a time, table service only etc. It was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not at all clear what protection they gave either the waitresses or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was when we were fed the 'droplets' theory, science is now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reluctantly moving to the aerosol idea where earlier instructions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean surfaces and wash hands have given way to more emphasis on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ventilation and effective masks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose I always did think it was mainly transmitted by the smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> droplets know trendily known as aerosols, rather than spit and sneeze.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still wouldn't want a Covid person to spit in my face though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Breathing in your direction might be worse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2metres, 30 seconds, and both masked, shouldn't be an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, probably not, but nor would spitting in those circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Saliva is generally a far better carrier of infection if it lands on
>>>>>>>>>>> targer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that's true of Covid? It's an airborne virus.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It isn't just airborne. The virus is present in saliva, mucous and
>>>>>>>>> other bodily secretions. The difference with saliva (in original form)
>>>>>>>>> is the practical need for more direct transmission from infection
>>>>>>>>> source to entry route (e.g. snogging, spitting on target etc.) than is
>>>>>>>>> needed with aerosols which generally require a relatively longer
>>>>>>>>> presence to enable infection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would virus particles present in saliva get into a potential victim's
>>>>>>>> airway?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your airway starts at your nose and mouth. Coughing and sneezing can
>>>>>>> cause a heavier and more concentrated stream of saliva than you get
>>>>>>> with an aerosol.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The virus can spread from an infected person?s mouth or nose in small
>>>>>>> liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe.
>>>>>>> Another person can then contract the virus when infectious particles
>>>>>>> that pass through the air are inhaled at short range (this is often
>>>>>>> called short-range aerosol or short-range airborne transmission) or if
>>>>>>> infectious particles come into direct contact with the eyes, nose, or
>>>>>>> mouth (droplet transmission)."
>>>>>>> https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A mask wearer is presumably reasonably well protected against droplets
>>>>>> landing on their mouth or nostrils and then breathing in the particles. Is
>>>>>> there any evidence that the virus can be transmitted via the eyes?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your eyes drain internally to your nose via the nasolacrimal duct;
>>>>> infection via the eye itself is less common. Eye protection is
>>>>> standard kit for ambulance and first aid personnel dealing with
>>>>> potential COVID patients.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that precaution based on actual evidence of risk from Covid, or simple
>>>> (sensible) caution all infections?
>>>>
>>> The eye and associated areas have been regarded as a viable route of
>>> infection for over a century :-
>>> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/220430
>>>
>>>> One thing we do know is that a lot of the often misinformed
>>>> Covid precautions have at least protected against other illnesses in the
>>>> last two years. For example, all that hand sanitisng didn't do much to
>>>> block Covid but probably reduced food poisoning.
>>>>
>>> Without experimenting you have no proof for that. COVID was known to
>>> persist longer on non-absorbent surfaces (e.g. handrails, door handles
>>> etc.) while alcohol is efficient in destroying membranes that hold
>>> viruses together as well as being a long-proven general antiseptic.
>>
>> I'm asking what actual research has been done about how Covid is spread. Or are they just assuming it's similar to other
>> diseases (when we know it's not)?
>>
> There is plenty of research material available but as a novel disease
> it is currently more heavily based on observation and experience.
>>
>>> Hand sanitising doesn't work when people don't practise it and I have
>>> been around long enough to see that there are plenty of people who are
>>> best described as selfish filthy bastards when it comes to considering
>>> community hygeine.
>>
>> Yes, I agree that hand sanitising is good for public health, but just question whether it does much to slow the spread
>> of Covid specifically. Has anyone done any actual research? They certainly hadn't when the advice was first given.
>>
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/897598/S0574_NERVTAG-EMG_paper_-_hand_hygiene_010720_Redacted.pdf
>
> Note that it can be inferred that standard door handles on
> manually-opened doors, supermarket trolley/basket handles etc. are an
> infection risk which simultaneous use of sanitisation should be
> effective against.

Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 23/03/2022 07:23, MB wrote:
>> On 21/03/2022 13:10, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> Reminds me of when I went freelance back in the 1990s. There were
>>> several jobs opening up at various tech colleges for teaching staff for
>>> the newly created media studies courses. As a tutor they wanted minimum
>>> 5 years experience, fair enough, but they also wanted a Media Studies
>>> degree which hadn't existed even 2 years before, never mind 5!
>>
>> I think it had a different name when I was at school but was just seen
>> as a way of inflating the number of O or A Level passes. I doubt that it
>> impressed universities and employers.  I can't even remember now if I
>> passed!
>
> We took a General Studies A Level, for which there was little or no
> teaching and everyone got a good grade for turning up. Universities and
> employers were looking for "n A Levels excluding General Studies".
> It wasn't entirely trivial. It had a strong arty bias (whereas my
> strengths were scientific) and required recalling to roughly O-Level
> standard a modern language that we'd had two years to forget.

I did Maths, Chemistry and Physics A-levels, but got my best grade in
General Studies, which I really enjoyed. ISTR a rather fine spatial
reasoning question about climbers on a sea stack.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 09:40:28 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 28.03.2022 um 19:18 schrieb Charles Ellson:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:18:20 +0100, Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 03:08:15 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:23:32 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 22:15:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 21:54:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 20:46:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:53:01 +0100, Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <t1o8bo$p0d$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:41:44 on Sat, 26 Mar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <atoe0djbfzse$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 19:37:01 on Thu, 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:06:55 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I first saw them at scale in a pub which had just reopened with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringent Covid precautions. Tables separated, pre-booked only, one-way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, one person in toilets at a time, table service only etc. It was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not at all clear what protection they gave either the waitresses or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was when we were fed the 'droplets' theory, science is now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reluctantly moving to the aerosol idea where earlier instructions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean surfaces and wash hands have given way to more emphasis on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ventilation and effective masks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose I always did think it was mainly transmitted by the smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> droplets know trendily known as aerosols, rather than spit and sneeze.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still wouldn't want a Covid person to spit in my face though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Breathing in your direction might be worse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2metres, 30 seconds, and both masked, shouldn't be an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, probably not, but nor would spitting in those circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Saliva is generally a far better carrier of infection if it lands on
>>>>>>>>>>>> targer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that's true of Covid? It's an airborne virus.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It isn't just airborne. The virus is present in saliva, mucous and
>>>>>>>>>> other bodily secretions. The difference with saliva (in original form)
>>>>>>>>>> is the practical need for more direct transmission from infection
>>>>>>>>>> source to entry route (e.g. snogging, spitting on target etc.) than is
>>>>>>>>>> needed with aerosols which generally require a relatively longer
>>>>>>>>>> presence to enable infection.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would virus particles present in saliva get into a potential victim's
>>>>>>>>> airway?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your airway starts at your nose and mouth. Coughing and sneezing can
>>>>>>>> cause a heavier and more concentrated stream of saliva than you get
>>>>>>>> with an aerosol.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The virus can spread from an infected person?s mouth or nose in small
>>>>>>>> liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe.
>>>>>>>> Another person can then contract the virus when infectious particles
>>>>>>>> that pass through the air are inhaled at short range (this is often
>>>>>>>> called short-range aerosol or short-range airborne transmission) or if
>>>>>>>> infectious particles come into direct contact with the eyes, nose, or
>>>>>>>> mouth (droplet transmission)."
>>>>>>>> https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A mask wearer is presumably reasonably well protected against droplets
>>>>>>> landing on their mouth or nostrils and then breathing in the particles. Is
>>>>>>> there any evidence that the virus can be transmitted via the eyes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your eyes drain internally to your nose via the nasolacrimal duct;
>>>>>> infection via the eye itself is less common. Eye protection is
>>>>>> standard kit for ambulance and first aid personnel dealing with
>>>>>> potential COVID patients.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that precaution based on actual evidence of risk from Covid, or simple
>>>>> (sensible) caution all infections?
>>>>>
>>>> The eye and associated areas have been regarded as a viable route of
>>>> infection for over a century :-
>>>> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/220430
>>>>
>>>>> One thing we do know is that a lot of the often misinformed
>>>>> Covid precautions have at least protected against other illnesses in the
>>>>> last two years. For example, all that hand sanitisng didn't do much to
>>>>> block Covid but probably reduced food poisoning.
>>>>>
>>>> Without experimenting you have no proof for that. COVID was known to
>>>> persist longer on non-absorbent surfaces (e.g. handrails, door handles
>>>> etc.) while alcohol is efficient in destroying membranes that hold
>>>> viruses together as well as being a long-proven general antiseptic.
>>>
>>> I'm asking what actual research has been done about how Covid is spread. Or are they just assuming it's similar to other
>>> diseases (when we know it's not)?
>>>
>> There is plenty of research material available but as a novel disease
>> it is currently more heavily based on observation and experience.
>>>
>>>> Hand sanitising doesn't work when people don't practise it and I have
>>>> been around long enough to see that there are plenty of people who are
>>>> best described as selfish filthy bastards when it comes to considering
>>>> community hygeine.
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree that hand sanitising is good for public health, but just question whether it does much to slow the spread
>>> of Covid specifically. Has anyone done any actual research? They certainly hadn't when the advice was first given.
>>>
>> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/897598/S0574_NERVTAG-EMG_paper_-_hand_hygiene_010720_Redacted.pdf
>>
>> Note that it can be inferred that standard door handles on
>> manually-opened doors, supermarket trolley/basket handles etc. are an
>> infection risk which simultaneous use of sanitisation should be
>> effective against.
>
>Wait a second: "hand sanitation is effective in reducing respiratory
>diseases". This is *not* research specific to COVID.
>
>My understanding is that in early 2020, hand hygiene was one of the
>"obvious things to do that might reduce transmission" but that by
>mid-2020 still there was no evigence of hand hygiene having an impact on
>transmission of COVID.
>
>Out of the three known pathways of transmitting respiratory diseases
>(smear infection via hand - eye or hand - mouth, droplet infection and
>aerosol infection) it is clear that for COVID, the dominant way of
>transmission is aerosol infection; it is not measurable whether smear
>infection is relevant for 10% of the infections, for 0.1% of infections
>or not at all.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 18:32:28 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:53:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:53:01 +0100, Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <t1o8bo$p0d$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:41:44 on Sat, 26 Mar
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <atoe0djbfzse$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 19:37:01 on Thu, 24
>>>>>>>>> Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:06:55 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I first saw them at scale in a pub which had just reopened with
>>>>>>>>>>> stringent Covid precautions. Tables separated, pre-booked only, one-way
>>>>>>>>>>> system, one person in toilets at a time, table service only etc. It was
>>>>>>>>>>> not at all clear what protection they gave either the waitresses or
>>>>>>>>>>> customers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was when we were fed the 'droplets' theory, science is now
>>>>>>>>>> reluctantly moving to the aerosol idea where earlier instructions to
>>>>>>>>>> clean surfaces and wash hands have given way to more emphasis on
>>>>>>>>>> ventilation and effective masks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suppose I always did think it was mainly transmitted by the smaller
>>>>>>>>> droplets know trendily known as aerosols, rather than spit and sneeze.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still wouldn't want a Covid person to spit in my face though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Breathing in your direction might be worse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2metres, 30 seconds, and both masked, shouldn't be an issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, probably not, but nor would spitting in those circumstances.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Saliva is generally a far better carrier of infection if it lands on
>>>>> targer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure that's true of Covid? It's an airborne virus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's definitely present in saliva, because the tests I used to do through
>>> work just required a spit sample.
>>>
>>
>>I know, but the question is whether it can be transmitted that way?
>>
>You will have a hard time finding respiratory tract infections which
>cannot be transferred via saliva but it will depend on the degree of
>presence of the infection in the saliva. Even organisms such as HIV
>which is regarded as practically intransmissable via saliva are not
>totally impossible to transmit, especially if e.g. the potential
>transmission route is compromised by skin breaches, sores, gum/dental
>imperfections etc.

It sounds like the Covid transmission advice is based on zero actual research, and is very likely wrong.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 12:39:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 13:27:41 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <kjcm3hpkbjgcv7cbmjo0k7k118f006k2bs@4ax.com>, at 14:56:58 on
>>>> Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Masks stop droplets, which is almost irrelevant for Covid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They stop 95% of virus sized particulates, too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not most masks. Only a tiny minority of the public, or even hospital staff,
>>>>>>>> wear properly fitted N95 respirator masks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here we go again "properly fitted". Maybe you don't know how to
>>>>>> properly fit one, but others do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? It's not in evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Snip, basic arse-covering advice at about the level of "Pop tarts might
>>>> be hot when heated".
>>>
>>> You, of course, inevitably exhibit perfection, with your professionally
>>> fitted, new N95 masks, worn whenever you're
>>> within sight of members of the public, but you've obviously not noticed
>>> that most members of the public and medical
>>> staff, don't wear N95 masks, and many members of the public didn't cover
>>> their noses (such members of the public have
>>> probably stopped wearing masks at all now).
>>>
>>
>> One thing I read amused me: “seeing how many people wear their masks
>> explains how contraception frequently fails”.
>
> <chuckle>

<https://i0.wp.com/www.techarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Face-Mask-Like-Wearing-Underwear.jpg>

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <jac4suFnbleU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:56:46 on Sun, 27
Mar 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I wonder who will check e-tickets on board if there are no guards? As soon
>>> as those passengers who have a morally ambivalent view about paying realise
>>> what’s going on, then ticket revenues will start to go down…
>>>
>>
>> How many guards actually check tickets on routes with gated stations these
>> days? Don't they just hide in the back cab?
>>
>>
>
>They did a check on the Waterloo-Salisbury service I used last weekend.
>
>Which leads me to a little grumble , there was a queue to get through the
>ticket barriers at Salisbury,
>why ? Because a load of people with their travel tickets held
>electronically on their smartphones did not seem to know how to operate the
>damn things so the gates could accept them, some silly bints were doing a
>version of the supermarket purse surprise when they found they had to
>retrieve them from bags or pockets at the moment they were required rather
>than being prepared before , fortunately the station staff person opened
>the side gate and let those of us with a normal ticket pass
>while giving them a quick glance to clear the backlog.

Queues at barriers are not particularly unusual. At KGX suburban
(platforms 9-10 now) when a departure is announced the typical 10
minutes before, it could be ten-deep cross a dozen gates.

Meanwhile back in Ely (sorry folks) there's just one doorway from
platform to ticket office, and another one doorway to the outside world,
and just people filtering through off a train from London/Cambridge
could take several minutes. Woe betide anyone trying to get *to* the
platform after a train had just arrived.

They are currently in the middle of a refurbishment, which will be
adding ticket gates (we'll have to see what they do about platform
tickets), and hope they've sized it appropriately. I haven't been to
look since they started about a month ago, but at some places like
Grantham, they increase the flow by having a pig-pen of gates using up
some of the ample platform space.
--
Roland Perry

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>. I think I still stand
> by that remark that people divide into two groups, those that have had
> Omicron and those that will get it. As far as I can see the only way of
> avoiding that situation is a permanent lockdown. That’s clearly not
> sustainable. Strangely enough, I’ve so far avoided it, though I’ve had a
> nasty cold.
>

That nasty cold may well have been Omicron, even if you tested negative on
LFTs…

Anna Noyd-Dryver