This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coronavirus (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
  SW19 CPFC  Addiscombe West 09 Dec 21 1.53am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
Trust what you like pal. Just don't tell people that FFP2 masks significantly reduce the chance of getting Covid. Because they don't. Almost all work is incredibly boring. But face fitting is only a tiny fraction of what I did, and was light relief from some other duties I may have been doing. Just for fun… ‘The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger. There is never a naked virus floating in the air or released by people.’ ‘The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are generally all larger than 1 micron. ‘The N95 filter indeed is physically around the 0.3 micron size. But that doesn’t mean it can only stop particles larger than that. The masks are actually best for particles either larger or smaller than that 0.3 micron threshold. “N95 have the worst filtration efficiency for particles around 0.3. If you’re smaller than that those are actually collected even better. It’s counterintuitive because masks do not work like sieving out larger particles. It’s not like pasta in a colander, and small ones don’t get through.” ‘The COVID-19 virus itself is indeed smaller than the N95 filter size, but the virus always travels attached to larger particles that are consistently snared by the filter. And even if the particles were smaller than the N95 filter size, the erratic motion of particles that size and the electrostatic attraction generated by the mask means they would be consistently caught as well.’ ‘Why do they work better for smaller ones? There are a number of factors at play, but here are two main ones. The first is something called “Brownian motion,” the name given to a physical phenomenon in which particles smaller than 0.3 microns move in an erratic, zig-zagging kind of motion. This motion greatly increases the chance they will be snared by the mask fibers. Secondly, the N95 mask itself uses electrostatic absorption, meaning particles are drawn to the fiber and trapped, instead of just passing through. Although these particles are smaller than the pores, they can be pulled over by the charged fibers and get stuck.’ Ref CDC, Virginia Tech, Harvard etc. But you used to face fit masks occasionally so… And what size are the particles that are potentially the most harmful? Ah yes. Around 20 microns. Feel free to argue against the research, data, science. Wear a properly fitted ffp2 or n95 mask, or better, when in scenarios that require it. It helps. Don’t be a tool.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 09 Dec 21 1.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
Maybe this thread is a protracted, low budget sequel to Ghost where the vaccine has caused so much carnage that Tim is communicating through the spirit world. Thankfully I don't own a pottery wheel. Haha. This would explain a lot.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 09 Dec 21 1.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Vaibow
I think at this stage, those that are happy to continue with this, always will... For me, it's obvious something is not quite right, there is a clear agenda at play here, wether it's corruption and money or a global plot to reshape society, either way, it baffles me to think 2 years later, all the measures and sacrifices and we are in a worse place. it's easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they were fooled, wether it's masks, lockdowns for 2 weeks, jabs (1,2,3 and now 4) and now QR codes. We’re definitely not in a worse place than March 2020. Once this becomes endemic we will be back to normal. Variants of the 1918 flu are still circulating today. But they’re endemic and weaker, part of everyday life. That’s where we’ll get to, and fairly soon. Problem is with the 1918 flu it wasn’t as global an issue. That is exacerbating the whole thing and increasing the longevity of the pandemic phase. Edited by SW19 CPFC (09 Dec 2021 1.59am)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
BlueJay  UK 09 Dec 21 2.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Governments talk to each other and act in unison where they wish to....the whole 'build back better' has been a chorus with little individualism as separate states. No sooner have Austria started mandatory vaccinations we hear the media asking the government about the same here and the government refusing to denial it's under consideration......that's called testing the water....and there are plenty of 'good blokes' like WE ready to clap them on. Damn right I'm suspicious. I guess we will see what comes out of the government over these next few weeks.
I certainly do think that situations like this can be latched onto as an opportunity that can be maintained and used against the people. That's why I see community wide mandatory vaccination as a terrible idea as well as any push to show vaccination status for day to day stuff like going to a pub or restaurant. Maybe in a theoretical scenario where a virus was significantly worse than this, but considering most have been vaccinated and deaths are low there does need to be some perspective on these matters! I tend to think that any further move towards lock-downs will be the straw that broke the camels back. Quote I don't think most infection is happening in supermarkets or such places like that unless it's packed but rather how much social distancing is built into the culture and behaviour If we look at home settings for example where people spend more than a little time interacting and thus gaining viral load how packed and what the attitude is towards personal space is going to matter.
There must be a decent amount of spread in busy bars and so on, but yes likely not so much in large environments like supermarkets in comparison. True on the home front. Sweden appeared to breeze through at times (though they're reintroducing several measures now [Link] ), and many have put that down to their bizarrely low occupancy per house - over half of Sweden's households made up of one person?!. Must be a lonely bunch! Edited by BlueJay (09 Dec 2021 2.22am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 09 Dec 21 2.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Feel free to argue against the research, data, science. Enough with your cold hard facts, who do you think you are! How about just saying stuff. That's real science! Edited by BlueJay (09 Dec 2021 2.18am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Helmet46 Croydon 09 Dec 21 6.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Just for fun… ‘The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger. There is never a naked virus floating in the air or released by people.’ ‘The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are generally all larger than 1 micron. ‘The N95 filter indeed is physically around the 0.3 micron size. But that doesn’t mean it can only stop particles larger than that. The masks are actually best for particles either larger or smaller than that 0.3 micron threshold. “N95 have the worst filtration efficiency for particles around 0.3. If you’re smaller than that those are actually collected even better. It’s counterintuitive because masks do not work like sieving out larger particles. It’s not like pasta in a colander, and small ones don’t get through.” ‘The COVID-19 virus itself is indeed smaller than the N95 filter size, but the virus always travels attached to larger particles that are consistently snared by the filter. And even if the particles were smaller than the N95 filter size, the erratic motion of particles that size and the electrostatic attraction generated by the mask means they would be consistently caught as well.’ ‘Why do they work better for smaller ones? There are a number of factors at play, but here are two main ones. The first is something called “Brownian motion,” the name given to a physical phenomenon in which particles smaller than 0.3 microns move in an erratic, zig-zagging kind of motion. This motion greatly increases the chance they will be snared by the mask fibers. Secondly, the N95 mask itself uses electrostatic absorption, meaning particles are drawn to the fiber and trapped, instead of just passing through. Although these particles are smaller than the pores, they can be pulled over by the charged fibers and get stuck.’ Ref CDC, Virginia Tech, Harvard etc. But you used to face fit masks occasionally so… And what size are the particles that are potentially the most harmful? Ah yes. Around 20 microns. Feel free to argue against the research, data, science. Wear a properly fitted ffp2 or n95 mask, or better, when in scenarios that require it. It helps. Don’t be a tool. It’s all very well to spout scientific facts but there’s this bloke on Facebook who once had a Saturday job in the local chemist and he reckons ………………….. Edited by Helmet46 (09 Dec 2021 6.25am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 09 Dec 21 8.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
The World Health Organisation has announced the number of deaths worldwide from the Omicron variant.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 09 Dec 21 9.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
The World Health Organisation has announced the number of deaths worldwide from the Omicron variant. Seriously? You do realise the only thing that’s relevant here is hospitalisations. Deaths are, and have been, irrelevant for some time. The only reason deaths would become an issue for the government would be because of optics and the media scaremongering. Capacity is the real issue, always has been. It really is that simple As I read it, the jury is still out as to whether Omicron will cause longer term capacity issues or not. Maybe there will simply be a short sharp spike then a quick drop off. Maybe there won’t be and the peak will hit just before the winter peak of early Jan. no one knows. The government are deciding to act preemptively and waiting to see what that peak will be in 2-3 weeks time. Hopefully it will be short sharp and things will be wound back in Jan.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 Dec 21 10.05am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Seriously? You do realise the only thing that’s relevant here is hospitalisations. Deaths are, and have been, irrelevant for some time. The only reason deaths would become an issue for the government would be because of optics and the media scaremongering. Capacity is the real issue, always has been. It really is that simple As I read it, the jury is still out as to whether Omicron will cause longer term capacity issues or not. Maybe there will simply be a short sharp spike then a quick drop off. Maybe there won’t be and the peak will hit just before the winter peak of early Jan. no one knows. The government are deciding to act preemptively and waiting to see what that peak will be in 2-3 weeks time. Hopefully it will be short sharp and things will be wound back in Jan. Yeah, because economically it's only Christmas isn't it. Hell, just lock it all down again....just in case. And I have to say SW for all your research on masks if you actually look at the statistics once they were introduced if anything they had the opposite affect of reducing infections.....probably because people don't wear expensive forms and wearing masks gives more people a false sense of security. As I said, its main use is in visually enforcing the message that it's a dangerous environment when the reality is for most of us it's no more dangerous than before and vulnerable shouldn't be out mixing socially anyway or at least without knowing it's a higher risk for them mask or not. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Dec 2021 10.06am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 09 Dec 21 10.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Yeah, because economically it's only Christmas isn't it. Hell, just lock it all down again....just in case. And I have to say SW for all your research on masks if you actually look at the statistics once they were introduced if anything they had the opposite affect of reducing infections.....probably because people don't wear expensive forms and wearing masks gives more people a false sense of security. As I said, its main use is in visually enforcing the message that it's a dangerous environment when the reality is for most of us it's no more dangerous than before and vulnerable shouldn't be out mixing socially anyway or at least without knowing it's a higher risk for them mask or not. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Dec 2021 10.06am) I did make the point around why real world stats don't reflect the same levels of protection claimed in studies, and most likely never will. But that's not the point – the point is, wear a half decent mask and it's better for yourself and others. If that results in even a 1% reduction of hospitalisation amongst the general population then it's worth it. Just because the Joneses aren't wearing one, or wearing one made out of little Billys old underpants, doesn't mean it's pointless. If you can afford to wear an effective one I see no reason why you would not do so. Yet to hear the logic. Also the point around rising cases when introduced... this makes total sense to me based on the above and previous points around behavioural change – people who don't read or understand (most) treat the mask as some sort of invincibility shield. Behaviour changes as a result, people become more complacent because they feel like it offers total protection (along with the vaccines) and to top it all they're wearing poorly fitted s***ty disposable masks that they wear 100 times instead of once and binning. Outcome? More people mixing irresponsibly thinking what they're wearing offers total protection when actually it offers almost none. Cases rise. Fairly easy to explain, that one. Again, this is entirely anecdotal but the amount of people I see wearing acceptable masks every day on the commute and in supermarkets etc. is around the 20% mark. 80% are persisting with cloth, lycra or whatever s*** they think looks cool or they found on the street. Even more reason to wear a decent one from a personal point of view. As for the behavioural and perceptive side of it, sure, no doubt that is part of the strategy but it's debatable as to whether it's the main strategy – if it is it's not really working anymore, as above. It's also all very well saying the vulnerable shouldn't be out and mixing but there comes a point where people have simply had enough of being told to be at home... you can't just lock up all the elderly and frail indefinitely and tell them to socially distance forever. Also re. lockdown – what would be the reason? There is none. No one is calling for lockdowns. Right now I can't see a scenario where that would be necessary, and if they tried, it would get voted down in parliament. Edited by SW19 CPFC (09 Dec 2021 10.19am)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 Dec 21 10.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
I did make the point around why real world stats don't reflect the same levels of protection claimed in studies, and most likely never will. But that's not the point – the point is, wear a half decent mask and it's better for yourself and others. If that results in even a 1% reduction of hospitalisation amongst the general population then it's worth it. Just because the Joneses aren't wearing one, or wearing one made out of little Billys old underpants, doesn't mean it's pointless. If you can afford to wear an effective one I see no reason why you would not do so. Yet to hear the logic. Also the point around rising cases when introduced... this makes total sense to me based on the above and previous points around behavioural change – people who don't read or understand (most) treat the mask as some sort of invincibility shield. Behaviour changes as a result, people become more complacent because they feel like it offers total protection (along with the vaccines) and to top it all they're wearing poorly fitted s***ty disposable masks that they wear 100 times instead of once and binning. Outcome? More people mixing irresponsibly thinking what they're wearing offers total protection when actually it offers almost none. Cases rise. Fairly easy to explain, that one. Again, this is entirely anecdotal but the amount of people I see wearing acceptable masks every day on the commute and in supermarkets etc. is around the 20% mark. 80% are persisting with cloth, lycra or whatever s*** they think looks cool or they found on the street. Even more reason to wear a decent one from a personal point of view. As for the behavioural and perceptive side of it, sure, no doubt that is part of the strategy but it's debatable as to whether it's the main strategy – if it is it's not really working anymore, as above. It's also all very well saying the vulnerable shouldn't be out and mixing but there comes a point where people have simply had enough of being told to be at home... you can't just lock up all the elderly and frail indefinitely and tell them to socially distance forever. Also re. lockdown – what would be the reason? There is none. No one is calling for lockdowns. Right now I can't see a scenario where that would be necessary, and if they tried, it would get voted down in parliament. Edited by SW19 CPFC (09 Dec 2021 10.19am) For myself, unless it's mandated I socially distance rather than wear a mask as it feels repressive and anti western to me. However I take your points....though I don't see the logic in stopping the young from being infected as not only will it happen regardless but that's how the virus grows weaker and they get stronger immunity....just keep them away from granny. I think for many businesses it's been a lockdown by any other name....for example nightclubs or any other large meeting location. The coercion and requirement messages given out by government are destroying them. I've said previously that the difference between a lockdown like we did and the warnings and messaging by a government like Sweden for example actually results in less of a difference than people would think......The damage done was still dramatic as both methods resulted in similar self censored behaviour. My positions was that restrictions and protections should only have gone out to the elderly and vulnerable and that NHS provision be expanded to fit.....but I realise that this is a very old fashioned view when we clearly can destroy economies with no real concern for the future.....hell, it was fecked a long time ago....lets just carry on fecking it because we gonna love that inflation....nothing ever bad happens from that. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Dec 2021 10.42am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 09 Dec 21 10.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Seriously? You do realise the only thing that’s relevant here is hospitalisations. Deaths are, and have been, irrelevant for some time. The only reason deaths would become an issue for the government would be because of optics and the media scaremongering. Capacity is the real issue, always has been. It really is that simple As I read it, the jury is still out as to whether Omicron will cause longer term capacity issues or not. Maybe there will simply be a short sharp spike then a quick drop off. Maybe there won’t be and the peak will hit just before the winter peak of early Jan. no one knows. The government are deciding to act preemptively and waiting to see what that peak will be in 2-3 weeks time. Hopefully it will be short sharp and things will be wound back in Jan. Seriously? So we close everything down just in case our hospitals have to have patients. Edited by georgenorman (09 Dec 2021 10.42am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.