I have been following this and similar threads for some time. It appears to some extent to have polarised into two opposing groups, namely the ‘we have to react to COVID as far as reasonable group‘ and the ‘live with and accept the consequences group’. I realise that a pragmatic middle course is what the government have attempted to achieve and this is a difficult balance.
It's more nuanced than that. On one hand there are people who want a lot of restrictions on the basis that we must keep Covid cases as low as possible at all costs. On the other side you have conspiracy theoriists and anti-vaxxers.
In the middle you have people who call for more or less restrictions but are accepting some level of endemicity and accepting of some measures, but there is a wide disagreement even between people who see themselves as representative of the 'middle ground'.
As I respect that you have you have done much research and hold strong views could you offer your opinion on the following points that are in my mind.
1. Were the restrictions imposed last year I.e. lockdown and social distancing necessary to save lives without any vaccine or immunity
I do not think a full lockdown was warranted; Sweden did not lock down but had more voluntary measures and they had similar outcomes to us, for example. I believe that lockdowns were done with the intention to eliminate ("beat") the virus, which was never realistic. Some measures were required to avoid a huge peak, but imposing authoritarianism is never the solution.
2. There are still deaths being attributed to COVID, do we know to whether they are in effect the level normally expected at this time of year and if not should we accept them in the greater good. Do you have a view on whether these are actually other causes and not Covid.
Deaths 'within 28 days' of having Covid will include some deaths that are not caused by Covid, though it will also exclude some which are.
In a bad 'flu year, you would see similar numbers dying of 'flu to what we now see from Covid, and the numbers dying of Covid now are vastly lower than the numbers that we'd accept as dying from respiratory viruses (say) 40 years ago.
'Flu levels are low at the moment as it appears to have been pushed out by Covid, possibly due to viral interfearance. The new variant looks set to keep 'flu at bay for the rest of this winter, if predictions come true.
3. do you know whether any risk assessment have been carried out e.g. by Sage or the government comparing the risk of COVID after mass vaccination against the risks to poor mental health and the negative effects on society in general.
I doubt it, and if they were then they were not done satisfactorily. I believe that it was all done on the basis of panic and 'we must do something'.
I am exempt from wearing a face mask and have been pinged as a contact twice since being double vaccinated. On both occasions a lateral flow test has been negative, so this has made me more confident.
Yes being vaccinated does drastically reduce the chances of an infection developing, contrary to what some people claim. And whether or not a flimsy mask is worn is not going to make a difference.
I am reassured by your views and although initially sceptical of face coverings for the reasons expressed in this thread, I kept seeing evidence in apparently credible sources that they do have some impact In reducing transmission.
They are theoretical studies not based on real world experiences. A real world study was carried out (I've linked to it multiple times on the forum) where flimsy loose fitting masks were compared with tight fitting masks that are actually designed to filter virus particles and the difference in effectiveness was absolutely staggering. Flimsy masks failed to stop transmission and resulted in extremely high level of infections, while FFP3 masks were extremely effective.
Comparing a flimsy loose fitting mask with a correctly worn FFP3 mask is like comparing chalk and cheese; the former are not in any way designed to protect anyone against virus transmission.
I would like someone to make clear statement what is really the case but don’t expect this from the government. I believe we can and must get on with life as normal now or we never will.
The Government do not want to tell people about the difference between effective masks vs ineffective masks, because to do so would completely undermine confidence in mask mandates and destroy the entire argument for mandating them. But that's already been discussed in other threads!
Just what are the risks faced by an individual;
going to to a supermarket at a quiet time,
going to the same supermarket at a busy time,
doing those things with or without a facecloth, a level 1, 2 or 3 mask?
If you are in close contact with someone who is infectious, you are protected if you are wearign a tight fitting FFP3 mask. Wearing a flimsy loose fitting mask does not protect you. It's been discussed in other threads; I'll see if I can dig out a link...
Edit: here you go:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...he-mandating-of-their-use.219985/post-5243882
....The question is actually whether standard flimsy masks are effective at preventing transmission.
FFP2/3 masks do prevent virus particles from spreading, I agree.
However the standard flimsy loose-fitting masks that complied with mask mandates do not, according to a member of SAGE:
Dr Colin Axon warned some cloth masks have gaps that are invisible to the naked eye, but are 5000 times the size of viral Covid particles
www.telegraph.co.uk
Robert Dingwall, who is a member of Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M), which reports to Sage, stated:
Experts appear divided on whether people in England should be asked to continue to wear facemasks after July 19.
www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk
A study, reported in this BBC article, found flimsy loose fitting masks did not protect against Sars-CoV-2 infection, whereas FFP3 masks did:
Wearing a high grade FFP3 mask can almost entirely protect health workers from Covid, research finds.
www.bbc.co.uk
The study found high levels of infection with standard masks, which was 47 times higher than when effective masks were worn. Obviously we don't have a 'control group' with no masks, but the results are very damning for the standard, flimsy surgical masks.....