Gove told porkies about PPE

[Thomas]

as for vaccines.............

New ONS data shows no statistical evidence that having one vaccine more than 180 days ago, a second Pfizer vaccine 91 to 180 days ago, or a third vaccine more than 90 days ago affected a person's likelihood of testing positive for covid 19




https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveycharacteristicsofpeopletestingpositiveforcovid19uk/30march2022

[Thomas]

Masks against covid have never been fit for purpose. They're only suitable down to bacteria levels and not viruses.

The facemaks in use in the yookay ( paper/cloth in general) were so ineffective at stopping the spread of covid that several european countries like germany banned them and enforced the use of n95 masks.

I think much of this is common knowledge now , but i supposed they served a purpose for the over the top hysterical in giving them a comfort blanket placebo to go about their daily business "feeling "safe , so from that point of view i suppose it could be pointed out it was a success .

i suppose western governments have finally come to the conclusion unless you want to lock down people forevermore , eventually you have to face the music and let the infection run through the community.

That apperently is what appears to be happening , with allegedly 5 million yookay inhabitants walking about with covid 19 , but only 350 in ICU with it.

I think eventually we will look back on this period and see it for what it was , but by then the fall out and recriminations will be pointless.

[patman post]

Masks against covid have never been fit for purpose. They're only suitable down to bacteria levels and not viruses.

During the pandemic, I've been accused of being a lock-down junkie, government stooge, scaremonger, etc.

But as part of my work over the past two years, I have been involved in sifting through much Covid information, recommendations, regulations, responsibilities, etc, and giving input to action plans devised for our consultancy's clients which have altered as more info became known.

So at the risk of being accused of preaching the bleedin' obvious, this is a synopsis of the info I've taken on board and, together with conversations with my mother who's been nursing in the NHS throughout the pandemic, explains my views on Covid protection.

I guess the widespread questioning and distrust over the establishment's "anti-Covid" measures and recommendations has been helped by the fact that none of them are a 100% certain block or magic bullet.

And the initial dismissal of Covid's seriousness and admin cock-ups and wrong calls by govt and officials haven't helped get effective info across.

Plus, of course, depending on the health of the individual involved, one, some or all of the measures may have no effect whatsoever.

Nevertheless, Hands/Face/Space has always been a sensible mantra for helping to deal with seasonal transmissible outbreaks. Fresh air and avoiding crowded enclosed spaces helps too.

Curfews and lockdowns that stop people mingling, reduce the opportunities for viruses to spread.

Masking the nose and mouth helps reduce the area that exhaled infected droplets spread. Covering the nose and mouth (and eyes) can also reduce wearers' uptake of infected droplets.

Vaccines and their delivery have been the great success story. They've proved up to 90% effective, but their effectiveness diminishes over time. Second, third, and fourth doses are required to maintain protection — and annual vaccination programmes are likely from 2023 on.

But, like other measures, vaccination may only reduce the severity of symptoms and not 100% protect against catching Covid. Vaccination also helps stop Covid sufferers from passing on the infection. This is why it's now recommended that even 5 year-olds are vaccinated if they have contact with elderly people or anyone with compromised immunity — although they themselves are unlikely to suffer severely from Covid.

Apologies if this is boring, but I assure you it's all gleaned from authoritative and official sources...

[Thomas]

Masks against covid have never been fit for purpose. They're only suitable down to bacteria levels and not viruses.

Another covid domino that fell by the wayside. The fantasy protection of a feeble cloth/paper mask.

Next up ..... who thought it a good idea to vaccinate 5 year olds from a virus with a average death age of 83?

[Borchester]

Masks against covid have never been fit for purpose. They're only suitable down to bacteria levels and not viruses.

That is true. It is a bit like Doc Boone telling everyone that he wants hot water, lots of hot water. Alright if he wants to boil the baby, but otherwise the real point is to give folk something to do, as with masks and keeping two metres apart.

[Benson]

Masks against covid have never been fit for purpose. They're only suitable down to bacteria levels and not viruses.

[Streetwalker]

He's a tory and  tells pokies because he is a bit of a tit 

[papasmurf]

https://fullfact.org/health/covid-ppe-procurement-use/

On the Today programme, Michael Gove claimed that 97% of PPE procured during the pandemic was "ready, fit-for-purpose and there on the front line."

A spokesperson for the Department for Health and Social Care told Full Fact that 97% of PPE items by item count, procured in the 2020/21 financial year, were usable.
However, this is incorrect because not all of these items were "fit-for-purpose" or "on the front line".
The spokesperson told us the remaining 3% which wasn't usable corresponds to the £0.67 billion of PPE described in the department's annual report as equipment "which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective."
This doesn't include £2.6 billion of PPE which was deemed "not suitable for use within the health and social care sector", and so couldn't reasonably be described as being "fit-for-purpose" (insofar as it was procured for health and social care workers). 
Nor could it be described as "there on the front line", as Mr Gove said. The department noted that while this equipment "might be suitable for other uses[...] these potential other uses are as yet uncertain".
An additional £0.75 billion of PPE was said to be "in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed."
In total this amounts to a third of the £12.1 billion that was spent on pandemic-related PPE in England in the 2020/21 financial year. 
Mr Gove's claim related to item count, rather than the value of items. It is not clear how many individual items of PPE this £4 billion equates to.
Full Fact approached Mr Gove for comment on his claim, but had not received a reply at time of publication.