Jump to content

  • OVF player sponsorship 2022

    £10 to enter. More details and a link to donate can be found here

Coronavirus


robf

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, leedsvaliant said:

For every report like this (conducted under specific conditions and modelled in the main, not real world), there are a number of reports that counter this argument.

LV, note the use of the word "Preponderance" by the authors and other reviews of the general literature have said the same.

The review covers controlled and "Real world conditions" as the authors wouldn't have been able to make the statement, "We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation".

5 hours ago, leedsvaliant said:


Perhaps the best argument against masks is that they bear no correlation to the outcomes of those countries that have either used them or not, as highlighted in the recent comparison between England and Wales. If they made a difference there would be clear correlation between mask wearing and more positive outcomes.

Can you put a bit meat on that bone cause there are so many variables in comparisons between countries as to render them virtually worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


Can you put a bit meat on that bone cause there are so many variables in comparisons between countries as to render them virtually worthless.
'Real world conditions' does not mean real world unfortunately. You can't possibly legislate for the type of mask people are wearing, how they wear it, when they wear it, whether it fits properly etc.

In terms of comparisons, I agree that there are a lot of variables. However, compare Wales to England, similar genetic makeup, similar behaviours, similar rules other than the fact that Wales kept their mask mandate in place, yet had more infections per 100,000 population than England. The variable was the masks which clearly had no effect.

Really, that's the only way you can judge effectiveness of masks. Did they make a difference to the figures? In some of the strictest mask mandate countries in the world, they did not.

Again, I will say they are a minor imposition, so not worth getting worked up about. It's what they represent that troubles me.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, leedsvaliant said:

'Real world conditions' does not mean real world unfortunately. You can't possibly legislate for the type of mask people are wearing, how they wear it, when they wear it, whether it fits properly etc.

In terms of comparisons, I agree that there are a lot of variables. However, compare Wales to England, similar genetic makeup, similar behaviours, similar rules other than the fact that Wales kept their mask mandate in place, yet had more infections per 100,000 population than England. The variable was the masks which clearly had no effect.

Really, that's the only way you can judge effectiveness of masks. Did they make a difference to the figures? In some of the strictest mask mandate countries in the world, they did not.

Again, I will say they are a minor imposition, so not worth getting worked up about. It's what they represent that troubles me.

 

LV, As far as the safety of masks are concerned it's a personal preference but I prefer to base my actions on the abundance of evidence from studies done around the world, see the section on "Population Impact" in the review I quoted, that population-level studies of the impact of wearing masks suggest that mask use may have been an important driver of differences in SARS-CoV-2 outcomes in different regions. These outcomes are in line with models that predict substantial population level impacts of widespread mask use. Perhaps the Welsh study is an outlier.

 Also the review quotes studies which show laboratory evidence that ordinary household masks have filtration capacity in the relevant particle size range,  as well as efficacy in blocking aerosols and droplets from the wearer so helping people keep their SAR-Covid-2 laced emissions to themselves.

So evidence from the lab to the general population does support masks do help block the transmission of the virus.

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/129615/e2014564118.full.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/12/2021 at 22:41, Jacko51 said:

I have made over 20 masks.  Each one has had two layers of close woven cotton fabric with a layer of heavy duty interfacing between.  Much better than those useless blue things and far prettier!  They also fit better round the face.

Suppose you have to do something, when you are stuck in Harrogate 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



LV, As far as the safety of masks are concerned it's a personal preference but I prefer to base my actions on the abundance of evidence from studies done around the world, see the section on "Population Impact" in the review I quoted, that population-level studies of the impact of wearing masks suggest that mask use may have been an important driver of differences in SARS-CoV-2 outcomes in different regions. These outcomes are in line with models that predict substantial population level impacts of widespread mask use. Perhaps the Welsh study is an outlier.
 Also the review quotes studies which show laboratory evidence that ordinary household masks have filtration capacity in the relevant particle size range,  as well as efficacy in blocking aerosols and droplets from the wearer so helping people keep their SAR-Covid-2 laced emissions to themselves.
So evidence from the lab to the general population does support masks do help block the transmission of the virus.
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/129615/e2014564118.full.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


It's all models and predictions though isn't it and 'studies'? Laboratory evidence isn't real world, you can't rely on controlled studies to replicate the real world. The real world evidence suggests there is no correlation between mask wearing and positive outcomes. You would have thought there would have been clear correlation but there isn't.

There's equally abundant evidence that they don't work too by the way. Also evidenced by virtually the entire scientific and medical community until June 2020. It's an airborne aerosol virus that travels through the air in microscopic particles that would easily penetrate any home made or single ply mask. Like throwing marbles at scaffolding, some will hit the posts but most will get through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


20 hours ago, leedsvaliant said:

It's all models and predictions though isn't it and 'studies'? Laboratory evidence isn't real world, you can't rely on controlled studies to replicate the real world. The real world evidence suggests there is no correlation between mask wearing and positive outcomes. You would have thought there would have been clear correlation but there isn't
 

No it is not, the review is a summary of the literature available to June 2020 covering laboratory work, randomized controlled trials and community/country wide data. The article has been published in PNAS which is peer reviewed by experts in the field.

I'm unsure where you get your facts from LV but just read the abstracts from the two original papers below (Reviewed in the PNAS review) which show there is a beneficial effect from mask wearing in mommunities. The scientists in this field and others most probably have a different definition to the phrase "Real World" than you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7695060/

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

20 hours ago, leedsvaliant said:

There's equally abundant evidence that they don't work too by the way. Also evidenced by virtually the entire scientific and medical community until June 2020. It's an airborne aerosol virus that travels through the air in microscopic particles that would easily penetrate any home made or single ply mask. Like throwing marbles at scaffolding, some will hit the posts but most will get through.

The PNAS review I posted was of the literature until June 2020  and it clearly says, "The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high". However, there are papers out there that say masks show no benefit.

That's not to say that because there are more papers saying masks are beneficial that masks are indeed beneficial but when you read about particle sizes that masks can stop (In the review) and all the supporting information etc then it does tend to make sense and suggest that masks are beneficial.

The work cited in the review about various masks and transmission of particle sizes doesn't agree with what you've posted, it summarizes there is laboratory-based evidence that household masks have filtration capacity in the relevant particle size range, as well as efficacy in blocking aerosols and droplets from the wearer (67). That is, these masks help people keep their emissions to themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



The PNAS review I posted was of the literature until June 2020  and it clearly says, "The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high". However, there are papers out there that say masks show no benefit.
That's not to say that because there are more papers saying masks are beneficial that masks are indeed beneficial but when you read about particle sizes that masks can stop (In the review) and all the supporting information etc then it does tend to make sense and suggest that masks are beneficial.
The work cited in the review about various masks and transmission of particle sizes doesn't agree with what you've posted, it summarizes there is laboratory-based evidence that household masks have filtration capacity in the relevant particle size range, as well as efficacy in blocking aerosols and droplets from the wearer (67). That is, these masks help people keep their emissions to themselves.


However you look at it, these are not real world evidence. They're controlled with no understanding of human element. I have posted before the many real world analysis which show masks have very little effect outside of laboratory or clinical settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, leedsvaliant said:

However you look at it, these are not real world evidence. They're controlled with no understanding of human element. I have posted before the many real world analysis which show masks have very little effect outside of laboratory or clinical settings.
 

 

LV, Please post links to the articles you refer to above,.

The PNAS article is a comprehensive review of the literature to June 2020 and appears widely cited in the literature, it does cover studies done in the community under non-controlled conditions as well as controlled and laboratory studies.

This review below updated to the present day on the CDC website on "Community Use of Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2" is about as comprehensive as I've seen and it concludes that mask wearing is beneficial.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

 

 

 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



LV, Please post links to the articles you refer to above,.
The PNAS article is a comprehensive review of the literature to June 2020 and appears widely cited in the literature, it does cover studies done in the community under non-controlled conditions as well as controlled and laboratory studies.
This review below updated to the present day on the CDC website on "Community Use of Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2" is about as comprehensive as I've seen and it concludes that mask wearing is beneficial.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
 
 
 

 
 


I have seen many of the examples that this study cites . Most, if not all, fall into the correlation not causation category. It's like saying that if I wear garlic around my neck in the car then I won't have an accident. Nobody can prove that it isn't the garlic and not the fact that I'm a careful driver or some other reason.

Here is quite a comprehensive list of different studies.



One interesting point is that the WHO admitted to the BBC that no new evidence had come to light with regards masks but they were recommended due to 'political lobbying '.

Further down the article, there is also a rebuttal to some of the studies which claim to show mask effectiveness.

Why do you think the entire consensus of the scientific and health community changed literally overnight? From Public Health England to the WHO, mask wearing was indeed thought to cause more issues than they solved. It's not like they had suddenly checked to see if masks worked, studies had been undertaken before and the worldwide consensus was that they would be useless outside of a controlled setting.

Like I said, they are a token gesture, a signal that the government is doing 'something'. There has been no significant difference in infection rates in any country that has mandated them more than others.

If you can't see how controlled conditions are different to Aunty June making a mask on her sewing machine then I don't think you're ever going to be convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


3 hours ago, leedsvaliant said:


 

 


I have seen many of the examples that this study cites . Most, if not all, fall into the correlation not causation category. It's like saying that if I wear garlic around my neck in the car then I won't have an accident. Nobody can prove that it isn't the garlic and not the fact that I'm a careful driver or some other reason.

Here is quite a comprehensive list of different studies.

 

 

 

 


One interesting point is that the WHO admitted to the BBC that no new evidence had come to light with regards masks but they were recommended due to 'political lobbying '.

Further down the article, there is also a rebuttal to some of the studies which claim to show mask effectiveness.

Why do you think the entire consensus of the scientific and health community changed literally overnight? From Public Health England to the WHO, mask wearing was indeed thought to cause more issues than they solved. It's not like they had suddenly checked to see if masks worked, studies had been undertaken before and the worldwide consensus was that they would be useless outside of a controlled setting.

Like I said, they are a token gesture, a signal that the government is doing 'something'. There has been no significant difference in infection rates in any country that has mandated them more than others.

If you can't see how controlled conditions are different to Aunty June making a mask on her sewing machine then I don't think you're ever going to be convinced.

 

 

 

 

Talk about overnight...the conclusion section on the CDC sites many studies which find that masks are generally beneficial and every one of them is done in 2020 or later, most are done in early 2020. As you say a lot of the studies are basically useless.

 

It just doesn't pass the <ovf censored> test, as with much of the stuff we've been fed in the last 18 months to 2 years. We know the virus particles are smaller than the holes in the masks that everyone wears. We know that masks have not prevented spikes anywhere in the world. We even know that double and treble vaccinations AND masks don't prevent spikes.

Yet a collection of random studies and "models" with garbage sample sizes and methodology that appear simultaneously, I'd have had a field day in a level sociology talking about how biased some of the ones I clicked on were and I was honestly crap in sociology.

 

I think the world leaders all knew based on existing science that masks were useless - they even told us that at first. They needed something to justify removing restrictions in the summer and so settled on masks. Whether it was to give the people a bit of confidence to get out and spend some money, or give the Government a measure that they could point to and show that were acting decisively...or both. I don't know, but what I do know is, that it makes zero sense that material with massive holes in it, compared to the virus particles, can stop the virus particles passing through the massive holes. This is one reason I don't use my sieve as an umbrella. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s all just one big conspiracy according to some  
You see, this is the issue we have. Anyone who disagrees with the actions taken in the last 2 years is labelled a conspiracy nutter. Such has the propaganda been so effective. Terms like 'covidiot' don't get formed by accident. Some of the world's most eminent health experts and scientists have also been completely trashed for daring to have an opinion different to the narrative.

It's no conspiracy theory for me. It's simply the combination of an unreliable test, poor and inaccurate modelling, only listening to one side of the 'science ' and governments worldwide hugely over reacting to all of the above for fear of getting blamed.

That some people have been so blinded by the emotional argument of 'but people have died!' is very difficult to overcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about overnight...the conclusion section on the CDC sites many studies which find that masks are generally beneficial and every one of them is done in 2020 or later, most are done in early 2020. As you say a lot of the studies are basically useless.
 
It just doesn't pass the test, as with much of the stuff we've been fed in the last 18 months to 2 years. We know the virus particles are smaller than the holes in the masks that everyone wears. We know that masks have not prevented spikes anywhere in the world. We even know that double and treble vaccinations AND masks don't prevent spikes.
Yet a collection of random studies and "models" with garbage sample sizes and methodology that appear simultaneously, I'd have had a field day in a level sociology talking about how biased some of the ones I clicked on were and I was honestly crap in sociology.
 
I think the world leaders all knew based on existing science that masks were useless - they even told us that at first. They needed something to justify removing restrictions in the summer and so settled on masks. Whether it was to give the people a bit of confidence to get out and spend some money, or give the Government a measure that they could point to and show that were acting decisively...or both. I don't know, but what I do know is, that it makes zero sense that material with massive holes in it, compared to the virus particles, can stop the virus particles passing through the massive holes. This is one reason I don't use my sieve as an umbrella. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This is exactly right. Yet many people don't even question it. They just accept 'the science '. I didn't realise how many people in this country lacked critical thinking. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when you look at what the most popular TV shows are.

Why is nobody questioning the predictions and modelling presented by sir Whitty (ha!) and Vallance or SAGE which predicted impending doom and up to 5000 deaths a day by now. They keep getting away with it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


36 minutes ago, leedsvaliant said:

You see, this is the issue we have. Anyone who disagrees with the actions taken in the last 2 years is labelled a conspiracy nutter. Such has the propaganda been so effective. Terms like 'covidiot' don't get formed by accident. Some of the world's most eminent health experts and scientists have also been completely trashed for daring to have an opinion different to the narrative.

It's no conspiracy theory for me. It's simply the combination of an unreliable test, poor and inaccurate modelling, only listening to one side of the 'science ' and governments worldwide hugely over reacting to all of the above for fear of getting blamed.

That some people have been so blinded by the emotional argument of 'but people have died!' is very difficult to overcome.

Labelling anybody who doesn't agree with you "emotional" is exactly the same as what you complain of here. People can't make rational decisions when in highly emotional states and that is what you are suggesting every time someone doesn't agree with you. So if someone doesn't agree with you then they mustn't be in a fit state of mind to make a correct judgement is basically how you come across. Slightly hypocritical given your stance wouldn't you say? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Playa Amodores said:

I apologise if someone has already made this point as the thread is very long. Serie A players have to be vaccinated to play after 10/1/22. Is this the way forward.?

Vaccination is the way forward. My mother is currently in Dougie Mac hospice with stage 4 lung cancer and a few days ago caught COVID in there. Without vaccinations she would not be here and she is currently making a recovery from COVID with oxygen and round the clock care.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labelling anybody who doesn't agree with you "emotional" is exactly the same as what you complain of here. People can't make rational decisions when in highly emotional states and that is what you are suggesting every time someone doesn't agree with you. So if someone doesn't agree with you then they mustn't be in a fit state of mind to make a correct judgement is basically how you come across. Slightly hypocritical given your stance wouldn't you say? 
No, because labelling someone as a conspiracy theorist is essentially saying that they are lying. This is emotional v rational. Both sides could claim to be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    • Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please - Contact us here
    • If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here
    • Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here
  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...