The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[G STAR RAM]

12 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Yes, I thought you'd prefer the 5% figure quoted from a "Gold Standard" study of a range of research reports that covered 1M people as reported in the Daily Mail to the peer-reviewed article in the scientific journal that studied 20M people and reported much higher figures of infection reduction depending on specific scenarios and mitigating factors. There have also been other comprehensive studies that showed that wearing masks in Covid infected households reduced further transmission by 70%, so the "conclusive study" that the Mail are trumpeting is a dubious claim. Before getting fully behind the Mail's conclusions, you may also want to read the qualifying note from the Cochrane Institute's own website report on their study : 

The effectiveness or otherwise of masks is a different issue though, surely, to the impact of the pandemic on childrens development, because that would have happened in one way or another regardless of whether school been closed and children been required to wear masks, unless you believe that teacher shortages through more and longer sickness absences etc, and possibly greater numbers of fatalities amongst their family, friends and teachers, would have had little impact.

And I thought you'd prefer to use a source that supports your view...

I'd have thought infections being at their highest when mask wearing was also at its highest were also a good indication of their effectiveness...

 

[maxjam]

4 hours ago, Crewton said:

As a comparison, here's a scientific study of 20m users across 6 continents:-

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2119266119

The conclusions here are that N95 masks when used properly and comprehensively reduced the spread of infection by 65-70%, but it acknowledges that comprehensive mask-wearing is almost impossible to achieve in a public setting because of "human behavioural factors". 

It's only ever been about reducing the viral load that people are exposed to and masks are more effective at stopping the user spreading the load around than stopping all the load from a non-mask user getting through. 

 

From that report...

'In the context of healthcare, N95 masks (as defined by ref. 3) work well when worn properly by trained users'

'However, the effect of mask wearing in small-scale community settings is more difficult to detect.'

Who wore a N95 mask?  Most people wore those crappy ill-fitting blue ones or a piece of fabric.  I bought a snood ffs and probably only wore that half a dozen times.

[Crewton]

21 minutes ago, maxjam said:

From that report...

'In the context of healthcare, N95 masks (as defined by ref. 3) work well when worn properly by trained users'

'However, the effect of mask wearing in small-scale community settings is more difficult to detect.'

Who wore a N95 mask?  Most people wore those crappy ill-fitting blue ones or a piece of fabric.  I bought a snood ffs and probably only wore that half a dozen times.

Well, colour me surprised ? 

Who wore an N95 mask? Anyone who wanted/needed to travel once it became possible again, and anyone who wanted the best available mask for everyday use when they became generally available. 

 

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

And I thought you'd prefer to use a source that supports your view...

I'd have thought infections being at their highest when mask wearing was also at its highest were also a good indication of their effectiveness...

 

All that indicates is that infection rates were exceptionally high amongst people who didn't wear masks and those unfortunate enough to come into contact with them. The two factors are not concentric. 

[Stive Pesley]

From the report

"Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions."

That doesn't seem to have stopped the Daily Mail from framing it as such

But actually - the key bit of the report is the last line

"There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs" 

Quite why we've been through all of this and there still haven't been any large, well-designed studies to put the debate to bed is pretty disgraceful really. Not least because it perpetuates the unbearable bickering

PS - my friend's Dad died of Covid last week, so it's not gone away

 

[Crewton]

16 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

my friend's Dad died of Covid last week, so it's not gone away

Condolences to your mate and yourself - one of my mates lost his Dad to Covid last January. He was a bull of a man before he got ill. He survived the Covid infection itself but never got his strength or mobility back and died a few weeks later.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

All that indicates is that infection rates were exceptionally high amongst people who didn't wear masks and those unfortunate enough to come into contact with them. The two factors are not concentric. 

Does it? Or is that just your conclusion?

 

[Archied]

Got a problem with insects in our garden , im thinking of putting some railings up

[Crewton]

49 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Does it? Or is that just your conclusion?

 

There's a lag between infection and a Covid diagnosis. Reported infections rise and some people are concerned enough to start wearing masks who weren't wearing masks previously, pushing the figures for mask-wearing higher. In the meantime, infections continue raging amongst the non-mask wearers and those who aren't following best practice guidelines or who mask wearers who have non-mask wearers living/working/travelling with them.

It's not rocket-science, youth - it's virology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, Crewton said:

There's a lag between infection and a Covid diagnosis. Reported infections rise and some people are concerned enough to start wearing masks who weren't wearing masks previously, pushing the figures for mask-wearing higher. In the meantime, infections continue raging amongst the non-mask wearers and those who aren't following best practice guidelines or who mask wearers who have non-mask wearers living/working/travelling with them.

It's not rocket-science, youth - it's virology.

You could have just said that its your conclusion rather than fact.

People started wearing masks in March/April of 2020, infections were at their highest in December 2020/January 2021, thats one hell of a lag.

[Carl Sagan]

Unless I've missed it, no one seems to have actually linked to the Cochran Library study on mask wearing:

The summary is at: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

The full 300+ page report is at https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/epdf/full

It's a shame the evidence isn't more solid, but it's the best that can be done and this is almost certainly the most comprehensive assessment of mask-wearing globally. The concusion is mask wearing doesn't appear to have an effect. I wish this was seen as a less political conclusion and everyone could get on with their lives without the mask-wearing, but sadly this has been politicized and some people are still terrified of leaving their houses if people aren't wearing masks. Governments and media need to take a long hard look at themselves.

[ramit]

8 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Unless I've missed it, no one seems to have actually linked to the Cochran Library study on mask wearing:

The summary is at: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

The full 300+ page report is at https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/epdf/full

It's a shame the evidence isn't more solid, but it's the best that can be done and this is almost certainly the most comprehensive assessment of mask-wearing globally. The concusion is mask wearing doesn't appear to have an effect. I wish this was seen as a less political conclusion and everyone could get on with their lives without the mask-wearing, but sadly this has been politicized and some people are still terrified of leaving their houses if people aren't wearing masks. Governments and media need to take a long hard look at themselves.

More importantly, people need to take a long hard look at governments and media.

[Crewton]

On 05/02/2023 at 19:08, G STAR RAM said:

You could have just said that its your conclusion rather than fact.

People started wearing masks in March/April of 2020, infections were at their highest in December 2020/January 2021, thats one hell of a lag.

End of lockdown > "Eat out to help out" > back to school > infections increase > people got casual about mixing again > antimasker belligerence > pre-vaccine roll-out > R rate got out of hand again > Boris "save Christmas!" ? 

The start of mask wearing and lockdown is what stopped the peak occurring in May/June. 

 

 

[Stive Pesley]

12 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

The concusion is mask wearing doesn't appear to have an effect

No it isn't though is it? You've linked to the study and yet misrepresent the conclusion.

From the text - they are specifically saying that the data is too poor quality to draw firm conclusions, so it's disingenuous to make the statement you did.

 

Quote

Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

 

 

[Anon]

44 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

No it isn't though is it? You've linked to the study and yet misrepresent the conclusion.

From the text - they are specifically saying that the data is too poor quality to draw firm conclusions, so it's disingenuous to make the statement you did.

 

 

 

Just in case you're not aware Stive, sections of the author's conclusion don't simply cease to exist when you choose not to highlight them.

"The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks."

13 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Unless I've missed it, no one seems to have actually linked to the Cochran Library study on mask wearing:

The summary is at: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

The full 300+ page report is at https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/epdf/full

It's a shame the evidence isn't more solid, but it's the best that can be done and this is almost certainly the most comprehensive assessment of mask-wearing globally. The conclusion is mask wearing doesn't appear to have an effect. I wish this was seen as a less political conclusion and everyone could get on with their lives without the mask-wearing, but sadly this has been politicized and some people are still terrified of leaving their houses if people aren't wearing masks. Governments and media need to take a long hard look at themselves.

Now, given that Carl is hardly using definitive language here and a sentence saying that mask wearing doesn't appear to have and effect is literally in the conclusion, I'd like to know where you get off calling someone else disingenuous.

[Archied]

I believe To make mask’s mandatory the way they were including kids in schools you really need the studies to show very very clearly that they are having a very noticeable big effect , they are and we’re not , a bit of gappy paper or cloth is not going to stop a common cold type virus ,in fact I would think a hanky works better and that’s before we even consider the harms they cause ,

I have always believed that short of never stepping outside of a plastic bubble everyone is going to get it and get it again over and over , the real issue is finding out how best to treat those who it effects very very badly and perhaps why it effects some people very badly , beyond weight and existing poor health,

we can bang on for ever but I truly believe the covid response was beyond reason and the damage caused to the population is and will be beyond measure , of course others disagree and that’s they’re right ??‍♂️

Edited February 7, 2023 by Archied

[Crewton]

Here's a review of the review, just for balance, like :

https://theconversation.com/yes-masks-reduce-the-risk-of-spreading-covid-despite-a-review-saying-they-dont-198992

[Carl Sagan]

4 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Here's a review of the review, just for balance, like :

https://theconversation.com/yes-masks-reduce-the-risk-of-spreading-covid-despite-a-review-saying-they-dont-198992

But this isn't for balance. You get the might of the Cochran Library telling how it is, who make it their business to produce definitive reports based on meta analysis, and then these handful of holdouts saying the issue with a meta analysis is you can't compare apples with oranges. Really? You think the scientists doing their Cochran report meta analysis don't know that?

What you are doing is exactly the same as the BBC who will bring in someone to deny climate change is happening to debate a climate scientist "in the interests of balance". Just stop it.

[Crewton]

11 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

But this isn't for balance. You get the might of the Cochran Library telling how it is, who make it their business to produce definitive reports based on meta analysis, and then these handful of holdouts saying the issue with a meta analysis is you can't compare apples with oranges. Really? You think the scientists doing their Cochran report meta analysis don't know that?

What you are doing is exactly the same as the BBC who will bring in someone to deny climate change is happening to debate a climate scientist "in the interests of balance". Just stop it.

I previously posted a link to a far more comprehensive scientific study than any of those that the Cochrane Institute included in their own study. Have a read of that, for your own benefit. 

And don't ever presume to tell me what to do. 

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, Anon said:

Just in case you're not aware Stive, sections of the author's conclusion don't simply cease to exist when you choose not to highlight them.

"The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks."

Now, given that Carl is hardly using definitive language here and a sentence saying that mask wearing doesn't appear to have and effect is literally in the conclusion, I'd like to know where you get off calling someone else disingenuous.

Well nice try - and the sentence you highlight is the crux of it I know. That sentence clearly says that the evidence they collected shows that there was no clear reduction.

Simple. Well it's simple if you are simple and/or you really desperately want to have your bias confirmed.

The fact that the sentence in question is surrounded by all the caveats and disclaimers (almost as if that's why I highlighted them...) that are at great pains to point out that the evidence they collected is really poor quality and  "hampers drawing firm conclusions", leaves them with "limited confidence", the true effect "may be different" etc etc

Carl - a scientist -  likes to portray himself as the cleverest man in the room, I know -  so I thought it was only fair to point out that it's plain wrong for him to post a comprehensive, respected scientific report and then misrepresent the conclusion

That's all