Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

1283284286288289

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I posted that report a few days ago here and elsewhere, social media censorship has flagged it as "false information".

    So there is still no willingness to admit that the mask mandates were useless!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭dalyboy


    Yeah. (I’m admittedly late to the party haha) I’ve only just saw it last night. Doctor John Campbell has apologised for advocating the masks during the pandemic (that demonstrates rare humility) in the light of the report.

    An amazing scientific study and It’s an outstanding demonstration of base testing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,213 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    You mean the study that was debated here very recently on the thread? I think it's premature (that's a diplomatic word for it) to jump into a thread, ignoring recent posts, demanding apologies and calling the debate closed.

    Here's some of the responses:

    One of studies cited showed there was no benefit if staff in a hospital wore a reusable cloth mask as PPE versus flu.

    We knew that already. How is that relevant to covid mask mandates?

    One of the other studies showed regular mask wearers in Denmark had fewer cases than non mask wearers but due to low level of covid significant case numbers were not hit in the study.

    The advice from health authorities was always not to rely on such masks as PPE.

    Mask mandates were about reducing transmission from an infected person.


    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭dalyboy


    I glanced through this thread and noticed a study was conducted and published and discussed here but was unaware of the magnitude of the study.

    The Denmark “study” you refer to sounds extraordinary vague , so much so that it comes across as here say.

    Have you read the Cochrane report ?

    Where is the ambiguity regarding its findings ?

    Would you be in any way willing at this stage to even slightly pivot your stance in light of these scientifically population wide findings ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,213 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Not in light of these findings no, for the reasons already mentioned on the thread.

    The mask studies referenced in the Cochrane report have almost all been discussed and debated on the thread over its history.

    How about engaging with some of the actual comments discussing the relevance of the Cochrane report to mask mandates, both directly on the thread and in the linked article?

    For example the Denmark study is listed in the Cochrane report. Yet you think it is 'extraordinary vague'. What does that say about the Cochrane report?

    And:

    One of studies cited showed there was no benefit if staff in a hospital wore a reusable cloth mask as PPE versus flu.

    We knew that already. How is that relevant to covid mask mandates?

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    You watched Campbells video on youtube, are you aware that he has been widely discredited and has repeatedly misrepresented data, his opinions are highly suspect.

    The Cochrane review has also been questioned, certainly the validity of it in terms of determining if masks reduce the risk of transmission https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/do-masks-work#%C2%A7then-the-cochrane-review-was-published-and-took-social-media-by-storm



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 74,687 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    TomSweeney threadban lifted



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Great to see the ending of a mandate that was only symbolic at best " to be seen to be doing something", even the article acknowledges that they were mostly a complete waste of time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,213 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    What the article actually says:

    Lead author Dr Ben Patterson said this did not mean masks are worthless against Omicron.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    It's not symbolic, and it's on a case by case basis for hospitals. I suspect many will keep masks as they reduce the spread of (respiratory) diseases that are predominantly spread by aerosols and droplets from the mouth/nose. Which makes sense in a hospital environment.

    On a side note, it's very telling and I'm not the slightest bit surprised to see you also harbour these views.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,075 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    staff might but patients can no longer be forced to.

    Why not until April 19th though?



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,194 ✭✭✭corcaigh07


    The HSE are a law upon themselves, there is no legal requirement to wear a mask in a hospital, right now. They have been playing dress up since the mandate was dropped and we just go along with it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,213 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Does the HSE need such a legal requirement in only to enforce such rules in its own hospitals? I would imagine they are a law unto themselves and do not necessarily need a government mandate in order to require masks, or visitor restrictions etc etc

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Regardless the Cochrane meta study concludes that it could not find any conclusive evidence that masks had any measurable effect in the public realm.

    There were attempts in finding contradictions in that and even claims that this core message of Cochrane was later retracted - which it was not.

    No conclusive evidence could be found.

    Which is not the same as saying masks may not work to some degree in certain scenarios. But it certainly is a far cry from 'masks work, case closed' which seemed to be sponsored consensus in here for a long time. In fact quite the opposite.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    On another side note, I am also not in the least surprised that you are still standing up for the draconian measures that have since been shown to have been mostly useless, like most of the other anticovid measure.

    But anyway, they're soon to be gone! better late than never!



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Wearing masks during a pandemic of a infectious virus is not "draconian", it's basic common sense.

    I suspect many hospitals will probably keep mask rules, to reduce infection within the hospital and to better protect at-risk patients in general.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    Because there was no real downside, and society was taking a swing at a helpful goal.

    The only people who I saw being called arseholes were not those who just happened to not have a mask to hand, but rather it was those who made a grand theatrical production out of a non issue. Those comparing being asked to wear a mask during a pandemic to various massively tragic historical dictatorships.

    There are parallels between covid masks and an authoritatian reign in the same way there are parallels between a kinder egg and dinner at the ritz.

    Everybody above 14 could see those laughably lame parallels and dismiss them.

    It was the ego driven clowns who thought that they alone could see something that nobody else could, and then went on to use this nonsense as their soapbox, that were called arseholes by those few who could be bothered.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    If we were talking about a virus like the "Spanish Flu" or MERS, Ebola etc, then I would agree, but covid was nothing like as deadly for healthy people.

    So I stand by what I said.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    You either did not really look at the Cochrane study or you are incapable of basic comprehension. Do you agree or disagree that masks can reduce the risk of transmission of the Corona virus? Cochrane was looking at 'can a mask protect me', not 'do they reduce the risk of transmission', and even in that limited respect the data it used is still dodgy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,213 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Covid appears to be far more infectious than any of them. Which is why masks were mandated to protect vulnerable people from infectious 'healthy' people.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    Am really glad that masks have done their job reducing the risk of spread of the virus, and helped get us to where we are now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Covid killed over 6 million people in just two years and it's estimated to have killed 80,000 health professionals. The key concern was not so much the deaths, which were still serious, but more the critical strain it was putting on national health systems and staff. ICU's were filling up, city hospitals in certain countries were having to ship patients to country hospitals, in India they ran out of oxygen resulting in deaths.

    You're just looking at the situation now and applying hindsight. In 2020, it was a new disease, it was spreading rapidly and people were dying. We didn't have the information we have now, we didn't have the resistances, we didn't have the vaccines we have now.

    Therefore we took measures, such as masks, which were a no-brainer and a pretty minor inconvenience.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    Jumps for the mask if he thinks there is something floating around that might directly impact him.....claims masks are 'symbolic' if he's happy that he won't get too sick from Covid. Kind of all about you really isn't it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    You must be kidding me. You go to the studie's 'frontpage' and read the clarifying statement by Cochrane's editor in chief and it literally says the exact opposite of what you're throwing at me. That it tried to attempt finding evidence about effects on spread in the public realm and couldn't. But can make no statement about individual effects and risks.

    Next time before you come all high and mighty and pontificate about people's ability for 'basic comprehension' you better get your own in order.

    I mean how did you even get to the conclusion? It makes no sense whatsoever if you think about it for a second even. How could a meta study that essentially collates studies on case spread in masked scenarios vs non-masks scenarios make statements or even attempt to make statements about individual risk? It always had to be about wider effects in the public realm. And then to throw 'comprehension' at me. Some neck on you, I give you that.

    Post edited by CalamariFritti on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    I will ask the same question again that you seem to be avoiding: Do you agree or disagree that masks can reduce the risk of transmission of the Corona virus?

    How did I get to my conclusion? Well it is assessing how effective masks are at preventing infection, not how effective masks are at reducing the risk of transmission. There is a big difference and the main reason I can't understand why people point to Cochrane and say 'masks don't work', most don't even know what they mean when they say 'dont work'.

    Another reason is it is based on Influenza trials, which is a less transmissible virus than Covid so is going to skew the results. A less infectious virus is harder to detect than a highly infectious one. The results are completely different if you remove the influenza trials from the study. Quote from the front page of the study that you read:

    Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19.

    Two is the number, only two of the nine trials were for Covid, and both of those trials are weighted towards reduced risk (a measurable effect). Add in the other seven influenza trials and the overall weight goes down which is what the Cochrane study is concluding. So Cochranes conclusions are heavily weighted to Influenza outbreaks, not a Covid pandemic, two very different scenarios.

    Thats how I got to my conclusion. Happy to hear your thoughts.

    Post edited by Sconsey on


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,213 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    How does the wearing of cloth masks by healthcare support staff to as PPE protection versus flu have anything to say about 'wider effects in the public realm'? It wasnt tracking case spread in the public realm. It wasnt setup to track transmission from infected people which is why masks were mandated.

    Its one of the studies Cochrane included.

    Yet you seem to think that but dont explain how. Or you are deliberately misrepresenting its findings.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    More evidence that mask wearing was pointless in preventing the spread of covid in hospitals, hand hygiene was far more important.

    If virus was present on frequently touched surfaces in the household, contacts were nearly four times more likely to have detectable virus on their hands and 1.7 times more likely to be infected.

    Whole genome sequencing, where possible, confirmed that the household contacts were infected with the same strain, and so likely caught it from each other.

    The team said it showed that frequent handwashing and decontamination of frequently touched surfaces were vital to prevent transmission and that masks were important, not just for stopping airborne spread but for preventing touching of the nose and mouth.

    However, a separate study by St George’s Hospital found that wearing surgical masks in a large London hospital during the first 10 months of omicron made no discernible difference to reducing hospital-acquired Covid infections.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Cochrane wasnt doing anything. It was only collating many studies not all of them with an identical setup. But they collated what they felt was relevant and their methodology is there to see and scrutinise for the whole world as it should be and apart from the resident boards experts I have not heard it being torn apart by their peers. But you know that and just like you always do you want to have the last word and get digs like 'deliberately misrepresenting' however far fetched in.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    You are willfully ignoring the fact that many peers have criticized it, the links are in this thread for feck sake!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    More evidence that mask wearing was pointless in preventing the spread of covid in hospitals, hand hygiene was far more important.

    Way to make up your own headline there...the first study said fomite transmission is a issue, never once mentioned hospitals, in fact it explicitly talks about in the home. But you seem to have decided that the first study relates to the second study. Why did you do that?

    The second study contributor said “That doesn’t mean masks are worthless against omicron, but their real-world benefit in isolation appears to be, at best, modest in a healthcare setting.”

    Again no mention of hand washing, did you need to make up a connection in the two of them to try make your point seem more valid? You should at least mention that you are making great leaps in logic.



Advertisement