washman3 wrote: » Go on roundabouts all you like but the figures are there. Mask wearing over the last few weeks has not decreased cases. The cases have actually increased. I want you to explain that. Forget this 'Meat Factory' bluff. All the meat factories were operating during the lockdown. And there were just as many house partys during the lockdown than there are now. Nowhere did i claim that masks increased transmission. But the evidence is there, cases are up. Explain why.!!
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » we're not wearing masks to decrease cases, we're wearing them minimize the risk of infecting the elderly and people at risk in spaces where social distancing is difficult.
washman3 wrote: » I know exactly what they are. Have been wearing them for years on end at work. Safely can say that i may know more about them than many here. When i hear someone suggest that a piece of cloth covering your nose and mouth will prevent a virus one millionth of a millimeter from passing through, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Forget about this 'virus in droplet guff..!! The only mask that may be in any way viable is the surgical type used in operating theatres, but those are only effective in such environments, which are sterile and single use only. Do you ever see a surgeon wearing one walking around a hospital. Would love to check and see what some of you folks round here were 'experts' on a year ago....;)
lee_baby_simms wrote: » But in June a number of cherry picked observation studies apparently proved that masks reduce the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 40%.https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13319/face-masks-considerably-reduce-covid-19-cases-in-germany-a-synthetic-control-method-approach When you look at the graphs of countries that introduced mandatory masks there is absolutely no impact on the falling trends. In fact its actually the opposite now, detected cases are going up in the majority of regions where masks are mandatory. I'm not really interested in arguing about masks, I'm happy to wear one if it allows business to open and life to get back towards normal, but the science is so weak on them and looking at real world data the impact of them has been negligible.
Sconsey wrote: » There is tonnes of scientific evidence, studies and published papers that say the opposite. I think your understanding of the science is weak.
lee_baby_simms wrote: » A trial with no controls or one that is observational is inherently weak. There has been 12 RCTs on masks within healthcare environment and real world since 2010 and they all indicate that outside of a medical environment they are ineffective in controlling spread of influenza. These trials involved a total randomised denominator of 13,259 participants. The torrent of “evidence” that suddenly appeared in June is dominated by studies that either lack controls or are observational in nature. Again, I’ll wear a mask in the shops but if people think masks are saving lives or even making even a measurable impact on spread then they’re deluded.
3wayswitch wrote: » When you touch an item and put it in your trolley, you only touch it for a brief period of time before you put in into your trolley and then the cashier only touches it for a few seconds while scanning it. Presumably you have also sanitized your hands while going into the store which should make it safer for both of you to touch your items. The risk here is minimal. With cash however there are a lot of unknowns. Has the person been holding their coins in the hands for the past 30 mins before coming into the store? Has the person been storing their cash somewhere where they should like their bra where it might get exposed to sweat? (yes I have seen this happen in person). One contaminated coin in a cash register could contaminate other coins which then get handed out to multiple people. While I wouldn't consider money to be a high risk source of infection, it's easy to see why it would be a higher risk than the items in your shopping trolley. If a single life could be saved by asking people to try using their credit cards instead of cash, then I think it's worth it.
CalamariFritti wrote: » I am. Maybe impressed is too strong a word but at least it shows there are still people out there who can put 1 and 1 together and dont arrive at 3.
odyssey06 wrote: » How do you suggest we have a controlled experiment for coronavirus with human participants, when we don't have a vaccine? All the data we have is going to be observational re: this virus.
lee_baby_simms wrote: » I agree completely. I just often wonder why suddenly masks became mandatory in June along with a flood of observational studies despite clear evidence for years that they're not effective outside of a hospital. What was proved was that n95 masks that are worn correctly do work within a clean, healthcare environment. I'm fairly sure a filthy cloth mask in Tesco wouldn't be as effective.
lee_baby_simms wrote: » I think if they allow businesses to open and they make people feel more comfortable in public then I'm more than happy to wear it.
lee_baby_simms wrote: » I agree completely. I just often wonder why suddenly masks became mandatory in June along with a flood of observational studies despite clear evidence for years that they're not effective outside of a hospital. What was proved was that n95 masks that are worn correctly do work within a clean, healthcare environment. I'm fairly sure a filthy cloth mask in Tesco wouldn't be as effective. Again I promised myself I wouldn't go down the mask rabbit hole, its just a big distraction. I think if they allow businesses to open and they make people feel more comfortable in public then I'm more than happy to wear it.
i_surge wrote: » None of this evidence exists and is countered by the huge differences between countries that wore masks early and countries who didn't.You are telling bare faced lies
arccosh wrote: » how do you deal with anti maskers who suggest youtube videos so I "educate myself", when I have decided to wear a mask because I have read journals and papers by virologists and respitory consultants who have swayed my opinion to wear it... But yet, I am following main stream media by doing so, and not when I watch a suggested youtube video of prefiltered content?
odyssey06 wrote: » "They let anyone put up crap on Youtube." "There's no peer review process on Youtube." "Youtube? Corporate giant... whats their angle." Depending on the audience...
CalamariFritti wrote: » I dont understand this kind of language. You have no way of knowing what you're saying is true. Conclusively you cannot accuse anyone who says the opposite of being a liar. Yet you come out here with the strongest language. Makes your argument look very weak. Doesnt do you personally any favours either.
i_surge wrote: » I do know One statement is so easily refuted by the evidence available that it shows the other to be a lie. Simple. . I am human, i might be wrong, but it is unlikely in this case.
odyssey06 wrote: » I think your radar might be a bit off in this specific instance. The poster in question is looking for a level of evidence (RCT) that is appropriate usually when discussing medical matters. Given the stakes and urgency of the current crisis, and the lack of vaccine to allow RCTs we have to rely on observational evidence, case studies, lab studies. Also for many public health measures RCTs are not feasible. So my view it is reasonable for eg CDC to base measures on such data.
GT89 wrote: » The same youtube that removed Dave Cullen's interview with Delores Cahill
GT89 wrote: » Simple continue to wear your mask and ignore what others are saying if you don't agree with what they are saying. I don't have a problem with other people choosing to wear masks I just don't want to wear myself. We should be allowed make choices.
SeaBreezes wrote: » But you DO have a choice, shop online, stay home. Sorted.
GT89 wrote: » Or simply not wear a mask and go to shop no one has the balls to say anything
