To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Nope they didnt.

For starters the covid situation between 2020 and 2022 had changed dramatically due to variants and vaccines and therefore how many severe cases derive from widespread transmission. You ignore all of that.

When mask mandates were brought in we had had months of pubs were shut and we have restrictions on movements. Such measures were all part of WHO pandemic plan not merely aping China. All of this was not done for control as an end in itself but out of a sincere basis that it would reduce spread of covid. It was not done just in Ireland. Politicians were listening to the advice of their health authorities. It was not some political solo run by Irish politicians.

It was an emergency as we saw in Wuhan and Italy. The ambulances were at the gate. In the UK estimates were that tens of thousands of lives could have been saved by earlier lockdown.

Your attempt at revisionism is therefore wrong on basic timelines and facts.

Therefore to present this as 'needing to control' is just conspiracy theory dog whistling.

Right, why do politicians all over the world want to make us wear masks during a pandemic if there's no reason for it? e.g. I'm a politician, I want to make my constituents wear masks, why exactly..

How are these views any different from Alex Jones low-brow views that all politicians are cartoon villains who want to make us wear masks to "control us".

So far, seems identical to me. As mentioned a lot of anti-maskers seem to have these strange views.

Like many people I don't like wearing a mask either, but I don't feel the need to invent some big conspiracy about being persecuted. That's silly stuff.

If you don't want to be compared to people like Alex Jones, then I suggest not repeating his conspiracy views verbatim. Simply an observation.

First of all, that is not the conspiracy that was being alleged in the present discussion which was about control as an end in itself. So I've no idea what strawman conspiracy you've invented to argue against.

Second of all, nope he doesn't say that. I have the article in front of me and nowhere does he say that.

Find us the exact quote where he says the whole response was anti science and inhumane.

Nowhere does he say that masks were inhumane or anti science in the version I am reading.

Or accept you are dishonestly and deliberately misrepresenting his views.

How about you present the parameters for an ethical real world RCT in a pandemic that would generate this data.

Large peer reviewed studies have not confirmed mask mandates were of no benefit. Point us to the particular study which demonstrates this if you dispute this.

The closest that was put together was the study from Bangladesh with masks and social distancing which showed a clear reduction in cases with only a modest adoption of them - both of which Cormican takes an issue with.

We don't have the 'clear' data you seem to think is required for public health decisions and such decisions that were taken such as banning smoking in pubs did not rely on RCTs. RCTs are not actually typically relied upon for such decisions because of the difficulty of assessing 'indirect' impact.

If NPHET was wrong about the mask mandate then so were the health authorities of every other country in Western Europe (except Sweden) and in most of the rest of the world!

Why ?

Your statement here says it all....

They're a hateful burden, and I don't care about any science or statistics around them.

It is a combination of hyperbole and ignorance of the facts. Just because you dont care about the facts, thankfully the vast majority do and will follow public health guidance when asked.

I think that masks, restrictions and Tony Holohan are all fantastic .

Its proof of no such thing... as explained below.

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.

That does mean they dont help to reduce transmission from an infected person.

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/do-masks-work

If you are getting a bus everyday your number will eventually come up.

Different odds if you have vulnerable people needing to access essential services occassionally during a breakout.

And measures like masks and distancing improve those odds.

Effectively useless?

Or very limited effect?

In the same post you cant even keep your story straight and resort to strawman argument to have to make your case.

Rather important everybodys number didnt come up at the same time. And bought time to rollout vaccines etc

So nope. No point proven.

And you feel qualified to state that like its a fact, yes?

No. Mask mandates were never about direct protection of the wearer by non respirator masks. It was always stressed you should not rely on them as PPE. This has been pointed out dozens of time on the threads from the when mandates were first brought in here.

For much of the pandemic there was a shortage of respirator type masks and priority for them was as PPE for health care workers.

Mask mandates were about limiting droplets FROM an infected person. Masks as barriers not PPE.

:D :D :D :D !! John Campbell!!! again not a reliable source for anything but misinformation and misinterpretation.

Why not take a look at the flaws in the Cochran report while you are at it

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/i/101670953/then-the-cochrane-review-was-published-and-took-social-media-by-storm

And other experts in the field have produced the study.

Thanks and yes I do know that it is a meta study or a compilation if you like.

But IMO we're really back to the same old argument. If an iron clad mask benefit could be derived from studies then this would have happened. But we're still in the same ballpark, may have, may not have. The case for masks just was never strong enough IMO for the pro-mask fraction to claim 'masks work, case closed'. We've seen it from the start when it went 'masks won't work' then 'masks work'. It was never like 'seatbelts work' or 'not smoking helps' or anything like such a case closed thing, not even remotely.

One way or the other thats still the same thing I'm getting from this. And considering such weak evidence it never justified the boohaa that was made about them. Never mind mandates.

I disagree tbh. There was a very strong political element to the mandate and then to the debate about them too. And like it is every time when politics gets involved things get murky and dogmatic. Before we knew it people who questioned were branded selfish and deniers and Trumpists and off we went. Which was a hallmark of all things covid. You either followed unquestionably or you were one of them arseholes, very polarised in no time.