Laurence Fox - New Political Party

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Electro1980 said:

No, it’s being an entitled tt. Apart from anything else it is an insult to those who do live with disabilities that put them in that position. They reduce transmission, improve safety and, in broad terms, save lives. It’s not funny or clever. It’s being obnoxious.

Edited by Electro1980 on Sunday 17th January 19:44

Is there any evidence that masks do any of those things?

[anonymoususer]

Seen quite a few non mask wearing exempt people who think its ok to sit in the do not sit in this seat, seat on buses.
Some of them think that because they get on with their partner/ friend/ whoever it's ok.
Thick tw*ts

[Electro1980]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Electro1980 said:

No, it’s being an entitled tt. Apart from anything else it is an insult to those who do live with disabilities that put them in that position. They reduce transmission, improve safety and, in broad terms, save lives. It’s not funny or clever. It’s being obnoxious.

Edited by Electro1980 on Sunday 17th January 19:44

Is there any evidence that masks do any of those things?

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-face-masks-and-coverings-work-act-now

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-con...

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/why-wear-a-fa...

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/s...

[smn159]

Kawasicki said:

Nope. Even if you have no knowledge in a field, you have every right...etc

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it's a fallacy that everyone's opinion is equally worth of consideration - particularly if it's based on ignorance of the subject.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Electro1980 said:

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-con...

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/why-wear-a-fa...

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/s...

Again, any evidence that masks do anything?

[Kawasicki]

smn159 said:

Kawasicki said:

Nope. Even if you have no knowledge in a field, you have every right, obligation almost, to question the science. If the science is sound the data will convince, and not just selected data. That’s the scientific process. It doesn’t require expertise to understand. If a scientific expert can’t state his case honestly, including his doubts, then he’s not acting scientifically... he’s not actually a scientist.

What was it someone ones said...

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it's a fallacy that everyone's opinion is equally worth of consideration - particularly if it's based on ignorance of the subject.

I didn´t write that everyone´s opinion is equally worthy of consideration, so that´s a straw man argument. I said everyone has a right to question scientific findings. If the supporting data is clear...i.e. the earth is round...then it is easy to convince an inquiring/sceptical mind. If the data isn´t clear, then the scientist should say that, express all doubts...etc.

[Electro1980]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Electro1980 said:

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-con...

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/why-wear-a-fa...

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/s...

Again, any evidence that masks do anything?

Not sure what you are finding so ambiguous about the statement “ The evidence is clear that people should wear masks to reduce virus transmission and protect themselves, with most countries recommending the public to wear them” or “ research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus”.

Edited by Electro1980 on Sunday 17th January 22:13

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Electro1980 said:

Not sure what you are finding so ambiguous about the statement “ The evidence is clear that people should wear masks to reduce virus transmission and protect themselves, with most countries recommending the public to wear them”

I'm asking what this evidence is. A series of links to opinion pieces doesn't cut it. Of the links you posted which one do you think gives the best evidence that the general public wearing masks reduces overall deaths?

[Electro1980]

Every single one cites the evidence. If you want to go trawling through the journal papers feel free, but I prefer to let others do that.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Electro1980 said:

Every single one cites the evidence. If you want to go trawling through the journal papers feel free, but I prefer to let others do that.

Well I'm one of those does that, and I don't see any of them as citing any strong evidence on an initial look. So as you seem pretty convinced about the benefits of mask wearing and claim this to be based on evidence, can you cite any actual evidence that masks save lives?

[johnboy1975]

Electro1980 said:

Every single one cites the evidence. If you want to go trawling through the journal papers feel free, but I prefer to let others do that.

Masks seem to have worked for flu. Why were they specifically, scientifically and repeatedly branded a waste of time over the last 100 years?

Re covid, can't an infected person breathe on a measuring device with and without a mask, and then check the readings? At least so you can say 2m with no mask equals 1m with a mask (etc)

But I dont recall mass outbreaks in supermarkets pre masks. Therefore I think they are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. And any fractional benefit is immediately lost by the quality of the mask, the way it is handled (on/off) and repeat use of old masks. The very reasons in fact why they weren't mandated in March

Edited by johnboy1975 on Sunday 17th January 22:59

[poo at Paul's]

He’s just a lying, attention seeking, bellchop.
He lost the plot well before covid. Ignore him, he’s irrelevant.

[Drumroll]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Well I'm one of those does that, and I don't see any of them as citing any strong evidence on an initial look. So as you seem pretty convinced about the benefits of mask wearing and claim this to be based on evidence, can you cite any actual evidence that masks save lives?

So let's turn this around why don't you site some actual scientific evidence that clearly states that masks are of no use?

[Murph7355]

Drumroll said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Well I'm one of those does that, and I don't see any of them as citing any strong evidence on an initial look. So as you seem pretty convinced about the benefits of mask wearing and claim this to be based on evidence, can you cite any actual evidence that masks save lives?

So let's turn this around why don't you site some actual scientific evidence that clearly states that masks are of no use?

I don't believe any exists. But I don't think any decent evidence exists either way in all of this. From the first link posted as the key summary points:

• Cloth face coverings are effective in reducing source virus transmission, i.e., outward protection of others, when they are of optimal material and construction (high grade cotton, hybrid and multilayer) and fitted correctly and for source protection of the wearer.
• Socio-behavioural factors are vital to understanding public adherence to wearing face masks and coverings, including public understanding of virus transmission, risk perception, trust, altruism, individual traits, perceived barriers.
• Face masks and coverings cannot be seen in isolation but are part of ‘policy packages’ and it is imperative to review interrelated non-pharmaceutical interventions in tandem including hand hygiene, sanitizers and social distancing when maintaining the 2 metre or 1 metre+ distancing rule is not possible.
• Consistent and effective public messaging is vital to public adherence of wearing face masks and coverings. Conflicting policy advice generates confusion and lack of compliance. Populations without a previous history of mask wearing have rapidly adopted face coverings during the COVID-19 period.

Cases don't seem to have become any better since the mask gambit was introduced. Of course it could be that they'd have been even worse without masks. We will never know.

Key issues with masks for me

• "Optimal material" doesn't seem to be a universal consideration
• Nor does "construction"
• Nor does "fitted correctly"
• The second bullet from the article is key to me though. People wearing them, anecdotally IME, seem less bothered about social distancing rules. They also seem to be constantly touching their faces and then goods in supermarkets etc

I comply with the rules. It's no big deal for the rare occasions the rules apply to me. And there will never be any reliable evidence to prove things conclusively either way. I can see how they could be effective. Equally I can see how they could lead to issues. On balance I think they're a waste of time. But hopefully they'll only be mandated for a finite amount of time. Those that want to continue, can. Those that don't, shouldn't have to.

I think the govt would have been better served sticking to the 2m SD, "get your hygiene in order" and "self-isolate" messages all the way through. But we are where we are.

[JagLover]

Murph7355 said:

Key issues with masks for me

• "Optimal material" doesn't seem to be a universal consideration
• Nor does "construction"
• Nor does "fitted correctly"
• The second bullet from the article is key to me though. People wearing them, anecdotally IME, seem less bothered about social distancing rules. They also seem to be constantly touching their faces and then goods in supermarkets etc

I comply with the rules. It's no big deal for the rare occasions the rules apply to me. And there will never be any reliable evidence to prove things conclusively either way. I can see how they could be effective. Equally I can see how they could lead to issues. On balance I think they're a waste of time. But hopefully they'll only be mandated for a finite amount of time. Those that want to continue, can. Those that don't, shouldn't have to.

I think the govt would have been better served sticking to the 2m SD, "get your hygiene in order" and "self-isolate" messages all the way through. But we are where we are.

Yes

In theory, in a lab setting, a mask made of the right material and fitted correctly probably does reduce infection. In the real world people are reusing masks, constantly touching and adjusting them and often not wearing them correctly. I often have to loosen up mine, for example, so that I can see. They also encourage people to ignore social distancing.

So simply saying THE SCIENCE says you should wear a mask is ignoring the difference between lab and real world. I doubt it will make much difference in the end. I wear mine because otherwise I would have people tutting at me but I don't think for a second that this would be over any quicker if everyone wore masks.

This will only be over when enough people have immunity, whether by infection or vaccination, to put SAGE back in their box.

[768]

Drumroll said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Well I'm one of those does that, and I don't see any of them as citing any strong evidence on an initial look. So as you seem pretty convinced about the benefits of mask wearing and claim this to be based on evidence, can you cite any actual evidence that masks save lives?

So let's turn this around why don't you site some actual scientific evidence that clearly states that masks are of no use?

We tend to have evidence for something. Proving a lack of evidence, a negative, is usually not the way to go.

[Electro1980]

768 said:

Drumroll said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Well I'm one of those does that, and I don't see any of them as citing any strong evidence on an initial look. So as you seem pretty convinced about the benefits of mask wearing and claim this to be based on evidence, can you cite any actual evidence that masks save lives?

So let's turn this around why don't you site some actual scientific evidence that clearly states that masks are of no use?

We tend to have evidence for something. Proving a lack of evidence, a negative, is usually not the way to go.

This isn’t asking for a negative, it’s asking for trials, like the ones cited, that show that face coverings are not effective. I can show you peer reviewed papers that show that astrology and homeopathy do not work, which is exactly the same kind of negative result.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Drumroll said:

So let's turn this around why don't you site some actual scientific evidence that clearly states that masks are of no use?

As 768 notes it makes more sense to try and prove that something does work than to try and disprove an assertion with no evidence. However the lack of any clear drop in infections associated with the introduction of masks in July is a start. The first study Electro posted also find that:

The Science said:

A recent study identified 10 RCTs that examined the effectiveness of facemasks on reducing influenza virus infection in the community from 1946-201811. The study did not distinguish estimates by the type of mask but did examine masks in combination with hand hygiene. The RCTs were heterogeneous across community settings ranging from Hajj pilgrims, university and households settings. In a pooled meta-analysis, the authors conclude that there was no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks

Yet bizarrely go on to say we should all wear masks anyway.

[768]

Electro1980 said:

This isn’t asking for a negative, it’s asking for trials, like the ones cited, that show that face coverings are not effective. I can show you peer reviewed papers that show that astrology and homeopathy do not work, which is exactly the same kind of negative result.

Please do, I'd be interested in seeing the approach.

[Brave Fart]

Drumroll said:

So let's turn this around why don't you site some actual scientific evidence that clearly states that masks are of no use?

For the eleventy billionth time, the government should not be mandating something in law that, you know, might work, maybe, in theory, but no-one can prove it. Recommend mask wearing? OK. But to make it law is quite simply wrong in my view. Proof before legislation, I say.

I get the impression that some folk would like to see a law passed that made the clutching of a bulb of garlic mandatory, because Matt Hancock reckons it might just work. After all, no big deal, right?