Coronavirus - Data Analysis Thread
Discussion
spikyone said:
RSTurboPaul said:
No specific data analysis, but a small quiz about some charts that is interesting 
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
It's not that interesting. It's very clearly anti-restriction propaganda, intended to make you question the need for restrictions by presenting partial facts and taking advantage of misconceptions.https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
The UK mask mandate, for instance, was a risk mitigation measure introduced around the time that our economy re-opened. Masks weren't introduced to bring infection rates down, they were used to reduce the likelihood of virus spread when we were allowed to go back to non-essential shops and restaurants. So naturally the data doesn't show that masks brought rates down. It does show that rates didn't immediately spike once the economy reopened though, which given the high transmissibility of Covid might suggest that masks were effective.
Similarly the "which US states introduced strict lockdowns" doesn't account for factors such as population density and distribution.
havoc said:
I politely disagree.
Jut because there are strong differences of opinion, doesn't make each opinion equally valid. Take anti-vaxxers vs medical professionals, for example. There is a gulf between them, but which do you think has the more solid basis for their argument?
Masks are an emotive issue (they are a representation of state control/repression of the individual, to some), and they've suffered from the usual social-media s
t-stirring that everything gets nowadays. But the science is crystal clear - worn properly*, masks contribute a significant reduction in the propensity to spread viruses and bacteria. I personally think they'd be a great permanent addition to (in particular) the London Underground, buses/trains and shops.
* And that is the problem - too many idiots / those deliberately playing games.
Yowzers thank fJut because there are strong differences of opinion, doesn't make each opinion equally valid. Take anti-vaxxers vs medical professionals, for example. There is a gulf between them, but which do you think has the more solid basis for their argument?
Masks are an emotive issue (they are a representation of state control/repression of the individual, to some), and they've suffered from the usual social-media s
t-stirring that everything gets nowadays. But the science is crystal clear - worn properly*, masks contribute a significant reduction in the propensity to spread viruses and bacteria. I personally think they'd be a great permanent addition to (in particular) the London Underground, buses/trains and shops.* And that is the problem - too many idiots / those deliberately playing games.
k you aren't in charge.TX.
havoc said:
Elysium said:
RSTurboPaul said:
No specific data analysis, but a small quiz about some charts that is interesting
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
I think that’s an interesting way to challenge preconceptions about masks. https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
Carl Heneghan of CEBM made a great point in a recent interview, noting that the strong differences of opinion on masks essentially tells us that we don’t have enough evidence that they achieve anything.
Jut because there are strong differences of opinion, doesn't make each opinion equally valid. Take anti-vaxxers vs medical professionals, for example. There is a gulf between them, but which do you think has the more solid basis for their argument?
Masks are an emotive issue (they are a representation of state control/repression of the individual, to some), and they've suffered from the usual social-media s
t-stirring that everything gets nowadays. But the science is crystal clear - worn properly*, masks contribute a significant reduction in the propensity to spread viruses and bacteria. I personally think they'd be a great permanent addition to (in particular) the London Underground, buses/trains and shops.* And that is the problem - too many idiots / those deliberately playing games.
Heneghans argument was that the simple reality that the world is divided over the efficacy of masks is a solid indicator that we lack the evidence to robustly prove their effectiveness.
If we had it, there would be no debate. At least no reasonable debate.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
My question was in relation to the quiz which was questioning whether masks had an effect last summer, before any hint of a vaccination etc but I do appreciate the point. I’d rather the spreader next to me had a covering over their mouth and nose than did not, and I’m sure we all would.PS Do you wear a seatbelt while travelling in a car? It’s inconvenient and uncomfortable and statistically you’re not going to crash etc etc etc. If I’m driving, I’d rather the person behind me was wearing a seatbelt just in case. Masks are a pain in the arse but I think that, on the balance of probabilities and perhaps close to beyond reasonable doubt, they have allowed us to be more free than we otherwise might have been.
simoid said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Citation needed?
If you were sitting next to someone with covid, would you rather they had a covering over their mouth and nose, or not?Take one example.
No mask worn - exhales large droplet containing Covid virus that immediately heads towards the ground
Waring a mask - same size droplet containing Covid virus gets caught in the mask and with an average of 15 breaths a minute droplet soon gets aerosolised and is now small enough to float around in the air and will follow the route other air is taking when exhalation occurs.
Ashfordian said:
Unless they have stopped breathing, what difference would it make?
Take one example.
No mask worn - exhales large droplet containing Covid virus that immediately heads towards the ground
Waring a mask - same size droplet containing Covid virus gets caught in the mask and with an average of 15 breaths a minute droplet soon gets aerosolised and is now small enough to float around in the air and will follow the route other air is taking when exhalation occurs.
Citation needed?Take one example.
No mask worn - exhales large droplet containing Covid virus that immediately heads towards the ground
Waring a mask - same size droplet containing Covid virus gets caught in the mask and with an average of 15 breaths a minute droplet soon gets aerosolised and is now small enough to float around in the air and will follow the route other air is taking when exhalation occurs.
Yeah I’ve not really thought about masks in the present moment, I suppose I’m just acclimatised and as I say I’m basing my protection/seatbelt comparison from before test and trace was fully working(!). I think we have to assume there were a lot more cases floating about unnoticed than there are now in very low prevalence.
In Scotland we get cases split into neighbourhoods of around 4k people and my neighbourhood, and the neighbouring dozen or so neighbourhoods, have barely had a case for months.
Can’t wait to burn all my masks but I don’t disagree with the reasons we’ve had them on last summer. They’re a right pain in the arse under my helmet when I’m driving...
In Scotland we get cases split into neighbourhoods of around 4k people and my neighbourhood, and the neighbouring dozen or so neighbourhoods, have barely had a case for months.
Can’t wait to burn all my masks but I don’t disagree with the reasons we’ve had them on last summer. They’re a right pain in the arse under my helmet when I’m driving...
Elysium said:
I think you have misunderstood the point. I didn't make any comment about the validity of different opinions.
Heneghans argument was that the simple reality that the world is divided over the efficacy of masks is a solid indicator that we lack the evidence to robustly prove their effectiveness.
If we had it, there would be no debate. At least no reasonable debate.
My disagreement was aimed at Heneghan, not you.Heneghans argument was that the simple reality that the world is divided over the efficacy of masks is a solid indicator that we lack the evidence to robustly prove their effectiveness.
If we had it, there would be no debate. At least no reasonable debate.
As for evidence...can I present the last several decades of hospital staff. Simple 3-layer masks are worn by everyone in an operating theatre, to prevent the spread of bacteria to an open wound. That's been known about for probably 100+ years, and has been mandatory since...well, before any of our time.
Now, before there's an argument about Covid, I'll grant you that viruses are an order of magnitude smaller. But the saliva droplets that carry the virus, mostly, aren't. So they get caught, and by extension so does the virus, which without moisture dries out (& thus dies out) really quickly in air (hence why being outside doesn't need a mask - even a light breeze will evaporate / disperse saliva droplets very quickly.
I'd also point, culturally, to Japan/Korea/Taiwan, where mask-wearing in public was widespread and very common practice years ago...and (alongside robust track-and-trace processes), this prior behaviour is considered to be one of the key reasons why they've seen far lower rates of contagion than the West. It was just seen as common courtesy to your fellow 'man' not to breathe any germs you may have over him/her...
havoc said:
Elysium said:
I think you have misunderstood the point. I didn't make any comment about the validity of different opinions.
Heneghans argument was that the simple reality that the world is divided over the efficacy of masks is a solid indicator that we lack the evidence to robustly prove their effectiveness.
If we had it, there would be no debate. At least no reasonable debate.
My disagreement was aimed at Heneghan, not you.Heneghans argument was that the simple reality that the world is divided over the efficacy of masks is a solid indicator that we lack the evidence to robustly prove their effectiveness.
If we had it, there would be no debate. At least no reasonable debate.
As for evidence...can I present the last several decades of hospital staff. Simple 3-layer masks are worn by everyone in an operating theatre, to prevent the spread of bacteria to an open wound. That's been known about for probably 100+ years, and has been mandatory since...well, before any of our time.
Now, before there's an argument about Covid, I'll grant you that viruses are an order of magnitude smaller. But the saliva droplets that carry the virus, mostly, aren't. So they get caught, and by extension so does the virus, which without moisture dries out (& thus dies out) really quickly in air (hence why being outside doesn't need a mask - even a light breeze will evaporate / disperse saliva droplets very quickly.
I'd also point, culturally, to Japan/Korea/Taiwan, where mask-wearing in public was widespread and very common practice years ago...and (alongside robust track-and-trace processes), this prior behaviour is considered to be one of the key reasons why they've seen far lower rates of contagion than the West. It was just seen as common courtesy to your fellow 'man' not to breathe any germs you may have over him/her...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This is my home county of Shropshire (and surrounding areas) as of 13th May
I posted the same image on the local FB group, you know, just to add some positivity. Reactions included:-
FB said:
they havent reported any here. but with things lifting its only a matter of time
andFB said:
In the last 7 days, 31 people have tested positive for Covid in Telford & Wrekin, a increase of 29.2% from the seven days previous to that.
What can you do?Ashfordian said:
simoid said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Citation needed?
If you were sitting next to someone with covid, would you rather they had a covering over their mouth and nose, or not?Take one example.
No mask worn - exhales large droplet containing Covid virus that immediately heads towards the ground
Waring a mask - same size droplet containing Covid virus gets caught in the mask and with an average of 15 breaths a minute droplet soon gets aerosolised and is now small enough to float around in the air and will follow the route other air is taking when exhalation occurs.
no mask worn you get very small vapour particles and the spread from a person not wearing a mask is significantly than someone thats not wearing a mask. now that has been proven.
you know those pesky peer researched reports....
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC71912...
Update on excess deaths following yesterdays ONS report:
1. Week 18 was the tenth consecutive week where deaths were on or below the 5 year average. Deaths have been at lower than normal levels since late February. Week 18 is artificially low due to the early May bank holiday, but deaths 'due to COVID' account for just 1.27% of all deaths that week. As in previous weeks around 30% of COVID deaths that were reported were not 'due to' COVID:
2. This compares ONS 'due to' COVID deaths to excess deaths. Confirming that deaths have been at or below normal levels since Wk 9.
I find it extraordinary that anyone could look at this data and conclude that we are currently in any sort of emergency. I appreciate that things might begin to change as we lift of restrictions. But that in itself is not a coherent argument for restrictions to be maintained.
1. Week 18 was the tenth consecutive week where deaths were on or below the 5 year average. Deaths have been at lower than normal levels since late February. Week 18 is artificially low due to the early May bank holiday, but deaths 'due to COVID' account for just 1.27% of all deaths that week. As in previous weeks around 30% of COVID deaths that were reported were not 'due to' COVID:
2. This compares ONS 'due to' COVID deaths to excess deaths. Confirming that deaths have been at or below normal levels since Wk 9.
I find it extraordinary that anyone could look at this data and conclude that we are currently in any sort of emergency. I appreciate that things might begin to change as we lift of restrictions. But that in itself is not a coherent argument for restrictions to be maintained.
ruggedscotty said:
do me a favour - piost up a link to the report that gives information on this as iot would be a good read, mind a peer researched and fully investigated report that can confirm that this is the case... or rather... it isnt...
no mask worn you get very small vapour particles and the spread from a person not wearing a mask is significantly than someone thats not wearing a mask. now that has been proven.
you know those pesky peer researched reports....
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC71912...
Ah, this again. All of those studies that you list are full of words like "might" and "could" and "to some extent". Almost no randomised control trials (RCT's) have been done. Therefore, as the Nature study states, they "rely on assumptions and often coincide with other changes". The Preprints one isn't peer reviewed, by the way.no mask worn you get very small vapour particles and the spread from a person not wearing a mask is significantly than someone thats not wearing a mask. now that has been proven.
you know those pesky peer researched reports....
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC71912...
Bottom line: there's no proof that non medical grade masks prevent aerosol transmission of covid. Such masks might help a little bit, so "wear one if you want" should be the message. The government should not be mandating mask wearing unless they can prove it works.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff