CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 3)

[anonymous-user]

bodhi said:

Really? As increasingly I'm reading reports of big businesses that don't want to get sued, so have to be seen to be doing something (This is something, so let's do that).

However you mention lots of new scientific evidence that they're useful - can you point to any? As I found this from 2015 -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC44209...

RCT to judge just how effective cloth masks are, and the result is not very. 97% of virus particles still get through, what's more moisture retention and poor filtration can actually increase the chances of infection.

Now I appreciate science changes all the time, so if you can point to a similarly rigorous trial that suggests they work I'll be all ears.

I'm not qualified to judge the papers, but I'm just reading lots of articles like this, and little in the way of counter. Maybe that's just my twitter curation. One of the reasons I post here, is a check on that. So I would welcome counters.

'A range of new research on face coverings shows that the risk of infection to the wearer is decreased by 65 percent, said Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Children’s Hospital.'

https://www.ucdavis.edu/coronavirus/news/your-mask...

[bodhi]

sambucket said:

bodhi said:

Really? As increasingly I'm reading reports of big businesses that don't want to get sued, so have to be seen to be doing something (This is something, so let's do that).

However you mention lots of new scientific evidence that they're useful - can you point to any? As I found this from 2015 -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC44209...

RCT to judge just how effective cloth masks are, and the result is not very. 97% of virus particles still get through, what's more moisture retention and poor filtration can actually increase the chances of infection.

Now I appreciate science changes all the time, so if you can point to a similarly rigorous trial that suggests they work I'll be all ears.

I'm not qualified to judge the papers, but I'm just reading lots of articles like this, and little in the way of counter. Maybe that's just my twitter curation. One of the reasons I post here, is a check on that. So I would welcome counters.

'A range of new research on face coverings shows that the risk of infection to the wearer is decreased by 65 percent, said Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Children’s Hospital.'

https://www.ucdavis.edu/coronavirus/news/your-mask...

No offence but that article reads like a Brass Eye segment.

"There's absolutely no proof for this, but it's scientific fact".

[Elysium]

sambucket said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

I hope you are now wearing one then, at all times when out of the house (after all, if it is just 3%....) rather than boasting about how you were ignoring all of the rules local to you.

I break all the rules all the time. I don't care one jot, what you think about that.

I also ride a motorbike without a helmet. And take drugs. I also don't care what you think about that.

Well the drugs thing explains a lot

[bodhi]

sambucket said:

bodhi said:

No offence but that article reads like a Brass Eye segment.

"There's absolutely no proof for this, but it's scientific fact".

Did you watch the video discussing the research?

I got as far them stating that they don't recommend using medical masks - as they are in short supply - then 10 seconds later saying that homemade masks aren;t particularly effective at stopping transmission - pretty much in line with what the study I posted said.

[Elysium]

sambucket said:

bodhi said:

Really? As increasingly I'm reading reports of big businesses that don't want to get sued, so have to be seen to be doing something (This is something, so let's do that).

However you mention lots of new scientific evidence that they're useful - can you point to any? As I found this from 2015 -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC44209...

RCT to judge just how effective cloth masks are, and the result is not very. 97% of virus particles still get through, what's more moisture retention and poor filtration can actually increase the chances of infection.

Now I appreciate science changes all the time, so if you can point to a similarly rigorous trial that suggests they work I'll be all ears.

I'm not qualified to judge the papers, but I'm just reading lots of articles like this, and little in the way of counter. Maybe that's just my twitter curation. One of the reasons I post here, is a check on that. So I would welcome counters.

'A range of new research on face coverings shows that the risk of infection to the wearer is decreased by 65 percent, said Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Children’s Hospital.'

https://www.ucdavis.edu/coronavirus/news/your-mask...

UC Davis Article said:

Studies in laboratory conditions now show the virus stays alive in aerosol form with a half-life on the scale of hours. It persists in the air

No they don't viruses are not alive.

[anonymous-user]

Here is a recenly published study from Oxford Uni, June 26th.

I understand it's not conclusive, but which way is the evidence trending?

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

The study found:

Cloth face coverings are effective in protecting the wearer and those around them.

[Elysium]

sambucket said:

Here is a recenly published study from Oxford Uni, June 26th.

I understand it's not conclusive, but which way is the evidence trending?

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

The study found:

Cloth face coverings are effective in protecting the wearer and those around them.

You forgot to add the important caveat:

Oxford Study said:

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

[WinstonWolf]

Elysium said:

sambucket said:

Here is a recenly published study from Oxford Uni, June 26th.

I understand it's not conclusive, but which way is the evidence trending?

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

The study found:

Cloth face coverings are effective in protecting the wearer and those around them.

You forgot to add the important caveat:

Oxford Study said:

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

Whoops

[bodhi]

sambucket said:

Here is a recenly published study from Oxford Uni, June 26th.

I understand it's not conclusive, but which way is the evidence trending?

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

The study found:

Cloth face coverings are effective in protecting the wearer and those around them.

It's not conclusive, it's absolute bunk. If you read the study behind it, you get the (frankly, awesome) line "The lack of clear recommendations for the general public and low uptake of wearing face masks and coverings may be attributed to: (i) over-reliance on an evidence-based medicine approach "

Over reliance on evidence eh? Whatever next.

Also refutes your point that the evidence is trending in one direction, when they implicitly admit the lack of evidence that they work.

[bodhi]

Elysium, think there is one for you here - remember the Uni of Cambridge study you posted seeing a high correlation between severity of the last two flu seasons and the countries' outcomes with COVID? The Daily Mail (yes, yes I know) have picked it up:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8497185/B...

Thrown in things like Climate, Population Density and overall health, I do wonder if the die had already been cast when the epidemic hit in March, and whichever way, the UK was going to get battered. Just a shame we pivoted from our initial correct strategy to a far more destructive and lethal one, based on lots of shrieking from the media.

[anonymous-user]

Amazing how differently we can interpret the same paper.

I see the cautious caveats as serving to add credibility to the paper, not detract.

Depends on how you approach it I guess. I read the balance of advice as fairly unambiguous.

, ‘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. Yet clear policy recommendations that the public should broadly wear them has been unclear and inconsistent in some countries such as England.‘

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 9th July 12:19

[WinstonWolf]

sambucket said:

Amazing how differently we can interpret the same paper.

I see the cautious caveats as serving to add credibility to the paper, not detract.

Depends on how you approach it I guess. I read the balance of advice as fairly unambiguous.

"when they are of optimal material and construction (high grade cotton, hybrid and multilayer) and fitted correctly"

That's a pretty fking big disclaimer...

[bodhi]

sambucket said:

Amazing how differently we can interpret the same paper.

I see the cautious caveats as serving to add credibility to the paper, not detract.

Depends on how you approach it I guess.

If a Scientific Paper suggests a course of action, but then also suggests that there is no evidence for it, that's a bit more than a cautious caveat.

It's something produced in large quantities by a male cow.

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

"when they are of optimal material and construction (high grade cotton, hybrid and multilayer) and fitted correctly"

That's a pretty fking big disclaimer...

This is a masterclass in quoting out of context.

the study shows, some coverings are not as effective as others. Loosely woven fabrics, such as scarves have been shown to be the least effective. Professor Mills says, ‘Attention must also be placed on how well it fits on the face; it should loop around the ears or around the back of the neck for better coverage.’

She insists, ‘The general public does not need to wear surgical masks or respirators. We find that masks made from high quality material such as high-grade cotton, multiple layers and particularly hybrid constructions are effective. For instance, combining cotton and silk or flannel provide over 95% filtration, so wearing a mask can protect others.’

[Bullett]

A lot of push last night on the news on airborne transmission. Feels like they are pushing towards masks for all. The wife commented "are the BBC just a government propaganda machine now?"

Interestingly our local (massive) Tesco has just removed the one way signs. this didn't go down well with Karen. The local shopping centre is in contrast going ott.

Final bit of anecdotal. A friend in HR was talking about massive redundancies in the travel industry. They are looking at how to let several thousand people go which isn't good. The truth though is that they had been thinking about this for a while as the majority are UK call centre staff who are expensive and with channel shift they just didn't need them anymore. Covid is an ideal excuse in this case.

[Elysium]

bodhi said:

Elysium, think there is one for you here - remember the Uni of Cambridge study you posted seeing a high correlation between severity of the last two flu seasons and the countries' outcomes with COVID? The Daily Mail (yes, yes I know) have picked it up:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8497185/B...

Thrown in things like Climate, Population Density and overall health, I do wonder if the die had already been cast when the epidemic hit in March, and whichever way, the UK was going to get battered. Just a shame we pivoted from our initial correct strategy to a far more destructive and lethal one, based on lots of shrieking from the media.

Thanks for sharing that. I went straight to the comments section first to see if people were reacting angrily to the suggestion, but I think it is fairly balanced.

[grumbledoak]

Bullett said:

A lot of push last night on the news on airborne transmission. Feels like they are pushing towards masks for all. The wife commented "are the BBC just a government propaganda machine now?"

Propaganda with a light entertainment cover is all it ever was! All the state broadcasters are the same.

And yes I suspect they will be pushing masks hard. We need clearly visible reminders to be very afraid, or we'll start thinking again. And that worries them no end.

[n3il123]

Elysium said:

sambucket said:

Here is a recenly published study from Oxford Uni, June 26th.

I understand it's not conclusive, but which way is the evidence trending?

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

The study found:

Cloth face coverings are effective in protecting the wearer and those around them.

You forgot to add the important caveat:

Oxford Study said:

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

Only a small over sight then

[EddieSteadyGo]

Bullett said:

A lot of push last night on the news on airborne transmission. Feels like they are pushing towards masks for all. The wife commented "are the BBC just a government propaganda machine now?"

If airborne transmission was a serious risk, the R rate in countries like Sweden would never have reduced below 1 (as they only ever implemented modest social distancing measures and restricted large groups).

So when we discuss masks, we need to understand the problem we are trying to fix i.e. what measures are required to prevent/limit the spread of the virus? If the virus can be suppressed using more modest measures, and so we can keep R<1, what is the need to use more extreme methods like wide-scale wearing of masks?

We can look at Stockholm as a case study of a city which has a similar population density to London (and where primary and secondary schools have remained open throughout, most businesses have remained open as well as bars/restaurants, albeit with social distancing).

We can see by looking at the death rates for Stockholm there has been a consistent decline. A rate of decline which is in fact very similar to that which we have seen in the UK.....



Looking at the trend line we can deduce their R rate has been circa 0.8-0.9 since the introduction of their measures (when infections peaked in late March).

So the data from Sweden and Stockholm shows R stays below 1 with modest social distancing measures which is sufficient to suppress the virus to very low levels. There is no need to go further unless there is a different objective.

[Elysium]

sambucket said:

Amazing how differently we can interpret the same paper.

I see the cautious caveats as serving to add credibility to the paper, not detract.

Depends on how you approach it I guess. I read the balance of advice as fairly unambiguous.

‘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. Yet clear policy recommendations that the public should broadly wear them has been unclear and inconsistent in some countries such as England.

The words in bold are not in the paper.

The caveats describe the limitations of the papers findings, which are that masks can be effective if they are constructed in a suitable way and used properly.

That does not mean that face coverings made from old socks will be effective.

If the author stating that people should wear masks, then the evidence for that is not clear as it is not in their own paper. Unfortunately, this seems to be a case where personal beliefs and preconceptions are driving 'science' toward a political objective.

The fact that the report does not consider the negative health and social consequences of mask wearing shows that we are not learning the lessons of lockdown. Swinging public health measures MUST consider the total impact they will create - positive and negative.