Who is going to continue to wear a mask after 21st June?
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
I see you lack the ability to be wrong and be graceful. This does somewhat underline why you have the view you have and why you so interpret information incorrectly and without either reading or understanding ( I know not which, but I can take a guess ) the flaws and margins of error in them.
No, science can not be consensus based and is not consensus based. A fact is a fact regardless of how many claim to the contrary. Look to history for evidence, heliocentricity could be your starting point.
It is not clear whether you do not understand the motto I linked to or whether you think it is wrong, but do look at exactly what organisation it is, assuming you do not know already. But when you understand it, you will see what you say is fundamentally wrong and should be subject to challenge, and should all science. If it is not subject to challenge or discourse then it is not science but religious fervour.
I see you lack the ability to be wrong and graceful.No, science can not be consensus based and is not consensus based. A fact is a fact regardless of how many claim to the contrary. Look to history for evidence, heliocentricity could be your starting point.
It is not clear whether you do not understand the motto I linked to or whether you think it is wrong, but do look at exactly what organisation it is, assuming you do not know already. But when you understand it, you will see what you say is fundamentally wrong and should be subject to challenge, and should all science. If it is not subject to challenge or discourse then it is not science but religious fervour.
Scientific consensus is driven by many independent, isolated studies, coming to a similar conclusion.
Scientific consensus is rare, and as such has value. Facts are facts, and when that same fact is determined multiple times, in independent studies, that sometimes becomes consensual.
You can discuss the semantics of the term until the cows come home, or the “motto”, but claiming science and scientists can’t reach a consensus is total b
ks.You have assumed “when enough people have the same opinion” to be the definition of scientific consensus, when in reality, it is when repeated independent studies, produce the same outcome.
Science can then, at least until proven otherwise, reach a consensus.
One is political, the other is entirely fact based.
Getting back to the mask topic... if you or anyone else in this thread, have studied the effects of masks on disease mitigation, for a substantial amount of time, or If you are anyone else in this thread, has studied and reviewed the thousands of available studies, and perhaps conducted a peer reviewed study of your own, you would be perfectly entitled to challenge the current scientific consensus on the subject.
If, however, you are someone with limited experience on the subject, and have simply listened to a podcast on the subject, or read an interesting post on the subject, you have not earned the right to challenge that consensus.
Edited by andyeds1234 on Friday 12th March 23:20
As things stand, in terms of the body of evidence published, you are simply wrong.
On the old 4 stages of competence pyramid you are sitting right at the bottom.
Now I'm not a research scientist but my stab at how you might measure the effectiveness of face coverings would look something like this.
Take 2 conparible populations. Then mandate "face coverings" plus Hands Face Space in one and nothing in the other. Then measure clinical outcomes.
If outcomes were significantly different then run again but add Hands Face Space to the no face covering population and measure.
If significant differences are seen you might infer face coverings did something.
But that is incredibly difficult to design as the logistics are impossible and it's impossible to remove subject biases. And in the UK wouldn't even get past the ethics committee.
All we have at the moment are literature searches based on a body of evidence that doesn't fit the actual scenario we find ourselves in.
On the old 4 stages of competence pyramid you are sitting right at the bottom.
Now I'm not a research scientist but my stab at how you might measure the effectiveness of face coverings would look something like this.
Take 2 conparible populations. Then mandate "face coverings" plus Hands Face Space in one and nothing in the other. Then measure clinical outcomes.
If outcomes were significantly different then run again but add Hands Face Space to the no face covering population and measure.
If significant differences are seen you might infer face coverings did something.
But that is incredibly difficult to design as the logistics are impossible and it's impossible to remove subject biases. And in the UK wouldn't even get past the ethics committee.
All we have at the moment are literature searches based on a body of evidence that doesn't fit the actual scenario we find ourselves in.
The thread asks if anyone will continue wearing masks if/when(??) the mandate is scrapped. I asked family, friends & work colleagues about this & have yet to find a single person who will continue wearing them. Indeed, many of the respondents laughed at the thought.
The level of derision about the bloody things was a lot higher than I anticipated - many references to muzzles, face nappies etc....
The level of derision about the bloody things was a lot higher than I anticipated - many references to muzzles, face nappies etc....
Fact is, you don't cover up a stunning face like mine. I enjoy woman wolf whistling at me, and giving me cheeky grins as I walk by. I enjoy being eye candy for the married ladies out there. I'm just a big walking chunk of desirable human wagyu that certainly shouldn't be hid under a mask during my prime.
Pretty confident that (once vaccinated) the majority of people won’t wear masks unless it’s mandated. They’re simply inconvenient.
I wear a mask currently where I need to (shopping, basically) and I’m fine with that. Buying a pack of 50 and keeping them in the car is no particular hardship.
I won’t be wearing one once we’re through the current pandemic, in the same way (and for the same reasons) as I didn’t wear one before the pandemic - it should be unnecessary.
It will be interesting to see if they’re mandated by travel operators (I’m thinking trains and planes mostly) for longer than the “general” mandate runs. I won’t be flying with a mask - it’s bad enough on a plane at the best of times, having to mask up would mean I opt out of taking the trip. I won’t have an option but to use a train though, and that would be a minor annoyance.
I wear a mask currently where I need to (shopping, basically) and I’m fine with that. Buying a pack of 50 and keeping them in the car is no particular hardship.
I won’t be wearing one once we’re through the current pandemic, in the same way (and for the same reasons) as I didn’t wear one before the pandemic - it should be unnecessary.
It will be interesting to see if they’re mandated by travel operators (I’m thinking trains and planes mostly) for longer than the “general” mandate runs. I won’t be flying with a mask - it’s bad enough on a plane at the best of times, having to mask up would mean I opt out of taking the trip. I won’t have an option but to use a train though, and that would be a minor annoyance.
dave_s13 said:
As things stand, in terms of the body of evidence published, you are simply wrong.
On the old 4 stages of competence pyramid you are sitting right at the bottom.
Now I'm not a research scientist but my stab at how you might measure the effectiveness of face coverings would look something like this.
Take 2 conparible populations. Then mandate "face coverings" plus Hands Face Space in one and nothing in the other. Then measure clinical outcomes.
If outcomes were significantly different then run again but add Hands Face Space to the no face covering population and measure.
If significant differences are seen you might infer face coverings did something.
But that is incredibly difficult to design as the logistics are impossible and it's impossible to remove subject biases. And in the UK wouldn't even get past the ethics committee.
All we have at the moment are literature searches based on a body of evidence that doesn't fit the actual scenario we find ourselves in.
As you say, replicating the exact scenario we are in is impossible. The scenarios being used are the closest we can get, and expecting an exact match in scientific research is just another case of moving the goalposts.On the old 4 stages of competence pyramid you are sitting right at the bottom.
Now I'm not a research scientist but my stab at how you might measure the effectiveness of face coverings would look something like this.
Take 2 conparible populations. Then mandate "face coverings" plus Hands Face Space in one and nothing in the other. Then measure clinical outcomes.
If outcomes were significantly different then run again but add Hands Face Space to the no face covering population and measure.
If significant differences are seen you might infer face coverings did something.
But that is incredibly difficult to design as the logistics are impossible and it's impossible to remove subject biases. And in the UK wouldn't even get past the ethics committee.
All we have at the moment are literature searches based on a body of evidence that doesn't fit the actual scenario we find ourselves in.
The smaller studies prove that mask wearing reduces transmission, and as soon as they were presented, the proof somehow needed to be more? Now nothing short of a near impossible test is required as proof?
This is the very thing the scientific community struggle with. They publish in a very conservative way, with caveats, and reference to specific shortcomings, and protocols used This is in order to remain as transparent and neutral as possible. This transparency is then used as a stick to beat the findings with. Which is perfectly acceptable if you are an equally qualified expert in the field. Not so much if you can barely understand the original study.
andyeds1234 said:
I see you lack the ability to be wrong and graceful.
Scientific consensus is driven by many independent, isolated studies, coming to a similar conclusion.
Scientific consensus is rare, and as such has value. Facts are facts, and when that same fact is determined multiple times, in independent studies, that sometimes becomes consensual.
You can discuss the semantics of the term until the cows come home, or the “motto”, but claiming science and scientists can’t reach a consensus is total bks.
You have assumed “when enough people have the same opinion” to be the definition of scientific consensus, when in reality, it is when repeated independent studies, produce the same outcome.
Science can then, at least until proven otherwise, reach a consensus.
One is political, the other is entirely fact based.
Getting back to the mask topic... if you or anyone else in this thread, have studied the effects of masks on disease mitigation, for a substantial amount of time, or If you are anyone else in this thread, has studied and reviewed the thousands of available studies, and perhaps conducted a peer reviewed study of your own, you would be perfectly entitled to challenge the current scientific consensus on the subject.
If, however, you are someone with limited experience on the subject, and have simply listened to a podcast on the subject, or read an interesting post on the subject, you have not earned the right to challenge that consensus.
Science doesn't work on appeals to authority either.Scientific consensus is driven by many independent, isolated studies, coming to a similar conclusion.
Scientific consensus is rare, and as such has value. Facts are facts, and when that same fact is determined multiple times, in independent studies, that sometimes becomes consensual.
You can discuss the semantics of the term until the cows come home, or the “motto”, but claiming science and scientists can’t reach a consensus is total b
ks.You have assumed “when enough people have the same opinion” to be the definition of scientific consensus, when in reality, it is when repeated independent studies, produce the same outcome.
Science can then, at least until proven otherwise, reach a consensus.
One is political, the other is entirely fact based.
Getting back to the mask topic... if you or anyone else in this thread, have studied the effects of masks on disease mitigation, for a substantial amount of time, or If you are anyone else in this thread, has studied and reviewed the thousands of available studies, and perhaps conducted a peer reviewed study of your own, you would be perfectly entitled to challenge the current scientific consensus on the subject.
If, however, you are someone with limited experience on the subject, and have simply listened to a podcast on the subject, or read an interesting post on the subject, you have not earned the right to challenge that consensus.
Edited by andyeds1234 on Friday 12th March 23:20
hotchy said:
Fact is, you don't cover up a stunning face like mine. I enjoy woman wolf whistling at me, and giving me cheeky grins as I walk by. I enjoy being eye candy for the married ladies out there. I'm just a big walking chunk of desirable human wagyu that certainly shouldn't be hid under a mask during my prime.
I don't doubt this to be true but it's interesting to to note that we could formulate a robust quantative study to prove your case one way or another.But you can't do the same for wearing a mask in Tesco express.
I'm firmly of the opinion that as soon as the mandate is lifted so will the masks. But if some want to carry on, fine.
andyeds1234 said:
dave_s13 said:
I'm firmly of the opinion that as soon as the mandate is lifted so will the masks. But if some want to carry on, fine.
I agree, I think there will be a small minority who may choose to continue wearing masks, but not many.When we are no longer recommended to wear them in shops etc, I will just stop doing so. No fuss, drama or conspiracy theories are required.
dave_s13 said:
As things stand, in terms of the body of evidence published, you are simply wrong.
On the old 4 stages of competence pyramid you are sitting right at the bottom.
Now I'm not a research scientist but my stab at how you might measure the effectiveness of face coverings would look something like this.
Take 2 conparible populations. Then mandate "face coverings" plus Hands Face Space in one and nothing in the other. Then measure clinical outcomes.
If outcomes were significantly different then run again but add Hands Face Space to the no face covering population and measure.
If significant differences are seen you might infer face coverings did something.
But that is incredibly difficult to design as the logistics are impossible and it's impossible to remove subject biases. And in the UK wouldn't even get past the ethics committee.
All we have at the moment are literature searches based on a body of evidence that doesn't fit the actual scenario we find ourselves in.
But if folk want to wear masks - in any situation - they will, regardless of the science, logistics and other stuff. It's a personal choice, to them, they are doing the right thing. On my patch it is the overwhelming majority.On the old 4 stages of competence pyramid you are sitting right at the bottom.
Now I'm not a research scientist but my stab at how you might measure the effectiveness of face coverings would look something like this.
Take 2 conparible populations. Then mandate "face coverings" plus Hands Face Space in one and nothing in the other. Then measure clinical outcomes.
If outcomes were significantly different then run again but add Hands Face Space to the no face covering population and measure.
If significant differences are seen you might infer face coverings did something.
But that is incredibly difficult to design as the logistics are impossible and it's impossible to remove subject biases. And in the UK wouldn't even get past the ethics committee.
All we have at the moment are literature searches based on a body of evidence that doesn't fit the actual scenario we find ourselves in.
andyeds1234 said:
Getting back to the mask topic... if you or anyone else in this thread, have studied the effects of masks on disease mitigation
No, I just read some of the studies from the people who did. Like this:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC76806...
Jasandjules said:
No, I just read some of the studies from the people who did. Like this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC76806...
Well done, you found an opposing view with some merit, rather than just ignoring any contrary evidence presented to you. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC76806...
I guess that’s a start.
Pan Pan Pan said:
As out earlier wearing masks are not a normal thing for humans to do, but at times they have been deemed necessary (The wearing of masks was recommended by the government when we used to have the regular peas soup fogs in the UK, but as far as I can see has not been recommended until now)
When we are no longer recommended to wear them in shops etc, I will just stop doing so. No fuss, drama or conspiracy theories are required.
There is a world of difference between 'recommended ' and mandated. When we are no longer recommended to wear them in shops etc, I will just stop doing so. No fuss, drama or conspiracy theories are required.
Surely you meant:
Pan Pan Pan said:
As out earlier wearing masks are not a normal thing for humans to do, but at times they have been deemed necessary (The wearing of masks was recommended by the government when we used to have the regular peas soup fogs in the UK, but as far as I can see has not been recommended required by law until now)
When we are no longerrecommended required by law to wear them in shops etc, I will just stop doing so. No fuss, drama or conspiracy theories are required.
When we are no longer
GSE said:
Surely you meant:
Indeed. I wonder how many objected to wearing masks, in the last war, when there was the chance, that the enemy `might' use gas? Pan Pan Pan said:
As out earlier wearing masks are not a normal thing for humans to do, but at times they have been deemed necessary (The wearing of masks was recommended by the government when we used to have the regular peas soup fogs in the UK, but as far as I can see has not been recommended required by law until now)
When we are no longerrecommended required by law to wear them in shops etc, I will just stop doing so. No fuss, drama or conspiracy theories are required.
When we are no longer
That was another time in our history when masks were `deemed' necessary by the government.
Pan Pan Pan said:
GSE said:
Surely you meant:
Indeed. I wonder how many objected to wearing masks, in the last war, when there was the chance, that the enemy `might' use gas? Pan Pan Pan said:
As out earlier wearing masks are not a normal thing for humans to do, but at times they have been deemed necessary (The wearing of masks was recommended by the government when we used to have the regular peas soup fogs in the UK, but as far as I can see has not been recommended required by law until now)
When we are no longerrecommended required by law to wear them in shops etc, I will just stop doing so. No fuss, drama or conspiracy theories are required.
When we are no longer
That was another time in our history when masks were `deemed' necessary by the government.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff