CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

[RemarkLima]

paulguitar said:

andyeds1234 said:

It’s a pity that you can’t create a script to filter out any television, news, friends or books, that contradict your views.
That would ensure that your world view is strictly limited to what you want to hear.

Well, actually it is very possible to only read and watch what you want to see. It's an increasingly big problem as more and more people live in echo chambers. It's a conscious effort to avoid this, I think. It's a natural human trait to think we're simply 'right' about things and to feel supported by others of the same opinions, and it is uncomfortable to some extent to deal with opposing views and even nuance.

Still reading this and the "other" thread - it's like to parallel AI models at times...

But wanted to comment on the above, as it's 100% possible and in fact, actively done so by social media. Those that only get their "news" from Facebook, Insta or the like, will have the news they like and support repeated to them, and "other" views will be deprioritised and masked.

It's why papers and traditional media is a better source of balance, but sadly not as easy to consume as "what some bloke said on Twitter". See Andrew Tate for an example of how ste it all is.

I've been travlling overseas a bit and happy to report that European air travel is normal - i.e. pretty crap, but cheapish

[bitchstewie]

Remarkable how many of our critical thinkers and free speech champions need special little scripts so they don't have to see or read anything they disagree with.

[gareth_r]

Slagathore said:

Utterly mental that he thinks anything in that factcheck link makes any difference to the argument.

But, as usual, you must be a bad conspiracy theorist for daring to question the evidence. Makes him feel better he got to do a factcheck.

https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/exclusive-le...

I've posted that before and it's an excellent interview with the author of the Cochrane review - annoyingly, it is now for subscribers only, but you can see from how the interview starts - he is not afraid to be honest!

Someone archived it...

https://archive.ph/aYLJA

[cliffe_mafia]

bhstewie said:

Remarkable how many of our critical thinkers and free speech champions need special little scripts so they don't have to see or read anything they disagree with.

It's more remarkable that you know how many use it!

[rodericb]

bhstewie said:

Remarkable how many of our critical thinkers and free speech champions need special little scripts so they don't have to see or read anything they disagree with.

Well, it's either ignore it (by whatever means) or have the speech censored/banned/whatever.........

I don't mind seeing your bilge on these fair pages - it reminds me that it takes all sorts to make a planet

[andyeds1234]

gareth_r said:

Slagathore said:

Utterly mental that he thinks anything in that factcheck link makes any difference to the argument.

But, as usual, you must be a bad conspiracy theorist for daring to question the evidence. Makes him feel better he got to do a factcheck.

https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/exclusive-le...

I've posted that before and it's an excellent interview with the author of the Cochrane review - annoyingly, it is now for subscribers only, but you can see from how the interview starts - he is not afraid to be honest!

Someone archived it...

https://archive.ph/aYLJA

By all means, question the evidence, but while you are on that journey, question where you are getting your revised information from….

The lead author “Jefferson works with the Brownstone Institute and that “Brownstone has always been an extremely anti-mask, anti-vaxx right wing think tank”

A flawed study is a flawed study, and claiming a scientific fact, either pro mask or anti mask, as a result of that flawed study, is simply wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2023/03/11/c...

[KAgantua]

rodericb said:

bhstewie said:

Remarkable how many of our critical thinkers and free speech champions need special little scripts so they don't have to see or read anything they disagree with.

Well, it's either ignore it (by whatever means) or have the speech censored/banned/whatever.........

I don't mind seeing your bilge on these fair pages - it reminds me that it takes all sorts to make a planet

I dont see any issue with scripting bhstewie's posts out to be fair
All he seems to post is almost daily new topic's about somesuch controversial BBC/ Guardian/ whatever story.

If you really want to get those, surely youd just subscribe to a newsfeed?

[g3org3y]

gareth_r said:

Slagathore said:

Utterly mental that he thinks anything in that factcheck link makes any difference to the argument.

But, as usual, you must be a bad conspiracy theorist for daring to question the evidence. Makes him feel better he got to do a factcheck.

https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/exclusive-le...

I've posted that before and it's an excellent interview with the author of the Cochrane review - annoyingly, it is now for subscribers only, but you can see from how the interview starts - he is not afraid to be honest!

Someone archived it...

https://archive.ph/aYLJA

Thanks for that.

Tom Jefferson was in charge of the Cochrane review which uncovered the shenanigans to do with Roche and their somewhat 'sparse' evidence for Tamiflu: https://www.bmj.com/tamiflu

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/10/t...

[Slagathore]

andyeds1234 said:

By all means, question the evidence, but while you are on that journey, question where you are getting your revised information from….

The lead author “Jefferson works with the Brownstone Institute and that “Brownstone has always been an extremely anti-mask, anti-vaxx right wing think tank”

A flawed study is a flawed study, and claiming a scientific fact, either pro mask or anti mask, as a result of that flawed study, is simply wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2023/03/11/c...

Same goes to you!

I'd trust Jefferson's opinion over anyone who writes for Forbes or whoever they've interviewed.

Trying to smear him because he's written articles for Brownstone is pathetic.

[Slagathore]

gareth_r said:

Someone archived it...

https://archive.ph/aYLJA

Link isn't working for me, but appears to be working...

[andyeds1234]

Slagathore said:

andyeds1234 said:

By all means, question the evidence, but while you are on that journey, question where you are getting your revised information from….

The lead author “Jefferson works with the Brownstone Institute and that “Brownstone has always been an extremely anti-mask, anti-vaxx right wing think tank”

A flawed study is a flawed study, and claiming a scientific fact, either pro mask or anti mask, as a result of that flawed study, is simply wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2023/03/11/c...

Same goes to you!

I'd trust Jefferson's opinion over anyone who writes for Forbes or whoever they've interviewed.

Trying to smear him because he's written articles for Brownstone is pathetic.

The very organisation he represented for the initial study state that his claims are inaccurate.
The information regarding Brownstone’s stance on masks and vaccines is simply a matter of record.

If that is an uncomfortable truth, so be it.

It’s interesting that you would simply trust Jefferson, above “whoever” Forbes have interviewed.
Me, personally, I would try to look at the points raised by his colleagues and peers. rather than simply choosing him as “my guy”.

Edited by andyeds1234 on Monday 4th September 16:20

[bodhi]

andyeds1234 said:

By all means, question the evidence, but while you are on that journey, question where you are getting your revised information from….

The lead author “Jefferson works with the Brownstone Institute and that “Brownstone has always been an extremely anti-mask, anti-vaxx right wing think tank”

A flawed study is a flawed study, and claiming a scientific fact, either pro mask or anti mask, as a result of that flawed study, is simply wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2023/03/11/c...

Strange, as if you go to Dr Jefferson's own page, it seems he does most of his work with various European medical agencies and seems about as far away from an anti-vaxxer as it's possible to get:

https://drtomjefferson.com/about/

Currently a fellow at the University of Oxford and works very closely with Prof Heneghan, an incredibly highly regarded Professor of EBM l, and between them I'd suggest they know more about the evidence base on masks than you will ever forget. They reviewed it all - again - and found no clear benefit. Typically in medicine if an intervention shows no clear benefit its no longer recommended.

[Hoink]

andyeds1234 said:

It happened, no it wasn’t your imagination, yes people have moved on. Most people.

Some have moved on. Others haven't.

Have you moved on? It appears not. Why do you care so much?

Have I moved on? Yes. I am happy with my decisions during lockdown in relation to the vaccine (unvaccinated) and mask wearing (nope). I didn't die a horrible death. Of my friends, many try to pretend they didn't act like they did...rewriting history. Some accept the restrictions they followed were ridiculous whereas others still believe they made a difference. Everyone is different.

Anyway...it's a lovely day so I'll get back outside.

[Slagathore]

andyeds1234 said:

The very organisation he represented for the initial study state that his claims are inaccurate.
The information regarding Brownstone’s stance on masks and vaccines is simply a matter of record.

If that is an uncomfortable truth, so be it.

It’s interesting that you would simply trust Jefferson, above “whoever” Forbes have interviewed.
Me, personally, I would try to look at the points raised by his colleagues and peers. rather than simply choosing him as “my guy”.

Edited by andyeds1234 on Monday 4th September 16:20

His conclusions from the study still stand. that is plainly obvious.

Masks make no difference - see every country that implemented them having exactly the same outcomes as those that didn't, see all the hospital acquired infection despite mask wearing and social distancing etc.

Not only is there no good evidence from the studies, just have a look at the real-world evidence - it is plain to see they make little to no difference.

There's a reason they weren't recommended from day 1 - because there was no evidence to show they'd make any difference - turns out that was correct. They were/are a control measure to make people feel safe and to encourage them to get out, get on with their lives and get the economy going again. That was obvious from the timeline of when they were implemented.

I don't care if people want to wear masks thinking they are protecting themselves. It actually bothers me that people big them up and it gives genuinely vulnerable people the confidence to do stuff they might not have because of their overconfidence that the mask will protect them. I suspect that actually cost lives during the pandemic.

[cliffe_mafia]

Slagathore said:

gareth_r said:

Someone archived it...

https://archive.ph/aYLJA

Link isn't working for me, but appears to be working...

It works on my phone but not my laptop for some reason (maybe the addblocker).

[Elysium]

andyeds1234 said:

gareth_r said:

Slagathore said:

Utterly mental that he thinks anything in that factcheck link makes any difference to the argument.

But, as usual, you must be a bad conspiracy theorist for daring to question the evidence. Makes him feel better he got to do a factcheck.

https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/exclusive-le...

I've posted that before and it's an excellent interview with the author of the Cochrane review - annoyingly, it is now for subscribers only, but you can see from how the interview starts - he is not afraid to be honest!

Someone archived it...

https://archive.ph/aYLJA

By all means, question the evidence, but while you are on that journey, question where you are getting your revised information from….

The lead author “Jefferson works with the Brownstone Institute and that “Brownstone has always been an extremely anti-mask, anti-vaxx right wing think tank”

A flawed study is a flawed study, and claiming a scientific fact, either pro mask or anti mask, as a result of that flawed study, is simply wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2023/03/11/c...

The Cochrane Review is not a 'flawed study'.

Attempting to wave away a systematic review of random controlled trials because one of the authors has written articles for a site that is slightly right wing is a pretty weak attempt at diversion.

The Cochrane review does not prove that masks are ineffective. However, it does find that they probably make little to no difference to the spread of influenza like illness.

Masks were mandated under penalty of law. In that situation it is not down to the dissenters to prove they don't work, it is down to the advocates to prove they do. The mask zealots have failed to provide that proof. Which is not suprising given that we know that the holes in cloth masks are many times bigger than viruses.

[gareth_r]

Van Tam on the 3rd of April 2020 said:

Wearing of masks by the general public. This has been a controversial area in pandemic preparedness and planning for the fifteen years that I have been involved in it, and, indeed, I was on the 'phone this morning to a colleague in Hong Kong, who's a professor there, who's done the evidence review for the World Health Organisation on face masks, and we're of the same mind, that there is no evidence that general wearing of face masks by the public who are well affects the spread of the disease in our society. But in terms of the hard evidence and what the UK government recommends; we do not recommend face masks for general wearing by the public.

The same (mis?) information was disseminated by Whitty, Vallance, SAGE, the WHO, Fauci, and all the other conspiracy theorists.

Funny how, as far as the UK was concerned, there was no evidence that masks had any effect until Grant Shapps... I'll repeat that, so that you can let it sink in... GRANT SHAPPS!... I'll follow his name with the obligatory "FFS!"... decided that they did.

Of course, Shapps's decision only affected public transport. The decision to expand the mask requirement was made by Matthew Hancock... MATTHEW HANCOCK FFS!

I don't think anyone could argue with a decision made by Shapps and Hancock.

[Elysium]

gareth_r said:

Van Tam on the 3rd of April 2020 said:

Wearing of masks by the general public. This has been a controversial area in pandemic preparedness and planning for the fifteen years that I have been involved in it, and, indeed, I was on the 'phone this morning to a colleague in Hong Kong, who's a professor there, who's done the evidence review for the World Health Organisation on face masks, and we're of the same mind, that there is no evidence that general wearing of face masks by the public who are well affects the spread of the disease in our society. But in terms of the hard evidence and what the UK government recommends; we do not recommend face masks for general wearing by the public.

The same (mis?) information was disseminated by Whitty, Vallance, SAGE, the WHO, Fauci, and all the other conspiracy theorists.

Funny how, as far as the UK was concerned, there was no evidence that masks had any effect until Grant Shapps... I'll repeat that, so that you can let it sink in... GRANT SHAPPS!... I'll follow his name with the obligatory "FFS!"... decided that they did.

Of course, Shapps's decision only affected public transport. The decision to expand the mask requirement was made by Matthew Hancock... MATTHEW HANCOCK FFS!

I don't think anyone could argue with a decision made by Shapps and Hancock.

This is one of the primary issues for me. Tom Jefferson also picks up on it in the interview linked above.

Public health figures around the world were very clear that masks would not protect us from SARS-CoV-2. That seems entirely rational given their physical attributes. Any mask that is porous enough to allow us to breathe will also allow the passage of aerosols.

Then, at some point, they flipped their advice on its head. Without any attempt to explain the shift in their reasoning, they started to say that masks worked unequivocally.

I recall that Robert Redfield who headed Americas CDC testified that masks were more effective than any vaccines.

The simplest explanation is that their advice was not based on science, but was intended to drive the behaviours that they were seeking. In the very beginning they wanted two things:

1. Mask stocks to be preserved for healthcare settings
2. To encourage people to actually reduce their contacts, rather than to continue as normal with masks.

The underlying logic of point 2 confirms that they knew then that social distancing would make more difference than mask use, which makes sense

Masks were mandated in July 2020 when COVID was at very low levels in the UK. At that point the Govt was trying to encourage people to return to normal activities.

It is frankly bizarre that ‘eat out to help out’ was launched in the same month that regulations were introduced to mandate masks in public settings. If things were really so dangerous these two ideas should not co-exist. Unless there was incredible strong evidence that masks would keep people safe during these activities, which of course we know there was not.

The truth of this is in plain sight. Hancock is on record saying masks would:

Hancock said:

give people more confidence to shop safely and enhance protections for those who work in shops

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53397617

He said in parliament that he made the decision after consulting with the British Retail Consortium and it seems likely to me that it was designed primarily to get people back in shops. Just as ‘eat out to help out’ tried to get them back into restaurants.

Interestingly, the rules did not apply to shop workers, suggesting again that disease control was not the driver. Remember that would have theoretically protected shoppers, which apparently was unnecessary.

It’s obvious that advice on masks was not based on science, but on politics. But some people want to believe in them based on blind faith.

[johnboy1975]

^^ H&S work regulations filled in the gaps regarding workers. (Although possibly nothing was 'set in stone'? - but workplace 'policy' didn't need to be...)

[ant1973]

Is anyone enjoying the comedy of outraged parents being forced to embrace "lockdown" style home learning because of the concrete "crisis"?

Am I misremembering the hysteria about parents demanding schools being closed because of the vanishingly small risk to children in the pandemic?

But now when kids are actually faced with a more tangible risk, lots of parents are resentful of the need for home learning and the need to take preventative measures including school closures.

At least the pandemic taught us that home learning was possible....

Of course, combining home learning with no furlough is apt to be difficult.