Fact vs fiction

[udderlyoffroad]

22 minutes ago, ordnance said:

What other way is there to look at your post bellow, who is behind this weapon of propaganda and fear and why ?

Read the minutes of the SAGE meetings, they are quite clear and open on the fact they wish to scare the populace.

2 hours ago, oscarsdad said:

Just trust scientists, there is no motive for them to do anything other than protect people. No conspiracies

Trust and science do not belong in the same sentence ever. Science is all about the absence of taking things on trust.  If you think it's somehow bad to not challenge government scientific advisors and just trust them...well you're so wrong.   Especially when the consequences of lockdown are so serious - cancer treatment and mental health being just two examples.

By the way, their motive could be avoiding the grilling they're going to get at the inevitable public inquiry.  You've already seen Chris Whitty appearing to answer questions from the media as though he was talking to a QC...

2 hours ago, oscarsdad said:

The UK has done a brilliant job at dealing with Covid

What are you smoking?  Can I have some?  Who is your dealer?

Read this article and tell me the UK response to COVID has been in any way good.  Sign up for a free trial if you have to.  How GP's surgeries are currently operating is nothing short of truly appalling.  Pray to whichever deity you worship none of your friends or family need treatment from the National He....er Covid Service.

 

[stuartc44]

2 hours ago, henry d said:

 

It's not safe? So stay at home, problem sorted!!

[ordnance]

Quote

Read the minutes of the SAGE meetings, they are quite clear and open on the fact they wish to scare the populace.

And nothing new there, they do similar regarding the dangers of smoking and acholic etc. 

[treetree]

5 hours ago, oscarsdad said:

Here’s a good analogy for those who think face masks are not needed and can’t be bothered to read the science. 

Oh but we do read the science, including the only large scale RCT on mask wearing (the gold standard for showing causality) which showed no significant positive effect of mask wearing. I'll take that over your pathetic urine test analogy.

[treetree]

5 hours ago, oscarsdad said:

Just trust scientists, there is no motive for them to do anything other than protect people. No conspiracies. 
 

The only conspiracies are the loons who are anti-vax, anti-5G and Covid deniers. 

• 12 March: England's deputy chief medical officer Dr Jenny Harries says it is "not a good idea" for the average member of the public to wear a face mask as they may not use it properly and put themselves at more risk of contracting coronavirus
• 15 June: Face coverings are made compulsory on public transport in England

So in 3 short months the science changes from don't wear a mask to do? And you don't think this was political pressure?

And again with your 'conspiracy theorist' nonsense; do you not get that this is not a question of being anti this or that, or a denier, but about proportionality of response.

[39TDS]

The thing with scientists is that they are very good at finding what they are looking for. ie they can often be biased into finding the results they wanted to find.

 

If they want to prove that masks don't work they will find the appropriate data, if another group of scientists want to prove that masks do work they too will find the appropriate data to back them up. Statistics are another good example, statistics can be used to prove pretty much anything you want them to. Couple that with whatever Government you care to speak of and their agenda and you would be rather foolish to believe what you are told.

[ordnance]

3 hours ago, treetree said:

Oh but we do read the science, including the only large scale RCT on mask wearing (the gold standard for showing causality) which showed no significant positive effect of mask wearing. I'll take that over your pathetic urine test analogy.

The Danish study i assume, you are looking at one study that confirms your view. There are plenty of other studies that support the wearing of masks. 

Quote

The results of the Danmask-191 trial1—which, by conventional interpretation, showed that wearing masks had no effect on the prevention of covid-19 spread—are contested. An editorial for The BMJ disagreed with convention and criticised the labelling of the “no effect” reading by Oxford professors Heneghan and Jefferson as “false information.”2 We were also labelled “misleading” after our “no effect” interpretation.

 

[ordnance]

2 hours ago, 39TDS said:

The thing with scientists is that they are very good at finding what they are looking for. ie they can often be biased into finding the results they wanted to find.

 

If they want to prove that masks don't work they will find the appropriate data, if another group of scientists want to prove that masks do work they too will find the appropriate data to back them up. Statistics are another good example, statistics can be used to prove pretty much anything you want them to. Couple that with whatever Government you care to speak of and their agenda and you would be rather foolish to believe what you are told.

Or rather foolish disregarding all scientific studies as tainted by self-interest without evidence to back it up, its just another view and you know what they say about them. 

Edited May 9, 2021 by ordnance

[udderlyoffroad]

5 hours ago, ordnance said:

And nothing new there, they do similar regarding the dangers of smoking and acholic etc. 

Wait, you're saying they exaggerate the dangers of smoking and alcohol now?  Quite a claim.

4 hours ago, treetree said:

So in 3 short months the science changes from don't wear a mask to do?

I've yet to hear an answer on this question from anyone who supports (unthinking) mask wearing.

They will barely even acknowledge that policy changed over night, and even if they can bring themselves to acknowledge it, it's usually some unsubstantiated nonsense about preventing panic buying.

No, the harsh truth is 'everyone else was doing it' and we fell into line, despite the evidence being unclear one way or the other/

Edited May 9, 2021 by udderlyoffroad

[treetree]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

 There are plenty of other studies that support the wearing of masks. 

 

Then please provide a link. Though they should be (i) large scale and (ii) RCT based

[ordnance]

Quote

udderlyoffroad Wait, you're saying they exaggerate the dangers of smoking and alcohol now?  Quite a claim.

I am not sure where you get that conclusion from, you posted bellow that ( they are quite clear and open on the fact they wish to scare the populace ) as i said nothing new, what do you think the photos on cigarette boxes are for, to scare smokers. That is not saying they exaggerate the dangers of smoking. 

 

Quote

udderlyoffroad  ,Read the minutes of the SAGE meetings, they are quite clear and open on the fact they wish to scare the populace.

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by ordnance

[ordnance]

1 hour ago, treetree said:

Then please provide a link. Though they should be (i) large scale and (ii) RCT based

Fill your boots. A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and ...

A total of 19 randomised controlled trials Conclusion .

The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented.

Edited May 9, 2021 by ordnance

[39TDS]

3 hours ago, ordnance said:

Or rather foolish disregarding all scientific studies as tainted by self-interest without evidence to back it up, its just another view and you know what they say about them. 

I didn't suggest anyone disregard scientific studies, you said that not me.

My point was you shouldn't blindly believe what anybody tells you, scientists or otherwise. As for evidence to back up my claim, there is plenty of that out there should you wish to find it. The evidence can prove I am right and can also prove you are right which would also prove I am right too.

[ordnance]

6 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

I didn't suggest anyone disregard scientific studies, you said that not me.

My point was you shouldn't blindly believe what anybody tells you, scientists or otherwise. As for evidence to back up my claim, there is plenty of that out there should you wish to find it. The evidence can prove I am right and can also prove you are right which would also prove I am right too.

I agree any information should be questioned no matter where it comes from, some sources have more creditability that others. 

Edited May 9, 2021 by ordnance

[treetree]

2 hours ago, ordnance said:

Fill your boots. A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and ...

A total of 19 randomised controlled trials Conclusion .

The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented.

Have you actually read the paper you cite? It is a mix of very small sample studies, often without control groups.

Also from the link you left comes this

For healthcare workers, there is evidence of efficacy of respirators if worn continually during a shift, but no evidence of efficacy of a mask

Also, the excerpt you cite is full of vague language; 'suggest' (hardly definitive) and 'may' (equally may not) are hardly conclusive. Oh, and the excerpt is mainly about respirators, not masks.

So, in conclusion, you have not managed to show  a good case for mask wearing as no such evidence exists.

 

[ordnance]

The experts disagree, so we are unlikely to agree. But i don't need a expert to tell me that slobbers and snot, carrying virus partials do not travel as far if someone is wearing a mask, a 10 year old could figure that out.  

Quote

So, in conclusion, you have not managed to show  a good case for mask wearing as no such evidence exists.

In conclusion that's nonsense.   Face masks: what the data say - Nature

Fact check Masks, media, fact checkers and the interpretation of scientific ...

Study: COVID-19 risk slightly lower for mask wearers - Healio

Edited May 9, 2021 by ordnance

[udderlyoffroad]

9 hours ago, ordnance said:

a 10 year old could figure that out.  

A 10 yr old could also tell you its an airborne virus, with the average particle size being 0.125 µm, and your homemade cloth filter having a mesh size of err.....

The vulnerable are now vaccinated, with some studies suggesting we've reached herd immunity.  There's no good reason to continue this witless enforced mask wearing.

[JohnfromUK]

16 hours ago, ordnance said:

But i don't need a expert to tell me that slobbers and snot, carrying virus partials do not travel as far if someone is wearing a mask

You are quite right ....

16 hours ago, ordnance said:

a 10 year old could figure that out. 

and again you are quite right .... but for some reason it defeats several here

[udderlyoffroad]

41 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

and again you are quite right .... but for some reason it defeats several here

I would hope that said 10 year old had better reasoning skills than some on here.

Sadly, this 10 year old is growing up lacking normal human interaction at the moment, harming his development because he's been stuck at home for months on end trying to learn through a screen, to prevent the spread of a disease that in all likelihood he won't even know he has.  And even now he's back at school, and we've reached herd immunity (which remember, for every childhood disease he's vaccinated against, we rely on to protect the unvaccinatable...) he still has to wear a damn mask at school, further robbing him of normal interaction with his peers.

One sign of intelligence is supposed to be that you can hold two conflicting thoughts in your head at once.  It seems that a lot of people on here fail that test: they can barely grasp Corona = bad, but lockdown = bad as well.  

And before you pipe up with 'lockdown is the lesser of two evils' - there is mounting evidence that it really isn't.  End lockdown, now.

[ordnance]

10 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

A 10 yr old could also tell you its an airborne virus, with the average particle size being 0.125 µm, and your homemade cloth filter having a mesh size of err.....

The vulnerable are now vaccinated, with some studies suggesting we've reached herd immunity.  There's no good reason to continue this witless enforced mask wearing.

Viruses usually don't travel alone they are attached to larger particles, that can be stopped by masks err.... Masks will not prevent a lot of infections they just need to stop some, some is enough help in a pandemic.  

Edited May 10, 2021 by ordnance

[Scully]

1 minute ago, ordnance said:

Viruses usually don't travel alone they are attached to larger particles, that can be stopped by masks err....

....and snoods? Home made masks? Scarves? Pulled up jumpers and polo necked shirts? All acceptable as ‘face coverings’. 

[ordnance]

5 minutes ago, Scully said:

....and snoods? Home made masks? Scarves? Pulled up jumpers and polo necked shirts? All acceptable as ‘face coverings’. 

Did you ever put a handkerchief over your nose and mouth when sneezing to stop spreading germs snot etc, that's one thin layer but it will stop the larger particles that can travel a good distance and have viruses attached to them. 

[Scully]

24 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Did you ever put a handkerchief over your nose and mouth when sneezing to stop spreading germs snot etc, that's one thin layer but it will stop the larger particles that can travel a good distance and have viruses attached to them. 

Apart from it not being the same thing at all ( as a sneeze can travel through a hankie as well as transferring all those germs to your hand when you scrunch it up and put it back in a pocket.....to then do errrr, what, with your hands?) because any old face covering is acceptable. Anything, as long as your face is covered, except it isn’t always,  because visors are acceptable too! 
And now we’re ‘allowed’ to hug again! I’ve got news for politicians, some never stopped! You couldn’t make it up! 

[henry d]

21 hours ago, treetree said:

Also, the excerpt you cite is full of vague language; 'suggest' (hardly definitive) and 'may' (equally may not) are hardly conclusive.

Does that include the word some?

11 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

The vulnerable are now vaccinated, with some studies suggesting we've reached herd immunity. 

Medice, cura te ipsum?

[udderlyoffroad]

37 minutes ago, henry d said:

Medice, cura te ipsum?

primum non nocere!

lockdown very clearly in harm territory

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

some is enough help in a pandemic

Care to back that up with, well, any science whatsoever?  Ever heard of the law of unintended consequences? “It can’t hurt” isn’t a mantra you hear often from true medical professionals.