To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

ro_chez

moonage wrote: »

I find it easy to wear a mask but I don't want to because it reinforces the false narrative that we're in the midst of a deadly plague.

Sparkey84

moonage wrote: »

I find it easy to wear a mask but I don't want to because it reinforces the false narrative that we're in the midst of a deadly plague.

based on your two posts i take it you believe the covid disease is not deadly? i think it is great that you have posted such scutter,

one of the reasons im on this tread is that i want social media and discussion boards to have balanced information. i know most of my patients will not read peer reviewed articles but they might read this.

i have no doubt that a few undecided people have read your post and decided to wear a mask. they might have had doubts before but now they know its right to wear a mask because otherwise they will sound as of the wall as you.

the responsible among us wins a little victory every time we make our argument look good or indeed every time someone makes your argument look bad

am_zarathustra

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Sources showing they are ineffective against viruses with the particular transmissibility, size and infection mechanism of conroavirus please?

I suspect you are confusing a lack of data, due to the lack of a pandemic with negative data. You know, because we haven't had a pandemic in a hundred years, and this virus is different anyway, and it mutates.......the way they tend to.

Cool starting point, effective and have a nice doage impact to boot.

Washing your hands is pretty great too

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8

But you seem very sound, worrying elderly people by refusing to adhere to a very basic curtosy.

I linked to a book by Dr Vernon Coleman a few pages back entitled 'Proof That Masks Do More Harm Than Good'. It's full of references to studies and papers on masks going back years. It's available to read as a PDF.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

I linked to a book by Dr Vernon Coleman a few pages back entitled 'Proof That Masks Do More Harm Than Good'. It's full of references to studies and papers on masks going back years. It's available to read as a PDF.

The English conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccination activist, AIDS denialist, blogger :rolleyes:

Graham

Graham wrote: »

The English conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccination activist, AIDS denialist, blogger :rolleyes:

He quotes from studies and papers going back years.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

He quotes from studies and papers going back years.

I see

Maybe refer to those rather than cranks. Just an idea

am_zarathustra

Deleted User wrote: »

He quotes from studies and papers going back years.

Taking someone's opinion of science is always poor research.

He continued to say HIV/AIDs didn't exist after it had been isolated. Also he's a GP....I don't go to a GP unless I already know what's wrong. Half the time they give antibiotics for viral infections. They are not research scientists. They vary from amazing to dreadful with your chosen prince very much in the latter catagory.

Also it's a new virus, research on it should also be new. No one is saying a mask will stop you getting HIV.....because it's not aerosolized but it definitely exists

Graham

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Also he's a GP

was a GP

am_zarathustra

Graham wrote: »

was a GP

Your right, I was giving him way too much credit......glad to see he was struck off.

Sparkey84

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He quotes from studies and papers going back years.

can you please link any of those studies please?

Graham

Graham wrote: »

was a GP

But still more of a doctor than the person who heads WHO, who, incidentally, may face genocide charges: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-chief-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-may-face-genocide-charges-2fbfz7sff

Dr Coleman's book contains titles of papers and studies. A person could read those papers and studies for themselves and make up their own mind. It's irrelevant really who the author is. The point is that the titles of numerous studies and papers are all in the book.

Sparkey84

Sparkey84 wrote: »

can you please link any of those studies please?

Sorry, I don't have links to specific studies, but the titles are all in this book: https://vernoncoleman.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/proof-that-face-masks-do-more-harm-than-good-v2.pdf

If you search for them on Google you might be able to find them. I'm not sure.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

Dr Coleman's book contains titles of papers and studies. A person could read those papers and studies for themselves and make up their own mind. It's irrelevant really who the author is. The point is that the titles of numerous studies and papers are all in the book.

It falsely presents studies as proof of one thing when they showed no such thing. In that sense it does matter who the author is.
One of the studies linked earlier in the thread claiming masks don't work showed that surgical masks worked as PPE which I challenged earlier in the thread - several times by you and by a previous user Fodla who also quoted the book.
The rest will be of similar ilk because Coleman is a shsyter.
The studies will be found to have too small sample sizes, to be contradicted by other studies or more specific studies, or to be used as evidence in ways which the studies themselves were not intended for.

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

It falsely presents studies as proof of one thing when they showed no such thing. In that sense it does matter who the author is.
One of the studies linked earlier in the thread claiming masks don't work showed that surgical masks worked as PPE which I challenged earlier in the thread - several times by you and by a previous user Fodla who also quoted the book.
The rest will be of similar ilk because Coleman is a shsyter.
The studies will be found to have too small sample sizes, to be contradicted by other studies or more specific studies, or to be used as evidence in ways which the studies themselves were not intended for.

But that's why people should read the studies for themselves and make their own mind up. It's just handy that the studies and papers are in the book so that people can search for the titles.

am_zarathustra

Deleted User wrote: »

But that's why people should read the studies for themselves and make their own mind up. It's just handy that the studies and papers are in the book so that people can search for the titles.

It's a book from year ago. With a very biased author. You'd fail your JC if that's the level of research you did for science.

Either put a link to an actual paper in which modern transmissibility studies are done, specifically on aerosolized viral particles or stop spreading nonsense to people. If you can't recommend an actual paper you haven't a breeze.

WHO have a very specific remit. Completely separate from other organizations and not necessarily about Gps. Walk into any hospital and ask any random nurse or doctor and the vast majority will say they wear masks as they studied the science. The odd luncatix doesn't show anything, especially when they do faulty metatanaylysis in books.

Everyone shouldnt do their own research in all honesty, most papers require a few years of science education at tertiary level to to able to access the info and to understand the caveats. I hadn't read a lot of papers in a few years as I changed fields and at the start of this it was taking me ages to get back into it. You shouldn't be advising people on where to go for information if you have no background in the field, same way you should be given a prescription pad.

If you want to read actual data my first go to is always Pubmed, usually the broadest sweep of all the info out there and the search function is easy to use.

am_zarathustra

am_zarathustra wrote: »

It's a book from year ago. With a very biased author. You'd fail your JC if that's the level of research you did for science.

Either put a link to an actual paper in which modern transmissibility studies are done, specifically on aerosolized viral particles or stop spreading nonsense to people. If you can't recommend an actual paper you haven't a breeze.

WHO have a very specific remit. Completely separate from other organizations and not necessarily about Gps. Walk into any hospital and ask any random nurse or doctor and the vast majority will say they wear masks as they studied the science. The odd luncatix doesn't show anything, especially when they do faulty metatanaylysis in books.

Everyone shouldnt do their own research in all honesty, most papers require a few years of science education at tertiary level to to able to access the info and to understand the caveats. I hadn't read a lot of papers in a few years as I changed fields and at the start of this it was taking me ages to get back into it. You shouldn't be advising people on where to go for information if you have no background in the field, same way you should be given a prescription pad.

If you want to read actual data my first go to is always Pubmed, usually the broadest sweep of all the info out there and the search function is easy to use.

That's an important point you make about a background in science being a prerequisite for being able to read studies and interpret data.

I'll check out Pubmed, thanks.

paw patrol

odyssey06 wrote: »

Seems like you are wound up about it.
Careful now.
That might mark you out as one of the easily wound up?

maybe.
doesn't bother me if I'm left alone, when imposed on me - can grate.
If you think that's worthy of an online dig. fair play to you , your medal is in the post

Seanergy

Extract from the EAG meeting from today, April 6th, 2020. Today's focus is once again on masks but within the Infection Prevention Control guidance for Nursing homes/Long Term Care Facilities. It is a longer read than usual, nothing I can do about that.

Often people have been placing all the blame for deaths in NH/LTCF's on patient transfer, which is not necessarily the case. Staff in LTCF went unmasked until April 22nd, as supply was not available.

MC = Martin Cormican, HSE lead for IPC.

Sparkey84

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry, I don't have links to specific studies, but the titles are all in this book: https://vernoncoleman.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/proof-that-face-masks-do-more-harm-than-good-v2.pdf

If you search for them on Google you might be able to find them. I'm not sure.

i think already covered now but that "book" is not a credible piece of literature. it is so bias it is of no use. i agree with latest poster whom also signposted you to pubmed.

Sparkey84

paw patrol wrote: »

maybe.
doesn't bother me if I'm left alone, when imposed on me - can grate.
If you think that's worthy of an online dig. fair play to you , your medal is in the post

unfortunately during a pandemic things are going to be imposed, there is no way around that. we can not exactly agree to disagree on masks and impose on nobody.

a law to make masks mandatory is going to impose on a person who does not wish to wear one

on the other hand the free will of an anti-masker to not wear a mask is going to impose probably higher risk and clearly higher fear on the people in the shop queue next to him.

am_zarathustra

Sparkey84 wrote: »

unfortunately during a pandemic things are going to be imposed, there is no way around that. we can not exactly agree to disagree on masks and impose on nobody.

a law to make masks mandatory is going to impose on a person who does not wish to wear one

on the other hand the free will of an anti-masker to not wear a mask is going to impose probably higher risk and clearly higher fear on the people in the shop queue next to him.

This is important. Rights come with responsibilities. Draconian laws are only required when responsibilities are shirked by a percentage of the population putting the rest in danger. Most people would not drive dangerously or drag race in country roads regardless of whether it was illegal or not because they respect their own lives and the lives of others. The laws do not exist to keep these people in check, road laws exist for the small minority that are reckless.

Same way I wouldnt break into an old person's house and physically or mentally intimidate them regardless of what the law says but we need laws to stop that's small minority terrorizing people in their own homes. The state provides us all with protections, protections the vast majority of the worlds population do not enjoy, we'd so well to remember this when asked to wear a bit of clothes over our mouths for a few minutes (and I wear one all day and don't mind)

moonage

Sparkey84 wrote: »

a law to make masks mandatory is going to impose on a person who does not wish to wear one

on the other hand the free will of an anti-masker to not wear a mask is going to impose probably higher risk and clearly higher fear on the people in the shop queue next to him.

Impose probably higher risk? The "Masks might help a bit" argument isn't strong enough for them to be mandatory.

Maskless people causing higher fear is the result of the hyper overreaction of the government and the media to a relatively mild disease.

Hopefully over time more and more people will stop this silly practice of mask wearing.

Sconsey

moonage wrote: »

Impose probably higher risk? The "Masks might help a bit" argument isn't strong enough for them to be mandatory.

Maskless people causing higher fear is the result of the hyper overreaction of the government and the media to a relatively mild disease.

Hopefully over time more and more people will stop this silly practice of mask wearing.

"The masks might help a bit" is not really an argumet at all...."masks are proven to reduce the risk of transmission" is the actual argument.

Hopefully over time the last few luddites that cannot get a grasp on that point for themselves will have no option but to wear a mask in appropriate settings, or stay away.

Fandymo

Sconsey wrote: »

"The masks might help a bit" is not really an argumet at all...."masks are proven to reduce the risk of transmission" is the actual argument.

Hopefully over time the last few luddites that cannot get a grasp on that point for themselves will have no option but to wear a mask in appropriate settings, or stay away.

Have you got anything to show that wearing a mask in a public, uncontrolled environment such as public transport or shop is "proven to reduce the risk of transmission" of Covid-19, a peer reviewed study or the likes? I'd love to read up on it and what protection the different types of face covering (which is what we legally have to have, not a mask) provide to us.

xhomelezz

Fandymo wrote: »

Have you got anything to show that wearing a mask in a public, uncontrolled environment such as public transport or shop is "proven to reduce the risk of transmission" of Covid-19, a peer reviewed study or the likes? I'd love to read up on it and what protection the different types of face covering (which is what we legally have to have, not a mask) provide to us.

How about to read the thread?? Plenty posters provided plenty of evidence for over a year by now. Sooo don't be lazy and read.

Sconsey

Fandymo wrote: »

Have you got anything to show that wearing a mask in a public, uncontrolled environment such as public transport or shop is "proven to reduce the risk of transmission" of Covid-19, a peer reviewed study or the likes? I'd love to read up on it and what protection the different types of face covering (which is what we legally have to have, not a mask) provide to us.

As mentioned already there are loads of links to recent studies in these threads. But just to get you started, here is a link to 70 studies compiled last year:
https://threader.app/thread/1279144399897866248

Fandymo

Sconsey wrote: »

As mentioned already there are loads of links to recent studies in these threads. But just to get you started, here is a link to 70 studies compiled last year:
https://threader.app/thread/1279144399897866248

I've read through the first few. The first one is literally just showing, visually, smoke through a mask. The second one they just guess "We estimated the effects of face cover mandates on the daily county-level COVID-19 growth rate." as does the third "Potential predictors of per-capita coronavirus-related mortality in 198 countries were examined".

Could you tell me which of the 70 linked there, proves, that in an uncontrolled environment such as a public bus/train or shop, that masks are "proven to reduce the risk of transmission" as you stated a few posts back.

I did find this interesting sentence in one of the linked studies "Although no direct evidence indicates that cloth masks are effective in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the evidence that they reduce contamination of air and surfaces is convincing", which would contradict your assertion that they are "proven to reduce the risk of transmission", as you can't prove something without evidence.

xhomelezz

Some reading capacities there to pick few words and one sentence in few minutes. And there we go again. Heading to bulletproof proof masks do not work. Or there's gonna be link to some new world order or similar bs.

Edit: Can smell it from South Tipp where this is gonna go. Even over the mask.

Sconsey

Fandymo wrote: »

I've read through the first few. The first one is literally just showing, visually, smoke through a mask. The second one they just guess "We estimated the effects of face cover mandates on the daily county-level COVID-19 growth rate." as does the third "Potential predictors of per-capita coronavirus-related mortality in 198 countries were examined".

Could you tell me which of the 70 linked there, proves, that in an uncontrolled environment such as a public bus/train or shop, that masks are "proven to reduce the risk of transmission" as you stated a few posts back.

I did find this interesting sentence in one of the linked studies "Although no direct evidence indicates that cloth masks are effective in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the evidence that they reduce contamination of air and surfaces is convincing", which would contradict your assertion that they are "proven to reduce the risk of transmission", as you can't prove something without evidence.

What exactly is an uncontrolled environment? are you saying if something like particle filtering is observed in a mask in a lab that does not mean the same would happen in a shop? does the shop do somethign to the mask when you pass through the entrance?

/Edit: By the way you seem to be complaining that these studies do not prove anything. Some of them clearly prove that masks filter out particles and others look at the data in relation to infections with and without mask mandates. On the one hand you have proof that mask reduce particle transmission and on the other hand you have data that shows less transmission when masks are worn. You can continue to bury your head in the sand if you want, but you will be doing it outside the shops and public transport.

Sparkey84

Impose probably higher risk? The "Masks might help a bit" argument isn't strong enough for them to be mandatory. .........

that is an opinion not a factual statement. and as a wise man once said opinions are like assholes, we all have one.

Maskless people causing higher fear is the result of the hyper overreaction of the government and the media to a relatively mild disease. ..........

is fearing a drunk driver a hyper overreaction? the mindset is the same, a selfish individual who does not care about wider society and puts there social need above another persons safety, we all know the damage they can do

Hopefully over time more and more people will stop this silly practice of mask wearing......

if i crash my car today i am not 100% sure the seatbelt will save me, but research shows i am probably going to have a better outcome with it on so it is worth having.

the seat belt is a really great example actually when they were first made mandatory in the states some people (mostly complete morons) had a negative reaction about how a seatbelt violated their freedom and likened it to a criminal being restrained.

its a good laugh to read some of the comments, im sure many of the people have evolved their view now and would recoil in horror at just how stupid they were but hey.

history will be equally unkind to anti-maskers they will be grouped in with the anti-vaxers and flat earthers.