Masks had no impact, full lockdown had no impact - Study of 30 countries finds

[Logosone]

A study by several universities and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine examined the effect of policies in 30 countries and found that wearing masks made no difference, and the UK's full lockdown made no difference, after analysing the results of policies put in place in 30 countries.

 

"It was found that these stay-home policies were not linked with a decline in incidences, and that as the number of lock-down days increased, so did the number of cases.

 

Wearing facemasks in public was not associated with any independent additional impact. 

 

Dr Brainard said: 'The use of face coverings initially seems to have had a protective effect. However, after day 15 of the face covering advisories or requirements, we saw that the number of cases started to rise – with a similar pattern for the number of deaths.

'Face coverings may even be associated with increased risk"

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294507/New-study-reveals-blueprint-getting-Covid-19-lockdown.html

 

//Edit by Maestro: Link to referenced study:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260v1.full.pdf

Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study

 

ABSTRACT
The current epidemic of COVID-19 is unparalleled in recent history as are the social distancing interventions that have led to a significant halt on the economic and social life of so many  countries.
However, there is very little empirical evidence about which social distancing measures have the most impact. We report a quasi-experimental study of the impact of various interventions for control of the outbreak. Data on case numbers and deaths were taken from the daily published figures by the European Centre for Disease Control and dates of initiation of various control strategies from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation website and published sources. Our primary analyses were modelled in R using Bayesian generalised additive mixed models (GAMM). We found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some nonessential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders, closure of all non-businesses and requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact. Our results could help inform strategies for coming out of lockdown.

 

Source: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260

 

[BritManToo]

IMHO .........

The totalitarian actions of the governments was never about COVID.

It's all about something else, but we don't know what quite yet.

Edited May 8, 2020 by BritManToo

[Logosone]

So there we have it, confirmation funded by Public Health England, carried out by a UK university, that Neil Ferguson's lockdown policy had no impact at all.

 

The use of masks had no impact and deaths rose despite the use of face masks.

 

The strength of this study is that it covered 30 countries, and thereby bypassed the problem of various measures being used at the same time when one only examines one country.

 

Good job UK, you proved that the lockdown and use of masks had no impact at all. Faith is restored.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

IMHO .........

The totalitarian actions of the governments was never about COVID.

It's all about something else, but we don't know what quite yet.

The actions of the UK government certainly did resemble totalitarian style measures, obviously. However, the reason for the implementation was simply fear. Because Neil Ferguson saw Italy being overwhelmed he adjusted his figures and his report and advised the government, falsely, that stay at home lockdowns would make  a difference.

 

As we now know, thanks to this 30 country study from the UK, the stay at home total enforced lockdown made no difference.

 

Wearing masks made no difference.

 

The UK government made the wrong decision because it got the wrong advice:

 

Professor Heneghan said: 'The UK Government keeps saying it is using the best science.

'But it appears to be losing sight of what’s actually going on. We’ve been getting scientific advice that is consistently wrong.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294507/New-study-reveals-blueprint-getting-Covid-19-lockdown.html

[Relocated]

I commend you for speaking against generally accepted cult but be prepared for all the curse. All the medias are fanatic to erase any heretic post including Youtube and Facebook. 

[Lacessit]

Full lockdown in Australia and New Zealand. 14 days quarantine for returning Australians. Social distancing, hefty fines for breaches. Result: 118 deaths total, both countries. Death rate 4 per million population. Recovery rate 85%.

USA: Nearly 77,000 deaths, death rate 232 per million population. Recovery rate 15%.

I guess Australia and New Zealand were left out of the survey, Sir Humphrey.

 

[Bkk Brian]

Wuhan?

[LomSak27]

Your link to the Daily Mail article  pulls up one that has nothing to say about masks it talks about the effects of full lockdown in euro-land.

 

I'm sure that is an honest error on your part. Please re link to the correct article.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Face coverings may even be associated with increased risk"

Which was official NZ position at the start of all this.

I've been saying that all along, but some posters oppose and demand everyone wear one.

Are they now going to admit they had no grounds for demanding everyone wear one? I'm not holding my breath.

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, Retarded said:

I commend you for speaking against generally accepted cult but be prepared for all the curse. All the medias are fanatic to erase any heretic post including Youtube and Facebook. 

 

Oh I know the fear is strong. I know many will not like the results of this research. However, this is not Youtube or Facebook research. This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London and Public Health England.

 

It was reported in a mainstream newspaper. This is going to be the orthodoxy in a very short time.

 

There is no arguing with the figures. We can see clearly wearing masks had no impact. That stay at home enforced lockdown had no impact. 

 

I was afraid that academics, like we saw in China, would not be able to untangle the impact of each each measure because several were used at the same time. However, UK academics smartly bypassed this problem, by analysing the timing of measures used in 30 countries, and the impacts on deaths and cases, thereby showing clearly that enforced stay at home lockdown and wearing masks had no impact.

 

This is the truth. Measures have to be evaluated. This was done. Neil Ferguson was found to have failed. Mask proponents' measures were found to have failed and to have no impact.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Logosone

[cornishcarlos]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

14 days quarantine for returning Australians.

 

Enforced quarantine and closed borders was probably the reason for better results... Lock down not so much.

[Lacessit]

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

IMHO .........

The totalitarian actions of the governments was never about COVID.

It's all about something else, but we don't know what quite yet.

That "something else" would require the equal sharing of intelligence between governments on a scale of co-operation that would be unprecedented. Really?

[Bkk Brian]

They cautioned that the study, which was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London and Public Health England, is experimental.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Full lockdown in Australia and New Zealand. 14 days quarantine for returning Australians. Social distancing, hefty fines for breaches. Result: 118 deaths total, both countries. Death rate 4 per million population. Recovery rate 85%.

USA: Nearly 77,000 deaths, death rate 232 per million population. Recovery rate 15%.

I guess Australia and New Zealand were left out of the survey, Sir Humphrey.

 

The US and NZ/ Australia are different situations. We don't know what may have caused the difference other than lockdown. It could be as simple as southern summer, northern winter.

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, LomSak27 said:

Your link to the Daily Mail article  pulls up one that has nothing to say about masks it talks about the effects of full lockdown in euro-land.

 

I'm sure that is an honest error on your part. Please re link to the correct article.

 

Oh you just need to read the article, carefully, LomSak27, I will highlight here the parts you need to look for:

 

"Gradients which showed less of an effect, or apparently no effect at all, on the risk ratio are pictured, showing that total business closures, staying at home, and wearing masks do not appear to impact the risk of virus spread"

 

 

"Researchers looked at the number of cases and deaths taken from daily published figures by the European Centre for Disease Control. These were compared with the start dates of different measures including the restriction of mass gatherings, the closure of schools and different types of businesses, stay-at-home orders and the wearing of face masks."

 

"Wearing facemasks in public was not associated with any independent additional impact."

 

"Dr Brainard said: 'The use of face coverings initially seems to have had a protective effect. However, after day 15 of the face covering advisories or requirements, we saw that the number of cases started to rise – with a similar pattern for the number of deaths. Face coverings may even be associated with increased risk."

 

All in that link which you claim does not talk about face masks:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294507/New-study-reveals-blueprint-getting-Covid-19-lockdown.html

 

I'm sure that's just an honest mistake on your part, ie in not reading the article.

 

Don't worry, it's okay.

[Denim]

14 hours ago, Logosone said:

We’ve been getting scientific advice that is consistently wrong.

 

Yes, high time the British government stood down and let the editor and staff of the Daily Mail et al run the country. They almost run it by proxy anyway.

 

As for scientists and experts , they sure have a lot of contradictory views and advice that is ever evolving and not a lot clearer than mud.

[Youlike]

Nei ferguson didn't even compy with the lockdown rules himself...what a hypocrite #$$%#..good that he got sacked.

[thaibeachlovers]

24 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The use of masks had no impact and deaths rose despite the use of face masks.

I've seen zero scientific evidence that commonly used masks make a difference. The best most come up with seems to be that because they think they work ( despite no scientific evidence ) everyone should do what THEY think is right.

At no time did they ever demand the use of goggles or eye shields, without which masks are pointless anyway.

 

However, I've always said that people coughing and sneezing should wear one, despite that they should not even be out in public anyway.

[DavisH]

Was this a BACI designed study? It it is just correlational, one cannot infer causation. Plose a link to the refereed article...if and when it is published. 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by DavisH

[bert bloggs]

Put 10 different expert research organizations in a room and how many will have a different answer?

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Oh I know the fear is strong. I know many will not like the results of this research. However, this is not Youtube or Facebook research. This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London and Public Health England.

 

It was reported in a mainstream newspaper. This is going to be the orthodoxy in a very short time.

 

There is no arguing with the figures. We can see clearly wearing masks had no impact. That stay at home enforced lockdown had no impact. 

 

I was afraid that academics, like we saw in China, would not be able to untangle the impact of each each measure because several were used at the same time. However, UK academics smartly bypassed this problem, by analysing the timing of measures used in 30 countries, and the impacts on deaths and cases, thereby showing clearly that enforced stay at home lockdown and wearing masks had no impact.

 

This is the truth. Measures have to be evaluated. This was done. Neil Ferguson was found to have failed. Mask proponents' measures were found to have failed and to have no impact.

 

 

You are putting in an extraordinary amount of effort to justify your well known position that you refuse to wear a mask. Fine, if you get refused entry or service at any shopping mall, don't come whining on TV about it.

It's not about you getting infected, it's about you infecting other people if you have COVID-19. You can't know that you haven't, unless you have been tested, and that status could change with a cough or sneeze.

The stay at home enforced lockdown seems to have worked quite well for Australia and New Zealand, but don't let data get in the way of your crusade.

[mr mr]

the rules and lock down were never about the virus. it's cute that so many still believe that. this whole thing has been an experiment to test the population.  

 

all of this rubbish needs to stop it's getting rather stale now. the world needs to run again as the consequences of stopping are already starting to be far worse than any so called pandemic. 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by mr mr

[BritManToo]

Just now, bert bloggs said:

Put 10 different expert research organizations in a room and how many will have a different answer?

Would depend on how many different 'sponsors' they had funding them.

[DavisH]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've seen zero scientific evidence that commonly used masks make a difference. The best most come up with seems to be that because they think they work ( despite no scientific evidence ) everyone should do what THEY think is right.

At no time did they ever demand the use of goggles or eye shields, without which masks are pointless anyway.

 

However, I've always said that people coughing and sneezing should wear one, despite that they should not even be out in public anyway.

Probably because much of the transmission of the virus is happening in the home where nobody is wearing masks. Large gatherings - concerts, sports, religious gathering - where the initial cause of large outbreaks, but they got stopped quickly. 

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, Denim said:

 

Yes, high time the British government stood down and let the editor and staff of the Daily Mail et al run the country. They almost run it by proxy anyway.

 

As for scientists and experts , they sure have a lot of contradictory views and advice that is ever evolving and not a lot clearer than mud.

 

You appear to be confused, Denim, the Daily mail did not conduct the study, they merely reported it.

 

You will be glad to know, that they reported it accurately. See, I checked the actual research, you can find it here:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260v1.full.pdf

 

And frankly, this survey of 30 countries' policies could not be clearer:

 

"We found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some nonessential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders, closure of all non-businesses and requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact."

 

Seems extremely clear to me.

 

[Phulublub]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The US and NZ/ Australia are different situations. We don't know what may have caused the difference other than lockdown. It could be as simple as southern summer, northern winter.

We DO NOT know what did and didnot have an effect in Aus/NZ, but we DO know what did and did not work in UK?  Seems a little bit of cherry picking to support preconceived conclusions to me.

 

PH

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You are putting in an extraordinary amount of effort to justify your well known position that you refuse to wear a mask. Fine, if you get refused entry or service at any shopping mall, don't come whining on TV about it.

It's not about you getting infected, it's about you infecting other people if you have COVID-19. You can't know that you haven't, unless you have been tested, and that status could change with a cough or sneeze.

The stay at home enforced lockdown seems to have worked quite well for Australia and New Zealand, but don't let data get in the way of your crusade.

You obviously missed where I said I carry a mask to wear if necessary. We ain't allowed in malls anyway.

 

I can't infect anyone else because NO ONE where I live is infected, and it's well past the time needed for the virus to produce symptoms.

 

Heaps of people have been flouting the lockdown rules. Hundreds been arrested ( not me ), but don't let facts get in the way of your crusade.

Everytime I go to the supermarket less than 1 % are wearing masks, so I'm hardly alone in regarding masks as a waste of time.

[DavisH]

This study is limited to Europe, where mask usage wan never really a thing in the early stages of the virus. They should have included a study of asian countries, where mask usage was high, right from the start of the pandemic, and even before that due to pollution. 

[DavisH]

Just now, Phulublub said:

We DO NOT know what did and didnot have an effect in Aus/NZ, but we DO know what did and did not work in UK?  Seems a little bit of cherry picking to support preconceived conclusions to me.

 

PH

Because that study was only based on results from European countries. They cannot be extrapolated to anywhere else. 

[LomSak27]

Just now, Logosone said:

I'm sure that's just an honest mistake on your part, ie in not reading the article.

 

Don't worry, it's okay.

This comes from well ... what 4 cyber pages down past the first slather of diagrams

 

They said that more investigation is needed on the use of face coverings in public, as the current results, which do not support using them in public, were 'too preliminary

 

<deleted> now at the bottom of the entire article

 

 

UNDECIDED 

Facemasks

Wearing facemasks in public was not associated with any independent additional impact. But the researchers say these results are too preliminary to reliably inform policy.

Dr Brainard said: 'The use of face coverings initially seems to have had a protective effect. However, after day 15 of the face covering advisories or requirements, we saw that the number of cases started to rise – with a similar pattern for the number of deaths.

'Face coverings may even be associated with increased risk, but the data quality for this is very uncertain.

'The results on face coverings are too preliminary to reliably inform policy, but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community.

'Wearing face covering as an intervention certainly merits close monitoring,' she added.

 

So you were cutting and editing ...  and missed a few things.     I'm sure on honest mistake. BTW pretty slipshod anecdotal approach to science, probably explains why the UK is overtaking Italy.