7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Of course they can. The study makes clear that the closure of schools was the number one factor that made a difference.

 

Anyone who's ever had children knows what disease incubators kindergardens and schools are.

But all we hear is that its only old fat people with diabetes that will get it.

 

You still refuse to understand english. To suggest doesnt mean it has no effect. And they didnt test countries that use it.

 

You are simply wrong in your assertion.

Just now, Logosone said:

Wrong. There was plenty of data. From 30 countries in fact.

 

Plenty of European countries made it mandatory.

 

They need not have bothered, as we now know since wearing masks confers no benefits at all.

 

None.

No thats not what your quoted study says.

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

No you shamelessly try to distort the findings of the study, as you do above by omitting key statements.

 I am merely quoting back to you things you have said.  And pointed out the inconsistencies in your stance.

 

I am neither knowledgable enough to know, nor bullheaded and arrogant enough to think that I knowthe truth as to the efficacy of masks.  I can, however, read and understand English. It appears we are different inseveral respects.

 

PH

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No you shamelessly try to distort the findings of the study, as you do above by omitting key statements. In fact the report said:

 

"These results would suggest that the widespread use of face masks or coverings in the community do not provide any benefit. Indeed, there is even a suggestion that they may actually increase risk"

 

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

 ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

"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"

 

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

 

It's over. The mask fanaticism has had its day. 

 

The truth is out.

You keep repeating the same thing time and again, and omitting parts which do not fully support your interpretation of the non peer reviewed studies, which is flawed, but your failure to realise that is not surprising.

Science is based on an open inquiring mind, not holding to one view to support your own inherent bias, the exchange of ideas and information, and ability to comprehend nuances in language.

41 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Certainly seems to be on a mission. I thought he'd be busy making a few more highly profitable currency trades. ???? 

Oh don't worry, the trades are in.

 

It's like sowing  seeds. Once you place a trade, you just wait for the profits to grow. Plenty of time to post, I keep checking the movements, but I suspect until the big news tonight there won't be much movement.

 

I'm in USD JPY now. It's a shame I didn't take the pound short the last few days again, it was again ripe for shorting the hell out of it. It went as low as 1.22 yesterday.

39 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Nigeria's infection curve is just starting to rise up - 107 deaths so far.

 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/nigeria/

 

 

If you seriously think that with a population of 168 million Nigeria has 3526 cases  you need to join Spotlight Thailand. 

 

They'll also be spinning the incredibly low figures in Thailand as totally believable.

 

Good luck.

 

Don't forget your slingshot.

43 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

While I admire your energy in posting and reposting endless justifications for your various positions, bear in mind Australians are highly suspicious of any attempt at authority, and disrespectful accordingly. 

He says as he meekly puts his mask on to comply with his Thai leaders' nonsensical requests.

 

You're so funny.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

It does?  For this deisease?

 

How, then, do you explain:

 

Throat swabs from children have shown similar viral load to those in adults21, yet a review of contact tracing studies failed to find incidents where transmission occurred from children to adults 21.

 

Your narrative continues to fall apart around you.  But that us the problem with starting with a conclusion and then trying to get the evidence to fit. It often refuses toplay ball.

 

PH

 

Obviously the contact tracing studies are flawed.

 

"New Studies Add to Evidence that Children May Transmit the Coronavirus

 

Two new studies offer compelling evidence that children can transmit the virus."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/health/coronavirus-children-transmission-school.html

 

 

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Obviously the contact tracing studies are flawed.

 

"New Studies Add to Evidence that Children May Transmit the Coronavirus

 

Two new studies offer compelling evidence that children can transmit the virus."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/health/coronavirus-children-transmission-school.html

 

 

Ah.  I see. Those studies are flawed. But your non-peer reviewed quasi-experimental study is absolutely spot on.  That wouldn't be because it fits your preconception at all, would it?

 

 

PH

8 hours ago, Youlike said:

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

Yes, Neil Ferguson is such an evil hypocrite.  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave Imperial College London where he works $79 million in March 2020.  I hope him and his married mistress are enjoying the money.  He certainly has played a major role in destroying the US economy.

 

18 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

You keep repeating the same thing time and again, and omitting parts which do not fully support your interpretation of the non peer reviewed studies, which is flawed, but your failure to realise that is not surprising.

Science is based on an open inquiring mind, not holding to one view to support your own inherent bias, the exchange of ideas and information, and ability to comprehend nuances in language.

I am posting what the study says. I have also posted the full article and the full study. Many times.

 

The study is totally persuasive.

 

It's over for the mask fanatics, their whole premise has been shown to be wrong. 

 

"These results would suggest that the widespread use of face masks or coverings in the community do not provide any benefit. Indeed, there is even a suggestion that they may actually increase risk"

 

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

 ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

"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"

 

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

 

Masks confer no benefit.

 

You, and many others' inability to take in the very clear findings of this study clearly show who is lacking an open and inquiring mind.

 

Of course the mask fanatics can't accept they were wrong all along, who would be surprised by the desperate attempts we see on here to distort very clear data.

 

But the data is clear, the statements are clear.

 

Masks confer no benefit, stay at home lockdown, closing of non-essential businesses, all of this conferred no benefit.

 

It was just a massive waste of time and money, based on flawed scientific advice. Good thing we have this study now which proves once and for all that all these measures I refer to above were totally useless.

30 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No thats not what your quoted study says.

Actually, that's exactly what the study says:

 

"These results would suggest that the widespread use of face masks or coverings in the community do not provide any benefit. Indeed, there is even a suggestion that they may actually increase risk"

 

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

 ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

"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"

 

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

 

Masks confer no benefit. None.

 

Totally useless in this pandemic. A study of the data from 30 countries by several universities and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical medicine rather trumps the weak objections here.

29 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

You keep repeating the same thing time and again, and omitting parts which do not fully support your interpretation of the non peer reviewed studies, which is flawed, but your failure to realise that is not surprising.

 

That's exactly what he's doing -- repeatedly mischaracterizing what the study really said, apparently in hopes that by posting misleading excerpts over and over again that people will end up believing it's true.

 

40 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No you shamelessly try to distort the findings of the study, as you do above by omitting key statements. In fact the report said:

 

"These results would suggest that the widespread use of face masks or coverings in the community do not provide any benefit. Indeed, there is even a suggestion that they may actually increase risk"

 

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

 ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

"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"

 

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

 

It's over. The mask fanaticism has had its day. 

 

The truth is out.

The only mask fanatic is you. That's the truth.

4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

That's exactly what he's doing -- repeatedly mischaracterizing what the study really said, apparently in hopes that by posting misleading excerpts over and over again that people will end up believing it's true.

 

He's just embarrassing himself now, leave him to it. 

25 minutes ago, Logosone said:

If you seriously think that with a population of 168 million Nigeria has 3526 cases  you need to join Spotlight Thailand. 

 

They'll also be spinning the incredibly low figures in Thailand as totally believable.

 

Good luck.

 

Don't forget your slingshot.

Ducking and diving yet again. You said that Nigeria had had no deaths from the virus. But then porky pies are your staple diet.

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Ducking and diving yet again. You said that Nigeria had had no deaths from the virus. But then porky pies are your staple diet.

A perfect example of the misrepresentation, distortion and outright lies those opposing this wonderful study are reduced to. Pitifiul. One is shocked and raises the eyebrows.

 

I had of course not said that. I wrote:

 

"No doubt Nigerians are also sitting at home marvelling about the mysterious reasons why they are so unbelievably successful in almost having no deaths and no cases, even more than Thailand."

 

The fact is that Nigeria with a population of 204,000,000 claims it had the miniscule numbers of 107 deaths and 3526 cases. This would be even more successful than amazingly successful Thailand.

 

Until you realise that both countries hardly do any testing, which obviously explains the rather low figures. How would you know if someone died of Covid19 if you never tested them for Covid19?

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Until you realise that both countries hardly do any testing, which obviously explains the rather low figures. How would you know if someone died of Covid19 if you never tested them for Covid19?

So a couple of questions for you...

 

how many per thousand would one have to test before it became more than "hardly any"?

if someone dies and is tested for covid, how do you know they died of it (rather than dying of something else while they have it)?

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Oh don't worry, the trades are in.

 

It's like sowing  seeds. Once you place a trade, you just wait for the profits to grow. Plenty of time to post, I keep checking the movements, but I suspect until the big news tonight there won't be much movement.

 

I'm in USD JPY now. It's a shame I didn't take the pound short the last few days again, it was again ripe for shorting the hell out of it. It went as low as 1.22 yesterday.

A financial wizard as well, the wonders are unceasing. But then, yesterday's trades are easy to predict, and it becomes even easier when you don't say which side of of the USD JPY trade you are on.

Just now, Lacessit said:

A financial wizard as well, the wonders are unceasing. But then, yesterday's trades are easy to predict, and it becomes even easier when you don't say which side of of the USD JPY trade you are on.

I know right, I wouldn't say wizard. I have a strategy that works, 80% of the time, that's all. The rest is risk management and psychological awareness.

 

Well spotted, of course I am very careful of not revealing my trades in full. Unless I was successful. Or get paid to do so. Call me eccentric if you will, it makes sense.

More advice from "experts" who over 3 months down the line are still  doing more  u turns than an uber driver with a broken sat nav

13 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

So a couple of questions for you...

 

how many per thousand would one have to test before it became more than "hardly any"?

if someone dies and is tested for covid, how do you know they died of it (rather than dying of something else while they have it)?

So the second question first, the general practice in serious countries is to do large scale testing for Covid19 and when someone died who tested positive for Covid19 then they are automatically counted as having died of Covid19. This of course does risk overestimating the number of Covid19 deaths, since indeed someone could have tested positive for Covid19 but then have died of something other than Covid19. Statistically this doesn't happen, all who died that tested positive are counted as having died of Covid19. The reason is that in case of doubt you'd have to do an autopsy and have a closer look which is not something medical professionals are keen on doing with Covid19 patients, unsurprisingly.

 

As for the second question look at the above testing graph and go half way between Italy and Nigeria.

"...full lockdown had no impact"

 

Actually, the full lockdown has had a huge impact.

It's lead to the rise of authoritarian dictatorships at the city, county/province, and country level;

It's destroyed economies world-wide;

It's destroyed jobs world-wide;

It's created a class of citizens who are blindly obedient, fearful and who are willing to become government snitches and shaming vigilantes;

It's created an atmosphere of society destroying fear of germs;

It's destroyed the ability of the global youth to socialize and to attend school;

It's created needless panic that may never subside. 

 

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

I am posting what the study says. I have also posted the full article and the full study. Many times.

 

The study is totally persuasive.

 

It's over for the mask fanatics, their whole premise has been shown to be wrong. 

 

"These results would suggest that the widespread use of face masks or coverings in the community do not provide any benefit. Indeed, there is even a suggestion that they may actually increase risk"

 

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

 ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

"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"

 

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

 

Masks confer no benefit.

 

You, and many others' inability to take in the very clear findings of this study clearly show who is lacking an open and inquiring mind.

 

Of course the mask fanatics can't accept they were wrong all along, who would be surprised by the desperate attempts we see on here to distort very clear data.

 

But the data is clear, the statements are clear.

 

Masks confer no benefit, stay at home lockdown, closing of non-essential businesses, all of this conferred no benefit.

 

It was just a massive waste of time and money, based on flawed scientific advice. Good thing we have this study now which proves once and for all that all these measures I refer to above were totally useless.

as stated earlier,research requires an open , inquiring mind, and not merely seeking information regarding your inherent and apparent and obvious bias. Your no peer reviewed suits your bias, and irrespective of the cautionary statements by the researchers you seem married to proselytizing its uncertain findings. The words "suggest" "needs more monitoring", do not confer certainty.  I did read the whole report before commenting so although for you to think otherwise and smother debate shows lack of open mindedness

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

He says as he meekly puts his mask on to comply with his Thai leaders' nonsensical requests.

 

You're so funny.

 

 

I put the mask on to gain admission to a mall or restaurant. I take it off to eat. Yes, in Chiang Rai there are a number of restaurants where you can eat with social distancing.

Meekness doesn't come into it, the word is pragmatism.

I'm pleased you are amused, in these sad times every bit of humor is worth having. Don't think it's a one way street, though. I have fun combing through your red herrings, straw man arguments, and appeals to dubious authority.

I used to work with quite a few Germans in the first iron ore boom in the Pilbara. They were referred to as the Fourth Reich, lots of mining engineers. A couple were really smart people. There were others that thought their German lineage somehow conferred on them more brain cells than average.

 

 

7 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

as stated earlier,research requires an open , inquiring mind, and not merely seeking information regarding your inherent and apparent and obvious bias. Your no peer reviewed suits your bias, and irrespective of the cautionary statements by the researchers you seem married to proselytizing its uncertain findings. The words "suggest" "needs more monitoring", do not confer certainty.  I did read the whole report before commenting so although for you to think otherwise and smother debate shows lack of open mindedness

The lack of open mindedness, as we have seen is on the part of those who would have us believe in the face of clear evidence that full lockdowns worked and masks have an impact. Neither was the case.

 

This study is very clear, it could not possibly be clearer, the findings are in no way uncertain, they are clear and obvious. You are mistaking garnishings for the main course. You are simply mistaking the standard and pro-forma CYA statements for the substance of the study, or indeed selectively ignoring the substance of the study. The authors of the study found:

 

"These results would suggest that the widespread use of face masks or coverings in the community do not provide any benefit. Indeed, there is even a suggestion that they may actually increase risk"

 

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

 ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

"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"

 

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

 

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

The lack of open mindedness, as we have seen is on the part of those who would have us believe in the face of clear evidence that full lockdowns worked and masks have an impact. Neither was the case.

 

This study is very clear, it could not possibly be clearer, the findings are in no way uncertain, they are clear and obvious. You are mistaking garnishings for the main course. You are simply mistaking the standard and pro-forma CYA statements for the substance of the study, or indeed selectively ignoring the substance of the study. The authors of the study found:

 

"These results would suggest that the widespread use of face masks or coverings in the community do not provide any benefit. Indeed, there is even a suggestion that they may actually increase risk"

 

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

 ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

"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"

 

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

 

Oh the staggering lack of self awareness.

 

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

I am posting what the study says. I have also posted the full article and the full study. Many times.

 

The study is totally persuasive.

 

It's over for the mask fanatics, their whole premise has been shown to be wrong. 

 

"These results would suggest that the widespread use of face masks or coverings in the community do not provide any benefit. Indeed, there is even a suggestion that they may actually increase risk"

 

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

 ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

"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"

 

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

 

Masks confer no benefit.

 

You, and many others' inability to take in the very clear findings of this study clearly show who is lacking an open and inquiring mind.

 

Of course the mask fanatics can't accept they were wrong all along, who would be surprised by the desperate attempts we see on here to distort very clear data.

 

But the data is clear, the statements are clear.

 

Masks confer no benefit, stay at home lockdown, closing of non-essential businesses, all of this conferred no benefit.

 

It was just a massive waste of time and money, based on flawed scientific advice. Good thing we have this study now which proves once and for all that all these measures I refer to above were totally useless.

Non peer reviewed study is goid enough for you. Enough said.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

To prove the effectiveness of facemask use is actually impossible without direct comparisons, which of course we cannot have.

Yes we do. I've stated that in my area few wear them, so compare to a country that does have a high % of mask wearing.

I'm not allowed to travel in NZ, so that justs for my area, but I expect it will be similar elsewhere.

This is just anecdotal. I don't think the authors of the study went to every town and city in each country and looked around to see how many people were wearing masks. 

 

Come to think of it, how can they accurately measure the effect of wearing masks when there is no way to count the mask wearers, the quality of masks being worn, and when and where the masks are being worn? 

 

The only way to accurately assess this would be to have a controlled experiment, e.g. two rooms, each with 100 people, one set wearing masks and one not, and put a Covid 19 patient in each room. 

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The lack of open mindedness, as we have seen is on the part of those who would have us believe in the face of clear evidence that full lockdowns worked and masks have an impact. Neither was the case.

 

This study is very clear, it could not possibly be clearer, the findings are in no way uncertain, they are clear and obvious. You are mistaking garnishings for the main course. You are simply mistaking the standard and pro-forma CYA statements for the substance of the study, or indeed selectively ignoring the substance of the study. The authors of the study found:

 

"These results would suggest that the widespread use of face masks or coverings in the community do not provide any benefit. Indeed, there is even a suggestion that they may actually increase risk"

 

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

 ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

"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"

 

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

 

Weird that someone who has clearly (!) read the entire report, seems to have missed:

 

The results on face coverings are too preliminary to be reliable 

 

Why am I unsurprised?

 

But I also noticed, he has failed to respond to my post pointing out some flaws on his school re-opening post...

 

Damn it has to be hard arguing against facts.

PH