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

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Oh the staggering lack of self awareness.

 

Yes he just posts the same thing over and over but it doesnt confirm what he says.

 

He is just anti mask so clings on to anything.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

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

Please dont otherwise he will just post the same thing again and pretend it means something different.

 

The mask of zorro is slipping.

[Logosone]

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

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.

 

 

That's odd, I went to a restaurant in Chiang Mai and was able to gain admission without a mask. It would seem rather ridiculous to require a mask in a restaurant where you'd have to take it off anyway. Especially now we have this excellent research which shows that masks have no impact. At all. Maybe print it out and take it to that restaurant?

 

Feel free to point out the "red herring and strawman" arguments anytime. Oh that's right, you can't.

 

Anyway, you seem obsessed with the Third Reich. It's understandable, but in case you hadn't noticed, the war has been over for 75 years. Time to move on. 

 

Like with this mask Nazism, another fanatical belief that can be consigned to the dustbin of history. Now that we have the clear evidence from this wonderful study that masks have no effect at all.

[ukrules]

the follow button is broken

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

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...

 

Weird that someone who sees one half of a sentence then doesn't quote the second part

 ".... 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

 

Why am I not surprised?

 

You have not pointed out any flaws that are worth responding to. If you had I would have replied.

 

I'm a very sociable guy.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

That's odd, I went to a restaurant in Chiang Mai and was able to gain admission without a mask. It would seem rather ridiculous to require a mask in a restaurant where you'd have to take it off anyway. Especially now we have this excellent research which shows that masks have no impact. At all. Maybe print it out and take it to that restaurant?

 

Feel free to point out the "red herring and strawman" arguments anytime. Oh that's right, you can't.

 

Anyway, you seem obsessed with the Third Reich. It's understandable, but in case you hadn't noticed, the war has been over for 75 years. Time to move on. 

 

Like with this mask Nazism, another fanatical belief that can be consigned to the dustbin of history. Now that we have the clear evidence from this wonderful study that masks have no effect at all.

Thats it, move on to the nazi argument.

 

Perhaps your problem is your own fantatical belief.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Sujo

[Pravda]

No wonder nothing had impact in UK.

 

Thai women always complain about British men hygiene. 

[CG1 Blue]

7 hours ago, Logosone said:

The funniest part is that they cling to the tiniest most insignificant shreds and straws, anything but have to acknowledge that full mandatory lockdown and wearing face masks was silly, wrong and totally ineffectual.

 

Witness how they ignore the CLEAR data from a study that looked at 30 countries and instead focus on some CYA qualifications as if that were the main research. You can't make it up.

 

Not one, not ONE of those who doubt the study has actually looked at the substance of the data in the study itself, they only look at qualifications waffle because of course that suits their wrong position, whereas the data would prove them wrong.

With respect, you have often called out eminent UK scientists and studies by highly respected UK institutions as being nonsense, and criticised the same people when their conclusions have turned out to be wrong. 

What makes you so sure that this particular study is correct, and will not later be disproved? 

 

[Logosone]

A second study confirms that full mandatory lockdowns had no effect:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1.full.pdf

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

From the above-linked study, unlike the OP's version, the quote below is accurately in context of what they're really saying:

 

Quote

Our results on face coverings should be considered to be preliminary because the use of coverings was recommended or required only relatively late in the epidemics in each European country. The results for face covering are too preliminary to inform policy but indicates that face covering as an intervention merits close monitoring.

 

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

With respect, you have often called out eminent UK scientists and studies by highly respected UK institutions as being nonsense, and criticised the same people when their conclusions have turned out to be wrong. 

What makes you so sure that this particular study is correct, and will not later be disproved? 

 

Indeed I have, you are no doubt referring to my criticism of Neil Ferguson's study. Was Neil Ferguson shown to be wrong? Yes, he was. Thankfully he has now resigned from SAGE and his whole odious, false, and destructive lockdown creed is being demolished left right and centre.

 

See there is a difference. The statistical modelling of Neil Ferguson did not include data from 30 countries. Imperial did it on its own. This study was done by several universities and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It is much bigger in scale, more serious and it has more trustworthy researchers.

 

Neil Ferguson had already shown his incompetence in the 2001 foot and mouth crisis where he also got it badly wrong. 

 

Not so with Dr Julii Brainard. Until recently she was actually a proponent of masks, even though she recognised the evidence was very weak. However, once she saw the actual evidence, to her credit she reversed her position and accepted that masks have no impact. At all.

 

Of course many mask fundamentalists lack this kind of intellectual rigour. But the facts are what they are. Of course this huge study will be peer reviewed, and there is no doubt at all it will be vindicated and confirmed.

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

From the above-linked study, unlike the OP's version, the quote below is accurately in context of what they're really saying:

 

 

Yes, I'm afraid your selective quoting and leaving out the actual substance of the study will not do.

 

Just to be clear, the substance of the study was:

 

"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

 

So you only quote the "preliminary" part, but you don't quote the following part where the authors say:

 

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

 

How damning is that? Academics say clearly the evidence does not support the widespread use of masks.

 

Couldn't be clearer, and all your pathetic attempts to distort this wonderful research are doomed to eternal and pitiful failure.

[steelepulse]

So I'm curious what everyone is going to say that keeps harping on " non peer reviewed" as a way to discredit what this paper shows if peers agree with the principle of the paper.  Does anyone really think they would publish this if it was rubbish?

 

Some papers get reviewed by peers before publishing, others don't and then get peer reviewed.  I could see if this was a crackpot conspiracy finding, but it appears it's quite legit.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by steelepulse

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I can quote the study accurately just as many times as you repeatedly fail to quote its findings accurately and in full context:

 

Quote

there was substantial heterogeneity in how the wearing of face coverings in the community was encouraged or mandated and in what contexts, such as always outside the home or just in shops or on public transport. This heterogeneity combined with their relative recent introduction means that we do not yet endorse using the results about face covering use (in our main model) being used to inform public policy.

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[RJRS1301]

7 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

So I'm curious what everyone is going to say that keeps harping on " non peer reviewed" as a way to discredit what this paper shows if peers agree with the principle of the paper.  Does anyone really think they would publish this if it was rubbish?

 

Some papers get reviewed by peers before publishing, others don't and then get peer reviewed.  I could see if this was a crackpot conspiracy finding, but it appears it's quite legit.

 

 

No "non peer reviewed" is not about discrediting the work, it merely points out the fact that it could be flawed, and there are many cautionary statements within the paper, so I would not be laying much money on the strength of the veracity of it just yet

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by RJRS1301

[Lacessit]

17 minutes ago, Logosone said:

A second study confirms that full mandatory lockdowns had no effect:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1.full.pdf

Another study that omitted Australia and NZ as well. Jesus, this is like debating the NRA president on the desirability of gun control.

Aren't we drifting away from your mask obsession? Where did the funding for this latest study come from? I was not aware an oceanographic institute had such expertise in pandemics.

[Yinn]

10 hours ago, Logosone said:

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.

 

I not think good idea to listen the advice from Public Health England. 

Maybe the worse one.

 

 

[JackThompson]

10 hours 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.

Lots of "not letting a crisis going to waste" happening, in any case.  In the USA, there is often "on the shelf" legislation awaiting a type of "crisis," which will allow people to accept it.  We saw this after several major events - huge bills (that would have taken months to prepare) appearing overnight. 

 

10 hours 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.

Until we get widespread antibody testing, we will never know the scale of the "no symptoms" or "mild symptoms" infected, so cannot possibly determine a death-rate.  

Then, add in the fact that if a hospital in the USA claims a death is "from covid," they get a Huuuuge payout.  Funeral directors and doctors are on the record reporting how widespread this is - especially in "epicenter" areas like NYC.  Meanwhile, hospitals are laying off staff from lack of patients.

[Logosone]

17 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

So I'm curious what everyone is going to say that keeps harping on " non peer reviewed" as a way to discredit what this paper shows if peers agree with the principle of the paper.  Does anyone really think they would publish this if it was rubbish?

 

Some papers get reviewed by peers before publishing, others don't and then get peer reviewed.  I could see if this was a crackpot conspiracy finding, but it appears it's quite legit.

 

 

The University of East Anglia, that well known gutter press and right wing extremist pseudo-science and conspiracy-theory spinning body ???? doesn't seem to think this study was rubbish. It proudly presents it on its website as headline news.

 

https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/-/new-study-reveals-blueprint-for-getting-out-of-covid-19-lockdown

 

They seem rather proud of it. And rightly so. It's a magnificent achievement, an outstanding study and it has the courage to go against prevailing  wisdom. 

 

The authors of this study have taken the opportunity of evaluating the various measures in correspondence with case and death numbers, and the resulting figures are dynamite.

 

I laud their brilliance which has done what I did not think possible. They have attributed to each measure a quantum of effect. In an absolutely genius manner. Magnificent research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Logosone

[Phil McCaverty]

2 minutes ago, Yinn said:

I not think good idea to listen the advice from Public Health England. 

Maybe the worse one.

Its an even worse idea to listen to Momentum. Do you know who they are? An extreme left wing group who infiltrated, took over then destroyed the Labour Party in England. They were the prime reason the Labour Party had a disaster at the last election.

[roo860]

53 minutes ago, Pravda said:

No wonder nothing had impact in UK.

 

Thai women always complain about British men hygiene. 

Complain after they've been paid for services rendered. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

There's more than a certain irony here that the OP has now spent 22 thread pages essentially arguing that the study's findings about face mask wear show that governments were wrong in adopting/enforcing such policies...

 

When in fact, the authors of the study he's posted on go out of their way in their document to specifically say their face mask findings are preliminary, subject to limitations, and thus they explicitly say those findings should NOT form the basis for public policy decisions.

 

A limitation and cautionary restriction, BTW, that they don't apply to any of the other key conclusions in their study...except the part pertaining to face mask wear.

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, Yinn said:

I not think good idea to listen the advice from Public Health England. 

Maybe the worse one.

This is not actually advice from Public Health England, Yinn, they merely paid for the research.

 

Indeed Public Health England itself made many mistakes, however, this study is clear evidence that masks have no effect, and that stay-at-home lockdown and closing non-essential business had no effect either.

 

Maybe you can send it to the Thai Covid19 centre?

 

[Phil McCaverty]

56 minutes ago, Pravda said:

No wonder nothing had impact in UK.

 

Thai women always complain about British men hygiene. 

No mate that's Indians. where did you read that little gem, the Bombay Chronicle?

[chessman]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

this study is clear evidence that masks have no effect, and that stay-at-home lockdown and closing non-essential business had no effect either.

Even the people who wrote the report would strongly disagree with this. 

[DrTuner]

It's actually very hard to determine what exactly worked and what not when everybody threw the entire kitchen sink on it. Commies could experiment by sending a portion of population one by one to do comparison trials, but in the west it's seen as a bit unethical.

[Logosone]

4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

 

When in fact, the authors of the study he's posted on go out of their way in their document to specifically say their face mask findings are preliminary, subject to limitations, and thus should NOT form the basis for public policy decisions.

 

Your disingenous wafflings again, sadly, omit to state that after the "preliminary" reference the authors clearly state:

 

 ".... 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

 

I wonder why you always omit that second part?

Edited May 8, 2020 by Logosone

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 minute ago, DrTuner said:

It's actually very hard to determine what exactly worked and what not when everybody threw the entire kitchen sink on it.

 

That's actually one of the points the authors specifically call out in their findings -- the fact that many of the various policies/containment measures discussed all were applied together in a very contained period of time, making it difficult to separate out just what policy caused what effect on the virus spread.

 

[chessman]

1 minute ago, DrTuner said:

It's actually very hard to determine what exactly worked and what not when everybody threw the entire kitchen sink on it.

and from reading the report, this is closer to what the authors think than most of the cheerleader’s comments on this thread.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

I wonder why you always omit that second part?

 

I don't need to repost that the report did not find any effect of face mask wear in reducing the spread of the virus... Because you've already posted that about 100 times here.

 

But you consistently have then failed to add the additional findings of the study's authors that because of the preliminary nature of the face mask details they had to work with, that their findings on that point should NOT form the basis for any public policy decisions.

 

When you consistently acknowledge that point in tandem with your own point, then I will rest.  Unfortunately, I find myself having to repeatedly correct the distorted version of the study findings that you're peddling.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK