3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Fortunately we now have scientific data that shows conclusively that Mr Chang's theory is absolutely wrong.

 

We do?  Thenplease sahre rather than the almost stuf you have been peddling.

 

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

If masks had a beneficial effect deaths would have gone down. They didn't.

Again with the nonsense.  In many countries, death rates (which can go down, as opposed to number who have died, a number that can only increase) are going down.  Quite possibly because of lockdown, masks, social distancing etc.

 

Maybe because you are losing arguing against everyone else you are now arguing against yourself?  At least you will win 50% of the time then.  Probably.

 

PH

1 minute ago, vermin on arrival said:

I don't know the final conclusion on masks is very inconclusive

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.

 

What you posted above is merely a longer version of the 1 paragraph excerpt I posted just prior. The basic message is the same -- the results on face coverings are too preliminary to reliably inform public policy.

 

Supposedly, the TV forum has a 3 sentence fair use limit on quoting things... So I've tried to keep my excerpting of the study's language short, in context, and to the authors' main points.

 

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

What you posted above is merely a longer version of the 1 paragraph excerpt I posted just prior. The basic message is the same -- the results on face coverings are too preliminary to reliably inform public policy.

 

Supposedly, the TV forum has a 3 sentence fair use limit on quoting things... So I've tried to keep my excerpting of the study's language short, in context, and to the authors' main points.

 

Apologies. I am tired. : )

 

Visual aide to conclude☮️

39 minutes ago, Logosone said:

And lets not forget what the Central Epidemic Prevention Center in Taiwan advised:

 

"In early February 2020 the Executive Yuan adopted the recommendations of professors Huang Li-min (黃立民) and Chang Shang-chwen of the National Taiwan University Medical School, advocating that healthy people do not need to wear masks in open spaces. On 8 February, Chen Shih-chung, commander of the Central Epidemic Prevention Center, further stated that there was no need to wear a mask on public transportation."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Taiwan

healthy people  do you know who you are??

18 minutes ago, lkv said:

 

You are trolling.

 

The study, like many others, is not peer reviewed.

 

You started to create science out of "expert" non peer reviewed studies.

 

Can you please stop repeating yourself like a broken record, I get it already.

 

Thank you.

 

 

No, strictly speaking you are actually trolling. I'm reporting the substance of a study which found that:

 

"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

 

How could you possibly misrepresent the accurate reporting of an important scientific study as "trolling". That's an outrageous accusation which is ludicrous to boot.

34 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

Australia did not do a full lockdown.  Restaurants and shops open, people able to travel, but social distancing was enforced (over zealously by the police according to some people). 

 

New Zealand went for full lockdown, now they don't know how to lift it, and they will be paying the price for years.  Also, when they do lift it, and allow flights, their epidemic will start, as their population has no immunity.  

 

Quarantine for healthy people never made sense, it was a blatant violation of civil rights and an economic disaster.

The Kiwis will recover faster than most and with most of them still well. They need to protect their isolated islands and people as a priority and that is good for them in the long run. 

Looks like some folks here aren't going to be shopping at Costco in the U.S. anytime soon...

 

Quote

 

People want to boycott Costco over the store's new mandatory mask policy

As businesses across the country continue to implement new practices to help stem the spread of coronavirus, face masks have become the norm in public places with several stores recently implementing mandatory mask-wearing policies. But not everyone is willing to follow the recommended protocols.

 

Last week, Costco announced it would be requiring all shoppers to wear a mask or face covering "that covers the mouth and nose at all times" while in stores nationwide. Those under the age of 2 are exempt from the policy.

 

 

 

https://www.today.com/food/people-want-boycott-costco-over-store-s-new-mandatory-mask-t181002

 

That policy, as the article notes, is in line with the current recommendations of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control endorsing wearing masks "in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies), especially in areas of significant community-based transmission."

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, Peabody said:

I read the study and could not find the control group against which their data was compared. Can anyone else who read it show me the page with that data?
 

It's in the study, obviously you've not read the study very well.

 

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Looks like some folks here aren't going to be shopping at Costco in the U.S. anytime soon...

 

 

 

https://www.today.com/food/people-want-boycott-costco-over-store-s-new-mandatory-mask-t181002

 

 

 

That's right, I wont' be shopping at Costco.

 

But thanks for showing the great calibre of the institutions that support mask foolishness.

 

Costco, lol, at least you make me laugh.

 

I give you a study by several universities, including the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

 

You give me Costco.

 

Thanks so much.

Just now, Logosone said:

 

You give me Costco.

 

And the U.S. Centers for Disease Control:

 

endorsing wearing masks "in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies), especially in areas of significant community-based transmission."

 

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I give you a study by several universities, including the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

 

That specifically says their findings and comments re mask wearing, because of the limitations involved in their research, should NOT form the basis for any public policy decision making.

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

And the U.S. Centers for Disease Control:

 

endorsing wearing masks "in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies), especially in areas of significant community-based transmission."

 

You mean the same body that was unable to produce reliable tests kits for many weeks at the start of the pandemic, and thereby delayed the US response to the pandemic, costing many lives?

 

I don't know if they're trustworthy really.

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

That specifically says their findings and comments re mask wearing, because of the limitations involved in their research, should NOT form the basis for any public policy decision making.

Yes, they're just being cautious, however, if you look at the data in their study the data points only one way, namely "The use of masks had no impact".

23 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, strictly speaking you are actually trolling.

I asked you not to troll and you keep on trolling.

 

Forgive me for asking, have you been to the doctor lately?

 

You repeat the same thing on page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4 page 5 page 6......up to your last comment.

 

Do you now get a better understanding of what I mean by trolling?

 

I am too lazy to do it, but maybe someone else should report your posts, out of 100 leave 1. I suffered enough going through the thread once.

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Yes, they're just being cautious, however, if you look at the data in their study the data points only one way, namely "The use of masks had no impact".

 

They're saying their mask findings are too preliminary to form the basis for any public policy making on that topic...

 

An admonition you've now consistently ignored in pushing your anti mask agenda thru countless posts in this thread.

 

2 minutes ago, lkv said:

 

 

You understand now, what trolling is?

 

That's pretty much trolling in my book as well.

 

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, they're just being cautious, however, if you look at the data in their study the data points only one way, namely "The use of masks had no impact".

Well, i wear a mask when out for walking or shopping, because i'd hate to be lynched by a mob.

For the rest, i quite agree with you.

C'mon guys, if you love your masks so much, and want to wear them, keep 'em on, no problem.

If you like it or not, the evidence that they help is not overwhelming, but no problem, keep 'em on.

You complain that Logosone is repeating what he says in his posts, well, you guys repeat the same arguments too, so let him repeat the answers.

It doesn't matter anyway, there is no more fresh Corona virus in Thailand (unless freshly imported) so you won't get it with mask or without.

But keep 'em on and stay home, don't invite your friends for a beer, don't go to the beach, keep your distance, obey to the orders given to you, and be happy that you will not get Covid 19 in Thailand.

Or do nothing from above, and be happy too, you will not get Covid 19 here anymore, too.

More reasons why not are hidden here:

 

18 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

That's pretty much trolling in my book as well.

Sure it is,

and the best way to stop this trolling

is to stop to reply to him

and to let this thread die

...

IMHO

32 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

They're saying their mask findings are too preliminary to form the basis for any public policy making on that topic...

 

And then they follow it right up with:

 

 ".... 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

 

But of course you only quote selectively and leave out the substance of the data which points only one way: Masks have no effect.

 

Why do you always leave out the actual findings of the study?

2 hours 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

I'm not aware of anyone trying to 'discredit' the paper.

 

When a study goes against the consensus that's a bit of a concern. When it hasn't been peer reviewed either, that's two red flags.

 

Treating it as gospel is absurd. The lengths of desperation some people will go to, to unashamedly push their political agenda...

15 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

C'mon guys, if you love your masks so much, and want to wear them, keep 'em on, no problem.

If you like it or not, the evidence that they help is not overwhelming, but no problem, keep 'em on.

You complain that Logosone is repeating what he says in his posts, well, you guys repeat the same arguments too, so let him repeat the answers.

It doesn't matter anyway, there is no more fresh Corona virus in Thailand (unless freshly imported) so you won't get it with mask or without.

But keep 'em on and stay home, don't invite your friends for a beer, don't go to the beach, keep your distance, obey to the orders given to you, and be happy that you will not get Covid 19 in Thailand.

Or do nothing from above, and be happy too, you will not get Covid 19 here anymore, too.

More reasons why not are hidden here:

 

The problem is that if you're in Thailand, you will get a hefty fine, won't be allowed in shops/restaurants and get a heap of hassle from both public and police. I know that they're next to useless but I think I'll be keeping mine on. And I don't think you'll be taking them off any time soon.

 

I asked my neighbour this afternoon to knock me a few more up, My original designs, well cool.

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

A fair reading of the study's main finding regarding face mask wear is the following quoted excerpt:

"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, but as stated previously, we feel that the data on face coverings are too preliminary to inform public policy."

 

Why we have 24 pages of arguing over the study's above-quoted main conclusion re face mask wear is beyond me...

 

If the OP has only acknowledged and posted as much at the beginning of this thread, ThaiVisa would have saved 24 pages of dreck.

 

 

Another misrepresentation on the OP's part, as is clear from my post and quoted study excerpt above, which fully and accurately summarizes the study's main finding on face masks.

 

 

13 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.

Test run?

14 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

I'm not aware of anyone trying to 'discredit' the paper.

 

When a study goes against the consensus that's a bit of a concern. When it hasn't been peer reviewed either, that's two red flags.

 

Treating it as gospel is absurd. The lengths of desperation some people will go to, to unashamedly push their political agenda...

What a disingenous joke, have you read this thread at all? He says, and then goes on to desperately try and discredit the paper because "it goes against the consensus" and because it hasn't been peer reviewed. Of course it has not been sufficiently peer reviewed yet, it was only published two days ago.

 

To try and misrepresent the study as going against the "mask consensus" is of course absurd, up until a few days ago SAGE scientists, the top advisers to the UK government insisted that the evidence for wearing masks was weak and minimal. There simply is no such consensus. Every top research centre from the UK to Germany has repeated again and again that the evidence for masks is weak at best.

 

The lengths of desperation some people will go to in order to defend their wholly wrong position that masks make any difference whatsoever.

 

The data of this study is clear, it goes only one way : Masks have no impact.

 

It's hard to take for some people, but those are the facts. That's what the study is saying.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

The problem is that if you're in Thailand, you will get a hefty fine, won't be allowed in shops/restaurants and get a heap of hassle from both public and police. I know that they're next to useless but I think I'll be keeping mine on. And I don't think you'll be taking them off any time soon.

Yes sure, depends on where you are, and where you need to go, you might be forced to wear them. That's not what I meant.
 

 

20 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

I asked my neighbour this afternoon to knock me a few more up, My original designs, well cool.

Nice!
I bought for some kids some masks with a spiderman design, they liked it very much.

20 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

The problem is that if you're in Thailand, you will get a hefty fine, won't be allowed in shops/restaurants and get a heap of hassle from both public and police. I know that they're next to useless but I think I'll be keeping mine on. And I don't think you'll be taking them off any time soon.

 

Not at all the case. I'm in Thailand, I was out and about in shops in restaurant without a mask and got no hassle at all from anyone. Nor is it even required in this province to wear a mask, so no fines will happen.

 

You maybe afraid of being hassled without a mask, but odds are you won't. 

The paper has not yet been peer reviewed so cannot be regarded as accurate. A recent peer reviewed paoer found that school closures and social distancing were effective. 10.1503/cmaj.200920. I am aware that thete is no proof either way tbat masks are effective or not effective.

35 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

And then they follow it right up with:

 

 ".... 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

 

But of course you only quote selectively and leave out the substance of the data which points only one way: Masks have no effect.

 

Why do you always leave out the actual findings of the study?

1. A study that is not peer reviewed and published in a credible research journal has no standing. Until reviewed and vetted, it is in effect an opinion piece. t might be a valid opinion, but until peer reviewed it is only one group's position that has not been validated nor supported.

 

2. There are no facts  and no "actual findings".  There cannot be any findings because a hypothesis was not tested and there was no experiment. What occurred was an interpretation of data. It is one group's interpretation. It may be valid. It may be invalid. Until it is peer reviewed, which means that qualified people with expertise have reviewed and vetted the information it is not an acceptable basis for public policy formation.

 

You have again taken one report and used it to support your biased opinion. You have zero credibility. You do not fool anyone with your claims and imagined facts.  How can you make claims about "conclusions" when you did not even read the actual document? Why not  tell us all about its methodology and the caveat it gives as to the data and its interpretation? Why not share the actual document that you claim reveals all?