4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

 

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.

I am afraid you too, Lacessit, are confused.

 

Your statement "it's about you infecting other people if you have Covid19" shows this. You see, if you were in fact correct and wearing a mask stopped an infected person from transmitting their infection to another person than this would be an effect that would be statistically noticeable. Because if masks reduced the transmission of the virus there would be far less cases, and less deaths. However, it turns out that in fact, the wearing of masks did not at all lead to reduced deaths, in fact after 15 deaths the wearing of masks correlated with increased deaths.

 

Hence the conclusion by the scientists that:

 

"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

 

Kindly read the research to dispel this obvious confusion you have.

 

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

I wasn't aware that we DO know what did and did not work in UK. Please link the relevant research paper. There are, to the best of my knowledge NO research papers stating what did or did not work in NZ.

1 minute ago, DavisH said:

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

So the results are only applicable to Europe?  In which case mask wearing etc in Asia is a good idea?

 

PH

Like everything else in life, hindsight is, well, close to 20:20.  Wars, why?  30-years later.... oh, ok.

 

First, let's see who makes money off the vaccine.  Then there are TRILLIONS of reason.

 

Secondly, follow politics.  see the shift of power.  

 

Thirdly, watch what sovereign funds are doing.  Oh, China just bought 1 zillion dollars of real estate in NYC......ah, OK

 

Fourth, see the public reaction.  If everyone is like, "mai bpen rai."  This will happen again, differently, but the simulation will continue.  

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

I wasn't aware that we DO know what did and did not work in UK. Please link the relevant research paper. There are, to the best of my knowledge NO research papers stating what did or did not work in NZ.

Isn't tht what this hread is all about, or am I totally misunderstanding the Thread Title?

Your headline post is misleading to say the least.  

Was Britain's full lockdown a waste of time? Scientists find blanket stay-at-home orders had little effect on curbing coronavirus outbreaks in Europe - but closing schools and banning all mass gatherings DID work

 

 

Dr Moon said: 'We have to remember that decisions like this cannot and should not be made on a single finding.

'Nor should policy be made based solely upon science – there are many social, economic, political, and moral factors to consider that science simply cannot answer.

'When it comes to this pandemic, caution is paramount, otherwise we could tip too far and risk a second wave and a return to lockdown.'

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

 

The study did not include USA/NZ or Australia

 

1 minute ago, LomSak27 said:

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

 

 

 

I'm glad that you have finally read the article, LomSak27, after you claimed this article said nothing about face masks. If you look at the actual research it's very clear:

 

"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

 

Obviously they gave the Daily Mail a few caveats to be extra careful, however, the direction of the data is very clear. The measure of wearing face masks, once introduced, showed that after 15 days it made no difference whatsoever to the increase in deaths.

 

It is of course a mark of the quality and care of this research that they are extra careful when concerned with an issue on which there is so little evidence, however, the data is more than clear. Wearing face masks had no impact. And the academics say so very clearly.

1 minute ago, Phulublub said:

Isn't tht what this hread is all about, or am I totally misunderstanding the Thread Title?

Tell me if I'm wrong but you didn't qualify your statements that it was your opinion. If you are going to imply that what you write is fact, you need to be able to back it up with proof. In the case of NZ, far as I know there are no facts, just opinions.

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Wearing face masks had no impact. And the academics say so very clearly.

That was the advice of the NZ government. The current advice is that there is no clear evidence either way, but mask wearing is NOT compulsory.

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Tell me if I'm wrong but you didn't qualify your statements that it was your opinion. If you are going to imply that what you write is fact, you need to be able to back it up with proof. In the case of NZ, far as I know there are no facts, just opinions.

My statements? I think you are confusing me with someone else. 

For those of you who like to look at data, rather than other people's conclusions, here are some graphics from the article:

 

 

 

I find the drop in respiratory tract infections and the corresponding rise in Covid 19 cases to the quite interesting.  Did the authors take into account the increased numbers of people tested for C19?  Is the change of diseases real or just a change in diagnoses due to increased C19 testing?  Also, the data just used European countries, not Asian, so the conclusions might be modified with inclusion of more data.

3 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

My statements? I think you are confusing me with someone else. 

You wrote

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.

 

Seems like making a statement to me.

11 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

We Westerners must accept the facts. Thailand has managed Covid 19 far better than our own countries.

However, there was no lack of compelling criticism on this forum as elsewhere:
 - the figures are wrong,
 - taking people's temperature don't work,
 - measures at airports are outdated,
 - masks are useless,
 - the containment measures are obsolete, the Thais do not respect them, the travel restrictions are unsuitable etc...

 

Some here have posted these critical and derogatory messages day after day. Faced with reality, they should have the decency to be silent and perhaps disappear. But no, they continue their diatribes again and again by relying on pseudo scientific studies straight from the gutter press.

 

 

Lol, talk about being desperate to adhere to the mask nonsense with gutter tactics. I'm afraid you've lost, it's all over. The mask nonsense is unmasked as the total irrelevance that it is.

 

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 conducted by several universities and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

 

So much for "gutter press" and "pseudo-scientific".

 

It 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.

 

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

 

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

 

You've lost. Just accept it, wearing masks has been shown after a study of 30 countries to have no impact at all.

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

You wrote

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.

 

Seems like making a statement to me.

Not really.  But maybe you can help me.....

 

The preceding posts appeared (to me) to say that this study showed that wearing face masks had no effect.  Someone pointed out that Aus/NZ have had very few cases and someone (you?) said that we did not know what caused the Aus/NZ success - so it might have been wearing face masks, but as they (you?) said, we do not know. 

 

Either we do know face masks have no effect (from this Europe study), or we do not know (from Aus/NZ results so far) - you cannot cherry pick only those countries/regions/continents where your thesis holds true to prove anything whatsover. 

 

PH

10 minutes ago, otherstuff1957 said:

For those of you who like to look at data, rather than other people's conclusions, here are some graphics from the article:

 

 

 

I note you deleted the explanatory wording from the top graphic relating to masks. A bit naughty. I will re-insert it here:

 

"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".

 

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

 

So key thing to note in the last chart of the above graphic, which relates to masks, is that the deaths increased after mask usage was widely introduced.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

Not really.  But maybe you can help me.....

 

The preceding posts appeared (to me) to say that this study showed that wearing face masks had no effect.  Someone pointed out that Aus/NZ have had very few cases and someone (you?) said that we did not know what caused the Aus/NZ success - so it might have been wearing face masks, but as they (you?) said, we do not know. 

 

Either we do know face masks have no effect (from this Europe study), or we do not know (from Aus/NZ results so far) - you cannot cherry pick only those countries/regions/continents where your thesis holds true to prove anything whatsover. 

 

PH

 

It can't be wearing face masks as few wear them. Had you read my post you would know I already said that less than 1 % wear face masks in the area.

Even the NZ government says they ain't necessary.

 

The OP seems to have neglected to mention this part of his referenced study and its conclusions about face mask wear:

 

Quote

However, 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.

 

Quote

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

 

Let's repeat that for emphasis:

 

we do not yet endorse using the results about face covering use (in our main model) being used to inform public policy.

23 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

So the results are only applicable to Europe?  In which case mask wearing etc in Asia is a good idea?

 

PH

No, I'm afraid the actual effect of wearing a mask in Asia would be the same as in Europe: None.

 

Unless you believe Asia has a secret mask design that dirty Europeans have not been using.

 

Research in 30 countries has shown that masks have no effect on virus spread or deaths.

 

I know it's hard to let go. 

 

But you can let go now.

4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The OP seems to have neglected to mention this part of his referenced study and its conclusions about face mask wear:

 

 

Let's repeat that for emphasis:

 

we do not yet endorse using the results about face covering use (in our main model) being used to inform public policy.

NZ public policy is that masks are not necessary. I'll go with that. That policy came out before this study.

There is no doubt that under the covid crisis the governments make many decisions without evidence.

 

But the covid epidemi took all countries on the bed, it shows that no country was prepared to a covid situation. 

 

In my opinion it is ok with a lock down, facemask, social distancing etc without evidence, when we do not know what to do in this covid situation. Later/after all the researchers can tell us what we should have done or not done.

 

Some politicans try to make dirty benefit at the crisis, so take care of what you are reading, we all had to be critical and take care of each other.

24 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Your headline post is misleading to say the least.  

Was Britain's full lockdown a waste of time? Scientists find blanket stay-at-home orders had little effect on curbing coronavirus outbreaks in Europe - but closing schools and banning all mass gatherings DID work

The study did not include USA/NZ or Australia

 

The headline is not at all misleading, I clearly wrote "full lockdown", ie including stay at home orders such as were used in the UK and many other countries, had no effect.

 

That is exactly what the study showed. Moreover I have again and again posted the actual conclusion of the study:

 

"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

 

 

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact."

 

 

But you obviously chose to fail to mention the study authors' cautionary language about their face mask wear data and how they specifically said as a result, that part of their study should not be the basis for informing public policy on the subject.

 

By that omission, you're distorting and misrepresenting the conclusions of the study.

 

11 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The OP seems to have neglected to mention this part of his referenced study and its conclusions about face mask wear:

 

 

Let's repeat that for emphasis:

 

we do not yet endorse using the results about face covering use (in our main model) being used to inform public policy.

Not "yet", of course this merely shows the quality of the research and the care with which the academics approach the issue.

 

However, the data is very clear, it showed that the use of face masks made no difference to transmission or death rates. Hence the conclusion in the research:

 

"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

 

In the actual research the authors could not be clearer:

 

No impact from wearing facemasks at all. None.

 

It's not distortion at all, in the actual paper the academics are very clear what they think the impact of facemasks was:

 

"the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact."

 

So the actual data is clear. The only person that is trying to distort it is you, with some waffle about being careful, which is fine.

 

The truth is out now:

 

Facemasks are useless.

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, I'm afraid the actual effect of wearing a mask in Asia would be the same as in Europe: None.

 

Unless you believe Asia has a secret mask design that dirty Europeans have not been using.

 

Research in 30 countries has shown that masks have no effect on virus spread or deaths.

 

I know it's hard to let go. 

 

But you can let go now.

Hang on one minute.  I made that post in reply to one that said:

 

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

 

He doesn't want to extrapolate, but you do?  Once again, I feel that people are cherry picking selective data to try and "prove" pre-conceived conclusions.  Either a test study in one area can be used to inform the wider world, or it cannot.  But in any case, it needs to be large enough to be statistically significant, and rigorous enough in both design and application to be meaningful.  I have not read the links, but others have said that the authors themselves have included caveats as to their (provisional) conclusions. 

 

I think it to early to properly tell, myself.  One thing I am pretty ceratin of though - wearing a mask will not make anyone MORE liable to catch or transmit covid.

 

PH

9 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

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

 

In the actual research the authors could not be clearer:

 

No impact from wearing facemasks at all. None.

 

It's not distortion at all, in the actual paper the academics are very clear what they think the impact of facemasks was:

 

"the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact."

 

So the actual data is clear. The only person that is trying to distort it is you, with some waffle about being careful, which is fine.

 

The truth is out now:

 

Facemasks are useless.

 

The part you're repeatedly failing to mention about the authors also stating their face mask findings were too preliminary, and the face mask policies implemented too recently, immediately followed the language in the report you're quoting above.

 

It's not like it was buried in a footnote somewhere. The authors went out of their way on that one topic, face mask wear, to say their findings should not be used to inform public policy on the topic.

 

And yet, that's exactly what you're trying to do here by distorting and misrepresenting the findings of their research.  If you're going to quote them, at least quote them accurately and completely in terms of what they reported.

 

46 minutes ago, DavisH said:

and even before that due to pollution. 

Of which way many more WILL die than from  Covid  19.

54 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.

The stay at home certainly didn't work for New York, who was hit quite severely.  But don't let data get in the way of your crusade.

 

 

"'Shocking’: 66% of new coronavirus patients in N.Y. stayed home: Cuomo"

 

 

44 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

Actually, I was responding to Logosone's OP. Fine if you want to join in.

You're in NZ, right? I'm in Thailand. Shopping malls are open here. You won't get into one here without a mask, a temperature check, and hand sanitation.

I'm don't know how you can know you or anyone else is infected unless you have been tested.

44 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

We Westerners must accept the facts. Thailand has managed Covid 19 far better than our own countries.

 

Complete BS.

I accept the fact Thailand hardly test anyone, no matter what their symptoms.

If you don't test for the disease, you won't find the disease.

You don't speak for me, I am not part of any 'we' you belong in.

I understand that many feel aggrieved having their "liberties" curtailed for the economy, but I wonder how the reaction would have been if governments did nothing and the result was a higher rate of infection and death.

Governments across the world were taken aback by the fast spread of the infections, the pressure on existing hospital resources both physical and human.

How many lives would be acceptable, let alone to ongoing physical impact on those infected and survived?

I also wonder what the experts here may implemented to contain the infection rate and ensuing overloading of resources?