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

[Phil McCaverty]

1 hour 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.

 

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.

An article by the Daily Mail, read at your peril. No links to the actual research.  Complete right wing sensationalist nonsense. Could have been written by the White House. fake news.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Phil McCaverty

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

One thing I am pretty ceratin of though - wearing a mask will not make anyone MORE liable to catch or transmit covid.

WRONG. As the NZ government spokesperson said, wearing a mask is MORE LIKELY to make one infected because of adjusting the mask and touching the face. If one has the virus on one's fingers and touches their eye- game over.

Wearing masks, IMO, only works if combined with googles or eye shields. Also, it has to be the correct sort of mask. Ordinary masks as commonly worn in LOS do not protect against viruses. The mask should not allow air to be exhaled out the sides.

[Logosone]

22 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

Maybe I could be of help here, if you don't mind.

 

The success in New Zealand and Australia was not due to masks, that's a ludicrous suggestion, nor was it due to the social distancing or lockdowns, it was simply due to the fact that New Zealand and Australia tested and isolated the infected more than most other countries on the planet:

 

 

[bodga]

21 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.

On  top of that the Thais constantly mess with their face, making any effect useless, this I'd  say is a far  more quantifiable  effect, I've  yet to see a  single Thai not touch their face repeatedly  over the space of a few  minutes.

[Phulublub]

1 minute ago, steelepulse said:

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"

If most NY residents are staying at home, then that very fact means that a disproportionate percentage will show in the figures.... 

 

If 90% of the population are right handed, and yuou test all those who go to hospital to see which are left- and whihc are right-handed, then in the region of 90% will be right-handed. 

 

So if 90% of residents are staying at home (no, I don't know the figure) then the fact that "only" 66% presenting are from that group actually proves that stay-at-home has a beneficial effect.

 

PHu

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

13 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

An article by the Daily Mail, read at your peril. No links to the actual research.  Complete right wing sensationalist nonsense. Could have been written by the White House. fake news.

 

Regarding face masks, the OP is deliberately distorting what his quoted study actually says... by choosing to leave out language that doesn't fit his political agenda. Here's the full version of their findings on face masks:

 

Quote

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.

 

For whatever reason, the OP has repeatedly chosen to leave out any mention of the concluding/cautionary finding re their face mask findings in the part I've quoted above.

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I wonder how the reaction would have been if governments did nothing and the result was a higher rate of infection and death.

I wonder how the reaction will be as millions world wide realise they are unemployed and bankrupt as a direct result of government actions.

Will they think lockdown was a good thing as being evicted, or queuing in the dole line? Kids lose phones and social media- oh no that's a catastrophe!

Effects of lockdown- increased domestic violence, suicide, mental problems, poverty. Not a good look, IMO.

 

The virus kills, apparently, mainly the old with underlying health problems- the lockdowns affect the young and ruin countries economies. Will the grandchildren of today's young people appreciate having to still pay for what governments did today?

 

[nauseus]

1 hour 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.

 

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.

This report is in preprint and far from being peer reviewed. Your posted subject line is invalid, as are so many of your posts.

 

You always miss out so much to try and prove your own point:

 

From the report at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260v1.full.pdf 

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.

 

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

Edited May 8, 2020 by nauseus

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wonder how the reaction will be as millions world wide realise they are unemployed and bankrupt as a direct result of government actions.

Will they think lockdown was a good thing as being evicted, or queuing in the dole line? Kids lose phones and social media- oh no that's a catastrophe!

Effects of lockdown- increased domestic violence, suicide, mental problems, poverty. Not a good look, IMO.

 

The virus kills, apparently, mainly the old with underlying health problems- the lockdowns affect the young and ruin countries economies. Will the grandchildren of today's young people appreciate having to still pay for what governments did today?

 

I suppose that depends on how much they love their grandparents.

[Bkk Brian]

Its amazing how people jump on one non peer reviewed study to confirm their bias to not wearing facemasks, particularly as the authors state clearly to have caution as its an experimental work.

 

The are other studies that fly in the face of this but of course they will be disregarded as they do not fit the agenda:

 

"A key transmission route of COVID-19 is via droplets that fly out of our mouths—that includes when we speak, not just when we cough or sneeze." Follow the logic

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Bkk Brian
typo

[geriatrickid]

29 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

 

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.

 

Are you surprised? He has a history of attributing his own  outcomes and conclusions to articles and data that say nothing of the sort. I notice that he is prone to not providing an actual citation or of even having read and understood the original document.

 

If we go back to your initial point about masks, I had a bit of a chuckle. you do raise a valid point.  As you noted, the practice is relatively recent and as others have pointed out, still not a regular occurrence.  Despite all the nice stories in the media about people making masks, we still have shortages. People in the countries referenced could not wear proper masks even if they wanted to since they were not easily available.

 

In respect to the closures of businesses what has been missed is that  many essential businesses were left open. Despite the distancing, people were being exposed and infected  at the grocery stores and other essential workplaces.  Every country has horror stories of infected staff and closures of stores. Takeaway  services continued. Delivery of products continued.  The obvious conclusion is that if we see the infection spread in this manner at essential workplaces that have implemented prevention measures then it becomes obvious that it would have been significantly worse at non essential  businesses  had they  been left open.

 

It's all about exposure and viral loads. The more we come into contact with the virus, the greater the likelihood of infection and the more severe the  infection.  It would be nice if all those people telling us that there is minimal risk offered themselves up as test subjects. They should get exposed and report back if they develop Covid 19. And if they do, let us know  how it goes.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by geriatrickid

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Maybe I could be of help here, if you don't mind.

 

The success in New Zealand and Australia was not due to masks, that's a ludicrous suggestion, nor was it due to the social distancing or lockdowns, it was simply due to the fact that New Zealand and Australia tested and isolated the infected more than most other countries on the planet:

 

 

More utter cobblers.

[Sujo]

How convenient of the study to exclude oz and nz. The first countries beating the virus with lockdown and social distancing.

 

Its proof it works.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes 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.

[Logosone]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

From the report at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260v1.full.pdf 

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.

 

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

I'm afraid you're missing the whole point of the study, which did in fact make direct comparisons.

 

Of course academics have to be careful and talk about being careful, however, their data is very clear that the use of facemasks did not prevent the incease in cases, and did not prevent an increase in deaths. Hence the authors very clear statement in the conclusion:

 

"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

 

If you look through the cautionary waffle the actual data could not possibly be clearer.

 

Effect of facemasks: None.

 

Btw, did you read that this study confirms the study in the Lancet by the Swedish academic regarding lockdowns and their ineffectiveness?

 

You will no doubt join me in the joyous celebration of the Swedish model, which has by both studies been confirmed to be the correct one, as lauded by a leading academic from Oxford University:

 

"Professor Heneghan hailed Sweden - which has not enforced a lockdown despite fierce criticism - for 'holding its nerve' and avoiding a 'doomsday scenario'."

 

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

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Logosone

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"A key transmission route of COVID-19 is via droplets that fly out of our mouths—that includes when we speak, not just when we cough or sneeze." Follow the logic

By your logic there should be a high infection rate where I live. There is not. Logic says that masks make no difference.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

FWIW, another prominent epidemiologist from the same London School of Hygiene was quoted in The Telelgraph just the other day (May 2) on the difficulties of sorting out the impacts of different control measures when they're all being implemented in similar, overlapping time frames.

 

Adam Kucharski is an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and one of Britain’s leading epidemiologists.

 

Quote

 

In terms of breaking this down there’s still limited evidence. This is in part because a lockdown does everything at once - and even in countries that staggered restrictions, they did everything within a week or two. 

 

So unpicking exactly what impact different measures have is difficult.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/dont-need-model-know-health-workers-need-ppe-care-homes-should/

Edited May 8, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wonder how the reaction will be as millions world wide realise they are unemployed and bankrupt as a direct result of government actions.

Will they think lockdown was a good thing as being evicted, or queuing in the dole line? Kids lose phones and social media- oh no that's a catastrophe!

Effects of lockdown- increased domestic violence, suicide, mental problems, poverty. Not a good look, IMO.

 

The virus kills, apparently, mainly the old with underlying health problems- the lockdowns affect the young and ruin countries economies. Will the grandchildren of today's young people appreciate having to still pay for what governments did today?

 

The result is they are alive to complain about it.

 

In oz there are laws in place. You cannot be evicted at the moment. Those unemployed had a one off payment of over 1k and their fortnightly payments doubled.

 

Businesses were given around $1500 to keep each employee plus easy loans with very friendly terms.

 

So yes, it is worth the economic pain to keep hundreds of thousands of citizens alive. The oz public approves how it has been handled.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I suppose that depends on how much they love their grandparents.

Only 22 "grandparents " have died with Corona in NZ. Hundreds more grandparents than that died in the same period of other medical problems. Sadly their families were not permitted to say goodbye to them.

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

We don't have any direct comparisons. They would need to be from the of all people in the same location or country. Same dates, same times, same behaviour, same jobs and same activities and so are impossible to have. 

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

By your logic there should be a high infection rate where I live. There is not. Logic says that masks make no difference.

Then why do doctors and nurses need to wear them. Perhaps a test of hospitals that dont have them and hospitals that do.

 

I know which hospital i would prefer to be in both as a patient and a nurse or doctor.

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

By your logic there should be a high infection rate where I live. There is not. Logic says that masks make no difference.

Or maybe you can count yourself lucky that there a so few infectious people around you? 

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Only 22 "grandparents " have died with Corona in NZ. Hundreds more grandparents than that died in the same period of other medical problems. Sadly their families were not permitted to say goodbye to them.

Oh thats ok, they werent my grandparents so no loss.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The result is they are alive to complain about it.

 

In oz there are laws in place. You cannot be evicted at the moment. Those unemployed had a one off payment of over 1k and their fortnightly payments doubled.

 

Businesses were given around $1500 to keep each employee plus easy loans with very friendly terms.

 

So yes, it is worth the economic pain to keep hundreds of thousands of citizens alive. The oz public approves how it has been handled.

Had they isolated the at risk and allowed everyone else to carry on they'd still be alive too.

How many billion $ will generations to come still be paying for that?

[Sujo]

Just now, nauseus said:

Or maybe you can count yourself lucky that there a so few infectious people around you? 

Also you can have the virus and not know.

[Logosone]

26 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

An article by the Daily Mail, read at your peril. No links to the actual research.  Complete right wing sensationalist nonsense. Could have been written by the White House. fake news.

 

 

Lol, the Daily Mail of course helpfully linked to the research portal where the research is. Obviously you're not capable of finding it by yourself, even though I also linked to it like four times already, so I'll post it here again:

 

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

 

Also another well known right-wing sensationalist source, the University of East Anglia:

 

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

 

So basically your entire post, PhilCaverty, was rather shoddy fake news.

[geriatrickid]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I suppose that depends on how much they love their grandparents.

And how ignorant and oblivious they are to the damage the infections inflict on those who survive.

It is exceptionally frustrating to see some carry on as if people under the age of 50 are sailing through without serious injury. Hospital ICU's are still overwhelmed with Covid19 patients and nothing else can get done because of that.

here is what is  tying up the ICUs and hospitals in repect to the under 50's

- Multi system inflammatory Syndrome (in children it is manifested as similar to Kawasaki Disease) In children if caught in time it can be managed, but is painful.

- Strokes and   circulatory disorders. Strokes can  cause long term damage.

- Hypoxia. This is a new one and is being implicated in the death or brain damage of asymptomatic  people; folks who never showed up at a hospital. usually these patients  become breathless, but with Covid 19, the low oxygen level just damages and the poor victim has no idea what is going on until it is too late.

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

By your logic there should be a high infection rate where I live. There is not. Logic says that masks make no difference.

That of course would depend if the virus has been brought to your area.

[nauseus]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I'm afraid you're missing the whole point of the study, which did in fact make direct comparisons.

 

Of course academics have to be careful and talk about being careful, however, their data is very clear that the use of facemasks did not prevent the incease in cases, and did not prevent an increase in deaths. Hence the authors very clear statement in the conclusion:

 

"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

 

If you look through the cautionary waffle the actual data could not possibly be clearer.

 

Effect of facemasks: None.

 

Btw, did you read that this study confirms the study in the Lancet by the Swedish academic regarding lockdowns and their ineffectiveness?

 

You will no doubt join me in the joyous celebration of the Swedish model, which has by both studies been confirmed to be the correct one, as lauded by a leading academic from Oxford University:

 

"Professor Heneghan hailed Sweden - which has not enforced a lockdown despite fierce criticism - for 'holding its nerve' and avoiding a 'doomsday scenario'."

 

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

 

 

 

You just ignored what I said so I'll just do the same. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Then why do doctors and nurses need to wear them. Perhaps a test of hospitals that dont have them and hospitals that do.

 

I know which hospital i would prefer to be in both as a patient and a nurse or doctor.

I answered that before. I'm not going to keep doing so. Think about it for the OBVIOUS answer.