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

[NCC1701A]

"Here is the author of the 'Masks and Lock Downs Makes No Difference' study."

"Put him over there with the other Thai Visa members." 

 

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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. 

Total nonsense, you can of course make direct comparisons, which is exactly what the study has done. It has compared the data on transmission, cases and deaths for 30 countries and compared the effectiveness of various measures  that were introduced by tracking their impact on case numbers and deaths.

 

 

[Sujo]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

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?

They did, everyone was at risk. I dont mind the economic loss. Generations to come will be paying for lots of things our govts have done and will continue to do. Billions is not much when you think the US debt is trillions. Just cut defense budget for a few years.

 

Govts waste more than that on less serious issues.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

11 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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.

 

Although you wouldn't know it from the OP's distorted rendering of this research, the authors did actually find that several kinds of social distancing policies DID reduce the spread of the virus.
 

Quote

 

Our analyses confirm that the imposition of non-pharmaceutical control measures have been effective in controlling epidemics in each country.

 

 

The measures that they concluded helped slow the spread of the virus included:

 

Quote

Closure of educational facilities, banning mass gatherings and early closure of some but not necessarily all commercial businesses were all associated with reduction of the spread of infection.

 

The measures that they did not find helped slow the spread of the virus were:

 

Quote

Widespread closure of all non-essential businesses and stay at home orders seem not to have had much if any value.

 

Their findings re face mask wear have already been mentioned above.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

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

WELL DONE. Stating the <deleted> obvious. So let's tailor the response to the local situation. One size does not fit all.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Total nonsense, you can of course make direct comparisons, which is exactly what the study has done. It has compared the data on transmission, cases and deaths for 30 countries and compared the effectiveness of various measures  that were introduced by tracking their impact on case numbers and deaths.

 

 

But not the countries where lockdowns and distancing worked.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, NCC1701A said:

"Here is the author of the 'Masks and Lock Downs Makes No Difference' study."

"Put him over there with the other Thai Visa members." 

 

Notice what the guy pushing is wearing? Masks alone are a waste of time, IMO. NZ government spokesperson said that, and I agree.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

WELL DONE. Stating the <deleted> obvious. So let's tailor the response to the local situation. One size does not fit all.

Thats why the lockdown works. It stops it spreading to your area. For now anyway.

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, NCC1701A said:

"Here is the author of the 'Masks and Lock Downs Makes No Difference' study."

"Put him over there with the other Thai Visa members." 

 

No, actually, I'm afraid Dr Brainard is very much alive and well. This despite her refusal to use a face mask.

 

You can stay very much alive and not use a face mask. You know why?

 

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

 

So effect of facemasks: None.

 

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

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

They did, everyone was at risk. I dont mind the economic loss. Generations to come will be paying for lots of things our govts have done and will continue to do. Billions is not much when you think the US debt is trillions. Just cut defense budget for a few years.

 

Govts waste more than that on less serious issues.

I dont mind the economic loss.

 

Only someone that is OK financially would say that. Millions and millions are not OK.

[geriatrickid]

Two questions to ask;

Is this peer reviewed?

In which credible  medical or research journal was this published?

 

 

Let's first determine if the statements postulated have a credible basis.

peer review tells us that other scientists of standing in the field have reviewed the report and deem it worthy of sharing.

When published in a  research journal it tells us that  there is importance  to the field of study.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by geriatrickid

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Thats why the lockdown works. It stops it spreading to your area. For now anyway.

The stay at home full mandatory lockdown does not work.

 

"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

 

Data from 30 countries shows this.

[sukhumvitneon]

10 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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

Oh that's ok, that small business/person's livelihood tanked and now they're going to wind up homeless, no loss.  That generation of kids just graduating from college is going to be unemployed/underemployed for years, no loss

[thaibeachlovers]

23 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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.

Unless you live in NZ you have no idea. I suggest you stick with Oz if that's where you are.

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

But not the countries where lockdowns and distancing worked.

Because full lockdowns and social distancing did not work. The data from 30 countries shows this.

 

Australia and New Zealand did not succeed because of overzealous lockdowns, but because they tested and isolated the infected more than most countries on the planet:

 

 

[moe666]

1 hour 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.

 

American Samoa, full lock down 0 cases. People can jiggle their studies to get what they want I guess this study was catering to the conspiracy theory boys and girls.

[Enlil]

200 celebs and noblists signed letter to never end lockdown. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8292475/amp/Stars-scientists-call-world-not-normal.html

[steelepulse]

40 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

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

Au contraire.  If you have stayed at home for the past month, there should be no new cases.  The cases should be through the roof for those brave people that decided to venture out into the world if all these scare tactics being used were actually correct.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Two questions to ask;

Is this peer reviewed?

In which credible  medical or research journal was this published?

 

 

Let's first determine if the statements postulated have a credible basis.

peer review tells us that other scientists of standing in the field have reviewed the report and deem it worthy of sharing.

When published in a  research journal it tells us that  there is importance  to the field of study.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps then YOU can provide peer reviewed research proving masks alone prevent infection. Which journal was it published in?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

There was further comment from the study's authors in the report re face mask wear that the OP also has never mentioned in his posts above. So I'll add it here.
 

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.

 

 

The authors also made reference to the limitations of their study and its findings, because so many of the control measures were implementing in similar time frames, making it difficult to sort out of individual impacts of each distinct measure -- the same notion that the other London School of Hygiene epidemiologist mentioned in the article from The Telegraph that I quoted earlier in this thread.

 

From this study's authors:

 

Quote

Collinearity makes it hard to separate out individual intervention effects. Moreover, many interventions were implemented in different ways and at different points in the local epidemic.... Because of this variety in how interventions are implemented and described, the results for the potential of stay at home advisories especially may be underestimated.

 

[papa al]

45 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

 

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

And if you do test,

maybe 80% false positives?

Until recently,

tests in USA weren't test for any kind of reliability

AT aLL !!

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Because full lockdowns and social distancing did not work.

 

The study you're repeated distorting in fact did find that SOME forms of social distancing DID slow the spread of the virus.

 

Quote

Closure of educational facilities, banning mass gatherings and early closure of some but not necessarily all commercial businesses were all associated with reduction of the spread of infection.

 

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

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

There was further comment from the study's authors in the report re face mask wear that the OP also has never mentioned in his posts above. So I'll add it here.
 

 

The authors also made reference to the limitations of their study and its findings, because so many of the control measures were implementing in similar time frames, making it difficult to sort out of individual impacts of each distinct measure -- the same notion that the other London School of Hygiene epidemiologist mentioned in the article from The Telegraph that I quoted earlier in this thread.

 

From this study's authors:

 

 

If you want to discredit the findings of the OP the least you can do is link to similar research supporting your point of view. So far you have not, that I've seen.

The NZ government does not think masks are necessary. Are you saying they are wrong?

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

WELL DONE. Stating the <deleted> obvious. So let's tailor the response to the local situation. One size does not fit all.

Well perhaps you should have thought of the obvious before you made such a statement. No one size does not fit all and the same goes for studies and their results.

 

Public mask wearing is most effective at stopping spread of the virus when compliance is high. The decreased transmissibility could substantially reduce the death toll and economic impact while the cost of the intervention is low. Thus we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.

 

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1/download

 

 

[steelepulse]

Of course all this cautionary wording  that those that keep harping on this is called "CYA" 

[RJRS1301]

5 minutes ago, Enlil said:

200 celebs and noblists signed letter to never end lockdown. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8292475/amp/Stars-scientists-call-world-not-normal.html

Well of course they would.

They more wealthy than most, have paid staff to assist their needs, income earning investments, their limos do not get held up by pesky traffic jams, they can enter the shops unhindered by less foot traffic from less "worthy" non celebs.  

[Logosone]

18 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Although you wouldn't know it from the OP's distorted rendering of this research, the authors did actually find that several kinds of social distancing policies DID reduce the spread of the virus.

 

Don't lie about what I posted. That would be distortion, TallGuyJohn.

 

I have repeatedly posted the conclusion from the authors which makes clear that full lockdowns and stay at home social distancing do NOT work, and only a few select measures of this kind work:

 

"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

 

You can lie about how I post all you like, I posted the full study, I posted the full article and I posted the conclusion of the article. You have not.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Well perhaps you should have thought of the obvious before you made such a statement. No one size does not fit all and the same goes for studies and their results.

 

Public mask wearing is most effective at stopping spread of the virus when compliance is high. The decreased transmissibility could substantially reduce the death toll and economic impact while the cost of the intervention is low. Thus we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.

 

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1/download

 

 

Indeed. Do you think the NZ government is unaware of that study? They obviously disagree.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

18 minutes ago, Logosone said:

So effect of facemasks: None.

 

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

 

Except for the cautionary/limiting study language you continually fail to mention:

 

Quote

Face covering interventions varied hugely between countries: most made face covering voluntary and some only suggested it in specific settings....
Our modelling was unable capture many subtle variations in how control measures were implemented. We acknowledge that lack of direct observation of these variations may have biased our results.

 

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

 

Public mask wearing is most effective at stopping spread of the virus when compliance is high. 

 

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1/download

 

 

No, actually, a study of 30 countries has just concluded that wearing masks in public has no effect on transmission at all. Also no effect on death figures:

 

"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 it's kind of funny isn't it, all those people who thought they were smarter than everyone else by putting a rag on their mouth now have to face up to the reality that they were wrong all along.

 

Unsurprisingly I see some are having a bit of difficulty with this.

 

Delicious.