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

[Phulublub]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If I read it right that's 100 Corona deaths in a week for everyone 15 to 44. That's out of 66 million people. That many would probably die on the roads if people were allowed to be on the roads.

If that is the case, then in addition to the 100 excess deaths over the five year average, we should add another 100 who would otherwise have died on the roads, and it is actually 200 covid deaths, not 100 in the week..

 

PH

[Phulublub]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm going to go with the NZ government position and not wear one, unless they change their mind.

As I am in Thailand, I am going to go with the Thai Government so that I am not invited to add to Government coffers or for a stay at the Bangkok Hilton.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Phulublub
spelling

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The epicenter of the pandemic in Wuhan, how do you feel the spread would have gone if they had not locked down and had a compulsory use of facemasks? 

Good question Brian.

 

The answer is that the lockdown in Wuhan happened AFTER half the population of that city had already left. So it was totally ineffectual, except to cause a delay of 3 days in transmission (a Chinese study showed this). In reality therefore the Chinese did not do a full and effectual lockdown of Wuhan, they did it too late, half the population of the City had left already and it was of minor use.

 

As for the compulsory use of facemasks, we now have a study of 30 countries that has analysed the impact of measures, including wearing facemasks. Unfortunately wearing face masks had no impact on transmission and death rates. So it's not even interesting to talk about face masks, they are of no use.

 

Now a travel restriction, locking down Wuhan completely, at the very start, could well have prevented the whole pandemic. Unfortunately the Chinese were not capable of understanding this and putting it in practice in time. By the time they did so half the population had fled and the much vaunted Chinese restrictions had no effect in stopping the spreading of the virus to the rest of the world, except to delay it by around 3 days.

[Logosone]

3 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

As I am in Thailand, I am going to go with the Thai Government so that I am not invited to add to Government coffers or for a stay at the Bangkok Hilton.

That is not a Thai government regulation, the wearing of masks, it is something the ill informed provincial governors are putting in place in some provinces. Where I am wearing a mask is not compulsory. I have gone out and not worn a face mask and nobody said a thing, and they can't because it's not law where I am. Not even at the provincial level.

[teatime101]

21 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Seems a bit selective, and well, distorting.

What is selective is taking one non-peer reviewed study and claiming it as gospel. Cherry picking, in other words.

 

The UK lockdown could be driving down the number of people one person who has coronavirus infects, research suggests.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimates that before the lockdown one positive person would infect 2.6 other people.

 

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/coronavirus-social-distancing-measures-working-study-suggests/

 

 Following Hall, Jones, and Klenow (2020), our benchmark value takes into account that the majority of the victims of the virus have a below average life expectancy. A higher value of statistical life (say 30 times annual GDP per capita), makes the abandonment of the lockdown more gradual, taking a bit more than six months to be totally abandoned. Considering a much larger value, in the order of 80 to 140 times the annual GDP per capita, implies a very strict lockdown that lasts for about 9 months, and a year after still has about 15% of the population in lockdown

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/20/21228406/coronavirus-covid-19-social-distancing-lockdown-end-research

 

 

• In a study published in the journal Science on Tuesday, a team of epidemiologists at Harvard assessed what is known about Covid-19 and other coronaviruses to anticipate possible scenarios for the current global health crisis.
• It said social-distancing measures, such as school closures, bans on public gatherings and stay-at-home orders, may have to remain in place for at least the next couple of years.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/15/coronavirus-study-warns-social-distancing-may-need-to-stay-until-2022.html

 

"We found that one-time social distancing measures are likely to be insufficient to maintain the incidence of Sars-CoV-2 within the limits of critical care capacity in the United States," said lead author Stephen Kissler from Harvard's TH Chan School of Public Health.

 

https://www.thenational.ae/world/coronavirus-some-social-distancing-may-need-to-continue-until-2022-harvard-study-predicts-1.1006176

 

The majority of medical studies and general advice supports the broad approach of - applying lockdowns, wearing masks and practicing social distancing.

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by teatime101

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, jvs said:

Like i said i do not believe they work but i am not alone in this world and if every one

around me is wearing a mask i do so also.

Not wearing one is being frowned upon and may even get you some angry responses.

Not believing a mask works or being and acting ignorant is something else again.

 

I understand that of course, however, the problem is that giving in to this peer pressure will merely further cement the wrong belief that face masks make any difference. It would be better to take a principled stance on face masks and not to wear one, if one does not believe it works.

 

That's what I do and I have not had any angry responses. If I did I would address them. However, of course this depends where you are, where I am wearing a face mask is not provincial law, where you are maybe it is.

[teatime101]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

the wrong belief that face masks make any difference

Can you cite a peer reviewed study or a statement by a major medical institution that supports this claim?

 

Let's have a look at what The Lancet has to say on the matter of masks.

 

People often wear masks to protect themselves, but we suggest a stronger public health rationale is source control to protect others from respiratory droplets. This approach is important because of possible asymptomatic transmissions of SARS-CoV-2.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30918-1/fulltext

 

You need to apologise for misleading people and retract your dangerous claim.

Edited May 8, 2020 by teatime101

[bodga]

1 hour 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.

Because when you cut  holes in people it's an easy infection route, that's  also VERY  close contact.

[Logosone]

10 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

What is selective is taking one non-peer reviewed study and claiming it as gospel. Cherry picking, in other words.

 

The UK lockdown could be driving down the number of people one person who has coronavirus infects, research suggests.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimates that before the lockdown one positive person would infect 2.6 other people.

 

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/coronavirus-social-distancing-measures-working-study-suggests/

 

 Following Hall, Jones, and Klenow (2020), our benchmark value takes into account that the majority of the victims of the virus have a below average life expectancy. A higher value of statistical life (say 30 times annual GDP per capita), makes the abandonment of the lockdown more gradual, taking a bit more than six months to be totally abandoned. Considering a much larger value, in the order of 80 to 140 times the annual GDP per capita, implies a very strict lockdown that lasts for about 9 months, and a year after still has about 15% of the population in lockdown

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/20/21228406/coronavirus-covid-19-social-distancing-lockdown-end-research

 

 

• In a study published in the journal Science on Tuesday, a team of epidemiologists at Harvard assessed what is known about Covid-19 and other coronaviruses to anticipate possible scenarios for the current global health crisis.
• It said social-distancing measures, such as school closures, bans on public gatherings and stay-at-home orders, may have to remain in place for at least the next couple of years.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/15/coronavirus-study-warns-social-distancing-may-need-to-stay-until-2022.html

 

"We found that one-time social distancing measures are likely to be insufficient to maintain the incidence of Sars-CoV-2 within the limits of critical care capacity in the United States," said lead author Stephen Kissler from Harvard's TH Chan School of Public Health.

 

https://www.thenational.ae/world/coronavirus-some-social-distancing-may-need-to-continue-until-2022-harvard-study-predicts-1.1006176

 

The majority of medical studies support the broad approach of - lockdowns, wearing masks and practicing social distancing.

 

 

Unfortunately my study is better than yours, and also more recent. It covers 30 countries. Does yours?

 

Any study that supports full lockdowns and wearing masks as well as stay-at-home social distancing is not worth the paper it's written on because we now have a study of 30 countries that carefully anlayses each measure, including stay-at-home lockdowns, wearing masks and it shows that neither measure had any effect whatsoever on transmission or death rates.

 

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has of course now switched sides, they are part of the study I mention and also support the finding that wearing face masks had no impact at all, that stay at home social distancing had no impact all.

 

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

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

 

So you can wear your face mask and social distance in your bedroom if you want, and read the old out-dated and obviously wrong research or you can look at the more recent, correct research and walk in the sunlight.

 

Up to you.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Logosone

[teatime101]

1 minute ago, bodga said:

that's  also VERY  close contact.

Are you aware fo the distance droplets can travel when people cough or sneeze? An infected person can be asymptomatic for two weeks, and walking around and coughing with no mask clearly increases the risk of infection.

 

I wish people would be honest about the medical advice and not push their agenda because they don't like what they hear.

[jvs]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

I understand that of course, however, the problem is that giving in to this peer pressure will merely further cement the wrong belief that face masks make any difference. It would be better to take a principled stance on face masks and not to wear one, if one does not believe it works.

 

That's what I do and I have not had any angry responses. If I did I would address them. However, of course this depends where you are, where I am wearing a face mask is not provincial law, where you are maybe it is.

Where i am(Phethburi province)you are not allowed to enter any business or store without wearing a mask.

If only someone in the government would say wearing a helmet does also prevent Covid 19 more people would be wearing those.

I would maybe not wear a mask if i went out alone but i have to consider Ann and the way people would look at her if i was refusing to wear a mask.

Being sociable has never hurt anyone.

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

Can you cite a peer reviewed study or a statement by a major medical institution that supports this claim?

 

Let's have a look at what The Lancet has to say on the matter of masks.

 

People often wear masks to protect themselves, but we suggest a stronger public health rationale is source control to protect others from respiratory droplets. This approach is important because of possible asymptomatic transmissions of SARS-CoV-2.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30918-1/fulltext

 

You need to apologise for misleading people and retract your dangerous claim.

Sure:

 

"In Taiwan 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"

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

 

Yes, unfortunately the author who published that paper in the Lancet has now been shown to be wrong, since face masks have been shown to have no impact on transmission and death figures, following an exhaustive 30 country analysis that involved several universities and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine:

 

"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

[teatime101]

 

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Unfortunately my study is better than yours, and also more recent. It covers 30 countries. Does yours?

I quoted four studies, all from April 2020. The effectiveness of masks in reducing the spread of infection has been studied for years. Covid19 is just one more pathogen.

 

The studies and statements from institutions around the world regarding the use of masks is all out there, if you can be bothered to look.

 

1 WHO. Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in healthcare settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak: interim guidance, Jan 29, 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/ handle/10665/330987 (accessed April 15, 2020).

2 Chan AL-y, Leung CC, Lam TH, Cheng KK. To wear or not to wear:
WHO’s confusing guidance on masks in the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ Blog, March 11, 2020. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/03/11/whos-confusing- guidance-masks-covid-19-epidemic/ (accessed April 15, 2020).

3 WHO. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19:
interim guidance, April 6, 2020. https://www.who.int/publications-detail/ advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and- in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019- ncov)-outbreak (accessed April 15, 2020).

4 Public Health England. Coronavirus (COVID-19)—what you need to know. Jan 23, 2020. https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/01/23/ wuhan-novel-coronavirus-what-you-need-to-know/ (accessed
April 15, 2020).

5 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendation regarding the use of cloth face coverings, especially in areas of significant community-based transmission. April 3, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/ coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html (accessed April 15, 2020).

6 Lee HK. South Korea takes new measures to have enough face masks domestically amid coronavirus. ABC News, April 27, 2020. https://abcnews. go.com/International/south-korea-takes-measures-face-masks- domestically-amid/story?id=69254114 (accessed April 15, 2020).

7 Government of Canada. Considerations in the use of homemade masks to protect against COVID-19. Notice to general public and healthcare professionals. 2020. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/ drugs-health-products/medical-devices/activities/announcements/ covid19-notice-home-made-masks.html (accessed April 15, 2020).

8 Government of the Czech Republic. The government requires the wearing of protective equipment and reserved time for pensioners to do their food shopping. March 18, 2020. https://www.vlada.cz/en/media-centrum/ aktualne/the-government-has-decided-to-require-the-wearing-of- protective-equipment-and-reserved-time-for-senior-citizens-to-do-their- food-shopping-180465/ (accessed April 15, 2020).

9 Howard J, Huang A, Li Z, Tufekci Z, et al. Face masks against COVID-19: an evidence review. Preprints 2020; published online April 12. DOI:10.20944/preprints202004.0203.v1 (preprint).

10 Greenhalgh T, Schmid MB, Czypionka T, Bassler D, Gruer L. Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis. BMJ 2020; 369: m1435.

11 Giordano C. Coronavirus: wearing face masks in public will likely become new norm, says WHO expert. The Independent, April 13, 2020. https://www. independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-face-masks-who-health- advice-covid-19-expert-a9462391.html (accessed April 15, 2020).

12 Mendick R. Now official advice may be to wear face masks in public to fight coronavirus. The Telegraph, April 13, 2020. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/2020/04/13/now-official-advice-may-wear-face-masks-public-fight- coronavirus/ (accessed April 15, 2020).

13 Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1177–79.

14 Xiao J, Shiu EYC, Gao H, Wong JW, Fong MW, Ryu S, Cowling BJ. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings—personal protective and environmental measures.
Emerg Infect Dis 2020; published online Feb 6. https://doi.org/10.3201/ eid2605.190994.

15 WHO. Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2019.

16 Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol 1985; 14: 32–38. 17 Cowling BJ, Ali ST, Ng TW, et al. Impact assessment of non-pharmaceutical

interventions against COVID-19 and influenza in Hong Kong:
an observational study. MedRxiv 2020; published online March 16. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.12.20034660 (preprint).

18 Normile D. Coronavirus cases have dropped sharply in South Korea. What’s the secret to its success? Science, March 17, 2020. https://www. sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/coronavirus-cases-have-dropped-sharply- south-korea-whats-secret-its-success# (accessed April 15, 2020).

19 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. NIH developing therapeutics and vaccines for coronaviruses. April 6, 2020. https://www. niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/coronaviruses-therapeutics-vaccines (accessed April 15, 2020).

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30918-1/fulltext

[Greenside]

23 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Keep living that fantasy but of course we know now that the full lockdown UK style has not caused any reduction in transmission. The data of 30 countries, including the UK, has just been analysed. The stay-at-home lockdown had no effect on transmission rates, nor indeed death rates.

 

 

The point of my post is that we don't know the effect of the lockdown and other measures and won't until some time in the future when things have gone back to whatever "normal" turns out to be.  The conclusions of this and any current studies can only be predictions based on events up to now and may be turned upside down should, for example, second waves of infection emerge and devastate countries who imposed lower levels of restrictions or relaxed them early.

 

You're entitled to think my personal opinion is a fantasy, but the truth is that neither you nor anyone else will be able to properly assess the effectiveness of the many approaches to handling the pandemic until it can be viewed in the light of history.

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

An infected person can be asymptomatic for two weeks, and walking around and coughing with no mask clearly increases the risk of infection.

Please do not post false and misleading information.

 

A study of 30 countries has now shown that wearing a face mask has no impact on transmission or death rates.

 

"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

[teatime101]

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

face masks have been shown to have no impact on transmission and death figures

 

A reminder about your paper:

 

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

[teatime101]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Please do not post false and misleading information.

You keep quoting one non-peer reviewed study and continue to ignore the fact that there is a huge body of contrary literature.

 

From the Lancet again

 

As evidence suggests COVID-19 could be transmitted before symptom onset, community transmission might be reduced if everyone, including people who have been infected but are asymptomatic and contagious, wear face masks.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30134-X/fulltext

 

You are simply cherry picking for your personal agenda. What a waste of time.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by teatime101

[hotandsticky]

1 minute ago, teatime101 said:

 

A reminder about your paper:

 

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

 

 

This is a third world internet forum  -  not the Lancet.

 

 

Empirical evidence - or even bar stool opinion - is quite fit for purpose.

[Logosone]

31 minutes ago, Greenside said:

The point of my post is that we don't know the effect of the lockdown and other measures and won't until some time in the future when things have gone back to whatever "normal" turns out to be.  The conclusions of this and any current studies can only be predictions based on events up to now and may be turned upside down should, for example, second waves of infection emerge and devastate countries who imposed lower levels of restrictions or relaxed them early.

 

You're entitled to think my personal opinion is a fantasy, but the truth is that neither you nor anyone else will be able to properly assess the effectiveness of the many approaches to handling the pandemic until it can be viewed in the light of history.

This study now is analysing the effectiveness of the various measures, including stay-at-home lockdowns and wearing of face masks in the light of recent history. The very recent history we all had to live through because many people foolishly supported wholly unnecessary stay-at-home lockdowns and the wearing of masks, both of which have now been shown to have no effect on either transmission or death figures, as confirmed by a study of 30 countries and done by various universities and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical medicine.

 

They had plenty of data, believe me, they looked at 30 countries.

 

The fact that you disregard this very data, which looked at 30 countries and choose not to accept it, merely illustrates that you are not waiting for proper studies and data, but rather for one that confirms your pre-conceived notion that stay at home lockdowns and wearing masks make a difference.

 

We know now that neither wearing a mask nor stay at home lockdowns have any effect on transmission and death figures.

 

But of course you can ignore recent findings and keep wearing your mask.

 

Up to you.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Logosone

[hotandsticky]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

 

But of course you can ignore recent findings and keep wearing your mask.

 

Up to you.

 

 

 

 

It's not actually "up to you" in Pattaya (and a few other places).  You wear your mask - or you pay money. Bo11ocks to any recent findings.

[Logosone]

11 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

This is a third world internet forum  -  not the Lancet.

 

 

Empirical evidence - or even bar stool opinion - is quite fit for purpose.

 

Unfortunately, for face mask fundamentalists, these are not opinions, these are detailed academic studies of the various measures used to fight the pandemic, including stay-at-home lockdowns and wearing of face masks. Both measures have been shown to have no effect on transmission or 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 very much fit for purpose, an academic study that looked at 30 countries, was done by various universities and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and funded the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London and Public Health England.

 

So very much first world.

 

Not opinion, academic study.

 

I don't know if they used bar stools, maybe you could ask them?

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

It's not actually "up to you" in Pattaya (and a few other places).  You wear your mask - or you pay money. Bo11ocks to any recent findings.

Well, obviously we need to take heed of the careful scientific research done in Pattaya.

 

 

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

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.

 

 

We have various studies being bandied about, with varying validity. No-one knows for sure.

Some people use studies to justify whether they should use a mask, or not. I can accept masks are inconvenient to some.

I wear a mask outside of my room because I don't want to be hassled by police, or refused entry to a supermarket or shopping mall. I don't know if it is effective or not.

However, if you see me wearing a mask, and you don't have one, do you think you could do me the common courtesy of staying the f##k away from me, and not attempting to speak to me? Thank you.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I can certainly agree with that.

I'm going to go with the NZ government position and not wear one, unless they change their mind.

You'll change your mind based on what your government tells you? ROFL.

[FritsSikkink]

4 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.

 

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.

What total lockdown, they never tested anyone coming in the country through an airport.

[nausea]

Given the economic damage this report (if true) is pretty damning. So it was all, mostly, just a waste of time and effort. I don't go with the conspiracy theories, I think politicians just had a knee jerk reaction. Personally, I'd have just let it rip through the population and concentrated resources on protecting the most vulnerable - the death camp care homes in the UK was pretty predictable. But then I'm not a politician and it's always easy to be smug in retrospect. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by nausea
Punctuation.

[Lacessit]

2 hours 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"

 

 

The virus had spread in New York well before any homestay or lockdown, thanks to a leader who said no problem.

Could I request if you want to issue putdowns, you could at least be original, and not recycle what I have said?

 

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

We have various studies being bandied about, with varying validity. No-one knows for sure.

Some people use studies to justify whether they should use a mask, or not. I can accept masks are inconvenient to some.

I wear a mask outside of my room because I don't want to be hassled by police, or refused entry to a supermarket or shopping mall. I don't know if it is effective or not.

However, if you see me wearing a mask, and you don't have one, do you think you could do me the common courtesy of staying the f##k away from me, and not attempting to speak to me? Thank you.

You are wrong, alas, we know for sure now.

 

A study by various universities including the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine examined the data in 30 countries, and looked if the introduction of face mask wearing caused a reduction in transmission and in deaths. Wearing a mask had no effect at all. NONE.

 

So we definitely know for sure now.

 

Wear a mask if you want, refuse to speak to people if you want. It doesn't change the fact that it is stupid to wear a mask if the data from 30 countries, as analysed by various universities and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine clearly shows:

 

"... 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

 

None. Zilch. Zero. Bupkess. Nada. No impact. At all.

 

Enjoy wearing your mask, ????

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

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.

Agree 100%. Floods of Chinese tourists, including from Wuhan, before Thailand closed its borders. There are factors protecting Thailand that are not yet understood, but Thai management is certainly not one of them. That's like saying Hannibal Lecter is a vegetarian.

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, nausea said:

Given the economic damage this report (if true) is pretty damning. So it was all, mostly, just a waste of time and effort. I don't go with the conspiracy theories, I think politicians just had a knee jerk reaction. Personally, I'd have just let it rip through the population and concentrated resources on protecting the most vulnerable - the death camp care homes in the UK was pretty predictable. But then I'm not a politician and it's always easy to be smug in retrospect. 

Yes, the full lockdown stay-at-home lockdown was a waste of time, effort, and millions of pounds. Much like mask wearing.

 

You're of course right, this was no conspiracy, this was just governments being advised very badly, by people like Neil Ferguson, who it turned out were busy dating on Ok Cupid and getting married women to travel to them, after he was infected, and heavily ignoring the supposedly life-saving, crucial and all important social distancing rules themselves. Hypocrisy and incompetence all in one.

 

On the advice of such people the government in the UK went into full lockdown mode, including enforced stay-at-home mode, which we now know had no impact on reducing transmission or deaths at all.

 

We are almost free, almost liberated, just a  few social distance and mask fundamentalists still remaining, but in the face of the clear evidence they will have to capitulate. No other way. The governments will abandon the madness soon or have already done so. Of course it is hard for people to admit they were wholly wrong. But eventually they will accept the truth.