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

[Lacessit]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

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, ????

Whether I am wrong or not, it doesn't answer the question I put. Perhaps you have difficulty understanding good manners.

[BritManToo]

Just now, Logosone said:

Enjoy wearing your mask,

I've been wearing the same mask for 2 months now.

I'll need to find new ear elastic soon. 

[steelepulse]

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

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?

 

What are you on about? This is about new cases, not old cases.  No recycling here, and in fact, I've never paid attention to any of your posts.  Carry on.

[Logosone]

17 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

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

It's in the paper, read the paper, the definitions of the various measures are clearly set out there.

 

Total lockdown, as I use it, means just what it says, all the lockdown measures, including stay-at-home.

 

This is not hard to understand.

 

Indeed, people coming in through airports were not tested and the reason is obvious, a measure like that only makes a difference at the very start, before the virus arrives. Once it has arrived in the country it is too late and the airport restrictions make little difference.

[FritsSikkink]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

 Once it has arrived in the country it is too late and the airport restrictions make little difference.

That is nonsense as they will be able to infect people and should be treated and put in quarantine. No wonder the UK has so many cases.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

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

Please do not post false and misleading information.

 

You know damn well that study of 30 countries is of the European area only. Asia, North America, South America, Africa, Australia - how many continents do you want to omit? What utter BS.

[RJRS1301]

17 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

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.

He liked Fava beans though 

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

He liked Fava beans though 

Probably only for the fibre, which seems to be lacking on some posts on this thread.

[Logosone]

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

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.

This mysterious "factor" "protecting" Thailand is that Thailand is not doing testing on a real scale. Of course if you never tested someone, if they die how would you know if he died of Covid19? You can't.

 

It's perfectly understood. Certainly Thai management is not protecting Thais, the Ostrich approach of doing close to zero testing however is effective in pretending you have no cases.

 

No doubt Nigerians are also sitting at home marvelling about the mysterious reasons why they are so unbelievable successful in almost having no deaths and no cases, even more than Thailand. 

 

"So Adedayao, we are incredibly successful in defeating the virus. What do you think it could be?"

 

"I don't know Mutumbo, maybe it is our Tuwo Masara, they say corn flour has high Vitamin C"

 

"Of course it could be our practice of squatting on the ground to greet the elders, Adedayao"

 

"Yes, it could Mutumbo, our culture has protected us".

 

"You do know we're not testing at all, Adedayao, don't you?"

 

"Yes, Mutumbo, I know. I know."

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

Even as a mathematical model it may have enough indicators to justify  further study. However IMO the explained disclaimers are enough to consider it  nothing more than a preliminary study.

Where are the comparatives? Is there any secondary modelling of alternatives in applied measures?

Credit is given for measures such as  banning mass gatherings, closure of  non essential business, social distancing. Those measures in actual effect on social movement are little different than  "stay at home". What purpose would the majority have in roaming the streets that contain closed shops? 

Where is the consideration of the fact that the stay at home policy also would help contain cross infection to social  clusters ("family"e.g) and  has been demonstrated  in Thailand in helping to isolate high potential victims of infection ( Thai Boxing  event ).

As socially disrupting as it is where is modelling evidence to make a comparison where the public were not  on "stay at home restrictions? 

The Swedish example is not supportive !

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

I wonder if the clusters in the Bangkok Muay Thai boxing stadiums would have been avoided if masks were compulsory? Probably yes but definitely would have been reduced.

[Enlil]

Its coming to light that whole lockdown was fraud. 

 

"

• Dr. Tony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx used the Imperial College Model to persuade President Trump to lock down the ENTIRE US ECONOMY.
• The fraudulent model predicted 2.2 million American deaths from the coronavirus pandemic" 

They cant get anywhere near 2.2mil even with faking numbers. 

 

Fauci and Brix hopefully will be sacked and charged soon. 

 

Basically dont take genius. 

They wanted to destroy Trump economic successes and rid of him. Elections in nov. This people are sick. Traitors

 

https://www.citadelpoliticss.com/dr-fauci-dr-birx-to-get-kicked-out-for-using-fraudulent-model-to-persuade-president-trump-to-lock-down-entire-us-economy/

Edited May 8, 2020 by Enlil

[Logosone]

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Please do not post false and misleading information.

 

You know damn well that study of 30 countries is of the European area only. Asia, North America, South America, Africa, Australia - how many continents do you want to omit? What utter BS.

Please cease your misleading, false information provision immediately.

 

Quite obviously if the wearing of masks had no effect in 30 countries in Europe it equally has no effect if you wear a mask in Asia, North America, South America, Australia or Africa.

 

What do you think Asia, Australia et al have secret mask designs we in Europe have never heard of?

 

That European droplets are different to those in Asia, Australia?

 

We have a study of 30 countries that wearing a mask made no difference, none.

 

This will be the case whether you're in Asia, Australia, Africa, South or North America, or if you're on an undiscovered continent. 

 

Why would it be different in Asia? 

[Logosone]

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I wonder if the clusters in the Bangkok Muay Thai boxing stadiums would have been avoided if masks were compulsory? Probably yes but definitely would have been reduced.

Unlikely since masks have been shown to have no effect at all on transmission or death figures.

 

However, the study does imply that such events should have been avoided. Mass gathering bans were not useless, unlike stay-at-home lockdown or wearing masks, which were both useless.

[marqus12]

Masks and social distancing are to prevent people from communicating and make the theater credible
Covid is:
1. Deleveraging by printing (theft of savings)
2. Demonization and ending trade with China
3. Vaccines
4. Eliminate cash
5. Global surveillance, global gulag

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, ianezy0 said:

Not based on one post from a country at the top of the list of the Covid-19 pandemic.

You have not understood the study.

 

The study examines the data from 30 countries. Not just the UK.

 

30 countries.

 

Masks were shown to have no impact at all. If that is not the case in 30 countries it is of course totally persuasive for people who can understand the paper.

 

"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

[Enlil]

Masks get moist from breathing. Perfect for growing bacterial flora and fungus. Then u breathing it in. Doctors changing masks every 30min.

 

Masks make people sick. I avoid and refuse masks as much as I can. 

[RJRS1301]

11 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You have not understood the study.

 

The study examines the data from 30 countries. Not just the UK.

 

30 countries.

 

Masks were shown to have no impact at all. If that is not the case in 30 countries it is of course totally persuasive for people who can understand the paper.

 

"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 have a duty of full disclosure when touting science to hold up your debate

I am agnostic about masks for non Dx people.

 

Please do not say no impact at all , this what part of research says

 

UNDECIDED 

Facemasks

Wearing facemasks in public was not associated with any independent additional impact. But the researchers say these results are too preliminary to reliably inform policy.

Dr Brainard said: 'The use of face coverings initially seems to have had a protective effect. However, after day 15 of the face covering advisories or requirements, we saw that the number of cases started to rise – with a similar pattern for the number of deaths.

'Face coverings may even be associated with increased risk, but the data quality for this is very uncertain.

'The results on face coverings are too preliminary to reliably inform policy, but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community.

'Wearing face covering as an intervention certainly merits close monitoring,' she a

Edited May 8, 2020 by RJRS1301

[Bkk Brian]

19 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You have not understood the study.

 

The study examines the data from 30 countries. Not just the UK.

 

30 countries.

 

Masks were shown to have no impact at all. If that is not the case in 30 countries it is of course totally persuasive for people who can understand the paper.

 

"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

Facemasks was not even encouraged or ordered in 16 of the countries and the other 14 countries they were only encouraged well after the epedimic took hold and was already flattening or decreasing. This is why the paper needs peer review, without it is not credible. Experimental only. Please stop quoting the number 30 its just not true

Edited May 8, 2020 by Bkk Brian
typo

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, Enlil said:

Masks get moist from breathing. Perfect for growing bacterial flora and fungus. Then u breathing it in. Doctors changing masks every 30min.

 

Masks make people sick. I avoid and refuse masks as much as I can. 

Indeed, one of the study's authors actually mentions that "Face coverings may even be associated with increased risk". Of course very little study is being done on whether face masks increase the risk of transmission, which is certainly a potential issue.

 

But one thing we can be certain of now, masks do not reduce transmission or deaths. They have no impact at all. None.

 

I have to say I was concerned, after reading a Chinese study that was unable to determine if any one measure had caused a specific reduction in transmission of death, because various measures were thrown at the virus at the same time. However, I underestimated European genius.

 

This paper is brilliant because it actually used the difference in countries' timing and measures precisely to address the issue and was able to attribute causative quantification to each measure.

 

I was concerned the truth would not come out, but out it came, thanks to the brilliance of European scientists. In time the truth of this brilliant work will set us all free from the darkness of unfounded police-state measures and ignorance. 

 

Astoundingly brilliant research. I would also like to congratulate Public Health England for financing this very important study. Fantastic work from the UK.

[teatime101]

5 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

You have a duty of full disclosure when touting science to hold up your debate

The obsession with a single non-peer reviewed study is truly bizarre, not to mention very lazy.

 

Science facts are built on consensus, not, 'Oh look, here's a study I like. I'm going to keep referring to it over and over, because it makes me sound like I've done some research on the topic'.

[Logosone]

10 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

 

You have a duty of full disclosure when touting science to hold up your debate

I am agnostic about masks for non Dx people.

 

Please do not say no impact at all , this what part of research says

 

UNDECIDED 

Facemasks

Wearing facemasks in public was not associated with any independent additional impact. But the researchers say these results are too preliminary to reliably inform policy.

Dr Brainard said: 'The use of face coverings initially seems to have had a protective effect. However, after day 15 of the face covering advisories or requirements, we saw that the number of cases started to rise – with a similar pattern for the number of deaths.

'Face coverings may even be associated with increased risk, but the data quality for this is very uncertain.

'The results on face coverings are too preliminary to reliably inform policy, but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community.

'Wearing face covering as an intervention certainly merits close monitoring,' she a

Obviously, and I have discharged this duty with total and absolute competence, you will note I have linked to the article and to the study itself. Many times.

 

Moreover, if you look at the actual study it says:

 

" 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"

 

So not only do face masks not provide any benefit, they may actually increase the risk of transmission.

 

Yes, of course the high quality of this study is shown by their careful interpretation, however, the preliminary qualification is followed up by an absolutely crystal clear warning that what data there is does not support the use of masks:

 

. ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

Hence the very clear statement in 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"

 

I trust you understand the meaning of the words "the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact". It means facemasks had no effect in reducing transmissions or deaths. None.

 

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

 

 

[marqus12]

43 minutes ago, marqus12 said:

Masks and social distancing are to prevent people from communicating and make the theater credible
Covid is:
1. Deleveraging by printing (theft of savings)
2. Demonization and ending trade with China
3. Vaccines
4. Eliminate cash
5. Global surveillance, global gulag

A lot of unemployed means there is space for moving production out from China.
This plus the collapsed currencies of many countries will make production not that expensive.

[Eindhoven]

5 hours ago, Logosone said:

The actions of the UK government certainly did resemble totalitarian style measures, obviously. However, the reason for the implementation was simply fear. Because Neil Ferguson saw Italy being overwhelmed he adjusted his figures and his report and advised the government, falsely, that stay at home lockdowns would make  a difference.

 

As we now know, thanks to this 30 country study from the UK, the stay at home total enforced lockdown made no difference.

 

Wearing masks made no difference.

 

The UK government made the wrong decision because it got the wrong advice:

 

Professor Heneghan said: 'The UK Government keeps saying it is using the best science.

'But it appears to be losing sight of what’s actually going on. We’ve been getting scientific advice that is consistently wrong.

 

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

 

You only look for confirmation of what you already believe. Ignoring the facts;

 

Quote

However, after day 15 of the face covering advisories or requirements,

 

This assumes that everyone was wearing masks for those fifteen days. I think you would struggle to find anyone who wore masks during those fifteen days, apart from medical personnel.

 

The fact is that there isn't the culture for it in the UK, so people like yourself look for any reason against wearing one.

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Obviously, and I have discharged this duty with total and absolute competence, you will note I have linked to the article and to the study itself. Many times.

 

Moreover, if you look at the actual study it says:

 

" 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"

 

So not only do face masks not provide any benefit, they may actually increase the risk of transmission.

 

Yes, of course the high quality of this study is shown by their careful interpretation, however, the preliminary qualification is followed up by an absolutely crystal clear warning that what data there is does not support the use of masks:

 

. ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

Hence the very clear statement in 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"

 

I trust you understand the meaning of the words "the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact". It means facemasks had no effect in reducing transmissions or deaths. None.

 

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

 

 

I understand, but you a not doing full disclosure, by say no impact, yes I did read the not peer reviewed study.

As I said do not care one way or the other currently on the use of masks. 

It says no additional impact , need more consideration, you are putting your interpretation on the facts. 

 

[teatime101]

26 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Of course very little study is being done on whether face masks increase the risk of transmission, which is certainly a potential issue.

This is utter garbage. I posted links to a large number of studies (from The Lancet, no less) done around the globe, on the use of masks to reduce infection.

 

Quoting a single study is fine. The extent to which you push the one study is ridiculous. Do you understand what 'consensus' means?

 

26 minutes ago, Logosone said:

In time the truth of this brilliant work will set us all free from the darkness of unfounded police-state measures and ignorance. 

 

It's quite obvious you have a political agenda. How about finding some other studies that support the one you keep cherry picking? I'm sure they must be out there, if you can be bothered to look.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by teatime101

[ianezy0]

43 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You have not understood the study.

 

The study examines the data from 30 countries. Not just the UK.

 

30 countries.

 

Masks were shown to have no impact at all. If that is not the case in 30 countries it is of course totally persuasive for people who can understand the paper.

 

"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

Your and many others don’t get it do you. You are all quoting what the “experts” say. You are being told what they want you to hear so you can attempt topreach the propaganda to others.

Baa Baa Baa

Me, I wear a mask because if I was positive without knowing it, then I won’t be infecting others....capiche.

[Bkk Brian]

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'.

 

Face covering interventions varied hugely between countries: most made face covering voluntary and some only suggested it in specific settings.

 

Our findings on facemasks or coverings are perhaps counterintuitive especially given the strong debate on their use. In a recent systematic review we concluded that the evidence in favour of face mask use outside of hospital was weak. On the other hand a recent modelling study concluded that community facemask use could reduce the spread of COVID-19.27 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.

 

As you can see in the chart only 14 countries encouraged facemasks not 30, a big difference between encourage and made compulsory

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, ianezy0 said:

Your and many others don’t get it do you. You are all quoting what the “experts” say. You are being told what they want you to hear so you can attempt topreach the propaganda to others.

Baa Baa Baa

Me, I wear a mask because if I was positive without knowing it, then I won’t be infecting others....capiche.

You will actually infect others if you are positive, whether you wear a mask or not. 

 

It is now clear that masks have no effect in reducing transmission and death figures. None.

 

Zilch. Zero. Nada. Rien de Rien. Bupkess.

 

Masks are useless, as this impressive paper that examined the data from 30 countries clearly shows.

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

Face covering interventions varied hugely between countries: most made face covering voluntary and some only suggested it in specific settings.

 

Our findings on facemasks or coverings are perhaps counterintuitive especially given the strong debate on their use. In a recent systematic review we concluded that the evidence in favour of face mask use outside of hospital was weak. On the other hand a recent modelling study concluded that community facemask use could reduce the spread of COVID-19.27 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.

I guess we should not be surprised that you omit the following words which are also found in the study:

 

" 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"

 

Yes, of course the high quality of this study is shown by their careful interpretation, however, the preliminary qualification is followed up by an absolutely crystal clear warning that what data there is does not support the use of masks:

 

. ".... but what results are available do not support their widespread use in the community."

 

Hence the very clear statement in 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"

 

I trust you understand the meaning of the words "the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact". It means facemasks had no effect in reducing transmissions or deaths. None.

 

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