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

[ianezy0]

8 minutes ago, Logosone said:

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.

Yep OK, Baa Baaa...keep bleating your nonsense.

Edited May 8, 2020 by ianezy0

[Rancid]

6 hours 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.

 

Then now also add in Thailand that initially did virtually nothing to your comparison. It could be that that Oz and NZ responded brilliantly, or it may also be that like Thailand for some reason it just didn't take off as strong. This study tends to indicate that it was largely a waste of time so it may well be the latter.

 

Politicians react to electoral survival, its all about keeping that snout in the trough. Thus as the media ramps up the fear they respond, if the media starts screaming out for an end then they will do that. And yes, who are these experts now controlling the fate of country's economies? Some like Ferguson seemed to be on the dodgy Bill Gates gravy train and they get listened to, others with opposing views are ignored or even banned on the fascist social networks. Who knows wherein the truth lies?

[Phulublub]

39 minutes ago, Logosone said:

But one thing we can be certain of now,

No, we cannot.  The report's authors say that themselves.   Repeating the same incorrect thing ad nauseum does not and never will make it true.

 

It MAY be that masks have little or no effcet.  But we do not know.

 

PH

[Phulublub]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

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

You seem very intent on making sure others are clear...but in your own post, you saY:

 

"These results would suggest...."

 

which is not an unoquivocal definitive conclusion.  It says that the evidence points that way.  Not that they have proved anything.

 

Please stop with the constant stream of posts saying the same, incorrect, thing.

 

PH

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

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

You could copy and paste the whole article if you like, I have no objection but I think this covers it all adequately as it takes into account what you've just said and all their findings and very limited research on facemasks in 14 countries, its called a conclusion:

 

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.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Bkk Brian

[Logosone]

22 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

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. 

 

You clearly do not understand the words.

 

The authors say "no additional impact" in reference to the other measures they examined. It means face masks had no impact on reducing transmissions 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

 

It means no additional impact by the masks in reducing incidence of transmissions.

 

You would know if you had read the study since it also 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"

 

Is this clear enough for you? The use of face masks do not provide any benefit.

 

How much clearer can it be?

[ianezy0]

4 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

No, we cannot.  The report's authors say that themselves.   Repeating the same incorrect thing ad nauseum does not and never will make it true.

 

It MAY be that masks have little or no effcet.  But we do not know.

 

PH

Exactly correct.

One thing we do know is that if these experts said “ you need to wear a mask”, there will be a massive shortage of them for the medical services, who, apparently do need them...

[Puccini]

An extract from the abstract of the interesting quasi-experimental study:

 

Quote

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 find the title of this topic misleading because it says that "full lockdown had no impact", whereas the title of the news article merely asks the question whether "full lockdown was a waste of time" and the study itself states that a partial lockdown ("closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some nonessential businesses" did have a positive effect.

 

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

No, we cannot.  The report's authors say that themselves.   Repeating the same incorrect thing ad nauseum does not and never will make it true.

 

It MAY be that masks have little or no effcet.  But we do not know.

 

PH

Yes, we do know now, because the report 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"

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

 

Your attempt below to try and imply that the use of the words "These results would suggest" implies that the authors are not clear that current data shows that facemasks provide no benefit is ludicrous.

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

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

 

"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

 

We know. 

 

It is clear now. Very clear. Clear as can possibly be.

 

No benefit in wearing masks. NONE. 

 

Multi-country study by several universities and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

 

It's over.

 

[Phulublub]

19 minutes ago, Logosone said:

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.

It is NOT clear, as the authors of the paper clearly state. 

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, Puccini said:

I find the title of this topic misleading because it says that "full lockdown had no impact", whereas the title of the news article merely asks the question whether "full lockdown was a waste of time" and the study itself states that a partial lockdown ("closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some nonessential businesses" did have a positive effect.

 

It's a shame you are easily confused, I will clear it up for you:

 

The term "full lockdown" as I use means exactly that, the full plethora of lockdown measures, including the stay-at-home lockdown including closing non-essential businesses. As you will find when you read the paper stay-at-home lockdowns like the one in the UK and closing non-essential business was found not to have had any impact.

 

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Please cease your misleading, false information provision immediately.

 

 

How am I misleading when I say the study you are using to justify your mask obsession relate to the European arena only?

The only orders I follow are those of the Thai government. You have no official capacity with them, or here on TV. AFAIK nobody died and made you Supreme Leader.

[Pattaya46]

I have some serious doubts about the data they used.

By example I see that they use a mask restriction for France in date of March 4th. Problem, no such rule in this date for general public, only a few specific categories. Mandatory usage of mask in France will start only from May 11, with the exit-of-containment phase.

How could this study get realist results if uts input data are wrong ?... 

[Phulublub]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, we do know now, because the report says:

 

"These results would suggest

No, we do not know.  As the report, and your posts, continue to say, 

 

"These results suggest...."

 

Suggest, not prove, suggest.  The authors believe that there is an indication that the evidence leads  this way.  But no proof.

 

PH

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Phulublub said:

It is NOT clear, as the authors of the paper clearly state. 

You are purposely misrepresenting the study which says very clearly:

 

"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"

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

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

 

"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 the data is amply clear. Face masks have no effect in reducing transmissions.

 

 

[nauseus]

4 hours 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.

 

 

No, you can't, of course. All these so-called 'comparisons' are indirect, flawed and trust 'data' generated by differing methods and regimes.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

You are purposely misrepresenting the study which says very clearly:

 

"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"

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

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

 

"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 the data is amply clear. Face masks have no effect in reducing transmissions.

 

 

Congratulations you've convinced yourself on a preliminary study. Thankfully you're not involved in the development of a vaccine

[Logosone]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

How am I misleading when I say the study you are using to justify your mask obsession relate to the European arena only?

Because in your previous statement you implied the conclusions would be different in Asia or Australia.

 

Unless you have evidence of some special mask designs that we Europeans are unaware of, or some evidence that our droplets are somehow different in nature than those in Asia or Australia it is quite obvious, as you well know, that the conclusion would be exactly the same in Asia or Australia.

 

A statement to the contrary is misleading.

 

This study shows in very clear terms that the use of face masks provides no benefit.

 

Why would this be different in Asia? Same droplets, same masks. 

[CLS]

Make masks compulsory and after 15 days you have a rise.

15 days are more or less the incubation period. A coincidence?

[Phil McCaverty]

Just now, Logosone said:

Because in your previous statement you implied the conclusions would be different in Asia or Australia.

 

Unless you have evidence of some special mask designs that we Europeans are unaware of, or some evidence that our droplets are somehow different in nature than those in Asia or Australia it is quite obvious, as you well know, that the conclusion would be exactly the same in Asia or Australia.

 

A statement to the contrary is misleading.

 

This study shows in very clear terms that the use of face masks provides no benefit.

 

Why would this be different in Asia? Same droplets, same masks. 

Not the same masks. Mine was made by a neighbour and I defy you to find an identical one. Very chic. Only the best for me.

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No, you can't, of course. All these so-called 'comparisons' are indirect, flawed and trust 'data' generated by differing methods and regimes.

The fact that this data was taken from 30 different regimes in Europe, which all introduced the measures at different times is of course why this comparative analysis works in the first place. It allows the researchers to measure objectively by reference to cases and deaths if a measure, say wearing masks, had any effect on transmission and deaths.

 

It is the diversity of the data that is the strength of this study and why it works so brilliantly. 

 

The researchers have brilliantly solved the problem of examining measures and deducing what effect it had on transmission where several measures were thrown at the virus at the same time? How? By comparing with other countries where measures were not introduced at the same time. Brilliant! This enabled them to gauge clearly if a measure had an effect or not.

[Phulublub]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

This study shows in very clear terms that the use of face masks provides no benefit.

No, it doesn't.  The authors make that clear when they say "This suggests..."  They think the study may lean that way, but they do not say definitively.

 

PH

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Phil McCaverty said:

Not the same masks. Mine was made by a neighbour and I defy you to find an identical one. Very chic. Only the best for me.

Home made is not the best. An N95 mask would be much better.

 

You got second rate. 

 

Maybe third rate. Would have to examine the mask. Many home made ones are very poor.

[Phil McCaverty]

Just now, Logosone said:

Home made is not the best. An N95 mask would be much better.

 

You got second rate. 

 

Maybe third rate. Would have to examine the mask. Many home made ones are very poor.

Mine's class. Black with a white pattern. Worn with a pair of Rayban Aviators, it's the nuts.

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Phulublub said:

No, it doesn't.  The authors make that clear when they say "This suggests..."  They think the study may lean that way, but they do not say definitively.

 

PH

A ludicrous attempt to use the words 'This suggests' as somehow implying the authors of the study do not say that masks have no benefit. 

 

Again, the study says very clearly:

 

"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"

 

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

 

If you read on the report further makes clear:

 

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

 

"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

 

It couldn't possibly be clearer.

[Logosone]

Just now, Phil McCaverty said:

Mine's class. Black with a white pattern. Worn with a pair of Rayban Aviators, it's the nuts.

Shame it's useless though.

[Phil McCaverty]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Shame it's useless though.

They're all useless. They're just for show. Keeps the Thais happy. The important thing is to look good in them.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Phil McCaverty

[Sujo]

After 16 pages it is clear. The op only posts on this subject. He is only for herd mentality. That is a debunct way to control the virus.

 

he keeps holding onto the unverivied view that he is correct and has only shown a survey of countries that are not doing well.

 

he refuses to a knowledge the facts that lockdowns do work as that is proven.

 

as he inly posts in related topics you can take his view with a pinch of salt.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

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.

And my teeth are brighter than yours. ????

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Phil McCaverty said:

They're all useless. They're just for show. Keeps the Thais happy. The important thing is to look good in them.

It's a bit surprising you look better with a mask on.

 

It's because I look so good without a mask that I'm so strongly against them.

 

I don't see why I should keep Thais even happier, when they get the incredible joy of seeing my perfect face. That's already more happiness than most people can handle.