Boris says wear a mask.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

I had to do some paper work to apply for 34,000 Euro in corona stimulus money from the German government agencies. It's a lot of paperwork. 

We have a saying in Oz.  " If BS was music, you'd be a brass band".

[Phil McCaverty]

30 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Thailand has not moved to government facilities, quarantine at home is still done in Thailand. If you enter Chiang Mai airport you're not whisked away to a government quarantine hotel, you have the option of quarantine at home.

 

Of course your daughter, being a nurse would advise to wear a mask. She is in extremely close contact with sick people every day and her worry radar is spinning over time. Doesn't mean masks have an effect outside the medical setting.

 

Australia and New Zealand were successful because they put in extremely hard work in testing and isolating the infected, not because of any other reason, not masks and not social distancing and not quarantine, because the virus was in Australia and New Zealand. However the antipodeans controlled it with testing and isolating the infected.

As you are generally recognised as a troll on this forum, I will refrain from feeding you.

[Canuck1966]

9 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

This guy is smart, he listens and believes everything the media tells him.......Actually he doesn't but puts this video up so youtube can't take it down.

 

 

He sounds like 99% of Thais

[toofarnorth]

1 hour ago, Canuck1966 said:

I think she thinks Thailand invented them????

I think your thought on her thought is correct.

[bkk6060]

Thank you Mr. Boris brilliant suggestion.

[Sujo]

53 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, someone saying so is not 'proof' Yinn.

 

Proof would be a study where you can show that it was face masks, and not some other measure, that resulted in a reduction of cases or deaths related to SARS Cov2. That would be proof.

 

If you have such proof would be awesome if you could share it with the forum.

 

Thanks.

Hopefully not as many times as you do.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

As we've seen Boris is getting very bad scientific advice.

 

A study of over 30 countries has shown clearly that wearing masks had no impact and the death rate actually went up after wearing masks was introduced

Citation needed.

 

Regards,

Masked in Bahn Nawk (where nobody's died).

[Logosone]

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Here's one, once you've torn that apart I'll link you to another:

 

Background: Observational epidemiologic data suggest that transmission of viral respiratory infection was significantly reduced during the SARS epidemic with the use of face masks as well as other infection control measures.

 

Conclusions: This is the first RCT on mask use to be conducted and provides data to inform pandemic planning. We found compliance to be low, but compliance is affected by perception of risk. In a pandemic, we would expect compliance to improve. In compliant users, masks were highly efficacious. A larger study is required to enumerate the difference in efficacy (if any) between surgical and non-fit tested P2 masks.

 

Link added https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(08)01008-4/fulltext

This is not a study that is in any way related to SARS Cov2, a virus, which we now know differs markedly in transmission to the flu or SARS.

 

This study was done in 2007 relating to influenza, not SARS Cov2. They say "we found no significant difference in the relative risk of respiratory illness in the mask groups compared to control group (which did not wear a mask)".

 

Looks like these researchers had pre-conceived ideas because they do not accept their own data, but then go on to blame it on poor compliance with mask wearing.

 

The only way they got the research to fit their agenda was to "readjust" the results by looking only at those who they declared had used the mask compliantly".

 

Even then "The efficacy against proven viral infection was non-significant".

 

Extremely small samples, 90 people in each group.

 

This study has very limited use.

[rvaviator]

1 hour ago, Yinn said:

The France boss also say the same for France.

i think soon all euro will be follow Thailand now.

 

and matching colors.....

 

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

This is not a study that is in any way related to SARS Cov2, a virus, which we now know differs markedly in transmission to the flu or SARS.

 

This study was done in 2007 relating to influenza, not SARS Cov2. They say "we found no significant difference in the relative risk of respiratory illness in the mask groups compared to control group (which did not wear a mask)".

 

Looks like these researchers had pre-conceived ideas because they do not accept their own data, but then go on to blame it on poor compliance with mask wearing.

 

The only way they got the research to fit their agenda was to "readjust" the results by looking only at those who they declared had used the mask compliantly".

 

Even then "The efficacy against proven viral infection was non-significant".

 

Extremely small samples, 90 people in each group.

 

This study has very limited use.

Side stepping as I would expect. I'll come to dissect your un-peer reviewed article later but for now here's another peer reviewed one for you, they just keep coming. I'll await your peer review on this one.

 

Abstract

We identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2

[toofarnorth]

I wear a mask in Lotus , if I turned up maskless I wouldn't be allowed in.    If someone is talking to me then they cough I am glad they are limiting the cough in my dirction .  Better to cough further away from me which is why I still say to them Far Cough !

[UbonThani]

30 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

As you are generally recognised as a troll on this forum, I will refrain from feeding you.

What he said was correct. Aus and NZ doctors recommended against masks. They used other measures.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

As we've seen Boris is getting very bad scientific advice. ...

It would appear that Boris isn't accepting ANY scientific advice.

 

Top experts not asked to approve 'stay alert' coronavirus message

 

Neither Prof Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, nor Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, were asked to sign off on dropping the “stay at home” advice before Boris Johnson unveiled the new strategy on Sunday night.

 

 

[Phil McCaverty]

6 minutes ago, rvaviator said:

and matching colors.....

 

My neighbour has taken up mask making as a sideline. Design your own and she will make them up for you. I've already bought 2 and have ordered 2 more. its a fun fashion fad in Pattaya.

[rabas]

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Side stepping as I would expect. I'll come to dissect your un-peer reviewed article later but for now here's another peer reviewed one for you, they just keep coming. I'll await your peer review on this one.

Log's own references are often rubbish. He once posted several references 'proving' mask don't work. I read them all. One study only concluded that the study's methodology failed. Nothing else. Another 'proof masks don't work' was a tutorial how to make emergency masks from tee shirts for medial personnel in the field. Nothing about masks not working.

 

He either knows this or is just parroting.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by rabas

[poohy]

I suspect this poster supposedly a Thai woman and POTY is either troll or a manufactured poster by TV

[Phil McCaverty]

6 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

What he said was correct. Aus and NZ doctors recommended against masks. They used other measures.

Read, mark and inwardly digest the post you are replying to. The troller in chief defending the apprentice troll! You couldn't make it up!

 

Go no, tell me again that I should see a doctor if I need to take a dump at 5am. 555

Edited May 12, 2020 by Phil McCaverty

[Logosone]

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Side stepping as I would expect. I'll come to dissect your un-peer reviewed article later but for now here's another peer reviewed one for you, they just keep coming. I'll await your peer review on this one.

 

Abstract

We identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2

I've seen this study before. It has already been discredited:

 

"An issue of critical importance with this study is that only 4/17 covid-19 positive patients produced measurable aerosols without the mask, and 3/17 produced droplets. This number is lower than would be expected given other studies, and suggests either their method was not sensitive enough, or there is enough variability (possibly due to stage of disease) that a much larger sample is needed. Another lesser issue is that there is no mention of where the G-II bioaerosol collecting device was positioned relative to the subject's face. Since the major criticism of surgical masks is that they allow airflow around the edges, it could be a critical flaw of the study that aerosols were being directed behind the patient's head."

 

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-16836/v1

 

 

[rabas]

1 minute ago, poohy said:

I suspect this poster supposedly a Thai woman and POTY is either troll or a manufactured poster by TV

She's from a country that uses masks and gel with exceeding low infection rates.

[Phil McCaverty]

Just now, rabas said:

She's from a country that uses masks and gel with exceeding low infection rates.

Possibly why they have low infection rates. How's the US doing?

[473geo]

7 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

What he said was correct. Aus and NZ doctors recommended against masks. They used other measures.

That would be other measures on their substantial networks of underground transport would it?

[rabas]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I've seen this study before. It has already been discredited:

 

"An issue of critical importance with this study is that only 4/17 covid-19 positive patients produced measurable aerosols without the mask, and 3/17 produced droplets. This number is lower than would be expected given other studies, and suggests either their method was not sensitive enough, or there is enough variability (possibly due to stage of disease) that a much larger sample is needed. Another lesser issue is that there is no mention of where the G-II bioaerosol collecting device was positioned relative to the subject's face. Since the major criticism of surgical masks is that they allow airflow around the edges, it could be a critical flaw of the study that aerosols were being directed behind the patient's head."

 

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-16836/v1

Yet another false conclusion.

 

From your own link, masks work. LOL.

 

Here, we recruited children and adults with acute respiratory illness and collected respiratory droplets and aerosols, with and without surgical facemasks. We identified human coronaviruses, influenza virus and rhinovirus from both respiratory droplets and aerosols. Surgical face masks reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in both respiratory droplets and aerosols, but only respiratory droplets and not aerosols for influenza virus RNA. Our results provide mechanistic evidence that surgical facemasks could prevent transmission of human coronavirus and influenza virus infections if worn by symptomatic individuals.

 

Now conisder N95 masks are much better.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by rabas

[Logosone]

Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor in Cellular Microbiology, University of Reading, said:

“This welcome review by the WHO of the current data concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that face mask wearing in the community, by healthy people, can protect them from infection with respiratory viruses, including the one causing COVID-19.  They go on to point out that such inappropriate use of masks could lead to a false sense of security 

 

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-who-advice-on-use-of-facemasks-in-the-context-of-covid-19/

[473geo]

Put quite simply if a carrier sneezes without a mask onto a hand rail in a busy environment the virus is no longer airborne but passed on by touch where it lands, a mask clearly limits the spread of a sneeze or cough, not necessarily the contamination in the droplets, but certainly the area infected and the risk of onward transition.

[Logosone]

Prof William Keevil, Professor of Environmental Healthcare, University of Southampton, said:

“Following on from my previous comments about my concerns over the public wearing face masks I believe the new WHO Advice is the correct strategy. There are many loose fitting surgical facemasks on sale made of poor quality materials which wet easily from breath moisture and provide inadequate filtration. Even wearing Class 2 or 3 surgical face masks brings problems of fitting them correctly and ensuring their safe removal and placing into an appropriate double bag container for disposal. Which should be immediately followed by washing hands. The untrained public can be regularly seen on television continuously touching and readjusting the masks, contaminating their hands and risking contacting their eyes. Indeed, what is the point of wearing a mask if you also do not protect your eyes, a known route for virus entry, as healthcare professionals do by wearing goggles and/or a full face visor. 

 

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-who-advice-on-use-of-facemasks-in-the-context-of-covid-19/

[Grumpy John]

I had a look through the wifes draws the other day to see if she had a spare mask but the only ones she had had been made incorrectly!   ????

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I've seen this study before. It has already been discredited:

 

"An issue of critical importance with this study is that only 4/17 covid-19 positive patients produced measurable aerosols without the mask, and 3/17 produced droplets. This number is lower than would be expected given other studies, and suggests either their method was not sensitive enough, or there is enough variability (possibly due to stage of disease) that a much larger sample is needed. Another lesser issue is that there is no mention of where the G-II bioaerosol collecting device was positioned relative to the subject's face. Since the major criticism of surgical masks is that they allow airflow around the edges, it could be a critical flaw of the study that aerosols were being directed behind the patient's head."

 

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-16836/v1

 

 

Side stepping again.

 

One comment by Nicholas Johnson does not discredit a whole study, oh wait, thats your opinion only.

 

Here's another for you, this one like the one you posted is not peer reviewed yet.

 

Models show that if 80 percent of people wear masks that are 60 percent effective, easily achievable with cloth, we can get to an effective R0 of less than one. That’s enough to halt the spread of the disease. Many countries already have more than 80 percent of their population wearing masks in public, including Hong Kong, where most stores deny entry to unmasked customers, and the more than 30 countries that legally require masks in public spaces, such as Israel, Singapore, and the Czech Republic. Mask use in combination with physical distancing is even more powerful.

 

https://www.fast.ai/2020/04/13/masks-summary/

 

I'll await your bias opinion again

 

 

[vermin on arrival]

Well there is significant research going into the wearing of mass now. For it to be really effective it requires 80+% compliance:

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/masks-covid-19-infections-would-plummet-new-study-says?fbclid=IwAR1LryGzu5-60MlFn56vrg_UXSh8FVqR7vPLfJZZVZpg0UeerhIPq3S5liA

 

From the above article links to other studies. This one has downloadable pdf: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1

 

and another linked study from top article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13553.pdf

 

and another current study linked from the top article: https://rs-delve.github.io/reports/2020/05/04/face-masks-for-the-general-public.html

[Matzzon]

3 hours ago, Yinn said:

Boris yesterday told the UK people to wear mask in shops or public transport. 

Good idea. 

Took a while for him, though. On the other hand, the guy has been sick.

[UbonThani]

13 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

Read, mark and inwardly digest the post you are replying to. The troller in chief defending the apprentice troll! You couldn't make it up!

 

Go no, tell me again that I should see a doctor if I need to take a dump at 5am. 555

Posting facts isnt trolling. People should listen to doctors in the given country.