6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I would rather shoot myself than be operated in Thailand.

 

Less painful death.

 

Btw, I routinely walk around in Thailand without a facemask, was not denied entry to supermarkets or anywhere. In the hardcore places like malls the trick is to put on the mask for a second, then to take it off once you're in. I see many farangs do this, I saw plenty without a mask where supposedly mask wearing was required. Like everything in Thailand the enforcement is relaxed.

 

The ironic thing at immigration you wear a mask, only to be then told to take it off. Photo time. Nobody died at immigration yet.

As usual, you deflect from the question. Let's say you have an operation in Germany instead, still OK with no masks in the operating theatre?

1 minute ago, DavisH said:

So are you refusing to wear a mask in public in Thailand?

I am wearing a mask when visiting a crowded public place.

And I do have more than heavy doubts that it has any effect (especially given the quality of the masks and how they are actually used and re-used).  But since other people might get anxious or worried because of me not wearing one, I do it for 'social' reasons.

But that will not stop me of questioning this mask-fetish especially in the light of the emerging evidence that the only benefit of wearing a mask is reduction of worry/anxiety with those that believe it helps protect themselves and others.

23 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

As usual, you deflect from the question. Let's say you have an operation in Germany instead, still OK with no masks in the operating theatre?

In the medical setting of course wearing a face mask is preferable.

 

Equally if someone is sick, they should wear a face mask as well.

 

If someone prefers to wear a mask even if they're healthy that is totally up to them, they can wear three condoms on their head, I couldn't care less. However, if you come up to me and try and force me to wear a facemask be prepared for my teutonic fury to be unleashed upon you without mercy.

 

All I am saying is that face masks, the mandatory forcing of the healthy to wear face masks outside a medical setting, has had no effect on transmission or death figures.

 

That is very clear now.

4 hours 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.

The problem with your argument is that the data from 30 countries does not prove that face masks didn't reduce the spread of Covid 19. You admit yourself there are so many factors that affect the Covid 19 numbers, so it's almost impossible to state which factors are causing what to happen. You would need a proper controlled experiment to prove it. 

 

Common sense says that a face mask will catch more droplets from an infected person, and therefore lower the spread rate. Sometimes it's just better to use common sense! 

 

8 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

The problem with your argument is that the data from 30 countries does not prove that face masks didn't reduce the spread of Covid 19. You admit yourself there are so many factors that affect the Covid 19 numbers, so it's almost impossible to state which factors are causing what to happen. You would need a proper controlled experiment to prove it. 

 

Common sense says that a face mask will catch more droplets from an infected person, and therefore lower the spread rate. Sometimes it's just better to use common sense! 

 

Sometimes it's not. It used to be "common sense" that going out with wet hair would give you a cold. Common sense should just be an initial filter, policy decisions for millions need to be based on hard and clear data.

 

The fact that the data from 30 countries shows that wearing a mask went hand in hand with rising death figures is very compelling evidence that wearing a mask has no benefit.

 

Indeed there are many factors that affect the Covid pandemic, but looking at the results of measures in such a widespread and detailed way is very helpful. The data on the effectiveness of masks is very clear now.

With the buggers  running everywhere In Thailand due to their lax food  habits and dog  feeding, worry  more about this next one.

https://www.livescience.com/rat-hepatitis-humans-hong-kong.html

20 minutes ago, Logosone said:

That just shows you do not understand this study. The countries' data where masks were not mandatory was just as important as that of the countries where it was mandatory, because the researchers used comparative analysis. So that is why this research is so compelling. Not only do they look at the specific impact of measures in 30 countries, they are able to do so by comparing the data, ie did the number of dead rise in countries where masks were not mandatory to a much greater degree than in those countries where masks were mandatory.

 

So again, the data is from 30 countries, and the use of masks was not shown to confer any benefit. Exactly the opposite was the case. The data against masks was so bad the researchers even considered if wearing masks could increase the risk of transmission to explain the data.

Please read your study again as they did not do that at all or even claim to.

 

"In addition, we sought information on when countries started to advise or require their citizens to wear face masks or coverings. The dates when government recommendations or compulsory orders about face coverings (whichever date was earlier) started over the majority of the population were collected from credible sources, as listed in Supplemental file 1. However, there was substantial heterogeneity in how the wearing of face coverings in the community was encouraged or mandated and in what contexts, such as always outside the home or just in shops or on public transport. This heterogeneity combined with their relative recent introduction means that we do not yet endorse using the results about face covering use (in our main model) being used to inform public policy."

 

If you like I'll extract the entire face mark data (there's not much of it) and study from the article and post so you can point this out.

31 minutes ago, Logosone said:

That just shows you do not understand this study. The countries' data where masks were not mandatory was just as important as that of the countries where it was mandatory, because the researchers used comparative analysis. So that is why this research is so compelling. Not only do they look at the specific impact of measures in 30 countries, they are able to do so by comparing the data, ie did the number of dead rise in countries where masks were not mandatory to a much greater degree than in those countries where masks were mandatory.

 

So again, the data is from 30 countries, and the use of masks was not shown to confer any benefit. Exactly the opposite was the case. The data against masks was so bad the researchers even considered if wearing masks could increase the risk of transmission to explain the data.

What it does show is that you do not interpret your links very well.

13 minutes ago, Logosone said:

In the medical setting of course wearing a face mask is preferable.

 

Equally if someone is sick, they should wear a face mask as well.

 

If someone prefers to wear a mask even if they're healthy that is totally up to them, they can wear three condoms on their head, I couldn't care less. However, if you come up to me and try and force me to wear a facemask be prepared for my teutonic fury to be unleashed upon you without mercy.

 

All I am saying is that face masks, the mandatory forcing of the healthy to wear face masks outside a medical setting, has had no effect on transmission or death figures.

 

That is very clearly now.

Therein is your problem. You can have the virus and not know it, so you are indeed sick but not showing it.

 

You just shot your own argument down. So wear the mask for the sake of others.

4 hours ago, Phil McCaverty said:

My daughter, who is a nurse in ICU in the UK, has long advised me to wear a mask. She also advised me to wash them thoroughly and wear a clean mask every day.

 

For me, and my daughter agrees, the big difference between Thailand and the UK is quarantining all entrants to the country for 14 days. Britain will start doing this in a couple of weeks but people will be allowed to self quarantine. Thailand tried that and found that people just weren't observing the rules so moved to quarantine in government facilities. Australia, another country that has been successful in containing the pandemic, do the same. For the UK too little, far too late.

Thankyou Phil McCaverty.

 

professional opinion from professional nurse from ICU is good information.

20 minutes ago, Logosone said:

In the medical setting of course wearing a face mask is preferable.

 

 

 

If someone prefers to wear a mask even if they're healthy that is totally up to them, they can wear three condoms on their head, I couldn't care less. However, if you come up to me and try and force me to wear a facemask be prepared for my teutonic fury to be unleashed upon you without mercy.

 

 

Please invite me along when you unleash your teutonic fury on an Immigration Officer or Thai policeman, I want photos.

Not familiar with a reductio ad absurdum?

 

Simple question. Would you prefer someone that coughs in the supermarket near you to let the droplets out into the air or be contained within a mask? Sure, they can cough into their elbow or a hanky but....How is a mask NOT going to at least contain some if not all droplets from a potentially sick person??? How is this a bad idea?

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Please read your study again as they did not do that at all or even claim to.

 

"In addition, we sought information on when countries started to advise or require their citizens to wear face masks or coverings. The dates when government recommendations or compulsory orders about face coverings (whichever date was earlier) started over the majority of the population were collected from credible sources, as listed in Supplemental file 1. However, there was substantial heterogeneity in how the wearing of face coverings in the community was encouraged or mandated and in what contexts, such as always outside the home or just in shops or on public transport. This heterogeneity combined with their relative recent introduction means that we do not yet endorse using the results about face covering use (in our main model) being used to inform public policy."

 

If you like I'll extract the entire face mark data (there's not much of it) and study from the article and post so you can point this out.

You should read the study again, since you appear not to understand this part:

 

"A quasi-experimental study design is an intervention study where the allocation to receive the intervention (or not) is not randomly made. At present, most European states have introduced a similar suite of interventions aimed at reducing contact between individuals to reduce transmission. However, the different types of intervention used and their timing vary from one country to another. No measure was imposed by all European countries and where measured were imposed, they were often imposed at different points in the development of the epidemics. This situation offers a unique opportunity to investigate the putative impacts of the various types of intervention, as each individual-country epidemic forms what is effectively a chronosequence of disease spread. The intervention strategies can then be compared as interrupted time series."

 

Again, you quote the qualification but omit the substance of the study, the actual finding on the data:

 

"The use of face coverings initially seems to have had a protective effect. However, after day 15 of the face covering advisories or requirements, the number of cases started to rise. Similar patterns were observed for the relationship between face coverings and deaths.

 

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

 

So again the data was so clear, BOTH cases and deaths rose after masks were introduced as measures, that the authors even seriously questioned if face masks actually increase the risk of transmission in order to explain the data.

I know that I do tend to look at a person's mouth when they are talking to me, maybe to make sure that I'm catching the words correctly.  I have to make a conscious effort to look into the eyes.  Now, with masks all the rage, I am appreciating the expressiveness of the eyes, especially on smiling ladies.   Even in a mask, I can tell when Mrs P wants to kill me. funny that. 

4 hours ago, jvs said:

If you really want to safe lives why don't you tell the people to wear a helmet?

Ok. Wear a mask.

 

and if you motorbike, wear a helmet.

 

and if you drive a car, or passenger, wear helmet same. Many people die in car accident not wear the helmet. 

 

Safety first.

3 minutes ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

Simple question. Would you prefer someone that coughs in the supermarket near you to let the droplets out into the air or be contained within a mask? Sure, they can cough into their elbow or a hanky but....How is a mask NOT going to at least contain some if not all droplets from a potentially sick person??? How is this a bad idea?

Maybe an unexpected answer: I don't care if someone coughs with or without a mask!

Sooner or later I will get infected anyway, but as I am healthy without a challenged immune-system the consequences will be light and chances are I might not even notice it.

Social-distancing measures are meant to slow down the spread so that hospitals will not be overrun by sudden outbreaks, but eventually everybody will get it.

3 hours ago, 473geo said:

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.

So simple. 

 

Why they want to argue?

27 minutes ago, bodga said:

With the buggers  running everywhere In Thailand due to their lax food  habits and dog  feeding, worry  more about this next one.

https://www.livescience.com/rat-hepatitis-humans-hong-kong.html

 

Another unexplained disease issue coming out of China, wonderful.

 

Indeed there are 5000 coronaviruses that Bats harbour so the potential for future virus pandemics is great.

 

There are about 100,000 diseases we know about, if you start to worry about each one you would end up like Howard Hughes, living alone in your room with long fingernails and afraid to touch anything.

 

I'm all for focusing on your health. But one can take things too far.

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You should read the study again, since you appear not to understand this part:

 

"A quasi-experimental study design is an intervention study where the allocation to receive the intervention (or not) is not randomly made. At present, most European states have introduced a similar suite of interventions aimed at reducing contact between individuals to reduce transmission. However, the different types of intervention used and their timing vary from one country to another. No measure was imposed by all European countries and where measured were imposed, they were often imposed at different points in the development of the epidemics. This situation offers a unique opportunity to investigate the putative impacts of the various types of intervention, as each individual-country epidemic forms what is effectively a chronosequence of disease spread. The intervention strategies can then be compared as interrupted time series."

 

Again, you quote the qualification but omit the substance of the study, the actual finding on the data:

 

"The use of face coverings initially seems to have had a protective effect. However, after day 15 of the face covering advisories or requirements, the number of cases started to rise. Similar patterns were observed for the relationship between face coverings and deaths.

 

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

 

So again the data was so clear, BOTH cases and deaths rose after masks were introduced as measures, that the authors even seriously questioned if face masks actually increase the risk of transmission in order to explain the data.

No not clear.

 

I understand completely and that is that you even disagree with the authors and insist on spreading this as fact when they themselves made numerous caveats in their conclusions. You've already proved to me that you are not trustworthy so I'll leave you be. Let me know how the non use of masks goes for you if you ever have to visit a pandemic hotspot. I hope there are no selfish carriers there who are not wearing a mask and strike up a conversation with you.

10 minutes ago, Yinn said:

Ok. Wear a mask.

 

and if you motorbike, wear a helmet.

 

and if you drive a car, or passenger, wear helmet same. Many people die in car accident not wear the helmet. 

 

Safety first.

I recommend wearing the helmet backwards so that it serves a double purpose and also acts as face-mask...

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

I understand completely and that is that you even disagree with the authors and insist on spreading this as fact when they themselves made numerous caveats in their conclusions. You've already proved to me that you are not trustworthy so I'll leave you be. Let me know how the non use of masks goes for you if you ever have to visit a pandemic hotspot. I hope there are no selfish carriers there who are not wearing a mask and strike up a conversation with you.

No you do not.

 

I don't disagree with the authors at all. Unlike like you I actually look at their data, rather than at the pro-forma qualifications.  The qualifications are not the data. The data is clear as can be, cases and deaths ROSE when masks were introduced, they did not decline. Ergo, masks have no benefit.

 

The non use of masks is going great, thanks for asking. You seem a bit overly concerned about carriers and pandemic hotspots. If you look at the actual figures and data, hopefully you can calm your obviously worried mind.

12 minutes ago, Yinn said:

Ok. Wear a mask.

 

and if you motorbike, wear a helmet.

 

and if you drive a car, or passenger, wear helmet same. Many people die in car accident not wear the helmet. 

 

Safety first.

air bags? 

3 hours ago, Canuck1966 said:

One thing that is interesting is that the virus can enter through the eyes too

Where is the guidance for goggles/glasses etc???

What's the point of a mask if your eyes are exposed

 

 

You misunderstand because you selfish.

wear the mask to stop YOU spread. Considerate for other person. 

 

When you coff, sneeze the virus come out YOUR mouth. It not come out YOUR eyes. 

1 hour ago, bodga said:

Does  that  apply to everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint?

No. Why are you feeling left out?

5 minutes ago, Yinn said:

 

When you coff, sneeze the virus come out YOUR mouth. It not come out YOUR eyes. 

 

And during other activities, we now know, the virus comes out of another place.

 

Also dogs and cats have been infected with the virus. It is not clear if dogs or cats can transmit the virus. Would be a disaster for Thailand since so many lose dogs.

 

We just don't know enough yet how this virus is transmitted.

 

What we do know that wearing masks saw an increase in both deaths and cases. So they confer no benefit at all.

i make my wife wear a mask when we are doing it. that way i feel like maybe i am cheating on her with some young hot spinner.

 

 

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Or you could do like Howard Hughes and out of fear of a virus lock yourself in a room for the rest of your life.

 

Unfortunately for him, he still died.

Or I could abandon common sense and walk into a known minefield.

Not sure what you are attempting to say.

Or is your opinion that not only masks are a waste of time but that all and any efforts to reduce the immediate widespread impact of a viral pandemic?

Should I decide selfishly to ignore social responsibility by denying the rights of others in what they determine to be in the best interests of personal protection?  Wearing a mask is hardly an imposition that creates any personal hardship in reality. I detest wearing the things but even at the very least as a panacea for maintaining social harmony at this moment in time is no problem and it in no way impedes me in freedom of daily community interactions such as currently permitted.

I am actually enjoying a behavioral change masks have brought  about or has resurrected . I have observed that many people now look at others specifically directly in the eyes. It reminds  me of the  not  so distant past when strangers could do that in recognition of the other without inhibitions.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, White Christmas13 said:

But doctor Yinn can compere Thailand to Europe

Yes. 

Thai very successful control coronavirus. Europe not. 

Boris bring the new rule now. 

I will help. Sure. 

keep your droplets to yourself – wear a mask.

#181

 

No it won't.

 

Enforcement in Thailand is as lax as it is with everything else.