[Bradders]

Let's be honest, we set the bar pretty low here - you don't even really need to provide evidence (digging through stuff can be time consuming and we should all be working anyway), just a moderately well-reasoned argument that people can explore/critique (as per the discussion with Bradders on the other thread).

This is getting boring now, it's like talking to a 5 year old.

Thanks man, I'll take moderately well reasoned any day 

[petejh]

You and that TT fellah seem pretty genned up to me so I’ll take your word for it. Ever feel like a a bloke with one bollock in a 2 bollock race, well I do now.

Check your previous posts for the other bollock, there were a load of them.
 

[Muscle.Coach]

Those were other people’s bolkocks mate, mine is still here. I did some snooping at old matey chums request and found this evidence

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3473

Apparently the DANNASK study is complete and has been quashed.

Stay cosy behind those muzzles

[erm, sam]

What do you think that is "evidence" of?
I read it as sombody saying we should be carrying out studies as the benefit of maskwearing, hand washing etc, as we do for drugs that might have an effect on Covid. Obviously that is a good idea.

It is not evidence that masks are useless, if that is what you are implying.

[Muscle.Coach]

The evidence is being ignored in order to keep the masses unquestioning or banging their TomTom’s (that’s a kind of drum)

[Bonjoy]

Evidence ignored? How many months did the government foot drag before grudgingly recommending masks? If there's evidence being ignored/downplayed by TPTB it's in relation to the importance of aerosol spread.

[abarro81]

I concur with the author that having well-designed studies to assess the efficacy of mask wearing - and other interventions - would be good (though I'd contest that schools may not be the most appropriate scenario given current thoughts on transmission amongst children vs adults). But the author is not arguing that masks should not be used, just that we should do better studies on both them and others interventions. Until we do that, it would seem prudent to tread cautiously, especially when there is some evidence around efficacy - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8


"Observation of the use of face coverings, in real life, finds that they are commonly worn incorrectly.5" - I wouldn't view this as an argument against masks, it's an argument for more education and training. I imagine most idiots not wearing masks correctly are tin-foil-hat people like you. It's like saying "we gave ropes to 20 people and threw them off the top of a sport climb, a large number of participants didn't tie in properly, and died, therefore we conclude that ropes are inefffective protection for sport climbing".

"People with histories of trauma, or who have hearing difficulties, are placed at disadvantage.6" - yes, I could very much buy this. Obviously this doesn't address whether the negative is big enough to outweigh any positive.

"Yet those who do not wear face coverings are categorised, by proponents of face coverings, as “deviants from the new norm.”7 Societal cohesion is risked by dividing rather than understanding behaviour." - I find this reasoning perverse, since you could use it to advocate anarchism. Rules against murder, theft, reckless endangerment, drink driving and paedophilia all involve defining deviants from a norm, it's broadly how rules and social norms work. If (note the condition) masks work and other valid negative impacts (e.g. the one about hearing difficulties) are minor in comparison to the positive effect, then people who needlessly don't wear them should be shamed and looked down upon, as you would a drunk driver.

Hard to comment on the DNNASK thing without seeing the study and the reviewer responses.


(P.S. still like talking to a 10 year old, but the 10 year old is trying harder now, so B+ for effort)

Thanks man, I'll take moderately well reasoned any day 

I disagreed too much to write anything nicer 

[Muscle.Coach]

Mandated face coverings equated with murder eh, you read it here first. That’s the story they want you to lap up. Get yer jab of serum here, muzzle up and save the lives of your loved ones.

[Muscle.Coach]

Christ I just read your paragraph on shaming, mate I’ve gotta say, if that’s serious it’s the ravings of a massive twat.

[abarro81]

Christ I just read your paragraph on shaming, mate I’ve gotta say, if that’s serious it’s the ravings of a massive twat.

If (as I explicitly caveated) masked are effective at reducing COVID spread, and if (as caveated) the downsides are minor in comparison, then avoiding wearing one for no reason (exclusions for certain issues obviously excepted) seems to be quite comparable to speeding, drunk driving or anything else that could lead to manslaughter. Hence why, under those caveats, people no wearing them should be shamed, and are massive twats. Feel free to produce a reasoned an coherent argument to the contrary, I'm sure there may be some, but "mate, I'm too lazy to interrogate anything with reason" doesn't quite cut it

muzzle up and save the lives of your loved ones.

Well my dad is already dead. Who knows, maybe if fewer twats had spread COVID around then the hospitals would have had more resources available and he wouldn't be.

Unless you say something interesting I won't bother any more. Arguing with a fuckwit is very boring. (p.s. if you're on furlough, perhaps try some home schooling)

[Muscle.Coach]

👍🏻🤐

[ali k]

Sorry to hear that Alex.

Good effort to anyone trying to engage with this guy but it’s perfectly clear he’s a bellend and only came on to antagonise. 

[tomtom]

Sorry to hear that too Alex.

[tomtom]

And apparently Tier4 is now being planned...

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/coronavirus-latest-plans-tier-4-restrictions-second-wave-736607

[teestub]

Surprised they’re not going for 6 tiers to have one more than Scotland

[tomtom]

All I can think of is some sort of wedding cake competition :D

[petejh]

It'll all end in tiers.

[erm, sam]

Happened across this today and thought of the recent intervention and claims there is no evidence to support mask wearing from the "wear your muzzle blah blah bollocks" poster. It shows masks dramatically reduce the transmittion of aerosol particles. From this I conclude that indeed, until proven otherwise in specific relation to SarsCov2 virus, wearing masks is a very sensible precaution to likely reduce the spread of the virus.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7#:~:text=Milton%20et%20al.16%20found,reduction%20in%20the%20coarse%20fraction.

[Muscle.Coach]

I’m sure the mask discussed in that article offers a level of P3 protection tested under lab conditions where as the standard surgical masks are P1-2 and the home mades germ ridden face cloths. A HSE report from 2008 states that under lab conditions a P3 mask will provide up to a 100 fold protection compared to 6 fold protection from a P2 mask or below. Taken out of the lab and into the community the variables involved in human behaviour which I’d imagine are huge are likely to lead to zero or negligible difference and I wonder even worsen the situation via creating hundreds of thousands of viral cloths being handled by wearers touching surfaces etc. All it then takes is the surface to be touched by another and then touching their face or other portal of entry. Yes under lab conditions wearing a P3 respirator mask and full head shield is gonna stop the virus, pragmatically with what’s going on in the community I seriously doubt it. Hand washing and avoiding touching your face and eyes in the community setting is of course helpful and reducing risk of any Coronavirus. So really the sensible choices are stay at home and avoid all others or wear a space helmet which are being advertised to buy commercially now, just in time for Christmas for you ‘new normal’ covidians out there. Funnily enough it doesn’t really matter now, if there is less Coronavirus around in 6 months the message will be keep doing more of the same it’s working, if there is an escalation in reported cases then it will be more of the same plus further restrictions on liberty. Masks are now here to stay, enjoy the the feeling of security they afford as you peep out at the deadly air around you.

[Muscle.Coach]

Bollocks, nuts, fart and arse etc

[JamieG]

I don't quite see how you go from a P2 mask affording ~6 fold protection (which is actually quite a lot) under lab conditions to "likely to lead to zero or negligible difference and I wonder even worsen the situation" just because of human behaviour. I'm sure they aren't as effective as under lab conditions but that is quite a leap to make. Sure some people will wear them wrong, not wash/replace them enough etc, but I still doubt that renders them totally ineffective across a population (or as you suggest potentially worse than no mask). Most people are relatively sensible.

[Muscle.Coach]

Hopefully this pragmatic RCT of 6000 participants on the effectiveness of masks will help answer that question. When it’s published

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2020/10/the-suppressed-danish-mask-study/

[duncan]

When it’s published

JAMA has a rejection rate of over 90%. BMJ and Lancet are similar. Not getting published in these journals is not the same as suppressing results.

[tomtom]

Hopefully this pragmatic RCT of 6000 participants on the effectiveness of masks will help answer that question. When it’s published

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2020/10/the-suppressed-danish-mask-study/

To me the conspiracy theory of journals not publishing this research doesn’t make any sense. You can post your paper - in unreviewed form - on a preprint server (as is happening to much Covid research while its being reviewed) and it will be out there for all to see.

Anyway, a quick dig around the website discussing why the article hasn’t been published (that you link) and the owner and founder of the website has held some non mainstream views (being diplomatic) and faces a string of claims of being anti Semitic.

So it’s filed under the tin foil hat category for me.

But reading your longer post above MC it seems you’re maybe annoyed more at masks being positioned as some sort of viral control panacea. You’re right there - they won’t fix it - but I think they help. Of course if they are used to legitimatise entering a dangerous situation - then that is potentially dangerous as they won’t afford as much protection as simply not being there!!

Though I think you’re missing the main point of wearing masks - that is to stop infected people breathing/spraying the virus everywhere. I wear one to stop other people getting what I unwittingly may not know I have!

[JamieG]

Reading through the link you sent I am not convinced by the authors arguments. As Duncan mentioned getting rejected from a journal is just part of scientific research and there can be numerous reasons an article is not accepted, but that does not equal suppression. If the authors really wanted this study out in public since they believe the results are important enough, there is a route to do this called pre-prints. Essentially you make your research available (before peer reivew) whilst you are still looking for a place to publish. It is fairly common practice and can be beneficial to the authors since improvements to the study/write-up can be suggested before publication. That would allow everyone to see there findings without compromising their ability to publish in a good journal. It sounds like they are stirring up controversy a little.