Coronavirus

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Any scientific evidence, OB or are you just spouting your usual covid speculation?

I’d be interested to hear the scientific evidence that says masks in shops - reduces transmission, masks in pubs - makes no difference, not required.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’d be interested to hear the scientific evidence that says masks in shops - reduces transmission, masks in pubs - makes no difference, not required.

I don't think much scientific evidence is needed to show that drinking through a mask is harder than loading a shopping trolley whilst wearing a mask. Pragmatism Pierre, pragmatism.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Quite. I just demonstrates these measures are just to show the government is doing something.

Most thinking people know that masks are next to useless.

---------- Post added at 02:09 ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 ----------



And from you, pessimism, hopeless pessimism.

Any update on when the end of the world will be upon us?

That assertion is not evidence-based - science shows otherwise.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.

The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re
to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained. Economic analysis suggests that mask wearing mandates could add 1 trillion dollars to the US GDP (32, 34).

Models suggest that public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/375/...68302.full.pdf

Mask wearing and covid-19 incidence—Six studies with a total of 2627 people with covid-19 and 389228 participants were included in the analysis examining the effect of mask wearing on incidence of covid-19 (table 1).36 43 57 60 63 66 Overall pooled analysis showed a 53% reduction in covid-19 incidence (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75), although heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I2=84%) (fig 5). Risk of bias across the six studies ranged from moderate36 57 60 66 to serious or critical43 63 (fig 2).

Mask wearing and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, covid-19 incidence, and covid-19 mortality— The results of additional studies that assessed mask wearing (not included in the meta-analysis because of substantial differences in the assessed outcomes) indicate a reduction in covid-19 incidence, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality. Specifically, a natural experiment across 200 countries showed 45.7% fewer covid-19 related mortality in countries where mask wearing was mandatory (table 1).49 Another natural experiment study in the US reported a 29% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 transmission (measured as the time varying reproductive number Rt) (risk ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.75) in states where mask wearing was mandatory.58

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't think much scientific evidence is needed to show that drinking through a mask is harder than loading a shopping trolley whilst wearing a mask. Pragmatism Pierre, pragmatism.

You call it pragmatism, I call it bullshot.

Briefly walking around a well ventilated, spacious supermarket without being in close proximity to anyone for any extended period of time = mask.

Stood and/or sat in very close proximity with lots of people, usually in not so well ventilated premises, laughing, joking talking loudly over the noise. = no mask.

It’s not pragmatism it’s contradiction.

Absolutely true - Boris playing to the cheap seats, risking spreading infections so as not to upset voters.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Absolutely true - Boris playing to the cheap seats, risking spreading infections so as not to upset voters.

I’d think that it’s more likely been done to appease the treasury/backbenchers who don’t want to see the economy being damaged.

Still, nice to know that the virus has given us till Tuesday before we need to wear masks

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I’d think that it’s more likely been done to appease the treasury/backbenchers who don’t want to see the economy being damaged.

Still, nice to know that the virus has given us till Tuesday before we need to wear masks

Well it picks the time and places that it will infect people, we should be grateful that it is has evolved into the super being that it now is and for the fact it is allowing us to go out at all.

i wasn't convinced by anything the prime minister's husband said in the briefing.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Well it picks the time and places that it will infect people, we should be grateful that it is has evolved into the super being that it now is and for the fact it is allowing us to go out at all.

i wasn't convinced by anything the prime minister's husband said in the briefing.

I’m sure the ‘prime ministers husband’ is distraught at this revelation. Positively sobbing into his cheerios no less

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I’m sure the ‘prime ministers husband’ is distraught at this revelation. Positively sobbing into his cheerios no less

See him as more a fruit loop type of person.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

See him as more a fruit loop type of person.

Well they do say we recognise our own character traits in others easily 😉

[nomadking]

The %age risk of anything is meaningless the more times you take that risk.
Eg If something occurs when you throw a double six with a pair of dice, the more times you throw those dice, the greater the chance that one of those times a double six will appear.
A 50% reduction is meaningless, unless the incidence in others is low in the first place. If you meet up with several people, several times, who are all infected, that 50% reduction goes right out of the window.

[Jaymoss]

The odds of throwing a double 6 never changes haha

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

The odds of throwing a double 6 never changes haha

That depends on if you roll the dice or not 😉

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

That depends on if you roll the dice or not 😉

Not really. If I do not throw the dice I will always have 0% chance of throwing a double 6. If I throw the dice each time I have a 1/36 chance

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Not really. If I do not throw the dice I will always have 0% chance of throwing a double 6. If I throw the dice each time I have a 1/36 chance

So a 0/36 vs a 1/36