Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings
We use the synthetic control method to analyze the effect of face masks on the spread of Covid-19 in Germany. Our identification approach exploits regional variation in the point in time when face masks became compulsory. Depending on the region we analyse, we find that face masks reduced the cumulative number of registered Covid-19 cases between 2.3% and 13% over a period of 10 days after they became compulsory. Assessing the credibility of the various estimates, we conclude that face masks reduce the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 40%
It was found that even the smallest mask intervention had an effect long-term in the simulations. Even with just 11% protection (the low compliance case), there was an effect on the numbers of active infections. If intensive care units are working close to capacity, this could mean that even adoption of the simplest mask could result in a large reduction in deaths. Furthermore, this effect was found to compound over time so that after several weeks there is a large decrease in the number of new COVID-19 cases. This is reminiscent of interest-on-interest in a bank account, when the interest becomes sizable after applied repeatedly. With mask protection > 50% protection was simulated, the effect on the size of the epidemic was dramatic, from about 1 million to zero fatalities (Table 3). It therefore appears that wearing of N95 masks (85% protection assumed) by the population can
dramatically reduce the number of COVID-19 cases. There was no different between the two mask interventions with the highest protection factor.
Feel free to email the authors with your rebuttals.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:35 pm
by Carter's Choice
So just to clarify, on one side of the argument we have all world's leading epidemiologists, who are in almost in universal agreement that wearing face masks can help slow the spread of Covid-19. And on the other side of the argument we have bimboman, an internet troll with no medical qualifications, who likes making outlandish posts on a rugby forum to attract negative attention. It's really tough to know which side to believe
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:48 am
by robmatic
Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:35 pm
So just to clarify, on one side of the argument we have all world's leading epidemiologists, who are in almost in universal agreement that wearing face masks can help slow the spread of Covid-19. And on the other side of the argument we have bimboman, an internet troll with no medical qualifications, who likes making outlandish posts on a rugby forum to attract negative attention. It's really tough to know which side to believe
Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:35 pm
So just to clarify, on one side of the argument we have all world's leading epidemiologists, who are in almost in universal agreement that wearing face masks can help slow the spread of Covid-19. And on the other side of the argument we have bimboman, an internet troll with no medical qualifications, who likes making outlandish posts on a rugby forum to attract negative attention. It's really tough to know which side to believe
Bimbo plus some cranks on Youtube.
The best so far is “could” with no control subjects. And you’ve bolded the bit about respirators and surgical mask not cut up socks and bits of cloth.
In reality we have more outbreaks in France , Spain, and the UK with strict mask policies and almost nothing in Germany with very lax mask policies.
Oh, and I don’t care what you personally think of me.
Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty).
Early mask usage has come in areas where there has been high cases. You’re mistaking the cause for the high correlation
I’m pointing out there’s plenty of places with early adoption and tight mask policies that are in worse places than more laissez faire approaches. If masks worked we wouldn’t see this.
There's far more to it than that. I'm fed up of people talking about this stuff as if there's a single cause/effect/cure. It's provable that wearing a mask, even a basic mask, reduces the propagation of viruses particles. Bug that doesn't make wearing a mask a method by itself to stop virus propagation.
Anyway, onto ignore for you.
Of course I go into ignore, you’re “fed up” by something something.
Oh, and I don’t care what you personally think of me.
nyah nyah nyah naaaaaaah naah
Indeed, similar to “onto ignore you go” as if anyone f ucking cares.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:51 am
by Bimbowomxn
Cranks on YouTube like this .
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:54 am
by Insane_Homer
What evidence do we have that wearing a mask is effective in preventing COVID-19?
There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks.
One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.
But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”
A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.
Another study looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.
Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.
Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.
A comprehensive study, the report investigates the effectiveness of different face mask types and coverings, including an international comparison of policies and behavioural factors underlying usage.
Professor Melinda Mills, Director of the Leverhulme Centre and author of the study, says, ‘The evidence is clear that people should wear masks to reduce virus transmission and protect themselves, with most countries recommending the public to wear them. Yet clear policy recommendations that the public should broadly wear them has been unclear and inconsistent in some countries such as England.’
The evidence is clear that people should wear masks to reduce virus transmission and protect themselves, with most countries recommending the public to wear them. Yet clear policy recommendations that the public should broadly wear them has been unclear and inconsistent in some countries such as England
Professor Mills’ team found that, after the WHO announced the pandemic in mid-March, some 70 countries immediately recommended mask wearing. But more than 120 now require mask wearing – most, everywhere in public.
Asian countries that had previous experiences of the SARS outbreak experienced early and virtually universal mask usage. But, says Professor Mills, many other countries have seen a reversal of behaviour. She maintains, ‘There is a general assumption that countries such as the UK, which have no culture or history of mask wearing, will not rapidly adopt them. But this just doesn’t hold when we look at the data. As of late April, mask-wearing was up to 84% in Italy, 66% in the US and 64% in Spain, which increased almost immediately after clear policy recommendations and advice was given to the public.’
At Thursday’s Downing Street press conference, chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said the evidence on face masks “has always been quite variable, quite weak and difficult to know”.
According to European scientists, there is no evidence that non-medical standard face masks or other covers offer protection to wearers.
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says that a non-medical mask has a filter efficiency of between two and 38%.
At Thursday’s Downing Street press conference, chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said the evidence on face masks “has always been quite variable, quite weak and difficult to know”.
According to European scientists, there is no evidence that non-medical standard face masks or other covers offer protection to wearers.
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says that a non-medical mask has a filter efficiency of between two and 38%.
Facemasks aren't to protect the wearers, they're to protect other people.
Amazing and concerning Sir Patrick hasn't got to that conclusion yet.
No I’m not, that’s guardian nonsense , I know a couple of places that provided imports of PPE , no money will be lost on these deals and the order was find PPE at all costs anyway.
I’m talking about a man making decisions about the whole nations health biased by profit, it’s a very different scale of problem.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:04 am
by ASMO
Just call it what it really is, Corruption.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:06 am
by Bimbowomxn
Anyways, is no one else suspicious that this re-emerge of the virus comes as the treasury has to either face mass unemployment or as it seems continue supporting private businesses with tax payer money and absolutely no parliamentary scrutiny.
Covid-19: UK volunteers could be given virus to test vaccine
The UK could be the first country in the world to carry out Covid "challenge trials" - where healthy volunteers are deliberately infected with coronavirus to test possible vaccines.
It is understood the studies - first reported by the Financial Times - would be conducted in London.
The UK government said it was holding discussions about developing a vaccine through such "human challenge studies".
No contracts have yet been signed, the BBC understands.
Covid-19: UK volunteers could be given virus to test vaccine
The UK could be the first country in the world to carry out Covid "challenge trials" - where healthy volunteers are deliberately infected with coronavirus to test possible vaccines.
It is understood the studies - first reported by the Financial Times - would be conducted in London.
The UK government said it was holding discussions about developing a vaccine through such "human challenge studies".
No contracts have yet been signed, the BBC understands.
Pat's working on that last bit...
We apparently have 1,000’s testing positive each day, and now we’re infecting people deliberately....
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:50 am
by Biffer
Wrt Vallance having shares in Astra Zeneca; he was CEO, of course he fucking did.
When he stood down in 2018, he had £6million quids worth. Since then he's sold ninety percent. That'll be a gradual cashing in probably agreed with the company, in order to prevent a significant one of sale impacting the share price (or the visuals of a CEO selling the lot as soon as he leaves causing a run).
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:58 am
by SaintK
Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:50 am
Wrt Vallance having shares in Astra Zeneca; he was CEO, of course he fucking did.
When he stood down in 2018, he had £6million quids worth. Since then he's sold ninety percent. That'll be a gradual cashing in probably agreed with the company, in order to prevent a significant one of sale impacting the share price (or the visuals of a CEO selling the lot as soon as he leaves causing a run).
Covid-19: UK volunteers could be given virus to test vaccine
The UK could be the first country in the world to carry out Covid "challenge trials" - where healthy volunteers are deliberately infected with coronavirus to test possible vaccines.
It is understood the studies - first reported by the Financial Times - would be conducted in London.
The UK government said it was holding discussions about developing a vaccine through such "human challenge studies".
No contracts have yet been signed, the BBC understands.
Pat's working on that last bit...
We apparently have 1,000’s testing positive each day, and now we’re infecting people deliberately....
Which is a good point.
There are likely deadly-dull reasons involving controls for the trial, tho': e.g certainty in re how long the subject has had the virus, the exact strain of the virus, etc.
Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:50 am
Wrt Vallance having shares in Astra Zeneca; he was CEO, of course he fucking did.
When he stood down in 2018, he had £6million quids worth. Since then he's sold ninety percent. That'll be a gradual cashing in probably agreed with the company, in order to prevent a significant one of sale impacting the share price (or the visuals of a CEO selling the lot as soon as he leaves causing a run).
GSK I think? He was President for 6 years
He was head of R&D at GSK.
I don’t think this is the gotcha moment that the Torygraph thinks it is. As Biffer has pointed out, this is simply the residue of his share options, and is only 10% of his previous holdings. It’s also worth noting that GSK is not involved with either of the main UK vaccine candidates at Oxford or Imperial. It’s only university partner appears to be the University of Queensland.
If he had substantial shareholding’s in AstraZeneca, there might have been more of a story, given its involvement with the Oxford vaccine candidate, but he doesn’t appear to have invested in AZ.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:37 am
by tabascoboy
Anyone here using the "NHS" Covid Test and Trace app? I don't even have anything I could install it on...
tabascoboy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:37 am
Anyone here using the "NHS" Covid Test and Trace app? I don't even have anything I could install it on...
Installed it this morning. You;ve got to have something fairly old for it not to run
I don't have a smartphone, only a very basic dumbphone (yes, I know I'm in a small minority). The bluetooth function apparently kills the battery PDQ but I'd have thought that's in the nature of bluetooth and not the app itself.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:03 am
by Raggs
Had it installed for ages now. Recently got a notification to say my area has moved from a low risk to a medium risk area.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:04 am
by Margin__Walker
Uncle fester wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:58 am
Going to be a long winter for anybody with kids. Every time they cough, you'll be locked down until the test comes back negative.
I got a test on Wednesday for a cold that developed into a persistent cough (which happens every time I get a cold).
Thankfully the result came back in a day, but the Mrs wasn't impressed as we had to take my son out of school yesterday.
Uncle fester wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:58 am
Going to be a long winter for anybody with kids. Every time they cough, you'll be locked down until the test comes back negative.
I got a test on Wednesday for a cold that developed into a persistent cough (which happens every time I get a cold).
Thankfully the result came back in a day, but the Mrs wasn't impressed as we had to take my son out of school yesterday.
I know it’s dreadfully inconvenient... what else is one to do when faced with a beastly pandemic?
We apparently have 1,000’s testing positive each day, and now we’re infecting people deliberately....
Which is a good point.
There are likely deadly-dull reasons involving controls for the trial, tho': e.g certainty in re how long the subject has had the virus, the exact strain of the virus, etc.
They have been debating this for a while now, as it's been argued that it would be a much faster way of reaching the point of proving a vaccine works.
For the phase 3 trials currently progressing, there is a target number of infections that they're trying to get to across the whole group (vaccine and placebo). The idea is once you reach that number you pull back the veil and see how many infections appear in the vaccine pool, vs the placebo pool. The initial minimum target they're trying to reach for an approval is 50% success - so twice as many infections in the placebo pool as the vaccinated pool
Challenge trials are much simpler. Again, they're blind - so you give people a vaccine/placebo, but then, rather than getting your group to continue as normal (i.e. socially distanced etc) you simply deliberately expose people to the virus and record who ends up infected or otherwise. The issue with challenge trials is ethics. Where they're used (i.e. for TB or polio) we already effective treatments or cures for those infected. For Covid19 we simply don't - so ethically speaking it's extremely murky as you;'re going to deliberately expose people to something that might kill them, or cause long term/permanent harm. Ordinarily, people cannot be allowed to consent to this, even if they consider themselves to have been fully informed of the risks.
To mitigate the risks, they would be proposing to limit the test subjects to those already believed to be at very low risk anyway - but that in turn impacts the applicability of the results,m as we don;t know the effectiveness or safety of the vaccine in the higher risk groups.
tabascoboy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:37 am
Anyone here using the "NHS" Covid Test and Trace app? I don't even have anything I could install it on...
Installed it this morning. You;ve got to have something fairly old for it not to run
I don't have a smartphone, only a very basic dumbphone (yes, I know I'm in a small minority). The bluetooth function apparently kills the battery PDQ but I'd have thought that's in the nature of bluetooth and not the app itself.
I have bluetooth on permanently anyway. The signalling/beaconing will result in higher usage, but the flip side is that I'm out and about a lot less often so much closer to a power point most of the time. I'm still extremely doubtful as to the efficiency of bluetooth to provide the accuracy required, and also the willingness of enough of the population to actually install and run the damned thing, but I'm willing to give anything a go that might actually help keep things going while restricting infection
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:21 am
by Saint
Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:03 am
Had it installed for ages now. Recently got a notification to say my area has moved from a low risk to a medium risk area.
Were you in the trial zone? Until this morning you needed a trial code to turn the app on
has a youtube vid from Nick Ferrari so.... 
