So, coronavirus...

[Ali Cadoo]

It inconclusively demonstrates that masks make little difference to a corona virus spread.


The desperation to dismiss it though is hilarious.

No it doesn't. It inconclusively demonstrates that wearing a mask, when no one else is, doesn't protect you.

OK, let's pretend clothing is a mask.

If I take my trousers and pants off, and piss on you, you get wet, even if you're wearing trousers. If I leave my trousers and pants on, and attempt to piss on you, you probably stay dry. As has been repeated to you, masks do not protect the wearer very much, unless it's a high grade properly fitted medical mask. However, even a basic cloth mask can stop me from spreading the virus to others.

Me wearing a mask doesn't protect me from you. It protects you from me.

Frankly if you spend your time taking your trousers and pants off, trying to piss on people I am delighted to be protected from you!!

You strike at the very heart of rugby socials and initiation ceremonies, sir...

[Bimbowomxn]

The trouble with this study is that they were testing against frontline workers - who would have a higher incidence of exposure to start with. And as has already been established, antibody levels drop significantly post-infection, so a lack of antibodies could simply be that these people had there exposure earlier.

Front line workers get more colds historically?

[Saint]

The trouble with this study is that they were testing against frontline workers - who would have a higher incidence of exposure to start with. And as has already been established, antibody levels drop significantly post-infection, so a lack of antibodies could simply be that these people had there exposure earlier.

Front line workers get more colds historically?

front line workers get more of virtually every illness going. They're far more regularly exposed to all sorts of infections than the general population

[Bimbowomxn]

The trouble with this study is that they were testing against frontline workers - who would have a higher incidence of exposure to start with. And as has already been established, antibody levels drop significantly post-infection, so a lack of antibodies could simply be that these people had there exposure earlier.

Front line workers get more colds historically?

front line workers get more of virtually every illness going. They're far more regularly exposed to all sorts of infections than the general population

Cheers.

[Biffer]

Who’d have thought it would be behaving like a corona virus.

The trouble with this study is that they were testing against frontline workers - who would have a higher incidence of exposure to start with. And as has already been established, antibody levels drop significantly post-infection, so a lack of antibodies could simply be that these people had there exposure earlier.

It;s an interesting data point, but without a baseline comparison it actually isn't telling us much. Run the same survey in the general population and I'll be far more interested

EDIT - and apparently the antibody test used in thsi study is only 70% sensitive anyway.

I'd have thought bimbot would've been all over that from a false positive / false negative point of view.

[Bimbowomxn]

If people aren’t disturbed by this they need to think.

[Saint]

If people aren’t disturbed by this they need to think.

The problem I have with all the evidence based medicine guys, is that for viruses like Covid19, by the time the evidence arrives you;re 2-4 weeks behind the curve. They have been, through the whole thing, very fundamentalist - and have refused to recognise that they we have to do some guesswork and predictive thinking if we are to cut this off.

[Tichtheid]

Disclaimer, I haven't kept up with this this week, but I think it's probably worth rereading this post from JMK26 on Thursday before screeching about censorship

viewtopic.php?p=52911&sid=3330400e34cdd ... 32f#p52911

[Bimbowomxn]

Disclaimer, I haven't kept up with this this week, but I think it's probably worth rereading this post from JMK26 on Thursday before screeching about censorship

viewtopic.php?p=52911&sid=3330400e34cdd ... 32f#p52911

Yeah, I’ll take Carl Heneghans take on this over JMK26 .... with him being a professor at Oxford in evidence based medicine.

Call me old fashioned.

[Tichtheid]

Disclaimer, I haven't kept up with this this week, but I think it's probably worth rereading this post from JMK26 on Thursday before screeching about censorship

viewtopic.php?p=52911&sid=3330400e34cdd ... 32f#p52911

Yeah, I’ll take Carl Heneghans take on this over JMK26 .... with him being a professor at Oxford in evidence based medicine.

Call me old fashioned.

Where was JMK26 wrong in his summation?

To be fair he doesn't seem to be alone in it.

I haven't read the report due to time this week.

[Bimbowomxn]

The problem I have with all the evidence based medicine guys, is that for viruses like Covid19, by the time the evidence arrives you;re 2-4 weeks behind the curve. They have been, through the whole thing, very fundamentalist - and have refused to recognise that they we have to do some guesswork and predictive thinking if we are to cut this off.

I still think they’re more valid a voice than all the sociologists and mathematicians being put up all the time as “experts”.

They’ve also been a voice of reason regarding scale and actual timings of deaths and cases and sadly the inefficiency of testing.

A good example of this is the current lockdown which Hancock is claiming lockdown now causing the drop in cases.

I’d rather live in a world where large tech giants don’t censor the opinion of Oxford professors.

[Sandstorm]

I’d rather live in a world where large tech giants don’t censor the opinion of Oxford professors.

Weird. You are finally listening to the opinion of Oxford professors.

[Bimbowomxn]

I’d rather live in a world where large tech giants don’t censor the opinion of Oxford professors.

Weird. You are finally listening to the opinion of Oxford professors.

I always listen to the opinions of Oxford professors.

[Saint]

The problem I have with all the evidence based medicine guys, is that for viruses like Covid19, by the time the evidence arrives you;re 2-4 weeks behind the curve. They have been, through the whole thing, very fundamentalist - and have refused to recognise that they we have to do some guesswork and predictive thinking if we are to cut this off.

I still think they’re more valid a voice than all the sociologists and mathematicians being put up all the time as “experts”.

They’ve also been a voice of reason regarding scale and actual timings of deaths and cases and sadly the inefficiency of testing.

A good example of this is the current lockdown which Hancock is claiming lockdown now causing the drop in cases.

I’d rather live in a world where large tech giants don’t censor the opinion of Oxford professors.

I have literally no words

[Raggs]

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

There's the paper.

Once again, it's looking at how much protection is afforded to an individual wearing a mask, mixing in amongst non-mask wearing population. And again, that's not the point of wearing a mask.

[Raggs]

Oh, and whilst not statistically significant, mask wearers were infected less than non-mask wearers. So there certainly doesn't seem to be an over-confidence effect.

During the period of the study, Danish government did not recommend wearing a mask, so these people really were likely the only ones doing so.

So whilst it's nice to get confirmation of what scientists have been saying about it not protecting the wearer much, it is then used by media to sell the wrong idea to idiots.

[Bimbowomxn]

The problem I have with all the evidence based medicine guys, is that for viruses like Covid19, by the time the evidence arrives you;re 2-4 weeks behind the curve. They have been, through the whole thing, very fundamentalist - and have refused to recognise that they we have to do some guesswork and predictive thinking if we are to cut this off.

I still think they’re more valid a voice than all the sociologists and mathematicians being put up all the time as “experts”.

They’ve also been a voice of reason regarding scale and actual timings of deaths and cases and sadly the inefficiency of testing.

A good example of this is the current lockdown which Hancock is claiming lockdown now causing the drop in cases.

I’d rather live in a world where large tech giants don’t censor the opinion of Oxford professors.

I have literally no words

Which bit?

Do you know better than the professor?

Do you think he should be censored?

[Bimbowomxn]

Oh, and whilst not statistically significant, mask wearers were infected less than non-mask wearers. So there certainly doesn't seem to be an over-confidence effect.

During the period of the study, Danish government did not recommend wearing a mask, so these people really were likely the only ones doing so.

So whilst it's nice to get confirmation of what scientists have been saying about it not protecting the wearer much, it is then used by media to sell the wrong idea to idiots.

Phew. The professor is wrong. We can go back to recent advice and ignore the study.

[Tichtheid]

Oh, and whilst not statistically significant, mask wearers were infected less than non-mask wearers. So there certainly doesn't seem to be an over-confidence effect.

During the period of the study, Danish government did not recommend wearing a mask, so these people really were likely the only ones doing so.

So whilst it's nice to get confirmation of what scientists have been saying about it not protecting the wearer much, it is then used by media to sell the wrong idea to idiots.

Phew. The professor is wrong. We can go back to recent advice and ignore the study.

The professor was certainly misleading about false positives and wouldn't answer questions on it.

No one is saying that we should ignore the Danish study, rather they are saying look at what it actually says, rather than what you want it to say.

[Raggs]

Oh, and whilst not statistically significant, mask wearers were infected less than non-mask wearers. So there certainly doesn't seem to be an over-confidence effect.

During the period of the study, Danish government did not recommend wearing a mask, so these people really were likely the only ones doing so.

So whilst it's nice to get confirmation of what scientists have been saying about it not protecting the wearer much, it is then used by media to sell the wrong idea to idiots.

Phew. The professor is wrong. We can go back to recent advice and ignore the study.

The professor was certainly misleading about false positives and wouldn't answer questions on it.

No one is saying that we should ignore the Danish study, rather they are saying look at what it actually says, rather than what you want it to say.

Who said the professor was wrong? He seemed to be complaining about Facebook... He didn't comment on what the papersaid.

Read the study. I've linked it. It's talking about masks protecting the wearer. Again. If i piss on you whilst you're wearing trousers you recieve relatively little protection compared to if I'm wearing trousers.

[Rinkals]

Disclaimer, I haven't kept up with this this week, but I think it's probably worth rereading this post from JMK26 on Thursday before screeching about censorship

viewtopic.php?p=52911&sid=3330400e34cdd ... 32f#p52911

Yeah, I’ll take Carl Heneghans take on this over JMK26 .... with him being a professor at Oxford in evidence based medicine.

Call me old fashioned.

You'll take anyone's view as long as it supports your own.

[Hong Kong]

it’s not fucking difficult to understand

[Insane_Homer]

[Bimbowomxn]

Oh, and whilst not statistically significant, mask wearers were infected less than non-mask wearers. So there certainly doesn't seem to be an over-confidence effect.

During the period of the study, Danish government did not recommend wearing a mask, so these people really were likely the only ones doing so.

So whilst it's nice to get confirmation of what scientists have been saying about it not protecting the wearer much, it is then used by media to sell the wrong idea to idiots.

Phew. The professor is wrong. We can go back to recent advice and ignore the study.

The professor was certainly misleading about false positives and wouldn't answer questions on it.

No one is saying that we should ignore the Danish study, rather they are saying look at what it actually says, rather than what you want it to say.

It’s clear what it does and doesn’t say.

He wasn’t misleading about false positives ..... people just didn’t like the idea that the test is flawed as a mass testing tool. (Again something that was dogma until again very recently).

[Bimbowomxn]

it’s not fucking difficult to understand

The same CDC which again changed its advice mid covid.


Causative vs correlation....

[Bimbowomxn]

Reported from the previous months.


2-3 week delay cases .....

4 week delay on deaths ...

So the lockdown has done nothing yet.

[yermum]

Causative vs correlation....

Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does wiggle its eyebrows suggestively while mouthing "look over there"...

[frodder]

Disclaimer, I haven't kept up with this this week, but I think it's probably worth rereading this post from JMK26 on Thursday before screeching about censorship

viewtopic.php?p=52911&sid=3330400e34cdd ... 32f#p52911

Yeah, I’ll take Carl Heneghans take on this over JMK26 .... with him being a professor at Oxford in evidence based medicine.

Call me old fashioned.

You'll take anyone's view as long as it supports your own.

Isn't that PR/NPR through and through

[Rinkals]

Yeah, I’ll take Carl Heneghans take on this over JMK26 .... with him being a professor at Oxford in evidence based medicine.

Call me old fashioned.

You'll take anyone's view as long as it supports your own.

Isn't that PR/NPR through and through

Not quite to the same extremes as bimbo takes it to, though.

I suppose that the proliferation of information on the internet means that there is a wide choice of opinion out there which can be cherry-picked to suit your predudices. Bimbo has few peers in this regard.

[Bimbowomxn]

Professor Carl James Heneghan (born January 1968) is a British general practitioner physician, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and a Fellow of Kellogg College.[1][2] He is also Editor-in-Chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.[3] Heneghan is one of the founders of AllTrials, an international initiative which calls for all studies to be published, and their results reported.[4] In 2013 he has been voted on to the Health Service Journal's top 100 England's most influential clinical leaders.[5]

This is who is being censored. Anyone really support that?

[Sandstorm]

Professor Carl James Heneghan (born January 1968) is a British general practitioner physician, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and a Fellow of Kellogg College.[1][2] He is also Editor-in-Chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.[3] Heneghan is one of the founders of AllTrials, an international initiative which calls for all studies to be published, and their results reported.[4] In 2013 he has been voted on to the Health Service Journal's top 100 England's most influential clinical leaders.[5]

This is who is being censored. Anyone really support that?

Maybe he’s wrong?

[Calculon]

Phew. The professor is wrong. We can go back to recent advice and ignore the study.

The professor was certainly misleading about false positives and wouldn't answer questions on it.

No one is saying that we should ignore the Danish study, rather they are saying look at what it actually says, rather than what you want it to say.

Who said the professor was wrong? He seemed to be complaining about Facebook... He didn't comment on what the papersaid.

Read the study. I've linked it. It's talking about masks protecting the wearer. Again. If i piss on you whilst you're wearing trousers you recieve relatively little protection compared to if I'm wearing trousers.

Can’t say I’ve read the article but this is what the lead author of the Danish study has to say:

“We think you should wear a face mask at least to protect yourself, but you should also use it to protect others,” lead author Henning Bundgaard told The Washington Post. “We consider that the conclusion is we should wear face masks.”

Bundgaard said even the small risk reduction that masks offer “is very important, considering it is a life-threatening disease.”

[Insane_Homer]

Jesus is still banging on about that mask study.

[Bimbowomxn]

Professor Carl James Heneghan (born January 1968) is a British general practitioner physician, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and a Fellow of Kellogg College.[1][2] He is also Editor-in-Chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.[3] Heneghan is one of the founders of AllTrials, an international initiative which calls for all studies to be published, and their results reported.[4] In 2013 he has been voted on to the Health Service Journal's top 100 England's most influential clinical leaders.[5]

This is who is being censored. Anyone really support that?

Maybe he’s wrong?

You’d still have to make an argument on why you’d censor a scientist of that standing rather than argue where an how he was wrong.

[Bimbowomxn]

Jesus is still banging on about that mask study.

I’m actually making an argument that a professor from Oxford and an absolute expert in his field shouldn’t be censored by Facebook “fact check”


You don’t even grasp what the argument is.

[JM2K6]

Bearing in mind that the study is very clear in what it's saying and what it's not, Carl Heneghan is being deliberately misleading in his article.

Here's what he says

As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small.

That is absolutely false, and something that the writers of the study explicitly address. I assume Heneghan is not a stupid man, so I can only ascribe ill-intent towards his misinformation here.

The whole point about that study - aside from the inconclusive nature of it - is that it does not address mask wearing in the community. It is ONLY talking about individuals wearing masks in a scenario where no-one else is wearing masks.

At no point does Heneghan acknowledge this. It's deeply disingenuous of him, and more proof that he is not a trustworthy person.

[Bimbowomxn]

“I know more than a professor at Oxford”





Joke shop.

[Tichtheid]

He's not even being censored, you can choose to click on either the explanation as to why it fails to meet standards or you can click through to the link.

[JM2K6]

“I know more than a professor at Oxford”





Joke shop.

You're just refusing to read words or engage with the substance of anything that disagrees with you, aren't you? My criticism of Heneghan isn't that he's ignorant: I think he's being deliberately and wilfully disingenuous.

It's painfully clear, too. Here's what the study says:

"Thus, these findings do not provide data on the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing in the community in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections."

This is Heneghan's claim in his article:

"As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small."

He deliberately draws a conclusion from the study that is explicitly ruled out by the study.

[Bimbowomxn]

He's not even being censored, you can choose to click on either the explanation as to why it fails to meet standards or you can click through to the link.

The opinion of Facebook. Which in the case of one article on this is actually demonstrably false.