Masks: Cochrane says "oops sorry".

[nonethewiser]

As someone who worked in a supermarket throughout all "lockdowns", I wouldn't say masks gave us peace of mind but they certainly eased the worry.. Have to have close contact with lots of people 5 days a week, whilst being told there was a virus killing thousands daily, was NOT good for metal health!

Bet things like sickness bugs were nonexistent at time, more so with rigorous hand sanitising.

 

[bulkbiker]

Japan, as a country, has a culture of wearing masks if you have a cold so it was never an alien thing for them. At least 95% of people are still wearing them (check out any of the 100s of 'walking around Tokyo' videos on YouTube). Out of a population of c. 125 million people, they've had (so far) 73,156 deaths (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/), compare that with the UK population of 68 million and deaths of 207,695 (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/). Masks work if everyone wears them properly and consistently.

The Japanese are a lot more metabolically healthy.. plus I'd guess their care homes didn't apply DNR orders to the residents willy nilly or send sick people back to care homes from hospital.

 

[Docb]

One of the things that irritates me most about this, and some other debates is that those engaging in them behave as if there are only two positions, either totally for or totally against. It's a good job we did not consider safety issues in the nuclear industry using the same methodology - it would have been chaos, nobody would know where they were and nothing would get done. Much more importantly, big issues would get lost amongst pointless arguments about little things.

Fundamental to any safety assessment should be a numerical assessment of the risks involved. These would be balanced against the consequences and inconvenience. All would be done numerically, and if there were differences of opinion it would be with regard to the validity of the numbers and not whether the proposition was safe or unsafe.

So I issue all you keyboard warriors a challenge. That is, to back up your assertions with a numerical assessment of the risk you are so passionately talking about and how that balances against consequences and inconvenience.

When it comes to masks, I don't have any numerical data to work on, but I would not be surprised to find that they are of limited value but because of the possible consequences of spreading infection and simplicity of use, the balance might just swing towards their being worthwhile.

PS... thats my opinion as somebody who has been in the past been involved in making decisions on quite important safety matters and not as a moderator on the forum.

PPS... it does not help that the overwhelming majority of people making all the noise (not necessarily on this forum) and some of those making decisions (politicians like Boris Johnson for one) are innumerate.

Now I'll go and do something really dangerous by comparison.....get my lunch.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

One of the things that irritates me most about this, and some other debates is that those engaging in them behave as if there are only two positions, either totally for or totally against. It's a good job we did not consider safety issues in the nuclear industry using the same methodology - it would have been chaos, nobody would know where they were and nothing would get done. Much more importantly, big issues would get lost amongst pointless arguments about little things.

Fundamental to any safety assessment should be a numerical assessment of the risks involved. These would be balanced against the consequences and inconvenience. All would be done numerically, and if there were differences of opinion it would be with regard to the validity of the numbers and not whether the proposition was safe or unsafe.

So I issue all you keyboard warriors a challenge. That is, to back up your assertions with a numerical assessment of the risk you are so passionately talking about and how that balances against consequences and inconvenience.

When it comes to masks, I don't have any numerical data to work on, but I would not be surprised to find that they are of limited value but because of the possible consequences of spreading infection and simplicity of use, the balance might just swing towards their being worthwhile.

PS... thats my opinion as somebody who has been in the past been involved in making decisions on quite important safety matters and not as a moderator on the forum.

PPS... it does not help that the overwhelming majority of people making all the noise (not necessarily on this forum) and some of those making decisions (politicians like Boris Johnson for one) are innumerate.

Now I'll go and do something really dangerous by comparison.....get my lunch.

I wore a valved P3 disposable mask all the way through.
Properly worn, properly sized and fitted, I'll rate my chances better than not wearing one.

Same way I (mostly) cross the road when the little man is green.
There is no absolute guarantee I still won't get run over, but I have a better chance of surviving than crossing on red.

 

[Amity Island]

One of the things that irritates me most about this, and some other debates is that those engaging in them behave as if there are only two positions, either totally for or totally against. It's a good job we did not consider safety issues in the nuclear industry using the same methodology - it would have been chaos, nobody would know where they were and nothing would get done. Much more importantly, big issues would get lost amongst pointless arguments about little things.

Fundamental to any safety assessment should be a numerical assessment of the risks involved. These would be balanced against the consequences and inconvenience. All would be done numerically, and if there were differences of opinion it would be with regard to the validity of the numbers and not whether the proposition was safe or unsafe.

So I issue all you keyboard warriors a challenge. That is, to back up your assertions with a numerical assessment of the risk you are so passionately talking about and how that balances against consequences and inconvenience.

When it comes to masks, I don't have any numerical data to work on, but I would not be surprised to find that they are of limited value but because of the possible consequences of spreading infection and simplicity of use, the balance might just swing towards their being worthwhile.

PS... thats my opinion as somebody who has been in the past been involved in making decisions on quite important safety matters and not as a moderator on the forum.

PPS... it does not help that the overwhelming majority of people making all the noise (not necessarily on this forum) and some of those making decisions (politicians like Boris Johnson for one) are innumerate.

Now I'll go and do something really dangerous by comparison.....get my lunch.

Hi DocB,

Would the starting point for any intervention begin with first identifying those most at risk? Be it masks, vaccines etc

During the pandemic, those most at risk (around 82 years old) were unlawfully thrown out of hospitals. In the carehomes around 40% people died through DNR, neglect, loneliness, dehydration. They talked relentlessly of flattening the curve when in fact, the curve was the result of actions taken or not taken.

Then; they tell us to wear masks to save the lives of those most at risk.

The shameful failures that threw care home residents to Covid | Letters

Letters: Readers on the government’s mistakes and neglect that meant elderly patients were discharged to care homes, without a Covid test, at the height of the pandemic

www.theguardian.com

Tories broke law by sending elderly patients to care homes at start of Covid

High Court judges have ruled on the government's policies at the start of the Covid outbreak.

metro.co.uk

UK Government failures leave older people "abandoned to die" in care homes during COVID 19 pandemic

A new Amnesty report reveals that a series of “shockingly irresponsible” UK Government decisions put tens of thousands of older people’s lives at risk and led to multiple violations of care home residents’ human rights.

www.amnesty.org

Elderly and vulnerable people still put on end-of-life 'death pathway'

The controversial Liverpool Care Pathway - a series of guidelines that can involve the withdrawal of life-saving treatment from dying patients - was banned in 2014.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[bulkbiker]

Same way I (mostly) cross the road when the little man is green.

I just use my eyes and check if there is any traffic coming... kept me alive for 61 years.. common sense measures with some evidence are usually the best.

 

[Amity Island]

I just use my eyes and check if there is any traffic coming... kept me alive for 61 years.. common sense measures with some evidence are usually the best.

I completely agree with that. I never rely on the green man, too many bad drivers running red lights. Always best to look for yourself before crossing. Better to be alive and well than injured and be "in the right", cos you crossed when the green man showed.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

I just use my eyes and check if there is any traffic coming... kept me alive for 61 years.. common sense measures with some evidence are usually the best.

It's going to be a very long day for you if you wait for there to be no traffic coming to cross in my town centre.

Hope you don't drive the same way.

 

[bulkbiker]

Hope you don't drive the same way.

Always use my eyes when driving and common sense.. why would anyone not do that?

 

[Docb]

Hi DocB,

Would the starting point for any intervention begin with first identifying those most at risk? Be it masks, vaccines etc

During the pandemic, those most at risk (around 82 years old) were unlawfully thrown out of hospitals. In the carehomes around 40% people died through DNR, neglect, loneliness, dehydration. They talked relentlessly of flattening the curve when in fact, the curve was the result of actions taken or not taken.

Then; they tell us to wear masks to save the lives of those most at risk.

The shameful failures that threw care home residents to Covid | Letters

Letters: Readers on the government’s mistakes and neglect that meant elderly patients were discharged to care homes, without a Covid test, at the height of the pandemic

www.theguardian.com

Tories broke law by sending elderly patients to care homes at start of Covid

High Court judges have ruled on the government's policies at the start of the Covid outbreak.

metro.co.uk

UK Government failures leave older people "abandoned to die" in care homes during COVID 19 pandemic

A new Amnesty report reveals that a series of “shockingly irresponsible” UK Government decisions put tens of thousands of older people’s lives at risk and led to multiple violations of care home residents’ human rights.

www.amnesty.org

Elderly and vulnerable people still put on end-of-life 'death pathway'

The controversial Liverpool Care Pathway - a series of guidelines that can involve the withdrawal of life-saving treatment from dying patients - was banned in 2014.

www.dailymail.co.uk

First off, I am not going to check out the links to newspaper articles. They will just be rehashes of rehashes and most likely will be written to an agenda. The probability of any of them giving a proper perspective is so near to zero that it is not worth the effort of reading them.

My first starting point would be a numerical assessment of the probability transmitting the disease from one to another. This would sensibly be based on a several scenarios.

The second starting point would be to numerically assess the risk of serious consequences against factors thought to affect that risk.

I am sure these assessments will have been done but they will be deemed by the media too technical for Joe public (because the journalists will not understand them) and anyway don't make good headlines or form a basis for debate and discord.

You will have to forgive my cynicism i am afraid....saw it all when "public opinion" destroyed the nuclear industry to the point that now we need it we will finish up in hock to the Chinese.

 

[Lilsis]

Bet things like sickness bugs were nonexistent at time, more so with rigorous hand sanitising.

They were... The virus (non-covid )doing the rounds this winter, went through the team like wildfire. Everyone who got it tested and whilst we had a few with covid, the majority of us were just knocked for six.

 

[nonethewiser]

They were... The virus (non-covid )doing the rounds this winter, went through the team like wildfire. Everyone who got it tested and whilst we had a few with covid, the majority of us were just knocked for six.

There we are then, thought as much.

 

[Amity Island]

This graph tracks the results of the natural experiment that occurred across the United States in the first two years of the pandemic, when mask mandates were imposed and lifted at various times in 39 states. The black line on the graph shows the weekly rate of Covid cases in states with mask mandates that week, while the orange line shows the rate in states without mandates. As you can see, the trajectories are virtually identical, and if you add up all those numbers, the cumulative rates of Covid cases are virtually identical, too. So are the cumulative rates of Covid mortality (the mortality rate is actually a little lower in the states without mask mandates). Hundreds of millions of Americans dutifully covered their faces in the states with mandates, and the result was the same as in the clinical trials analyzed by Cochrane: the masks made no difference.

 

[Amity Island]

First off, I am not going to check out the links to newspaper articles. They will just be rehashes of rehashes and most likely will be written to an agenda. The probability of any of them giving a proper perspective is so near to zero that it is not worth the effort of reading them.

My first starting point would be a numerical assessment of the probability transmitting the disease from one to another. This would sensibly be based on a several scenarios.

The second starting point would be to numerically assess the risk of serious consequences against factors thought to affect that risk.

I am sure these assessments will have been done but they will be deemed by the media too technical for Joe public (because the journalists will not understand them) and anyway don't make good headlines or form a basis for debate and discord.

You will have to forgive my cynicism i am afraid....saw it all when "public opinion" destroyed the nuclear industry to the point that now we need it we will finish up in hock to the Chinese.

On this "precautionary" approach that was the reason for the national mandates.

Precaution.
"a measure taken in advance to prevent something dangerous, unpleasant, or inconvenient from happening."

However, if on your own evidence and admission there is no evidence (past or present) that recommending this "something" works for its intended use AND we know it doesn't protect the wearer either, is that a precaution or something else?

To me, a precaution is doing something that is known to work, that there is evidence it works and it protects the person (and others) implementing it.

For example:
As a precaution, "recommending" everyone wear seatbelts, proven to be effective AND proven to protect the wearer in the unlikely event of a crash. The benefit of wearing a seatbelt is proven to be substantial and measurable.

As a precaution, "recommending" everyone wear hard hats (gloves, eye protection etc) on building sites, proven to be effective AND proven to protect the wearer in the unlikely event of an accident. The benefit of wearing a hard hat is proven to be substantial and measurable.

Now back to masks, "recommended" and mandated to be worn by everyone, based on no evidence they are effective (w.h.o) and known not to protect the wearer. Is this a "precaution" or a trial?

 

[Docb]

Sorry @Amity Island. I have made my point that in my view a numerically based analysis would be a better way of making decisions and will leave it at that. I do not intend to get into any discussion which will just go off down yet another rabbit hole.