@metal-brain saidApparently my assumption that you'd follow what I was saying was ill founded. I'll copy and paste my above post and put explanations in square brackets:
"The D614G mutation emerged in Europe in February and became the globally dominant form of the virus."
That is NOT the new mutant strain. You have not presented any evidence D614G is that different than the other variant in China. I am even skeptical that the new variant is more contagious as we are hearing. They can't even make up their minds if asymptomatic people ar ...[text shortened]... it is airborne?
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-07-04/coronavirus-airborne-spread
The difficulty with this is that the outbreak in Wuhan was different from the outbreaks in Europe and the US due to the virus mutating after it reached Europe [i.e. the emergence of D614G and A222V]. This means that data regarding asymptomatic transmission from Wuhan isn't necessarily valid when looking at the strains that were circulating in Europe and America. The new mutant strain is believed to be even more transmissible [than D614G, A222V and the other mutated strains that emerged outside of China] and so the Chinese data [being about the original strain that caused the original outbreak] may not be valid for the strains circulating in the West.
Well, one piece of evidence is that there were only 5,000 odd deaths (sorry can't be bothered to look up the correct figure) in China which has a population about 15 times larger than Britain's and 70,000 odd deaths in Britain. Since we don't think the IFR has changed by a factor of 150, even allowing for Britain's sluggish response and demographic differences, the explanation for this must be that the mutations after the virus left China are more transmissible.
@deepthought saidRandomized Controlled Trials are the only proof. You don't have that. A certain variant can spread fast for all sorts of reasons. Correlation does not prove causation.
Apparently my assumption that you'd follow what I was saying was ill founded. I'll copy and paste my above post and put explanations in square brackets:
[quote]The difficulty with this is that the outbreak in Wuhan was different from the outbreaks in Europe and the US due to the virus mutating after it reached Europe [i.e. the emergence of D614G and A222V]. This means ...[text shortened]... e explanation for this must be that the mutations after the virus left China are more transmissible.
@metal-brain saidDid you reply to the wrong post or something? Randomized controlled trial of what?
Randomized Controlled Trials are the only proof. You don't have that. A certain variant can spread fast for all sorts of reasons. Correlation does not prove causation.
@metal-brain saidThe only claim I made is that the study you posted doesn't support the argument you made in the OP about masks not helping. You would know that if you read it.
Stop digressing.
Can you prove your claim or not?
@wildgrass saidIf asymptomatic spread is almost nothing why would wearing masks be necessary? The article didn't have to mention the obvious. Are you having problems seeing the obvious?
The only claim I made is that the study you posted doesn't support the argument you made in the OP about masks not helping. You would know that if you read it.
@Metal-Brain
The obvious being they are wrong. Masks lower the risk and now they know it slows down the spread and risk for both the person wearing them and the rest of the crowd around them. It helps both ways which had been thought to only protect other folks with YOU wearing a mask.
Now we know it also helps the person wearing the mask.
If the mask stops a large portion of C19 escaping coming out of one's throat or nose, it also helps stop C19 and now C20 I suppose it might be called, the new mutation, it also slows down those viruses coming into YOUR mask.
Of course it is not perfect and nobody says that but if you continue your anti mask stance you will be those helping the virus to spread.
@sonhouse saidYou are wrong and have no evidence, but even if it were true there is no need for masks when almost nobody is contagious unless they have symptoms.
@Metal-Brain
The obvious being they are wrong. Masks lower the risk and now they know it slows down the spread and risk for both the person wearing them and the rest of the crowd around them. It helps both ways which had been thought to only protect other folks with YOU wearing a mask.
Now we know it also helps the person wearing the mask.
If the mask stops a large po ...[text shortened]... y says that but if you continue your anti mask stance you will be those helping the virus to spread.
Why would people without symptoms have to wear masks if they are not contagious?
"Now we know it also helps the person wearing the mask."
That is absolutely false! There is no evidence of that at all. Where did you hear that rumor without anything to confirm it, Robert Redfield?
You heard a rumor so it must be true? That is what convinced you a BS claim is true?
@metal-brain saidWe have already debunked your BS claim that there is no evidence. Copy-paste and here it is yet again;
You are wrong and have no evidence,
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
Face masks: what the data say
The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic,
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
Evidence for Effectiveness of Masks
...emerging evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that shows masks reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth.
https://theconversation.com/[WORD TOO LONG]
The evidence
...There are numerous studies that suggest if 80% of people wear a mask in public, then COVID-19 transmission could be halted.
...laboratory and epidemiological evidence...
https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/public-health/how-effective-are-face-masks-at-slowing-spread-of-coronavirus/
By far, the strongest evidence for mask-wearing can be found in real-world data or so-called epidemiologic data. Leffler and colleagues analysed data on demographics, testing, lockdowns, and the public wearing of masks from 196 countries and found that countries with cultural norms or government policies supporting public mask-wearing had much lower per-capita mortality rates (1)
...
Another study from Germany reported that face masks reduced the number of newly registered SARS‐CoV‐2 infections by between 15 and 75 per cent over a 20-day period after their mandatory introduction (2). Overall, the authors estimate that face masks reduce the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 47 per cent.
...
The general consensus seems to be that masks – even, simple cloth ones – while clearly not foolproof can significantly slow the spread of the virus and reduce deaths
(1) Leffler, C.T. et al. Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks. Update August 4, 2020. medRxiv (2020). DOI: 10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231
(2) Mitze, T. et al. Face Masks Considerably Reduce Covid-19 Cases in Germany: A Synthetic Control Method Approach. IZA Discussion Paper No. 13319 (2020). Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3620634
(3) Fischer, E.P. et al. Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech. Science Advancese (2020). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd3083
(4) Simha, P.P. and Rao, P.S.M. Universal trends in human cough airflows at large distances featured. Physics of Fluids (2020). DOI: 10.1063/5.0021666
(5) Sickbert-Bennett, E.E. et al. Filtration Efficiency of Hospital Face Mask Alternatives Available for Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Internal Medicine (2020). DOI:
..."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/face-masks-really-do-matter-the-scientific-evidence-is-growing-11595083298
Face Masks Really Do Matter. The Scientific Evidence Is Growing.
Face masks are emerging as one of the most powerful weapons to fight the new coronavirus, with growing evidence that facial coverings help prevent transmission
The research Dr. Redfield cited included a recently published study suggesting that universal use of surgical masks helped reduce rates of confirmed coronavirus infections among health-care workers at the Mass General Brigham health-care system in Massachusetts.
Researchers from around the world have found many different kinds of masks can significantly reduce the spread of coronavirus,
Their findings largely align with other recently published research.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/facemasks-shown-to-cut-spread-of-covid-19-9r92zfpb8
Facemasks slow spread of coronavirus by 40 per cent, study shows
@humy saidEuropean countries that have mandatory mask wearing have a higher infection rates on average. The Netherlands didn't for many months and they are 15th on the list. If you were right the Netherlands would be in the top 5 and they are not even in the top 10.
We have already debunked your BS claim that there is no evidence. Copy-paste and here it is yet again;
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
Face masks: what the data say
The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic,
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
Evi ...[text shortened]... o-cut-spread-of-covid-19-9r92zfpb8
Facemasks slow spread of coronavirus by 40 per cent, study shows
I just debunked your claim with common sense.
3 edits
@metal-brain saidNope. That's because masks aren't the only causal factor but just one of many including how many infectious people initially entered the country and how often do people normally come into close contact with each other in that country and in what numbers etc. Obviously Nobody here implies or claims masks are the only thing that influences rate of spread. Thus one country can have more of one thing that helps speed the spread while that being more than offset with that same country having more of something else which helps slow the spread.
If you were right the Netherlands would be in the top 5
Your claim was there was "no evidence" and I have yet again clearly proven that claim false by showing the evidence yet again and you have said nothing here to change that fact.
@humy saidBy that logic there will never be evidence.
Nope. That's because masks aren't the only causal factor but just one of many including how many infectious people initially entered the country and how often do people normally come into close contact with each other in that country and in what numbers etc. Obviously Nobody here implies or claims masks are the only thing that influences rate of spread. Thus one country can have ...[text shortened]... at claim false by showing the evidence yet again and you have said nothing here to change that fact.
You are using a flawed rationalization that makes falsification impossible. You threw the goal post in the garbage.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidNo, by that logic there can be multiple causes of something and that doesn't make it impossible to find evidence for one of those causes.
By that logic there will never be evidence.
@humy saidYou threw the goal post in the garbage.
No, by that logic there are multiple causes.
This thread is about asymptomatic spread. Take it to the face mask thread.
There is no evidence of significant asymptomatic spread. Lockdowns and mandatory face masks were not necessary and we let assumers ruin the economy.
@metal-brain saidHow do you intend to construct a Randomized Controlled Trial to measure asymptomatic spread? RCTs are not the only method of finding evidence of the effectiveness of treatments, however they are the gold standard. For the transmissibility of a disease population data is sufficient as the NHS registers new cases.
Randomized Controlled Trials are the only proof. You don't have that. A certain variant can spread fast for all sorts of reasons. Correlation does not prove causation.
Correlation may not prove causation, but it might be considered evidence for it.
8 edits
@metal-brain saidObviously nobody here would deny lockdowns can hurt the economy but, unless the face masks are loaded with masses of stupid frilly gold lace or unless it is for a third-world economy so poor it cannot even afford the cheapest masks, how on earth do (or has) mandatory face masks "ruin the economy"?
Lockdowns and mandatory face masks were not necessary and we let assumers ruin the economy.
There is no evidence that mandatory face masks have ruined the US or UK economy.
I should also point out that human life is more important than the economy and, while a damaged economic can usually eventually be repaired, dead people cannot be.