@sonhouse saidWhat exactly am I surprised about?
@wildgrass
You are surprised? We have known that for years.
@wildgrass saidHavn't you beat that dead horse enough?
There are dozens of epidemiological studies showing that masks are effective at slowing the spread.
The Netherlands did not make mask wearing mandatory until recently and their C19 death rate is 15th in Europe.
There is your epidemiological study without bias. Apparently wearing masks does more harm than good. Belgium has the most deaths per capita and it borders the Netherlands. Wearing masks made Belgium and the UK a wreck.
It is obvious to anyone unbiased that masks are not effective. It is also easy to argue masks make it worse. Belgium made masks wearing mandatory and they are #1. Do any of those epidemiological studies mention that Belgium and the UK are a wreck despite wearing masks?
If masks were effective the Netherlands would be in the top 5 and they are not even in the top ten. FAIL!
@metal-brain saidThere are dozens of epidemiological studies showing that masks are effective at slowing the spread.
Havn't you beat that dead horse enough?
The Netherlands did not make mask wearing mandatory until recently and their C19 death rate is 15th in Europe.
There is your epidemiological study without bias. Apparently wearing masks does more harm than good. Belgium has the most deaths per capita and it borders the Netherlands. Wearing masks made Belgium and the UK a wreck ...[text shortened]... sks were effective the Netherlands would be in the top 5 and they are not even in the top ten. FAIL!
@metal-brain saidWearing masks in shops did not become compulsory until after the end of the first lockdown in the UK. There had been 40,000 deaths (source World-o-Meters) by then. It was at the high end of the European average.
Havn't you beat that dead horse enough?
The Netherlands did not make mask wearing mandatory until recently and their C19 death rate is 15th in Europe.
There is your epidemiological study without bias. Apparently wearing masks does more harm than good. Belgium has the most deaths per capita and it borders the Netherlands. Wearing masks made Belgium and the UK a wreck ...[text shortened]... sks were effective the Netherlands would be in the top 5 and they are not even in the top ten. FAIL!
Your method here seems to be to pick a country where mask wearing is compulsory and there is a high death rate, and then to pick a country where mask wearing is not mandated and has a relatively low fatality rate and call this proof.
To do this properly one would need to take into account demographics and population density, specifically how big the cities are and what the population density in the cities is. One needs to take into account which the dominant strains of the virus circulating are and correct for that. In the UK we have a particularly transmissible strain circulating, a high population density and a relatively old population, so a comparison with a country that has a less transmissible strain, a lower population density and a relatively young population is going to produce a misleading result.
@metal-brain saidThis is more data from China and is relevant to the original strain and not necessarily to the more transmissible strains that are now circulating.
Now we know why lockdowns and masks don't help. We were told asymptomatic carriers of the SARS2 virus were contagious. It looks like that was never the case.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
2 edits
DeepThought
Yes, exactly.
One cannot validly cherry pick only those facts that only by themselves at least vaguely indicate some personal claim is correct while ignoring the full context of the whole set of all the facts, that include complicating factors some of which at least vaguely indicate that personal claim may be false, one has cherry pick those facts from. At least ideally, ALL the evidence as a whole must be taken into account.
@Metal-Brain
Since when did you become an expert on virus transmissions?
You all of a sudden have a Phd in virology?
Or more likely, you cherry pick the sites you want so you can convince yourself you are right and the entire planet is wrong.
That is your MO for ALL you cockamamee schemes.
@deepthought saidI didn't cherry pick anything. That is ridiculous.
Wearing masks in shops did not become compulsory until after the end of the first lockdown in the UK. There had been 40,000 deaths (source World-o-Meters) by then. It was at the high end of the European average.
Your method here seems to be to pick a country where mask wearing is compulsory and there is a high death rate, and then to pick a country where mask wearing ...[text shortened]... lower population density and a relatively young population is going to produce a misleading result.
The Netherlands is 15th in deaths in Europe. How many of the top 14 didn't require wearing masks? Sweden and what other country? Just Sweden, right?
How do you explain the other 13 with higher death rates than the Netherlands? Be honest.
@metal-brain saidThat IS cherry picking. You say you don't cherry pick and then do just that in the same breath with "Netherlands is 15th in deaths in Europe." thus cherry picking only Netherlands out of the whole of Europe.
I didn't cherry pick anything. That is ridiculous.
The Netherlands is 15th in deaths in Europe.
Look up the definition of 'cherry picking' and come back to us.
3 edits
@metal-brain saidThat's because they are, just merely less contagious;
We were told asymptomatic carriers of the SARS2 virus were contagious.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3
"...Byambasuren’s review also found that asymptomatic individuals were 42% less likely to transmit the virus than symptomatic people...."
That above 42% is NOT 100% no matter how you try and twist it.
That's according to that study. And there are other studies that confirm there is a non-zero risk of asymptomatic carriers spreading it;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/08/06/asymptomatic-coronavirus-carriers-may-be-as-contagious-as-those-with-symptoms-study-finds/?sh=2f96fb87568b
"...And it does confirm what we've suspected for a long time — that asymptomatic cases can transmit infection..."
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/20-percent-of-people-with-covid-19-are-asymptomatic-but-can-spread-the-disease
"20% of Coronavirus Infections Are Asymptomatic but Still Contagious"
There is also this;
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-are-some-people-with-coronavirus-asymptomatic-and-why-are-they-so-contagious-2020-08-08
“Many individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection remained asymptomatic for a prolonged period, and viral load was similar to that in symptomatic patients,” the scientists concluded. “Therefore, isolation of infected persons should be performed regardless of symptoms.”
...lockdowns and masks don't help.You have so far provided no good evidence that lockdowns and masks don't help while we have shown good evidence that they do help.
@humy saidI think you are mistaken.
That's because they are, just merely less contagious;
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3
"...Byambasuren’s review also found that asymptomatic individuals were 42% less likely to transmit the virus than symptomatic people...."
That above 42% is NOT 100% no matter how you try and twist it.
That's according to that study. And there are othe ...[text shortened]... od evidence that lockdowns and masks don't help while we have shown good evidence that they do help.
Show me the quote of those numbers from the article.
3 edits
@metal-brain saidNumbers of what? And why cannot you look it up yourself? We won't baby sit you. And from which article? The first one? If you won't percentages, I just did.
Show me the quote of those numbers from the article.
Reminder;
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3
"...Byambasuren’s review also found that asymptomatic individuals were 42% less likely to transmit the virus than symptomatic people...."
-And if the percentages don't convince you, nothing will.