News ***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread*** - Page 3157

Originally Posted by O.city:
We won't know that til way later anyway, it's kidna pointless at this point to really care about.

It would also show that the lowering of the death rate, wasn't really anything we did in terms of med intervention. Which isn't ideal.

I don't know that I agree with that part. I think we have come a long way in preventing deaths where we weren't back in March and April, etc.
[Reply]

Nearly 50,000 doctors and scientists, 630,000 citizens have signed global anti-lockdown proclamation

https://justthenews.com/nearly-50000...n-proclamation
[Reply]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu:
A few things, one very anecdotal but interesting to me. I’ve been receiving countless emails about job openings throughout KS for therapists and other mental health professionals needed. By my count it is way more than what I normally see. Almost all of them are also offering sign on bonuses, which is not all that common in this field. This tells me there is increased need and probably also some people not as willing to see as many clients. This is also in line with the increased referrals I have been getting.

I have a couple of friends that are professional counselors and they're actually seeing a few more patients now because everything is being done via telemedicine. It's a lot more efficient.

According to them, the number of people seeking help is just going way up. I think most of us knew that already, though.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by petegz28:
Nearly 50,000 doctors and scientists, 630,000 citizens have signed global anti-lockdown proclamation

https://justthenews.com/nearly-50000...n-proclamation

As they should. It's a fucking joke.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by petegz28:

They’re slightly LESS loaded than normal for mid November.
Still no excess deaths.
So...those thousands of covid19 deaths this autumn are where, exactly, in this official chart running to early Nov? pic.twitter.com/ExzOylXUUE
— Yardley Yeadon (@MichaelYeadon3) November 17, 2020

Dinger will ignore this
[Reply]

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

Originally Posted by :
A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

Originally Posted by :
Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon. Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect.

[Reply]

Originally Posted by Otter:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Someone doesn't understand the link they posted.

"The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings (22). This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks."
[Reply]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Someone doesn't understand the link they posted.

"The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings (22). This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks."

Someone doesn't understand I didn't make any conclusions. Just sharing information. I'm sorry you inferred my intention.

Dumbass.
[Reply]

Anyone watch the Task Force press conference?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Otter:
Someone doesn't understand I didn't make any conclusions. Just sharing information. I'm sorry you inferred my intention.

Dumbass.

The most perfect example of intellectual dishonestly one will ever see.
[Reply]

When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not.

But overall, there is a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks and Covid-19. There have only been three community trials during the current pandemic comparing the use of masks with various alternatives – one in Guinea-Bissau, one in India and this latest trial in Denmark. The low number of studies into the effect different interventions have on the spread of Covid-19 – a subject of global importance – suggests there is a total lack of interest from governments in pursuing evidence-based medicine. And this starkly contrasts with the huge sums they have spent on ‘boutique relations’ consultants advising the government.

The only trials which have shown masks to be effective at stopping airborne diseases have been ‘observational studies’ – which observe the people who ordinarily use masks, rather than attempting to create a randomised control group. These trials include six studies carried out in the Far East during the SARS CoV-1 outbreak of 2003, which showed that masks can work, especially when they are used by healthcare workers and patients alongside hand-washing.

But observational studies are prone to recall bias: in the heat of a pandemic, not very many people will recall if and when they used masks and at what distance they kept from others. The lack of random allocation of masks can also ‘confound’ the results and might not account for seasonal effects. A recent observational study paper had to be withdrawn because the reported fall in infection rates over the summer was reverted when the seasonal effect took hold and rates went back up.

This is why large, randomised trials like this most recent Danish study are so important if we want to understand the impact of measures like face masks. Many people have argued that it is too difficult to wait for randomised trials – but Danmask-19 has shown that these kind of studies are more than feasible.

And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not significantly reduce the rates of infection.

WRITTEN BY
Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson
Carl Heneghan is professor of evidence-based medicine at the University of Oxford and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Tom Jefferson is a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...d-of-covid-19-
[Reply]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not.e

But overall, there is a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks and Covid-19. There have only been three community trials during the current pandemic comparing the use of masks with various alternatives – one in Guinea-Bissau, one in India and this latest trial in Denmark. The low number of studies into the effect different interventions have on the spread of Covid-19 – a subject of global importance – suggests there is a total lack of interest from governments in pursuing evidence-based medicine. And this starkly contrasts with the huge sums they have spent on ‘boutique relations’ consultants advising the government.

The only trials which have shown masks to be effective at stopping airborne diseases have been ‘observational studies’ – which observe the people who ordinarily use masks, rather than attempting to create a randomised control group. These trials include six studies carried out in the Far East during the SARS CoV-1 outbreak of 2003, which showed that masks can work, especially when they are used by healthcare workers and patients alongside hand-washing.

But observational studies are prone to recall bias: in the heat of a pandemic, not very many people will recall if and when they used masks and at what distance they kept from others. The lack of random allocation of masks can also ‘confound’ the results and might not account for seasonal effects. A recent observational study paper had to be withdrawn because the reported fall in infection rates over the summer was reverted when the seasonal effect took hold and rates went back up.

This is why large, randomised trials like this most recent Danish study are so important if we want to understand the impact of measures like face masks. Many people have argued that it is too difficult to wait for randomised trials – but Danmask-19 has shown that these kind of studies are more than feasible.

And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not significantly reduce the rates of infection.

WRITTEN BY
Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson
Carl Heneghan is professor of evidence-based medicine at the University of Oxford and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Tom Jefferson is a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...d-of-covid-19-

Why are we as a nation so obsessed with masks?
[Reply]

I wear one all the time, but yeah wouldn't be surprising if tha piece of shit is not preventing much of anything
[Reply]

Originally Posted by TLO:
Why are we as a nation so obsessed with masks?

If people don't want to wear it of course they want to know how effective they actually are.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by TLO:
Why are we as a nation so obsessed with masks?

I think the politicians needed something to keep everyone busy. Instead of focusing on protecting the weak and frail, or making sure the sick stay home (that would cost $$$) they came up with put a piece of cloth on your face.
[Reply]