The Coronavirus Thread

[BarnettNewman]

I’m convinced.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BarnettNewman]

With fewer flames.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Brian Peacock]

How do you know the face mask aren't making the situation better than it otherwise would have been? Where's your non-fairy data?

Look at all the countries where there have been huge increases; Belgium, Spain, France and Germany. They all have mandatory mask wearing. It has not helped. Where is the data to prove it has helped.

Where is the data to prove "It has not helped?"

There is none on either side.

There are plenty of studies which demonstrate how masks reduce the risk of airborne contamination. It's precisely because masks have a proven track record that the public are being urged to adopt them.

They are made mandatory under the motto 'just in case' but the way they are being used has more chance of increasing the infection.

See above. When 1 in every 2000 people is dying from a virulent contagion even 'just in case' is worth a punt. You routinely decry them for not being a Silver bullet - but it's mostly you who assumes that masks should be a Silver bullet or that they (other people, governments, medics, public health officials etc) say that they are. That's a strawman, and you know what that is don't you?

Who uses them according to the WHO advice? No one.

But you don't trust the WHO do you, saying that they're unreliable, that they fiddle the data to suit their agenda (whatever that might be), and recently that they make stuff up about Africa and India and have no evidence to support any of their advice and/or guidance. You rely on an authority you have previously dismissed - which is to argue from a double standard, and you know what that is don't you?

I dont have to prove a negative and there is still no positive evidence.

You don't have to prove a negative but you are under a rational obligation to demonstrate/support a positive claim, such as "masks don't help" etc, when asked - if you're interested in promoting honest discourse that is.

[NineBerry]

Where are the double-blind studies that show that condoms help against the spread of AIDS?

[Svartalf]

In fairyland, the folk there love to have a laugh at how we handle our medical problems.

[Scot Dutchy]

Brian,

WHO guidelines are different to their data. Just a bit. So you admit that 'just in case' is good enough reason to put a dirty old rag or a well used old bit of paper across your mouth spreading germs around?
How do account for the sudden increase of cases in countries who mandate the wearing of masks? Once again the Peacock swerve. Where did i mention the Silver Bullet?

[NineBerry]

Why would you use a dirty old rag? You change your underwear daily I hope. I put the masks I wear into the washing machine each time after returning home. I never use one mask more than a few hours. For longer trips I have multiple ones with me to be able to change.

Cases in European countries started to rise with the changing weather. That was predicted. People spend more times indoors and the virus can survive longer in cold temperatures both in the air and on surfaces. Germany has had mask mandates since April and the numbers didn't start to rise until a day ago.

[Brian Peacock]

Where are the double-blind studies that show that condoms help against the spread of AIDS?

Scott's in good company there...

Writing in the Daily Express, [Ann] Widdecombe suggested that efforts to curb the spread of coronavirus are going too far and it won’t be as bad as health experts predict.

“I’m all for sensible precautions but I cannot help feeling that we are going mad over coronavirus,” she wrote. She added: “We have had the scare of SARs, bird flu, Ebola and of course AIDS. None proved as devastating as feared.” ...

Not devastating to the infamously anti-LGBTQ religious fanatic perhaps, but the WHO (who we are told we cannot trust) estimate that AIDS/HIV has killed c.65 million people since 1990.

[Tero]

Back in 1918 people would drop dead of the flu during a street car ride. We had out first...
https://www.foxnews.com/travel/texas-wo ... mexico.amp

[Brian Peacock]

Brian,

WHO guidelines are different to their data. Just a bit. So you admit that 'just in case' is good enough reason to put a dirty old rag or a well used old bit of paper across your mouth spreading germs around?
How do account for the sudden increase of cases in countries who mandate the wearing of masks? Once again the Peacock swerve. Where did i mention the Silver Bullet?

I brought up the idea of the Silver bullet because you seem to think this conversation begins and ends with masks. And besides, I'm not the one swerving here - I'm challenging your claims, and you're the one asking me to disprove them to your satisfaction. Your fallacious thinking continues...

For example, now you're claiming that masks are 'dirty rags' or 'a well used old bit of paper' - that's called shifting the goalposts, and you know what that is don't you?

An understanding of population dynamics (human and viral) helps us account for variance and gradation in the prevalence of the infection between regions and across time. But please don't take my word for it...





... and because you probably won't watch any of those, here's a short, popular explanation of the principles of mathematically modelling an infection in a population...



So, we can account for the changing infection, prevalence, and mortality rates etc by factoring what is already known about the virus (it's infectiousness, lethality, transmissibility, etc) against the possible and probably impacts of changes in social behaviour. After all, the vector of Covid-19 infections is primarily human-human, so behaviour will and does have an impact.

In short, when countries were in stricter lockdown situations the infection was suppressed in those populations -- the curve was flattened, as they say -- but given that the infection is still at large in the general population (endemic) then easing those restrictions inevitably leads to a rise in infections.

As I said, you'd like us to associate these variations solely with the use, or otherwise, of masks. However, that kind of assumption is misplaced, and dangerously so for a significant proportion of the population. The general use of masks is only one element in a range of measure which can help reduce the risk and rate of infection. I think it's up to all of us to dial down the #OUTRAGE and apply a bit more dispassionate rational scrutiny to both the situation at large and particularly to what our elected representatives are actually doing about it.

[Scot Dutchy]

Where are the double-blind studies that show that condoms help against the spread of AIDS?

Scott's in good company there...

Writing in the Daily Express, [Ann] Widdecombe suggested that efforts to curb the spread of coronavirus are going too far and it won’t be as bad as health experts predict.

“I’m all for sensible precautions but I cannot help feeling that we are going mad over coronavirus,” she wrote. She added: “We have had the scare of SARs, bird flu, Ebola and of course AIDS. None proved as devastating as feared.” ...

Not devastating to the infamously anti-LGBTQ religious fanatic perhaps, but the WHO (who we are told we cannot trust) estimate that AIDS/HIV has killed c.65 million people since 1990.

Here we are again; the Peacock Swerve; Where did I say that? WTF has aids got to do with this crisis? Only in your warped mind. Your typical way of discussion. Just go away and have a walk round Arthur's Seat.

[Scot Dutchy]

Faeri data Brian. How are those countries now? Locked down and terrified for what? Just look at the numbers. How many have so-called died from the virus? Of course you just love the Kool-Aid. You addicted to it.

[Brian Peacock]

Faeri data Brian. How are those countries now? Locked down and terrified for what? Just look at the numbers. How many have so-called died from the virus? Of course you just love the Kool-Aid. You addicted to it.

I see you've neglected to address any of the points of my previous post, again, and simply repeat your opinions as brute facts before moving on to other things as if this is a settled matter. Remember, I was not the one who cited an article to support a claim that masks have 'not helped' in which masks were mentioned only in passing and not in relation to that claim at all.

On the other hand, you asked me how we can account for the variation in infections across regions and time, to which I provided three explanatory videos from university departments plus a popular maths video. If you have an epidemiological objection to that information please feel free to bring it up.

Anyone with a basic grasp of the mathematical principles employed in modelling communicable infections can understand how changes in social behaviour (hand hygiene, social distancing, masks, lockdowns, etc) can impact the spread of that infection within a population.

[Brian Peacock]

Where are the double-blind studies that show that condoms help against the spread of AIDS?

Scott's in good company there...

Writing in the Daily Express, [Ann] Widdecombe suggested that efforts to curb the spread of coronavirus are going too far and it won’t be as bad as health experts predict.

“I’m all for sensible precautions but I cannot help feeling that we are going mad over coronavirus,” she wrote. She added: “We have had the scare of SARs, bird flu, Ebola and of course AIDS. None proved as devastating as feared.” ...

Not devastating to the infamously anti-LGBTQ religious fanatic perhaps, but the WHO (who we are told we cannot trust) estimate that AIDS/HIV has killed c.65 million people since 1990.

Here we are again; the Peacock Swerve; Where did I say that? WTF has aids got to do with this crisis? Only in your warped mind. Your typical way of discussion. Just go away and have a walk round Arthur's Seat.

NineBerry succinctly pointed out how your claims that double-blind studies are needed to assess the efficacy of mitigating action against the spread of a deadly virus are moot. I simply quoted an article highlighting the kind of thinking that gives voice to those misguided assumptions. I then challenged views which maintain that diseases that don't affect us, or that we disagree with on principle, should not be a problem for society, and therefore mitigating action is unnecessary. That does appear to be you view. If it isn't your view then I am mistaken.

[laklak]

How do you do a double blind study about wearing masks?