Coronavirus

[antrin]

3 hours ago, insaintee said:

There will never be any randomised controlled experiments conducted on mask effectiveness as you would only use infected individuals, and that means you cannot select your groups at random. 

We're going down the rabbit hole with Alice for this response!

 

Curiouser and curiouser...   

 

[Cookie Monster]

*could* ?
Either it does or it doesn’t!
You’re pretty stupid [emoji23]

If only you could read a whole sentence.

Here's one example.

Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection

As everyone else read, could result in a large reduction. So the resulting default would be not as large, not as you presumed either it does or doesn't.

Keep up the #thichasfcuk moniker.

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

 

You're suppose to be the brains on here, you work it out (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty)

 

 

Well you seem very confident about what kinds of masks people are wearing right now.

[oaksoft]

14 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

 

If only you could read a whole sentence.



As everyone else read, could result in a large reduction. So the resulting default would be not as large, not as you presumed either it does or doesn't.

Keep up the #thichasfcuk moniker.

 

Sorry bud. You're calling it wrong on this one.

Andy is right. The word "could" is absolutely critical here. There is no resulting default.

Academically that word is very specifically used to indicate considerable uncertainty.

I've used that trick many times myself when publishing. 

[Cookie Monster]

Sorry bud. You're calling it wrong on this one.
Andy is right. The word "could" is absolutely critical here. There is no resulting default.
Academically that word is very specifically used to indicate considerable uncertainty.
I've used that trick many times myself when publishing. [emoji3]

I disagree, the evidence is in the range of parameters that they have published.

[Russian Saint]

[antrin]

I see shull's loose again...  

[Soctty]

19 hours ago, oaksoft said:

We fully re-opened my wife's business 3 weeks ago.

Every customer who comes onto our premises asks if they need to wear a mask. My wife tells them that it is their decision and that she's not a police officer.

100% of them (all in the older age groups) say "Thank god for that" and immediately remove them.

100% of them.

Now THAT makes me proud to be a Scot. None of that cowering at home pish. People actually thinking for themselves rather than waiting to be told what to do. People realising that jumpers and scarves do not stop covid.

I guess there are people who are independent and there are those who need breastfed throughout their lives by others. I'd rather be in the first group and die early than live to be 100as part of the second group with the likes of Baz and TPAK thingy.

Not been on here in a long time. This kind of post reminds me why.

 

Good to see you haven't changed, and you're still an arrogant w a n k.

 

😚

[bazil85]

17 hours ago, antrin said:

Can you not even glimpse the chasms, the complete logical abyss, between -
That's the guidance....
It may...
Just do it...
?

(but you know you'll get one, if you don't want a response don't engage)

There are many people with a chip on their shoulder scoffing at mask wearing. As I have said given it impacts very few people, I don't see the harm in these people just sucking it up and getting on with it. 

[bazil85]

16 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

It is true. 
 

Lockdown hasn’t saved anyone and has killed tens of thousands of people and will kill millions worldwide.

I’ve provided plenty of evidence. The fact that you either ignore it or don’t understand it doesn’t alter the fact. 

You haven't all the relevant evidence you have shared doesn't show this. There's correlation between locking-down and drops in relevant factors. It is completely baseless to say it hasn't saved "anyone" 

[insaintee]

16 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

And no one actually knows the mechanism of transmission anyway .... as I’ve pointed out repeatedly.

In other words no evidence. 

Uttter rubbish 

 

16 hours ago, oaksoft said:

OK I'm sorry but this is total nonsense.

 

Really, you try getting an ethic committee to agree to infecting people with Covid-19 

[antrin]

23 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

(but you know you'll get one, if you don't want a response don't engage)

There are many people with a chip on their shoulder scoffing at mask wearing. As I have said given it impacts very few people, I don't see the harm in these people just sucking it up and getting on with it. 

Again..

...show me scientific evidence that wearing a chip on your shoulder is in some way a vector for cv19 to invade our bodies?

(The chips may be symptomatic of the Scottish diet as I've seen no one in London wearing chips in that way, mask or no.)

You gullibles are easily conned.

 

 

 

 

[insaintee]

12 hours ago, antrin said:

We're going down the rabbit hole with Alice for this response!

 

Curiouser and curiouser...   

 

Not at all If you look at NICE guidelines to assessing literature as evidence Randomised Controlled experiements are actually the leve weakest evidence. I know this is not what you are taught at as undergraduate. But the point is about the universal application of the evidence to the entire population. As a result very few RC experiements are conducted, and none on human populations where case control and/or cohort studies are much more comment  There is no need nor benefit from RC experiments in this case, or indeed in the majority of medical studies. 

example. A RC experiment in vitro shows that drug A cures cancer.  This will not be released until a case control study is carried out because the case control study give superior quality of evidence. 

 

https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/reviewing-the-evidence

[antrin]

11 minutes ago, insaintee said:

Not at all If you look at NICE guidelines to assessing literature as evidence Randomised Controlled experiements are actually the leve weakest evidence. I know this is not what you are taught at as undergraduate. But the point is about the universal application of the evidence to the entire population. As a result very few RC experiements are conducted, and none on human populations where case control and/or cohort studies are much more comment  There is no need nor benefit from RC experiments in this case, or indeed in the majority of medical studies. 

example. A RC experiment in vitro shows that drug A cures cancer.  This will not be released until a case control study is carried out because the case control study give superior quality of evidence. 

 

https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/reviewing-the-evidence

My response about the Alice-in-Wonderlandishness of your earlier post was related to you justifying (failing to justify) why no one can provide evidence that face masks actually do work.

This post above simply substantiates the lack of evidence.

I can't engage with smoke and mirrors, through the looking glass or not.

Edited August 4, 2020 by antrin

[Slarti]

Really, you try getting an ethic committee to agree to infecting people with Covid-19 

Not at all If you look at NICE guidelines to assessing literature as evidence Randomised Controlled experiements are actually the leve weakest evidence. I know this is not what you are taught at as undergraduate. But the point is about the universal application of the evidence to the entire population. As a result very few RC experiements are conducted, and none on human populations where case control and/or cohort studies are much more comment  There is no need nor benefit from RC experiments in this case, or indeed in the majority of medical studies. 
example. A RC experiment in vitro shows that drug A cures cancer.  This will not be released until a case control study is carried out because the case control study give superior quality of evidence. 
 
https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/reviewing-the-evidence

Are you saying that people would need to be "given cancer"?

[bazil85]

20 minutes ago, antrin said:

Again..

...show me scientific evidence that wearing a chip on your shoulder is in some way a vector for cv19 to invade our bodies?

(The chips may be symptomatic of the Scottish diet as I've seen no one in London wearing chips in that way, mask or no.)

You gullibles are easily conned.

When all else fails humour could be your salvation... Or maybe not. 

Isn't a matter of being gullible, it's a matter of people stopping whining and just getting on with it. 

[Slarti]

You haven't all the relevant evidence you have shared doesn't show this. There's correlation between locking-down and drops in relevant factors. It is completely baseless to say it hasn't saved "anyone" 

You still at it?

Correlation does not equal causation.

It is also completely baseless to say that it has saved lives.

Both of you are claiming things that are unproven, as I have already said.

[insaintee]

23 minutes ago, antrin said:

My response about the Alice-in-Wonderlandishness of your earlier post was related to you justifying (failing to justify) why no one can provide evidence that face masks actually do work.

This post above simply substantiates the lack of evidence.

I can't engage with smoke and mirrors, through the looking glass or not.

Then f**k off there is good evidence as per the paper cited. The lack of RCE is not the same as lack of evidence .

[insaintee]

18 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you saying that people would need to be "given cancer"?

 

 

 

 

 

To be a RC experiment yes, Or you could do case control study. (which is what happens) almost as soon as you involve people you cannot do a RC experiement. 

[antrin]

13 minutes ago, insaintee said:

Then f**k off there is good evidence as per the paper cited. The lack of RCE is not the same as lack of evidence .

That is also not a convincing reason for anyone to start wearing masks.

Point me in the direction of any study that proves wearing masks inhibits the transmission of cv19.

Not just RC studies - I have no idea why you should be fixated on them...  ANY evidence.

 

No need to get nippy with me just because YOU can't find such evidence.  It MAY be my fault but... the link to which you directed me at no time features the word, "mask".

(And don't blame yourself as no one else  has been able to provide evidence, either.  There, there...) 

 

[bazil85]

35 minutes ago, Slarti said:

You still at it?

Correlation does not equal causation.

It is also completely baseless to say that it has saved lives.

Both of you are claiming things that are unproven, as I have already said.

Incorrect.

The claim is not single person has been saved from a Covid19 related death in Britain due to lockdown. It is ridiculous given what we know.:  

1. Contact = chance of transmission

2. Covid19 kills people. 

3. Millions of people in lockdown were factually in much less (or even zero) contact with other people.

It is pedantic to claim we don't know in a population of 66 million if a single person has avoided death by not being in contact with someone with the coronavirus. Of course people's lives have been saved. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by bazil85

[antrin]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Incorrect.

The claim is not single person has been saved from a Covid19 related death in Britain due to lockdown. It is ridiculous given what we know.:  

1. Contact = chance of transmission

2. Covid19 kills people. 

It is pedantic to claim we don't know in a population of 66 million if a single person has avoided death by not being in contact with someone with the coronavirus. Of course people's lives have been saved. 

More accurate to suggest that their deaths have simply been postponed, than that lives have been saved specifically from cv19.

[insaintee]

9 minutes ago, antrin said:

That is also not a convincing reason for anyone to start wearing masks.

Point me in the direction of any study that proves wearing masks inhibits the transmission of cv19.

Not just RC studies - I have no idea why you should be fixated on them...  ANY evidence.

 

No need to get nippy with me just because YOU can't find such evidence.  It MAY be my fault but... the link to which you directed me at no time features the word, "mask".

(And don't blame yourself as no one else  has been able to provide evidence, either.  There, there...) 

 

Yes it is. If people have conducted Case control and cohort studies that is evidence 

[insaintee]

11 minutes ago, antrin said:

That is also not a convincing reason for anyone to start wearing masks.

Point me in the direction of any study that proves wearing masks inhibits the transmission of cv19.

Not just RC studies - I have no idea why you should be fixated on them...  ANY evidence.

 

No need to get nippy with me just because YOU can't find such evidence.  It MAY be my fault but... the link to which you directed me at no time features the word, "mask".

(And don't blame yourself as no one else  has been able to provide evidence, either.  There, there...) 

 

I also refer you to the paper supplied earlier. 

[bazil85]

15 minutes ago, antrin said:

More accurate to suggest that their deaths have simply been postponed, than that lives have been saved specifically from cv19.

NoI'd say that's more just your need to get involved. A turn to philosophy...