Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

 

gullibility_test.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, antrin said:

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

 

Curiouser and curiouser...   :rolleyes:

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by antrin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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"? :whistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

gullibility_test.jpg

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :D

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Slarti said:


 

 

 

 

 

 


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

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...)  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Slarti said:

You still at it? :D

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 by bazil85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

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 are confusing correlation and causation again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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. 


1. What are all the ways that CV19 can be transmitted?
2. Does it? Or does it suppress the immune system so that other things kill?
3. Irrelevant if you don't know the answer to 1.

Prove it. How do you know that anyone who hasn't died, would have died if the had got CV19? Just tell me about any specific one of them.

You DON'T know., that is what I am saying - about both sides of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You are confusing correlation and causation again.

I'm not, this further validates my point on pre-held vendettas. We have three people now trying to back-up Andy's claim that zero people have been saved from dying due to lockdown lol. 

Just now, Slarti said:


 

 


1. What are all the ways that CV19 can be transmitted?

Not fully known, irrelevant to my point. 
2. Does it? Or does it suppress the immune system so that other things kill?

Also irrelevant, people not contracting covid19 because they have avoided it through lockdown is the point being made. Again you go to the pedantic. 
3. Irrelevant if you don't know the answer to 1.
It's not, I've shown that you are wrong above. 
Prove it. How do you know that anyone who hasn't died, would have died if the had got CV19? Just tell me about any specific one of them.
Again pedantic, see previous points.  
You DON'T know., that is what I am saying - about both sides of the argument.

See point to Oaky above, pre-held vendettas has got you trying to argue that zero extra people would have died linked to Covid19 if there wasn't a lockdown. 🤣

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, insaintee said:

I also refer you to the paper supplied earlier. 

A paper which doesn't explain the science behind the SG advice that jumpers and scarves are suitable masks.

A paper which doesn't test which of the masks being used by the public are safe and to what extent.

You are reading what you want to read.

Maybe you should stick to reception work or nursing or something because research doesn't appear to be your thing at all. 

I'm still laughing at your suggestion that you think people need to be injected with covid to get a randomised test. 🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, insaintee said:

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

Then SHOW me!

FWIW

This month's up to date issue of the Swiss Doctor that I have been linking on here is now out.

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

That has a whole section devoted to the efficacy or OTHERWISE of masks.

 

Doctor after doctor, scientist after scientist...  line up to diss their use.  

It seems the WHO suggested masks might be useful, despite knowing there was no evidence, because they were pressured politically into saying it may have some impact.

 

No evidence.

 

There's plenty more in there.  I enjoyed the guy in charge of the Swedish epidemic control, Anders Tegnall, being so honest measured and frank about that country's choice of reaction to it.  He ends having to respond to a question about the use of masks.

(Last 5 minutes)

You might guess that the adoption of masks is not and would not be among the first hundred measures he would seek to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, antrin said:

Then SHOW me!

FWIW

This month's up to date issue of the Swiss Doctor that I have been linking on here is now out.

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

That has a whole section devoted to the efficacy or OTHERWISE of masks.

 

Doctor after doctor, scientist after scientist...  line up to diss their use.  

It seems the WHO suggested masks might be useful, despite knowing there was no evidence, because they were pressured politically into saying it may have some impact.

 

No evidence.

 

There's plenty more in there.  I enjoyed the guy in charge of the Swedish epidemic control, Anders Tegnall, being so honest measured and frank about that country's choice of reaction to it.  He ends having to respond to a question about the use of masks.

(Last 5 minutes)

You might guess that the adoption of masks is not and would not be among the first hundred measures he would seek to implement.

I'll take "might" for something that has no impact on the overwhelming majority of the population. You're like a child not wanting to hold your mothers hand because you think the chances of running into the street are slim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...