Covid deniers and anti maskers

Laughing said:
OK what a crock. Do you even read what I write? Have you bothered to read any scientific papers on the efficacy of mask wearing? Do you understand why masks produce a social effect that no study has ever been completed on?


You want to debate, I am good with that if you want to insult shove it you patronizing ****
Click to expand...
Yes, I have, Bears (that I've read before) is quite a good example, and my views line up well with the conclusion on there. But I also appreciate that I'm not an expert in the field of masks and mask-wearing, so I will listen to those that are, and the world's governments are doing the same.

There might be a social effect, but I've literally not spoken to anyone that has a social problem to do with a mask, have you? I imagine it's extremely low, and if it is a problem, it's unlikely to kill them or lead to a chain of other social issues and a chain of the deaths (like virus can). The virus' has an impact and it's an impact which can grow and grow, and increase social issues in line with that. If you take the virus away the overall social issues get lower.

It's not a debate, the debate was done last year. The basics of it are, I'm on the side of those that are advising the entire world to wear masks, and the entire world that are listening to them, and have been for nearly a year.

You're on the other side, and your problem is you think you deserve a seat at the table or that your opinion is more valid than the experts, it isn't, and neither is mine.

You also think that because no massive studies have been done, then this somehow backs up your argument or validates the questions you raise, it doesn't it basically means there's been no need to prove something that is already widely known.
 
Andy_W said:
Yes, I have, Bears (that I've read before) is quite a good example, and my views line up well with the conclusion on there. But I also appreciate that I'm not an expert in the field of masks and mask-wearing, so I will listen to those that are, and the world's governments are doing the same.

There might be a social effect, but I've literally not spoken to anyone that has a social problem to do with a mask, have you? I imagine it's extremely low, and if it is a problem, it's unlikely to kill them or lead to a chain of other social issues and a chain of the deaths (like virus can). The virus' has an impact and it's an impact which can grow and grow, and increase social issues in line with that. If you take the virus away the overall social issues get lower.

It's not a debate, the debate was done last year. The basics of it are, I'm on the side of those that are advising the entire world to wear masks, and the entire world that are listening to them, and have been for nearly a year.

You're on the other side, and your problem is you think you deserve a seat at the table or that your opinion is more valid than the experts, it isn't, and neither is mine.

You also think that because no massive studies have been done, then this somehow backs up your argument or validates the questions you raise, it doesn't it basically means there's been no need to prove something that is already widely known.
Click to expand...
Again you misunderstand the social issues with masks. They have to be disposed of, they encourage people to go out when perhaps they shouldn't, they encourage ignorance of social distancing rules.

Not a single study has included these factors. Not a single study that Bear linked to is a controlled study, for obvious reasons, I agree. The one observational study is very flawed. You can mask several households, and leave several other households unmasked. It found that face masks were 78% effective in stopping transmission. OK, let's look at that for a minute.

The study, if you wnet to actually read it, was of 335 people over 124 families with each family having at least 1 confirmed covid case. The study showed that there was a 23% infection rate, That was 77 out of the 335 people became infected.

Now some problems with the study.
Everyone was not tested before the trial began
The other practices in the household were gathered by questionaire, for example hand washing and sanitizing. Non of this was confirmed in any way.
Where was the non-mask wearing control groups, there wasn't any.
By the time exclusion criteria was factored in they were left with just the 124 households mentioned above. Of those households, 43 households showed a secondary infection.

Now from that the study concluded that masks were 78% effective in stopping transmissions.

How many people were infected before the study began? We don't know.
How many people became infected outside the house? We don't know.
We do know that some became infected through fecal matter, make of that what you will.

Now if you don't see the problem in the method used let me help. The assumption is that the masks were the primary factor, actually no, it assumes that masks were the only factor in stopping transmissions. The assumption was that no mask would equate to 100% transmission, and that just isnt true.

I understand that doing trials during a pandemic is dangerous and unethical to do in a controlled manner. That is why most of the studies are seriously flawed.

I can pick apart most studies, both pro and anti mask. Non of them are particularly well conducted for obvious reasons.

Believing masks do not provide effective protection from covid is not bs, it's not moronic and it doesn't mean someone is making their own research up. I can read what you read, but am much more critical when I consider what is being said, You have a prior belief based on common sense so don't bother to look any further.
 
Laughing said:
Again you misunderstand the social issues with masks. They have to be disposed of, they encourage people to go out when perhaps they shouldn't, they encourage ignorance of social distancing rules.

Not a single study has included these factors. Not a single study that Bear linked to is a controlled study, for obvious reasons, I agree. The one observational study is very flawed. You can mask several households, and leave several other households unmasked. It found that face masks were 78% effective in stopping transmission. OK, let's look at that for a minute.

The study, if you wnet to actually read it, was of 335 people over 124 families with each family having at least 1 confirmed covid case. The study showed that there was a 23% infection rate, That was 77 out of the 335 people became infected.

Now some problems with the study.
Everyone was not tested before the trial began
The other practices in the household were gathered by questionaire, for example hand washing and sanitizing. Non of this was confirmed in any way.
Where was the non-mask wearing control groups, there wasn't any.
By the time exclusion criteria was factored in they were left with just the 124 households mentioned above. Of those households, 43 households showed a secondary infection.

Now from that the study concluded that masks were 78% effective in stopping transmissions.

How many people were infected before the study began? We don't know.
How many people became infected outside the house? We don't know.
We do know that some became infected through fecal matter, make of that what you will.

Now if you don't see the problem in the method used let me help. The assumption is that the masks were the primary factor, actually no, it assumes that masks were the only factor in stopping transmissions. The assumption was that no mask would equate to 100% transmission, and that just isnt true.

I understand that doing trials during a pandemic is dangerous and unethical to do in a controlled manner. That is why most of the studies are seriously flawed.

I can pick apart most studies, both pro and anti mask. Non of them are particularly well conducted for obvious reasons.

Believing masks do not provide effective protection from covid is not bs, it's not moronic and it doesn't mean someone is making their own research up. I can read what you read, but am much more critical when I consider what is being said, You have a prior belief based on common sense so don't bother to look any further.
Click to expand...
Disposed of? They go in the bin, like I've said about five times.
A mask does not encourage anyone to go out more than it could discourage someone from going out, at the moment neither is proven, probably because it's difficult to prove, would increase risk, or is completely pointless. There are rules which outline what people should and should not be doing, a mask isn't a shield, it's an additional form of PPE.

You seem to be just raising questions for the sake of raising questions.

What qualifies you to critique these studies? Why don't you do one and then get it reviewed by some experts/ people qalified? Maybe contact those on that study and tell them what they have done wrong? Please copy me into the e-mail, and also include the reply, if you get one. What other studies have you written?

Ok, take 78% and half it, 39%, still worthwhile, half it again, 19.5% still worthwhile, half it again 9.75%, still worthwhile, half it again, still worthwhile. The point is it may be flawed to a degree, but it's unlikely to be flawed to a point where it's <3%. It's worthwhile to the point that the benefits outweigh the negatives, and there are no proven negatives.

The "problems" you have raised could have moved the study up or down from 78%, are they likely to move it to 100% no, are they likely to move it less than 40%, probably not.

Just because you read through a study does not make you an expert and does not make your questions valid, the same way it does not for me.

My belief is based on common sense and backed up by a belief in experts, and trusting that the worlds medical professionals and those that actually do these studies, along with the WHO and the governments advisors know what they're talking about. Whether they act on that correctly is a different matter, but I'm sure they're all getting to the right information and more than you or I.

You are being critical, that's fine, but you need to understand that you're being critical of people that know more than you do, and who have access to more information and more resources than you. You're probably educated well enough to balance out the risk yourself, but for every one of you there are another 20 grunts that can't do that, who are spouting "masks don't do nowt, this is a hoax".
 
Last edited:
Andy_W said:
Disposed of? They go in the bin, like I've said about five times.
A mask does not encourage anyone to go out more than it could discourage someone from going out, at the moment neither is proven, probably because it's difficult to prove, would increase risk, or is completely pointless. There are rules which outline what people should and should not be doing, a mask isn't a shield, it's an additional form of PPE.

You seem to be just raising questions for the sake of raising questions.

What qualifies you to critique these studies? Why don't you do one and then get it peer-reviewed? Maybe contact those on that study and tell them what they have done wrong? Please copy me into the e-mail, and also include the reply, if you get one. What other studies have you written?

Ok, take 78% and half it, 39%, still worthwhile, half it again, 19.5% still worthwhile, half it again 9.75%, still worthwhile, half it again, still worthwhile. The point is it may be flawed to a degree, but it's unlikely to be flawed to a point where it's <3%. It's worthwhile to the point that the negatives outweigh the positives and there are no proven negatives.

The "problems" you have raised could have moved the study up or down from 78%, are they likely to move it to 100% no, are they likely to move it less than 40%, probably not.

Just because you read through a study does not make you an expert and does not make your questions valid, the same way it does not for me.

My belief is based on common sense and backed up by a belief in experts, and trusting that the worlds medical professionals and those that actually do these studies, along with the WHO and the governments advisors know what they're talking about. Whether they act on that correctly is a different matter, but I'm sure they're all getting to the right information and more than you or I.

You are being critical, that's fine, but you need to understand that you're being critical of people that know more than you do, and who have access to more information and more resources than you. You're probably educated well enough to balance out the risk yourself, but for every one of you there are another 20 grunts that can't do that, who are spouting "masks don't do nowt, this is a hoax".
Click to expand...
Again your assumptions are based on nothing Andy, a feeling.

That is fine, you are entitled to believe what you want, and many people agree with you, I suspect masks offer some protection, but not based on solid scientific evidence as it is sorely lacking.

I will say it again, calling someone a moron because they have a different viewpoint to you, one which there are scientific studies to support is, well uncalled for in the first instance, and not very accurate.

I don't need to do a study myself, there has been plenty done and within the confines of a pandemic, they have done what they can, which isn't very much. That's why the available reasearch is flawed. It's not the researchers fault. They give the parameters of the research and expect people to undersatnd those parameters and make their own minds up.

You don't seem to understand why the research is flawed but feel able to call people names.

please do point me to a study that is verifiable and robust in the methodology, I would genuinely like to read it. Until you can do that stop the name calling and assumptions about peoples intelligence.
 
Laughing said:
Again your assumptions are based on nothing Andy, a feeling.

That is fine, you are entitled to believe what you want, and many people agree with you, I suspect masks offer some protection, but not based on solid scientific evidence as it is sorely lacking.

I will say it again, calling someone a moron because they have a different viewpoint to you, one which there are scientific studies to support is, well uncalled for in the first instance, and not very accurate.

I don't need to do a study myself, there has been plenty done and within the confines of a pandemic, they have done what they can, which isn't very much. That's why the available reasearch is flawed. It's not the researchers fault. They give the parameters of the research and expect people to undersatnd those parameters and make their own minds up.

You don't seem to understand why the research is flawed but feel able to call people names.

please do point me to a study that is verifiable and robust in the methodology, I would genuinely like to read it. Until you can do that stop the name calling and assumptions about peoples intelligence.
Click to expand...
Your questions, which are effectively a conspiracy theory against the advisors and governments of the entire world, is based on nothing.

I do believe what I want, thanks, I believe in experts too, and I trust that others in key roles (experts normally) are advising policymakers based on the best information, not what they can find on google, sat at home in their underpants.

I'm saying people who don't listen to experts are morons, they're not a moron for having a differing view to me, they're a moron for not listening to, or questioning experts (and the world consensus of specialists who know a lot more than they do).

People that raise questions, but with no evidence or qualifications to raise them are equally as bad, if not worse, as they should probably know better.
 
Muttley said:
There is no debate. Andy is right, the evidence supports his position and you are just making yourself look silly.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
What because you can't be bothered to look any deeper than the headline? If I am wrong, which I may be, point me to a robust reasearch project on the efficacy of masks? If it is as robust as you seem to think I will have to agree and you win the debate Mutley.

If there is no debate it's largely because you are full of soundbites with no substance.

Go on, one research paper on the efficacy of masks that proves your point?
 
Andy_W said:
Your questions, which are effectively a conspiracy theory against the advisors and governments of the entire world, is based on nothing.

I do believe what I want, thanks, I believe in experts too, and I trust that others in key roles (experts normally) are advising policymakers based on the best information, not what they can find on google, sat at home in their underpants.

I'm saying people who don't listen to experts are morons, they're not a moron for having a differing view to me, they're a moron for not listening to, or questioning experts (and the world consensus of specialists who know a lot more than they do).

People that raise questions, but with no evidence or qualifications to raise them are equally as bad, if not worse, as they should probably know better.
Click to expand...
No idea what you just said Andy, are you saying I dont listen to or question experts? That is all I have done on this thread. I bothered to read 2 studies, both were seriously flawed. I have read several prior to these, one "proving" that wearing masks were ineffective, they were all flawed.

They are flawed because you cannot use a control group when you have a deadly virus.

The best one I looked at was a study of flu where they did have a control group. It found the efficacy of masks was around 7%. Does that translate to Covid? I am not sure, mainly because of the particle size of flu versus covid, I don't know. The flu study concluded that if you wear a mask or not, particulates very quickly saturate the air and the mask, at that point has no effect, there is already a viral load in the air.

As things stand, I think we are about done. You may carry on and assume the reports you skimmed are accurate, robust and meaningful, they may well be, I don't know, I haven't read what you have read. The link Bear provided has conclusions from other reports, 2 of which I read fully, their conclusions were hardly overwhelming.
 
Laughing said:
What because you can't be bothered to look any deeper than the headline? If I am wrong, which I may be, point me to a robust reasearch project on the efficacy of masks? If it is as robust as you seem to think I will have to agree and you win the debate Mutley.

If there is no debate it's largely because you are full of soundbites with no substance.

Go on, one research paper on the efficacy of masks that proves your point?
Click to expand...
Sometimes you don't need to dig, and all that happens when you do go digging is you end up in a big hole, and you're not going to get out of it by digging more.
 
Laughing said:
Oh do be quiet boromart, or, and it's just an idea, surely you can provide me with a resource that has a robust methodology.
Click to expand...
oh stop being condescending, you really are embarrassing yourself. You are lost in a haze of conspiracy, based on nothing but a distrust of authority and experts....it's not even a healthy scepticism, it's just loony tune entrenched nonsense.
 
Course they can't they can shout really loudly and then call you a conspiracy theorist though. Here's to unity! 👍🏻
I think it might be time to let this thread go direction bin.
 
Laughing said:
No idea what you just said Andy, are you saying I dont listen to or question experts? That is all I have done on this thread. I bothered to read 2 studies, both were seriously flawed. I have read several prior to these, one "proving" that wearing masks were ineffective, they were all flawed.

They are flawed because you cannot use a control group when you have a deadly virus.

The best one I looked at was a study of flu where they did have a control group. It found the efficacy of masks was around 7%. Does that translate to Covid? I am not sure, mainly because of the particle size of flu versus covid, I don't know. The flu study concluded that if you wear a mask or not, particulates very quickly saturate the air and the mask, at that point has no effect, there is already a viral load in the air.

As things stand, I think we are about done. You may carry on and assume the reports you skimmed are accurate, robust and meaningful, they may well be, I don't know, I haven't read what you have read. The link Bear provided has conclusions from other reports, 2 of which I read fully, their conclusions were hardly overwhelming.
Click to expand...
They might all have flaws, most peoples research does have flaws, it doesn't mean it goes from worthwhile to worthless in one minute, especially when critiqued by someone who isn't qualified to critique it.

There was seemingly a hell of a lot of people involved in the work in the reports, and I would bet that every single one of them knows more than you and knows more than me. I bet they're more than well aware of any "flaws" you have provided. It does not make the conclusions wrong, it may make it less accurate, but it's unlikely to be wildly wrong as someone more skilled (involved in it) would probably have realised this.

You (someone not qualified) has probably spent half an hour reading something and formed a conclusion, yet you're doubting the conclusion of the 20 people who had a hand in it, who probably spent weeks or months on it, and were happy to put their name to it.
 
Last edited:
Andy_W said:
They might all have flaws, most peoples research does have flaws, it doesn't mean it goes from worthwhile to worthless in one minute, especially when critiqued by someone who isn't qualified to critique it.
Click to expand...
I listed some of the flaws in the only covid study and you ignored them. The study was not just flawed it was nonsense for the reasons I have given. Go look at the table for the questionnaire
 
Andy_W said:
They might all have flaws, most peoples research does have flaws, it doesn't mean it goes from worthwhile to worthless in one minute, especially when critiqued by someone who isn't qualified to critique it.
Click to expand...
or is capable of offering an alternative theory on why creating a physical barrier between a person infected with a respiratory virus wouldn't work.
 
Laughing said:
I listed some of the flaws in the only covid study and you ignored them. The study was not just flawed it was nonsense for the reasons I have given. Go look at the table for the questionnaire
Click to expand...
What is your profession, and what are your qualifications?
Do you have any qualifications in any medical field or virology?

Here, e-mail this guy and tell him what the study has done wrong and that it's nonsense:
jphoward@usfca.edu
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top