Laughing
Well-known member
Already done that twice. A barrier works if you are in close proximity for a short time, over a longer period I have explained why it becomes ineffective.
Covid deniers and anti maskers
- Thread starter jam69
- Start date
Laughing
Well-known member
Or point me in the direction of a robust study. I am the only one debating the facts. You fellas are just saying I am wrong because some scientists say so, and I am the conspiracy theorist.
It should be an easy argument for you.
BoroMart
Well-known member
it becomes LESS effective, that isn't the same as ineffective and no one is saying go indoors for four hours with a mask on with 20 other people and you will all be fine.
But at least you are now admitting that masks reduce the chance of catching the virus in certain circumstances....technically the reduce the chance in all, but are less effective the longer you are potentially exposed to people.
Andy_W
Well-known member
You didn't answer,
What is your profession, and what are your qualifications?
Do you have any qualifications in any medical field or virology?
You're not debating facts, you're not qualified to, I doubt anyone on here is. So nobody on here is qualified to fully critique or call a study "nonsense". That's like me ringing up Neil Warnock and telling him he doesn't have a clue, because he might have got one or two things wrong (in the view of the unqualified). He would tell me to "f**k off" I expect, and he would be right to do so.
The guys who wrote the report probably are qualified though, e-mail them, give them your qualifications and your viewpoint, tell them what they've done wrong and that their work is nonsense, and see what they come back with?
Here's the e-mail again in case you missed it: jphoward@usfca.edu
Laughing
Well-known member
I never said they are completely ineffective, I actually said they probably help in certain circumstances. Not sure I have changed anything. My point was and still is, people who think masks are ineffective are not morons.
There are plenty of studies that agree masks are ineffective. It's a low impact strategy so why wouldn't you recommend it,which is exactly why the WHO recommended it.
BoroMart
Well-known member
so what you are saying is they ARE effective, at least partially?
Laughing
Well-known member
Then your not qualified to call someone a moron given you don't even understand the studies.
I did computer science at uni and have no virology experience, but I have worked 10 years of my 30 year career in r & d so I understand scientific methodology, and that's all you need to see poor assumptions in the methodology.
Andy_W
Well-known member
You're not qualified to say that me calling someone is a moron is incorrect. Given that I come across quite a lot of morons, on a daily basis, that are against the use of masks "because covid isn't real", it's obvious that a lot of them are, but I'm not even on about those.
I'm calling unqualified people that disagree with experts morons, as I believe that the entire world is enacting policies based on the advice of experts.
Despite 10 years in R&D, you can't figure out that your viewpoint is that of an extreme minority, which no major government is enacting. Most of those in responsible and developed countries are advised by a massive team of scientists and experts in the field you're not an expert in, which massively outranks your 10 years of R&D in an unrelated field.
The conclusion of the experts, those in medical professions, governments, the WHO is "wear a mask, it's going to be a net benefit".
Let me know when you get your e-mail back form the contact in the study
Laughing
Well-known member
This really is pointless Andy. You have addressed none of my points and we are going round in circles. I already explained why WHO advice is to wear a mask. In June last year the WHO changed their advice from not wearing masks to wearing masks due to "evolving evidence". You might ask what this evolving evidence was. The evolving evidence was simply that asymptomatic people could pass the virus on. That is it. So in reality gthey had no real argument for changing their advice. They did so because it cannot do any harm, assuming all other factors stay the same.
Are you trying to tell me that the WHO were morons prior to June 2020?
I will assume you will say they changed their mind due to new studies, they really didn't, they changed their mind because it couldn't hurt.
As I say I am done, you insult people and you don't understand the evidence nor have you even tried to.
Try and be nice to folks, it costs you nothing.
Andy_W
Well-known member
It is pointless, I agree with you on that at least.
The evolving evidence as far as I can tell was more of a realisation that the mask could likely do more to prevent the virus from getting out than getting in, which I can agree with, basically as it's impossible not to.
But also, as for what you write, asymptomatic spread is an absolutely massive deal though, to think it isn't is a big mistake. This means people who don't know they have it, going to supermarkets, offices and the like, mask or no mask the symptomatic are a massive part of the problem.
Someone that has it and has symptoms should be at home, they pose less risk than someone walking around that doesn't know they have it. The guy that doesn't know he has it, wearing a mask is less risk to others, basically because it has to be.
The key thing here though is I don't have access to all the evidence, I'm not an expert in reviewing it, and I believe that people know more than you and know more than me. The thing is I'm willing to believe what they say without digging forever and writing comments which could undermine mask-wearing.
You've insulted me many times, directly, so climb down form your artificial high horse.
Also, try not undermining mask rules/ use, it might help stop the spread of disinformation, or prevent the uneducated from getting the wrong idea, that might actually save some lives, which is more important than being nice in my book.
Laughing
Well-known member
For me it is not about digging trying to prove an expert wrong, its an interest in a current, inportant subject. I have an interest in science and pursue it, nothing more nothing less.It is pointless, I agree with you on that at least.
The evolving evidence as far as I can tell was more of a realisation that the mask could likely do more to prevent the virus from getting out than getting in, which I can agree with, basically as it's impossible not to.
But also, as for what you write, asymptomatic spread is an absolutely massive deal though, to think it isn't is a big mistake. This means people who don't know they have it, going to supermarkets, offices and the like, mask or no mask the symptomatic are a massive part of the problem.
Someone that has it and has symptoms should be at home, they pose less risk than someone walking around that doesn't know they have it. The guy that doesn't know he has it, wearing a mask is less risk to others, basically because it has to be.
The key thing here though is I don't have access to all the evidence, I'm not an expert in reviewing it, and I believe that people know more than you and know more than me. The thing is I'm willing to believe what they say without digging forever and writing comments which could undermine mask-wearing.
You are right the asymptomatic spread is a huge thing, but that was discovered in february of last year. It was another 5 months before the WHO changed their advice. They pinned it on asymptomatic transmission, nothing more nothing less.
I will say it one more time, I think masks probably have a small clinical advantage and they cause no harm so why wouldn't you wear one. My point is still you started name calling, it wasn't necessary and wasn't accurate.
Have a good evening.
Andy_W
Well-known member
I think undermining things which are there to protect does a lot of damage, it's not so much the people that are intelligent that are doing the undermining (you fall into this category), it's the others that read this and put 2 + 2 together and get 5 (the morons who I see every single day).
The WHO were probably late advising it, but it doesn't make it wrong, they may have been waiting on more evidence, or been blindsided by thinking about masks protecting the wearer, rather than what masks can do to protect others. It might have also been to do with that there weren't enough masks, and they may have thought a panic of those without masks could have caused other issues (like stopping them going where most needed, healthcare environments).
I think masks are a big help (good quality masks even better) and an important piece of the puzzle, when a lot of what we do has the R balancing around 0.7-1.3 anything can help a massive amount. I think we should have gone a lot further and pushed for more FFP3 masks for those most at risk, but we've likely not done this due to supply.
Have a good one
