Lets start with this one. Do you have any idea how lowly the WHO is considered by the BMA? The WHO should never be a starting point for scientific consesus.
Andy this is laughable given your posts about why we should be quicker releasing restrictions.
Show me the science that masks make a difference indoors? It's been done to death to your satisfaction, not in general. Bad science mate.
Again the use of the word consensus. So what is fantastic scientific consesus that you speak off? Apparently not that we should lock down any more. You want everything opened, apart from standing in pubs, cos the scientific consensus says thats bad.. Show me that scientific consesus?
Opinion opinion opinion. Show me the scientific consesus?
opinion opinion opinion, show me the scientific concesus?
You use opinion like it's science. It isnt.
I am not saying you are wrong, I by and large agree, not with everything you say, but I recognise that's my opinion, you, wrongly use scientific consensus in completely the wrong way, then criticise people for their opinions.
This is my last one....thought it would be polite to reply, but I won't reply any more after this
The WHO isn't necessarily a starting point, as it is generic, but those that know more are (asia early days), had we listened at the start (prevent, test, track, trace, isolate etc), it would have been much easier. Knowledge has progressed, as it always does, and most of what the WHO have advised has helped. I'd agree with most of this, so would the BMA and our government:
Simple precautions to reduce your chances of being infected or spreading COVID-19.
www.who.int
The BMA advise masks, face shields, distancing, hand washing, limiting time etc, they effectively advise the government IPC, and they directly link to it.
Guidance on infection prevention and control for seasonal respiratory infections including SARS-CoV-2.
www.gov.uk
literally, all of the respectable governments/ countries realise that masks work, along with lockdown and social distancing. There are zero governments/ large countries against mask use and distancing, when cases are high or increasing, pretty much every country that got hit hard got forced to take lockdown measures, and pretty much followed some, most or all of WHO guidance.
I answer everything in-depth, probably way OTT, but I'm generally thorough anyway. I find this type of debate interesting and have a lot of free time now. The thing is, I get a response to about 10% of it, as people can't debate the 90% of BS I point out that they wrote. I could post 10 things, and someone may disagree with one, which is fine, but they don't even acknowledge the other 9, which is the problem. In real life people can't really do this, which is why things cut to the chase quick in conversation, but drag out over time online.
I've yet to see any science, that says ever wearing a mask in close proximity, in any environment would do harm. It's up to others to prove otherwise, I've got common sense, basic physics and most of the world on my side. They're arguing against this so should have plenty of studies proving so, right?
Please reply to the below and explain line by line why my (the world's assumptions) would be wrong (an abbreviated version of the previous paragraph you glossed over).
Masks physically stop larger droplets, going to a face or contamination of the local area (for someone else to touch)
The NHS even go one further and wear a face shield in some instances.
Masks also reducing viral load into atmosphere, it has to, as it can't not do.
The nations and states which were against mask use, are now suggesting mask use (or at least where once their cases started rising).
Who has done a good job without social distancing and masks?
Ventilation, cleaning, distancing, not mixing in close proximity with unknowns will also help, but they help whether wearing a mask or not.
Lockdowns, everywhere in the world that had a problem, locked down to help them get out of it, some have done it a few times, it works, there's your consensus.
Risk is a sliding scale, see practically every risk assessment ever written. If you increase risk, you increase death/ injury, unless you decrease occurrence at a scale that can overcome that increased risk. Increasing the risk and occurrence, is bad in two ways, just like the number gets bigger on any multiplication if you increase the positive number on the left, or the positive on the right, increasing both is never good, ever.
Why do you want scientific consensus on my opinion? It's my opinion, I said it's my opinion. Anyway, we're not in excess, it's a fact, we came out of that about a month ago, check ONS out. Anyone with a C in maths can probably figure that out, so I think any scientist could, so I'll assume a consensus on that one.
My opinion is aligned with what the successful governments and countries are advising, and those that have overcome problems quickly, and I assume they all have something like SAGE or listen to what the WHO are saying, and they have used to get out of their problems. My "opinion" is formed from common sense (common sense in what the successful nations have done), and I trust they've not just winged it and are following science more and more, not less and less.
You say others "opinions" like they have equal value to mine, most do (like you mostly do), some don't, those that disagree with me probably aren't equal value. Not because I know more, not at all, no way, that's not what I'm saying in the slightest, but because the foundation of my opinion is based on what the world is using to combat this problem. That might come across as arrogant or dismissive, but it's not to me or on behalf of me, or if so it is arrogance or being dismissive on the part of those who the world seems to be listening to (mostly).
Others are fine to have an alternate opinion, that's great, it would be boring otherwise, but the onus is on them to prove why they have that countering opinion. If they have a ton of evidence proving the entire world is wrong, then great, I'd love to see that, but they don't, so they try and cherry-pick minute points, which cover about 2% of what is out there.
I would love for there not to be a need for masks, social distancing, lockdowns, closing pubs etc, as there's nothing I like better than being stood in a group, having a laugh and being able to chat with my mates etc. If I could argue against restrictive measures I would, but when things get bad I can't/ won't, they're necessary. I don't think they're bad now (based on cases/ deaths/excess/my opinion), so I don't think they are necessary (mostly). But I accept they could get bad again (although unlikely).
Anyway, enough now, for everyone's sake
It will mostly over soon enough, for the UK hopefully, the ROW still mostly has a long way to go.
