The case for and against the effectiveness of face coverings and the mandating of their use

[Green tractor]

Which brings us full circle back to the start again.

The alleged tiny "difference" they make is NOT enough to outweigh the significant "costs" of wearing the near-useless ones, to physical and mental health, to the environment, and to victims of crime.

What cost to health?? If you are exempt, you are exempt. Victims of crime? I presume you mean the people for whom they bring back bad memories of being raped or similarly having a hand held over their mouth, again they are/were exempt. If a drug had been discovered that reduced the spread of the virus by 10% it would be seen as a very positive move in the right direction.

 

[Busaholic]

The point I'm making is that certain folk keep saying that those who have been careful and following the rules/guidance are somehow wimps, the above blog post shows the reality. Saying that people who care about other people and are bothered by this are weak minded is beyond me. I do realise there is more to life than covid, and life has to return to normal at some point. I wonder if Freightmaster thinks the medical staff who now have PTSD because of the excessive number of deaths they have witnessed are 'weak minded?'

Though it may seem that covid matters have completely dominated this forum in the last eighteen months, it's probably only a small percentage of members who even look at this section these days, and a tiny percentage who actually post on the multiplicity of threads (like Topsy, they grow exponentially.) The phenomenon of Groupthink certainly seems prevalent, and grows ever more strident. Individualism is to the fore and Collectivism decried. Individualism brought us Brexit of course, and we can all see the resounding success that has been and is going to be.

I do not understand @Green tractor 's argument either; no-one mentioned wimps until @Green tractor did.

It is true that the messaging regarding Covid has caused a lot of upset and alarm and this is vastly disproportionate when looking at the bigger picture and considering all of the other ailments, illnesses and dangers that exist.

If anything @Green tractor's post is good evidence that we need to abolish face coverings and get back to normal as they are a sign that we should not trust vaccines; that we are not in normal times; that we have something to fear. In reality, the vaccines are highly effective and even before the vaccines the average age of a Covid death was 82, and there is every reason to be positive and not have a culture of fear.

Post 455 for instance? I can't be bothered to trawl back any further than that, but there certainly have been others making far worse claims than 'wimpery.'

Your inference is that as long as the average age of covid deaths is (or. rather,was) 82 then that's alright, nothing to see here. Can you provide a more up-to-date figure from official sources that we may scrutinise?

 

[takno]

I'll bite, at 10% then pre vaccine they were worth trying, post vaccine they make such a small difference that is not worth the effort.

Starting at 100 cases with each person infection 3, without on the left whilst with face covering giving 10% protection in brackets:

Pre vaccine
300 (270)
900 (729)
2,700 (1,970)
8,100 (5,320)
24,300 (14,365)
72,900 (38,785)

Cases rise rapidly in both, however the numbers on the left go up faster.

However obviously that's in an ideal world and as anyone knows we rarely do exactly as we should as a species and so we'd likely to see a much smaller gap between the two - however that's not the point, the point is the impact on this second set of numbers.

If we assume vaccine gives 80% protection, and everything else is equal then this is what happens when we start at 10,000 (again with masks is in brackets):
6,000 (5,700)
3,600 (3,078)
2,160 (1,662)
1,296 (898)
778 (485)
467 (262)

Now whilst we still we've up with about half the cases after 6 weeks when wearing masks the difference is a few hundred rather than a few tens of thousands.

As such, by the time you factor in them not being used right then the difference isn't really worth the effort, expense, etc.

It's why I think that they were worth trying, but now that the majority have had chance to have the vaccine that it's time that their use wasn't encouraged (sure let those who wish to do so to carry on, but explain to them why the rest of us won't be doing so).

the 10% figure is the reduction in the amount of aerosols escaping into the atmosphere. You only need to inhale a fraction of those aerosols to catch the virus, so the risk of spread between the wearer and nearby strangers is likely to ve reduced by far less than 10% - perhaps less than 1%. In practice a large proportion of the spread is between people who don't wear masks around each other because they live together, or amongst people who encounter each other regularly, so if instead of taking the 10% figure you took a 0.5% figure you might be closer to fair. You would probably achieve more by subsidizing baked beans and hoping the subsequent emissions would encourage people to keep their distance from each other more.

 

[yorkie]

I wish more pro-maskers were aware of the science around FFP3 masks. If they were, they could simply wear those, and not concern themselves so much with what the rest of us are doing!

Sadly not as their aim is to impose an authoritarianism by mandating that others wear ineffective masks.

The fact that they can choose to wear effective masks if they feel the protection from the vaccine is inadequate, does not satisfy them because that isn't their aim.

By mandating masks, they gain the satisfaction of seeing people complying with their mass virtue signalling campaign.

When arguing with people who are pro-mask, I will make this point but they will always change the subject and deflect from the fact that FFP3 masks offer near 100% protection to the wearer, as that's not what they want to hear.

But

What cost to health?? If you are exempt, you are exempt. Victims of crime? I presume you mean the people for whom they bring back bad memories of being raped or similarly having a hand held over their mouth, again they are/were exempt.

There are many costs. There is the environmental cost, the phycological cost; they symbolise a state of dystopia and that we are not in normal times that for some is dis-concerting, there is the hassle and faff of obtaining them, replacing or washing them; most people do not seem to replace/wash them as often as recommended.

They are off-putting, which could have economic costs as well as pushing some people away from public transport onto more harmful, damaging and less safe modes of transport.

Mass mask wearing has a huge cost for people who are hard of hearing and can be harmful for children's development. We do not just communicate through listening to speech and face masks do inhibit both visual and verbal communication.

All of this has been mentioned before but you seem to refuse to be taking this in.

If a drug had been discovered that reduced the spread of the virus by 10% it would be seen as a very positive move in the right direction.

There is no way standard face masks reduce the spread of the virus by 10%; the article does not claim that. You just made it up.

What the article appears to be saying is that standard masks only reduced aerosol particles by 10%; therefore 90% of the aerosol particles do get through. If someone is highly infectious then such a small reduction is not going to stop anyone around them being infected.

There is no evidence that mask mandates have reduced virus transmission in any country or region where they have been imposed; indeed in most places cases have risen significantly after such mandates were imposed.

Though it may seem that covid matters have completely dominated this forum in the last eighteen months, it's probably only a small percentage of members who even look at this section these days, and a tiny percentage who actually post on the multiplicity of threads (like Topsy, they grow exponentially.) The phenomenon of Groupthink certainly seems prevalent, and grows ever more strident. Individualism is to the fore and Collectivism decried. Individualism brought us Brexit of course, and we can all see the resounding success that has been and is going to be.

What's Brexit got to do with masks?

How do you define "individualism"? If you want our culture to be like China, then you can be assured we are not going to accept that and we will push back and reject this.

Post 455 for instance? I can't be bothered to trawl back any further than that, but there certainly have been others making far worse claims than 'wimpery.'

If you object to something, feel free to state your objection and what it is you object to and we can debate it.

Your inference is that as long as the average age of covid deaths is (or. rather,was) 82 then that's alright, nothing to see here.

I refer you to what I actually said, and not what you think I said.

Can you provide a more up-to-date figure from official sources that we may scrutinise?

I was wrong; it's actually 83.

Average age of those who had died with COVID-19 - Office for National Statistics

www.ons.gov.uk

	Median age in years	Median age in years	Mean age in years	Mean age in years
	Involving COVID-19	Due to COVID-19	Involving COVID-19	Due to COVID-19
Persons	83	83	80.3	80.4
Male	81	81	78.6	78.7
Female	85	85	82.3	82.

Meanwhile, there is very little attention paid to ailments that affect younger people as all the attention is on Covid, and the focus is wrongly on wearing masks as a means to reduce Covid cases, which simply serves to undermine confidence in the vaccines and create division and a huge distraction.

Masks should cease to be recommended with immediate effect, with the exception that those who are genuinely at risk are given the clear facts about the effectiveness off FFP2/FFP3 masks so that they can make a personal choice to wear one if they wish.

But for the authoritarians it's all about exercising control over us, which makes me want to push back even more.

The announcement on my LNER train today just entrenched my view even more, and it was great to see most people did not pay any attention to it. The false claim was made that they are to "protect us" and that they indicate "respect" and "consideration" for others; no they do not. This is absolutely demonstrably false and I hope as many people as possible fight back against this nonsense.

 

[The Ham]

the 10% figure is the reduction in the amount of aerosols escaping into the atmosphere. You only need to inhale a fraction of those aerosols to catch the virus, so the risk of spread between the wearer and nearby strangers is likely to ve reduced by far less than 10% - perhaps less than 1%. In practice a large proportion of the spread is between people who don't wear masks around each other because they live together, or amongst people who encounter each other regularly, so if instead of taking the 10% figure you took a 0.5% figure you might be closer to fair. You would probably achieve more by subsidizing baked beans and hoping the subsequent emissions would encourage people to keep their distance from each other more.

The point I was making wasn't that 10% is the rate of reduction, rather that even at a 10% reduction in infections there's no point in having masks now that we have all had a chance to be vaccinated (at least once for those who are younger, but both doses for the majority of the adult population).

 

[takno]

The point I was making wasn't that 10% is the rate of reduction, rather that even at a 10% reduction in infections there's no point in having masks now that we have all had a chance to be vaccinated (at least once for those who are younger, but both doses for the majority of the adult population).

I think by making that argument we just open up mandatory masks as a "potentially useful" response to any airborne virus that comes along. That's dangerous because they crowd out more useful interventions in addition to their own inherent problems.

Added to which your 80% effectiveness figure seems rather on the high side for the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing the spread

 

[yorkie]

The point I was making wasn't that 10% is the rate of reduction, rather that even at a 10% reduction in infections there's no point in having masks now that we have all had a chance to be vaccinated (at least once for those who are younger, but both doses for the majority of the adult population).

If there was a 10% reduction in infections due to the wearing of flimsy masks, many people would argue that would be reason enough to mandate them, but the reality is they are nowhere near that effective and indeed there is no real-world evidence they are effective even to a rate of 1%.

FFP3 masks were found to be pretty much 100% effective when worn correctly in a Covid ward, so anyone who is concerned can be protected without them having to worry about what other people are or aren't wearing. And yet such people are highly bothered about what others are doing because it's about something very different; control.

Incidentally, I note Covid cases are going up rapidly in Scotland, despite the continuing mandation of masks in Scotland; if flimsy loose fitting face coverings were effective, how could that be?

I recall a few weeks ago, a member claiming that rates in England were higher than Scotland because of the mask mandate continuing in Scotland; such a claim seems absolutely laughable now.

 

[bramling]

What cost to health?? If you are exempt, you are exempt. Victims of crime? I presume you mean the people for whom they bring back bad memories of being raped or similarly having a hand held over their mouth, again they are/were exempt. If a drug had been discovered that reduced the spread of the virus by 10% it would be seen as a very positive move in the right direction.

There’s doesn’t seem to be evidence of even the 10%. If we think back, at the time the view coming out of the medical profession was that masks could if anything make matters worse, by providing the perfect mechanism of transmission from surfaces to the face. This certainly seemed highly plausible to me, especially when at the time hand sanitisation was the big thing. Who knows what’s really the case, as it now seems to be the general view that aerosols are the big thing.

I agree with the majority view here that masks aren’t worth the bother set against the various negatives which go with them. Distancing was more effective, yet quite a few mask fanatics seemed to feel masks were a substitute for that.

 

[hst43102]

Which brings us full circle back to the start again.

The alleged tiny "difference" they make is NOT enough to outweigh the significant "costs" of wearing the near-useless ones, to physical and mental health, to the environment, and to victims of crime.

And the contribution to the treasury of the CCP. Not sure why nobody seems to notice that almost every bit of ppe/facemasks/plastic screens/one way stickers etc is made in China.

 

[seagull]

What cost to health?? If you are exempt, you are exempt.

And how many are exempt or should be exempt but dare not stand out for fear of green tractors lecturing them?

 

[The Ham]

If there was a 10% reduction in infections due to the wearing of flimsy masks, many people would argue that would be reason enough to mandate them, but the reality is they are nowhere near that effective and indeed there is no real-world evidence they are effective even to a rate of 1%.

Again the point being that once you've got something like the vaccine which is much, much better at stopping the spread of the virus the overall impact of mask wearing is reduced.

The reason that I used the 10% figure was so that those who supported the idea of continued mask wearing couldn't say "you've used (say) 1% the report says 10%, so as it's 10% we should continue to wear masks."

As I wanted to show just how little difference masks make.

We can discuss the assumed figures that I've used (like should I be using a figure other than 3 as the newer variants are more transmissible), however it wasn't intended as a prediction of what will happen, rather to illustrate just how little difference masks (even on optimistic reduction numbers) would make in the greater scheme of things.

Added to which your 80% effectiveness figure seems rather on the high side for the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing the spread

Depends on the variant of the virus, which then alters the infection rate.

A higher infection rate would likely show up as a lower effectiveness rate in vaccinated people.

For instance 90% protection against something that causes 3 to be infected could well mean for every 100 cases you start with you see 30.

Now you change the variant so that it's more infections you may then 90 cases, but is that a lowering of the level of protection to 70% or is it that that rather than 3 people being infected by each case that it's now 9 or a bit of a mixture of the two.

As such I was comparing against the Alaph variant, so that I could compare pre vaccine levels on a comparable basis. The early data for the level of protection against the Alpha variant was 92% or 73% depending on the vaccine given, hence why I picked 80% to be a reasonable figure in that range.

Again we could play with the numbers, however the outcome would be the same, the overall impact from mask wearing once we've got the vaccine will be low, very low.

 

[Green tractor]

There are many costs. There is the environmental cost, the phycological cost; they symbolise a state of dystopia and that we are not in normal times that for some is dis-concerting

Well I'm sorry to tell you that being in the midst of a pandemic that has killed millions is not normal. If you get upset by seeing folk wearing masks (as you seem to) I suggest you move to an uninhabited island. A very small number of people will wear them indefinetly, a larger small minority will wear them when they have a cold, as is the custom in some Asian country's. You are going to have to get used to it.

What the article appears to be saying is that standard masks only reduced aerosol particles by 10%; therefore 90% of the aerosol particles do get through. If someone is highly infectious then such a small reduction is not going to stop anyone around them being infected.

Can you provide a scientific study to back this up?

The announcement on my LNER train today just entrenched my view even more, and it was great to see most people did not pay any attention to it. The false claim was made that they are to "protect us" and that they indicate "respect" and "consideration" for others; no they do not. This is absolutely demonstrably false and I hope as many people as possible fight back against this nonsense.

Not including you I presume? In the past couple of weeks you have made (and posted on this forum) a leisure trip to Scotland (where masks are mandatory) and also you have been bashing in Germany (where masks are mandatory on public transport) If you felt so strongly about having to wear a mask you wouldn't be doing these things.

 

[43066]

A very small number of people will wear them indefinetly, a larger small minority will wear them when they have a cold, as is the custon in some Asian country's. You are going to have to get used to it.

Most people with normal faculties will not wear masks long term. Obsessives and hypochondriacs might (although it’s interesting these same people weren’t wearing masks prior to Covid).

Can I ask: do you wear your mask when you’re in your own in the car?

If you felt so strongly about having to wear a mask you wouldn't be doing these things.

Maybe he simply ignored the “requirement”. That approach has worked very well indeed for me over the last 18 months.

Can you provide a scientific study to back this up?

Can you explain why you think the scientific consensus for the past 30 years + (ie that masks are ineffective) was wrong? It has only been changed as a result of political pressure as was expressly acknowledged by the WHO last year.

 

[kristiang85]

Well I'm sorry to tell you that being in the midst of a pandemic that has killed millions is not normal. If you get upset by seeing folk wearing masks (as you seem to) I suggest you move to an uninhabited island. A very small number of people will wear them indefinetly, a larger small minority will wear them when they have a cold, as is the custom in some Asian country's. You are going to have to get used to it.

This is another fallacy. Yes, in Japan (and maybe the likes of Singapore to an extent), masks are worn to help stop the spread of germs as people are still going into work when ill and they don't want to spread the germs on their commute - the usefulness has never really been proven, and in the UK we do not have this presenteeism (well, certainly not now anyway), so it is not really necessary for here.

Another reason the Japanese wear them is because there is a very high hay fever rate there, and they help keep pollen out of their passages. For that, they *do* work, given pollen particles are much larger than viral particles and most of the water droplets they travel on.

And finally, you see them in many asian cities to help mitigate against the pollution, not viruses.

Edit: I forgot to mention, that they are a fashion statement, and especially in Japan girls tend to wear them to hide the fact that they don't have makeup on, believe it or not.

Back in the SARS era, mask wearing was encouraged in these places for sure, but by no means fetishised the way it has been since. And some countries affected by SARS even told people not to wear masks at the time (e.g. Australia... https://www.smh.com.au/national/farce-mask-its-safe-for-only-20-minutes-20030427-gdgnyo.html)

Retailers who cash in on community fears about SARS by exaggerating the health benefits of surgical masks could face fines of up to $110,000.
NSW Fair Trading Minister Reba Meagher yesterday warned that distributors and traders could be prosecuted if it was suggested the masks offered unrealistic levels of protection from the disease.
"I'm sure everyone would agree that it is un-Australian to profiteer from people's fears and anxieties," Ms Meagher said.

"There appears to be some debate about whether surgical masks are able to minimise the effects of SARS."
Ms Meagher said her department would investigate any complaints about false mask claims which concerned the public.

 

[yorksrob]

I must admit, I'd tolerated wearing masks in the past when there was nothing better, and obviously they're a lot less problematic than lockdown, however I am quite alarmed at the way in which some countries are trying to make them into a more permanent fixture. I often read articles from the more centrist wing of the USA and I find it rather worrying the way some apparently sensible commentators presume an equivelance between wearing a face cloth and the proven efficacy of the vaccine.

 

[Green tractor]

Can I ask: do you wear your mask when you’re in your own in the car?

No, I have worn one in a car while taking my elderly dad to and from hospital though

 

[yorkie]

Well I'm sorry to tell you that being in the midst of a pandemic that has killed millions is not normal.

What's the relevance of this?

If you get upset by seeing folk wearing masks (as you seem to) I suggest you move to an uninhabited island. A very small number of people will wear them indefinetly, a larger small minority will wear them when they have a cold, as is the custom in some Asian country's. You are going to have to get used to it.

The reality is the proportion of people who are virtue signalling their distrust of vaccines by wearing masks continues to decline and therefore you are going to have to get used to seeing people unmasked.

Can you provide a scientific study to back this up?

Can you provide a real world scientific study to back up your claims that masks are effective? I've provided plenty of evidence, and at the bottom of this post I am going to link to yet more evidence, that standard flimsy face coverings are ineffective.

If you are claiming that a flimsy face covering, which a study indicates allows 90% of the aerosols to pass through it, is effective, where is your evidence for this?

Not including you I presume? In the past couple of weeks you have made (and posted on this forum) a leisure trip to Scotland (where masks are mandatory) and also you have been bashing in Germany (where masks are mandatory on public transport) If you felt so strongly about having to wear a mask you wouldn't be doing these things.

I did not know masks would be mandated in these places when I booked.

No, I have worn one in a car while taking my elderly dad to and from hospital though

If he is particularly vulnerable, it would have made more sense for him to wear an effective FFP3 mask, which would have rendered it completely irrelevant whether or not you wore a mask.

Out of interest, did you were an effective FFP3 mask or did you wear a standard flimsy loose fitting mask?

Just in, the following tweet from Prof Carl Henegan, which references a study on various Covid mitigation strategies in schools, including masks:

https://twitter.com/carlheneghan

COVID-19 mitigation measures in primary schools and association with infection in Wales, https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.20.21262349v1 ‘no evidence that face coverings, 2-metre social distancing or stopping children mixing was associated with lower odds of COVID-19 infection rates in school.’

A couple of key extracts form the report:

COVID-19 mitigation measures in primary schools and association with infection and school staff wellbeing: an observational survey linked with routine data in Wales, UK

Introduction School-based COVID-19 mitigation strategies have greatly impacted the primary school day (children aged 3-11) including: wearing face coverings, 2-metre distancing, no mixing of children, and no breakfast clubs or extra-curricular activities. This study examines these mitigation...

www.medrxiv.org

School staff reported the impacts of wearing face coverings on teaching, including having to stand closer to pupils and raise their voices to be heard.

I have witnessed this personally and other forum members have done so too; it is good to hear this being recognised.

There was no evidence that face coverings, 2-metre social distancing or stopping children mixing was associated with lower odds of COVID-19 or cold infection rates in the school. Primary school staff found teaching challenging during COVID-19 restrictions, especially for younger learners and those with additional learning needs.

Hopefully we can put to bed the idea that making kids wear face coverings is a good idea. Anyone who claims otherwise is not following real-world evidence based studies.

The wearing or mandating of standard loose fitting flimsy masks is pure virtue signalling; it is not following the science.

If people distrust the vaccines or are immunocompromised and require additional protection, they have the option to wear highly effective FFP3 masks.

The idea that other people should be told to wear standard flimsy face masks is absolutely absurd. Such mandates have done harm in many areas, particularly in education and to people who are hard of hearing and much more. It's not okay and I am going to continue to fight on this issue.

I must admit, I'd tolerated wearing masks in the past when there was nothing better, and obviously they're a lot less problematic than lockdown, however I am quite alarmed at the way in which some countries are trying to make them into a more permanent fixture. I often read articles from the more centrist wing of the USA and I find it rather worrying the way some apparently sensible commentators presume an equivelance between wearing a face cloth and the proven efficacy of the vaccine.

Indeed; we need to push back against masks while we can. I feel very lucky to live in England right now. Sweden was right all along.

 

[Green tractor]

If you believing prof Carl Hennegan then you are barking up the wrong tree. He just likes the sound of his own voice and has been wrong time after time. Every time there is a large rise in cases he goes very quiet.

You will continue to see people wearing face masks for the rest of your life, they will be very few in number eventually, but there will always be a few. I'm not getting angry by seeing people not wearing them, but seeing them seems to really wind you up, why?

You could of cancelled your trips if you felt so strongly about masks, but you chose not to. And you did report wearing one in Scotland elsewhere on the forum, so much for pushing back. I presume you will now be staying in England untill you can be 100% certain that you wont have to wear a mask anywhere.

Those of us who continue to wear masks in crowded public places are not doing it because we dont trust vaccines, where have you got that from?

I didn't have time to get a ffp 3 mask, it was a emergency, we did the best we could in the circumstances.



I have asked before, and I'll ask again, what is it you want to do that you now can't

 

[farleigh]

You will continue to see people wearing face masks for the rest of your life, they will be very few in number eventually, but there will always be a few. I'm not getting angry by seeing people not wearing them, but seeing them seems to really wind you up, why?

I think this is true and there will always be people that wear the ineffective masks (rather than the FFP3 ones).


There will always be people who believe that the earth is flat too.

 

[adc82140]

If you believing prof Carl Hennegan then you are barking up the wrong tree. He just likes the sound of his own voice and has been wrong time after time. Every time there is a large rise in cases he goes very quiet.

You will continue to see people wearing face masks for the rest of your life, they will be very few in number eventually, but there will always be a few. I'm not getting angry by seeing people not wearing them, but seeing them seems to really wind you up, why?

You could of cancelled your trips if you felt so strongly about masks, but you chose not to. And you did report wearing one in Scotland elsewhere on the forum, so much for pushing back. I presume you will now be staying in England untill you can be 100% certain that you wont have to wear a mask anywhere.

Those of us who continue to wear masks in crowded public places are not doing it because we dont trust vaccines, where have you got that from?



I have asked before, and I'll ask again, what is it you want to do that you now can't

So scientists that don't fit in with your agenda just "like the sound of their own voice". May I point you in the direction of Prof Neil Ferguson, who seems have gone quiet now that his predictions have proven to be exaggerated. Time after time.

 

[kristiang85]

If you believing prof Carl Hennegan then you are barking up the wrong tree. He just likes the sound of his own voice and has been wrong time after time. Every time there is a large rise in cases he goes very quiet.

If you believing prof Neil Ferguson then you are barking up the wrong tree. He just likes the sound of his own voice and has been wrong time after time. Every time there is a large fall in cases he goes very quiet.

 

[Green tractor]

So scientists that don't fit in with your agenda just "like the sound of their own voice". May I point you in the direction of Prof Neil Ferguson, who seems have gone quiet now that his predictions have proven to be exaggerated. Time after time.

Can you point me to all these predictions that have been wrong (note the plural) he did admit his most recent one on the easing of restrictions was wrong, any more?

There will always be people who believe that the earth is flat too.

Does this make you angry though, or can you accept it?

 

[adc82140]

Can you point me to all these predictions that have been wrong (note the plural) he did admit his most recent one on the easing of restrictions was wrong, any more

Ferguson's death predictions versus reality:

Foot and mouth : 150,000. Actual less than 200

BSE: 50,000. Actual 177

Bird Flu: 150,000. Actual 282

Swine Flu 65,000. Actual 457

Covid 500,000

 

[VauxhallandI]

Can you point me to all these predictions that have been wrong (note the plural) he did admit his most recent one on the easing of restrictions was wrong, any more?



Does this make you angry though, or can you accept it?

You could probably pick every single one he has made.

 

[RPI]

Can you point me to all these predictions that have been wrong (note the plural) he did admit his most recent one on the easing of restrictions was wrong, any more?



Does this make you angry though, or can you accept it?

Is there anything left in the bottom of your barrell to scrape? I mean, I think you're confused here, can you point to a single prediction that Ferguson has got right (even to the closest 10000)

 

[Richard Scott]

Does this make you angry though, or can you accept it?

Can accept this easily as flat earthers aren't expecting me to wear a pointless piece of cloth to "keep them safe".

 

[35B]

If you believing prof Neil Ferguson then you are barking up the wrong tree. He just likes the sound of his own voice and has been wrong time after time. Every time there is a large fall in cases he goes very quiet.

Possibly. But the point about Heneghan stands - not just wrong, but in some of his writing, deliberately misrepresenting study outcomes to make a partisan point (e.g. his Spectator piece on the Danmask study). So, without comment on the strength of the study he points to in the linked tweet, or of it's outcomes, his comment has a definite ring of he would say that, wouldn't he.

As for the specific conclusions of that paper, I note that it casts doubt on all forms of in-school mitigation, and instead emphasises that "reducing the number of direct non-household contacts is associated with lower risk of Covid-19 in the school and general infection for the individual". In the context of pandemic control, that statement could be read as implying that keeping children out of school may be the better policy - something that I suspect many on here (myself included) would be extremely uncomfortable with.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Is there anything left in the bottom of your barrell to scrape? I mean, I think you're confused here, can you point to a single prediction that Ferguson has got right (even to the closest 10000)

He won't ever admit any of his statements are wrong they just get ignored. Like the falsehood that "everyone wears masks in Japan"

 

[farleigh]

Does this make you angry though, or can you accept it?

No of course it does not make me angry.

I accept flat earthers and cloth mask wearers exist and there is little point in rational debate with them.

 

[yorkie]

@Green tractor can you make it clear who you are responding to please? If you are replying to a particular post, please quote the post concerned (or the relevant part of it)

If you believing prof Carl Hennegan then you are barking up the wrong tree. He just likes the sound of his own voice and has been wrong time after time. Every time there is a large rise in cases he goes very quiet.

Alright then:

If you believing [sic] prof Neil Ferguson then you are barking up the wrong tree. He just likes the sound of his own voice and has been wrong time after time. Every time there isn't a rise in cases he goes very quiet.

You will continue to see people wearing face masks for the rest of your life, they will be very few in number eventually, but there will always be a few. I'm not getting angry by seeing people not wearing them, but seeing them seems to really wind you up, why?

I don't really care if there are a small number of people doing this; if they are wearing FFP3 masks I will assume they are immunocompromised and are carrying out a proportionate and sensible precaution. If they are wearing standard flimsy masks then I will know they are simply misinformed and are victims of a misleading campaign. Providing they are not trying to suggest anyone else wears one then they can continue the fallacy if they wish

You could of cancelled your trips if you felt so strongly about masks, but you chose not to. And you did report wearing one in Scotland elsewhere on the forum, so much for pushing back. I presume you will now be staying in England untill you can be 100% certain that you wont have to wear a mask anywhere.

I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions, thank you very much.

Those of us who continue to wear masks in crowded public places are not doing it because we dont trust vaccines, where have you got that from?

If you do trust vaccines, why would a healthy vaccinated person wear a mask? It makes no sense.

I didn't have time to get a ffp 3 mask, it was a emergency, we did the best we could in the circumstances.

OK but a standard mask is ineffective; you can choose to wear an ineffective mask if you want but it's really little more than a placebo.

I have asked before, and I'll ask again, what is it you want to do that you now can't

It's not clear to me who you are addressing or what the purpose of your question is. But there are examples of local councils cancelling events in order to be seen to be 'safe', thus depriving their residents of attending events that there is no legal, moral or practicable reason that they should not be able to attend.