Which relies on the classic formulation "could take as little as". In other words, the worst case. There is no comparable statement about more typical outcomes.
Well you keep twisting my wording to suit your own bias but I will try and simply make the following points before calling it a day
You advanced it as demonstrating support for your views.
No, I'm saying that if work is done in a way that is fundamentally flawed, it is impossible to agree or disagree with the conclusion of the study based on what is in that work.
As above, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the conclusion, because I judge the input to be insufficient to support drawing any conclusions. As for your logic, I'm happy to accept your assurance on the point, but you may want to consider the clarity of your posting, because on re-reading, it still leaves me with the impression that this is the case you are advancing.
Because the reaction to this study effectively illustrates the reactions to mask wearing, in particular the demands of many that we identify as "for" or "against" it.
Policy makers do not always have the benefit of perfect information, and have to use their judgment and the advice of their advisors to decide what policy to follow. In our system, however flawed, they are accountable through Parliament and the ballot box. Meanwhile, ultra-partisan "studies" like this do nothing to help provide the information needed to determine what appropriate policy might be in future.
Indeed. But I note you do not quote my opinion on the data point, or it's utility. Had you done so, it would be obvious that I am not advocating for or against masks in my reaction to this.How convenient again
No, my argument is the simple arithmetical one that there is not necessarily an incompatibility between your argument on "flimsy masks" and the view of supporters of masks that such masks could be worthwhile. Using the (very simplistic) numbers I used in my illustration, the answer lies in whether you consider a 250k reduction in case transmission worthwhile - a value judgment, that flawed science does nothing to help illuminate.
I agree that meta-analyses are less robust than individual RCTs, especially where they are based on observational studies rather than RCTs. But that is my point - if the meta-analysis is sound, and the contributing studies validly weighted, then one would not expect such a dramatic outlier within the results. When the study is presenting a message that "lockdowns don't work", but includes within it's data table a finding that one of the key measures associated with "lockdowns" has a measurable effect, eyebrows will raise.
Well, if you're brave enough to try to strap Widdecombe to rocks, I'll not stop you. But I'm not sure what hypothesis you'd be working within if trying that - there is at least a prima facie case that if a disease is viral, and those infected export it when breathing, that reducing human contact and/or limiting the exhalation of droplets could significantly reduce the spread of that virus. Judging by what was known and experienced in 2020, it does not seem inherently unreasonable to have taken those measures at that time.
How many times do we have to explain this, Meta analyses are okay, but specific arguments shouldn't be trusted if they contradict the evidence from high-quality randomised control trials.
So lets say that you're in a spacecraft in low earth orbit, trying to rendezvous with another spacecraft that is ahead of you, would you agree that on first glance it makes sense to use thrusters to try and speed up to move towards it?
I am aware that Antibodies are not the only method as I have stated previously, and prior to 2020 I was on a treatment which appears to have a better response to covid vaccines and likely other vaccines as well, but when I was diagnosed in 2018 i was advised to avoid crowded environments, and as a result of that I used public transport less and when I did use tried to avoid peak times, along with very busy pubs and such as music concerts or nightclubs the latter I'm to old for anyway.
Not at all. What words do you claim have been "twisted" and how were they "twisted"?
As I've said before, antibody response is pretty much meaningless when it comes to Sars-CoV-2 and similar viruses.
You appear to misunderstand how our immune system works and the role of antibodies.
www.theguardian.com
Your body will generate antibodies when needed (if you didn't, you'd be dead) and these are generated through B cells. In additon, T cells are key to fighting Sars-CoV-2 but you are unlikely to have had a T cell test because they are difficult to do.
For you, given your distrust of vaccines in your circumstances, yes that is exactly what I have been saying. That doesn't mean I, or anyone else, should wear them though!
But that was 2 years ago; the supply issues were sorted out long ago.
It is supportive of my views but that doesn't mean it was perfect and imperfections in this particular study do not negate the validity of my views.
So, you are conveniently saying you have no opinion on the subject?
How convenient!
My post introduced the article by saying "in further news..."; I wasn't stating it was flawless.
That's rich coming from you of all people!
That might be deemed by some to be a valid excuse for mandating masks in 2020 (though I don't agree) given the mistaken belief back then that transmission was based on larger droplets, but it's no excuse for recent mandates.
Except it isn't really, given there has been no recent election and there will be no election in the close enough future that ongoing Covid restrictions are going to be a topic on which people are going to vote on.
There is plenty of evidence against the effectiveness of lockdowns; that you disagree with the methodology of one particular study doesn't negate the broad quantity of evidence out there.
Yes you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to suggest you don't have any views so that you can't be 'disagreed' with; how convenient!
It's not "my" argument and it is not me who came up with the term "flimsy"; I refer you to the study I've linked to umpteen times already.
But there is no evidence that cases could have been reduced by this number; you ignore the numbers in places like France and Germany because you know it does not suit your argument.
As I said before, there is a lot evidence against lockdowns but it is difficult to come up with the sort of trials that would satisfy your demands for evidence. But the assumption must be that lockdowns are not proven to work until proof is made available that they do; there is no easy way to prove either way but there is more evidence against lockdowns than there is supporting lockdowns. You are keen to avoid discussing the effectiveness (or not!) of the Netherlands recent lockdown; I wonder why...
At the time maybe but to keep the lockdown in place for as long as was done, and to re-impose lockdowns, was unforgivable.
So why do you keep going on about them as if they are?
But you didn't wear a mask in 2018; why was that?
You've said that before; my answer remains the same as the last time you said it.
Some people like going round in circles. That's fine; I find it frustrating but I will continue to respond indefinitely for as long as such circular arguments are made, if that is what it takes!
I dont think I'm belittling the difference between High grade and low grade masks at all, that's why I have never worn a low grade mask except when I was forced to swap my FFP2 mask in hospital for a surgical mask which I wasn't overly impressed with.Not at all. What words do you claim have been "twisted" and how were they "twisted"?
You are the one making disingenuous comments, such as belittling the huge difference found in real world studies between tight fitting FFP3 masks and loose fitting masks and you don't like being challenged on that.
As I've said before, antibody response is pretty much meaningless when it comes to Sars-CoV-2 and similar viruses.
You appear to misunderstand how our immune system works and the role of antibodies.
People can have excellent immunity to Sars-CoV-2 without detectable antibody levels
People testing negative for Covid-19 despite exposure may have ‘immune memory’
Study says some individuals clear virus rapidly due to a strong immune response from existing T-cells, meaning tests record negative result
Your body will generate antibodies when needed (if you didn't, you'd be dead) and these are generated through B cells. In additon, T cells are key to fighting Sars-CoV-2 but you are unlikely to have had a T cell test because they are difficult to do.
You seem to be remarkably keen to downplay the effectiveness of vaccines, while bigging up the effectiveness of flimsy masks and suggesting the difference between flimsy and tight fitting masks is much less than the huge difference found in real world studies; why is this?
For you, given your distrust of vaccines in your circumstances, yes that is exactly what I have been saying. That doesn't mean I, or anyone else, should wear them though!
But that was 2 years ago; the supply issues were sorted out long ago.
But you didn't wear a mask in 2018; why was that?
You've said that before; my answer remains the same as the last time you said it.
Some people like going round in circles. That's fine; I find it frustrating but I will continue to respond indefinitely for as long as such circular arguments are made, if that is what it takes!
You said "higher grade masks appear to be more effective"; while not all analogies are equal, it's about as laughable as saying "a TGV appears to be faster than a go-kart".
Evidently you do; I've previously linked you to sources but clearly you are not interested.
https://www.macmillan.org.uk/coronavirus/vaccine
https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2022/01/26/covid-19-vaccine-and-cancer-latest-updates/
Unless you have any evidence to suggest that the vaccines are not effective in people undergoing such treatment, I don't think it's right to make any suggestion that they aren't effective.
I refer you to my quote above regarding the effectiveness of vaccines in people with compromised immune systems; did you choose not to read it?
Not suddenly, no. But that's a false premise fallacy; we do not need such masks.
Ah, so you are following a fad?
It's only "potentially more serious than 'flu" because our immunity to it is not yet as robust as the immunity we enjoy against 'flu; once the vast majority of people have been exposed to Sars-CoV-2, you can expect that to change. The gap between Sars-CoV-2 and 'flu is narrowing all the time, and in younger people 'flu is already more serious than Sars-CoV-2 (as are other pathogens such as RSV).
So you keep bashing on and bashing on that your the expert on this and everyone else is an idiot.
Yes - I think that is true.
There is nothing in that article to suggest vaccines are not effective.
There aren't any high-quality sufficiently powered randomised trials and for some things it's virtually impossible to do them. For example with lockdowns how on earth do you keep those assigned to intervention and control apart? You can't, so you then have cluster randomised trials where villages/cities are assigned to each arm. It's difficult enough trying to do that for voluntary mask measures, let alone anything more restrictive and need a large number of groups to avoid needing to adjust for differences within them.
You seem to basing this on one study that relies on a relatively simple model for risk during a volatile period for infections. While the upper bound and maximum likelihood estimate is high, omitting the lower bound ignores the wide confidence interval for the estimate. It's far from clear what the difference in effectiveness would be in a community setting and that's part of the challenge for masks as so much of the data is in healthcare settings.
That this study is not perfect is an understatement to say the least. Whilst it did find that mask-offered villages saw a 9.3% lower rate of covid compared to the control villages, the observation was limited mainly to outside and the local mosques. And this is unsurprising as that country does not have the same kind of indoor social interactions as say more developed countries, so for the most part indoor interactions are mainly restricted to the home. Furthermore the study found that the effectiveness of surgical masks varied widely depending on age group, with the older age groups (50 and over) seeing statistically significant reductions whereas younger groups saw practically no changes. Finally it also does concede that a proportion of the reduction in the test villages could have been from an observed increase in social distancing after masks were offered.
I think the issue I have with a lot of Mask studies is that they often equate the results of low-quality mechanistic trials with RCT's. Often placing too much emphasis on hamsters in cages/manequinns with masks/whatever.
Really most healthy people will develop antibodies with the covid vaccine, and even blood cancer patients on my previous treatment 59% developed antibodies compared to 0% on my current treatment according to a recent American study.. Measuring T Cell response is more difficult as you have already stated therefore it seems unclear whether the T response will be good or not. So will stick with my consultants views on the vaccine and level of risk for the moment thank you very much. In the cancer research article you point out which does look at T cell response I think you must be looking at a different article to me because the one I read indicates a significant difference in response between blood cancer and solid cancer patients.
Is your consultant suggesting the vaccines are ineffective?
Where does it say that? I see nothing in that article to suggest vaccines may not be effective for you.
Why do you now think masks protect against virus transmission if you didn't think that then?
An immunocompromised person would need to worry about all viruses, not just one to which they now have multiple doses of vaccine for.
You say you were "diagnosed in 2018 [and] advised to avoid crowded environments"; why was that advice given if you were not deemed immunocompromised then?
Effective FFP3 masks, when correctly worn/stored/handled do indeed protect against virus transmission, but there is no evidence to suggest that cloth masks will do anything to reduce case rates; therefore there is no basis for mandates, and instead people should be given information regarding the huge gulf in mask effectiveness so they can make their own choices.
Flimsy masks don't, that's right, and even those who support mandates generally agree with that!
FFP2 are still pretty effective, albeit not as much as FFP3s.
No; we have effective vaccines, so why would we go round wearing such masks en masse? It makes no sense.
You can't make people wear FFP3 masks and even if you could, you can't make people wear/store/handle/replace them correctly so it would not succeed in eliminating a deadly virus. In any case, this is pure 'whataboutery'
Yes older people are more likely to wear them than younger people.
Sorry by not perfect I was referring to how it was carried out rather than how conclusive the results were. There is a lot of detail in the paper, both on methodology and additional analysis to identify potential bias and checking with alternative approaches for impact on the results. For example they explored the differences by age along with approach for missing data which could explain a lot of the variation. Alternatively it could be that the mask usage varied by age which wasn't measured during observation (likely due to difficulties in doing so). The study in itself seems well carried out given the difficulties of this kind of study.
I agree. Nobody should be dictating to others about what they should be wearing (and mocking people who want to wear a mask isn’t OK).
It goes beyond dictating; there should be no suggestion that people should be wearing masks or that people who wear masks are somehow more "considerate" than those who don't!
Well I think I have made the points I want to make, even though I'm banging my head against a brick wall against such anti Maskers, time to call it a day I think.
Sadly yes. It would appear that you have good reason to be cautious at least in the foreseeable future and I hope that things improve both in terms of your health and also the restrictions you feel you need to apply to your life.
Don't worry the feeling is mutual.
