UK face coverings discussion

[big_rig]

I am content to wear a mask as a low cost, low risk intervention, and accept the validity of observational studies despite their less than conclusive results, but my own observations in Hong Kong don’t support your contention. When there in 2014, mask wearing was the exception and not the rule.

Strange phrasing for somebody who ‘is not arguing that mask wearing is of value for stopping community spread.’ For the millionth time, can you please provide the evidence and studies you cite in this post? Instead of dancing on the head of a pin?

 

[35B]

Strange phrasing for somebody who ‘is not arguing that mask wearing is of value for stopping community spread.’ For the millionth time, can you please provide the evidence and studies you cite in this post? Instead of dancing on the head of a pin?

Talk about quoting out of context. My position there was clear, and related to studies referenced in this thread at that time. My words are clear, and I stand by my view of a balance of risk - a balance that is similar to that proposed by @The Ham in post #6149. In other words, a judgement call.

On Heneghan, I am specifically commenting on the reaction to his comments about the Danmask study, and the use of that to “prove” something. If you, as someone demanding proof, cannot see the inconsistency, then I suggest the following passage from Matthews’s Gospel applies:

‘Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour, “Let me take the speck out of your eye”, while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour’s eye.

 

[big_rig]

So do masks stop covid or not (note that you have said both yes and no, so a clear one or the other would be appreciated)? And if so, where is the evidence? Very simple questions which I think there is greater interest in than some arcane dissection of an article about a study you haven’t read

 

[Skimpot flyer]

We really need to move on from masks. Things have got to the disturbing point where people now post rubbish on social media like how terrible it was that they were on a train and someone at the other end of the carriage didn’t have a mask over their nose. Such people should take a step back and look at themselves - it’s completely hysterical to be angered by people merely breathing.

People that are THAT scared really need to stay at home and bulk-order some cotton wool to wrap themselves in

 

[DB]

simple measures such as people not mixing, face masks, social distancing do have an impact. Yes they are not 100% pleasant but they are simple measures.

Evidence for the masks assertion, please!

 

[hwl]

Evidence for the masks assertion, please!

A recent Danish study that showed masks reduced transmission by 10-15% in addition to social distancing. Unfortunately as the study authors assumed a 50% reduction in addition to social distancing (what were they smoking to assume that?) the number of study participants was therefore too small to make it really useful (they only had enough funding for certain study size so fudged the numbers to get the go-ahead and get the funding) That didn't stop the Daily Mail rubbishing mask wearing by claiming 10-15% isn't significant. With UK regional Covid daily growth rates of -2% to +8%, that 10-15% reduction is very significant.

 

[initiation]

That didn't stop the Daily Mail rubbishing mask wearing by claiming 10-15% isn't significant

You do realise the paper itself said it wasn't significant? The Daily Mail had nothing to do with it.

 

[DB]

A recent Danish study that showed masks reduced transmission by 10-15% in addition to social distancing. Unfortunately as the study authors assumed a 50% reduction in addition to social distancing (what were they smoking to assume that?) the number of study participants was therefore too small to make it really useful (they only had enough funding for certain study size so fudged the numbers to get the go-ahead and get the funding) That didn't stop the Daily Mail rubbishing mask wearing by claiming 10-15% isn't significant. With UK regional Covid daily growth rates of -2% to +8%, that 10-15% reduction is very significant.

Which study specifically is this? Is it the one which Carl Henegan wrote an article on in the Spectator recently? If so, that 10% was not statistically significant and therefore shows nothing at all.

 

[hwl]

Which study specifically is this? Is it the one which Carl Henegan wrote an article on in the Spectator recently? If so, that 10% was not statistically significant and therefore shows nothing at all.

Because the sample size was only a quarter or less of that needed...

It shows that more work need to be done but there is some benefit (with big error bounds) on the basis of a limited study.

 

[DB]

Because the sample size was only a quarter or less of that needed...

It shows that more work need to be done but there is some benefit (with big error bounds) on the basis of a limited study.

Do you understand what statistical significance is?

 

[hwl]

Do you understand what statistical significance is?

Yes I do, unfornateley some people only want perfect answers and in some circumstance the best possible answer at that point in time is needed. The study also tried to answer the wrong but easier question on the impact of mask on the user catching covid vs the impact of masking reducing transmission of covid on to others which is where masks are meant to be more effective.
That study should not be the basis for not wearing masks

 

[DB]

Yes I do, unfornateley some people only want perfect answers and in some circumstance the best possible answer at that point in time is needed. The study also tried to answer the wrong but easier question on the impact of mask on the user catching covid vs the impact of masking reducing transmission of covid on to others which is where masks are meant to be more effective.
That study should not be the basis for not wearing masks

The study certainly has limitations, but it's attempting to prove a negative which is notoriously hard to do. How would you go about designing a real-world study which would show whether they reduced transmission rather than risk of infection? Given that most governments are forcing people known to be infected into isolation, I'm not sure how it could actually be done.

The normal state of society is not wearing masks, so the onus should be on those promoting them to demonstrate that they work (proving a positive is also much easier than proving a negative, and is the normal standard of proof). So where is this evidence that they work? We should be demanding studies which show why we SHOULD be wearing masks, not claiming that we should unless there is evidence showing why we shouldn't.

 

[hwl]

Viruses are transmitted whatever we do, handwashing is actually one of the better preventions but a lot of others are pointless.

Estimates of contact based transmission range from 10-20% hence the majority of measures have to be focused on airborne transmission as hand washing can't have huge overall impact despite being very effect at reducing contact based transmission.

 

[Richard Scott]

Estimates of contact based transmission range from 10-20% hence the majority of measures have to be focused on airborne transmission as hand washing can't have huge overall impact despite being very effect at reducing contact based transmission.

Please evidence, I'd be interested to see that.

 

[hwl]

Please evidence, I'd be interested to see that.

20% was in a SAGE report estimate in early August
10% was a CSIRO (Australian government science research body) estimate about 2 weeks after the SAGE one

 

[DB]

20% was in a SAGE report estimate in early August
10% was a CSIRO (Australian government science research body) estimate about 2 weeks after the SAGE one

Are these estimates based on anything beyond a guess?

SAGE estimates are certainly not something to be trusted.

 

[35B]

Are these estimates based on anything beyond a guess?

SAGE estimates are certainly not something to be trusted.

So we should trust random voices on here, but not the scientists providing advice to government?

I’m with @hwl on this; the cost and harm of mask wearing is minor in comparison to the potential good, and therefore it is on balance worthwhile.

As for how you’d design an proper randomised control trial for masks as a means of source control, I don’t know. My hunch is that you would have to find a confined group where you could differentiate between mask wearing and non mask wearing populations, then test extensively in the wider population to draw a conclusion. In practice I'm not sure how you’d implement that, or whether it would be ethical to deliberately expose a population to what was considered a higher risk.

I therefore return to my frustration at the recurring yells of a number of mask opponents. The arguments seem to be that if the analysis supports what they want, it is good, but if it does not, then it is fatally flawed. Demands are made for strong scientific evidence, yet it’s fine for one of their preferred voices to misrepresent research to make it appear something that it’s not.

As for masks being harmful (as opposed to simply being of no use), I’ve yet to see any evidence for that hypothesis whatsoever. And, for the avoidance of doubt, graphs that show mask mandates coinciding with increased cases are not evidence of anything except a coincidence of timing; there needs to be something to link the two before it becomes anything more than a parlour game.

I respect - while disagreeing with - those like @DavidB who argue that no intervention is justified until it can be fully proven to work; the rigour with which a medicine needs proving is greater than that for a low impact measure like mask wearing.

My frustration at Heneghan’s attempt to argue censorship is that this interesting voice has chosen to argue censorship and conspiracy rather than admit to being, in this instance, wrong; the study he cites does not remotely say what he suggests it does. Science needs people who think what others don’t, and ask questions others refuse to. But they have to be honest in their approach - and on Danmask, Heneghan strayed dangerously close to being a campaigner, not a scientist.

 

[DB]

As for masks being harmful (as opposed to simply being of no use), I’ve yet to see any evidence for that hypothesis whatsoever. And, for the avoidance of doubt, graphs that show mask mandates coinciding with increased cases are not evidence of anything except a coincidence of timing; there needs to be something to link the two before it becomes anything more than a parlour game.

It's truly remarkabkle how many time this has been seen though - there are repeated examples of countries and situations where mask mandates have immediately preceded a sudden increase in cases. The argument that the increase would have been steeper without masks might be tenable if it was just one example, but when it's seen repeatedly it does rather suggest that masks may be making things worse - and at best are doing nothing to reduce infections. If the correlation had been the other way - cases reducing with mask mandates - it is certain that governments would have been citing this as evidence that masks work, even if other factors were at play making it a dubious conclusion.

 

[big_rig]

So we should trust random voices on here, but not the scientists providing advice to government?

I’m with @hwl on this; the cost and harm of mask wearing is minor in comparison to the potential good, and therefore it is on balance worthwhile.

As for how you’d design an proper randomised control trial for masks as a means of source control, I don’t know. My hunch is that you would have to find a confined group where you could differentiate between mask wearing and non mask wearing populations, then test extensively in the wider population to draw a conclusion. In practice I'm not sure how you’d implement that, or whether it would be ethical to deliberately expose a population to what was considered a higher risk.

I therefore return to my frustration at the recurring yells of a number of mask opponents. The arguments seem to be that if the analysis supports what they want, it is good, but if it does not, then it is fatally flawed. Demands are made for strong scientific evidence, yet it’s fine for one of their preferred voices to misrepresent research to make it appear something that it’s not.

As for masks being harmful (as opposed to simply being of no use), I’ve yet to see any evidence for that hypothesis whatsoever. And, for the avoidance of doubt, graphs that show mask mandates coinciding with increased cases are not evidence of anything except a coincidence of timing; there needs to be something to link the two before it becomes anything more than a parlour game.

I respect - while disagreeing with - those like @DavidB who argue that no intervention is justified until it can be fully proven to work; the rigour with which a medicine needs proving is greater than that for a low impact measure like mask wearing.

My frustration at Heneghan’s attempt to argue censorship is that this interesting voice has chosen to argue censorship and conspiracy rather than admit to being, in this instance, wrong; the study he cites does not remotely say what he suggests it does. Science needs people who think what others don’t, and ask questions others refuse to. But they have to be honest in their approach - and on Danmask, Heneghan strayed dangerously close to being a campaigner, not a scientist.

Here is another ask for any evidence to support your assertion that masks slow the spread of covid. Any. Evidence. At. All. Not a demand for another long, rambling post dancing on the head of a pin. Just the evidence.

 

[yorkie]

So we should trust random voices on here, but not the scientists providing advice to government?

Why do you think the scientists advising the UK Government are somehow better than those in Sweden?

Given the incredibly poor record of the likes of Ferguson et al., why should we trust people who use flawed models over people like Hennegan who look at the actual facts?

You can't point us to a graph showing infection rates in any country reducing due to mask mandates; that's very telling.

 

[bramling]

And, for the avoidance of doubt, graphs that show mask mandates coinciding with increased cases are not evidence of anything except a coincidence of timing

Does the fact that this seems to be seen across the board not at least start to ring some alarm bells? None at all?

 

[yorkie]

From another thread :

..... Local level managers are keener to see us all back in, although they have shot themselves in the foot with the expansion of mask useage, which seems to have noticeably reduced the number of people coming in.....

That would certainly put me off.

At my workplace no-one has to wear masks when sat at their desk. If I was told I had to do this, it would make me extremely reluctant to go into work.

I'm fortunate to have my own office; my loony union appears to want to mandate masks in the building at all times (I need to get round to leaving them!), which makes no sense.

As things stand I am very happy to cover for colleagues working in other roles which involves being in an open plan area, but if o had to wear a mask on those areas I would not be so willing to volunteer to do that.

I will do as I'm told and wear masks I corridors but I utterly reject the notion of wearing them at all times.

I personally don't think my workplace is going to further mandate coverings than what we have at the moment, but I'm not going to put up with any further restrictions. I don't even have to work there; financially speaking I could resign straight away and earn more elsewhere, but I really don't want to do that.

 

[35B]

Why do you think the scientists advising the UK Government are somehow better than those in Sweden?

Given the incredibly poor record of the likes of Ferguson et al., why should we trust people who use flawed models over people like Hennegan who look at the actual facts?

You can't point us to a graph showing infection rates in any country reducing due to mask mandates; that's very telling.

But when a short article by Heneghan shows that he hasn't looked at the facts or, worse, has chosen to misrepresent them, why should I trust him as an authoritative source? If he's untruthful on Danmask, what else is he untruthful on? Science relies on scientists being honest; that article is evidence that Heneghan has not been intellectually honest, by misrepresenting the purpose and intent of mask wearing.

Does the fact that this seems to be seen across the board not at least start to ring some alarm bells? None at all?

Yes, it does raise questions. But so does the assertion that this lack of correlation is a proof, rather than a suggestion of a variety of things going on. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Here is another ask for any evidence to support your assertion that masks slow the spread of covid. Any. Evidence. At. All. Not a demand for another long, rambling post dancing on the head of a pin. Just the evidence.

I'm sorry, but I don't write in red top style; perhaps you should try showing some critical intelligence, and read what I've written as it's written, rather than demanding that I fall into a category you've pre-determined? I'm sorry if your scientific hero has feet of clay, but don't expect hectoring demands to demonstrate evidence for one thing will cause me to allow you to "prove" your contention and avoid challenge to him. I have chosen, and continue to choose, to respect the consensus advice that informs government policy, which is that wearing masks helps inhibit the spread of Covid. I recognise that the evidence is not conclusive, and that citing https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/w...TeC_T2iAhdn8ul16W6sSoq9p7u5jfmt_nkeJVhCpVTLoc, co-authored by this forum's favourite researcher, won't convince many here. However - and I acknowledge a degree of confirmation bias on this - it does support my view that, on balance, mask wearing is better than not mask wearing.

 

[big_rig]

But when a short article by Heneghan shows that he hasn't looked at the facts or, worse, has chosen to misrepresent them, why should I trust him as an authoritative source? If he's untruthful on Danmask, what else is he untruthful on? Science relies on scientists being honest; that article is evidence that Heneghan has not been intellectually honest, by misrepresenting the purpose and intent of mask wearing.

Yes, it does raise questions. But so does the assertion that this lack of correlation is a proof, rather than a suggestion of a variety of things going on. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I'm sorry, but I don't write in red top style; perhaps you should try showing some critical intelligence, and read what I've written as it's written, rather than demanding that I fall into a category you've pre-determined? I'm sorry if your scientific hero has feet of clay, but don't expect hectoring demands to demonstrate evidence for one thing will cause me to allow you to "prove" your contention and avoid challenge to him. I have chosen, and continue to choose, to respect the consensus advice that informs government policy, which is that wearing masks helps inhibit the spread of Covid. I recognise that the evidence is not conclusive, and that citing https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/w...TeC_T2iAhdn8ul16W6sSoq9p7u5jfmt_nkeJVhCpVTLoc, co-authored by this forum's favourite researcher, won't convince many here. However - and I acknowledge a degree of confirmation bias on this - it does support my view that, on balance, mask wearing is better than not mask wearing.

So you can cite precisely zero pieces of evidence then. Thanks for clearing that up. No need to get so tetchy, it’s good to be honest I enjoy the irony of being lectured about ‘intellectual honesty’ (hahaha from you..) and accused of having no critical intelligence by somebody who doesn’t understand what statistically relevant means, refuses to read papers they cite and isn’t capable of providing any rational evidence of their own, just ‘the government is right.’ All I asked you for was evidence, any at all, not another rant about somebody, and none was provided.

 

[DB]

I recognise that the evidence is not conclusive, and that citing https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/w...TeC_T2iAhdn8ul16W6sSoq9p7u5jfmt_nkeJVhCpVTLoc, co-authored by this forum's favourite researcher, won't convince many here.

Another meta-analysis. What a surprise!

 

[big_rig]

Another meta-analysis. What a surprise!

The mainstay of mask science, isn’t it - a fancy name for a Google search If we’re lucky there might be an infographic coming too! Or perhaps even a study with hamsters with mask fabric on their cages

 

[DB]

The mainstay of mask science, isn’t it - a fancy name for a Google search If we’re lucky there might be an infographic coming too! Or perhaps even a study with hamsters with mask fabric on their cages

It's not quite the same as a Google search - those will find all results whereas the average maskivist meta-analysis onlt tends to identify sources which match (or can be claimed to match, even if they actually don't) the preferred narrative!

 

[bramling]

It's not quite the same as a Google search - those will find all results whereas the average maskivist meta-analysis onlt tends to identify sources which match (or can be claimed to match, even if they actually don't) the preferred narrative!

Most maskophiles don’t go beyond memes - “don’t be a disgrace, cover your face” seems to be a common one. Or there’s the height of sophistication from Matt Hancock, with the granny-killer line.

 

[big_rig]

It's not quite the same as a Google search - those will find all results whereas the average maskivist meta-analysis onlt tends to identify sources which match (or can be claimed to match, even if they actually don't) the preferred narrative!

Ha, quite! Also strange how they put a lot more column inches into investigating the ills of the Danish study than ‘observational’ ones, or those of mannequins ‘coughing’ and being recorded by phone cameras or the application of hamster cage fabric lining to the real world Oh well.

 

[island]

I do wonder whether after 206 pages this topic has been done into the ground. Nobody is listening to one another, only talking over each other. Evidence, whether good, bad, or indifferent is being ignored. We’ve done well for the first 200 pages compared to most other fora, though