Coronavirus restrictions: are they legal

[valvesRus]

The BMJ explains “The trial is inconclusive rather than negative, and it points to a likely benefit of mask wearing to the wearer—it did not examine the wider potential benefit of reduced spread of infection to others—and this even in a population where mask wearing isn’t mandatory and prevalence of infection is low.”

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

Entirely possible that the legislation has a psychological function as well. As perhaps do many other pieces of legislation.

I wear my mask (when necessary), not because of government guidelines (or legislation) , but for my benefit and also for the benefit of my fellow citizens.

It may not be proven but by gad it makes sense.

For the same reason I do a weekly Covid test using the kits available free of charge from my local pharmacy.


*

[Lindsayt]

Just watched an interesting video from Ivor Cummins interviewing the author of a book called "State of Fear". UK Column have mentioned the Government departments mentioned in the book many times and the tactics they've used.

Thanks for posting that.

It's interesting what she had to say about masks. About how they were introduced for psychological reasons and how they have stayed for psychological reasons.

All of which puts the legislation on wearing masks on very shakey ground. Because it's largely based on a lie / distortion of the truth.
Any legislation in England that's based on Parliament having been misled is illegal.

If it’s the Danmask-19 study, it actually found something different to what many social media commentators have ascribed to it. The BMJ explains “The trial is inconclusive rather than negative, and it points to a likely benefit of mask wearing to the wearer—it did not examine the wider potential benefit of reduced spread of infection to others—and this even in a population where mask wearing isn’t mandatory and prevalence of infection is low.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

Entirely possible that the legislation has a psychological function as well. As perhaps do many other pieces of legislation.

Why have you provided a link to an opinion piece from the BMJ website?

How about a link to a site that summarises the Danmask-19 study, such as this one?
https://www.thebottomline.org.uk/summaries/danmask-19/
Which says, with my use of bold:
"Outcome

Primary outcome: SARS-CoV-2 infection – no significant difference
1.8% in the mask vs. 2.1% in the control group (Odds Ratio 0.82; 95% CI 0.54-1.23)"

It's quite possible that the small difference given, was either down to statistical sample sizes, or that there was psychological effect on the mask wearers. For example wearing a mask reminded them to be more cautious about proximity to others, whilst not wearing a mask led to people acting in a more foregetful / carefree manner.

Most medical tests are done on a blind basis with a placebo for the control group. For masks that's not as easily done. Hence this test being a non-blind one.

Given the non-blind nature of the test, it is reasonable to say "no significant difference" between the masked group and the control group are reasonably conclusive in terms of what the test was testing.

When it comes to whether masks affect transmission to others - well how about looking at the results of any scientific tests that have tested this?

[CN211276]

Thanks for posting that.

It's interesting what she had to say about masks. About how they were introduced for psychological reasons and how they have stayed for psychological reasons.

All of which puts the legislation on wearing masks on very shakey ground. Because it's largely based on a lie / distortion of the truth.
Any legislation in England that's based on Parliament having been misled is illegal.

If it’s the Danmask-19 study, it actually found something different to what many social media commentators have ascribed to it. The BMJ explains “The trial is inconclusive rather than negative, and it points to a likely benefit of mask wearing to the wearer—it did not examine the wider potential benefit of reduced spread of infection to others—and this even in a population where mask wearing isn’t mandatory and prevalence of infection is low.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

Entirely possible that the legislation has a psychological function as well. As perhaps do many other pieces of legislation.

Why have you provided a link to an opinion piece from the BMJ website?

How about a link to a site that summarises the Danmask-19 study, such as this one?
https://www.thebottomline.org.uk/summaries/danmask-19/
Which says, with my use of bold:
"Outcome

Primary outcome: SARS-CoV-2 infection – no significant difference
1.8% in the mask vs. 2.1% in the control group (Odds Ratio 0.82; 95% CI 0.54-1.23)"

It's quite possible that the small difference given, was either down to statistical sample sizes, or that there was psychological effect on the mask wearers. For example wearing a mask reminded them to be more cautious about proximity to others, whilst not wearing a mask led to people acting in a more foregetful / carefree manner.

Most medical tests are done on a blind basis with a placebo for the control group. For masks that's not as easily done. Hence this test being a non-blind one.

Given the non-blind nature of the test, it is reasonable to say "no significant difference" between the masked group and the control group are reasonably conclusive in terms of what the test was testing.

When it comes to whether masks affect transmission to others - well how about looking at the results of any scientific tests that have tested this?

[valvesRus]

As I have said before, It's good to have the right to express ones views in earnest Lindsay, but those views are not (in the main) of any interest to me, so forgive me if I give them no credence.

[Docfoster]

Thanks for posting that.

It's interesting what she had to say about masks. About how they were introduced for psychological reasons and how they have stayed for psychological reasons.

All of which puts the legislation on wearing masks on very shakey ground. Because it's largely based on a lie / distortion of the truth.
Any legislation in England that's based on Parliament having been misled is illegal.

If it’s the Danmask-19 study, it actually found something different to what many social media commentators have ascribed to it. The BMJ explains “The trial is inconclusive rather than negative, and it points to a likely benefit of mask wearing to the wearer—it did not examine the wider potential benefit of reduced spread of infection to others—and this even in a population where mask wearing isn’t mandatory and prevalence of infection is low.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

Entirely possible that the legislation has a psychological function as well. As perhaps do many other pieces of legislation.

Why have you provided a link to an opinion piece from the BMJ website?

How about a link to a site that summarises the Danmask-19 study, such as this one?
https://www.thebottomline.org.uk/summaries/danmask-19/
Which says, with my use of bold:
"Outcome

Primary outcome: SARS-CoV-2 infection – no significant difference
1.8% in the mask vs. 2.1% in the control group (Odds Ratio 0.82; 95% CI 0.54-1.23)"

It's quite possible that the small difference given, was either down to statistical sample sizes, or that there was psychological effect on the mask wearers. For example wearing a mask reminded them to be more cautious about proximity to others, whilst not wearing a mask led to people acting in a more foregetful / carefree manner.

Most medical tests are done on a blind basis with a placebo for the control group. For masks that's not as easily done. Hence this test being a non-blind one.

Given the non-blind nature of the test, it is reasonable to say "no significant difference" between the masked group and the control group are reasonably conclusive in terms of what the test was testing.

When it comes to whether masks affect transmission to others - well how about looking at the results of any scientific tests that have tested this?

I mentioned the Danmask study because I know about it.
I know about it because conspiracy ideologists who have confronted me elsewhere in the past have referenced it as evidence that masks do nothing to prevent spread to others. The BMJ piece makes clear that this was not part of the study.
So my post above has certainly been rehearsed elsewhere.
You sound uncomfortably energised by my previous post’s inadequacies. Apologies.

[Lindsayt]

I mentioned the Danmask study because I know about it.
I know about it because conspiracy ideologists who have confronted me elsewhere in the past have referenced it as evidence that masks do nothing to prevent spread to others. The BMJ piece makes clear that this was not part of the study.
So my post above has certainly been rehearsed elsewhere.
You sound uncomfortably energised by my previous post’s inadequacies. Apologies.

So, on what scientific research was the UK legislation that made face covering wearing compulsory based on?
It wasn't the Danmask-19 study.

As I have said before, It's good to have the right to express ones views in earnest Lindsay, but those views are not (in the main) of any interest to me, so forgive me if I give them no credence.

Credence definition: "belief in or acceptance of something as true."

I have no interest in knitting. If someone were to express views that knitting is a method for making clothes I would give them credence.

I cannot see any logical link between a lack of interest in something and whether that determines if one should believe or accept it as being true.

[Docfoster]

I mentioned the Danmask study because I know about it.
I know about it because conspiracy ideologists who have confronted me elsewhere in the past have referenced it as evidence that masks do nothing to prevent spread to others. The BMJ piece makes clear that this was not part of the study.
So my post above has certainly been rehearsed elsewhere.
You sound uncomfortably energised by my previous post’s inadequacies. Apologies.

on what scientific research was the UK legislation that made face covering wearing compulsory based on?

I don’t know...?
Pass...?

[valvesRus]

mething as true."

I cannot see any logical link between a lack of interest in something and whether that determines if one should believe or accept it as being true.

If I said any more it would undoubtedly be classed as Ad Hominem, so my lips are closed.

[valvesRus]

I read this just now.

"The Delta variant is 40% more transmissible, the health secretary says, adding that protection against it is just as good with two doses of a vaccine."

So I will be keeping my distance and my mask will be at the ready for the foreseeable future.

My partner had a verbal death threat from an Asian guy for enquiring if he'd forgotten to put his mask on before entering a small shop on the outskirts of Bradford.

[savvypaul]

mething as true."

I cannot see any logical link between a lack of interest in something and whether that determines if one should believe or accept it as being true.

If I said any more it would undoubtedly be classed as Ad Hominem, so my lips are closed.

The way to say nothing is to say nothing Then I don't have to say that sly, passive aggressive sniping is even less admirable than straight forward ad hom.

Stick to the topic content.