HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

Docfoster wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 2:10 pm



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.

Docfoster wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:40 pm

ljones67 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:38 am 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.

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:20 pm

Docfoster wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:40 pm
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?

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:20 pm

Docfoster wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:40 pm
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?

Docfoster wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:45 am
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.

valvesRus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:15 am 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.

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:22 am

Docfoster wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:45 am
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?

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:22 am 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.

valvesRus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:21 pm

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:22 am 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.