No masks after 19th July - Hoo-blardy-Ray!!!!!

[TeddingtonTrashbag]

As reported in the DM.
So happy if it’s true.

[quote UndercoverToad]@Againstmachine unless you have a much better source, you should be VERY careful what you say there.[/quote]
Also, there is a lot of copycat behaviour around suicide. People kill themselves apparently following soap programmes which have featured suicide, students copy the suicidal behaviour of another student etc.

It is quite irresponsible to claim that a lot of suicides are happening when the evidence is that they actually aren't.

I mean, it's of course reasonable to discuss the phenomenon if it's there, but it is irresponsible to mislead people.

@herecomesthsun I completely agree with you. In fact I think it’s appalling and I’ve reported the posts.

To add to herecomesthe sun on masks...

I've not read the research myself, Ted - my degrees aren't in the right area to understand it sufficiently fully - but, as such, you'll forgive me if I defer to the conclusions of CDC, PHE, HSE, WHO etc. over your post. The following are the results of a few minutes googling.

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html

www.england.nhs.uk/south/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/09/4A-COVID_Info_Sheet_Masks_and_Face_Coverings_V1.0.pdf

www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/ppe-face-masks/face-coverings-and-face-masks.htm

www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks

www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435

It's worth mentioning that, yes, you will find among the published evidence on masks observations that the degree to which they mitigate transmission is unclear and different types offer different levels of protection. This is, as I understand it, because it's extremely difficult to carry out a controlled scientific assessment of mask efficacy. If you think about this, it's easy to see why! Our understanding is therefore far more nuanced than that, and also continually evolving (hence the shift from early guidance against mask-wearing into more universal agreement in its favour). This has led to a lot of people without an understanding of this complex process, or with an ulterior ideological bias, jumping on the "masks don't work" bandwagon.

The following link is a relatively early BMJ metastudy which reflects this; the opening 2 paragraphs of it explain things very nicely, and the ethical "precautionary principle" to which they refer essentially sums up what I believe still now. Published in 2020, however, it's now out-of-date, and superceded by the more conclusive evidence posted by herecomesthesun above. Nontheless, I paste their conclusion below:

"In conclusion, in the face of a pandemic the search for perfect evidence may be the enemy of good policy. As with parachutes for jumping out of aeroplanes,38 it is time to act without waiting for randomised controlled trial evidence.39 A recently posted preprint of a systematic review came to the same conclusion.40 Masks are simple, cheap, and potentially effective. We believe that, worn both in the home (particularly by the person showing symptoms) and also outside the home in situations where meeting others is likely (for example, shopping, public transport), they could have a substantial impact on transmission with a relatively small impact on social and economic life."

@Againstmachine unless you have a much better source, you should be VERY careful what you say there.

What's that even mean I have to be VERY careful say what you mean, unless you have been involved many sucides take months to be ruled.

Ah and here it came blaming others on this thread for talking about it causing sucides really.

Report away, because it's better not discussing things.

A ‘consensus’ means that everyone agrees.
Which they don’t.
Even if you could agree on the type/manner of mask wearing, which is by no means standard anyway.

[quote Againstmachine]**@Againstmachine unless you have a much better source, you should be VERY careful what you say there.

What's that even mean I have to be VERY careful say what you mean, unless you have been involved many sucides take months to be ruled.

Ah and here it came blaming others on this thread for talking about it causing sucides really.[/quote]
I have explained in a previous post why you shouldn't be saying that a lot of people are committing suicide unless there is actual evidence of this.

This is because it can lead to copycat behaviour so repeating this unsubstantiated idea over and over might cause the behaviour to increase.

@TeddingtonTrashbag

A ‘consensus’ means that everyone agrees. Which they don’t. Even if you could agree on the type/manner of mask wearing, which is by no means standard anyway.

No a scientific consensus means that most scientists agree that the scientific evidence points in a particular direction.

Which they do.

It is in favour of masks.

Which is why Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance will generally be wearing theirs in indoor crowded spaces for example.

[quote Againstmachine]**@Againstmachine unless you have a much better source, you should be VERY careful what you say there.

What's that even mean I have to be VERY careful say what you mean, unless you have been involved many sucides take months to be ruled.

Ah and here it came blaming others on this thread for talking about it causing sucides really.[/quote]
Have you been involved in ruling on causes of deaths for suicides then?

That’s the point we’re simply not at a point to say reliably one way or the other because it’s such a complex issue. Which leads to the face that yes, discussion of suicide does have to be handled carefully because it’s such a multi-faceted issue and one of those facets does include an element of contagion. It’s well documented and completely credible.

A ‘consensus’ means that everyone agrees

It really doesn’t.

Yet you decided to spread that across multiple posts not the one I replied to.

Talking about suicide doesnt increase sucides attempts in fact, that's a fallacy, its actually more dangerous not to discuss.

@Againstmachine which is why I asked what is your source? You can’t just ‘make up’ something like that to support an argument.

Forgive me for using Wikipaedia - not the most reliable source, but an accessible one:

"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus generally implies agreement of the supermajority, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate,[2][3][4][5] and peer review. A conference meant to create a consensus is termed as a consensus conference.[6][7][8] Such measures lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[9] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.

Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[10][11] climate change,[12] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[9]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

#1 makes it clearly consensus isn't unanimous agreement. The comment about laypeople's understanding at #9 above is also relevant here.

Which is why Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance will generally be wearing theirs in indoor crowded spaces for example

Ah the lieing government stooges, bullshitted the nation but people still believe them.

@Againstmachine do you really believe that all discussion of suicide is equal no matter the content or quality?

@Againstmachine suicide should be talked about SAFELY - not with misconceptions and misinformation you’ve made up in your head!

I couldn't bear to do it, referencing Wikipaedia only! Two more reliable sources, below.

www.lexico.com/definition/consensus
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consensus

I'll probably head off now myself, for now at least; let the suicide debate run its course.

Thanks to those who have engaged with thoughtful argument and evidence for keeping me thinking during quarantine.

After today's news that under 18s and double jabbed people who are close contacts won't need to isolate I'll definitely be keeping my mask for indoors use in crowded/unventilated places.

If we're reasonably expecting 50,000 cases a day by 19th July with close contact isolation in place then take that and masks away and the cases are likely to skyrocket. Add in whatever reduction in restrictions the Travel minister plans to announce later this week and I can't see any possibility other than a massive increase in cases.

I understand that the link to deaths has weakened but I still don't want to be ill, just like I don't want the flu or bronchitis..... and the more cases, the more hospitalisations and the more impact on the NHS. Logic tells us that if 1000 people getting Covid results in 1 person going to hospital then letting 100,000 people get Covid will result in 100 people ending up in hospital (made up numbers), the more people in hospital with Covid the less routine and non-emergency care the hospitals can provide.

I didn't start that I just putt myy thoughts on it.

@Againstmachine

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

No we are explaining that it is a bad thing to go round saying that suicides are happening when they aren't.

For one thing, what you are saying is not borne out by the stats (at least so far) but also because of copycat behaviour.

Here for example is an article about how media can influence suicidal behaviour. The advice to the news media even is to be very careful with how suicide is reported.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124845/

@Againstmachine

Which is why Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance will generally be wearing theirs in indoor crowded spaces for example

Ah the lieing government stooges, bullshitted the nation but people still believe them.

dear me