Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I already linked you the evidence but you ignored it so you could continue your daftness.

UK HSA doesn't make the strongest case for them in this paper.

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025113/OFFSEN_Respiratory_Evidence_Panel_Evidence_Overview_UKHSA_branding__1___4_.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

It's pretty obvious why as well. Manx Care, which is copied from the English model, is a nicely packaged product to sell. Once they defund it far enough to create outrage. Maybe they'll start by getting a private operator in to run it.

Manx Care already are getting private operators in. They just bunged £2m at a private operator of virtual medical consultations to help with the backlog. Imagine if they'd spent it on staff instead.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ringy Rose said:

There's no evidence it does. The one big actual experiment- rather than a literature study- in Denmark last year showed there is no evidence. Maybe this will change, maybe it won't.

If people want to wear them then they should do so.

The idea that kids not wearing face masks all day is why numbers are rising is laughable. And the idea that forcing kids to wear masks all day is going to make the tiniest bit of difference is equally laughable.

Yes there is.

https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-masking-covid-19-cluster-randomized-trial-bangladesh

Quote

A randomized-trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh during COVID-19 shows that the intervention tripled mask usage and reduced symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, demonstrating that promoting community mask-wearing can improve public health.

From the author in an article about the study: https://theconversation.com/evidence-shows-that-yes-masks-prevent-covid-19-and-surgical-masks-are-the-way-to-go-167963

Quote

We did have a large enough sample size to determine that in villages where we distributed surgical masks, COVID-19 fell by 12%. In those villages COVID-19 fell by 35% for people 60 years and older and 23% for people 50-60 years old. When looking at COVID-19-like symptoms we found that both surgical and cloth masks resulted in a 12% reduction.

The Denmark study is NOT your panacea against mask wearing, the only conclusion it drew was inconclusive. It paid no attention to how mask wearing impacts transmission, and suggests likely benefit to the wearer.

Quote

The trial evaluated whether giving free surgical masks to volunteers and recommending their use safeguarded wearers from infection with the coronavirus, in addition to other public health recommendations. The study didn’t identify a statistically significant protective effect for wearers, but the trial was only designed to detect a large effect of 50% or more. And the study didn’t weigh in on the ability of masks to prevent spread of the virus from wearers to others, or what’s known as source control, which is thought to be the primary way that masks work.

From the BMJ on the topic: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

Quote

Except that if you read the published paper you find almost the exact opposite.345 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. This finding is in keeping with summaries of evidence from Cochran

You can also look back at the relative impact of different measures with clever stats. https://www.ajtmh.org/view/journals/tpmd/103/6/article-p2400.xml

Quote

In countries with cultural norms or government policies supporting public mask-wearing, per-capita coronavirus mortality increased on average by just 16.2% each week, as compared with 61.9% each week in remaining countries. Societal norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19.

Edited by AcousticallyChallenged
Missed a link off.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

The Denmark study is NOT your panacea against mask wearing, the only conclusion it drew was inconclusive.

Inconclusive means there is no evidence either way, does it not? The infection rates between wearers and non-wearers were not significantly different, and if they worked (even at a macro level) one would expect them to be different.

People clamouring for everyone to wear face masks all the time forever are going to be sorely disappointed. But if it makes you feel better then wear one.

I'd rather the government focused on solutions that actually will make the blindest bit of difference, instead of playing to the gallery. But hey.

As for the Bangladesh study, "we gave some masks to some villages and not to others" is hardly a cutting-edge RCT. But we can play ping-pong with literature reviews all day. Show me an RCT where mask wearing made a demonstrable difference and I'll listen.

Edited by Ringy Rose
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

Inconclusive means there is no evidence either way, does it not? The infection rates between wearers and non-wearers were not significantly different, and if they worked (even at a macro level) one would expect them to be different.

People clamouring for everyone to wear face masks all the time forever are going to be sorely disappointed. But if it makes you feel better then wear one.

I'd rather the government focused on solutions that actually will make the blindest bit of difference, instead of playing to the gallery. But hey.

As for the Bangladesh study, "we gave some masks to some villages and not to others" is hardly a cutting-edge RCT. But we can play ping-pong with literature reviews all day. Show me an RCT where mask wearing made a demonstrable difference and I'll listen.

It's a difficult thing to control and accurately study. But given that we have plenty of conclusive studies that masks vastly reduce the amount of aerosolized particles emanating from a person, it's hardly a big leap to suggest they're likely to reduce transmission to other people?
I don't think they're particularly effective in reducing the wearer's risk.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ringy Rose said:

Inconclusive means there is no evidence either way, does it not? The infection rates between wearers and non-wearers were not significantly different, and if they worked (even at a macro level) one would expect them to be different.

People clamouring for everyone to wear face masks all the time forever are going to be sorely disappointed. But if it makes you feel better then wear one.

I'd rather the government focused on solutions that actually will make the blindest bit of difference, instead of playing to the gallery. But hey.

As for the Bangladesh study, "we gave some masks to some villages and not to others" is hardly a cutting-edge RCT.

No it doesn't.

Let's ask the authors of DANMASK, shall we? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Quote

Bundgaard, et al.: Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon. Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect.

 The below quote describes further comments from the authors. I've highlighted the bits in bold for you, to make your life easier.

Quote

Elsewhere, the authors noted that the data were “compatible” with a less than 50% degree of self-protection and emphasized that their results “should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

An interesting editorial on the DANMASK study also points out the following shortcomings: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-7499

Quote

The specifics of the study setting limit not only its statistical power but also the generalizability of findings. The study was done in a setting with relatively low transmission: During the first week of May, the daily incidence of new confirmed COVID-19 cases in Denmark was roughly one third of that in the United Kingdom and one quarter of that in the United States (6). Furthermore, the study was underpowered for subgroup analyses by occupation, time out of home (although more time out of home was associated with a greater trend toward protection, as shown in Supplement Figure 2 [5]), and other factors. Thus, the potential benefit of mask wearing in particular circumstances or settings could not be assessed.

Quote

Perhaps the most important limitation of this study was the use of antibody tests to diagnose COVID-19. Of COVID-19 diagnoses in this study, 84% (80 of 95) were made by antibody testing. The accuracy of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests varies widely (7). Although an internal validation study of the assay used in DANMASK-19 estimated a specificity of 99.5%, the manufacturer reported (www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/presentations/maf/maf3285-a001.pdf) a specificity of 97.5% (CI, 91.3% to 99.3).

 

Nevertheless, given the very low (at most 2%) prevalence of infection, many of the follow-up positives may have been falsely positive and would be randomly distributed between intervention and control groups. This would bias the study's findings toward the null.

The study was the best they could do at the time, but there are quite a few shortcomings in the context and timing. For example, the study also refers to the fact that masks were not being mandated at the time, and for a significant proportion of the study, Denmark was in lockdown. If prevalence and transmission are low, you're therefore trying to measure something even smaller.

As a result, Danmask may be best described as a reference point for a worst case scenario where the majority of people are coming into contact with non-masked infected individuals. At which point, the data still shows some affordance of protection.

Have you read the Bangladeshi paper?

The interventions were actually measured, it wasn't simply, as you put it, giving masks to some villagers and seeing what happens.

Quote

Our interventions tripled the proportion of people wearing masks: 13 percent of people wore them in the control villages, 42 percent in the “intervention” villages. This in turn led to a 9 percent reduction of community-level symptomatic coronavirus infections. Villages where surgical masks were distributed appeared to be especially protected — an effect concentrated in the most vulnerable populations. We found that surgical masks averted 1 in 3 symptomatic infections among those aged 60 and older.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I don't think they're particularly effective in reducing the wearer's risk.

I know the theory is that it prevents the wearer spreading it to others, rather than preventing the wearer from catching it. That makes sense, and I agree that this effect is harder to measure, although I would still expect to see differences between wearers and non-wearers.

I'm not one of those who are ideologically opposed to them, I just think they a) make bugger all difference, and b) diminish more important messages such as distance, fresh air, and hand hygiene. It scares me how I see people who clearly think their mask is a magic Covid force-field.

Anecdotally, I also find myself touching my eyes and nose a lot more when I am wearing a mask, as they're uncomfortable and irritating and constantly cause my glasses to steam up. If I thought they achieved anything I'd not mind the above, but as the evidence is "inconclusive" I just don't see the point.

Edited by Ringy Rose
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, 2bees said:

Maybe they sacked the drop shipper?

Well didn't they outsource to delivery to Hermes, so as to 'save' money by not using the Post Office?  They'll probably claim the amenity site was the nearest available address.

26 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

Either that or they're out of date.

Seems to be two years shelf life, so it can't be that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shudder to think how much money we are spending on LFT's at a time when we are proposing to increase gas price's coming into winter and probably going to implement another form of lockdown which will hit the lower paid and self employed. 

Complete bonkers policies from a completely incompetent government. I thought this one was going to put the people and economy first, not just blindly follow the destruction happening across the water. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miss Isle of Man syndrome:

Travelling in the UK, Ireland and Channel Islands

There are no restrictions on travel within England.

You should check the rules at your destination if you’re planning to travel to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, or to Ireland or the Channel Islands as there may be restrictions in place.

From the Gov.UK website, last updated 15 October 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...