coronavirus

macroth said:Loal at people still arguing that this study as some sort of hard evidence of anything.
deal with it.

dannyboy73 said:it isnt. but then again, there is no hard evidence they do anything other than encourage risk taking this is the point you all seem blind to.
as for consern about others, wrong, im very conserned and wish no one any harm yourself included.
this whole shambles has reduced our liberties, frightened us half to death and i care about liberty, more than most id say. but that dosent mean i dont want to cause people on the follow the rules narrative any harm, you are 100% incorrect there.

LessThanLuke said:
Even if there was only a miniscule chance the masks do help I'd wear one. It costs me nothing.

dannyboy73 said:thats poor risk assessing.
and as i say, masks reduce social distance so you may be increasing others risk by wearing one.
the biggest killer of children is being run over...so should we all drive at 5 mph to almost eradicate child deaths by being run over? this is the issue with risk assessment.

dannyboy73 said:thats poor risk assessing.

dannyboy73 said:it isnt. but then again, there is no hard evidence they do anything other than encourage risk taking this is the point you all seem blind to.

Conclusions

Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer.
The relationship between source control and personal protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic14, so that individual benefit increases with increasing community mask use.
Further research is needed to expand the evidence base for the protective effect of cloth masks and in particular to identify the combinations of materials that maximize both their blocking and filtering effectiveness, as well as fit, comfort, durability, and consumer appeal.

Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation.

dannyboy73 said:thats poor risk assessing.
and as i say, masks reduce social distance so you may be increasing others risk by wearing one.
the biggest killer of children is being run over...so should we all drive at 5 mph to almost eradicate child deaths by being run over? this is the issue with risk assessment.

Portuguese Appeals Court Deems PCR tests unreliable

The above would suffice to deem the forced quarantine of the four persons unlawful. The court thought it necessary, however, to add some very interesting considerations about the PCR tests:

“Based on the currently available scientific evidence this test [the RT-PCR test] is in and of itself unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that positivity in fact corresponds to infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for several reasons, among which two are paramount (to which one would need to add the issue of the gold standard, which, due to that issue’s specificity, will not be considered here): the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used; the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.”
Citing Jaafar et al. (2020), the court concludes that “if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.” The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown [N.B. – I know from acquaintances that in at least some Portuguese labs the threshold is 35 cycles].
Citing Surkova et al. (2020)), the court further states that any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual probability of disease as assessed prior to the undertaking of the test itself, and expresses the opinion that “in the current epidemiological landscape of the United Kingdom, the likelihood is increasing that Covid 19 tests are returning false positives, with major implications for individuals, the health system and society.”

WILLSAN said:this would seem like important news. not to be found reported anywhere in the mainstream media.
https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/11/16/latest-news-195/#portuguese-appeals-court-deems-pcr-tests-unreliable
with the pcr cycle threshold set high enough you could actually manufacture false positives.
I have so far failed to find what the standard is here.

PeteHodgson said:
Just because you may not do every single thing possible to reduce ‘all’ risks, doesn’t mean you may as well do nothing to reduce any risks. Less risk of deaths is always a plus.
Edit: I get what you’re saying about some people not respecting social distancing because they’re wearing masks, but if you are aware of the chance of that happening, then you’re not one of those people, so will surely keep distance.

dannyboy73 said:i think you pretty much get what Im saying here. thanks for actually reading my posts with an open mind. indeed, what im saying is if you truly want to control the spread then reduce the time and frequency that you mix with large groups in enclosed spaces.

if mask wearing has only a tinny benefit then that benefit is surely counteracted by lack of social distancing? and even worse: people at high risk falsely thinking that they are safe if the see people wearing masks.

Jonathan said:
They did spend quite a bit of time discussing this on Radio 4 this week. Their point was that PCR testing is a useful tool when testing someone who is symptomatic, but that due to the 0.04% false positive rate, is not much use for mass testing. To contextualise this, it would return 40 false positives per 100,000 people, which is double the previously held standard for allowing people to travel to a foreign country.
I agree with that sentiment.

BigMacca said:Here's an analysis done by the CDC...
http://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-...

Jonathan said:
...due to the 0.04% false positive rate, is not much use for mass testing.