Covid-19 Gambles

[JohnW2]

If we were remotely consistent in our attitude to risk and advocated mask wearing for a pretty much immeasurable benefit then we wouldn't have a bath, ride a bicycle, drive a car, cross a road or go swimming.

That is all true and nor would be give AZ vaccine to the under-40s (but, hang on, we aren't giving it to them ). However, as for "pretty much immeasurable benefit", as I've just written the 'best estimate' of the benefit of masks from the Danmask study is about a 14% reduction in infection, which (unlike the risk of AZ vaccine) I wouldn't regard as 'pretty much immeasurable', would you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[echoes]

On mask studies, if there existed a conclusive study which found that they [masks] were beneficial when worn generally by the public, don't you think we would have heard it shouted loud and repeatedly from the rooftops by the government?
We have not. Instead we get assertions: e.g. "the science shows [whatever we would like to justify right now]".

I had my MP contact the DHSC on this issue of evidence. They [the DHSC] confirmed in their response that the evidence was weak and the benefits likely to be small. The only additional citation made was a laboratory study which found that masks absorb water droplets, and that was the sum total of "the science".

Masks are overwhelmingly a behavioural tool - not a clinical tool, when worn by members of the public.

 

[echoes]

Duplicate post deleted.

 

[echoes]

Well perhaps, but the study you are relying on as demonstrating there is no benefit says there is maybe a 46% reduction to maybe a 23% increase in infection among mask wearers using their 95% CIs. I'd say that's hardly conclusive of "no benefit".

You have the burden of proof reversed. I am not claiming that there is conclusively no benefit; rather that any claimed benefit has yet to be demonstrated in anything near a conclusive fashion. The onus is on those who wish to legally enforce such measures to show that there is. As it stands, all we have is a lot of "maybes" and a whole network of unaccountable behavioural psychologists who are tasked with changing behaviour.

 

[echoes]

I attempted to contact you by PM about this, not the least because I was wondering whether I might be able to 'pick your brains' on technical issues which would presumably bore to tears most of those in an 'Electrics' forum However, it seems that you don't accept PMs

I'll open my PMs John - only just seen this!

 

[denso13]

rather that any claimed benefit has yet to be demonstrated in anything near a conclusive fashion

Agreed. You did seem to claim though that the Danmask study found "no benefit" of mask wearing but I don't think that is what it says at all. Inconclusive perhaps, but nothing more.

The only RCT than I am aware of that was of sufficient quality (the Danish 'Danmask' study) found no benefit.

 

[JohnW2]

Well perhaps, but the study you are relying on as demonstrating there is no benefit says there is maybe a 46% reduction to maybe a 23% increase in infection among mask wearers using their 95% CIs. I'd say that's hardly conclusive of "no benefit".

Indeed. The width of the 95% CI is totally dependent upon the sample size which, as I've just said, was woefully inadequate in the Danmask study.

If, per the sample calculation I recently presented, the study had involved 102,000 subjects, rather than a mere ~6,000, and if the two infection rates had still been 2.1% (no mask) and 1.8% (mask), the 95% CI of that 0.3% difference in infection rate would be (0.13% to 0.47%) (note - both on the 'benefit' side of zero), corresponding to a 95% CI of benefits (reduction in mask infection) with mask ranging of from 6.2% to 22.4% (with, again, a 'best wtimate of 14% reduction in infections), and the difference would have been highly 'statistically significant' (p=0.00054).

It's therefore completely wrong to suggest that the study wasin any way "conclusive of no benefit". On the contrary, it's best estimate is that masks result in a ~14% reduction in infections with mask-wearing, and had the study been remotely large enough, the CI would have been narrower (and all on the 'benefit' side of 'no benefit), and 'statistically significant'. Other than as a taster of what much larger studies might show, it is essentially a totally inadequate, hence pretty useless, study.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

On mask studies, if there existed a conclusive study which found that they [masks] were beneficial when worn generally by the public, don't you think we would have heard it shouted loud and repeatedly from the rooftops by the government?

Indeed I would think that.

However, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't anything even approaching an adequate study to be 'conclusive', in either direction. As I have illustrated, with infection rates as low as ~2%, one would need 100,000 subjects or so in an RCT to be able to detect a fairly modest benefit (14% reduction in infections). That's why there are no 'conclusive studies' for anyone to shout about, and why the jury is still very much out, although studies such as the Danmask one are somwhat 'encouraging'.

Masks are overwhelmingly a behavioural tool - not a clinical tool, when worn by members of the public.

Even if one believes that (which I personally don't), I would suggest (as I have above!) that merely being a 'behavioural tool' would be worthwhile. Having people constantly reminded that things are not 'back to normal' is definitely no bad thing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'll open my PMs John - only just seen this!

Thanks - but my comment was actually directed at Swwils who, despite my comments and suggestions, does not seem to want to communicate with him off-list - which, of course, is fair enough, and his prerogative. I was merely thinking that it might be an idea to spare the folks here fropm techniucal exchanges about virology and immunolgy (

Kind Regards, John

 

[echoes]

It does seem that we are all largely agreed that there are no conclusive studies which demonstrate that masks are effective.

Also that we cannot conclude with certainty that they are ineffective.

I think that there is no justification for having legally enforced them on that basis. It's moot for the time being now anyway.

I'll leave "the mask science" there.

 

[echoes]

Thanks - but my comment was actually directed at Swwils who, despite my comments and suggestions, does not seem to want to communicate with him off-list - which, of course, is fair enough, and his prerogative. I was merely thinking that it might be an idea to spare the folks here fropm techniucal exchanges about virology and immunolgy (

Kind Regards, John

Oh, my bad! Whoops.

 

[JohnW2]

You have the burden of proof reversed. I am not claiming that there is conclusively no benefit; rather that any claimed benefit has yet to be demonstrated in anything near a conclusive fashion. The onus is on those who wish to legally enforce such measures to show that there is.

Fair enough, but you're now talking a bit like a lawyer or academic scientist.

Only acting on hard conclusive evidence is obviously the ideal. However, in the real world faced with the sort of crisis we have, it sometimes is sensible to be pragmatic, erring on the side of caution, by acting on the basis of things which a reasonably body of opinion feels might be beneficial, whilst awaiting that 'hard conclusive evidence' (if it ever comes).

Anyway, you can stop worrying now. Come next week you will be free to 'exercise your right' to possibly expose others to infection - at least legally-speaking. I'll leave others to consider the 'morality' of the situation!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It does seem that we are all largely agreed that there are no conclusive studies which demonstrate that masks are effective.

We are agreed on that. However, where I think we differ is that my view is that some of the 'inconclusive' (and inadequate) studies give a reasonable degree of encouragement that there might be a benefit.

In the early days of Covid, any number of drugs and treatment strategies which it was thought 'might' be of benefit were utilised, long before there was any real evidence to support that - and a few of those drugs/strategies proved to offer some benefit. They could have waited, perhaps for a long time, for 'conclusive evidence (one way or the other) to be generated but I would be inclined to suggest that it's probably a good thing that they didn't.

Kind Regards, John

 

[echoes]

Anyway, you can stop worrying now. Come next week you will be free to 'exercise your right' to possibly expose others to infection - at least legally-speaking. I'll leave others to consider the 'morality' of the situation!

I shall continue to not wear a mask.

You might be interested in this quote from professor Robert Dingwall (professor of sociology
advising the govt.)

"[Masks] are a symbolic reminder that people are dangerous, and you might feel safer at home. They create a sense of threat and danger, and that social interaction might be something to be anxious about. So mandating masks can feed the fear."

"The ethics of it stink. The BPS should be taking a look at it. I'm disappointed that the psychologists have not taken this up."

 

[echoes]

However, I don't recall having ever heard a serious suggestion that we should abandon the wearing of masks (traditionally pretty crude, usually 'paper', ones) in operating theatres and when undertaking sterile procedures.

I don't know what you get up to in the supermarket or on the train, but I try to avoid operating on deep, open incisions.

There are also some surgeons who would disagree with you.