Visit our Popular Forums

**Dockhead** · 29-10-2020, 05:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

. . . There is very little controversy, over the efficacy of face coverings.
Masks are a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives.

Masks reduce potential exposure risk from an infected person, whether they have symptoms, or not. People wearing masks are protected from getting infected. Masks also prevent onward transmission, when worn by a person who is infected.
Masks should be used as part of a comprehensive ‘Do it all!’ approach including: physical distancing, avoiding crowded, closed and close-contact settings, improving ventilation, cleaning hands, covering sneezes and coughs, and more. . . .

All this sounds right to me, and I GUESS that it's all true -- common sense, right? And therefore I wear masks and I support the idea that masking should be done generally as a matter of public policy, maybe even on a compulsory basis. It's not so socially or economically costly, that we would need to demand a lot of scientific certainty for this to be sensible policy.

HOWEVER, common sense may be very wrong, and there really are a number of serious studies which suggest that masking doesn't actually do much. I don't have time to dig them up right now, but you'll find them I'm sure if you dig a little (and we all know how good you are at that!

).

I get your point about "scientific certainty", but the degree of certainty which is sensible to demand before implementing a policy depends on the costs of the policy. Masking is not so costly, relatively speaking, so you can afford a certain gamble with it. Other measures may be different, maybe MUCH different. Complete certainty may be impossible in any case, but there are a lot of shades of gray where scientific certainty is concerned, and these shades may be very significant.

Exile · 29-10-2020, 05:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

These observations are not "balanced" commentary.

While there is hazard in overstating the evidence, using the scientific (theoretical) “uncertainty” is (in any issue), both, irresponsible and dangerous!

There is very little controversy, over the efficacy of face coverings.
Masks are a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives.

Masks reduce potential exposure risk from an infected person, whether they have symptoms, or not. People wearing masks are protected from getting infected. Masks also prevent onward transmission, when worn by a person who is infected.
Masks should be used as part of a comprehensive ‘Do it all!’ approach including: physical distancing, avoiding crowded, closed and close-contact settings, improving ventilation, cleaning hands, covering sneezes and coughs, and more.

See my comments regarding 'scientific uncertainty', in post #232 “The dangers of overconfident experts” ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3264085

These comments don't appear "balanced" either, and your linked post (#132) takes great pains to, among other things, distinguish btwn scientific uncertainty & scientific doubt. Yet your comments above acknowledge neither when it comes to the science behind wearing masks. Like many, I personally think it's a good idea, at least in indoor public spaces, for the cost/benefit reasons Dockhead describes. But it's not without valid scientific controversy, especially when it comes to the non-medical grade masks most people are using.

There is a recent Danish report to this effect but thus far the scientists who authored it have not been able to find a journal willing to publish it. There are accusations that politics are in play. Imagine that. Maybe you can uncover this study for us.

**GordMay** · 29-10-2020, 06:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

... science behind wearing masks. Like many, I personally think it's a good idea, at least in indoor public spaces, for the cost/benefit reasons Dockhead describes. But it's not without valid scientific controversy, especially when it comes to the non-medical grade masks most people are using.
There is a recent Danish report to this effect but thus far the scientists who authored it have not been able to find a journal willing to publish it. There are accusations that politics are in play. Imagine that. Maybe you can uncover this study for us.

Evidently, the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the American Medical Association’s journal JAMA all rejected publication of a large Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask in a public space during the corona pandemic.
The authors claim to be keeping their results secret, until their paper has been peer-reviewed and published*.
“We cannot start discussing what they are dissatisfied with, because in that case we must also explain what the study showed – and we do not want to discuss that until it is published,” explains Christian Torp-Pedersen.
Another researcher, Thomas Lars Benfield, said that the findings would be released “as soon as a journal is brave enough,” suggesting that the results would cause controversy.
Benfield has since walked back those comments, saying, "The quote [is] a bit out of context. The article is being reviewed by a respected journal. We have decided not to publish data until the article has been accepted."

The study was initiated at the end of April, following a grant of DKK 5m [£600,000] from the Salling Foundations [owner of the Salling Group, Denmark’s largest retailer]. It involved as many as 6,000 Danes, half of whom had to wear face masks in public over a long period of time. The other half was selected as the control group.
The study’s abstract states that it “will be a two-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial” that “will include adults (>18 years of age) without prior confirmed COVID-19 or symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, who spend more than three hours per day outside the home with exposure to other people. “

The study was not intended to examine the medical efficacy of face masks, but “whether the effectiveness of face mask use is limited due to elicitation of false feelings of security that decrease the observance of other protective behaviors, so-called risk-compensation.”

* A preprint of their unpublished article concluded:
“... Importantly, these findings do not suggest that face masks are not an effective tool to hinder the spread of infections during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic. However, they do suggest that the effectiveness of face masks can be increased if the onset of mandatory policies of face mask are combined with clear communications from health authorities that remind people about the importance of physical distancing and that face masks are not a substitute for such distancing.”

“Does the introduction of a mandatory policy on face mask use elicit risk-compensation? Evidence from Denmark during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic using an instrumental variable approach” ~ by Frederik Jørgensen, Marie Fly Lindholt, Alexander Bor, & Michael Bang Petersen
Preprint ➥ https://psyarxiv.com/2aycn/
➥ https://www.researchgate.net/publica...eries_analyses

file:///C:/Users/gorda/AppData/Local/Temp/Face%20masks%20and%20risk-compensation%20-%20J%C3%B8rgensen%20et%20al%20-%20HOPE.pdf

**GordMay** · 29-10-2020, 06:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

These comments don't appear "balanced" either, ...

That may be due to the scientific evidence not being balanced.
I did, however, present an argument against overconfidence, whilst also trying to explain scientific uncertainty.

Exile · 29-10-2020, 07:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

Evidently, the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the American Medical Association’s journal JAMA all rejected publication of a large Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask in a public space during the corona pandemic.
The authors claim to be keeping their results secret, until their paper has been peer-reviewed and published*.
“We cannot start discussing what they are dissatisfied with, because in that case we must also explain what the study showed – and we do not want to discuss that until it is published,” explains Christian Torp-Pedersen.
Another researcher, Thomas Lars Benfield, said that the findings would be released “as soon as a journal is brave enough,” suggesting that the results would cause controversy.
Benfield has since walked back those comments, saying, "The quote [is] a bit out of context. The article is being reviewed by a respected journal. We have decided not to publish data until the article has been accepted."

The study was initiated at the end of April, following a grant of DKK 5m [£600,000] from the Salling Foundations [owner of the Salling Group, Denmark’s largest retailer]. It involved as many as 6,000 Danes, half of whom had to wear face masks in public over a long period of time. The other half was selected as the control group.
The study’s abstract states that it “will be a two-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial” that “will include adults (>18 years of age) without prior confirmed COVID-19 or symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, who spend more than three hours per day outside the home with exposure to other people. “

The study was not intended to examine the medical efficacy of face masks, but “whether the effectiveness of face mask use is limited due to elicitation of false feelings of security that decrease the observance of other protective behaviors, so-called risk-compensation.”

* A preprint of their unpublished article concluded:
“... Importantly, these findings do not suggest that face masks are not an effective tool to hinder the spread of infections during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic. However, they do suggest that the effectiveness of face masks can be increased if the onset of mandatory policies of face mask are combined with clear communications from health authorities that remind people about the importance of physical distancing and that face masks are not a substitute for such distancing.”

“Does the introduction of a mandatory policy on face mask use elicit risk-compensation? Evidence from Denmark during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic using an instrumental variable approach” ~ by Frederik Jørgensen, Marie Fly Lindholt, Alexander Bor, & Michael Bang Petersen
Preprint ➥ https://psyarxiv.com/2aycn/
➥ https://www.researchgate.net/publica...eries_analyses

file:///C:/Users/gorda/AppData/Local/Temp/Face%20masks%20and%20risk-compensation%20-%20J%C3%B8rgensen%20et%20al%20-%20HOPE.pdf

I appreciate your well-researched (as usual) elucidation and clarifications re: what we may know about this unpublished study. I would only add that, whether or not it's about the efficacy of a mask itself, or it's instead the counter-productive behavior the wearing of a mask may produce, it's the overall impact of mask usage on infection rates that obviously counts. To that extent, some of your unequivocal statements above -- for e.g. "people wearing masks are protected from getting infected," and "masks also prevent onward transmission, when worn by a person who is infected" -- may actually induce people wearing masks not to engage in the "do-it-all" approach you correctly point out is obviously needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

That may be due to the scientific evidence not being balanced.
I did, however, present an argument against overconfidence, whilst also trying to explain scientific uncertainty.

Yes, you did, and while such concepts are valuable generally they don't translate neatly into other complex areas of scientific inquiry. And once politicized, of course, whatever the "science" may be telling us inevitably becomes distorted from every side which has larger agendas they wish to pursue. Ironically, each side will often cite "THE science" in support of their very different agendas, thereby distorting the science further. Mask usage seems to be a classic example, and rather than either side trying to advocate yea or nay in absolute terms, I think it would be far more convincing to simply play it straight with the public.

In this case anyway, that means acknowledging that, while the science may be somewhat unsettled, wearing a mask is (relatively) innocuous as compared to other restrictions, and the weight of the scientific evidence has thus far concluded that it likely helps reduce transmissions. I would think the public would be far more responsive to this sort of candor than first telling them not to wear them for health reasons when the real reason was to preserve them for medical workers, or alternatively trying to frighten them into wearing them with absolutist (and unproven) comments about their benefits. Oftentimes the credibility of the proponent of a policy is more important than the veracity of the policy itself. More so when there remain so many unknowns.

**Dockhead** · 29-10-2020, 08:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

. . . In this case anyway, that means acknowledging that, while the science may be somewhat unsettled, wearing a mask is (relatively) innocuous as compared to other restrictions, and the weight of the scientific evidence has thus far concluded that it likely helps reduce transmissions. I would think the public would be far more responsive to this sort of candor than first telling them not to wear them for health reasons when the real reason was to preserve them for medical workers, or alternatively trying to frighten them into wearing them with absolutist (and unproven) comments about their benefits. Oftentimes the credibility of the proponent of a policy is more important than the veracity of the policy itself. More so when there remain so many unknowns.

I strongly agree with this. Very very incisive comment, painfully incisive.

It's a question of political culture. We like to manipulate and bully people, and it's wrong. No good will come out of this approach. It breaks down trust, and at the end of it when the trust is gone, you get people reading all kinds of crap, believing conspiracy theories, and dismissing anything they don't like as "fake news".

It's the same thing with climate change, but don't get me started on that . . .

stevensuf · 29-10-2020, 23:23

It is looking more and more likely that any immunity is very short lived, a few months to a year at best.

stevensuf · 29-10-2020, 23:25

My main question is whether reinfection will be worse than the initial infection, or milder, so far the anecdotal evidence is pointing to worse.

**Dockhead** · 29-10-2020, 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevensuf

My main question is whether reinfection will be worse than the initial infection, or milder, so far the anecdotal evidence is pointing to worse.

No, that's not the main question. The main question is whether reinfection is a material risk, and it's not -- documented cases of symptomatic reinfection are exceptionally rare. There are only about a dozen documented cases of reinfection so far out of 45+ millions of infections. That's a statistical nothing. If even 0.1% of people were getting reinfected, which would not be a significant problem, there would be 50,000 cases of reinfection, and there are not.

This is absolutely nothing to worry about. Immunity is not binary, and it's never absolutely perfect. Sometimes people's immune systems just falter for some reason or another. Science does not yet have deep knowledge of human immune response to this virus, but so far there is no reason at all to think that it's any different from the human immune response to other coronaviruses, where 99.9%+ of people are immune for at least a year.

**Dockhead** · 30-10-2020, 01:29

According to this:

https://wyborcza.pl/7,75398,26458525...C-B.1-L.1.duze

There will be another hard lockdown in Poland in a couple of weeks already. So following Ireland and France. This is bad. And just a few weeks ago, Poland had one of the lowest infection rates in Europe.

stevensuf · 30-10-2020, 01:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No, that's not the main question. The main question is whether reinfection is a material risk, and it's not -- documented cases of symptomatic reinfection are exceptionally rare. There are only about a dozen documented cases of reinfection so far out of 45+ millions of infections. That's a statistical nothing. If even 0.1% of people were getting reinfected, which would not be a significant problem, there would be 50,000 cases of reinfection, and there are not.

This is absolutely nothing to worry about. Immunity is not binary, and it's never absolutely perfect. Sometimes people's immune systems just falter for some reason or another. Science does not yet have deep knowledge of human immune response to this virus, but so far there is no reason at all to think that it's any different from the human immune response to other coronaviruses, where 99.9%+ of people are immune for at least a year.

If I was a betting man , I would be wagering against you big time. I will give it 3 months and it will be well proven that immunity only last a few months to a year at best.

The anecdotal evidence flows far quicker than scientific studies and all the anecdotal evidence is showing a short lived immunity and the possibility that reinfection could be worse than the first infection.

Some preliminary staistical studies are showing thousands of reinfections in single countries, studies in Brazil and kuwait etc

The only ones you are hearing of in the mass media are a handful where genetic samples have proven beyond a doubt its a reinfection and not a flare up.

I am sure I mentioned reinfection back in July and the evidence is only mounting up, Spanish doctors are having a difficult time with it the second time around, the Spanish government is looking ahead to the time where the number of specialist doctors is going to be limited and has passed emergency measures that will force other doctors not specialized to take their places, causing the doctors to be having a major upcry and strike action.

My hope is that the secondary and tertiary infections are milder not worse, as if they are worse, we are up the proverbial creek with no paddle and the death percentage will rise rather dramatically.