When comparing death/infection rates in the past, it's been widely acknowledged that there are so many different factors which are going to impact it, that specific conclusions are difficult to draw - in fact, I think you & I had that exact exchange from memory - this is no different.

To suggest that that one graph is proof that masks "don't work" or "don't shift the needle" is a huge stretch.

Masks have a bearing in certain situations where wearers are not in immediate proximity in ventilated areas, as they prevent excessive loading of the air with virus particles.
They are not fail-safe and their effectiveness drops markedly in confined areas with large numbers of people.

If a no-mask squeezes past me in the aisle of a supermarket , or stretches across me to get something off the shelf, or lets their maskless kids run around public areas (using a supermarket like a playground), it gets my gander.
There were situations where i was a carer, and if i had caught Covid from someone less considerate than me, it would have impacted my patient's treatment.

So yes, please exercise all your own liberties and go maskless and unvaccinated and all that stuff. Just remember, it does have an impact on someone else.

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (01 Dec 2021 4.01pm)

I disengage, I turn the page.

It isn't as if Labour or the Liberals are freedom loving libertarian parties is it.

At least this isn't Australia or Austria....yet.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Of course it is, for the reasons I've explained.

Like I said, I'm fairly sure we had an exchange on the difference in death rates when comparing other countries, and at that point every factor from population density to cultural uptake was referenced as relevant, but now that is no longer the case?

I don't often like his posting style, but Wisbech had it right when he said "you are attempting to extrapolate a conclusion from just one contributory factor".

There are many many studies suggesting masks reduce transmission, but I find those type of exchanges rather tedious - they invariably end up with people who are not scientists debating things they don't fully understand (myself included). But literally google 'mask effectiveness study' and there are plenty which would support it.

The reality is none of us know, but it seems logical to think they would make a difference - people have been using masks to combat airborne viruses for decades, and pretty much every established government in the world has come to the same conclusion - given all of that, and the absolute miniscule level of inconvenience it causes me to wear one, I have come to the opinion that it is probably sensible.

My point is not that I'm definitely right, but I don't like statements like 'the data shows masks don't work' being thrown around as fact.

The data is out there from the time masks were mandated.

You said it was just one graph however it combined several to compare between countries with different policies.

All I'm saying is that I see no evidence that mandates had any reduction affect. If that can be shown then I'd value it as it would alter my view.

As for studies suggesting mask effectiveness.....as has also been shown in this thread there are also studies showing their ineffectiveness.....I don't want to throw shade without pre-knowledge but I would sometimes wish to know who is funding what study wise.

You say you aren't certain....well, I have no problem with that position, however in a situation where people are putting forward mandates with enforcement I think that the least that could be asked for is evidence that mask mandates have actually worked.

As for the traditional use of masks against airborne viruses....yes, if we were only using ffp3 masks I'd agree that....if used correctly they would have an affect....but this was never mandated because the supply and expense isn't realistic.

Instead, in my view, it's just for visual affect to encourage social compliance, because the majority of humans follow herd behaviour out of fear.....a characteristic we share with many other animals.

I recognise that you choose to wear a mask out of consideration of others who might wish you to.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Dec 2021 5.03pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

But there is still no allowances made for the other contributing factors, so it's not proof of what you claim it is.

Your comment re who is funding what study is exactly why I avoid those type of exchanges and avoid sending specific links - it's an endless game where people's only interest is confirming what they already think, so anything which supports that = good, anything which doesn't = pick holes in it any way you can. Did you question who funded the study you've referenced, for example?

Again, to be clear I am not saying I am not guilty of this as well, just highlighting why I don't particularly engage on those type of points.

You say that all you'd need is evidence, but when that is presented, you would simply refute the conclusion, or the source, or the scientist, or the media outlet presenting it.