Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

I'm just quoting Norgie experts, but I've heard the CMO chick (can't remember her name) say similar.

"The undesirable effects of facemasks include the risks of incorrect use, a false sense of security (leading to relaxation of other interventions), and contamination of masks."
Aye I would have to agree to a certain extent with the last paragraph. I actually find it irritating when I see them waltzing around the supermarket with the mask just covering their gobs and not their snecks, absolutely pointless putting the thing on.
I sanitize hands when taking mine off, then again after it's off. Your average Joe most likely has had one mask ( unwashed ) for the whole duration of the pandemic, stuffed in a back pocket etc.
 
This is a fairly decent study on the protective effect of masks, and before people start complaining that masks aren't 100% effective, yes that is obvious and also missing the point - even if they don't completely prevent every transmission, they make it less likely and also reduce the amount of viral particles the other person inhales.

How well does that lab study translate into the real world?

I'll answer that for you.

You don't know without a good RCT.
 
How many's 'quite a few' cancer deaths?

Prof Sikora (an ocologist) reckons 35,000 covid-cancer-excess deaths:


I'm guessing that there'll be kids and younger people in that demographic than there is in Covid deaths.

It would be good to see a 'years lost' study comparing the years lost due to covid deaths versus others. Won't happen though.
What happens to people with cancer when they get the COVID that’s ripping through the hospital?
 
What happens to people with cancer when they get the COVID that’s ripping through the hospital?

With the level of testing the UK has, it shouldn't be too difficult and the NHS has had months to prepare.



Next you'll be telling me it's impossible to protect care homes without locking down.
 
With the level of testing the UK has, it shouldn't be too difficult and the NHS has had months to prepare.



Next you'll be telling me it's impossible to protect care homes without locking down.
It's difficult to stop cross infections in both settings when the numbers get big. Absolutely loads of carehomes had outbreaks in the last couple of months, likewise people are still picking it up in hospitals.
 
It's difficult to stop cross infections in both settings when the numbers get big. Absolutely loads of carehomes had outbreaks in the last couple of months, likewise people are still picking it up in hospitals.

Japan's done it and not locked down hard once.

And much of the 1st wave's care home tests was blamed on the UK's lack of testing capacity. Don't you remember the media furore about the Tory's lack of testing?

The UK is now a world leader when it comes to testing.
 
With the level of testing the UK has, it shouldn't be too difficult and the NHS has had months to prepare.



Next you'll be telling me it's impossible to protect care homes without locking down.


None of this addresses the question about what happens to the people with cancer when they get COVID.
 
Nearly there - so to advance it a bit - what's the most likely outcome to someone with a compromised immune system/existing comorbidity?

It'll be exactly the same outcome if their cancer doesn't get treated; death.

Prof Sikora reckons there'll be 35,000 excess cancer deaths due to lack of cancer testing and treatment.

But Covid is the only thing that matters.
 
How many's 'quite a few' cancer deaths?

Prof Sikora (an ocologist) reckons 35,000 covid-cancer-excess deaths:


I'm guessing that there'll be kids and younger people in that demographic than there is in Covid deaths.

It would be good to see a 'years lost' study comparing the years lost due to covid deaths versus others. Won't happen though.

Karol Sikora is another idiot who can be safely ignored.

Here is a commentary on 2 studies in the lancet oncology. Somewhere between 1000 and 3000 additional deaths.

The assessment you mention is absolutely being done, though unfortunately you don't know enough to know the words to search for it.
 
And here's me thinking it was only Brexiteers who ignored the experts.

"I can confirm that Karol Sikora is not on the staff at Imperial and does not hold the title of honorary professor of oncology. This individual has been warned before by the college for making claims that he is employed by us, or associated with us. His views are very certainly not the views of the college."

- Prof Sir Roy Anderson, Imperial College London,
 
"I can confirm that Karol Sikora is not on the staff at Imperial and does not hold the title of honorary professor of oncology. This individual has been warned before by the college for making claims that he is employed by us, or associated with us. His views are very certainly not the views of the college."

- Prof Sir Roy Anderson, Imperial College London,

Post the link you took that out of.
 
Only my experience designing and running clinical trials, and experience in clinical medicine.

There's nothing unethical about observing the effect of masks in real world situations
Making a population not use an intervention that is highly likely to prevent a negative health outcome is unethical. Observing what happens when people do, or do not, is fine, but that's not a RCT.

The study in Denmark does not show anything one way or the other, by the way.
 
Making a population not use an intervention that is highly likely to prevent a negative health outcome is unethical.

I agree with your point about RCTs and observational studies.

However, strongly disagree with your 'Highly likely to prevent a negative health outcome is unethical. '.

The latest science says 'There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks.' If it was 'highly likely' that they worked, they wouldn't have used that word 'uncertainty'.

Stuff that's highly likely isn't usually called uncertain.

 
Last edited:
Top