This insanity is endless...

[Norder]

.

You can't get them 100% accurate BT, and actually a 0.4% false positive rate is quite low, certainly lower than the PCR test currently being used.

The queues of people seeking tests in Liverpool suggest the initial acceptability of this pilot is high, at least to some. Its ethical basis, however, looks shaky. The council claims, wrongly, that the test detects infectiousness and is accurate. In fact, if used alone it will lead to many incorrect results with potentially substantial consequences. The context for gaining consent has been tarnished by the enthusiasm of some local officials and politicians. In the case of schools, the programme has been culpably rushed: parents have had to respond unreasonably promptly to a request to opt out if they do not want their child screened.12

There is no protocol for this pilot in the public domain, let alone systems specification or ethical approval. The public has had no chance to contribute, as required by the UK standards for public involvement in research.13

Spending the equivalent of 77% of the NHS annual revenue budget on an unevaluated underdesigned national programme leading to a regressive, insufficiently supported intervention—in many cases for the wrong people—cannot be defended.

another pointless exercise - but anything to get those numbers up - more numbers for what is to the Vast majority of people - a pointless bug.


Despite claims by the city council that the Innova test is “very accurate with high sensitivity and specificity,it has not been evaluated in these conditions.





ready for a laugh....?




omg !


https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4436

[oldcolner]

I agree Norder.

“ Spending the equivalent of 77% of the NHS annual revenue budget on an unevaluated underdesigned national programme leading to a regressive, insufficiently supported intervention—in many cases for the wrong people—cannot be defended. “

[The Bedlington Terrier]

This insanity is endless.

[sinkov]

If these new vaccines are perfectly safe, what does this exist for ?

https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment

[The Bedlington Terrier]

If these new vaccines are perfectly safe, what does this exist for ?

https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment

Oh phuck!

[sinkov]

Oh phuck!

£120,000 compo BT, I might just give that new Covid vax a try, I like the sound of that.

[sinkov]

It's out at last, the Danes have managed to get their Face Mask study published, and guess what,

"Landmark Danish study shows face masks have no significant effect"

Quelle surprise !!

"Do face masks work? Earlier this year, the UK government decided that masks could play a significant role in stopping Covid-19 and made masks mandatory in a number of public places. But are these policies backed by the scientific evidence?

Yesterday marked the publication of a long-delayed trial in Denmark which hopes to answer that very question. The ‘Danmask-19 trial’ was conducted in the spring with over 3,000 participants, when the public were not being told to wear masks but other public health measures were in place. Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence.

Around half of those in the trial received 50 disposable surgical face masks, which they were told to change after eight hours of use. After one month, the trial participants were tested using both PCR, antibody and lateral flow tests and compared with the trial participants who did not wear a mask.

In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19. 1.8 per cent of those wearing masks caught Covid, compared to 2.1 per cent of the control group. As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small."

[oldcolner]

It's out at last, the Danes have managed to get their Face Mask study published, and guess what,

"Landmark Danish study shows face masks have no significant effect"

Quelle surprise !!


[B]"Do face masks work? Earlier this year, the UK government decided that masks could play a significant role in stopping Covid-19 and made masks mandatory in a number of public places. But are these policies backed by the scientific evidence?

Yesterday marked the publication of a long-delayed trial in Denmark which hopes to answer that very question. The ‘Danmask-19 trial’ was conducted in the spring with over 3,000 participants, when the public were not being told to wear masks but other public health measures were in place. Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence.

Around half of those in the trial received 50 disposable surgical face masks, which they were told to change after eight hours of use. After one month, the trial participants were tested using both PCR, antibody and lateral flow tests and compared with the trial participants who did not wear a mask.

In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19. 1.8 per cent of those wearing masks caught Covid, compared to 2.1 per cent of the control group. As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small."

Of course Denmark has a much lower incidence if COVID at 12000 per million than our 22000 and those figures of infections are incredibly low,
So the study was open to lots of bias. At face value they show a 14% reduction but this clearly was not a controlled study in any way.
The controls could have encountered no infected people, the masked ones could have been mixing with lots of infected folk.

So interesting but not conclusive.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Of course Denmark has a much lower incidence if COVID at 12000 per million than our 22000 and those figures of infections are incredibly low,
So the study was open to lots of bias. At face value they show a 14% reduction but this clearly was not a controlled study in any way.
The controls could have encountered no infected people, the masked ones could have been mixing with lots of infected folk.

So interesting but not conclusive.

Spoken like a true believer OC.

[sinkov]

"Roger W. Koops holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of California, Riverside as well as Master and Bachelor degrees from Western Washington University. He worked in the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industry for over 25 years. Before retiring in 2017, he spent 12 years as a Consultant focused on Quality Assurance/Control and issues related to Regulatory Compliance. He has authored or co-authored several papers in the areas of pharmaceutical technology and chemistry."

Interesting article by Dr Koops on how the virus transmits, and why the the Scientific, Medical and Technical concensus on face masks, which we were advised to follow from last March right through to July was correct, and is still correct, ie. the ones the public are using are not much use at all and could even help spread the virus. It's long but very readable, from someone who has vast experience of the subject and knows what he's talking about, which makes a pleasant change. Below is an excerpt from it,


https://www.aier.org/article/the-year-of-disguises/


"The idea of “masks” on people did not suddenly appear in March of 2020. The usage of face protection with infectious diseases has been well studied, especially with influenza. Do not forget, the mechanics of these two viruses (CV/IF) are essentially the same so what works or doesn’t work for one is the same for the other.

The understanding has been that a “mask,” and that term usually refers to either a SURGICAL mask or N95 mask, has no benefit in the general population and is only useful in controlled clinical settings. Further, it has been considered a greater transmission risk than a benefit in the general population. If people still have a memory, you may recall that this was still the advice in February 2020. That understanding has not changed and I will explain why.

The term “mask” by itself means nothing. It is like saying “car.” You have to identify it more specifically because there are many different types and varieties, just like cars. So, for this essay, I will use two terms as follows:

Face Coverings: In this category I will include homemade cloth, dust, non-fitted utility, custom stylish, and any other common “mask,” i.e. something that is intended to cover your mouth and nose and that is by and large used in the general population (because they are cheap and inexpensive).

Mask: In this category, I am referring specifically to the SURGICAL mask and N95 mask (which is recommended for use in clinical settings by health care workers). If necessary, I will specify between them.

One of the big mistakes by modelers is the concept of a face covering or mask as a “barrier.” I see many references to so-called “experts” who make this claim. This is completely false. No face covering or mask is a barrier. Either they do not know what they are talking about or they are misleading people.

Masks and “Face Coverings” ARE:

1) FILTERS, not barriers. They FILTER only the things that they are designed to filter, to a level of efficiency based upon design, usually not at 100% efficiency. For example, the N95 mask is designed and rated to filter particles greater than 300 nm at 95% efficiency (note: there are masks with greater efficiency than 95%, such as the N99 and NHEPA, but these are very expensive).

2) Bidirectional, or two-way street flow. That means the air is intended to go in and out through the same place – breathe in, breathe out. The filtering ability affects both ingress and egress, but MOST are intended to be used towards ingress, i.e. to protect the wearer (Surgical masks are the exception).

3) Designed for normal breathing patterns, not exertive force (although the Surgical mask has a pressure rating). This is an important point!

4) NOT designed to filter infectious agents but rather inert particulates (except the Surgical mask which is intended to preserve a sterile/sanitary operating field).

5) Designed for minimal usage time. They are NOT intended to be stuck on your face for hours.

I understand the psychological crutch that people feel with something covering their mouth/nose. I am sorry, but that is a false sense of security. Perception is NOT reality. The mind says that you have some solid thing covering your mouth and nose but that is not really the case, it is porous; things get through (or go around)..

I could spend time on the viral transmission ineffectiveness of the variety of face coverings and fitted masks based upon the material, pore size, non-fit, etc., as well as the studies. I will say that there has been only ONE type of mask, the SURGICAL mask, which has shown any ability to reduce, not eliminate, virus transmission because it is actually rated to a 100 nanometer pore size AND it is rated for ingress and egress. But, the SURGICAL mask is not intended for use outside of a controlled, sterile hospital surgical field where its use and function can be controlled. It has limitations."