Coronavirus

[teamsaint]

Here's a detailed article from Nature about masks.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8?fbclid=IwAR1wE0RSgjkrwlk37HZTHN2YJbJmGXgpvb2NeWXrHsgefSQaaRQljtRrmzc

Summarised: people ought to wear them.

I havent read it, but a great deal of the published research , ends up saying , to paraphase , “ unproven, but we probably ought to just in case”.
Which is a weak argument, ( though not necessarily to be ignored) while evidence of the negative effects, also poorly researched and understood, has rather been ignored in the media, in the rush to do something,anything.

And, really, there are other ways of mitigating risk, other related conversations to be had.

[Bryn]

- you mean the 5G antenna put there to track people's movements and give them cancer?

That's the one.

[Richard Barrett]

I havent read it, but a great deal of the published research , ends up saying , to paraphase , “ unproven, but we probably ought to just in case”

From the article:

"To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease. (...) More-rigorous analyses added direct evidence. A preprint study posted in early August (and not yet peer reviewed), found that weekly increases in per-capita mortality were four times lower in places where masks were the norm or recommended by the government, compared with other regions. (...) Although scientists can’t control many confounding variables in human populations, they can in animal studies. Researchers led by microbiologist Kwok-Yung Yuen at the University of Hong Kong housed infected and healthy hamsters in adjoining cages, with surgical-mask partitions separating some of the animals. Without a barrier, about two-thirds of the uninfected animals caught SARS-CoV-2, according to the paper published in May. But only about 25% of the animals protected by mask material got infected, and those that did were less sick than their mask-free neighbours (as measured by clinical scores and tissue changes)."

Which is a little stronger than "unproven", I think. Obviously there are also other ways of mitigating risk, as you say.

[Bryn]

From the article:

"To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease. (...) More-rigorous analyses added direct evidence. A preprint study posted in early August (and not yet peer reviewed), found that weekly increases in per-capita mortality were four times lower in places where masks were the norm or recommended by the government, compared with other regions. (...) Although scientists can’t control many confounding variables in human populations, they can in animal studies. Researchers led by microbiologist Kwok-Yung Yuen at the University of Hong Kong housed infected and healthy hamsters in adjoining cages, with surgical-mask partitions separating some of the animals. Without a barrier, about two-thirds of the uninfected animals caught SARS-CoV-2, according to the paper published in May. But only about 25% of the animals protected by mask material got infected, and those that did were less sick than their mask-free neighbours (as measured by clinical scores and tissue changes)."

Which is a little stronger than "unproven", I think. Obviously there are also other ways of mitigating risk, as you say.

The closing quote from Paul Digard, a virologist at the University of Edinburgh, sums up the case for, “Masks work, but they are not infallible. And, therefore, keep your distance.”

[crb11]

if it's off (no power) then it can't receive text messages - however as the phone needs to go through various handshakes (eg to confirm it has a valid SIM etc) when switched back on , these handshakes may well see the transfer of short messages that were queued in the network awaiting such a re- activation. Presume these messages get dumped if not delivered within a set time.

It's about 20 years since I worked with the relevant standard, so this might be out of date, but text messages get sent in "spare capacity" in signalling messages. (Which are all the same length, but some have less information than others - such as just "OK, confirming I got your last message"). So outstanding text messages will be sent and received during the handshake process as the phone turns on and connects to a base station.

I don't know what the system is for dealing with text messages to be sent to a recipient whose phone is off, or out of contact. I'd assume there's some sort of server system, as for e-mails, and probably a limit on the amount of data stored per user, rather than a time limit. My mother, whose phone is for emergencies and gets turned on only every few months, has received weeks-old texts on occasion.

[Dave2002]

From the article:

"To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease. (...) More-rigorous analyses added direct evidence. A preprint study posted in early August (and not yet peer reviewed), found that weekly increases in per-capita mortality were four times lower in places where masks were the norm or recommended by the government, compared with other regions. (...) Although scientists can’t control many confounding variables in human populations, they can in animal studies. Researchers led by microbiologist Kwok-Yung Yuen at the University of Hong Kong housed infected and healthy hamsters in adjoining cages, with surgical-mask partitions separating some of the animals. Without a barrier, about two-thirds of the uninfected animals caught SARS-CoV-2, according to the paper published in May. But only about 25% of the animals protected by mask material got infected, and those that did were less sick than their mask-free neighbours (as measured by clinical scores and tissue changes)."

Which is a little stronger than "unproven", I think. Obviously there are also other ways of mitigating risk, as you say.

It does mention surgical masks, which may be more protective than the ones many people wear. There’s still quite a lot of speculation in the wording. So I would suggest it’s still not proven. You can apply precautionary principle, or Pascal’s wager type arguments if you wish, though they aren’t always sound either.

[Richard Barrett]

So I would suggest it’s still not proven. You can apply precautionary principle, or Pascal’s wager type arguments if you wish, though they aren’t always sound either.

Pardon me if I give the pages of Nature a certain amount of credence with regard to advice in the absence (as yet) of properly controlled trials. What is unsound about Pascal's wager?

[oddoneout]

- you mean the 5G antenna put there to track people's movements and give them cancer?

There's long been an urban myth about the underwired bras causing cancer. I wonder if there's now a 2020 version to suggest a 5G antenna risk...

[Bryn]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/08/trump-covid-drug-developed-using-cells-derived-from-abortion?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Phileas]

Pardon me if I give the pages of Nature a certain amount of credence with regard to advice in the absence (as yet) of properly controlled trials. What is unsound about Pascal's wager?

AIUI the “lack of evidence” often cited refers to the paucity of randomised controlled trials but there’s a similar lack for social distancing and hand washing due to the difficulties of doing large scale trials of that type. There are other kinds of evidence available. The reasoning behind masks is similar to that for distancing, i.e. preventing exhaled droplets from crossing the gap.

[french frank]

Pardon me if I give the pages of Nature a certain amount of credence with regard to advice in the absence (as yet) of properly controlled trials. What is unsound about Pascal's wager?

I don't think Pascal's wager is unsound, and in terms of social distancing and washing hands it applies. I'm not sure even of its relevance in terms of wearing masks. A professional bookie would read Nature to set the odds.

[LMcD]

It does mention surgical masks, which may be more protective than the ones many people wear. There’s still quite a lot of speculation in the wording. So I would suggest it’s still not proven. You can apply precautionary principle, or Pascal’s wager type arguments if you wish, though they aren’t always sound either.

?
Another thread I shall have to stop trying to follow!

[johnb]

I despair that people are still .... still .... banging on about face masks.

(Not a very helpful contribution to the discussion.)

[oddoneout]

?
Another thread I shall have to stop trying to follow!

I've just looked up Pascal's wager and it seems to me to be a version of 'expect/plan for the worst and hope for the best'.

[oddoneout]

What do you expect from ten or twelve Guardian readers who've spent thousands of hours reading and writing over 4,000 messages.
They run out of things to talk about, so start again ...

Poor old Michael Finnegan, begin again.