Baxter Parp
-
Posts
10,749 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Baxter Parp
-
-
-
A rehash of old ideas indeed.
0 -
I've heard at least one voxpop interviewee from London say "after saving all those lives they deserved a little drink", which is surely worse.
And don't forget he got Brexit done.
That's all that matters to his supporters.0 -
Everything that happens in Scotland is in the context of an unindependent part of the United Kingdom. There are no other valid comparisons.Quit with the constant comparisons to England and just admit that while different, both are shameful figures.0 -
10 minutes ago, Left Back said:
You’re absolutely priceless.
Will you be back tomorrow and coming out with more of this stuff? I’ve got some really shite calls I have to dial in to and could do with some entertainment.
I'm always willing to enlighten the ignorant.
0 -
20 minutes ago, craigkillie said:
Repeatedly quoting excerpts from a paper you probably don't even understand isn't the home run you think it is.
It is when it completely supports your argument. Not one of you has provided a scrap of evidence to the contrary.
-1 -
2 hours ago, Left Back said:
The article doesn’t even claim masks work. It’s conjecture, same as any other article you could post.
How is "The researchers reported that fabric face masks “blocked between 62.6% and 87.1% of fine particles, whereas surgical masks protected against an average of 78.2% of fine particles. N95 masks blocked 99.6% of fine particles.” conjecture?
-1 -
"Behind the ball here, once more, the Herald offers us the October A&E waiting time data, for Scotland, of 73.5% seen in 4 hours, only 18% better than NHS England at 61.9%
After two weeks when the figure fell to around 70%, in October, the figures have climbed in November against the usual winter trend."
0 -
3 minutes ago, Left Back said:
I’ve read that article before. If you think that’s definitive proof it shows how little you know about language, let alone science.
If you'd actually read it you'd know that masks work.
-2 -
27 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:
the reinstatement of Hadrian's wall !
Are we getting bits of Northumberland as well now?
0 -
3 minutes ago, Left Back said:
Selective quoting again.
I’m stunned.
The link's right there, chum.
-1 -
2 minutes ago, NorthernLights said:
The latest episode of the More or Less podcast from the BBC was very critical of that study.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0b7zzdr
I think they said other studies that had better controls etc found the reduction was around the 20%-ish mark (can't remember the exact figure).
It's worth a listen.
"The researchers reported that fabric face masks “blocked between 62.6% and 87.1% of fine particles, whereas surgical masks protected against an average of 78.2% of fine particles. N95 masks blocked 99.6% of fine particles.”"
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n432
I've got loads of others, mate. Masks work.
-3 -
3 minutes ago, scottsdad said:
No propaganda from me.
On masks no question that the ffp3 mask, fitted correctly on the face of someone with covid could, in certain circumstances like enclosed spaces, reduce the chance of that person passing on the virus. That is miles away from slapping on any old bit of cloth bought online to walk around a big and empty supermarket at 7am, or going from a nightclub dance floor to the bog.
"Mask-wearing is the single most effective public health measure at tackling Covid, according to the first global study of its kind, which found that the measure was linked to a 53% fall in the incidence of the disease."
Any old bit of cloth can stop an aerosol, bud.
-3 -
-
1 minute ago, ddfg said:
What's your thoughts on the 70mph speed limit on motorways? Seems pretty pointless given the capacity of modern cars and understandably ignored by many, a bit like the most of the "restrictions"
Feel free to burn down the A9 at 130 mph without a seatbelt then.
0 -
2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:
No it's more personal than that.
I'm happy to discuss it with other scientists on here like @scottsdad because he knows what he's talking about when it comes to science.
You on the other hand are a waste of space.
An actual scientist wouldn't be passing on dangerous propaganda like this.
0 -
1 minute ago, Left Back said:
Not regarding Covid. The article even states this.
Have you actually read it?
”Overall, direct evidence of the efficacy of mask use is supportive, but inconclusive. Since there are no RCTs, only one observational trial, and unclear evidence from other respiratory illnesses, we will need to look at a wider body of evidence.”
Everything else in the article is supposition and guesswork. Far from definitive proof.
My last words on this subject which has been debated many times before.
"Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers’ exposure to infection."
Stick with this one if you don't like that one.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536
Or this:
Mask-wearing linked to 53% cut in Covid incidence, global study finds
Or stick your head in the sand, it's up to you.
-1 -
Good point well made.
3 -
Just now, oaksoft said:
Let me make one thing clear.
I couldn't give a f**k what you THINK I could or couldn't get read through.
I am not discussing masks with you becausde you clearly haven't got a bloody clue what you are talking about and that's the end of it.
You are not discussing masks becausde you are wrong and you know it.
0 -
3 minutes ago, oaksoft said:
That article is not "definitive proof" of anything and I'm not wasting my time trying to explain to a non-scientist what the issues are with that review paper you posted a link to because we've been through that on the thread before.
I'm not convinced you could get through a Beano, mate, but here's another one you can chew on.
"Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers’ exposure to infection."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536
Masks work.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Left Back said:
It isn’t definitive proof. Controlled trials are definitive proof. There are loads of ifs, buts and maybes in that piece. It’s lumping mask wearing in with social distancing and not saying definitively that mask wearing works.
Its the same as any other article published on masks.
The paper cites many controlled trials. HTH.
0 -
2 minutes ago, ddfg said:
Its about as relevant as comparing seatbelts to Covid is it not?
I'm comparing seatbelts to masks.
0 -
1 minute ago, ddfg said:
Using that analogy do we stop everyone driving because some people don't like driving on motorways or in the dark?
How is the legislation imposing the wearing of seatbelts similar to not wanting to drive in the dark?
0 -
7 minutes ago, oaksoft said:
I am not discussing scientific literature on masks with you or anyone else similarly unqualified.
Are you clear about that or do I need to repeat myself?
I'm not discussing anything, I'm posting definitive proof that masks work.
2
General Politics Thread
in The Politics Forum
Posted