Det verkar som att åldersspannet för maskbärarna avgör om det finns någon statistiskt säkerställd effekt av mask och social distansering.
Studien undersöker effekten av maskbärande (cloth och surgical) och social distansering.
Preprint finns här -
www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/pu...
"3.2 Outcomes Our primary outcome was symptomatic seroprevalence for SARS-CoV-2. Our secondary outcomes were prevalence of proper mask-wearing, physical distancing, and symptoms consistent with COVID-19. For COVID-19 symptoms, we used the symptoms that correspond to the WHO case definition of probable COVID-19 given epidemiological risk factors: (a) fever and cough; (b) three or more of the following symptoms (fever, cough, general weakness/fatigue, headache, 2The need for continued monitoring and retraining is a core part of our scalable intervention protocol, available here (in the online version of this article). 8 myalgia, sore throat, coryza, dyspnea, anorexia/nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, altered mental status); or (c) loss of taste or smell. Seropositivity was defined by having detectable IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2."
"Mask-wearing and physical distancing were assessed through direct observation at least weekly at mosques, markets, the main entrance roads to villages, and tea stalls. At 5 and 9 weeks follow-up, we surveyed all reachable participants about COVID-related symptoms. Blood samples collected at 10-12 weeks of follow-up for symptomatic individuals were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Results: There were 178,288 individuals in the intervention group and 163,838 individuals in the control group. The intervention increased proper mask-wearing from 13.3% in control villages (N=806,547 observations) to 42.3% in treatment villages (N=797,715 observations) (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.29 [0.27, 0.31]). This tripling of mask usage was sustained during the intervention period and two weeks after. Physical distancing increased from 24.1% in control villages to 29.2% in treatment villages (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.05 [0.04, 0.06]). After 5 months, the impact of the intervention faded, but mask-wearing remained 10 percentage points higher in the intervention group."
"Because the study was powered to detect differences in symptomatic seroprevalence, we cannot distinguish whether masks work by making symptoms less severe (through a reduced viral load at transmission) or by reducing new infections. We selected the WHO case definition of COVID-19 for its sensitivity, though its limited specificity may imply that the impact of masks on symptoms comes partly from non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections. If masks reduce COVID-19 by reducing symptoms (for a given number of infections), they could help ease the morbidity and mortality resulting from a given number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. If masks reduce infections, they may reduce the total number of infections over the long-term by buying more time to increase the fraction of the population vaccinated. At the time of the study, the predominant circulating 33 SARS-CoV-2 strain was B.1.1.7 (alpha)[62]. The impacts of the delta variant on the number of infections prevented by a given mask-wearer are uncertain; the population-wide consequences of infections prevented by a given mask-wearer may be larger given a higher reproduction number.
We estimate that a scaled version of our intervention being implemented in Bangladesh will cost between $10K and $52K per life saved, depending on what fraction of excess deaths are attributable to COVID-19. This is considerably lower than the value of a statistical life in Bangladesh ($205,000, [63]) and under severe outbreaks, is comparable to the most cost-efficient humanitarian programs at scale (e.g. distributing insecticide nets to prevent malaria costs $9,200 per life saved [64]). This estimate includes only mortality impacts but not morbidity, and greater cost-efficiency is possible if our intervention can be streamlined to further isolate the essential components. The vast majority of our costs were the personnel costs for mask-promoters: if we consider only the costs of mask production, these numbers would be 20x lower. Thus, the overall cost to save a life in countries where mask-mandates can be enforced at minimal cost with existing infrastructure may be substantially lower than our estimates above."
"Physical Distancing Contrary to concerns that mask-wearing would promote risk compensation, we did not find evidence that our intervention decreases distancing behavior. In the second panel of Table A4, we report identical specifications to the first panel, but with physical distancing as the dependent variable. In control villages 24.1% of observed individuals practiced physical distancing compared to 29.2% in intervention villages, an increase of 5.1% (a regression adjusted estimate of 0.05 [95% CI: 0.04,0.06]) Evidently, protective behaviors like mask-wearing and physicaldistancing are complements rather than substitutes: endorsing mask-wearing and informing people about its importance encouraged rural Bangladeshis to take the pandemic more seriously and engage in another form of self-protection. The increases in physical distancing were similar in cloth and surgical mask villages."
In summary, we found that mask distribution, role modeling, and promotion in a LMIC setting increased mask-wearing and physical distancing, leading to lower illness, particularly in older adults. We find stronger support for the use of surgical masks than cloth masks to prevent COVID19. Whether people with respiratory symptoms should generally wear masks to prevent respiratory virus transmission?including for viruses other than SARS-CoV-2?is an important area for future research. Our findings suggest that such a policy may benefit public health."
Det verkar som att åldersspannet för maskbärarna avgör om det finns någon statistiskt säkerställd effekt av mask och social distansering.
Studien undersöker effekten av maskbärande (cloth och surgical) och social distansering.
Preprint finns här -
www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/pu...
"3.2 Outcomes Our primary outcome was symptomatic seroprevalence for SARS-CoV-2. Our secondary outcomes were prevalence of proper mask-wearing, physical distancing, and symptoms consistent with COVID-19. For COVID-19 symptoms, we used the symptoms that correspond to the WHO case definition of probable COVID-19 given epidemiological risk factors: (a) fever and cough; (b) three or more of the following symptoms (fever, cough, general weakness/fatigue, headache, 2The need for continued monitoring and retraining is a core part of our scalable intervention protocol, available here (in the online version of this article). 8 myalgia, sore throat, coryza, dyspnea, anorexia/nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, altered mental status); or (c) loss of taste or smell. Seropositivity was defined by having detectable IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2."
"Mask-wearing and physical distancing were assessed through direct observation at least weekly at mosques, markets, the main entrance roads to villages, and tea stalls. At 5 and 9 weeks follow-up, we surveyed all reachable participants about COVID-related symptoms. Blood samples collected at 10-12 weeks of follow-up for symptomatic individuals were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Results: There were 178,288 individuals in the intervention group and 163,838 individuals in the control group. The intervention increased proper mask-wearing from 13.3% in control villages (N=806,547 observations) to 42.3% in treatment villages (N=797,715 observations) (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.29 [0.27, 0.31]). This tripling of mask usage was sustained during the intervention period and two weeks after. Physical distancing increased from 24.1% in control villages to 29.2% in treatment villages (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.05 [0.04, 0.06]). After 5 months, the impact of the intervention faded, but mask-wearing remained 10 percentage points higher in the intervention group."
"Because the study was powered to detect differences in symptomatic seroprevalence, we cannot distinguish whether masks work by making symptoms less severe (through a reduced viral load at transmission) or by reducing new infections. We selected the WHO case definition of COVID-19 for its sensitivity, though its limited specificity may imply that the impact of masks on symptoms comes partly from non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections. If masks reduce COVID-19 by reducing symptoms (for a given number of infections), they could help ease the morbidity and mortality resulting from a given number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. If masks reduce infections, they may reduce the total number of infections over the long-term by buying more time to increase the fraction of the population vaccinated. At the time of the study, the predominant circulating 33 SARS-CoV-2 strain was B.1.1.7 (alpha)[62]. The impacts of the delta variant on the number of infections prevented by a given mask-wearer are uncertain; the population-wide consequences of infections prevented by a given mask-wearer may be larger given a higher reproduction number.
We estimate that a scaled version of our intervention being implemented in Bangladesh will cost between $10K and $52K per life saved, depending on what fraction of excess deaths are attributable to COVID-19. This is considerably lower than the value of a statistical life in Bangladesh ($205,000, [63]) and under severe outbreaks, is comparable to the most cost-efficient humanitarian programs at scale (e.g. distributing insecticide nets to prevent malaria costs $9,200 per life saved [64]). This estimate includes only mortality impacts but not morbidity, and greater cost-efficiency is possible if our intervention can be streamlined to further isolate the essential components. The vast majority of our costs were the personnel costs for mask-promoters: if we consider only the costs of mask production, these numbers would be 20x lower. Thus, the overall cost to save a life in countries where mask-mandates can be enforced at minimal cost with existing infrastructure may be substantially lower than our estimates above."
"Physical Distancing Contrary to concerns that mask-wearing would promote risk compensation, we did not find evidence that our intervention decreases distancing behavior. In the second panel of Table A4, we report identical specifications to the first panel, but with physical distancing as the dependent variable. In control villages 24.1% of observed individuals practiced physical distancing compared to 29.2% in intervention villages, an increase of 5.1% (a regression adjusted estimate of 0.05 [95% CI: 0.04,0.06]) Evidently, protective behaviors like mask-wearing and physicaldistancing are complements rather than substitutes: endorsing mask-wearing and informing people about its importance encouraged rural Bangladeshis to take the pandemic more seriously and engage in another form of self-protection. The increases in physical distancing were similar in cloth and surgical mask villages."
In summary, we found that mask distribution, role modeling, and promotion in a LMIC setting increased mask-wearing and physical distancing, leading to lower illness, particularly in older adults. We find stronger support for the use of surgical masks than cloth masks to prevent COVID19. Whether people with respiratory symptoms should generally wear masks to prevent respiratory virus transmission?including for viruses other than SARS-CoV-2?is an important area for future research. Our findings suggest that such a policy may benefit public health."
Jag tänkte om man anmält detta antagandet om att det är ett brott mot grundlagen, så man får det testat om det är så och vad man för anpassa sig med den situation som vi sen hamnade i och för undvika detta senare.
Och troligtvis krävs det en förtydliga av lagen eller kvantifiera när det är nödvändigt att göra av steg ifrån grundlagen.
Du tror alltså att man gjorde detta före man kom fram till att smittspårnings strategin övergavs?
Vi får försöka ta reda på när det då skedde, så vi vet vad som är vad med faktan kring dessa beslut är.
James Pamment, docent i strategisk kommunikation vid Lunds universitet, har också analyserat gruppens aktivitet. Det är en sak att försöka påverka Sveriges politik och bilda opinion, det är en annan sak att försöka påverka svenska intressen utomlands vilket kan drabba svenska medborgare. Där går gruppen över en gräns, anser experterna som Ekot och Vetenskapsradion har talat med.
– Det verkar som att gruppen har två syften. Dels att påverka svenska coronapolicyn och dels att kritisera mediebevakning av policyn. Sen finns det mycket annat i gruppen som verkar handla om att skada Sverigebilden utomlands och även skada anseendet hos individer som jobbar inom det här fältet, säger James Pamment.
Ledaren för Facebookgruppen beskriver i inlägg och på Twitter också planer på att försöka ställa ansvariga för coronastrategin i Sverige inför internationell domstol för brott mot mänskligheten. Det beskrivs som absurt av experter i folkrätt som vi talat med. De betonar att den brottsrubriceringen handlar om avsiktliga angrepp mot civilbefolkningen och som framförallt används i krig och konflikter."
En majoritet av inläggen syftar till att presentera bevis för att flockimmunitet har varit Folkhälsomyndighetens primära strategi, samt att många äldre har har dött i covid-19 i onödan eftersom de har fått palliativ behandling i stället för annan vård.
Tonen är ofta hård och upprörd, och inläggen bildsätts med urklipp från olika medier. Enskilda myndighetschefer, ministrar och experter som kommenterat under pandemin pekas ut som inkompetenta, kriminella och korrupta. Ansvariga ska ställas inför rätta, enligt Mewas, som drar paralleller till brott mot mänskligheten och nazismen.
”Det rena fördärvet vi bevittnar i Sverige liknar nazisternas ideologi. Man glorifierar en despot. Få personer är modiga nog eller tillräckligt rädda för att höja rösten. Att tillämpa dödshjälp, eller låt oss omformulera, mörda de äldre (...) är precis som nazisternas Aktion T4”, lyder ett inlägg från 6 december."