Major Study Finds Masks Don’t Reduce COVID-19 Infection Rates <<MOD WARNING>>

They don't reduce incidence of disease, and you can't find any strong scientific evidence to reject that.

 

How about providing some evidence for your claim?

 

And as usual continuing to deny the truth as it conflicts with what you claim. Predictable and getting extremely old.

 

So admitting that you have no evidence yet insisting that others provide evidence for their claims. Typical tactic of a loser

 

As usual, you would not know a fact if it bit you.

 

That would sum up all of your posts and arguments.

 

How to you think NIOSH determines the efficiency of masks and respirators? We know what the virus looks like and how big it is.

How about you and your forum fellow travelers posting your proof masks don't work?

 

You're spreading misinformation about P100 respirators. Is that a personal reaction against people you see as liberals?

 

Why don't you back up your personal attacks with cites backing your position?

 

Pull the study out and discuss it like a real science guy

 

You're interesting in what I do when I'm asleep and taking a shower?

 

The null hypothesis(masks don't reduce incidence of disease from respratiry virus) is in effect until you find the evidence to reject it.
Science guys know this.
You don't apparently

 

Chew on this:

"P100 filters are effective against all particulate aerosols and they are 99.97% efficient against 0.3μm particles (Clever et al. 2019). It implies that the penetration level of 0.3 μm diameter particles through P100 filters will not be more than 0.03%. Consequently, APR and PAPR including P100 filters would likely offer much better protection against COVID-19 compared to N95 respirator. Full-facepiece APR and PAPR can offer 5- and 100-times higher protection level than N95 respirator (Clever et al. 2019, Rengasamy et al. 2015, Vo et al. 2015)."​

http://www.idpublications.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Full-Paper-PROTECTION-EFFICIENCY-OF-N95-RESPIRATOR-AGAINST-COVID-19-AN-EPIGRAMMATIC-REVIEW.pdf

 

Nothing from you supporting your claim about PPE.

 

You're projecting.

 

Why don't you tell the truth for once.

 

No, only pointing out that you deny and attempt to belittle any thought other than your own. Repeatedly.

 

Still no evidence to support your claims.

 

What is my claim?

The null hypothesis is default.
You would know that if you understood anything about science

 

Where is the incidence of disease part?

 

Read the OP the most scientific controlled study we have.

 

Reasonable questions,

 

I find it interesting that the counter claims, in just a short 48 hours went from claiming a jock cup with a paper filter was better then the respirator I use and would recommend others to use, once the jock cup proven to be a false claim, the goalposts where moved to using a respirator equipped with incorrect filters and once that was proven to be false, the goal posts where moved to to using a respirator, with filters having a rating not properly related to stopping a virus, while trying to discredit The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), as irrelevant to the subject.

And along with that charade, the poster also claimed posts, made by himself or herself, where false and should be ignored, along with any others that poster disagreed with.

When a person claims their own posts are false and should be ignored, why should anything they post be believed or replied to?

If one openly admits to posting false information and recommends it should be ignored, why should anything that person posts, be it a so called fact, or a criticism of others be taken seriously?

To me this seems to be tossing garbage out the window to get some attention, there is no interest in discussing facts, all the person wants to do is get attention at any cost.

And that is the reason I no longer give that person the attention they desire by replying to any of it's posts.

That's not an insult, it's a fact and sadly that is the state of the internet nowadays.