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

In fact, Trump is probably the only human being in history to be totally exonerated by his enemies.
That is what happens when 17 secret police/spy agencies and a corrupt bipartisan ruling class investigate a target for 5 years and come up empty. Most people have figured that out - hence Trump's enduring popularity as a leader of the real opposition to the entrenched political establishment.

 

As long as you don't know... right?

 

Clean your glasses.

 

Which bit of "statistically significant 25 fold reduction " do you not understand?

 

LOL
So what does it say about non-fine particles?
"Together the studies show that surgical masks can limit the emission of large droplet spray and aerosol droplets larger than 5 µm"

"Nevertheless, the overall 3.4 fold reduction in aerosol copy numbers we observed combined with a nearly complete elimination of large droplet spray demonstrated by Johnson et al. suggests that surgical masks worn by infected persons could have a clinically significant impact on transmission"

"and that the effect of facemasks was to produce a statistically significant 25 fold reduction"

And the list goes on and on.......You lost your double dare[/QUOTE]

Read comprehension matters. Nothing about "reducing the spread of any virus" - try again.

Focus: "It is well known that surgical masks are not effective for preventing exposure to fine particles when worn as personal protection [18]." Your own source.
https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205

 

And I am sure they all tested positive within 14 days.

 

Have there been any randomized clinical trials, prior to the WuFlu, showing that the use of N95 respirators actually prevent the spread of any virus?

 

You haven't answered the question "So what does it say about non-fine particles?"

Which bit of "statistically significant 25 fold reduction " do you not understand?

Focus: Your extract refers to protection for the mask wearer and only to fine particles! There is a 25 fold reduction of risk to others from an infected mask wearer

Reading comprehension and honest copy and paste does matter, perhaps you should try it:

 

25 fold reduction in incidence of disease?
Do tell

 

LOL!The part about 'reducing the spread of any virus' - because your source does not make that claim. Now read your own source again and think about what it actually tells you.

 

Incidence of disease please.

The only metric that matters

 

That would require a leap of faith.
No problem for true believers.

 

They keep spewing everything but reduced incidence of disease. Nothing else matters

 

Political Science loves Fake Science.

 

So in your mind the study should deliberately expose a control group and a masked group to a disease and examine the outcome? Perhaps you can volunteer to take part. Or alternatively, you actually measure the amount of virus that is emitted, you know, like a good study would do, not add in randomness of non-infected people to see if they become infected

 

Which bit of "statistically significant 25 fold reduction " do you not understand?

Which bit of "surgical masks can limit the emission of large droplet spray and aerosol droplets larger than 5 µm" do you not understand?

Which bit of "Nevertheless, the overall 3.4 fold reduction" do you not understand?

Which bit of "nearly complete elimination of large droplet spray" do you not understand?

Which bit of "surgical masks worn by infected persons could have a clinically significant impact on transmission" do you not understand?

Which bit of "then the use of surgical masks by every infected case could reduce the reproductive number below 1" do you not understand?

 

Randomized controlled studies exist on incidence of disease reduction of masks for influenza. They are referenced in the study the OP is based on.

 

Yes, and also in the link to a study I provided but removes the randomness of relying on individuals to perform in the same way

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205

 

You figure on getting volunteers to hang around COVID-19 positives without an N95 or better respirator?

 

But your link is not a randomized controlled trial on reduction of incidence of disease. That’s what everyone is trying to tell you.

 

Perhaps you should look back to see what was asked?

 

Bait you to demonstrate a real understanding of the scientific method?
Probs not

 

Probs not, indeed!

 

How many are ACTUAL positives? because there's never been a virus with more FALSE positives. I'll need to see your sources to verify your claims.

 

It thinks N95 mandates are in place across the nation