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

I don’t know if you don’t read your links or what. But the “results” section contains this you failed to include in your pull quotes.

 

No, it LOOKS like a controlled study but, like the tobacco studies before, nothing but smoke.

1. Where are the peer reviews?
2. Study funded by The Salling Foundations. A group also happens to own the largest department store in Denmark.

I'll leave you to reason through this with the reminder that reputation is important and this stuff doesn't help yours.

 

If you don’t want your posts commented on by me I suggest moving your conversation to the forum-supplied direct messaging platform. Open forums allow me to comment on posts I want to and give me the option to not comment on ones that don’t interest me. I hope that clears up your confusion on that matter. Now on to your confusion about terms like “spread” and “viral transmission”.

Viral transmission is by definition the mechanics of viral infections moving from one host to another. Also referred to in this thread as “incidence of disease” etc.

All your studies so far show (except for the ones not finding statistically significant decrease in incidence of disease/infection) is measurable variations in movement of and concentrations of actual virons or droplets containing them. You keep claiming your links address viral transmission—again above—but they do not. Viral transmission from one host to another IS infection (incidence of infection or disease).

You could claim your links show decrease in “spread” of virons in defined volumes of air or on test surfaces. They do make such valid claims. But as I already pointed out those metrics are not necessarily indicative of viral transmission in community settings.

 

It is until you prove otherwise...........

 

This study was published in “Annals of Internal Medicine”. Here is a bit about the publisher from their webpage.

Some people love the results of this study and some hate the results. But it’s a valid piece of research.

 

Prove what? That there are hundreds of studies available that prove mask efficacy? That more than 100 years of usage in the medical community saves lives?

Well, if you don't trust me, trust Trump!

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

 

The prove that it works, is all over the place to be found.
heck... like dadoalex mentioned... even Donald's own controlled institute claims it.
How on earth are you unable to remain unaware? lol

 

and?

Published is not reviewed. Neither the OP nor the study itself speak to peer reviews. If there had been a glowing peer review IT would have been quoted directly and ther'd be no need to slather the article with questionable claims as to its quality.
AND
Department stores do not fund this type of activity unless they're looking to improve the bottom line.

 

LOL. You don’t know how journals work do you? My pull quote states content of the journal is peer reviewed. They don’t publish studies until they are peer reviewed.

Here’s a study of the quality of peer review and editing at the Annals of Internal Medicine. Remember, only 6-8% of submissions to AIM pass peer review and are accepted for publication.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8198342/

As far as study design, you are welcome to provide detailed criticism that doesn’t merely consist of ad hominem or appeal to the stone fallacy.

 

Sensible.

There are respirators that can be used with a mask.

If the virus is circulating as it is now, a significant portion of the public avoids crowds--malls, restaurants, hotels, theaters--and others cut back on spending. The economy suffers. If we don't do something to cut transmission rates now, a lot of small businesses are going to go out of business without a significant amount of government support.

 

I provided a link to the CDC information. The CDC studies showed that wearing masks along with other protections reduced COVID retransmissions by more than 70%

 

We were talking about seeing if respirators can cut transmission. You talked about false positives. A hospital ward with COVID-19 patients isn't going to have false positives.

Your comment (see above) is non-responsive.

 

Don’t know much about them. I do find it very odd the people who seem most concerned about contracting C19 seem to care the least about the quality of PPE.

I wish I could cut back on spending. I just spent $65,000 with a small business on a phone call tonight. LOL. I see your point, but I’m vehemently opposed to forcing others to do anything to protect my health or my business. I’m funny that way...

 

Those who profess concern and who at the same time know little about PPE are puzzling. You'd think they would want to know how to protect themselves, family, and friends from what they see as a threat. I'm not counting people who need to know for business or professional reasons.

One may as well know about PPE, and decide where to get it, and when and where to use it.

I'm interested in public policy.

We're at present seeing the demise of a huge number of businesses, many small, that employ millions of workers. If we let them fail when the prospects are good for them to survive if they can mothball or operate at reduced capacity, we will slow the recovery. If we act now to reduce transmission, we can save a big chunk if the economy the Republican Party appears uninterested in saving.

 

We should call them what they actually are "Face DIAPERS"

A protective garment worn to catch potential excrement by those incapable of thinking for or caring for themselves or others......thus needing to be guided by an authority.



On a serious note....I really don't understand the thinking on this mask thing.
Humankind has been dealing with viral pathogens since the dawn of time.
Some viruses will kill many, some few. But one way or the other, the pathogen will eventually make it's way through a heard......and if it is blocked, a new mutation will arise that is even more virulent to take the place it wasn't allowed to fill. Potentially delivering a knockout blow to a herd that never developed immunity. nature people.....nature

Show of hands....who thinks covid19 is the last virus that will threaten mankind globally?

 

So, if an ICU doctor caring for COVID-19 patient is wearing PAPR, they're wearing a "face diaper?" Do you include them as "incapable of thinking for or caring for themselves or others......thus needing to be guided by an authority?"

What about smallpox? It hasn't come back. Polio?

 

Was I referring to medical personnel or the general public? I would say just the general public,

Did face diapers eradicate smallpox OR polio? (no)

 

Hence masks reduce risk of infection which is the claim behind advice on mask usage. The key word is "reduce"

 

No. There is no guaranteed direct net effect of risk of infection. Why? Because of other behaviors. A big one is masks making people over confident and reducing social distancing behavior. Another is increased risk of infection from the contaminated mask as a fomite source of infection. This is why studies designed to measure the incidence of disease are what matter.

 

Please debunk if you can the claim made in this simple video, the claim "wear one to protect people like him":


Now to address the studies in your previous links. The bit that you either do not understand or refuse to understand is that in those studies, the subject group wearing masks all lived together for weeks. That is not testing the situation regarding the advice behind wearing a mask. The advice is to wear a mask when carrying out your normal day to day activities such as going to stores where you will be in close proximity for a matter of minutes with people that you don't know, not living with people for weeks. It's simple statistics. Unless a mask gives 100% protection (which no one has said) the longer you spend with someone who is infected, the greater probability that you will become infected. So all those studies that you like to promote are pointless. A better study, the link to which I have provided, is the one that actually measures the spread of virons with or without a mask, the same situation that people carrying out their normal lives experience.

To summarize, a mask reduces risk of infection

 

So how does that show that masks don't reduce risk of infection? Your reasons are worse than saying laws don't work because people still break the law

 

Fake Science requires Fake Data.

"The NFL went through one of its biggest COVID-19 scares of training camp after there were 77 positive tests that came about on Saturday. Upon further examination for this spike, however, it was revealed that these were false-positives as Tom Pelissero of the NFL Network reports that all of the original tests were rerun on Sunday night and each of them came back negative for the coronavirus. Those 77 individuals also underwent additional testing and all of those tests came back negative as well."
CBS SPORTS, All 77 false-positive COVID-19 tests came back negative, NFL testing partner cites 'isolated contamination', The NFL just had a false alarm with its COVID-19 testing, By Tyler Sullivan, Aug 24, 2020.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...testing-partner-cites-isolated-contamination/

 

If that was true at least one of the many randomized clinical trials conducted since WW II and before the WuFlu pandemic would have demonstrated that masks reduce the spread of viruses.

"Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.”
Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020, Policy Review, Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling, Author affiliations: University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

 

CDC like the mainstream media is more about propaganda and narrative control than it is about science and truth.

If masks work so well, why are so many with masks getting the virus? I know 3 in that category, and that doesn't count the mask-wearing clowns in the NFL who get sick every week.

 

If you need me to walk you through the details, let me know. But the easiest way to explain why that video proves nothing about viral transmission is to say if he had done that in an indoor area with little or the wrong kind of ventilation he would be dead or in ICU with third degree burns over most of his body. I hope you didn’t post that as a serious argument.

You are making a lot of incorrect assumptions. The glaring one (and its a common mistake) is assuming by living with someone infected it’s guaranteed for a transmission to occur. This is false. In Covid the transmission rate with a symptomatic individual in the household is only 36%. With an asymptomatic individual it’s 18%. I’ve had your argument presented to me when I’ve encouraged mask usage in the household environment. People have tried to tell me because you live in a magical place, the home, probabilities ensure you will be infected regardless of what you do. Never mind the facts I presented above. In both cases it’s an invalid argument because it’s predicated on a false premise. It’s not just invalid, it’s clown-shoes ridiculous.

Clearly your argument is flawed because in the influenza studies we’ve been looking at transmission isn’t 100% in the control groups.

Continuing on in this vein, consider in the one study you linked, hand hygiene remained effective throughout the study. We know hand hygiene is not 100% effective. So if your argument was based on reality there should not have been significant reduction from hand hygiene either. I could go on, but at some point I get tired of having to explain every little detail of things that should be obvious almost a year into a pandemic.

Your studies that deal only with physical properties of masks are useless for predicting transmission or incidence of disease. I’ve already covered why. They do not account for fomite effects, human error, the environment (temp., humidity, ventilation, volume of enclosed spaces, etc.) social distancing, and a host of other factors affecting viral transmission with and without masks. Your argument is analogous to claiming because because a rifle used by the US military shoots to a certain degree of accuracy (say all shots within a 3 inch circle at 100 yards) all incoming recruits will step to the firing line and put all rounds in a 3 inch circle at 100 yards. Frankly, your argument is outright denial of science.