Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID, scientific review finds

@MuchAdo,

Do you know the most effective way to prevent infecting others with SARS-CoV-2? Understanding masks requires one being able to answer that question.

 

Actually its absurd when people say "glad we can agree..." and then the insert some made up claim.

I'm sorry you are still not over the masks. I really am. Most of us moved on a long time ago.

 

Nothing I post is made up. It’s based on evidence which I include.

People who care about public health are still interested in helping people discern accurate information from disinformation. We should learn from the past so we do not kill people with disinformation in the future.

Our public health entities are in serious need of overhaul. In a democracy, the voters must be educated so they can make good voting decisions going forward. As long as the voters believe disinformation about past public health catastrophes, they can’t create better institutions with their vote going forward.

I’m sorry it’s been pointed out you believed blatant disinformation. That’s what happens when you post on a public forum that keeps your content available in perpetuity. Perhaps this can be a learning experience and in the future you can better ascertain the veracity of your claims before posting them.

Now you get to decide if you want to vote for change, or vote for the political factions that support public health entities that supplied you with blatant disinformation.

 

Saying you're glad we agree on something we never agreed about it 100% made up. Play your games with someone else. Also, as I said maybe you should get over the obsession with masks since its not relevant at this time.

Fauchi worked for Trump, and I'm sure you are ready to vote the "change" aka more of the same

Have a nice day.

 

I never said you and I agree. I said another poster and I agree. LOL

Fauci worked “for” Trump and Biden. And a bunch of other administrations. That’s why I won’t vote for ANY of them.

It’s not a game to point out you said things that could have killed people. I’m not obsessed with masks. I’m obsessed with evidence based public health and saving lives.

It will ALWAYS be relevant that public health officials were so deviant and dishonest that they convinced you and others to accept disinformation that led to deaths of fellow Americans. That you would want anyone to be over that is fascinating. Odd priorities.

 

You quoted me, so of course it was directed at me.

 

I asked YOU a question and then used your post as an example in another poster’s reply. I never said or implied you and I agree.

 

@Pro_Line_FL

THIS was the only thing directed at you.

 

Referring to this.

 

Not directed at you. Directed at the poster I was interacting with. I simply used your post as an example in discourse with them. That’s why your quote in that post was immediately following this:

It’s highly unlikely you and I will ever agree on any matter of science because I base my posts on evidence produced through application of the scientific method while you and others base posts on what politicians, journalists and dishonest bureaucrats tell you.

 

I am sure you can figure it out yourself.

 

So you don’t know the answer? I “figured it out” decades ago. I’m interested in getting you and others to think critically about the disinformation you believed about masks. I maintain it’s important to not provide similar disinformation in the future, and that can’t be avoided if we don’t get back to the basics of epidemiology. Most of the advice you received on masking last time around conflicts with the principles of epidemiology.

 

It appears futile arguing with noisy anti-mask posters who suggest they know better. Probably because they read it somewhere related to garbage conspiracies. If there are any people tempted to forego doing this for any future pandemic or epidemic situation, I suggest this: the vast consensus says it makes a difference, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. At the very least it limits the spread if you have the virus. LIMITS THE SPREAD, it is an unavoidable function of a mask!

How effective is a mask in preventing COVID‐19 infection? - PMC (nih.gov)
"The current research results have shown that COVID‐19 is mainly transmitted via droplets in the air. There is a potential risk of airborne transmission in an indoor environment with poor ventilation. The distance of droplet transmission can extend up to 4 m. Based on this data, the recommended social distancing range of 1–2 m (CDC, 2020; WHO, 2020) may not necessarily guarantee the epidemic prevention. Therefore, wearing mask in public is essential as its effectiveness has already been well established by the current studies. For exhalation isolation, both surgical and N95 masks are shown to be effective in reducing the spread of respiratory diseases, but the former is more accessible and comfortable to wear compared to the latter. For inhalation protection, air filtering respirators such as N95 masks can filtrate contaminants, bacteria and other matters from reaching nose and mouth, and are more efficient in virus penetration inhibition than surgical masks.

Three major filtration mechanisms are identified, namely, interception, inertial impaction and diffusion. While interception takes place for nearby particles, inertial impaction is mainly dominated by some large particles. Diffusion mechanism primarily applies to small particles with diameters around 0.1 μm. A mask design needs to consider all these mechanisms in order to increase the filtration capacity for all particle sizes. As a result, the air filtering respirators are designed to prevent both airborne transmission and the droplets, and highly recommended for the indoor area especially in the high‐risk environment. Based on these studies, all people, regardless of physical conditions and professions, should wear masks at all times in prevention of COVID‐19. "

How well do face masks protect against COVID-19? - Mayo Clinic
"Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Yes. When used with measures such as getting vaccinated, hand-washing and physical distancing, wearing a face mask slows how quickly the virus that causes COVID-19 spreads. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends wearing masks if you choose to, and in specific places and situations. In areas that have many people with COVID-19 in the hospital, the CDC recommends wearing a face mask indoors in public.The CDC says that you should wear the most protective mask that you'll wear regularly, fits well and is comfortable. Respirators such as nonsurgical N95s give the most protection. KN95s and medical masks provide the next highest level of protection. Cloth masks provide less protection. The CDC says that surgical N95 masks should be reserved for health care professionals."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndr...-effectiveness-of-face-masks-against-covid-19
"Statistical analysis showed that the odds of infection were about half for people who reported wearing a mask in public compared with people who didn’t. (Results of this study are reported in terms of “odds ratios” which are related to relative risk, but not quite the same thing.) For people who wore masks “all of the time” (instead of “some of the time” or “most of the time”) the estimated effect was even more significant.

A second part of the study sought to differentiate between cloth masks, surgical masks, and N95/KN95 respirators. Not unexpectedly, N95/KN95s were found to reduce the odds of infection compared with people who didn’t wear any mask. To me, the surprising thing is how effective they were, reducing the relative odds by 83%. Cloth masks and surgical masks were found to be less effective."

Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor Public Settings for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infection — California, February–December 2021 | MMWR (cdc.gov)

"Consistent use of a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings was associated with lower odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (adjusted odds ratio = 0.44). Use of respirators with higher filtration capacity was associated with the most protection, compared with no mask use.

In addition to being up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, consistently wearing a comfortable, well-fitting face mask or respirator in indoor public settings protects against acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection; a respirator offers the best protection."

 

Masks absolutely can limit transmission. And they can be very good at preventing infection of a wearer.

The main problem during the pandemic was that I believe there were only 3 PF members on here who were not anti mask. I was one of those three.

If epidemiologists in this country had communicated this (your quote below) at the beginning of the pandemic (as Asian countries and others did) you wouldn’t have the number of anti mask folks you have in the US today. There are consequences to lying to people. A bunch of anti mask folks is one of those consequences.

You can’t attack garbage from one source that has no formal education in epidemiology and excuse it from sources who know better and are educated in epidemiology and other biological sciences related to infectious diseases. If that’s how we go forward, the problem with resistance to masking etc. will get worse, not better.

 

Good, we're done.

 

Why couldn’t you accept that the probably 200 other times I’ve posted similar content? Why didn’t the fact I was helping people find N95s to wear when the CDC was intentionally depriving people of available excess masks mean anything? You’ve repeatedly inferred I subscribe to conspiracy theories in numerous threads without ANY evidence.

Now all that remains is for you to accept your tribe is only slightly less anti mask than the other one. Then meaningful change can happen.

 

I have not provided any misinformation. You aren’t interested in anything other than your own opinion which you tend to foist on people in a rather rude manner. I have no interest in having a discussion with you. It’s ironic that you of all people are interested in getting others to think critically when you don’t do so yourself. I will not be answering you in the future,

 

No worries. You nor anyone else can provide evidence my posts are inaccurate in any way. You nor anyone else can show where I’ve offered any opinion. All posts are based on peer reviewed studies, official government data, and on the record statements by bureaucrats.

It’s sad you see evidence produced through application of the scientific method as opinion. The two are very different things.

You provided disinformation on the timeline of WHO recommendations in the context of actions taken on travel bans. You provided disinformation on numerous occasions that I had to correct WITH EVIDENCE. Here are some examples. Note your use of unsubstantiated opinions and then his my responses contain peer reviewed studies, official data, and on the record statements by bureaucrats that conflict with your unsubstantiated opinions.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and entitled to post disinformation. But I won’t need your responses to show that your posts contain disinformation in the future. My ability to accomplish that task is independent of whether or not you are interested in actual evidence.

Thanks for ending with pure ad hominem fallacy. It’s demonstrative of inability to make an argument based on logic and evidence.

 

You are so welcome. You earned it.

 

As I said, you are welcome to your unsubstantiated opinions.

I’m amused when people respond with CONTINUED fallacy after unequivocally stating they won’t respond AT ALL. Good times. Posters who reject irrefutable evidence as you have done always go down the same path.

Make an incorrect statement. Reject irrefutable evidence their statement is incorrect. Begin name calling and various other ad hominem attacks. Claim they will no longer respond. Continue responding to further or repeated evidence they are incorrect with more ad hominem fallacy.

Great ambassadors for US healthcare. Well done.

Actually I do understand the quandary healthcare workers have been forced into. Healthcare workers must follow the direction of superiors or risk their livelihood. There’s no room for dissent or critical thought when directions given are faulty or based on denial of science. The charade must go on….or suffer negative consequences. It’s too bad.

 

Your statement is correct. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be nauseatingly sarcastic.

Exactly. I wonder if others are starting to wonder what the purpose is of this bizarre line of debate. Masks offer protection, yet there appears to be a whole lot of huffing and puffing, that is quite baffling.

 

People who reject evidence produced though application of the scientific method are not good ambassadors for healthcare. Quite the opposite.

I’ve pointed out numerous bits of disinformation from muchado. I’ve provided evidence neither you or she can refute.

What’s baffling is why you and ado support people who actively worked to deny people protection masks afford.

 

You haven't established a single thing. You seem to think your posts are the exclusive truth because you "research things".

No you haven't. You don't even seem to know what that word means!

What "evidence" would you like refutation on?

Pathetic strawman since nobody has done anything of the sort, and you haven't established or proven the premise for it!

Do something amazing. In one clear concise sentence, state your position.
Example.

I personally support and advocate the wearing of masks, hold no allegiance to any health advice that says otherwise and fully support better masks for everyone, worn properly.

 

Please read posts #568 and #569 above in their entirety including reposted quotes of ado and myself.

MuchAdo posts unsubstantiated opinions multiple times that I show evidence are incorrect. Evidence from peer reviewed studies, official government data and on the record statements by bureaucrats.

You can show evidence the cited peer reviewed study of Japanese actions on pre and asymptomatic transmission is in error. You can provide evidence the dates all other countries imposed travel bans are incorrect. You can provide evidence cloth masks are as good as medical grade N95 respirators. You can provide evidence nearly every respiratory infectious disease doesn’t spread asymptomatically and presymptomatically. You can provide evidence masks only protect the wearer in healthcare settings, not public settings. You can provide evidence the CDC did not tell Amazon and other retailers to not sell available N95 masks. You can provide evidence there was a shortage of N95 masks in the US after December 2020. You can provide evidence the WHO advised Trump to impose travel bans prior to the bans occurring. You can provide evidence South Korea was not basing their mask policy on evidence months before the US finally made the correct call on masking.

It is a lie I think my posts are truth because I research. My posts are ACCURATE because they are based on irrefutable EVIDENCE. Peer reviewed studies, official government data, on the record statements by bureaucrats etc.

You believe opinions are evidence. I maintain evidence consists of peer reviewed research, verifiable data sets from official sources, published policy from the WHO, and on the record claims.

Go ahead with your evidence. You won’t because just like MuchAdo you don’t have any. All you have to respond to my posts of evidence is fallacy. You will post more fallacy in response to this post instead of providing evidence for any of the things I’ve asked you to substantiate above.

And yes, both you and Ado support entities that ACTIVELY prevented Americans from accessing N95 masks for 9 months after masks were in OVERSUPPLY. And yes you support entities that claimed cloth homemade masks were as good as masks “saved for healthcare workers”. And yes you support entities that rejected or denied information on presymptomatic spread for moths after other countries were forming correct policy on the same information.