Indeed, it is relatively straightforward, but not easy, to determine whether masks can directly affect the wearer, very difficult, if it is possible at all, to show second degree or indirect effects. Besides, results of all the studies are so close as to be statistically insignificant. The rate of infection is so low that samples sizes would have to be larger than realistically possible to perform a truly controlled study.
There are lots of controlled studies, and even meta-analyses of studies. The CDC's own guidance for masks with the flu virus is that they don't do any good. The flu virus virions are larger than COVID virions. Both are airborne. Ergo, mask wearing is ludicrous. It was always ludicrous. They knew that in 1918, when they did a study comparing two cities, one of which masked and the other didn't. Flu spread at exactly the same rate. There have been dozens of studies since on masking, and they all show the same thing.
Indeed, all these studies show there is no statistical difference in infection rates between a masked population and an unmasked population. The whole thing is government sponsored silliness.
Government sponsored fear mongering. My daughter attends college and it's basketball games. The teams plays in an NBA teams arena. A mom on the school FB page was so worried about the kids at the game who are not pulling their masks above their noses. Interestingly, before the holidays, masks weren't required at this venue. The fear mongering is atrocious. It was all I could do not to send some cheap shot comment back to her. Her poor kid (who is also a junior like mine!)
"Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies."
It turns out all of the recommendations are nothing more than rituals for the COVID cult.
LOL--did you read this? There is absolutely no data. Their conclusions come from individual epidemiological experiments and modeling. Their claims about controlled studies are claims not borne out in the studies themselves, which all show statistically insignificant differences. This is why the ivy league doctors of the Great Barrington Declaration spoke out against lockdowns and masks, because there was no science behind those policies at all. The pandemic plan of the US did not include either of those things, yet that plan got thrown in the toilet by Deborah Birx, who was put in charge of our pandemic policies despite her being scientifically and statistically illiterate. You should have known something shady was up with this study when it claimed homemade cloth masks are effective against a virus. ROFL--you might as well try to stop a bread crumb by covering yourself with an open doorway.
There is plenty of data referenced in the narrative review. And the Great Barrington Declaration is a bunch of nonsense, but I'll let these guys utterly destroy this particular point in your attempted rebuttal - https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/great-barrington-declaration/
LOL. Yes, I'm sure tenured professors if epidemiology from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford with outstanding Google Scholar ratings are just spouting nonsense. In fact, Martin Kuldorff is the most famous and eminent epidemiologist in the world. It's extra nonsense because it is supported by virtually all the peer-reviewed science for decades. And the Barrington three now have over 50,000 doctors who have signed their declaration. They are supported by literally thousands of others with the most perfect credentials who have signed other declarations. And the fact that the pandemic plan we had in place BEFORE the pandemic specifically discounted masks, lockdowns and social distancing because they weren't supported by science is just the icing on the nonsense cake. Let me ask you something: do you realize that Fauci controls literally ALL the money coming from the US government that supports scientific research at universities, and that he is well known for carrying out vendettas on people he doesn't like? Do you realize we have e-mails between Fauci and Francis Collins plotting ways to discredit the Barrington scientists? Do you realize that almost all "science" magazines and medical journals are controlled and owned by pharma and big tech? Don't believe me? Look it up. Follow the money, chump. P.S. As I said, the "data" referenced in your study does not show what they claim it does. Again, if you don't believe me, look it up for yourself. This is a common tactic of fraudulent medical publications--they simply claim earlier studies support their hypothesis, hoping no one looks it up to check that out. Oh, and plenty of other "mainstream" professors and scientists are coming out of the woodwork now to say they support what the Barrington Declaration said, people like Vinay Prasad, for example. You can't get more mainstream and popular than he is.
Hmm. What could possibly be wrong with your logic? I wonder often why so many people are incapable of making a decent analogy. What could be the difference between these two things???? The 50,000 engineers of your piss poor analogy are NOT FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE. The 50,000 doctors and scientists in the Barrington group ARE following the science. THERE IS NO SCIENCE SUPPORTING MASK USE. Period. The end. Spend some time with PubMed. Masks are actually negatively effective, since they do collect germs which we then get on our hands when we handle them. They CAN'T work, because the weave of the mask is larger than the airborne virions. MUCH larger. HUGELY larger. If you are breathing, virions are escaping your mask. If your glasses fog up, your mask is not working. If air is getting out at any part of your mask, it is not working. Unless you are wearing a hazmat suit, it is not working. That's why people who work with viruses wear hazmat suits, and even then viruses escape all the time. Lab leaks occur all the time and infect people inside and outside the lab, despite insane levels of protection. Quit being ridiculous.
Oh, and Moose, how do you reconcile the excellence of your "study" with the fact that they claim cloth masks are effective, when your pals in the CDC and FDA now admit they are not and never were?
How so? Are you claiming the "study" did not claim this? Are you claiming the CDC did not decide cloth masks are ineffective, which is what Fauci said in March 2020?
LOL--he did read it, as did I. There is no data in it whatsoever, and most of it is crap. Perfect example of a "publication" meant to support what they already thought.
Oh well, when I go to work with COVID patients I still opt for an N95 and the rest of the PPE. So far I have been lucky not to get COVID given the apparent uselessness of said masks. I am reluctant to wander the ward without one. Would you go maskless in the COVID ward and am I just superstitious?
I hope you are just an orderly because this comment shows a lack of critical thinking unbefitting of a health professional. You do know that the vast majority of health professionals have caught Covid, presumably many from their patients despite their use of N95s. Maybe you do have a magic mask.
Well, I would presume you would want to follow the science, and as a health professional you would know that virions are much smaller than the weave of surgical or N95 masks, and since COVID is airborne, any mask that does not block virions or allows breathing would not contain them. Ergo...the fact that no controlled study has ever shown a benefit. But you'd know that, right, since you've read the studies? You do know that "I've always worn a mask and I haven't gotten COVID, so masks must prevent COVID" is not a legitimate study, right?
It's not worth arguing this anymore. Nothing but totems and talismans remain in the desire to "stop the spread." Insanity = doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You can't argue with a sick mind. We need to leave them to their own little echo chamber and get on with our own lives. One day, years from now, they will realize how irrelevant they have become.
No, but when a whole country takes it and their COVID cases drop to zero, then I support the FDA approving its use if doctors want to prescribe it. Or we could do what Maine is doing and offer it over the counter.
Indeed, it is relatively straightforward, but not easy, to determine whether masks can directly affect the wearer, very difficult, if it is possible at all, to show second degree or indirect effects. Besides, results of all the studies are so close as to be statistically insignificant. The rate of infection is so low that samples sizes would have to be larger than realistically possible to perform a truly controlled study.
There are lots of controlled studies, and even meta-analyses of studies. The CDC's own guidance for masks with the flu virus is that they don't do any good. The flu virus virions are larger than COVID virions. Both are airborne. Ergo, mask wearing is ludicrous. It was always ludicrous. They knew that in 1918, when they did a study comparing two cities, one of which masked and the other didn't. Flu spread at exactly the same rate. There have been dozens of studies since on masking, and they all show the same thing.
Indeed, all these studies show there is no statistical difference in infection rates between a masked population and an unmasked population. The whole thing is government sponsored silliness.
Yeah, and it's gone beyond silliness at this point. Now medical studies and quotes from ivy league medical professors are being censored.
Government sponsored fear mongering. My daughter attends college and it's basketball games. The teams plays in an NBA teams arena. A mom on the school FB page was so worried about the kids at the game who are not pulling their masks above their noses. Interestingly, before the holidays, masks weren't required at this venue. The fear mongering is atrocious. It was all I could do not to send some cheap shot comment back to her. Her poor kid (who is also a junior like mine!)
Here is a meta-study showing masks are effective - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/
This did not age very well......
"Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies."
It turns out all of the recommendations are nothing more than rituals for the COVID cult.
Too right you are!
Here's an analysis with links to hundreds of studies. https://palexander.substack.com/p/masks-for-children-the-evidence-indicates
LOL--did you read this? There is absolutely no data. Their conclusions come from individual epidemiological experiments and modeling. Their claims about controlled studies are claims not borne out in the studies themselves, which all show statistically insignificant differences. This is why the ivy league doctors of the Great Barrington Declaration spoke out against lockdowns and masks, because there was no science behind those policies at all. The pandemic plan of the US did not include either of those things, yet that plan got thrown in the toilet by Deborah Birx, who was put in charge of our pandemic policies despite her being scientifically and statistically illiterate. You should have known something shady was up with this study when it claimed homemade cloth masks are effective against a virus. ROFL--you might as well try to stop a bread crumb by covering yourself with an open doorway.
There is plenty of data referenced in the narrative review. And the Great Barrington Declaration is a bunch of nonsense, but I'll let these guys utterly destroy this particular point in your attempted rebuttal - https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/great-barrington-declaration/
LOL. Yes, I'm sure tenured professors if epidemiology from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford with outstanding Google Scholar ratings are just spouting nonsense. In fact, Martin Kuldorff is the most famous and eminent epidemiologist in the world. It's extra nonsense because it is supported by virtually all the peer-reviewed science for decades. And the Barrington three now have over 50,000 doctors who have signed their declaration. They are supported by literally thousands of others with the most perfect credentials who have signed other declarations. And the fact that the pandemic plan we had in place BEFORE the pandemic specifically discounted masks, lockdowns and social distancing because they weren't supported by science is just the icing on the nonsense cake. Let me ask you something: do you realize that Fauci controls literally ALL the money coming from the US government that supports scientific research at universities, and that he is well known for carrying out vendettas on people he doesn't like? Do you realize we have e-mails between Fauci and Francis Collins plotting ways to discredit the Barrington scientists? Do you realize that almost all "science" magazines and medical journals are controlled and owned by pharma and big tech? Don't believe me? Look it up. Follow the money, chump. P.S. As I said, the "data" referenced in your study does not show what they claim it does. Again, if you don't believe me, look it up for yourself. This is a common tactic of fraudulent medical publications--they simply claim earlier studies support their hypothesis, hoping no one looks it up to check that out. Oh, and plenty of other "mainstream" professors and scientists are coming out of the woodwork now to say they support what the Barrington Declaration said, people like Vinay Prasad, for example. You can't get more mainstream and popular than he is.
Yes, and if 50000 engineers sign a petition claiming climate change is a hoax it doesnt make then right.
Hmm. What could possibly be wrong with your logic? I wonder often why so many people are incapable of making a decent analogy. What could be the difference between these two things???? The 50,000 engineers of your piss poor analogy are NOT FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE. The 50,000 doctors and scientists in the Barrington group ARE following the science. THERE IS NO SCIENCE SUPPORTING MASK USE. Period. The end. Spend some time with PubMed. Masks are actually negatively effective, since they do collect germs which we then get on our hands when we handle them. They CAN'T work, because the weave of the mask is larger than the airborne virions. MUCH larger. HUGELY larger. If you are breathing, virions are escaping your mask. If your glasses fog up, your mask is not working. If air is getting out at any part of your mask, it is not working. Unless you are wearing a hazmat suit, it is not working. That's why people who work with viruses wear hazmat suits, and even then viruses escape all the time. Lab leaks occur all the time and infect people inside and outside the lab, despite insane levels of protection. Quit being ridiculous.
This is not a study. It is a "narrative" that advocates the use of cloth masks.
Clearly you didn't read it if you only focused on being pedantic.
Yeah, I don't read Harlequin Romances either. I make it a practice not to read garbage.
Oh, and Moose, how do you reconcile the excellence of your "study" with the fact that they claim cloth masks are effective, when your pals in the CDC and FDA now admit they are not and never were?
Ha, that's a misleading oversimplification of what actually transpired.
How so? Are you claiming the "study" did not claim this? Are you claiming the CDC did not decide cloth masks are ineffective, which is what Fauci said in March 2020?
LOL--he did read it, as did I. There is no data in it whatsoever, and most of it is crap. Perfect example of a "publication" meant to support what they already thought.
Oh well, when I go to work with COVID patients I still opt for an N95 and the rest of the PPE. So far I have been lucky not to get COVID given the apparent uselessness of said masks. I am reluctant to wander the ward without one. Would you go maskless in the COVID ward and am I just superstitious?
I hope you are just an orderly because this comment shows a lack of critical thinking unbefitting of a health professional. You do know that the vast majority of health professionals have caught Covid, presumably many from their patients despite their use of N95s. Maybe you do have a magic mask.
Well, I would presume you would want to follow the science, and as a health professional you would know that virions are much smaller than the weave of surgical or N95 masks, and since COVID is airborne, any mask that does not block virions or allows breathing would not contain them. Ergo...the fact that no controlled study has ever shown a benefit. But you'd know that, right, since you've read the studies? You do know that "I've always worn a mask and I haven't gotten COVID, so masks must prevent COVID" is not a legitimate study, right?
Same holds true for ALL your coworkers, None have gotten COVID?
Here's something you might want to read. Links to hundreds of studies. https://palexander.substack.com/p/masks-for-children-the-evidence-indicates
It's not worth arguing this anymore. Nothing but totems and talismans remain in the desire to "stop the spread." Insanity = doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You can't argue with a sick mind. We need to leave them to their own little echo chamber and get on with our own lives. One day, years from now, they will realize how irrelevant they have become.
No, but when a whole country takes it and their COVID cases drop to zero, then I support the FDA approving its use if doctors want to prescribe it. Or we could do what Maine is doing and offer it over the counter.
You have to take the mask off at some point, even an N-95. Then "Bang" goes that theory.
The larger the group, the smaller the effect seen. That's why the CDC these days highlights mask studies of 20 people.
LOL. I was thinking of the "hairdressers study," that had something like 18. Yeah, those ones with the mannequins are a hoot.