I wouldn’t call myself a right winger but whatever. That article was a study from Florida and Ohio. Hardly a good account of the whole country. Maybe I missed the vaccine rate of those that died and party? So I did read them but really didn’t find any hard evidence in them.
Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work
- Thread starter Kenneth Griffin
- Start date
Lol yes Fox News bad. That’s the only place the evil right wingers know how to get information.
Getting vaccinated sure that argument is fair. Wearing masks is not a valid argument of why more Republicans died than Democrats. That is a fantasy that you want to be proven correct simply for political purposes.
That is a fantasy that you want to be proven incorrect simply for political purposes. That was easy.
He is saying stay home if you are sick. It’s like rule number one in the covid era.
There are plenty. We’ve done this before. Look them up yourself if you haven’t kept up with the science.
Should be easy then to just point to one science article starting in 1923. The person I responded to could not, and neither can you.
And, there are many more. Next time do your own research.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/A...-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses
https://centerforneurologyandspine.com/do-masks-work-see-the-review-of-over-150-studies-below/
Weird
Like you don't read you own links:
Editor’s Note: The authors added the following statement on Jul 16.
The authors and CIDRAP have received requests in recent weeks to remove this article from the CIDRAP website. Reasons have included:
(1) we don’t truly know that cloth masks (face coverings) are not effective, since the data are so limited,
(2) wearing a cloth mask or face covering is better than doing nothing,
(3) the article is being used by individuals and groups to support non-mask wearing where mandated and (4) there are now many modeling studies suggesting that cloth masks or face coverings could be effective at flattening the curve and preventing many cases of infection.
In summary, though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission,
I wasn't sick
I had one random symptom. No coughing. No sneezing. Nothing else.
Like you ate habanero salsa and your nose was running? You didn’t need a mask for that. Except maybe to hide your snot.
Fail. I wear N-95 masks, they work, as do other types.
Mask mandates did not differentiate with regard to mask type. So, yes you did fail.
Asked for a study, got three.
Didn’t like the results, so you unsuccessfully tried to find an escape hatch.
Asked for a study, got three.
Didn’t like the results, so you unsuccessfully tried to find an escape hatch.
Opinion | Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work
A respected science organization says its review of studies about respiratory viruses was misinterpreted to incorrectly claim masks were useless.www.nytimes.com
New Meta-Analysis out
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This review was commissioned partly because of controversy around a Cochrane review which was interpreted by some people as providing definitive evidence that masks don’t work (9). Our extensive review of multiple streams of evidence from different disciplines and study designs builds on previous cross-disciplinary narrative reviews (233, 412) and aligns with the recent call from philosophers of science to shift from a “measurement framework” (which draws solely or mainly on RCTs) to an “argument framework” (which systematically synthesizes evidence from multiple designs including mechanistic and real-world evidence) (19). Using this approach, we have demonstrated a more nuanced set of conclusions, summarized below, and have revealed why certain inaccurate assumptions and defective reasoning about the science of masks and masking seem to have become widely accepted among certain groups.We began by reviewing basic science evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens and showed that there is strong and consistent evidence that they spread predominantly by the airborne route. We also showed that masks are effective, and well-fitting respirators are highly effective, in reducing transmission of respiratory pathogens, and that these devices demonstrate a dose-response effect (the level of protection increases as adherence to masking increases).
We then provided a methodological critique of clinical trials of masks in the control of respiratory disease epidemics and outbreaks, including listing common design flaws. We summarized evidence from RCTs, including repeating methodologically flawed meta-analyses, and showed that respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks, especially (and to the extent that) they are actually worn in all potentially hazardous circumstances.
We also reviewed an extensive body of observational and modeling evidence which showed that, overall, masking and mask mandates are effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory diseases during periods of high community transmission. The observational findings are particularly striking since various inherent limitations of such designs are likely to bias findings toward the null.
Our review of adverse effects and harms of masks found strong evidence to refute claims by anti-mask groups that masks are dangerous to the general population. We also found that masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions and that certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked.
We summarized evidence from multiple countries and cultures which shows that masks are important sociocultural symbols about which people care deeply (positively or negatively). We also showed that adherence (and non-adherence) to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation, and hence hard to change.
In a section on mask policy, we described how governments and organizations need explicit policies on using masks for prevention and control of respiratory infections, covering personal protection of at-risk groups; protection in specific settings, including workplaces and healthcare facilities; seasonal respiratory infections; and pandemics. These policies need to be based on sound risk assessment, risk management, and implementation principles.
Finally, we reviewed environmental impacts from single-use masks and respirators and highlighted novel materials and designs with improved performance and less environmental risk.
We believe this evidence supports several important conclusions and implications for further research.
First, the claim that masks don’t work is demonstrably incorrect, and appears to be based on a combination of flawed assumptions, flawed meta-analysis methods, errors of reasoning, failure to understand (or refusal to acknowledge) mechanistic evidence, and limitations in critical appraisal and evidence synthesis. Masks and respirators work if and to the extent that they are well-designed (e.g., made of high-filtration materials), well-fitting and actually worn. The heterogeneity of available mask RCTs does not appear to have been fully understood by some researchers who have conducted high-profile meta-analyses of the same. It is time for the research community to move on from addressing the binary question “do masks work?” through unidisciplinary and epistemologically exclusionary study designs and pursue more nuanced and multi-faceted questions via interdisciplinary designs.
A fruitful avenue for future research, for example, would be the combination of experimental, observational and modeling data to refine our understanding of when universal masking should be introduced during respiratory epidemics and how best to promote and support masking policies in different situations and settings, and especially for groups at increased risk, during such outbreaks. Research on ventilation, filtration and other measures to improve indoor air quality was beyond the scope of this review [it has been covered elsewhere (330, 395)], but there is scope for cross-disciplinary modeling to bring the science of indoor air into more direct dialogue with that of infectious disease transmission and masking to address the question of when and in what circumstances indoor masking can be deemed unnecessary (or, alternatively, advised or mandated) based on air quality. As noted in Modeling Masking, some research groups have begun to contribute to this interdisciplinary knowledge base.
Second, given that masking is an effective (though not perfect) intervention for controlling the spread of respiratory infections, and that it may be particularly important in the early stages of pandemics (when the pathogen may be unknown and drugs and vaccines are not yet available), improving understanding among scientists, clinicians, policymakers and the public about the effectiveness of masks and respirators is an urgent priority. The continuing recalcitrance of many (though not all) in the infection prevention and control community on this issue could prove a major threat to public health in future pandemics, particularly since such individuals often hold influential positions on global and national public health decision-making bodies.
"... if and to the extent that they are well-designed (e.g., made of high-filtration materials), well-fitting and actually worn."
Why did you stop highlighting probably the most important part? This is probably the biggest issue. Your server walks up to your table you can't understand them so they pull their mask down to talk to you. Or you can take your mask off while you're chewing and all of the ridiculous caveats. If every single human being wore an n95 properly, then you'd have to be a moron to think masks don't work.
Bob wearing a mask alone in a car? 😂🤣🤣🤣
Jesus nobody said gas masks don't work Joe. But the bedazzled cotton T-shirts people wore over their face didn't do shit
Why did you not look at the overall review data (in the last study I'd posted)?
Even cloth masks demonstrate a benefit, albeit limited.
Yep
Just posted a new meta-analysis above.
I guess for the same reason you didn't read my response.
My emphasis was on application. Does this do anyone any good? Yes? No?
So does duct tape, I can tell you all the bodies I stuffed in the trunk, none of them got the vid
Where's the picture of the kids in the band with their mouth and noses cut out?I guess for the same reason you didn't read my response.
My emphasis was on application. Does this do anyone any good? Yes? No?
Are you not understanding the premise here?
Masks work, if people wear them.
Some masks work better than others. Much better in some cases.
Should be pretty self-evident to you in your posted photo.
Sure. We can start over.
"... if and to the extent that they are well-designed (e.g., made of high-filtration materials), well-fitting and actually worn."👈👈👈👈👈
You can have a designer mask from Nordstrom, an N-95, or a respirator, but if you wear it around your neck, it's not going to do any good. For me it's never really been about, "do masks work". It's a matter of type (to some extent) and application. If there are 20 people in a room and 5 people are wearing them, 3 around their neck, 1 that pulls it down every time they take a bite and 1 properly. Is it really doing anyone any good? Is the one person with their mask on over their nose protected? Are they protecting anyone else?
From what I gathered from your summary post:
Basically, the study addresses the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of masks, particularly in light of athe Cochrane review that people misinterpreted to suggest masks, in and of themselves, are ineffective. Your article provides a nuanced perspective, confirming that masks, especially ones that are well-fitting and made from high-filtration materials, are effective in reducing the transmission of respiratory pathogens like SARS-CoV-2. (I've always agreed with this, btw). It talks about social, cultural, and political dimensions of mask-wearing, blah blah blah. The only part I really care about is this:
- Effectiveness of Cloth Masks: The study indicates that cloth masks offer some protection, especially when made from high-filtration materials and worn correctly. Cloth masks are less effective compared to medical masks and respirators (cloth are pretty much garbage because few wear them correctly). Masks need to be well-fitted and consistently worn to be effective.
DISCLAIMER: I only read the summary and conclusion you posted. I didn't read the full study (if that was even provided)
Last edited:
The best science is always done when the investigators set out to refute a study they don't like.
lol, look at that graph. A bit manipulative when your x axis shows 1-10 as half of the graph, and 10-100 as the other half.
They didn't want consistent increments because of how small the effectiveness of community and medical masks would look in comparison to actual effective respirators.
They didn't want consistent increments because of how small the effectiveness of community and medical masks would look in comparison to actual effective respirators.
Also, can we do a study on the effectiveness of the ONE guy wearing a cotton mask in a store of 100+ people? That's the study I want to see.
