ADVERTISEMENT

Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work

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.


Is that not a log scale?
 
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."

The meta-analysis I just posted for you demonstrates benefits for just about any mask type.
Level of benefit goes up significantly with mask quality.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pinehawk
qov3k8epam481.jpg
There we go! Follow the science and trust those experts boys!!!
 
The logic of a Georgia Tech STEM grad, allegedly, folks


Please dear baby Jesus...
I learned 1 thing in the military and college, you can't bull shit a bull shitter.

You're free to live your life as a sucker. The government would NEVER lie to you.
 
"The government" isn't publishing the papers and data on masks.
Individual researchers at universities are. If their data and conclusions confuse you, they include contact information on the publications to send them questions about their work. If you ask nicely, they might explain it to you.
Sure Joe. That Pfizer money is nice isn't it?
 
  • Love
Reactions: Pinehawk
"The government" isn't publishing the papers and data on masks.
Individual researchers at universities are. If their data and conclusions confuse you, they include contact information on the publications to send them questions about their work. If you ask nicely, they might explain it to you.
Where does their money come from?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
Jesus nobody said gas masks don't work Joe. But the bedazzled cotton T-shirts people wore over their face didn't do shit
Isn’t it comical how Mr. Science Dude is willing to abandon actual science as long as it fits whatever BS narrative he’s pushing? 🤣 🤣 🤣

(This) 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)
 
The meta-analysis I just posted for you demonstrates benefits for just about any mask type.
Level of benefit goes up significantly with mask quality.
So the one guy wearing a cotton soft mask in a store of 100+ people. What's his level of benefit? Like, is it worth me not being able to understand a single thing he's mumbling beneficial, or like, "dude, I have a .03% chance of catching something to your .01% chance"?
 
So the one guy wearing a cotton soft mask in a store of 100+ people. What's his level of benefit? Like, is it worth me not being able to understand a single thing he's mumbling beneficial, or like, "dude, I have a .03% chance of catching something to your .01% chance"?
And if you do catch it, depending on your age (mostly) you have about a 97% chance of being just fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinehawk
And if you do catch it, depending on your age (mostly) you have about a 97% chance of being just fine.
And that is a crap shoot, I'm certain. My COVID-19 bout in June 2022 was a breeze compared to my Flu Type B earlier this year. Took me 11 days to get going again compared to barely 5 for COVID. I haven't had a COVID shot since 2020, but I get the flu shot every year. Go figure.
 
where do those magic grants come from?
The government.
Or Private entities that fund them (I had 2 such grants in grad school).

This particular group is lots of Canadian researchers. So probably Canadian govt funding.
 
Is that dead? No? Still spreading panic porn like it's 2020 and you're a good little foot soldier for big pharma
This is Joe then: “And the scientifically valid information we have from 5 random controlled studies - the Gold Standard for medical devices, treatments and drugs…”

And this is Joe now: ‘philosophers of science (whatever tf that is) need to shift from a measurement framework which draws solely or mainly on RCTs.’

Clown show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
This is Joe then: “And the scientifically valid information we have from 5 random controlled studies - the Gold Standard for medical devices, treatments and drugs…”

And this is Joe now: ‘philosophers of science (whatever tf that is) need to shift from a measurement framework which draws solely or mainly on RCTs.’

FUNFACT: There's a wider knowledge base than RCTs. And there are types of studies/interventions where they are clearly required and others where they are not.
 
FUNFACT: There's a wider knowledge base than RCTs. And there are types of studies/interventions where they are clearly required and others where they are not.
Yeah. Like when the Gold Standard of scientific studies won’t back up the claims you want to make. 🤡
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT