Virus hospitalizations hit two-month high in Iowa

[Joes Place]

Oh right, the things I've posted for MONTHS with you have all been Tucker.

It's literally the same shit he's been blabbering about.

Again: when you do not control for other factors, you can take any random datasets and make it look like masks had no effect. That's what scientists do: they control for those other factors, and establish when all other things are equal, the masking is very effective.

 

[notlongago]

One of my prior posts was about Orange County rich folks throwing parties, and infecting their in-home help. Who then took the virus back to their poorer neighborhoods where it spread like wildfire.

OC is loaded with Republicans, but I'm sure there are ample anti-vax Dems out there, too.

No one asked nor does anyone care about California. It has zero relevance.

 

[notlongago]

If you followed Kimmy's pressers like I did for the last year, watched the IDPH data, and then got info from KCCI, KCRG, and WHO...along with UIHC, Reynolds was always having to "explain" those "glitches" that were occurring weekly.

There are no links because the IDPH always had some problem with releasing accurate Covid data.

We had multiple threads in the last year dealing with those issues. Many of the posters in this thread were very active in the discussions when there were "wonky" numbers.

Of the "dozens" (your word) of examples, you can't provide even a fraction as an example???

 

[notlongago]

That is not mask-related data. That is simply a random splash of graphics.

No one has argued that masks are the ONLY factor. No one.

It literally plots when mask mandates went into effect and expired - it couldn't be any more mask related.

 

[Joes Place]

No one asked nor does anyone care about California.

"Imma disregard this example, because it answers my question"

 

[Joes Place]

It literally plots when mask mandates went into effect and expired - it couldn't be any more mask related.

Wrong.

It completely ignores other factors, which also drive the pandemic. And it's already been noted for you that private superspreader events, that you and your buddy weren't invited to, have seeded outbreaks. They literally held one of them in the WH Rose Garden.

 

[MitchLL]

Of the "dozens" (your word) of examples, you can't provide even a fraction as an example???

You were in those threads last year. You know EXACTLY what I'm referring to.

 

[notlongago]

You were in those threads last year. You know EXACTLY what I'm referring to.

I dont recall a single under reported example of cases or deaths - i do recall misallocation by date, but the totals always were accurate. Thats not what you're asserting though, is it? And I do not recall any examples NEAR "dozens". So please, enlighten us with some examples. If there were dozens, it should be no problem to provide 15? 10? even half a dozen examples?

 

[notlongago]

Wrong.

It completely ignores other factors, which also drive the pandemic. And it's already been noted for you that private superspreader events, that you and your buddy weren't invited to, have seeded outbreaks. They literally held one of them in the WH Rose Garden.

No it doesnt - it plots when mask mandates went into effect and expired on a trend-line that shows little to no correlation to case counts. What part of that are you not understanding? You're the one who said masks "absolutely work"....

You keep speaking out of both sides of your mouth. One time, the only thing that works in the US is the vaccine. Then, masks "absolutely work", but you cant provide any data to confirm that claim and when presented data to the contrary, all of sudden they dont "absolutely work" - other factors override their effectiveness (which, of course, means they don't "absolutely work".) And now, way out of left field, butlers of the 1 percenters are driving it?
That shovel you're using to dig that hole must be getting pretty dull at this point. Lets take an early lunch, you can run to lowes and pickup a new one so we can keep this ride going.

 

[notlongago]

"Imma disregard this example, because it answers my question"

What question do you think you're answering?

No one here disagrees domestic spread may be the largetst contributing factor. In fact, that's the point many logical people have been making the last year. But that also shows the government intervention was entirely superfluous. Which I highly doubt is the case you want to make, but I appreciate you making it, regardless of your intent.

 

[shank hawk]

 

[your_master5]

That is not mask-related data. That is simply a random splash of graphics.

No one has argued that masks are the ONLY factor. No one.

Are you an idiot? Oh wait we already know that. The whole data is surrounding the use of masks. You saying that just tells me your level of understanding of information.

 

[Joes Place]

What question do you think you're answering?

You don't understand the question you're even asking.

 

[Joes Place]

The whole data is surrounding the use of masks.

No; it's not. It's cherry-picked samples.
There's no scientific basis, or relevance.

You can use your same logic to "prove" that ice cream sales cause crime in major cities.

 

[Joes Place]

No it doesnt - it plots when mask mandates went into effect and expired

Which, once again, is ignoring the other factors.

When you account for those factors you find that masks are very effective mitigations, when used properly and in the appropriate settings.

 

[Joes Place]

Are you an idiot? Oh wait we already know that. The whole data is surrounding the use of masks. You saying that just tells me your level of understanding of information.

Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2

This JAMA Insights CDC review summarizes accumulating evidence that mask wearing reduces spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and that universal mandatory mask wearing policies reduce infections and deaths and emphasizes face masks are one component of pandemic control measures, including physical...

jamanetwork.com

LEARN

 

[Pinehawk]

Joe will never admit it. He's too invested in his position.

But, the rest of us can see it. Mask usage does not move the curve, or provide significant protection.
That has been demonstrated over and over again.

 

[Pinehawk]

Which, once again, is ignoring the other factors.

When you account for those factors you find that masks are very effective mitigations, when used properly and in the appropriate settings.

Joe keeps trying to say masks 'theoretically' work.

But, in the real world, they do not, because he has to keep making excuses why the results aren't there.

If they don't work in a real world application......then they don't actually work.

 

[Joes Place]

Joe will never admit it. He's too invested in his position.

I've cited scientific publications for you.
I cannot "read" them for you.

 

[Joes Place]

Joe keeps trying to say masks 'theoretically' work.

No; the data indicate they are very effective.

When used properly. In ALL infection settings.
WH Rose Garden-style parties have been a source of superspreader events; those occur in private households, where no masks are used, and the hired staff all get exposed.

You can push out as many mask mandates as you want, but when people ignore them in non-public settings, the virus will spread.

 

[Pinehawk]

So they don't work.

 

[notlongago]

You don't understand the question you're even asking.

Enlighten me. I love when people tell me what im thinking and doing. They always know better than I do.....

 

[notlongago]

Which, once again, is ignoring the other factors.

When you account for those factors you find that masks are very effective mitigations, when used properly and in the appropriate settings.

Why can you only read and respond to the first sentence of any post?

Here's the rest of the post you should address:
You keep speaking out of both sides of your mouth. One time, the only thing that works in the US is the vaccine. Then, masks "absolutely work", but you cant provide any data to confirm that claim and when presented data to the contrary, all of sudden they dont "absolutely work" - other factors override their effectiveness (which, of course, means they don't "absolutely work".) And now, way out of left field, butlers of the 1 percenters are driving it?
That shovel you're using to dig that hole must be getting pretty dull at this point. Lets take an early lunch, you can run to lowes and pickup a new one so we can keep this ride going.

 

[notlongago]

No; the data indicate they are very effective.

When used properly. In ALL infection settings.
WH Rose Garden-style parties have been a source of superspreader events; those occur in private households, where no masks are used, and the hired staff all get exposed.

You can push out as many mask mandates as you want, but when people ignore them in non-public settings, the virus will spread.

Define "ignore". And where do you think the enforcement of mandates end? (I'll tell you; in public spaces. It's impossible to "ignore" them in non-public settings since they are no longer valid in that setting)

Also, you seem to be conflating theoretical data with practical data. Guess which one matters.

 

[haw-key]

I'm sure you'll be more than happy to front the $$ for their disability pay....

If they are undergoing chemo or otherwise have significant immunosuppression they no doubt are already but nice attempt to deflect as always. If their condition is actually serious. If it isn't then they'd likely respond to the vaccine.

Your actual goal in this discussion is to convince others that the group you are referring to is some large population. It isn't. This is so you can suggest masks and shutdowns(ergo control) forever.

 

[grayhair81]

If you followed Kimmy's pressers like I did for the last year, watched the IDPH data, and then got info from KCCI, KCRG, and WHO...along with UIHC, Reynolds was always having to "explain" those "glitches" that were occurring weekly.

There are no links because the IDPH always had some problem with releasing accurate Covid data.

We had multiple threads in the last year dealing with those issues. Many of the posters in this thread were very active in the discussions when there were "wonky" numbers.

So, if IDPH is the only source of data, what source do you have that provides proof their data is flawed? Sounds like a Trumpian logic process.

 

[notlongago]

No; it's not. It's cherry-picked samples.
There's no scientific basis, or relevance.

You can use your same logic to "prove" that ice cream sales cause crime in major cities.

Of course you realize the asininity of your analogy, correct? We are told mask mandates are a direct response to rising cases and that they will reduce transmission. We can show that has been a pipe dream thus far, both by showing the enactment of them did not prevent spikes as well as, more recently, expiring them did not result in spikes. Until someone makes a claim tying ice cream to crime, your analogy is wasted bandwidth.

 

[MitchLL]

So, if IDPH is the only source of data, what source do you have that provides proof their data is flawed? Sounds like a Trumpian logic process.

When we were seeing the big variations on data, the media and UIHC were not using IDPH because they were not confident in the info they were getting from the State agency.
That's when Kimmy claimed there were "glitches" in the IDPH reporting.

 

[Joes Place]

hen, masks "absolutely work", but you cant provide any data to confirm that claim

I linked a source for you already, spud.

 

[Joes Place]

Of course you realize the asininity of your analogy, correct?

No; it's explaining to you exactly the problem you and your buds are making.

Correlation is not causation; when ancillary data are ignored, they can overwhelm the "signal" you'd see on mask effectiveness. In statistics, these are referred to as "co-variates"

 

[Joes Place]

Define "ignore".

You literally don't understand what "ignoring" co-variables means?

 

[Joes Place]

If they are undergoing chemo or otherwise have significant immunosuppression they no doubt are already

"no doubt"

uh huh

 

[your_master5]

Define "ignore". And where do you think the enforcement of mandates end? (I'll tell you; in public spaces. It's impossible to "ignore" them in non-public settings since they are no longer valid in that setting)

Also, you seem to be conflating theoretical data with practical data. Guess which one matters.

I've cited scientific publications for you.
I cannot "read" them for you.

Scientific publications!!! I've posted this for Joe about 3 times, the REAL scientific publications that he likes to ignore and use his "mannequin" studies and his wonderful cherry picked time frame Kansas mask study as the definitive that masks work. I'm sure he's never read through ANY of these nor has he ever come up with rebuttal evidence of his own outside of what I said above which is horseshit science. Keep up the good work, Joe!!

The fact is there are NO RCT studies on mask that show a benefit recorded. EVER! What I’ve linked is not all of them. The systematic reviews I link later have done that work and come to the same conclusion. THIS IS SCIENCE! Why should we use RCT? This link will explain https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889858805703099

RCT on Masks

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long

“This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.”

HOLY SHIT AN RCT STUDY ON MASKS SHOWING IT’S HARMFUL! PRO-MASKERS IT CAN’T BE!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7228345/

“The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory‐confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh‐risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients. “

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365162/

▸ There is growing advocacy for the use of masks in the community to prevent transmission of viral respiratory infections. This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might prevent viral respiratory infections.

▸ The use of masks by a group in the community setting appears to reduce influenzalike illness in those wearing masks. The pooled analysis showed a significant risk reduction (number needed to treat [NNT] = 24). Using masks within a family 1 to 3 days after someone has developed symptoms of a viral respiratory infection does not appear to prevent transmission to family members, no matter if the masks are used by the sick individual, the healthy family members, or both.

https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-6817

Yes, the Danish study. You may think it’s flawed, but I WASN’T IN CHARGE OF THE STUDY. It’s still the only RCT study published to date on covid, regardless of what you think about it. And just because the authors bow to pressure to say they recommend masks, THEIR CONCLUSION DOESN’T SAY THAT!

“However, WHO acknowledges that we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2 (prevention)”

“In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance”

“How SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted—via respiratory droplets, aerosols, or (to a lesser extent) fomites—is not firmly established. Droplets are larger and rapidly fall to the ground, whereas aerosols are smaller (≤5 μm) and may evaporate and remain in the air for hours (39). Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 may take place through multiple routes. It has been argued that for the primary route of SARS-CoV-2 spread—that is, via droplets—face masks would be considered effective, whereas masks would not be effective against spread via aerosols, which might penetrate or circumnavigate a face mask (37, 39). Thus, spread of SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols would at least partially explain the present findings. Lack of eye protection may also have been of importance, and use of face shields also covering the eyes (rather than face masks only) has been advocated to halt the conjunctival route of transmission (40, 41). We observed no statistically significant interaction between wearers and nonwearers of eyeglasses (Supplement Figure 2). Recent reports indicate that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via fomites is unusual (42), but masks may alter behavior and potentially affect fomite transmission.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ission_among_Australian_Hajj_Pilgrims_in_2011

“Based on developing syndromic ILI, less contacts became symptomatic in the ‘mask’ tents compared to the ‘control’ tents (31% versus 53%, p= 0.04). However, laboratory results did not show any difference between the two groups. This pilot study shows that a large trial to assess the effectiveness of facemasks use at Hajj is feasible”

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029744#s3

“Masks alone did not provide a benefit, suggesting that single personal protective interventions do not protect against incidence of ILI or influenza. However, it is possible that either lack of power to detect small effects from mask use alone or that the amount of time masks were worn was not sufficient alone to provide a reduction in illness. Our timely findings regarding the efficacy of masks and hand hygiene highlight the significance of examining their impact on influenza infection within community settings.”

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/0003-4819-151-7-200910060-00142

“We report the largest study to date of the efficacy of facemasks and hand hygiene to prevent influenza virus transmission in households. Overall, the interventions did not lead to statistically significant reductions in household transmission, although we did observe statistically significant reductions where interventions were applied early after symptom onset in the index patient.”

This study did masks AND hand hygiene together. They were never separated in the control.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/

” We concluded that household use of masks is associated with low adherence and is ineffective in controlling seasonal ILI. If adherence were greater, mask use might reduce transmission during a severe influenza pandemic.” only 21% complied with mask use, compliance was low.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

“Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.”

 

[your_master5]

Future RCT about masks. Contrary to what Fauci says that these can’t be done, they are. Those people who constantly refer to the seatbelts testing argument are comparing apples and oranges. Just because the US won’t touch a study on this because they listen to Fraudci, doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Below are the RCT currently being conducted on mask use as it relates to covid.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04471766



http://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=45868

http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=50247





Meta-Analysis/Observational Studies/PEER systematic reviews

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33215698/

“The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs”

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

“We aimed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of each measure for laboratory-confirmed influenza outcomes for each of the measures because RCTs provide the highest quality of evidence.”

“Hand hygiene is also effective in preventing other infectious diseases, including diarrheal diseases and some respiratory diseases (8,26). The need for hand hygiene in disease prevention is well recognized among most communities. Hand hygiene has been accepted as a personal protective measure in >50% of national preparedness plans for pandemic influenza”

“In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”

Authors reviewed RCT available and came up with their analysis. This isn’t RCT study but a study of RCT.

https://www.rcreader.com/sites/defa...a-growing-body-of-evidence-August-03-2020.pdf

“I prove that there is no policy-grade evidence to support forced masking on the general population, and that all the latest-decade’s policy-grade evidence points to the opposite: NOT recommending forced masking of the general population. Therefore, the politicians and health authorities are acting without legitimacy and recklessly.”

One of the best articles out there documenting shitty masks policies.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...matic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

“In conclusion there remains a substantial gap in the scientific literature on the effectiveness of face masks to reduce transmission of influenza virus infection. While there is some experimental evidence that masks should be able to reduce infectiousness under controlled conditions [7], there is less evidence on whether this translates to effectiveness in natural settings.”

“An important concern when determining which public health interventions could be useful in mitigating local influenza virus epidemics, and which infection control procedures are necessary to prevent nosocomial transmission, is the mode of influenza virus transmission between people and in the environment. Physical barriers would be most effective in limiting short-distance transmission by direct or indirect contact and large droplet spread, while more comprehensive precautions would be required to prevent infection at longer distances via airborne spread of small (nuclei) droplet particles”

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

“Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended.

The confirmed effectiveness of medical masks is crucially important for lower-resource and emergency settings lacking access to N95 respirators. In such cases, single-use medical masks are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization”

https://www.technocracy.news/masks-are-neither-effective-nor-safe-a-summary-of-the-science/

“In this meta-analysis, face masks were found to have no detectable effect against transmission of viral infections. (1) It found: “Compared to no masks, there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”

https://visionlaunch.com/more-than-...ove-face-masks-do-not-work-even-in-hospitals/

“But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.”

https://www.cfp.ca/content/66/7/509

“Overall, we found limited evidence regarding the effect of masks on viral respiratory infections both in the community and in health care settings, and most of our analyses showed no statistically significant differences.”

 

[your_master5]

Covid through the air and not droplets:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...hat-covid-spreads-through-the-air/ar-BB19JcJt

CDC finally adds the virus can spread through the air!!

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/9/2311/5867798

“We appeal to the medical community and to the relevant national and international bodies to recognize the potential for airborne spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale), and we are advocating for the use of preventive measures to mitigate this route of airborne transmission.”

Airborne = MASKS DON’T WORK!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...hat-covid-spreads-through-the-air/ar-BB19JcJt

CDC finally adds covid spreading through the air. If it’s proven that covid is spread mainly through the air at any point, the argument for masks falls flat on it’s face and we’ve been doing this shit for NOTHING!

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/...le-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-infection/

Not RCT, Not Peer-reviewed, Not a study of Covid! NOT PROOF OF MASK WORKING!!!!!! This is proof of masks reducing droplets. Droplets <> COVID





LET’S TALK ACTUAL DATA REALIZED!!

Here’s a basketball example for you. You’re in practice and everyone has to shoot 100 free throws with a set of conditions. You get the results of this “study” and post them. Those same players, however, play in a season of basketball games and their free throw percentage results are posted. Which results should you choose? They are both pretty reliable, practice (RCT) gives a gauge. In game though are real results. Same thing applies with mask use. RCT are studies of it. The absolute BS that we’ve been doing for months now are the actual games.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/

Holy hell this is a lot of data showing after mask mandates, cases sky rocketed!! How’s that possible?!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kansas-democrats-covid-chart-masks-the-truth-11598483406

This is a big OUCH! Caught red handed those Kansas folks!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1342835735829745666.html

Oh, I know some person on Twitter. Like somehow, they can’t evaluate data because they aren’t “scientist”.

“and it shows why all the masks and distancing and lockdowns have accomplished nothing. there was never a real risk of spread from casual contact with asymptomatic individuals.”

“this has been the single greatest health policy blunder in human history.” I couldn’t agree more.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1340725086278434821.html

Oh, sorry more analysis on mask vs no mask mandates and their results. OUCH!



Pro maskers should probably review all the data from this guy on Twitter. This is a big OUCH for mask mandates!



The famed Kansas study. What an absolute wreck of a piece designed to mislead the public. And breathlessly the MSM spreads this like wild fire! Yet, it full of flaws and for those “science” people, not science.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1332407421151576064.html

Here’s data clearly disputing this study.



Another fund graph! Masks DON’T WORK!



NPI's Work! Not





Lockdowns work! Not





Japan showed masks work! Not





Maybe Covid is seasonal and we actually can't do much about it!?





What about all those masks studies that says they "work". Every one of them is completely misleading/dishonest by cherry picking timeframes





We should double mask! More stupidity!





What about the flu, it's gone!?? Masks worked for the flu!!! It's gone all over the world! I know what it is, the Covid virus must be SMARTER than the flu because people are still getting covid but not the flu because masks work!





BUT, BUT people aren't complying wearing masks!!!

 

[Joes Place]

Future RCT about masks. Contrary to what Fauci says that these can’t be done, they are. Those people who constantly refer to the seatbelts testing argument are comparing apples and oranges. Just because the US won’t touch a study on this because they listen to Fraudci, doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Below are the RCT currently being conducted on mask use as it relates to covid.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04471766



http://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=45868

http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=50247





Meta-Analysis/Observational Studies/PEER systematic reviews

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33215698/

“The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs”

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

“We aimed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of each measure for laboratory-confirmed influenza outcomes for each of the measures because RCTs provide the highest quality of evidence.”

“Hand hygiene is also effective in preventing other infectious diseases, including diarrheal diseases and some respiratory diseases (8,26). The need for hand hygiene in disease prevention is well recognized among most communities. Hand hygiene has been accepted as a personal protective measure in >50% of national preparedness plans for pandemic influenza”

“In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”

Authors reviewed RCT available and came up with their analysis. This isn’t RCT study but a study of RCT.

https://www.rcreader.com/sites/default/files/Denis-Rancourt-Face-masks-lies-damn-lies-and-public-health=officials-a-growing-body-of-evidence-August-03-2020.pdf

“I prove that there is no policy-grade evidence to support forced masking on the general population, and that all the latest-decade’s policy-grade evidence points to the opposite: NOT recommending forced masking of the general population. Therefore, the politicians and health authorities are acting without legitimacy and recklessly.”

One of the best articles out there documenting shitty masks policies.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...matic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

“In conclusion there remains a substantial gap in the scientific literature on the effectiveness of face masks to reduce transmission of influenza virus infection. While there is some experimental evidence that masks should be able to reduce infectiousness under controlled conditions [7], there is less evidence on whether this translates to effectiveness in natural settings.”

“An important concern when determining which public health interventions could be useful in mitigating local influenza virus epidemics, and which infection control procedures are necessary to prevent nosocomial transmission, is the mode of influenza virus transmission between people and in the environment. Physical barriers would be most effective in limiting short-distance transmission by direct or indirect contact and large droplet spread, while more comprehensive precautions would be required to prevent infection at longer distances via airborne spread of small (nuclei) droplet particles”

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

“Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended.

The confirmed effectiveness of medical masks is crucially important for lower-resource and emergency settings lacking access to N95 respirators. In such cases, single-use medical masks are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization”

https://www.technocracy.news/masks-are-neither-effective-nor-safe-a-summary-of-the-science/

“In this meta-analysis, face masks were found to have no detectable effect against transmission of viral infections. (1) It found: “Compared to no masks, there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”

https://visionlaunch.com/more-than-...ove-face-masks-do-not-work-even-in-hospitals/

“But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.”

https://www.cfp.ca/content/66/7/509

“Overall, we found limited evidence regarding the effect of masks on viral respiratory infections both in the community and in health care settings, and most of our analyses showed no statistically significant differences.”

Pick one. Let's analyze.

Because several of those don't show what you want them to.

 

[Joes Place]

Covid through the air and not droplets:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...hat-covid-spreads-through-the-air/ar-BB19JcJt

CDC finally adds the virus can spread through the air!!

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/9/2311/5867798

“We appeal to the medical community and to the relevant national and international bodies to recognize the potential for airborne spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale), and we are advocating for the use of preventive measures to mitigate this route of airborne transmission.”

Airborne = MASKS DON’T WORK!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...hat-covid-spreads-through-the-air/ar-BB19JcJt

CDC finally adds covid spreading through the air. If it’s proven that covid is spread mainly through the air at any point, the argument for masks falls flat on it’s face and we’ve been doing this shit for NOTHING!

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/...le-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-infection/

Not RCT, Not Peer-reviewed, Not a study of Covid! NOT PROOF OF MASK WORKING!!!!!! This is proof of masks reducing droplets. Droplets <> COVID





LET’S TALK ACTUAL DATA REALIZED!!

Here’s a basketball example for you. You’re in practice and everyone has to shoot 100 free throws with a set of conditions. You get the results of this “study” and post them. Those same players, however, play in a season of basketball games and their free throw percentage results are posted. Which results should you choose? They are both pretty reliable, practice (RCT) gives a gauge. In game though are real results. Same thing applies with mask use. RCT are studies of it. The absolute BS that we’ve been doing for months now are the actual games.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/

Holy hell this is a lot of data showing after mask mandates, cases sky rocketed!! How’s that possible?!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kansas-democrats-covid-chart-masks-the-truth-11598483406

This is a big OUCH! Caught red handed those Kansas folks!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1342835735829745666.html

Oh, I know some person on Twitter. Like somehow, they can’t evaluate data because they aren’t “scientist”.

“and it shows why all the masks and distancing and lockdowns have accomplished nothing. there was never a real risk of spread from casual contact with asymptomatic individuals.”

“this has been the single greatest health policy blunder in human history.” I couldn’t agree more.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1340725086278434821.html

Oh, sorry more analysis on mask vs no mask mandates and their results. OUCH!

View embedded media

Pro maskers should probably review all the data from this guy on Twitter. This is a big OUCH for mask mandates!



The famed Kansas study. What an absolute wreck of a piece designed to mislead the public. And breathlessly the MSM spreads this like wild fire! Yet, it full of flaws and for those “science” people, not science.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1332407421151576064.html

Here’s data clearly disputing this study.

View embedded media

Another fund graph! Masks DON’T WORK!



NPI's Work! Not

View embedded media

Lockdowns work! Not

View embedded media

Japan showed masks work! Not

View embedded media

Maybe Covid is seasonal and we actually can't do much about it!?

View embedded media

What about all those masks studies that says they "work". Every one of them is completely misleading/dishonest by cherry picking timeframes

View embedded media

We should double mask! More stupidity!

View embedded media

What about the flu, it's gone!?? Masks worked for the flu!!! It's gone all over the world! I know what it is, the Covid virus must be SMARTER than the flu because people are still getting covid but not the flu because masks work!

View embedded media

BUT, BUT people aren't complying wearing masks!!!

View embedded media

I'll choose:

It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

We appeal to the medical community and to the relevant national and international bodies to recognize the potential for airborne spread of coronavirus disease 2

academic.oup.com

All this is informing you, is that masks won't be effective when viral buildup in poorly ventilated rooms overcomes their ability to effectively filter anything. N95s would work in that case.


This is literally why occupancy limits AND masks were the recommendation.
This article says NOTHING about mask effectiveness in other, normal use.

EDIT: THEY EVEN STATE THIS IN YOUR LINK

This problem is especially acute in indoor or enclosed environments, particularly those that are crowded and have inadequate ventilation [17] relative to the number of occupants and extended exposure periods (as graphically depicted in Figure 1).

 

[Joes Place]

Covid through the air and not droplets:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...hat-covid-spreads-through-the-air/ar-BB19JcJt

CDC finally adds the virus can spread through the air!!

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/9/2311/5867798

“We appeal to the medical community and to the relevant national and international bodies to recognize the potential for airborne spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale), and we are advocating for the use of preventive measures to mitigate this route of airborne transmission.”

Airborne = MASKS DON’T WORK!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...hat-covid-spreads-through-the-air/ar-BB19JcJt

CDC finally adds covid spreading through the air. If it’s proven that covid is spread mainly through the air at any point, the argument for masks falls flat on it’s face and we’ve been doing this shit for NOTHING!

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/...le-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-infection/

Not RCT, Not Peer-reviewed, Not a study of Covid! NOT PROOF OF MASK WORKING!!!!!! This is proof of masks reducing droplets. Droplets <> COVID





LET’S TALK ACTUAL DATA REALIZED!!

Here’s a basketball example for you. You’re in practice and everyone has to shoot 100 free throws with a set of conditions. You get the results of this “study” and post them. Those same players, however, play in a season of basketball games and their free throw percentage results are posted. Which results should you choose? They are both pretty reliable, practice (RCT) gives a gauge. In game though are real results. Same thing applies with mask use. RCT are studies of it. The absolute BS that we’ve been doing for months now are the actual games.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/

Holy hell this is a lot of data showing after mask mandates, cases sky rocketed!! How’s that possible?!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kansas-democrats-covid-chart-masks-the-truth-11598483406

This is a big OUCH! Caught red handed those Kansas folks!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1342835735829745666.html

Oh, I know some person on Twitter. Like somehow, they can’t evaluate data because they aren’t “scientist”.

“and it shows why all the masks and distancing and lockdowns have accomplished nothing. there was never a real risk of spread from casual contact with asymptomatic individuals.”

“this has been the single greatest health policy blunder in human history.” I couldn’t agree more.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1340725086278434821.html

Oh, sorry more analysis on mask vs no mask mandates and their results. OUCH!

View embedded media

Pro maskers should probably review all the data from this guy on Twitter. This is a big OUCH for mask mandates!



The famed Kansas study. What an absolute wreck of a piece designed to mislead the public. And breathlessly the MSM spreads this like wild fire! Yet, it full of flaws and for those “science” people, not science.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1332407421151576064.html

Here’s data clearly disputing this study.

View embedded media

Another fund graph! Masks DON’T WORK!



NPI's Work! Not

View embedded media

Lockdowns work! Not

View embedded media

Japan showed masks work! Not

View embedded media

Maybe Covid is seasonal and we actually can't do much about it!?

View embedded media

What about all those masks studies that says they "work". Every one of them is completely misleading/dishonest by cherry picking timeframes

View embedded media

We should double mask! More stupidity!

View embedded media

What about the flu, it's gone!?? Masks worked for the flu!!! It's gone all over the world! I know what it is, the Covid virus must be SMARTER than the flu because people are still getting covid but not the flu because masks work!

View embedded media

BUT, BUT people aren't complying wearing masks!!!

View embedded media

Locally Produced Cloth Face Mask and COVID-19 Like Illness Prevention - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

Locally Produced Cloth Face Mask and COVID-19 Like Illness Prevention - Full Text View.

clinicaltrials.gov

This study was initiated and apparently never completed. Likely, because they cannot get enough compliance and tracking of covariables (i.e. actual behavior) to identify any signal, whatsoever.

This is a study that didn't need >9 months to finish.
There is no data to report here. Ergo, your link is worthless.

 

[Joes Place]

Scientific publications!!!

I've already debunked two of your links, that do not support your position.

If you've found one that you think does, post that and explain in detail why you think it supports your argument.

What you've posted here is diarrhea of links, few (if any) that actually say what you think they say.

In contrast, I've given you one source that explicitly supports what I've told you. It's not worth my time to wade thru more BS links that aren't related to the topic.

 

[haw-key]

"no doubt"

uh huh

How many immunosuppressed patients do you manage Joe? I'm predicting my number far exceeds yours. Wanna bet?