Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Might technically be true. But, in reality people are touching the outside of the masks, not laundering them frequently enough and then touching their face, surfaces, etc.
It helps people feel better though.
Might technically be true. But, in reality people are touching the outside of the masks, not laundering them frequently enough and then touching their face, surfaces, etc.
It helps people feel better though.
While I don't think there is enough evidence to rule out surface transmission the studies seem to have been pretty negative on surface transmission and seem to view airborne transmission is the primary concern.
Joe touts this, but if the subject had been HCQ, he would have slammed it because it wasn't a peer reviewed clinical trial.
Disclaimer: I wear a mask, and support wearing a mask. I don't support hypocrisy.
You are filtering air through that mask all day and concentrating anything onto the surface of the mask.
Then you pull in off, stick in you pocket or your car, then put it back on. You aren't getting the protection that you think you are.
Might technically be true. But, in reality people are touching the outside of the masks, not laundering them frequently enough and then touching their face, surfaces, etc.
It helps people feel better though.
First of all, the "study" was based on observations and recommendations.
You are filtering air through that mask all day and concentrating anything onto the surface of the mask.
Then you pull in off, stick in you pocket or your car, then put it back on. You aren't getting the protection that you think you are.
"The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks."
While I don't think there is enough evidence to rule out surface transmission the studies seem to have been pretty negative on surface transmission and seem to view airborne transmission is the primary concern.
See if you can pinpoint your fallacy here.
The virus doesn't know where a person is.
Sure, but a hospital setting is far far different from a general public setting.
Plus, there was no "no mask" group in your study to compare an ANOVA of the three groups.
The problem is that HCQ has had peer reviewed clinical trials which have said it's not effective.
No peer reviewed clinical trials have said masks arn't effective. In fact I would say they probably show they are effective at slowing transmission it's only a question of how much and if they can help protect you from getting sick as well as protect others.
You can rightly point out that this isn't very definitive but it's not hypocrisy verse HCQ because HCQ has been shown to be ineffective.
The virus properties aren't going to change based on the location. The cloth mask allowed 97% of particles to pass through.
There have also been peer reviewed clinical trials that said is is effective. I provided a link in another thread with a list of trials, showing positive, negative, and inconclusive results.
First of all, the "study" was based on observations and recommendations. Second, it was not based on any trials whatesover.
Third, the conclusion was based on loose correlations, not any direct evidence.
Fourth, the premise is that mask use keeps the concentration of the virus out, and lessens how sick the person gets. If someone is already infected, but they don't know it, wouldn't wearing a mask keep more of the virus in?
Joe touts this, but if the subject had been HCQ, he would have slammed it because it wasn't a peer reviewed clinical trial.
Disclaimer: I wear a mask, and support wearing a mask. I don't support hypocrisy.
Again, you're ignoring the reverse direction.
Yes, cloth masks provide a little bit of protection for the wearer (and I believe your link is claiming 97% of the microparticles, not the larger mist from speaking with someone).
Cloth masks vastly lower the exhalation of particles, and limit their spread to just a foot or so, vs no mask.
If everyone is masked up, the virus is highly limited in its ability to spread. Period.
the general consensus from the medical professionals worldwide is masks help slow the spread of the virus. The general consensus of the medical community is HCQ doesn't help with Covid. where exactly is the hypocrisy?
How do you know the general consensus is that HCQ doesn't help, when used under the right circumstances?
Like prison bars work to keep mosquitoes out.You think the 97% pass through only works in one direction?
Honestly, this far into COVID and you still don’t know why wearing a mask helps? You have chosen to be ignorantYou think the 97% pass through only works in one direction?
You think the 97% pass through only works in one direction?
How do you know the general consensus is that HCQ doesn't help, when used under the right circumstances?
A cloth covering reduces how far your viral particles can transmit. By a lot.
Well, now you're changing the issue. It may knock down large particles. But, 97% are allowed to pass through.
97% of what?
Be specific. Cite exactly what 'passed thru' in the article you are referencing.
Well, now you're changing the issue. It may knock down large particles. But, 97% are allowed to pass through.
You're sneezing into a screen door. But, don't take my word for it. Read the scientific study from the National Institute of Health.
Influenza and Rhinovirus, two very similar viruses.
Influenza and Rhinovirus, two very similar viruses.
"In the control arm, 170/458 (37%) used medical masks, 38/458 (8%) used cloth masks, and 245/458 (53%) used a combination of both medical and cloth masks during the study period. The remaining 1% either reported using a N95 respirator (n=3) or did not use any masks (n=2).
Table 5 shows an additional analysis comparing all participants who used only a medical mask (from the control arm and the medical mask arm) with all participants who used only a cloth mask (from the control arm and the cloth arm). In the univariate analysis, all outcomes were significantly higher in the cloth mask group, compared with the medical masks group. After adjusting for other factors, ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) remained significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group."
Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%).
We have provided the first clinical efficacy data of cloth masks, which suggest HCWs should not use cloth masks as protection against respiratory infection. Cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection than medical masks, and also performed worse than the control arm.
The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks,29 and modelling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks.30 Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. For example, a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer. We also showed that filtration was extremely poor (almost 0%) for the cloth masks
Again: What was the specific construction of the cloth masks in this study?
What is the construction of cloth masks that grandmas are making around the country?
Not too standardized. They might make people feel better psychologically, but they are not the protection that some think they are.
Again: What Was The Construction In That Study?
They do not specify, do they? Which begs the question of what the study is even comparing.