To take the mask mandates a step further.....it is asinine to impose such rules through blanket orders. The rural areas of the country are more socially distant in their every day lives than most urban areas during the most severe lock-downs. I can honestly say that there is never a time in which I am within 6 feet of someone for more than 15 minutes (continual or cumulative) in any given day.
What's the Texags Forum 84 consesus on masks?
12,239 Views |
170 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by nortex97
SoupNazi2001 said:
If masks work areas with mask mandates should have materially better numbers than areas without them. However there is no difference between the two. There is lots of actual data that shows this.
I think this is because so many people refuse to wear masks even with the mandates.
This whole mask deal is basically utter caca de toro.
The fact that there is no standardization in the mask type to use coupled with no formal instruction and legal ramification for non-compliance, without known and enforced penalties the use is just makes it somewhat random. Doesn't do any good if Joe Blow, who wears a neck gaiter, is around me and others that all wear crappy masks and then 20 minutes later he encounters Mary Jane Rottencrotch who refuses to wear one along with her snotty kids who also don't wear one. The variables are way too many.
Sure, there might be a 5% or 10% or maybe 20% reduction or something, but it isn't quantifiable and it isn't established. Right now the mask mandate, in open non-medial areas where there are standardized controls, might as well be VooDoo magic, because there is -0- standardization and there is not 100%, nor probably more than 75% compliance, and no staunchly proven science that says crappy masks worn in a halfass manner truly do help.
The fact that there is no standardization in the mask type to use coupled with no formal instruction and legal ramification for non-compliance, without known and enforced penalties the use is just makes it somewhat random. Doesn't do any good if Joe Blow, who wears a neck gaiter, is around me and others that all wear crappy masks and then 20 minutes later he encounters Mary Jane Rottencrotch who refuses to wear one along with her snotty kids who also don't wear one. The variables are way too many.
Sure, there might be a 5% or 10% or maybe 20% reduction or something, but it isn't quantifiable and it isn't established. Right now the mask mandate, in open non-medial areas where there are standardized controls, might as well be VooDoo magic, because there is -0- standardization and there is not 100%, nor probably more than 75% compliance, and no staunchly proven science that says crappy masks worn in a halfass manner truly do help.
murphyag said:SoupNazi2001 said:
If masks work areas with mask mandates should have materially better numbers than areas without them. However there is no difference between the two. There is lots of actual data that shows this.
I think this is because so many people refuse to wear masks even with the mandates.
I'm in CA. We had one of the earliest mask mandates. Cases sky rocketed well after the mandate. Indoor compliance is 100%. Now, proper compliance isn't, but that's part of the problem with the mandates and general public.
But we have to slow the spread. Can't you people do this one little thing? It's just two weeks to slow the spread, then we can get back to normal once we know the hospitals won't be overwhelmed.
Stop being selfish, wear your mask, or stay at home.
Stop being selfish, wear your mask, or stay at home.
For people that don't want to wear the masks but are forced to by tyrants the masks probably make the virus spread quicker. If you touch an infected surface and then pull the damn thing off 30-40 times every day, on every chance you get you're just bringing the virus to your face. They probably work fine on the paranoid people that wash the mask every day and put it on in the morning and don't touch it until they get home.
On that note, I saw a person driving alone on University in College Station yesterday with a full on double respirator gas mask. They were safe from the virus but probably died in a car wreck.
On that note, I saw a person driving alone on University in College Station yesterday with a full on double respirator gas mask. They were safe from the virus but probably died in a car wreck.
According to the CDC, 19 of the 20 top counties for per capita positives this week have mask mandates. Definitely slowing the spread.
SoupNazi2001 said:murphyag said:SoupNazi2001 said:
If masks work areas with mask mandates should have materially better numbers than areas without them. However there is no difference between the two. There is lots of actual data that shows this.
I think this is because so many people refuse to wear masks even with the mandates.
Disagree in the major urban areas which is the bulk of the population, mask compliance is very high.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you. I have traveled to other parts of the country for the last couple of months for work. All urban areas and I've seen plenty of folks not wearing masks in different cities. And have heard same thing from people working in the offices of my clients. It varies depending on which part of the country. East coast seems to have much more mask compliance from what I've seen in person and heard from clients. California is kind of interesting in that SF and northern parts of CA are much more mask compliant than Los Angeles and southern CA.
Doctors wear them. Good enough for me. I've been to Dachau and met Auschwitz survivors. Not gonna scream bloody murder over a mask.
murphyag said:SoupNazi2001 said:murphyag said:SoupNazi2001 said:
If masks work areas with mask mandates should have materially better numbers than areas without them. However there is no difference between the two. There is lots of actual data that shows this.
I think this is because so many people refuse to wear masks even with the mandates.
Disagree in the major urban areas which is the bulk of the population, mask compliance is very high.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you. I have traveled to other parts of the country for the last couple of months for work. All urban areas and I've seen plenty of folks not wearing masks in different cities. And have heard same thing from people working in the offices of my clients. It varies depending on which part of the country. East coast seems to have much more mask compliance from what I've seen in person and heard from clients. California is kind of interesting in that SF and northern parts of CA are much more mask compliant than Los Angeles and southern CA.
I live in SoCal. I have no idea why you'd say this.
94chem said:
Doctors wear them. Good enough for me. I've been to Dachau and met Auschwitz survivors. Not gonna scream bloody murder over a mask.
They don't wear cloth masks that most do.
ORAggieFan said:murphyag said:SoupNazi2001 said:murphyag said:SoupNazi2001 said:
If masks work areas with mask mandates should have materially better numbers than areas without them. However there is no difference between the two. There is lots of actual data that shows this.
I think this is because so many people refuse to wear masks even with the mandates.
Disagree in the major urban areas which is the bulk of the population, mask compliance is very high.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you. I have traveled to other parts of the country for the last couple of months for work. All urban areas and I've seen plenty of folks not wearing masks in different cities. And have heard same thing from people working in the offices of my clients. It varies depending on which part of the country. East coast seems to have much more mask compliance from what I've seen in person and heard from clients. California is kind of interesting in that SF and northern parts of CA are much more mask compliant than Los Angeles and southern CA.
I live in SoCal. I have no idea why you'd say this.
Just going by what I've seen. Sure, the state and city governments may have more stringent rules. But, doesn't mean everyone is following them.
Not bothered. I just don't want to waste the time.nortex97 said:I don't know what f16 thread/post you're referencing. I think the data and summary provided is self explanatory, and don't care to try to use smaller words than the link provides to assist you. If you're too threatened/bothered to read them, then by all means post a link to a scientific study showing the masks worn by 99% of the public today work to prevent upper respiratory viral spread, be it covid or flu or otherwise. I'll patiently read the paper, and appreciate someone who is a mask-believer finally documenting why they are so inclined.eric76 said:Is that the same set of links that we've seen on forum 16? If so, when I actually went through the links one by one, it quickly became clear that they didn't support the position of the person posting them at all. In some cases, the links argued quite the opposite, in fact. So is this the same set of links?nortex97 said:Did you also point out that there is no scientific evidence masks work to reduce spread whatsoever of a viral upper respiratory infection?eric76 said:I stopped at a grocery store yesterday and saw one of the employees with the mask on, but not covering his nose and mouth. I asked him if he knew that the was a large spike in covid cases in the county and that the vast majority of them was in the town he was in (about six times higher than two weeks ago). He had no idea about that.AggieSarah01 said:
So many times I have seen people take off their masks to talk, and then put them back on.
https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy
Also, why worry about the poor guy, it's not like he was in a bar?
Also, we have metrics (real things) that document lockdowns are actually ineffective/costing lives, net, on a global basis as well as a domestic ones. QALY is severely impacted by all of the covid19 silliness, without any science behind either masks/lockdowns to justify the extreme costs (monetary and lives).Quote:
After doing so, a group of leading researchers this week called for an end to the experiment. In a joint statement, the Great Barrington Declaration, they predicted that continued lockdowns will lead to "excess mortality in years to come" and warned of "irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed."
While the economic and social costs have been enormous, it's not clear that the lockdowns have brought significant health benefits beyond what was achieved by people's voluntary social distancing and other actions. Some researchers have credited lockdowns with slowing the pandemic, but they've relied on mathematical models with assumptions about people's behavior and the virus's tendency to spreadthe kinds of models and assumptions that previously produced wild overestimates of how many people would die during the pandemic. Other researchers have sought more direct evidence, looking at mortality patterns. They have detected little impact.
In a comparison of 50 countries, a team led by Rabail Chaudhry of the University of Toronto found that Covid was deadlier in places with older populations and higher rates of obesity, but the mortality rate was no lower in countries that closed their borders or enforced full lockdowns. After analyzing 23 countries and 25 U.S. states with widely varying policies, Andrew Atkeson of UCLA and fellow economists found that the mortality trend was similar everywhere once the disease took hold: the number of daily deaths rose rapidly for 20 to 30 days, and then fell rapidly.
Similar conclusions were reached in analyses of Covid deaths in Europe. By studying the time lag between infection and death, Simon Wood of the University of Edinburgh concluded that infections in Britain were already declining before the nation's lockdown began in late March. In an analysis of Germany's 412 counties, Thomas Wieland of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology found that infections were waning in most of the country before the national lockdown began and that the additional curfews imposed in Bavaria and other states had no effect.Quote:
What experimental drug would ever be approved if there were so much conflicting evidence of its efficacy and so much solid evidence of its harmful side effects? The cost-benefit analysis becomes even bleaker if you switch from the metric favored by journalists and politiciansthe running total of lives lostto the metric that's typically used in evaluating medical efficacy. It's called the QALY, for quality-adjusted life year, a wonky term for what we think of as a "good year" of life, free from disease and disability. No politician wants to admit publicly that young people's lives are more valuable than older people's because they have more healthy years remaining, but using this guide is the most sensible way to allocate health resourcesand it's long been favored by some of the same progressive health-care experts now clamoring for lockdowns.
By the QALY measure, the lockdowns must be the most costlyand cost-ineffectivemedical intervention in history because most of the beneficiaries are so near the end of life. Covid-19 disproportionately affects people over 65, who have accounted for nearly 80 percent of the deaths in the United States. The vast majority suffered from other ailments, and more than 40 percent of the victims were living in nursing homes, where the median life expectancy after admission is just five months. In Britain, a study led by the Imperial College economist David Miles concluded that even if you gave the lockdown full credit for averting the most unrealistic worst-case scenario (the projection of 500,000 British deaths, more than ten times the current toll), it would still flunk even the most lenient QALY cost-benefit test.
No one wants to hasten the demise of the elderly, but they and other vulnerable people can be shielded without shutting down the rest of the society, as Sweden and other countries have demonstrated. Sweden was denounced early in the pandemic by lockdown proponents because of its relatively high death rateand it did initially flounder in protecting nursing homesbut its overall mortality rate is now lower than that of the United States and some other European countries. The rate is higher than that of its Nordic neighbors, but mainly because of demographic differences and other factors not related to its failure to shut down.
None of these facts, though, gets as much as attention as the daily case counts for Covid. Nor do all the unseen casualties: the people dying from heart disease, cancer, suicide, and other causes related to lockdowns and economic distress. Early in the pandemic, Scott Atlas at the Hoover Institution and researchers at Swansea University independently calculated that the lockdowns would ultimately cost more years of life than Covid-19 in the United States and Britain, and the toll seems certain to be worse in poor countries. The World Bank estimates that the coronavirus recession could push 60 million people into extreme poverty, which inevitably means more disease and death.
The lockdowns may have been justified in the spring, when so little was known about the virus and the ways to contain it. But now that we know more, there's no ethical justification for continuing this failed experiment.
The thread to which I was referring didn't last long. I had seen the same list of links posted several times by the same poster so when I responded, I did so in a separate thread. To make it easier to find and to direct the poster I was responding to in the thread, I posted his handle in the title. It was apparently interpreted as a personal attack or something and was deleted quickly.
OK, thanks. So, no studies/link, yet again. Let me know when you see something.
94chem said:
Doctors wear them. Good enough for me. I've been to Dachau and met Auschwitz survivors. Not gonna scream bloody murder over a mask.
I think that is a shallow statement when talking about government mandates vs personal choice. If personal choice, then that's a perfectly acceptable statement.
Thank you for your response. I sincerely appreciate it. Two highlights;KidDoc said:This is a decent study regarding mask use for COVID specifically. There is a growing body of evidence that the size of your COVID dose seems to be more important to severity relative to other pathogens. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393808/nortex97 said:Oh look, another post denigrating one side's opinion with zero facts, papers, studies, or data. Where are those studies on the internet showing masks worn by the public today have impacted Covid/ILI spread somewhere on earth?JesusQuintana said:SoupNazi2001 said:ORAggieFan said:Quote:
Feb. 17: "The masks sold at drugstores [don't] truly protect anyone, Fauci said. 'If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't do much to protect you. In the US, there is absolutely no reason to wear a mask."
It's disturbing the average American can't see the abrupt about face in what he said and recognize they changed their view to calm the masses and act like it could actually protect you. All these restrictions give the illusion of protection but you can't stop a virus from spreading unless you don't leave your home.
Or perhaps the avg American is taught to listen to medical professionals when it comes to disease and illness. As seen on this thread and from the docs Facebook posts on the top of the forum, they do indeed believe there are some benefits to mask wearing. Many folks might actually listen to their pcp and not talking heads from the news, DC or message boards. I guess the real shame in this is that some many physicians have got it wrong and people are being mislead by folks they trust with their healthcare instead of following the scientific studies posted on the internet.
My PCP told me he thinks it's all theater, btw.
The bottom line is the study you are demanding to see will never happen as it would be unethical. You would have to have patients exposed on purpose to COVID + people with different masks. Also how in the hell can you double blind masking. The best evidence we are going to get is from looking at different outcomes in different countries and situations. For example if you have cruise ship infections one with mask one without and compare outcomes.
Masks are overestimated in efficacy by the left, and underestimated by the right. As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.
My personal take, as already mentioned, is you should use a N95 in high risk situations especially if you have risk factors. In other more middle risk a surgical mask is great. I have yet to see any convincing data that cloth mask help much and most evidence shows gaiters doing nothing at best.
Ok, how did they get there? Oh;Quote:
One model showed a correlation between population-level masking and number of COVID-19 cases in various countries, but an even stronger correlation with suppression of COVID-related death rates.9However, it should be acknowledged that this model could not account for all confounders that led to such low death rates in the regions examined. This group showed that, if 80% of the population wears a moderately effective mask, nearly half of the projected deaths over the next two months could be prevented.
So, the whole paper is based on an assumption as to the effectiveness of home made (and other) masks, of 70 percent. I didn't note anything documenting how they reached the 70% figure, or why, but it doesn't remotely match the science, or actual studies I've seen elsewhere.Quote:
Mask characteristics. Varying degrees of mask effectiveness are modelled by the mask transmission rate T and mask absorption rate A, which denote the proportion of viruses that are stopped by the mask during exhaling (transmission) versus inhaling (absorption), respectively. We set T =0.7andA=0.7 to model the use of inexpensive, widely available, and even nonmedical or homemade masks with only 70% effectiveness for universal masking, and not higher quality N95, N99, N100, FFP1, FFP2, or FFP3 masks which in many regions need to be reserved for medical staff.
Which leads me to ask; what did I miss? Why should we trust that simple masks would cut down on transmissions 70 percent?
I agree it is conjecture and is presented as such, basically a model based off estimated data much like climate data. The only real world situations that we currently have data on clearly support decreased severity with masking (meat packing plants & cruise ships). I don't use cloth masks period and I think they are generally a talisman more than a useful PPE.nortex97 said:Thank you for your response. I sincerely appreciate it. Two highlights;KidDoc said:This is a decent study regarding mask use for COVID specifically. There is a growing body of evidence that the size of your COVID dose seems to be more important to severity relative to other pathogens. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393808/nortex97 said:Oh look, another post denigrating one side's opinion with zero facts, papers, studies, or data. Where are those studies on the internet showing masks worn by the public today have impacted Covid/ILI spread somewhere on earth?JesusQuintana said:SoupNazi2001 said:ORAggieFan said:Quote:
Feb. 17: "The masks sold at drugstores [don't] truly protect anyone, Fauci said. 'If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't do much to protect you. In the US, there is absolutely no reason to wear a mask."
It's disturbing the average American can't see the abrupt about face in what he said and recognize they changed their view to calm the masses and act like it could actually protect you. All these restrictions give the illusion of protection but you can't stop a virus from spreading unless you don't leave your home.
Or perhaps the avg American is taught to listen to medical professionals when it comes to disease and illness. As seen on this thread and from the docs Facebook posts on the top of the forum, they do indeed believe there are some benefits to mask wearing. Many folks might actually listen to their pcp and not talking heads from the news, DC or message boards. I guess the real shame in this is that some many physicians have got it wrong and people are being mislead by folks they trust with their healthcare instead of following the scientific studies posted on the internet.
My PCP told me he thinks it's all theater, btw.
The bottom line is the study you are demanding to see will never happen as it would be unethical. You would have to have patients exposed on purpose to COVID + people with different masks. Also how in the hell can you double blind masking. The best evidence we are going to get is from looking at different outcomes in different countries and situations. For example if you have cruise ship infections one with mask one without and compare outcomes.
Masks are overestimated in efficacy by the left, and underestimated by the right. As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.
My personal take, as already mentioned, is you should use a N95 in high risk situations especially if you have risk factors. In other more middle risk a surgical mask is great. I have yet to see any convincing data that cloth mask help much and most evidence shows gaiters doing nothing at best.Ok, how did they get there? Oh;Quote:
One model showed a correlation between population-level masking and number of COVID-19 cases in various countries, but an even stronger correlation with suppression of COVID-related death rates.9However, it should be acknowledged that this model could not account for all confounders that led to such low death rates in the regions examined. This group showed that, if 80% of the population wears a moderately effective mask, nearly half of the projected deaths over the next two months could be prevented.So, the whole paper is based on an assumption as to the effectiveness of home made (and other) masks, of 70 percent. I didn't note anything documenting how they reached the 70% figure, or why, but it doesn't remotely match the science, or actual studies I've seen elsewhere.Quote:
Mask characteristics. Varying degrees of mask effectiveness are modelled by the mask transmission rate T and mask absorption rate A, which denote the proportion of viruses that are stopped by the mask during exhaling (transmission) versus inhaling (absorption), respectively. We set T =0.7andA=0.7 to model the use of inexpensive, widely available, and even nonmedical or homemade masks with only 70% effectiveness for universal masking, and not higher quality N95, N99, N100, FFP1, FFP2, or FFP3 masks which in many regions need to be reserved for medical staff.
Which leads me to ask; what did I miss? Why should we trust that simple masks would cut down on transmissions 70 percent?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
That's just not true, and in fact is 100% false. Here is a survey of current studies;KidDoc said:I agree it is conjecture and is presented as such, basically a model based off estimated data much like climate data. The only real world situations that we currently have data on clearly support decreased severity with masking (meat packing plants & cruise ships). I don't use cloth masks period and I think they are generally a talisman more than a useful PPE.nortex97 said:Thank you for your response. I sincerely appreciate it. Two highlights;KidDoc said:This is a decent study regarding mask use for COVID specifically. There is a growing body of evidence that the size of your COVID dose seems to be more important to severity relative to other pathogens. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393808/nortex97 said:Oh look, another post denigrating one side's opinion with zero facts, papers, studies, or data. Where are those studies on the internet showing masks worn by the public today have impacted Covid/ILI spread somewhere on earth?JesusQuintana said:SoupNazi2001 said:ORAggieFan said:Quote:
Feb. 17: "The masks sold at drugstores [don't] truly protect anyone, Fauci said. 'If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't do much to protect you. In the US, there is absolutely no reason to wear a mask."
It's disturbing the average American can't see the abrupt about face in what he said and recognize they changed their view to calm the masses and act like it could actually protect you. All these restrictions give the illusion of protection but you can't stop a virus from spreading unless you don't leave your home.
Or perhaps the avg American is taught to listen to medical professionals when it comes to disease and illness. As seen on this thread and from the docs Facebook posts on the top of the forum, they do indeed believe there are some benefits to mask wearing. Many folks might actually listen to their pcp and not talking heads from the news, DC or message boards. I guess the real shame in this is that some many physicians have got it wrong and people are being mislead by folks they trust with their healthcare instead of following the scientific studies posted on the internet.
My PCP told me he thinks it's all theater, btw.
The bottom line is the study you are demanding to see will never happen as it would be unethical. You would have to have patients exposed on purpose to COVID + people with different masks. Also how in the hell can you double blind masking. The best evidence we are going to get is from looking at different outcomes in different countries and situations. For example if you have cruise ship infections one with mask one without and compare outcomes.
Masks are overestimated in efficacy by the left, and underestimated by the right. As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.
My personal take, as already mentioned, is you should use a N95 in high risk situations especially if you have risk factors. In other more middle risk a surgical mask is great. I have yet to see any convincing data that cloth mask help much and most evidence shows gaiters doing nothing at best.Ok, how did they get there? Oh;Quote:
One model showed a correlation between population-level masking and number of COVID-19 cases in various countries, but an even stronger correlation with suppression of COVID-related death rates.9However, it should be acknowledged that this model could not account for all confounders that led to such low death rates in the regions examined. This group showed that, if 80% of the population wears a moderately effective mask, nearly half of the projected deaths over the next two months could be prevented.So, the whole paper is based on an assumption as to the effectiveness of home made (and other) masks, of 70 percent. I didn't note anything documenting how they reached the 70% figure, or why, but it doesn't remotely match the science, or actual studies I've seen elsewhere.Quote:
Mask characteristics. Varying degrees of mask effectiveness are modelled by the mask transmission rate T and mask absorption rate A, which denote the proportion of viruses that are stopped by the mask during exhaling (transmission) versus inhaling (absorption), respectively. We set T =0.7andA=0.7 to model the use of inexpensive, widely available, and even nonmedical or homemade masks with only 70% effectiveness for universal masking, and not higher quality N95, N99, N100, FFP1, FFP2, or FFP3 masks which in many regions need to be reserved for medical staff.
Which leads me to ask; what did I miss? Why should we trust that simple masks would cut down on transmissions 70 percent?
Yes, wearing a mask is done so people can demonstrate their support for concern, as a sort of talisman of 'love for fellow man' but it is scientifically known (including N95) that this is utterly useless, both to prevent infections and severity of respiratory viruses.Quote:
Review of the Medical Literature
Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., "N95") does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:
Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) "Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial," American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002
N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.
Cowling, B. et al. (2010) "Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review," Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05
None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.
bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence," Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x
"There were 17 eligible studies. None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection."
Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis," CMAJ Mar 2016
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
"We identified six clinical studies . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism."
Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) "Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 19341942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial," JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214
"Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis," J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381
"A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
Conclusion Regarding That Masks Do Not Work
No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.
Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).
Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.
Masks and respirators do not work.
Mere (public) theorization that it might work, notwithstanding the evidence/research, is not helpful to the population as it then becomes a point of division, needlessly, to support the silly mandates around their use.
And if masks truly do not work, we are worse off than before, because people clearly social distance less when they are wearing masks.
Everything you listed was for flu. COVID seems to be different specifically where dose seems to be very important when looking at why some cases are so severe while many others asymptomatic. It is still in the theory/research stage but the article I linked has the details regarding COVID, not flu, and real word cases where masking has significantly decreased severe case rates. The working theory is that masking can decrease, not eliminate, your exposure to COVID and therefore decrease the risk of a severe case and possibly increase your immunity if you get a small exposure.
Also I have never said I am in favor or mask mandates, that is just you leaping to conclusions.
Also I have never said I am in favor or mask mandates, that is just you leaping to conclusions.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
When the pivot to masks began, we were told specifically not to touch the outside of masks, and to avoid touching your face.
We have evolved to pulling down masks to chin for pics and for whatever the hell, constantly touching and moving the outside of the mask. I just don't see that as being effective. Either the original messaging was wrong or we are all doing it wrong now.
We have evolved to pulling down masks to chin for pics and for whatever the hell, constantly touching and moving the outside of the mask. I just don't see that as being effective. Either the original messaging was wrong or we are all doing it wrong now.
Back before politics lead to policy.
KidDoc said:
Everything you listed was for flu. COVID seems to be different specifically where dose seems to be very important when looking at why some cases are so severe while many others asymptomatic. It is still in the theory/research stage but the article I linked has the details regarding COVID, not flu, and real word cases where masking has significantly decreased severe case rates. The working theory is that masking can decrease, not eliminate, your exposure to COVID and therefore decrease the risk of a severe case and possibly increase your immunity if you get a small exposure.
Also I have never said I am in favor or mask mandates, that is just you leaping to conclusions.
This was discussed on ZdoggMD several weeks ago. It certainly seems plausible, and there is some anecdotal evidence to support this theory, but additional data analysis is needed.
From the NEJM article discussing this theory:
Quote:
"In an outbreak on a closed Argentinian cruise ship, for example, where passengers were provided with surgical masks and staff with N95 masks, the rate of asymptomatic infection was 81% (as compared with 20% in earlier cruise ship outbreaks without universal masking). In two recent outbreaks in U.S. food-processing plants, where all workers were issued masks each day and were required to wear them, the proportion of asymptomatic infections among the more than 500 people who became infected was 95%, with only 5% in each outbreak experiencing mild-to-moderate symptoms."
The article you posted you admitted is based on conjecture, as to it's conclusions. It's absurd to claim masks work based on anecdotes and theory for COVID-19 (when corona viruses have existed for, well, as long as modern medicine anyway), in some way it doesn't for the flu/other upper respiratory viruses, unless you have some sort of data/statistical analysis to back it up.KidDoc said:
Everything you listed was for flu. COVID seems to be different specifically where dose seems to be very important when looking at why some cases are so severe while many others asymptomatic. It is still in the theory/research stage but the article I linked has the details regarding COVID, not flu, and real word cases where masking has significantly decreased severe case rates. The working theory is that masking can decrease, not eliminate, your exposure to COVID and therefore decrease the risk of a severe case and possibly increase your immunity if you get a small exposure.
Also I have never said I am in favor or mask mandates, that is just you leaping to conclusions.
So to answer the OP, there is no consensus and everyone should be free to make their own decisions based on the information available because this is America. Some people will try to force others to live in fear like they are to make them feel better about their decisions, but they should be ignored.
Those were early outbreaks when no one had any immunity (T-cell or otherwise) and massive testing was conducted on a hostage population and there was no real knowledge of infection rates in similar populations/situations for the new covid variant virus. As there was no real way to track/compare how the masks impact on symptomatic vs. asymptomatic patients it really isn't a conclusion/RCT that is supportable by the facts.CowtownEng said:KidDoc said:
Everything you listed was for flu. COVID seems to be different specifically where dose seems to be very important when looking at why some cases are so severe while many others asymptomatic. It is still in the theory/research stage but the article I linked has the details regarding COVID, not flu, and real word cases where masking has significantly decreased severe case rates. The working theory is that masking can decrease, not eliminate, your exposure to COVID and therefore decrease the risk of a severe case and possibly increase your immunity if you get a small exposure.
Also I have never said I am in favor or mask mandates, that is just you leaping to conclusions.
This was discussed on ZdoggMD several weeks ago. It certainly seems plausible, and there is some anecdotal evidence to support this theory, but additional data analysis is needed.
From the NEJM article discussing this theory:Quote:
"In an outbreak on a closed Argentinian cruise ship, for example, where passengers were provided with surgical masks and staff with N95 masks, the rate of asymptomatic infection was 81% (as compared with 20% in earlier cruise ship outbreaks without universal masking). In two recent outbreaks in U.S. food-processing plants, where all workers were issued masks each day and were required to wear them, the proportion of asymptomatic infections among the more than 500 people who became infected was 95%, with only 5% in each outbreak experiencing mild-to-moderate symptoms."
This is a long article well worth the read:
" It boggles my mind when there is some notion that by wearing a face covering you are actually doing a "service" to your neighbor and therefore everyone has to protect everyone by this. Actually, the opposite is true. You are now becoming an additional potential source of environmental contamination. You are now becoming a transmission risk; not only are you increasing your own risk but you are also increasing the risk to others."
https://www.aier.org/article/the-year-of-disguises/
" It boggles my mind when there is some notion that by wearing a face covering you are actually doing a "service" to your neighbor and therefore everyone has to protect everyone by this. Actually, the opposite is true. You are now becoming an additional potential source of environmental contamination. You are now becoming a transmission risk; not only are you increasing your own risk but you are also increasing the risk to others."
https://www.aier.org/article/the-year-of-disguises/
Here's what I've decided.
1. keep 6 feet away - I can hold a perfectly normal conversation from that distance so works for me
2. will wear my mask if in public in a situation where I could be closer than 6 feet to someone
3. wash my hands - any time I touch a surface exposed to the public which means if I touch the outside of my mask
4. keep my hands away from my face unless I know they have been washed.
5. respect others decision to wear, or not wear, their masks - doesn't really impact me. If you aren't wearing your mask, I just remember rule 1.
If I still get it, I did all I could.
not much more complicated than that
I'll let others worry about whether my rights are being impacted. I'm too darn busy living. This is not a deep enough ditch to die in for me.
1. keep 6 feet away - I can hold a perfectly normal conversation from that distance so works for me
2. will wear my mask if in public in a situation where I could be closer than 6 feet to someone
3. wash my hands - any time I touch a surface exposed to the public which means if I touch the outside of my mask
4. keep my hands away from my face unless I know they have been washed.
5. respect others decision to wear, or not wear, their masks - doesn't really impact me. If you aren't wearing your mask, I just remember rule 1.
If I still get it, I did all I could.
not much more complicated than that
I'll let others worry about whether my rights are being impacted. I'm too darn busy living. This is not a deep enough ditch to die in for me.
AggieSarah01 said:
And if masks truly do not work, we are worse off than before, because people clearly social distance less when they are wearing masks.
That's exactly why Sweden didn't push for masks. You have to get closer and speak louder to communicate through a mask, which negates the usefulness of a mask.
Mike Shaw - Class of '03
No, masks don't work, as commonly employed in the US, by any reasonable metric (no state has mandated surgical mask usage, changed hourly, properly fitted).
Quote:
There is no correlation whatsoever. The "trend line" I plotted has a 0.02 correlation (1.0 means full correlation). When you take the outliers out (WY, RI, MS, DC, SD), the correlation drops to 0.01. In fact, some of the states with the worst RTs right now (NJ, CT, MA, RI) have the highest "mask wearing" percentages!
Furthermore, the graph is titled "Fewer covid-19 symptoms reported in states with higher rates of mask use" which is completely wrong! The data do not graph symptoms, only the loose perceptions of individuals who "know" someone, who were surveyed.
The fact that this passes off as "journalism" or "science" is incredibly pathetic and it is being "liked" on social media by people who should know better. The reasons for this are the obvious political implications.
Hope you can make a comment or two regarding this. People need to understand what is going on here!
This kind of fake science is rampant, and as our correspondent says, the motivation is political. The Washington Post is like the New York Times; no one should take anything it says seriously.
Featured Stories
See All
2025 Bridgeland OL Jonte Newman commits to Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
5:54
1h ago
1.6k
In-Home Visit: Jonte Newman 'checks a lot of the boxes' for Texas A&M
by TexAgs Recruiting
26:40
10h ago
2.6k
Effort, enthusiasm to define A&M's success in Maroon & White Game
by Olin Buchanan