I'm saying masking doesn't work. It only works when used in addition with other measures like we saw in spring/early summer of 2020.ORAggieFan said:It doesn't change my question.Bruce Almighty said:ORAggieFan said:Where did masks work? Have you been to CA and other insanely high masked states?Bruce Almighty said:
Masking policies are only as good as the people following them. Last spring, when people were taking this **** seriously, masking worked. People were also making a real effort to distance themselves, to constantly wash their hands, use hand sanitizer everywhere they went and stay home. Then Covid fatigue hit and even when people were wearing masks, it was done half assed. I just don't see the point in masking policies anymore when people are no longer doing the other things we were doing a year and a half ago. Masking alone doesn't work.
Read my last sentence.
Mask RCT demonstrates positive findings
11,536 Views |
97 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by jnathan10
True. But there is a big difference between mask usage in a controlled environment and mask policies, especially in the US.Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:Well yes, because a researcher can't sit by someone for months and force them to never take off their mask.FratboyLegend said:
That study did not test the efficacy of masks. It tested the efficacy of mask promotion strategies.
Side question and just curious, any idea what a study like that costs? It was clearly well funded.
My first thought upon looking this over earlier was there is a lot of potential confounding in play here
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I still say the biggest mask issue are two cohorts: 1) those that don't see any downsides, and are more zero covid at all other costs, types. These types also probably generally overrate mask efficacy in most settings. 2) For many of us, we've been saying from day one that masks would need to offer a SIGNIFICANT benefit and drop in the spread of covid 19 to be worth the societal costs of them. They completely change the way we interact, communicate, and view one another. They are not a normal way of life, no matter how much people try to convince me they are no big deal. In a setting like the US, I just haven't witnessed any real world data to show they work, without other measures attached to them as well. But the mask by itself. I'm not so much "ant mask", as I am pro face / normal human interaction. So to mandate something that alters that, I need far more data and evidence to show they have a great affect, whereas someone else might do it even if there's a 1 in a million chance it works.
This is a pretty good summary in my opinion:
This also brings up good points:
Even Vinay Prasad said he would need to see more RCTs after he read through it more thoroughly, and had some feedback from others. He's a progressive, but has been pretty clear that he thinks we have overrated masks for a while now.
Long story short, I don't see them making any real, noticeable difference in a setting like the United States, such as say working for 8-10 hours with the same mask on, or anyone who will have more than a few minutes of exposure a day.
As a person who also doesn't see masks as zero cost, they just simply are/were never worth it. This is even more true with real solutions on the table, as even if they do offer the most minor of benefits, are they going to keep you protected forever? NO, they simply aren't strong enough for that. Get to the real solutions and stop discussing masks.
This is a pretty good summary in my opinion:
Bangladesh mask study...
— Prof (@covidtweets) September 2, 2021
First to get something out of the way: I am not anti-mask. I am pro-science.
My opposition to mask mandates so far has been based on the fact that there existed no good evidence showing they have a meaningful effect.
Does this study change this? (1/x) https://t.co/jyfQpVCFoZ
This also brings up good points:
1/ A new "Masks RCT" has been doing the rounds lately with "The miracle of masks". Don't say more. What do you know when your CI cannot rule out no-effect or harm? Yeah, that's correct. You drop it in the garbage can where it belongs. https://t.co/f1qrEW3spZ pic.twitter.com/pYxJJao5pl
— Federico Andres Lois (@federicolois) September 1, 2021
Even Vinay Prasad said he would need to see more RCTs after he read through it more thoroughly, and had some feedback from others. He's a progressive, but has been pretty clear that he thinks we have overrated masks for a while now.
Long story short, I don't see them making any real, noticeable difference in a setting like the United States, such as say working for 8-10 hours with the same mask on, or anyone who will have more than a few minutes of exposure a day.
As a person who also doesn't see masks as zero cost, they just simply are/were never worth it. This is even more true with real solutions on the table, as even if they do offer the most minor of benefits, are they going to keep you protected forever? NO, they simply aren't strong enough for that. Get to the real solutions and stop discussing masks.
Well said!beerad12man said:
I still say the biggest mask issue are two cohorts: 1) those that don't see any downsides, and are more zero covid at all other costs, types. These types also probably generally overrate mask efficacy in most settings. 2) For many of us, we've been saying from day one that masks would need to offer a SIGNIFICANT benefit and drop in the spread of covid 19 to be worth the societal costs of them. They completely change the way we interact, communicate, and view one another. They are not a normal way of life, no matter how much people try to convince me they are no big deal. In a setting like the US, I just haven't witnessed any real world data to show they work, without other measures attached to them as well. But the mask by itself. I'm not so much "ant mask", as I am pro face / normal human interaction. So to mandate something that alters that, I need far more data and evidence to show they have a great affect, whereas someone else might do it even if there's a 1 in a million chance it works.
This is a pretty good summary in my opinion:Bangladesh mask study...
— Prof (@covidtweets) September 2, 2021
First to get something out of the way: I am not anti-mask. I am pro-science.
My opposition to mask mandates so far has been based on the fact that there existed no good evidence showing they have a meaningful effect.
Does this study change this? (1/x) https://t.co/jyfQpVCFoZ
This also brings up good points:1/ A new "Masks RCT" has been doing the rounds lately with "The miracle of masks". Don't say more. What do you know when your CI cannot rule out no-effect or harm? Yeah, that's correct. You drop it in the garbage can where it belongs. https://t.co/f1qrEW3spZ pic.twitter.com/pYxJJao5pl
— Federico Andres Lois (@federicolois) September 1, 2021
Even Vinay Prasad said he would need to see more RCTs after he read through it more thoroughly, and had some feedback from others. He's a progressive, but has been pretty clear that he thinks we have overrated masks for a while now.
Long story short, I don't see them making any real, noticeable difference in a setting like the United States, such as say working for 8-10 hours with the same mask on, or anyone who will have more than a few minutes of exposure a day.
As a person who also doesn't see masks as zero cost, they just simply are/were never worth it. This is even more true with real solutions on the table, as even if they do offer the most minor of benefits, are they going to keep you protected forever? NO, they simply aren't strong enough for that. Get to the real solutions and stop discussing masks.
Perfectly said.
I will add one other issue as well - in addition to social interactions that masks inhibit (ask me about my Autistic son and how much he's socially regressed with seeing other faces in masks for over a year), the reality is that the human body was meant to get seasonally sick, especially children.
It's how we build our immune systems, develop tolerance for more serious diseases, and prevent auto-immune disruptions long-term. Keeping people, especially kids, masked has definitely helped keep down flu, colds and other endemic viruses, but that's not, long-term, a good thing. At all. The RSV outbreak is a good reminder of that, and it's a lot more dangerous to the very young than Covid. I imagine we will see some dangerous flu seasons in the near future.
I totally support vaccination (and am vaccinated myself) and think that best way to make this an endemic disease is to get everyone either immune through prior infection or vaccinated (or both!). But societally speaking, masks have been a total failure, other than as a talisman. And the more we keep pushing the ludicrous, dangerous, anti-science position of "get vaccinated or wear a mask" as though the two were of equal value, the longer this will go on,
I will add one other issue as well - in addition to social interactions that masks inhibit (ask me about my Autistic son and how much he's socially regressed with seeing other faces in masks for over a year), the reality is that the human body was meant to get seasonally sick, especially children.
It's how we build our immune systems, develop tolerance for more serious diseases, and prevent auto-immune disruptions long-term. Keeping people, especially kids, masked has definitely helped keep down flu, colds and other endemic viruses, but that's not, long-term, a good thing. At all. The RSV outbreak is a good reminder of that, and it's a lot more dangerous to the very young than Covid. I imagine we will see some dangerous flu seasons in the near future.
I totally support vaccination (and am vaccinated myself) and think that best way to make this an endemic disease is to get everyone either immune through prior infection or vaccinated (or both!). But societally speaking, masks have been a total failure, other than as a talisman. And the more we keep pushing the ludicrous, dangerous, anti-science position of "get vaccinated or wear a mask" as though the two were of equal value, the longer this will go on,
A great article on the subject of masks and schools. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/school-mask-mandates-downside/619952/?fbclid=IwAR28CNaS2m1BhGLIo6WwasgL3nqXQ2DdwUSeF79HHR4YlE3F8pDfi9JzN8Y
VERY well written! Could not agree more. I too feel masking has been way overrated and still is with many. Which is why I am just not going to mask outside of my employer insisting or potentially someone requiring it at a store etc. But honestly, if a retail store still requires it, I'll search for an option that doesn't first.beerad12man said:
I still say the biggest mask issue are two cohorts: 1) those that don't see any downsides, and are more zero covid at all other costs, types. These types also probably generally overrate mask efficacy in most settings. 2) For many of us, we've been saying from day one that masks would need to offer a SIGNIFICANT benefit and drop in the spread of covid 19 to be worth the societal costs of them. They completely change the way we interact, communicate, and view one another. They are not a normal way of life, no matter how much people try to convince me they are no big deal. In a setting like the US, I just haven't witnessed any real world data to show they work, without other measures attached to them as well. But the mask by itself. I'm not so much "ant mask", as I am pro face / normal human interaction. So to mandate something that alters that, I need far more data and evidence to show they have a great affect, whereas someone else might do it even if there's a 1 in a million chance it works.
This is a pretty good summary in my opinion:Bangladesh mask study...
— Prof (@covidtweets) September 2, 2021
First to get something out of the way: I am not anti-mask. I am pro-science.
My opposition to mask mandates so far has been based on the fact that there existed no good evidence showing they have a meaningful effect.
Does this study change this? (1/x) https://t.co/jyfQpVCFoZ
This also brings up good points:1/ A new "Masks RCT" has been doing the rounds lately with "The miracle of masks". Don't say more. What do you know when your CI cannot rule out no-effect or harm? Yeah, that's correct. You drop it in the garbage can where it belongs. https://t.co/f1qrEW3spZ pic.twitter.com/pYxJJao5pl
— Federico Andres Lois (@federicolois) September 1, 2021
Even Vinay Prasad said he would need to see more RCTs after he read through it more thoroughly, and had some feedback from others. He's a progressive, but has been pretty clear that he thinks we have overrated masks for a while now.
Long story short, I don't see them making any real, noticeable difference in a setting like the United States, such as say working for 8-10 hours with the same mask on, or anyone who will have more than a few minutes of exposure a day.
As a person who also doesn't see masks as zero cost, they just simply are/were never worth it. This is even more true with real solutions on the table, as even if they do offer the most minor of benefits, are they going to keep you protected forever? NO, they simply aren't strong enough for that. Get to the real solutions and stop discussing masks.
The study wasn't powered (ie, sample size) to measure any particular age group but at a community level. Think it's too far to point to any particular age group and say throw it all away. It's not surprising to find a larger effect in older folks, as the burden and measurable events will occur in those groups.beerad12man said:
I still say the biggest mask issue are two cohorts: 1) those that don't see any downsides, and are more zero covid at all other costs, types. These types also probably generally overrate mask efficacy in most settings. 2) For many of us, we've been saying from day one that masks would need to offer a SIGNIFICANT benefit and drop in the spread of covid 19 to be worth the societal costs of them. They completely change the way we interact, communicate, and view one another. They are not a normal way of life, no matter how much people try to convince me they are no big deal. In a setting like the US, I just haven't witnessed any real world data to show they work, without other measures attached to them as well. But the mask by itself. I'm not so much "ant mask", as I am pro face / normal human interaction. So to mandate something that alters that, I need far more data and evidence to show they have a great affect, whereas someone else might do it even if there's a 1 in a million chance it works.
This is a pretty good summary in my opinion:Bangladesh mask study...
— Prof (@covidtweets) September 2, 2021
First to get something out of the way: I am not anti-mask. I am pro-science.
My opposition to mask mandates so far has been based on the fact that there existed no good evidence showing they have a meaningful effect.
Does this study change this? (1/x) https://t.co/jyfQpVCFoZ
This also brings up good points:
Even Vinay Prasad said he would need to see more RCTs after he read through it more thoroughly, and had some feedback from others. He's a progressive, but has been pretty clear that he thinks we have overrated masks for a while now.
Long story short, I don't see them making any real, noticeable difference in a setting like the United States, such as say working for 8-10 hours with the same mask on, or anyone who will have more than a few minutes of exposure a day.
As a person who also doesn't see masks as zero cost, they just simply are/were never worth it. This is even more true with real solutions on the table, as even if they do offer the most minor of benefits, are they going to keep you protected forever? NO, they simply aren't strong enough for that. Get to the real solutions and stop discussing masks.
How effective does a mask need to be in order to prevent someone from ever catching covid?
A mask can slow the spread by X% but that only impacts the rate of penetration of a particular strand going through a population. So if it is still a matter of a population needing say 20-30% to be immune (either through recent vaccine or natural immunity) to reduce the r0 below 1 then it doesn't matter how much masks slow the spread because they are just slowing down the point of sufficient herd immunity.
Also it is important to note that mask studies will struggle with understand a population's natural immunity status (both vaccine or natural) relative to a mask mandate. Take Texas for example. If gov Abbott issued a mask mandate now then it would look like masks slowed the spread of covid. When reality is cases are already dwindling down because the peak has hit and small scale herd immunity is already dropping r0 below 1.
A mask can slow the spread by X% but that only impacts the rate of penetration of a particular strand going through a population. So if it is still a matter of a population needing say 20-30% to be immune (either through recent vaccine or natural immunity) to reduce the r0 below 1 then it doesn't matter how much masks slow the spread because they are just slowing down the point of sufficient herd immunity.
Also it is important to note that mask studies will struggle with understand a population's natural immunity status (both vaccine or natural) relative to a mask mandate. Take Texas for example. If gov Abbott issued a mask mandate now then it would look like masks slowed the spread of covid. When reality is cases are already dwindling down because the peak has hit and small scale herd immunity is already dropping r0 below 1.
texagbeliever said:
How effective does a mask need to be in order to prevent someone from ever catching covid?
100%. A mask needs to be 100% effective all the time to prevent someone from ever catching Covid. People don't get X% infected. X% is a population statistic, and any incidence over 0.1^-10 means it was 100% ineffective for someone.
I am not a believer in masks as efficacious or mandates, but that level of efficacy is completely unreasonable.
So with masks and without masks the same number of individuals can expected to be infected with covid during a wave? Masks would only make the wave of infection occur over a longer period of time. Which, i recognize could have its benefits.cisgenderedAggie said:texagbeliever said:
How effective does a mask need to be in order to prevent someone from ever catching covid?
100%. A mask needs to be 100% effective all the time to prevent someone from ever catching Covid. People don't get X% infected. X% is a population statistic, and any incidence over 0.1^-10 means it was 100% ineffective for someone.
I am not a believer in masks as efficacious or mandates, but that level of efficacy is completely unreasonable.
texagbeliever said:So with masks and without masks the same number of individuals can expected to be infected with covid during a wave? Masks would only make the wave of infection occur over a longer period of time. Which, i recognize could have its benefits.cisgenderedAggie said:texagbeliever said:
How effective does a mask need to be in order to prevent someone from ever catching covid?
100%. A mask needs to be 100% effective all the time to prevent someone from ever catching Covid. People don't get X% infected. X% is a population statistic, and any incidence over 0.1^-10 means it was 100% ineffective for someone.
I am not a believer in masks as efficacious or mandates, but that level of efficacy is completely unreasonable.
That's not the same question. The trends in multiple studies would suggest that fewer infections would occur if everyone was wearing a mask, but no study has shown a sufficient effect size to reasonably think it would make more than a marginal difference, certainly not enough to prevent spread. There is zero supporting evidence anywhere to suggest that masks can be 100% efficacious.
It is slightly different but more the spirit of what i was intending to ask.cisgenderedAggie said:texagbeliever said:So with masks and without masks the same number of individuals can expected to be infected with covid during a wave? Masks would only make the wave of infection occur over a longer period of time. Which, i recognize could have its benefits.cisgenderedAggie said:texagbeliever said:
How effective does a mask need to be in order to prevent someone from ever catching covid?
100%. A mask needs to be 100% effective all the time to prevent someone from ever catching Covid. People don't get X% infected. X% is a population statistic, and any incidence over 0.1^-10 means it was 100% ineffective for someone.
I am not a believer in masks as efficacious or mandates, but that level of efficacy is completely unreasonable.
That's not the same question. The trends in multiple studies would suggest that fewer infections would occur if everyone was wearing a mask, but no study has shown a sufficient effect size to reasonably think it would make more than a marginal difference, certainly not enough to prevent spread. There is zero supporting evidence anywhere to suggest that masks can be 100% efficacious.
The notion i'm wondering is this:
A population that effectively wears masks fails to reduce the total number of infected over 2 waves versus a population that doesn't wear masks.
The idea is that it is ultimately those with "true" immunity whether recent vaccine or natural recent a sufficient threshold that stops the virus and not any policy. So masks would not be reducing an individuals chance of getting it as long as their behavior didn't deviate from the population. It only reduces their chance of getting it at that moment but their chance is increased for future days. It is like the issue of voting. You should only vote if few others are voting; similarly you should only wear a mask if many aren't wearing a mask because you won't be truly reducing your statistics.
The takeaway from the above being true would be that only the truly vulnerable should be wearing masks (K95) and perhaps those with immediate contact. Everyone else should accept their marginal risk and "doing their part to keep everyone safe" by aiding in herd immunity.
Quote:
In light of the full release, "a complex intervention including an educational program, free masks, encouraged mask wearing, and surveillance in a poor country with low population immunity and no vaccination showed at best modest reduction in infection," Recht said.
The newly provided raw numbers exacerbate other weaknesses of the study, according to Recht, who was also initially skeptical of the research because of its "statistical ambiguity."
The study was not blinded, did not exclude pre-intervention infections, and was "highly complex" because of the mixed interventions, he said.
The three-percentage-point differential between household visit consent rates for the treatment and control groups, by itself, "could wash away the difference in observed cases," he explained, adding that relative measures of risk are "[o]ne of the dark tricks of biostatistics," which unlike hard case counts have a tendency to exaggerate effects.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/study-342000-adults-finds-masks-effective-against-covid-based-20
In before ad-hominem on source.
The greatest argument ever made against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.
The source is a cal Berkley professor
Agthatbuilds said:
The source is a cal Berkley professor
I know that. But they won't care. "Muh…What's up with that…not credible source…"
The greatest argument ever made against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.
So if I'm reading this right, the difference between masks vs unmasks was a whopping 0.8%? And this is considered statically significant? You've got to be kidding me.
Philip J Fry said:
So if I'm reading this right, the difference between masks vs unmasks was a whopping 0.8%? And this is considered statically significant? You've got to be kidding me.
Don't forget, the red cloth was better than surgical, but the purple cloth was the worst.
It's not about the source, it's about their inability to read the data.
So….confirmed again that masks don't do much of anything?
Oh and no medical side effects were considered as to mask usage I assume (such as secondary infections, depression/suicides, etc).Philip J Fry said:
So if I'm reading this right, the difference between masks vs unmasks was a whopping 0.8%? And this is considered statically significant? You've got to be kidding me.
Year of the Germaphobe
Joined:
Nov 3, 2018
Posts:
3,076
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ORAggieFan said:Philip J Fry said:
So if I'm reading this right, the difference between masks vs unmasks was a whopping 0.8%? And this is considered statically significant? You've got to be kidding me.
Don't forget, the red cloth was better than surgical, but the purple cloth was the worst.
It's not about the source, it's about their inability to read the data.
The bigger problem is their inability to interpret or analyze data.
We have allot of doctors running around who should never have made it out of medical school unfortunately.
ETA: or into it at all.
Philip J Fry said:
So if I'm reading this right, the difference between masks vs unmasks was a whopping 0.8%? And this is considered statically significant? You've got to be kidding me.
Are you familiar with the difference between statistical and clinical significance? If not, recommend brushing up on it.
You think the variables are held tight enough to produce a clinical result?
Masks no one is wearing work (when properly fitted)....
Quote:
The fitted FFP2 masks studied here (and, most likely, other vertically folded FFP2 masks of similar design), when properly fitted to infectious and susceptible faces, can reduce the risk of infection by a factor of 30 compared with loosely worn masks and by a factor of 75 compared with fitted surgical masks for an exposure duration of 20 min. Our results also suggest that the use of FFP2 masks should be preferred to surgical masks, as even loosely worn FFP2 masks can reduce the risk of infection by a factor of 2.5 compared with well-fitted surgical masks.
Philip J Fry said:
You think the variables are held tight enough to produce a clinical result?
You asked if 0.8% represents statistical significance, as if there's no way a number that small could be statistically significant. Statistical significance is pure math, regardless of clinical significance. A difference of 80% could be not statistically significant, while 0.08 could be significant in the right context.
I think you probably meant to ask if 0.8% was clinically be significant.
Surgical masks are effective and I see those on about half the people I encounter.
" If only the susceptible wears a face mask with infectious speaking at a distance of 1.5 m, the upper bound drops very significantly; that is, with a surgical mask, the upper bound reaches 90% after 30 min, and, with an FFP2 mask, it remains at about 20% even after 1 h."
" If only the susceptible wears a face mask with infectious speaking at a distance of 1.5 m, the upper bound drops very significantly; that is, with a surgical mask, the upper bound reaches 90% after 30 min, and, with an FFP2 mask, it remains at about 20% even after 1 h."
The other major issue with this study is it is not based on human behavior with any control. In a perfect world, masks would have some effectiveness. In the general public, they don't, as the Bangladesh study shows.
bigtruckguy3500 said:Philip J Fry said:
You think the variables are held tight enough to produce a clinical result?
You asked if 0.8% represents statistical significance, as if there's no way a number that small could be statistically significant. Statistical significance is pure math, regardless of clinical significance. A difference of 80% could be not statistically significant, while 0.08 could be significant in the right context.
I think you probably meant to ask if 0.8% was clinically be significant.
Lots of words to say nothing
Yes. Ding ding 100%.ORAggieFan said:
The other major issue with this study is it is not based on human behavior with any control. In a perfect world, masks would have some effectiveness. In the general public, they don't, as the Bangladesh study shows.
Big difference between controlled studies and policy. A fact lost on WAY too many people.
bigtruckguy3500 said:Philip J Fry said:
You think the variables are held tight enough to produce a clinical result?
You asked if 0.8% represents statistical significance, as if there's no way a number that small could be statistically significant. Statistical significance is pure math, regardless of clinical significance. A difference of 80% could be not statistically significant, while 0.08 could be significant in the right context.
I think you probably meant to ask if 0.8% was clinically be significant.
No, I actually meant statistical. What's the standard deviation and confidence level of a study like this?
If this was a presidential poll, we'd call it within the margin of error.
Masks still Not working well. Especially cloth face coverings.
Still surprised…..if they did even a slight amount of good, we would be seeing that study all over the news. I wish they would help, but it just seems to be "common sense says mask could help".
Still surprised…..if they did even a slight amount of good, we would be seeing that study all over the news. I wish they would help, but it just seems to be "common sense says mask could help".
Mask use has not stopped the spread one little bit.
It has always been wrong. You cannot mask a public 24/7 - it's idiotic.
It has always been wrong. You cannot mask a public 24/7 - it's idiotic.
Featured Stories
See All
Any direct path to Atlanta for Texas A&M goes through South Carolina
by Olin Buchanan
5:17
19h ago
3.3k
1:49
4h ago
1.3k
2025 Texas A&M DT commit DJ Sanders talks district title, Kyle Field
by Ryan Brauninger
113:02
4h ago
1.0k
42:43
1d ago
5.6k