Major Study Finds Masks Don’t Reduce COVID-19 Infection Rates <<MOD WARNING>>

~ Tell that to the power-obsessed Democrat governors. Anyway no matter - farm raised "fresh" fish will likely be the demise of mankind. { Yes that does include shrimp }

​

 

You do realize some of those red states have had mask mandates for quite some time, right? You do realize many had almost no cases for months, right? I ran the numbers on Montana and North Dakota for deaths per million the other day. Montana (with mask mandate for months) on the day I ran the numbers had 30+ deaths per million while North Dakota (with a just Implemented mandate) had about 21 deaths per million. We can make point in time statistics look any way we want.

Yes, population density matters. In red and blue states. That’s why rural parts and richer parts of blue states like NY were behind NYC last spring. That’s why many rural red states took months for exponential spread to develop. The thing is, exposure is bound to happen at some point...

 

And do you understand that at CI of 95% the degree of protection is +46% to -23% meaning that from the limited data the degree of protection is 11% self protection ie a positive number.

The study did NOT "find face masks don't reduce Covid-19 infection rates" and did conclude that face masks offer some degree of self-protection

 

~ Put Andy `COVID´ Cuomo in charge of any state and watch the results. Casket sales go through the roof !
( I understand in New York they call him "Killler" Cuomo )

 

Yes, I saw that some of those red states just recently changed their mask mandate - North Dakota last week, Nebraska last week, Iowa last week and I saw that some county sheriffs have stated that they will not enforce those mask mandates.

North Dakota for total deaths has over 1000 deaths per million double the death rate of Montana, but this is about cases per million not deaths

 

There is organizing by The State. We see the media censorship of this rather neutral study. Democrat leaders are calling on Facebook/Twitter CEO's as well as mainstream media to institute very tough censorship of any dissent which goes against their narrated agenda.

It is very likely going forward that no scientists will be able to publish a scientific study which even dares to question the useful of masks (or tests, or vaccines, or anything The State has determined we "shall have and do"). If the public is only allowed access to studies which conclude that "masks work", then most of the public is gullible enough to believe it and also fiercely defend the narrative by suggesting that the absence of studies with differing results are "proof" that masks work. (The State used the same strategy very effectively with Climate Change. Silence and censor scientists who disagree with "The Consensus".)

The flock is nearing readiness for the great fleecing.

 

~ I see Xi Ping and George Soros waiting in the wings...

 

Members from each group became infected.

 

This is exactly what Eisenhower warned about in his last speech as President. He famously warned about the military industrial complex but also about the government take over of science. He of course had no idea that social media would also play a role in this.

 

Going off memory now on the data, the actual data never exceed .3-.4% decrease in infection. Because the data does not show significance, the study can make no certain claims on protection levels. The CI only tells us the actual real protection actually lies somewhere between +46 and -23. It in no way tells us the protective value is 11%. This statement of yours completely disqualifies you from discussing this study. You have no idea what the terms used in the study mean. For those who care, here is the simple definition of CI.

The results of this study are that in the environment the study was conducted in the decrease in infections to the wearer from agreeing to (and wearing masks to an undetermined degree) was statistically insignificant. The actual degree of protection likely falls between +46 and -23. That is all. Everything else is opinion only.[/QUOTE]

 

Yes. Exactly my point on Montana and ND. Picking points in time to compare states is a fools errand. If it wasn’t, NY, CT, etc. would be part of our discussion.

 

~ And in the end nobody knows a damn thing for certain .

 

History shows many times that the desire by the govt to do something symbolic ends up hurting the folks. Dodd/Frank killed many small businesses. The ACA killed many small businesses. Lockdowns and masking up is killing businesses and in all 3 instances, the topic the govt tried to address was made worse, not better. But, it did give govt more control over the free market and the people.

 

Actually it is you who has no idea about confidence interval. It is a stat that determines that the mean value lies within a range and follow a "normal" distribution graph and the mean value will lie statically in the centre of that 95% normal distribution graph. If the CIs are +46% and -23% the the mean sample point is at +11%. So with the limited data, the best estimate of protection is +11%

 

You are trying to conflate prediction intervals with confidence intervals.

Nice try though.

 

Sad but true.

 

The best predicted value still lies in the middle of the CI distribution, Both follow Normal distribution graphs:
"For example, a 95% confidence interval covers 95% of the normal curve -- the probability of observing a value outside of this area is less than 0.05. Because the normal curve is symmetric, half of the area is in the left tail of the curve, and the other half of the area is in the right tail of the curve."

 

Yes. Command-control governance always fails. His all got started after WW2 when the big government advocates acted on the premise that since the government basically took over the private sector to win the war then if the government took over the private sector to a greater degree that the government could win the social and health wars. Of course that was a hugely false assumption since it was the resources created by the free market which won WW2. The NHS in the UK is a fine example of command- control failure.

 

Mask Mandates Work To Slow Spread Of Coronavirus, Kansas Study Finds

On average, the counties that required masks saw a 6% reduction in cases (calculated as a 7-day rolling average of new daily cases per capita). In contrast the counties that opted out saw a 100% increase.

Still, as the study notes, the findings were consistent with declines in COVID-19 cases observed in 15 states and the District of Columbia where masks were mandated, compared with states that didn't require the face coverings.

Masks Help Slow The Spread Of COVID-19, CDC Study Out Of Kansas Finds : Shots - Health News : NPR

Trends in County-Level COVID-19 Incidence in Counties With and Without a Mask Mandate — Kansas, June 1–August 23, 2020 | MMWR (cdc.gov)

 

Your first line is false:

To determine whether masks had any effect a proper regression analysis must be performed. And that still is only a correlation and not causation.

Denmark, Finland, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Sweden, ... don't require masks.

 

And the results are consistent with the many randomized clinical trials conducted over many decades that have confirmed that masks and other obsessive compulsive precautions do not reduce the spread of viruses.
The only excuse for ordinary human beings to wear masks is the ever expanding oppressive surveillance police state that is dissolving the US Constitution. And that is pretty good excuse.

 

LOL! You should try actually reading my posts - I think all Americans should wear masks whenever they go outside,

In fact, the study showed that even the most obsessive precautions, including masks, strictly enforced did not reduce the spread of the virus.

“To determine the extent of COVID-19's presence and spread within this highly-controlled environment, all participants were tested three times: first within two days of arrival, again at seven days, and once more at 14 days. Testing showed that pre-arrival quarantine did not keep the virus out, and standard preventive measures did not halt its spread. Over the course of the experiment, 51 recruits tested positive, including 46 who reported no symptoms.”
U.S. Navy Study: Quarantine is No Guarantee Against COVID's Spread
Sunday, November 22, 2020.
https://maritime-executive.com/arti...antine-is-no-guarantee-against-covid-s-spread

Fake Science + Political Science = Superstition

 

LOL! Yes, they wore masks - and the virus spread. Now, pause and think about that.

 

If it wears a white lab coat human beings do what it tells them. People need tio get over that - it can kill you.

"No man can be a pure specialist without being in the strict sense an idiot." George Bernard Shaw, Maxims for Revolutionists.

 

If every recruit wore a mask how can anyone conclude any effect of the mask? They were not testing the efficacy of wearing a mask. They were testing the effectiveness of regular testing, regular observation and quarantine