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

Oops! The first linked images of Gavin Newsom and his ilk partying w/o masks have been expunged from the record.
Two more tries:

 

All USMC recruits were not part of the study. Which is irrelevant.
The study showed that even the strictest obsessive compulsive measures cannot prevent the spread of viruses.
This has been known for a very long time.

 

The evidence collected through many studies since 1946 shows that masks offer no protection from viruses, and discovering effective practical ways to reduce the spread of viruses has been a very high priority.

 

And they can still vote.

 

And yet more and more states including red states have now installed mask mandates. Better late than never

 

A condom with several holes in it offers a small degree of protection.

 

So what. And again the medical and cloth masks do not protect and prevent.

 

That was a voting precinct. LOL

 

Yes, and rather illustrative of the mindset our corrupt DINO/RINO establishment elites have taken against the people over at least the last three decades.

But the election may prove the point that about half the people need authorities to dominate them.

 

That is how it works but your "study" is little more than those studies "proving" wearing seatbelts more dangerous.
Pick an outcome - Choose a target set to ensure that outcome - Collect your "random" data - Publish your unreviewed "scientific" resulkt.

Reputation is still important.

 

Bulletin:

It's not a null hypothesis if it is never tested.

 

In Texas they just fly you around looking for a hospital until you die, but then they can't bury them fast enough.
Kinda reminds you of NYC except Texas is doing it on purpose.

 

Why are you surprised at the 15-20% number? That’s simple math my friend. I stated earlier the fact the data showed a .3-.4% reduction. I’ve covered all that in detail. If you divide .4 by 2.1 and multiply by 100 you get 19%. That’s all in the result section I’ve pointed you to repeatedly.

It’s a good video everyone should watch. You should pay more attention to his whole message, not just the part where he reiterated the effect was “minor”. The next sentence is my point about CI and the uncertainty there is any protection. Of course we already know none of that matters to you.

As far as your erroneous claims I don’t recognize limitations of the study I’ll remind you I was aware of them before you knew there was a study.

There’s no such thing as a perfect study. They all have limitations and contain errors. That’s just the way it is. But at the end of the day we have to analyze the whole thing, not just pick out one sentence we like and ignore everything else.

It’s interesting you say it’s not a good study but you don’t know meanings of terms like CI and what they mean in relation to a study. I’m guessing your opinion of the study is based on media portrayal or a blogger’s opinion. I guess that’s fine for some folks. Even with the limitations built in to the study and the hiccups in data etc. it’s not a bad study and should be part of all our decision making going forward.

I’m impressed with the author’s honesty and willingness to answer questions. While he makes a couple inaccurate statements in the interview on asymptomatic percentages and testing limitations he admitted he’s outside his area of expertise so it doesn’t bother me. It looks like he designed and completed a pretty decent piece of work. It’s too bad everyone can’t analyze it without emotional interference but I suppose that’s asking too much at this point.

 

Cuomo killed 11,000 on purpose via his executive order. The Texas data shows a rising daily fatality curve which is currently ~ 25% less than the maximum a few months ago.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/

 

Only in Texas.

 

So what? And where is the proof that they contracted the virus at the event? These people are all in good health and at very little risk. How many have died?

 

LOL. The amount of back tracking you've done here you could have walked around the world

 

All I’ve done is stuck to facts about how studies are designed, carried out, analyzed, and written up for publication.

Following a study from design to publication and recognizing its limitations prior to and after publication is not backtracking.

Making correct statements about it being the only one if it’s kind is not backtracking.

Correctly explaining what statistical significance and confidence intervals are and mean to this study specifically is not backtracking.

Specifically pointing out the difference between observed incidence of decreased infection from subject to control was specifically .3-.4% and then having to do the obvious math for you later is not backtracking.

Pointing out there are very good aspects of the study and honestly commenting on the author’s interviews is not backtracking. I never criticized him or his study, only stated facts about it.

Pointing out the author makes the same point about CI in his interview as I made to you is not backtracking.

Pointing out all studies have limitations and that doesn’t independently make them garbage is not backtracking.

Now, instead of backtracking, why don’t you post all the other studies like this one that you claim exist. Then you can criticize the author for his comments on CI that mirrored mine on the possibility there was NO protection and the observed differences in data may be due to chance. Then you can call the author a moron for using simple division of observed difference by the rate of control group infection to determine protection instead of using the value under the peak of the CI distribution like you recommend. Clearly you know more about study design and statistical analysis than that clown. You are completely justified in your assessment this is not a good study and shouldn’t be used in decision making outside this thread. And you will be completely justified in calling anyone who sticks to facts or questions consensus science a science denier.
/S

 

A new study from China (if you believe it) indicates that transmission by asymptotic persons is extremely rare putting the entire mask issue into further doubt.

Dr. Fauci stated the same on January 28th. Pandemics are created by the spread of people with symptoms.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

 

That .4% makes all the difference.
I feel "safe" now

 

That’s an interesting study I hadn’t seen. It looks to me like they only utilized PCR testing so if no “discovered” asymptomatic cases had viable virus it very likely those cases were actually false negatives previously or just untested asymptomatics previously that were convalescent at the time of the study. If they had administered antibody tests to the “discovered” asymptomatic cases we would be able to read more into the conclusions.

It is interesting though and should keep us on our toes. It would really stink if we are being lied to about asymptomatic transmission.

Oh, the other thing that makes me skeptical of the Chinese study is the fact we know most every respiratory virus does spread asymptomatically to some degree. Anyway, thanks for the new information to ruminate on.

 

Lemmings and sheep have long been known to follow their leaders off the cliff.

Men go mad in herds, but recover their senses slowly, and only one by one.

 

The lead author of the study agreed with my conclusion - From the author's mouth "The data was compatible with some degree of self protection"

 

Congratulations. Your batting about .135.