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

How many times does it need to be pointed out that no one has said that masks give 100% protection?

 

What The State is doing today is called manufactured consent. They are only going to reveal "information" (propaganda) which they wish for us to believe and withhold/censure anything contradictory.

Hume was an astute observer, and his paradox of government is much to the point. His insight explains why elites are so dedicated to indoctrination and thought control, a major and largely neglected theme of modern history. “The public must be put in its place,” Walter Lippmann wrote, so that we may “live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd,” whose “function” is to be “interested spectators of action,” not participants. And if the state lacks the force to coerce and the voice of the people can be heard, it is necessary to ensure that that voice says the right thing, as respected intellectuals have been advising for many years.

https://chomsky.info/199107__/

 

The same is happening with global warming which (and always has been for the previous 9 warming periods of the Holocene) is net beneficial. Civilization has always flourished in these warm periods. The last three are the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan.

 

A confidence interval literally predicts in this case if the study was done 100 times, 95 times the mean of the data would fall between -23 and +46% reduction in infection. Five times it will fall outside that range. That’s it. In fact, my extrapolation of the calculated CI in the study back to the study conclusions is too liberal of an interpretation. The CI in no way predicts the actual median or average of those data sets—as my pull quotes said. Your pull quote does not support your assertion in any way. I’m not interested in your opinions on what you think CI’s tell us.

Just like I’m not interested in opinions outside the actual results of the study itself.

 

Excellent post.

History should have cured us of falling for this by now. But I guess history lessons have been withheld from the general population as well. Can anyone say “government schools”? LOL

Feudalism was perpetuated by a political demographic masquerading as religion taking drastic measures to suppress literacy and knowledge. The common man was to listen only to the “experts”, mainly clergy. The people were convinced literacy and critical thought would result in negative consequences both in the present and in eternity.

Today the political faction masquerades as “science”, but is actually as much a religion as the Church of Rome in the dark ages. “Scientists” deemed “expert” are the clergy. The Reformation and resulting Enlightenment are now being rejected and Feudalism is back in vogue. The crazy thing now is instead of the oppression being foisted upon the masses, the masses are demanding oppression of thought and knowledge. And as you say, they are going to get it!

 

Dead people live here.

 

Nice example of an oxymoron. Does that have anything to do with the Danish study?

 

There is hope. The true resistance is organizing to fight back against the State Education indoctrination system of our youth, but can they win, or is The State now too big to fail?

We need to bring back critical thinking skills, or at least allow equal access to private schools which are outside the federal curriculum mandates.

 

It's simple really.
The Danish study did not prove masks don't protect you because it didn't account for the protection provided by other people wearing masks.
From that standpoint the Kansas study is much better.

 

Is the picture the gov't pulling the wool over your eyes? Or are those dead Texans.

 

LOL I'm not interested in your wrong opinion either. The lead author of the study agrees with my conclusion - From the author's mouth "The data was compatible with some degree of self protection"

 

Just a quick observation. Masks have been required for sometime now as have social distancing and washing hands. Even to some degree lockdowns.

The cases continue to increase despite these requirements and actions. This being the case, I contend that they are not all that effective and in some cases cause more harm than good.

Since that seems to be the case, the only reason for furthering these actions would appear to be for the government to gain even more power over the people.

I say the heck with them and there probably unconstitutional actions.

 

Yes. For the twelfth time. Insignificant protection. The study was quite clear on that. You go ahead and make life and death decisions on statistically insignificant protection. I’ll protect myself in better ways.

 

Perhaps you should write to the lead author of the study and tell him that he is wrong: Henning Bundgaard, DMSc, can be reached through Marianne Uldall Jepsen at marianne.uldall.jepsen@regionh.dk. or at The Heart Center, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

 

One huge positive result of Covid 19 will be better education for many students. Homeschool applications were up 20% in my state this fall. Vermont I read had a 75% increase in applications. It’s expected there will be at least a 10% increase nationwide. That’s another 250,000 kids this year not subjected to government schools.

Private school enrollments are also up this fall.

A definite silver lining to the Covid cloud.

 

He's not wrong. He correctly reported the data was statistically insignificant in the results section. Perhaps you should write him and give him links to all the other controlled randomized Covid mask studies you claimed existed. He’d love to compare his work to that of other researchers I’m sure. You could also tell him he misunderstands the role of CI calculations.

 

So when he said the words "The data was compatible with some degree of self protection" he was indeed correct.

 

~ That may be very well be the real objective.

 

Yes. That degree specifically being statistically insignificant.

Oh, and remember, you concluded it was “failed data” and the study had “many failures”.

 

Medical and cloth masks do not stop aerosol particles. Therefore they do not protect or prevent. The CHARM Study and every other study shows this.

 

Those are Pennsylvania voters.

 

The null hypothesis never has to be proven.
Can you say "Science again"?

 

You're wrong once again. Here is a video showing an interview of the lead author: At the 1:30 mark "efficacy reduction of 15-20% in those who were wearing the mask ............. but on balance we have a small degree of protection. That is our conclusion of the study", There I was stating that a best estimate of efficacy of a mask would be 11% but my estimate is much lower than the lead author's estimate. And why does he refer to it as being a small degree? It's because their statistical analysis was based on a hypothesis that a mask will give 50% protection to the wearer so the study was set up to test a hypothesis that over estimated the efficacy of masks



Unlike you, I recognize that this study has many flaws and some of these flaws are acknowledged in the study. In conclusion this study did NOT "find masks don't reduce Covid-19 infection rates". It is not a good study and I would never refer to this study outside of this thread to conclude anything about the benefits or otherwise of wearing a mask

 

Lippmann was a model for elitist liberal twits.
He was also an early admirer of Adolph Hitler.

 

Masks are just for the "little people".