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

It doesn’t show anything. It’s an explanation of why studies need to be designed to account for more than just physical properties of masks to be very useful. Say I designed a study to test incidence of infection from mask usage. My study group is instructed to remove their mask 25 times every 4 hour period and stick a finger up their nose without sanitizing it first. Would that be a good study to determine how effective masks are in controlling community transmission of a virus? If not, why not? If you can figure that out you should have all the tools necessary to understand why simply determining how many virons escape a mask isn’t a good predictor either.

 

I carry sanitizer or soap on my bikes, have water and soap in the cargo nets on one, take the mask off put it away then clean hands (have package of replaceable filters and multiple masks so I change them too, wore a full face helmet when I didn't), then put groceries on bike, clean hands then put on gloves...ATGATT! Just because Biden is an idiot, and most people did not have adequate masks, as they were reserved for health care professionals, so people were running around with bandanas, and New York didn't open the windows on busses until months into it, doesn't mean masks can't work or can be effective.

We lost because of this, and the fracking socialists won because of it, deal with it.

 

What's wrongheaded about an individual using effective PPE--for example, an N95 or better respirator--to themselves avoid getting COVID-19? They save us a lot of money in hospital care.

If you choose to reply, please don't assume I'm suggesting mask requirements be legislated.

 

This keeps popping up. Its like wackamole.
The virus rarely travels alone, it moves around in droplets of spittle or water vapour. These are stopped by masks. Indeed if you ingested a single virus it is highly unlikely to take hold and infect you.

 

So other than saying that he was at risk from setting himself alight where is your debunking of that video?

Another fake assumption from you. I wrote "Unless a mask gives 100% protection (which no one has said) the longer you spend with someone who is infected, the greater probability that you will become infected"

More irrelevance from you. And using your poor example, the gunsight increases the probability of the incoming recruit hitting the 3 inch target. Without the gunsight the probability is lower. Do you know how to use a mask? If yes, is your risk and the risk to those in your vicinity reduced? To summarize, a mask reduces risk of infection.

 

More irrelevance from you!

My study group comprising of a masked group and an unmasked group are told to divide themselves into pairs and instructed to spit at their partner at random times. Guess who received the biggest spit load into their mouths and noses?

 

Is this the same CDC that in the beginning said that masks were not needed?

If they were wrong on that one, as you insist, is it impossible for them to be wrong about this?

 

The total discounting of personal choice and responsibility is what is "wrongheaded". Allowing oneself to have their behavior dictated to them goes against what the government is supposed to prevent.

As for the alleged money saved, Proof?

 

I seriously doubt a reputable researcher would conduct a study exposing participants to a deadly pathogen in this way.

We should be trying to establish which, if any, types of masks slow transmission under real world circumstances. Is commissioning such studies too much to ask of our often feckless pols? Probably.

 

You went ahead and assumed anyway.

High-quality respirators, worn properly, cut transmission. Hospital workers caring for COVID-19 patients are evidence enough for most of us.

 

What’s to debunk? The video shows how effective a mask is at blocking a stream of liquid diethyl ether (likely containing some upper cylinder lubricant). That’s it. Ether as a gas is heavier than air so rapidly falls to the floor or ground. In contrast, aerosols formed by human breathing etc. will move upward for a period of time in most cases because of temperature differentials. The fire guy did not test his masks ability to block aerosol escape from the mask. But even if he had, ether gas behaves in a directly opposite manner as human respiratory aerosols.

Moving on, the lower flammability limit of diethyl ether is about 2% by concentration in volume of air. In contrast, we have no idea what concentration of virons in air is needed for transmission. We don’t even know what the infectious dose is. So we can’t make direct comparisons between ether and viruses on this metric either.

Again, we could go on and on, but the video (no matter how cool, and I’ve always enjoyed flammable and explosive compounds so I do enjoy the video) does not address viral transmission at all. Just physical properties of masks in relation to liquid diethyl ether.

Well sure. The longer you spend at Wal mart the greater probability you will be infected there as well. But we don’t conclude from that we should only wear masks to Wal mart if we stay in the store less than 6 minutes and 27 seconds. You are either making a definitive claim or a subjective one. Both are ridiculous. We don’t throw mitigations under the bus in places where infections are most likely to occur. Or not study transmissions in those places. If so, healthcare workers would not use masks and no studies would be done in that setting. Your argument basically is calling any scientist who conducts efficacy studies in high risk environments incompetent. That doesn’t strengthen your position. It moves your needle further towards denial of science and the scientific method.

I did not mention the gun site. It is irrelevant to my point. The same rifles with identical sights capable of producing identical groupings will produce broadly heterogeneous results when employed by recruits. As will identical masks with identical physical properties produce heterogeneous results in community settings. The only way to accurately predict mask efficacy in community settings is to study their efficacy in community settings. Period. That is an indisputable fact.

 

You conducted a spitting study? You’ve posted a lot of links. Could you provide the link again so we are discussing the same study.

 

Me too. I was trying to expose absurdity by being absurd. I was hoping the analogy would initiate some critical thought processes...

Yep. But it seems there is almost violent opposition to studying real world circumstances. By the poster I’m engaged with here, the scientific community, and pols. It’s almost like there is fear of what such studies may find.

 

Follow the science, see the OP.

 

You could always repeat the test yourself using a gas source when testing at a closer distance if you don't like the liquid.

Does an infected person sometimes emit a viral load in liquid form? If yes, (which is surely your answer with no ifs or buts else your integrity will be damaged), QED, a mask reduces risk of infection. The key word is "reduces"

We don't need to "accurately predict mask efficacy in community settings". Anything above 0% reduction of risk is a reduction of risk of infection

Do you use a mask? Do you believe it has no effect on the probability of risk of infection to others from you and believe it gives some protection to you from others?

 

I did my study at the same time you did your study on rifles. Guess who received the biggest spit load into their mouths and noses in my study?

 

Apparently, the false positives were the result of sample contamination in the lab.

 

Alex Berenson’s new book on masks is just out. Medical and cloth masks don’t work. Properly done scientific studies show this.

 

I don’t have any interest in stopping a stream of liquid ether. If I wanted to play around with a can of starting fluid I’d go torch some cedar trees in my pasture with it. I also have no need to test the physical properties of masks. We have plenty of information on what masks are physically capable of. What we don’t have is information on how masks reduce transmission in community settings. They are two entirely different subjects.

Of course mucous and saliva are emitted by humans. Who has said otherwise?

But no, stopping a defined fraction of “liquid” emitted from the nose or mouth does not translate into reduced chance of infection. It could. But there are simply too many ways for mask wearing to increase chance of infection to make that claim. We don’t care about stopping spit. We care about reducing incidence of disease. Well, I do anyway.

I am advocating for research that tells us if above 0% exists. You are advocating against such research. Yes, we do need to be able to accurately predict mask efficacy in community settings. If we can’t, we may be doing more harm than good. Or wasting resources for no benefit.

I’ve donned a mask during this pandemic about 5 times to enter businesses that preferred I do so. About 99.999% of the duration of the pandemic I’ve been on my own property. I don’t like masks and designed my life so in the case of a pandemic I don’t have to risk infection if I don’t want to. I did not appear in public February through the first part of July if I remember correctly. Now that cases are higher again I’m doing the same. I’m not concerned about contracting C19. I know the risks and I’m quite comfortable taking them. I don’t want to put others at risk and I have little tolerance for watching the silly behaviors of others so I stay the hell home. I have traveled some but without any human interaction.

I believe quality masks (N95 and higher quality without exhalation valves) worn correctly in conjunction with proper removal and disposal protocols can protect the wearer and provide source control. However, from what little community use I’ve observed, it’s clear masks are not having a positive effect. The main problem I see is masks making people feel invulnerable. They stop any semblance of social distancing. They go places they don’t need to go for long periods of time. They take the dang thing on and off and touch it and other fomites without proper sanitation. I see all these things going on that must be accounted for when determining net effects of community masking. Measuring spit doesn’t account for human behavior. And human behavior influences the efficacy of masks as much or more so than physical properties of masks.

As an aside, I opined to another member the other day that an infected mask wearer in Japan is almost certainly less likely to infect another individual than the average US mask wearer. Just because their other behaviors are more sensible.

 

I don’t make guesses about studies. I read them and scrutinize them in context of other studies and known facts. That’s why I’m adamant about making sure we are discussing the same study. Guessing is not wise on such subjects.

I never claimed I or anyone else did a study on rifles.

 

I recommend Alex Berenson’s latest installment of his series on Covid. Part 3 is entirely on masks. They don’t protect or prevent. The book is thoroughly researched and links to the sources are provided.

 

Classic, prove I'm wrong argument.
OK They do reduce incidence of disease, and you can't find any strong scientific evidence to reject that.

 

The Youtube video showed that a mask reduces the flow of a liquid so will also reduce the flow of "mucous and saliva" QED a mask reduces risk of infection.

Since you say masks don't reduce risk of infection you advise the Japanese not to wear a mask?

 

Anybody with a stitch of understanding of the scientific method knows that the null hypothesis is in effect until evidence is produced sufficient to reject it.
But you don't. Strange

 

They don’t work on viruses.

https://www.amazon.com/Unreported-Truths-About-Covid-19-Lockdowns/dp/1953039073/ref=nodl_