Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID, scientific review finds

Ironic post. Infection can occur or not depending upon how many viruses get to target tissues. This IS affected by any barrier, but some more than others. In another post you said that "covering your cough" makes it so masks don't matter, and now you say that something that automatically covers your cough doesn't matter? You're not even consistent, but the reality is cloth masks helped, but less than surgical or N95 masks, and all measures less for omicron than earlier strains.

 

Nothing about what you just said is true, you intentionally misinterpreted my posts. I’ve never said coughs don’t matter, that’s you making things up. What I am saying is these cloth masks did no good whatsoever and it’s not just me saying that it’s backed by the science.

I was absolutely consistent. And objectively correct. The inconsistencies you think you see are your own partisanship.

objectively speaking the cloth masks did not help. It was an irrational position to hold even prior to this new information.

 

Cloth masks never even had a seal to begin with. It was a foolish pipe dream to believe these cloth masks were keeping people safe

 

It did show masking with cloth masks is ineffective, as does critical thinking. However, as with everything in the culture war, the left refuses to admit they are wrong about something and cling to every little thing they can to save face here.

Reality is, cloth masks protected no one and leftist Karen’s everywhere for violent over masks in the most tribalistic manner…over nothing but politics.

 

Nor is that what I alleged you said. Work on reading comprehension. I will make it easier this time. I will bold the logical inconsistency.

So you're seriously trying to say that cloth masks don't help, but covering your cough does? Both block large particles, but not tiny ones that escape out the side. They are quite similar, except the cloth mask lets less escape. People don't cover the coughs 100% of the time, and people still breath out infectious particles, so you're just way off.

It's not.

If you're referring to the OP study, it doesn't say anything about masks at all because adherence was low, and neither the trials nor mandates affected mask use. On the first page of this thread, I posted a study that actually answers the question. And given how widely used cloth masks were, it does reflect their use, though the results would likely have been even better had everybody been using N95s instead.

 

Take your own advice.

Ahh yes I knew this was coming and am excited you got specific. I very much said covering your face is already common place when coughing or sneezing therefore wearing a mask for coughing and sneezing is not offering any additional protection…which is objectively correct. The fact you believed that to be logical inconsistency is an issue with your own reading comprehension. That is not my fault.

it is.

There is no logical conclusion you could come to that states cloth mask use was effective based on any recent studies.

Furthermore, common sense and critics thinking also demonstrate this.

 

There is an adequate seal if worn as designed. But facial hair interferes with the limited sealing possible.

To some extent they offer limited protection for others that are in your field of breathing from getting infected. Overconfident is the problem. You still have to take other measures to protect yourself.

 

It reduced panic? Poppycock. It thrived on panic, it reinforced panic and fear.

 

No there isn’t an adequate seal. They offered zero protection against anything but droplets, something covering your mouth while coughing already accomplished.

 

There you have it. Most of what you exhale are droplets. The coughing reflex is difficult to time you covering your mouth. Sneezing is worst and people rarely react in time to effectively stop the spread of all droplets. Although I agree that masks provide very little protection, I'm not going to deny the limited protection they can provide, if worned and used properly. I'm not sure why you seem convinced that masks are useless. The medical field (in surgery) have been using them for decades to protect the patients from airborne contaminants.

 

Freshair in post: 1074386029, you made specific comments I will now challenge,

1-I challenged you for stating seat belts won't help and explained why...you did not respond to what I countered with where I said do you need to kill someone or die in a car accident or get injured in a car accident to know why they help? Do you need to be shot to know someone pointing a loaded gun at you is dangerous? You could not repudiate what I said, so you doubled back on your inability to repudiate the lack of logic in what you said and denied saying it and then repeated it and I quote:

"did I say that, nope, I said were required to wear one even when it wont help".

I again repeat you no do not need to die or be injured or hurt others or kill others to know why seatbelts are used as a risk reduction mechanism. The fact someone is NOT in an accident and needs one all the time, does not mean they will not need one and it won't reduce death and injury when its worn. You again show you do not understand what risk mitigation and management is and repeat the same fallacy unable to do anything but repeat the fallacy which for me evidences its probably wasted time trying to converse with you over such basic concepts as what risk management is and how its ability to reduce risk is measured.

Next you now make this absurd comment:

"are you saying you're ok with children not wearing seat belts, they don't in school buses.."

Again the fact that I and most people believe seat belts reduce risk of injury and death has nothing to do with why buses may not have seat belts.

Again your answer shows you do not understand risk management and the phenomena associated with passenger risk in buses called compartmentalization, i.e., the back of each seat in a school bus for example is padded and is a specific distance from the seat behind it and so oif the bus comes to a sudden stop, the padded seat back absorbs the forward energy of the child seated behind. There are 4 design elements of compartmentalization:

• Seats with high backs;
• Seats filled with energy-absorbing material;
• Seats placed close together to form compartments;
• Strong seat anchorages

Next smaller school buses use 3 point seat belts and special education children, i.e., autistic children, children with intellectual limitations or specific physical disability must wear harnasses.

Next and most important the fact that school buses or public buses do not use seat belts is a complezx design issue and does not mean that because many do not I agree they should not have seat belts. I am in fact a proponent if 3 point seat belts in all school buses. Ask me before you make assumptions.

Then you stated:

"I guess you think a seat belt will save my life when I drive a few blocks to the gas station at 25 mph if that, or a few block to a friend's house - my point is the government decides, not us".

Your question is illogical. Whether the seat belt saves your life or prevents injury to you or someone else depends on whether you get into an accident. Since most car accidents in fact happen close to your home, the fact that the majority of time you may not be in a car accident does not mean it will not protect you or others if you are in an accident. Of course the seat belt will save you if you are in an accident and of course if you are not in an accident it has not been used to protect you. The ability of the seat belt to prevent injury is not dependent on driving a car by itself, its ability to do that depends on the accident rate. The accident rate goes up the more times you use a car in a day and so the risks associated with accidents in a car where you will need a seat belt goes up.

You clearly can not grasp that determining risk probability with what is called a pro-active prophylactic device to prevent death, injury, illness depends on the no. of incidents in which death, injury or illness could be caused by exposure to a specific element.

The fact I need to explain the above to you is kind of sad. Next you will want me to explain why smoking cigarettes is a high risk for you getting cancer or lung or heart disease? Good God man the national use rate of seat belts in the US was at 91.6% in 2022 and seat belt use in passenger vehicles saved an estimated 14,955 lives in 2017. Go and do some basic research man.

Next you stated:

"if I had never worn a seat belt in my life.... I would have been just fine... that is a fact, now are there situations where it could help, absolutely"

No its not a fact. If you never wear a seat belt in your life, your risk of dying or injuring yourself in a car accident is much higher just as someone pointing a gun at you that is loaded if they do it all the time increase the likelihood they might shoot you by mistake or you will get cancer if you smoke cigarettes your whole life. Think man. Finish your thought. The only way you would be just fine not wearing a seat belt is if you can guarantee you will never be in a car accident. You can't, common sense alone would tell you that, Wow.

Then you said in response to my question: "What next I need to shoot you to show you a pointed gun is dangerous?" these words:

"I guess I should have worn a bulletproof vest all my life too (yes there may be situations where wearing a vest would be wise too)"

Your statement makes zero sense. Can you please think before you respond. If you do NOT wear a bullet proof vest, if someone points a gun at you, and it does go off accidentally, the benefits of the vest will not help you. How hard is that for you to understand?

Next do you really need to be told a pointed loaded gun is a danger to someone. That risk is mitigated by a bullet proof vest to some extent but the risk factors associated with a pointed gun at someone is dangerous whether I wear a bullet proof vest or you wear one. Good God man please do not buy a gun if you can not understand the risks associated with a gun let alone a loaded one pointed at someone using the bizarre response you gave above thinking wearing bullet proof vests prevents a pointed loaded weapon from being dangerous. Good God man you can't grasp risk mitigation and try reduce risk to all or nothing phenomena. No man. There are degrees of risk, and how we reduce those degrees of risk ranges from 100% to 0% depending on what we are exposed to.

You then stated:

"you may not be able to make wise choices and need the government to decide for you, not all of us do"

In your case you sure as hell need help because you can't understand why seat belts reduce risk of injury or death or why a loaded gun let alone a pointed loaded gun are dangerous,

Next in fact and again your lack of awareness of this is truly astonishing yes the primary function of federal, state and other levels of government is to assist with occupational health and safety risk management, passing laws to assure people have sufficient levels of insurance coverage to assist them if injured or they die and in addition there are numerous non profit organizations and unions assisting with this advice as well as the profit insurance industry and occupational health and safety experts precisely because it requires more than relying on you.

Good God man I have to explain to you that you need to wear a seat belt and you claim you don't need anyone helping you with safety risk reduction issues? Do you own a gun? Do you drive a car? Good God man you spreading infectious diseases because you can't understand basic safety practices is clearly the tip of the iceberg.

 

Too many people STILL believe otherwise... unfortunately... I still see some people wearing masks around, and I'm willing to bet that pretty much everyone who obeyed the mask dictates the last time will also obey them the next time too.

 

You value feelings over truth?

If they "feel safer" by wearing a mask, they can go right on ahead and wear one for all I care. I'll probably make fun of them for it, because the mask does next to nothing, but I do support them making whatever decision they wish to make. However, the types who demand that I wear a mask obviously do NOT "feel safer" because they are admitting via their fear of getting sick that their own mask doesn't work.

Probably not even that much.

 

I would error on the side of caution, at the time there was no data, and we were in a state of national emergency during a pandemic, I definitely would not beat up a Walmart greeter for asking me to wear a mask

 

they kept the spray from a sneeze, more contained - but they were not perfect for sure and add to that, many did not wear them right, did not know they need to cover the nose too as an example

 

There was no need.

Yes there was.

Has no effect on the truth (the size of viruses and aerosols vs the size of mask pores).

Nobody asked you to.

 

they helped some if the infected person wore it, it was a national emergency, a pandemic, did not hurt to wear them

 

Doctors have known that masks don't stop the spread of viruses at least since 1947. That counter-intuitive fact was proved over and over again with "14 randomized controlled trials" until shortly before C19.

“Abstract
There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.”
Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020, Policy Review, Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling, Author affiliations: University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. (emphasis mine)
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

 

yet the flu was reduced during covid, partly from masks and social distancing

doctors have known that covering your mouth when one sneezes helps some

the goal was to slow the spread, we could not stop it, to reduce the load on the hospitals

 

Scientists know that masks do not stop the spread of viruses because that fact has been proved through "14 randomized controlled trials".

"Short of that, Fauci says skip the masks unless you are contagious, don't worry about catching anything from Chinese products and certainly don't avoid Chinese people or restaurants. "Whenever you have the threat of a transmissible infection, there are varying degrees from understandable to outlandish extrapolations of fear," Fauci said."
USA TODAY, HEALTH, Top disease official: Risk of coronavirus in USA is 'minuscule'; skip mask and wash hands, By Jayne O'Donnell, 2/17/20.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...inuscule-skip-mask-and-wash-hands/4787209002/

 

they do slow the spread though

the goal was to slow the spread, we could not stop it, to reduce the load on the hospitals

 

Keep on preachin' that Church of COVID sermon...

 

sure, ok

 

14 RCTs were conducted to find data showing that masks reduce the spread of viruses.
The data showed that masks do not impede the spread of viruses.

 

I will definitely LOL at the pour souls who wear a mask this time around.