You can't argue with "the largest study yet" on face masks...

Ben.

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,723
Location
Austria
"At 5 and 9 weeks follow-up, we surveyed all reachable participants
about COVID-related symptoms. Blood samples collected at 10-12 weeks of follow-up for
symptomatic individuals were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies."

How is that a accurate measurement for effectiveness? ...
 

LucyL

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,245
From the study: "“Unfortunately, much of the conversation around masking in the United States is not evidence-based,” Luby said. “Our study provides strong evidence that mask wearing can interrupt the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. "

"Strong Evidence..." When you run the numbers from the article (anyone have a link to the actual study?) you find there were a whopping 107 positive COVID cases in the control group, and 92 positive COVID cases in mask group. Out of 342,126 people.
 

sweetpeat

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
918
From the study: "“Unfortunately, much of the conversation around masking in the United States is not evidence-based,” Luby said. “Our study provides strong evidence that mask wearing can interrupt the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. "

"Strong Evidence..." When you run the numbers from the article (anyone have a link to the actual study?) you find there were a whopping 107 positive COVID cases in the control group, and 92 positive COVID cases in mask group. Out of 342,126 people.
 

Attachments

  • Mask_RCT____Symptomatic_Seropositivity_083121.pdf
    5.4 MB · Views: 11

boris

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,345

From the CDC.

„...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.“

This is from march 2020. Nothing changed since then.
 

Tim Lundeen

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2017
Messages
396
Some other factors re this study:

* mask wearing was not mandatory, so people with health problems were not forced to wear them
* mask compliance was not particularly high
* they did not study overall health effects, so we can't evaluate risk:benefits
* the study was short term, so we don't know the long-term risk:benefits
* this study gives very different results from prior work -- why?
 
P

Peatness

Guest
1630792683842.png
 

Ben.

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,723
Location
Austria


I dont know if paint and virus comparison is valid enough to use the video for an argument. The reality however is that masks won't stop spreading (perhaps reducing but scared people should just stay home), lets not forget the fact that people wear the wrong masks and even if they do, wear it wrong. So this whole mask wearing thing for the most part is just a unessecary circus show.
 
P

Peatness

Guest
I dont know if paint and virus comparison is valid enough to use the video for an argument. The reality however is that masks won't stop spreading (perhaps reducing but scared people should just stay home), lets not forget the fact that people wear the wrong masks and even if they do, wear it wrong. So this whole mask wearing thing for the most part is just a unessecary circus show.
Paint particles are much larger than viruses - it makes a very good point
 

Dave Clark

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
1,999
I thought that the CDC did a study in 2011 and showed that masks are 98% ineffective.
 
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom