19 Nov 20
@sh76 saidThe negative side of wearing a face mask could be that keeping a distance gets less important, which is the most important measure together with hand hygiene.
The benefit to other is greater, but there's clearly some benefit to the wearer; both in terms of decreased likelihood of infection and lower viral dose exposure.
The test was run with surgical masks. Personally, I use K95's. While not as good as N95s, the data indicates they're 30% better than surgical masks.
19 Nov 20
@torunn saidstrange. you would think it to be a two-way street.
We are told that a face mask stops you from infecting others, but it doesn't stop others from infecting you.
19 Nov 20
@earl-of-trumps saidI would guess there are different kinds. It could be a matter of cost.
strange. you would think it to be a two-way street.
19 Nov 20
@earl-of-trumps saidMasks alone don't help much. That's been my point all along: masks are only part of the solution. See the following study which shows significant protection from masks + social distancing:
Landmark Danish study shows face masks have no significant effect
In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-
-------------------------------
Masks. No help.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
Laboratory test conditions of course do not mimic public behaviour in restaurants and shops. The degree of public compliance is a distinct factor in the analysis of how effective masks (with or without social distancing) may be. In countries, such as the USA, where public compliance is low, expect the protective effect of masks to be correspondingly low.
Furthermore, dedicated testing is needed to identify hotspots and flare-ups so that remedial action (such as mandatory mask wearing and travel restrictions) can be implemented to stop flare-ups from spreading to other communities. The Trump administration has been actively suppressing testing ('because it makes the numbers look bad' ), and this (in addition to poor public compliance) has contributed to a second wave worse than the first one in the USA. That is due to a failed policy . . . but Trump supporters don't want to hear that.
19 Nov 20
@divegeester saidI have so many lists. He's up there.
You are gradually getting onto my s**t list.
19 Nov 20
@earl-of-trumps saidMasks do reduce the chances of infection at any distance. But not completely eradicate it.
strange. you would think it to be a two-way street.
In both directions, the rate of virus "slipping" through the material should be the same.
That is the point you are trying to make. And it is valid.
What the masks do for expelling of breath of an infected person is reduce the radius of infection.
A person who sneezes without a mask can spread the infection 6ft or more in any direction.
A mask will reduce that distance to inches.
Wearing a mask goes hand in hand with social distancing.
It doesn't eliminate the need for it.
And I think that is where people let their guard down.
@sh76 saidThe study used disposable surgical face masks. Most people are wearing cloth face masks which are useless. Even those that wear disposable surgical face masks need to be taught how to properly wear them. That is why the Dutch government decided against mandatory masks for the most part.
Although nuance isn't exactly this board's strong point, I feel compelled to make two points:
1. The study did show some benefit to masking; the benefit just wasn't statistically significant. This means it didn't show benefit to a ~ 95% degree of certainty; but it does appear likely that masking provides some benefit.
2. The study only looked at the binary outcome of infec ...[text shortened]... uces innoculum, thereby making severe sickness less likely, even if some infection still does occur.
Compare the UK Cov 19 death count to the Netherlands. Did mandatory masking in the UK make a difference for the better? No, the opposite. What does that tell you?
The US surgeon general explained why wearing masks could actually do more harm than good. I posted that a couple times in this thread.
20 Nov 20
@moonbus saidThe Lancet has a poor reputation. This article explains why.
Masks alone don't help much. That's been my point all along: masks are only part of the solution. See the following study which shows significant protection from masks + social distancing:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
Laboratory test conditions of course do not mimic public behaviour in restaurants and shops. The de ...[text shortened]... t one in the USA. That is due to a failed policy . . . but Trump supporters don't want to hear that.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/lancetgate-why-monumental-fraud-not-huge-scandal/5721761
20 Nov 20
@metal-brain saidSigh.
The study used disposable surgical face masks. Most people are wearing cloth face masks which are useless. Even those that wear disposable surgical face masks need to be taught how to properly wear them. That is why the Dutch government decided against mandatory masks for the most part.
Compare the UK Cov 19 death count to the Netherlands. Did mandatory masking in the ...[text shortened]... hy wearing masks could actually do more harm than good. I posted that a couple times in this thread.
The UK has 4x the population of the Netherlands.
So times the Dutch death count by 4 to even get anywhere near a comparison.
The lower the deathrate in the Netherlands is due to them implementing their “intelligent” lockdown at a very early stage. 2 months before the UK.
20 Nov 20
@shavixmir saidNope. Population was taken into account.
Sigh.
The UK has 4x the population of the Netherlands.
So times the Dutch death count by 4 to even get anywhere near a comparison.
The lower the deathrate in the Netherlands is due to them implementing their “intelligent” lockdown at a very early stage. 2 months before the UK.
Look at the data yourself.
21 Nov 20
I can't remember when there wasn't a transition done without so much calling fraud. Trump has lost or had majority of all his cases thrown out of court because there is no evidence of election fraud by the courts as no evidence can be shown.
How many lives will be lost because Trump will not allow the transition to get under way? Isn't now the time to move on? He can still fight any court cases he wants over it.
-VR
21 Nov 20
@metal-brain saidThe Lancet does not have a poor reputation, and the authors retracted the paper. The article you cited explains why:
The Lancet has a poor reputation. This article explains why.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/lancetgate-why-monumental-fraud-not-huge-scandal/5721761
"A couple of weeks after the publication, The Lancet received a letter from more than a hundred physicians and researchers, jointly demanding a review of the study and the disclosure of the raw data used in it. When the company providing such data – Surgisphere – refused to relinquish it for independent inquiry, three of its four authors retracted the paper."
That is responsible, peer-reviewed, journalism in action.
22 Nov 20
@moonbus saidResponsible, peer-reviewed, journals would not publish it to begin with.
The Lancet does not have a poor reputation, and the authors retracted the paper. The article you cited explains why:
"A couple of weeks after the publication, The Lancet received a letter from more than a hundred physicians and researchers, jointly demanding a review of the study and the disclosure of the raw data used in it. When the company providing such data – Surgisph ...[text shortened]... its four authors retracted the paper."
That is responsible, peer-reviewed, journalism in action.