To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120136232#Comment_120136232

I asked you about the studies, you have posted out of context waffle and cranks and refuse to engage on the studies posted. As said, pretty pathetic.

Brendan Bendar

Anyone would think it was a gas mask these lads had to wear!!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137107#Comment_120137107

I've looked at the studies on both sides and carefully analysed the global data.

Mask studies are very much in their infancy. I haven't seen any that actually capture a real life scenario such as only wearing the same cloth mask for a week and only on public transport etc

You could say they are a misrepresentation.

I see nothing in the data to suggest that mask mandates had any meaningful impact on cases or deaths. If they were so useful, it would be simple to see but it isn't.

If our government really thought that wearing a mask would keep the hospitals quiet all winter/year, why don't they just mandate them now?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137310#Comment_120137310

Nobody has to wear a mask outside healthcare.

KanyeSouthEast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137419#Comment_120137419

And judging by the amount of people who do in day to day life nobody wants to! Gas mask or not it’s obvious that people either don’t want to. don’t believe in their effectiveness or have moved on to accepting the risk associated with covid.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137418#Comment_120137418

The scientific consensus is by no means set on the efficacy of masks. There are studies that are proving as well as disproving their usefulness. The fact that this debate is ongoing for 3 years now is in itself a proof of that.

If we look at the science on the harm caused by smoking, we can say that a scientific consensus has been established over the years and the scientific community is in agreement as to how harmful to a human health smoking is. There are no new publications that even attempt to disprove that. Smoking causes harm - it is a fact.

The same cannot be said about the masks, and I cannot see how the governments can issue masks mandates based on the science that did not fully go through its natural course of research, discourse and open debate. Until that happens and instead of an illusion of science we truly have a solid scientific consensus, mask mandates cannot be justified. Period.

Recommendation to wear masks is one thing, mandating them is simply wrong.

robinph

In one of the study they masked 6 year old and unmasked 5 year old school kids, and found no significant differences in covid transmission.

I'm guessing you've never been around 5 or 6 year old kids? There is absolutely no way that the wearing of a mask by the kids, or not, had any bearing on the study. Unless the kids were isolated in individual space suits that they couldn't get out of then the masks will have made as much difference as the colour of the socks they were wearing. That is assuming they were studying in some kind of school setting.

If they were studying kids during non school time activities and following their parents around the shops then I'm not sure what they were looking for as if the kids were wearing masks or not wasn't for their benefit, it was for others they might encounter on their travels who weren't being studied.

xhomelezz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137418#Comment_120137418

I've looked at the studies on both sides and carefully analysed the global data.

Would there be any chance to explain and show how did you do it?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137631#Comment_120137631

Lots of research. Feel free to do it.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137665#Comment_120137665

Do you disagree with the experts who published the multiple studies I referenced?

So far you have referenced a few cranks and an out of context quote from the beginning of the pandemic, one would not call that "research" in any way shape or form (but I can understand your clinging onto it).

xhomelezz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137665#Comment_120137665

I see. So nothing. Not a bit surprised.

Thanks

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137672#Comment_120137672

I clearly do disagree. Just like you disagree with the experts of all the studies against masks.

No large scale study has been done that replicates a real life mask mandate. People wearing the same cloth mask etc for a week and only on public transport or while running to the toilet in a restaurant.

Why won't you answer the question? If masks are so effective, why are governments around the world not desperately trying to keep them?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137680#Comment_120137680

What's the ask here? Do you want me to teach you where to find data and how to analyse it?

It takes a lot of time. It's not something you can explain over a post on boards.

You'd be better off doing a course.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137495#Comment_120137495

According to your logic masks on their own are not effective. It is only when additional conditions A, B, C etc. are met that wearing masks makes sense, which would indicate that masks on their own don’t work. That may as well be one of the conclusion one could draw from the study.

The study mentioned provides a real life test bet for testing efficacy of masks. The only differentiator between the 5 and 6 year olds are the masks, no other additional conditions were imposed on either of the group. The kids in both groups have not changed their behaviour, which may be the best way to conduct such an experiment.

Your guess is very wrong btw.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138263#Comment_120138263

I work with data in my career... Are you looking for me to teach you?

You're not making a shred of sense here. Whats your answer to my post above?

What do you disagree with?

This is a topic about masks... Do you have an opinion on them?

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138247#Comment_120138247

No, I'm merely saying that a study on what 5 and 6 year old put around their faces over an extended period of time (weeks or months) is pretty stupid study to waste money on carrying out.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120135627#Comment_120135627

To say that one of the scientist that participated in the interview is a vet is a blatant misrepresentation.

She holds masters in fine arts and phd in veterinary medicine. An expert in animals to human disease transmission (I believe that Covid falls into that category). Her broad background and research skills landed her a job with Kaiser Permanente for Health Research. Contributor to a number of scientific journals and magazines. All in all very experienced in scientific research, someone who knows how to work and interpret the data.

Feel free to share your credentials.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138328#Comment_120138328

In fact quite the opposite is true.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138385#Comment_120138385

She's a vet. A masters in fine arts! Ffs. She is not a medical doctor. Presenting her as a medical doctor IS a blatant misrepresentation.

So she's an expert on animals to human disease transmission. How does that qualify her to assess human to human transmission? She is not a direct subject matter expert on the topic.

You know who are? The experts at the CDC etc.

Therefore I don't need to share my credentials, but I refer you the credentials of those who recommended mask mandates - every major health authority in the world.

So if you want to play the credentials\expertise game and you are swayed by such things, you must accept you are in the wrong.

Check mate.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137418#Comment_120137418

It is impossible to run such a random controlled trial with mask mandates in an open society. How is the 'control' to be established? It simply cannot be.

You are proceeding from an entirely false premise. Such RCTs are not an important \ necessary measure in rollout of public health measures.

We didn't run such RCTs for example to justify banning passive smoking in pubs.

We can look to large scale studies such as mask use in Bangladeshi villages which showed a reduction in cases when mask wearing increased, but a highly controlled study is not possible.

Similarly the Danish study showed a reduction in cases among mask wearers versus non mask wearers - not examining mask mandates, but voluntary wearers, but due to the low level of virus in circulation at the time significant number differences were not detected.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138410#Comment_120138410

To verify your assessment of who she truly is as a professional, the knowledge of your own credentials is necessary. Without that statements like that are irrelevant and of no value.

I take it you don’t have any credentials to support your arguments.

It seems to me that a very reputable organisation such as Kaiser Permanente trusted her to do research work on public health. The New York t8mes and The Atlantic also felt she is well positioned to share her thoughts there. For most that would be enough to take her opinion into consideration.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138468#Comment_120138468

Yet somehow you have credentials enough to make that assessment? Nope, evidently you do not.

Well done, you've hoist yourself on your own petard and proven your own comments are irrelevent and of no value!

She was presented as a doctor, and in the context of the video, people would assume that to mean her doctorate is in human medical science. She is not a medical doctor. To present her as such is misrepresentation.

And if we're talking about the value of her opinion - I would also add the video content itself is an exercise is misrepresentation if not downright dishonesty. So doubling down there.

And in the credentials argument, if we're going for an argument from credentials, you keep running away from the salient point - the overwhelming weight of credentials in the authorities who recommended mask mandates. The actual experts in public health who have to make these decisions.

Once you brought credentials into it, you lost the argument.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138414#Comment_120138414

So essentially all mask studies are pretty worthless if you can't simulate what happens in a real life scenario.

Masks don't have any benefit in the real world. People are wearing cloth masks and the same one for a week. Constantly pulling it on and off as required while they eat, drink etc.

They're essentially worthless in real life, which is why the global data doesn't show any meaningful impact.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138543#Comment_120138543

Who said all mask studies are pretty worthless? That's a strawman without foundation. I said you are looking for a standard of study which is not feasible in the real world. A standard of study which is not necessary or required for public health measures.

It is that the mask studies are all limited in some way or another, need to be assessed as a whole in light of lab studies and case studies by the public health authorities whose role it is to assess such evidence.

You keep trotting out the same discredited arguments about masks when it is clear you are approaching them as direct PPE not barriers. And mask mandates were about masks as barriers.

You then engage in a gish galop throwing in random asides about eating or drinking... never really making it clear what you are talking about so it can't be refuted. You don't seem to understand how covid spreads or this distinction between masks as PPE versus barriers.

corcaigh07

Can someone share the mountains of actual evidence that masks prevent and/or reduce COVID-19? Proof only please, not suggestions or indications that masks work.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138391#Comment_120138391

So how exactly is the face coverings of these 5 and 6 year old monitored? Are they wearing them at home? Are their parents wearing them, siblings? Was nose picking monitored? Did they check for how much food they threw at each other? Etc...

xhomelezz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138553#Comment_120138553

You haven't answered simple question I asked. Instead you went your usual route, plenty of noise and no info. What a surprise, you've done it before and I believe you'll keep doing it. Dunno why, but that's your own problem I guess.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138802#Comment_120138802

You are free to read, interpret and conclude on that paper findings yourself. Reach out to the authors if you wish, yo7 would be surprised how responsive some of them can be.

Brendan Bendar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138742#Comment_120138742

Already posted in this thread,chip.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138742#Comment_120138742

Took 2 seconds to find something on Google

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8499874/

xhomelezz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138543#Comment_120138543

They're essentially worthless in real life, which is why the global data doesn't show any meaningful impact.

Again posting this. Whenever you'll feel like to break down those global data in some meaningful figures for the readers here. That would be great..

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120139327#Comment_120139327

Interestingly, when needed the usual poster is nowhere near this post to question that Jason Abaluck, the author of the mentioned study in Bangladesh, is an economist. Since he is an economist and according to the logic and approval criteria presented here by him at nausea, the entire study is to be dismissed.

Same goes for Pratyush Kollepara, the author of the second study, who is just graduated mathematician, with very few publications in modelling complex systems. Applying same criteria, we have to dismiss this study as well.

In addition to that the researchers in Bangladesh were active on the ground promoting the use of masks as well as physical distancing and social distancing among the population at large One could argue that the study did not measure the effectiveness of masks, instead it measured the effectiveness of masks in conjunction with social distancing. Potentially two factors were at play - masks and change in human behaviour.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120139943#Comment_120139943

The study in Bangladesh has multiple experts involved.

To present it as such 'the author' implies it was solely authored by the mentioned economist.

I would further add the economist is not making any medical claims from authority but was involved in the operation of the study. Big distinction.

In an attempt at deception... You deliberately left out who else was involved:

We now have evidence from a randomized, controlled trial that mask promotion increases the use of face coverings and prevents the spread of COVID-19,” said Stephen Luby, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford. “This is the gold standard for evaluating public health interventions. Importantly, this approach was designed be scalable in lower- and middle-income countries struggling to get or distribute vaccines against the virus.”

Luby shares senior authorship with Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak, PhD, professor of economics at Yale, of a paper describing the research. The lead authors are Ashley Styczynski, MD, MPH, an infectious disease fellow at Stanford; Jason Abaluck, PhD, professor of economics at Yale; and Laura Kwong, PhD, a former postdoctoral scholar at Stanford who is now an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California-Berkeley.

Proof positive of the falsehood your position.

Once you brought credentials into it you were always going to lose this argument.

fun loving criminal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120137631#Comment_120137631

They looked at countries with mask mandates and then cases in the country and drew their own conclusions that masks don't work.

Yet they refuse to acknowledge that people don't wear them properly but to them that can't be the reason that masks don't work. Just, they do not work because they don't like to wear a mask and we all must follow their science.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120139905#Comment_120139905

You don't seem to understand data and prefer to insult me instead.

That's ok.

I have literally explained to you that there is NOTHING to see in the global data. That is literally the whole point.

There is NO meaningful figures for the readers to see because masks did nothing.

It is up to YOU to prove that masks did something meaningful, because the data doesn't show it.

Are you understanding now?

PLEASE show me the data that mandates reduced cases or deaths?

If you can't , stop insulting me or at the very least, make some coherent point on this thread.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120140419#Comment_120140419

If people don't wear masks properly, that is more evidence that mandates don't work.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120138592#Comment_120138592

You are basically admitting that the studies are all rubbish. Not relevant to real life.

It must kill you to admit that but you are correct.

The studies carried out so far dont actually represent what real life mask mandates cover.

They are studies in controlled environments. Not the average Joe wearing a cloth mask for a week straight while pulling it down to eat and drink.

You must agree it's a misrepresentation?

Brendan Bendar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120140631#Comment_120140631

What has the correlation between not wearing masks properly and mandates not working?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120140766#Comment_120140766

As I said, the studies are a misrepresentation.

Do they factor in people wearing cloth masks? Do they factor in people wearing face visors? Do they factor in wearing the same mask that's stuffed in your pocket for a week?

Do they factor in constantly removing the mask to eat and drink etc?

Odyssey himself admitted they don't. So they're not capturing real life conditions.

xhomelezz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120140627#Comment_120140627

You don't seem to understand data and prefer to insult me instead.

That's ok.

I have literally explained to you that there is NOTHING to see in the global data. That is literally the whole point.

You don't seem to understand data and prefer to insult me instead.

You didn't explain one bit. One would expect someone claiming his career is working with data, will do better...

It is up to YOU to prove that masks did something meaningful, because the data doesn't show it.

Why? Am I the one bombing this thread with unsupported claims?

Nope.

If you can't , stop insulting me or at the very least, make some coherent point on this thread.

I gave my view on the masks plenty times here, and I don't feel the need to post it over and over. When it comes to the insults, insulting is posting garbage without any back up and then play a victim here .. IMO

So what is it gonna be? Can you show me how did you come to your conclusions on masks, or you gonna keep flooding this thread with more unsupported nonsense?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120140907#Comment_120140907

I've literally done that for you.

Why didn't cases/deaths in Ireland change when mandates were implemented or removed?

Let's just focus on that one simple line for a sec.

xhomelezz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120140922#Comment_120140922

I've literally done that for you.

Look I'm very sorry for repeating myself, but you haven't..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120140934#Comment_120140934

Go to a site like worldometer. Click on Ireland. Google the dates mask mandates were implemented/removed.

Zoom in on the data. You're not going to see any drop in cases when masks were mandated and similarly you won't see any increase when they were removed.

You can do the same for other countries as you please.

xhomelezz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120140959#Comment_120140959

And you think this is some proof for your claims? It's just as bad as your famous 25k cases post circulating here over and over.

And please don't take this as an insult.

Have a nice Sunday

Brendan Bendar

Difficult to understand an attitude to the wearing of masks when those medically qualified back up the efficacy of wearing them.

One will always have the conspiracy theorists who just to be awkward and come up with some of the rubbish posted here by a hard core nay sayers who despite contrary evidence being shown to them persist with the attitudes they seem hardwired for.

Unfortunately they crop up everywhere and seem to have nothing else to do but push their tenuous theories ad nauseam to anyone who will listen.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120139968#Comment_120139968

all I done is applied your logic and criteria with which you attack and argue with others posters here. Seems like you don’t like the taste of your own medicine, funnily enough.

If you did not noticed yet, believe that a multidisciplinary approach to complex issues, such as this, is a better approach than just focusing on what can be brought to the table only by health and medical ‘experts’. I mean we had those virtually running this country for the last two years and We will have to deal with outcomes of that for decades to come. The more we draw from other sciences and involve the experts from other fields, the better the perspective, research and thus science. I personally make no attempts to discredit the papers and have no issues with the affiliation, background or current roles of authors of those publications mentioned by partjungle.

It is you however who should have raised a red flag if you were in any shape truthful and consistent with your approach to the debate. Clearly, you are not. Period.

Time and time again you attempt to discredit papers, publications and scientists based on some ridiculous reasons that do not stand up to any scrutiny. When challenged, you fail to disclose your credentials. You have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to judging the quality of source, information, data etc.

Just to reiterate, I have no intention to get involved in discussion that is aimed to waste time, deflect from the issue on hand and derail the debate. These are the usual intentional tactics that are to make conversation fruitless.

fun loving criminal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120140959#Comment_120140959

Masks weren't required at the beginning of the pandemic even for healthcare workers. When they eventually got around to giving healthcare workers masks, weren't there a drop in cases in healthcare settings? So your claim about not seeing a drop in cases when masks were mandated is pure rubbish.

They drop mask mandates here last year. So you are also saying that there should have been an increase in cases when mandates were dropped.

How did you know there wasn't an increase in cases? They scaled back PCR testing, stopped contact tracing, stopped tracking it. So there's no way of knowing without tracking it and testing for it.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120140637#Comment_120140637

This is what I wrote:

Who said all mask studies are pretty worthless? That's a strawman without foundation. I said you are looking for a standard of study which is not feasible in the real world. A standard of study which is not necessary or required for public health measures.

It is that the mask studies are all limited in some way or another, need to be assessed as a whole in light of lab studies and case studies by the public health authorities whose role it is to assess such evidence.

So your post is an entirely dishonest deliberate misrepresentation of another poster's comments.

Proof positive you are unable to debate your position in good faith when you are have to resort to these con jobs.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120141053#Comment_120141053

You are the one picking and choosing experts, choosing these 2 random 'experts', one of whom is a vetinerian OVER the infectious disease and public health experts at every major health authority in the world such as the CDC who have looked all the available data into masks - lab studies, case studies and real world studies.

What are your credentials to make that choice? None whatsoever.

I don't need to show you my credentials, I refer to you the credentials of the experts at the major health authorities.

You are the one who brought credentials into it. It is the ground you have chosen to debate on and once you did that, it shows your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120140959#Comment_120140959

This is not proof. What did you say your job is? It is actually related to interpreting data? You are looking at a system with thousands of variables and drawing a conclusion about one. Beyond moronic