To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Finally looked up that Danish study. First actual real world study. 3000 people vs a control group of roughly the same size. One group wears a mask the other one doesn't. Both in the same medium covid affected area (whatever that means). Time frame was April May.
After one month test of both groups through either antibody or PCR or diagnosis by doctor (again, whatever that means).
42 tested positive in the mask group and 53 in the control group.
Make of that what you will but to me thats a best inconclusive and at worst.... Well, I've never made a secret of the fact I'm thinking masks are nonsense. The masses wanted masks "cos its not rocket science" so they were given masks. In any case its hardly proof of meaningful impact.

Hold on you mean masks don't increase the risk to the wearer?
Do you not remember all the claims earlier in the thread that masks wearers were going to infect themselves?
So that's canard #1 shot down.

In fact, masks are shown to have a protective element for the wearers.
So that's canard #2 show down.

And canard #3 to shoot down is how you try to spin the study as showing the basis for wearing masks is unnecessary because of their direct protective benefit to the wearer. Whereas it has been spelled out from the rollout here and elsewhere in Europe US etc that you are mandated to wear a mask as barrier to protect others. And this study cannot speak to that basis.

CalamariFritti

odyssey06 wrote: »

Hold on you mean masks don't increase the risk to the wearer?
Do you not remember all the claims earlier in the thread that masks wearers were going to infect themselves?
So that's canard #1 shot down.

In fact, masks are shown to have a protective element for the wearers.
So that's canard #2 show down.

And canard #3 to shoot down is how you try to spin the study as showing the basis for wearing masks is unnecessary because of their direct protective benefit to the wearer. Whereas it has been spelled out from the rollout here and elsewhere in Europe US etc that you are mandated to wear a mask as barrier to protect others. And this study cannot speak to that basis.

I never claimed #1 although now that you mention it I wouldnt rule out adverse effects in general if worn long term.

#2 Well yes you could say the masks group had 20% less positives and you could argue thats a case for reduction. To me the study is little bit to lose to make something of 20%. For example it doesnt say the 6000 people tested negative before the test. Thats one variable to me. Also it says only ca. 4900 completed the study but doesnt say how many went missing in each group. Thats why I said to me thats inconclusive.

#3 Here you are making a logical error. When you do a real world/life test #3 doesnt actually matter. The results are hard numbers. 42 & 53. Whether these numbers came about through direct or indirect protection doesnt come into it. The numbers include all effects and side effects. It is what it is.

Edit:
However I will admit that there is no real statement to be made with regards to the protection of others. That would only be possible if those 6000 people were the only people in the test area. Of that I'm not sure but I assume they were not. So both groups would have interacted with 'outsiders'.

Btw you must be a real expert the way you're talking about 'canards' and 'shooting down'. I wouldnt claim myself to be this certain. Where do you take your certainty from? Is that from the 'not rocket science' facebook group or have you similar data to back it up?

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I never claimed #1 although now that you mention it I wouldnt rule out adverse effects in general if worn long term.

#2 Well yes you could say the masks group had 20% less positives and you could argue thats a case for reduction. To me the study is little bit to lose to make something of 20%. For example it doesnt say the 6000 people tested negative before the test. Thats one variable to me. Also it says only ca. 4900 completed the study but doesnt say how many went missing in each group. Thats why I said to me thats inconclusive.

#3 Here you are making a logical error. When you do a real world/life test #3 doesnt actually matter. The results are hard numbers. 42 & 53. Whether these numbers came about through direct or indirect protection doesnt come into it. The numbers include all effects and side effects. It is what it is.

Well I would rule out you having absolutely any evidence to back up your claims of #1.

So the study was inconclusive yet you posted it here to support your claims that masks are unnecessary...

As for #3, the study contained people who didn't wear masks. The society the mask wearers interacted with did not have mandatory masks. So to suggst the numbers include all effects and side effects in terms of masks as barriers is completely wrong. It demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of indirect protection. How could the mask wearers have indirect benefit if they were exposed to non mask wearers?

CalamariFritti

odyssey06 wrote: »

Well I would rule out you having absolutely any evidence to back up your claims of #1.

So the study was inconclusive yet you posted it here to support your claims that masks are unnecessary...

As for #3, the study contained people who didn't wear masks. The society the mask wearers interacted with did not have mandatory masks. So to suggst the numbers include all effects and side effects in terms of masks as barriers is completely wrong. It demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of indirect protection. How could the mask wearers have indirect benefit if they were exposed to non mask wearers?

Lets not get hung up on #1. I'll give you that one.

As for #3. I just edited to the same effect.

And yes inconclusive means to it wasn't able to prove either thing. Which is hardly a rising endorsement for the masks are a no-brainer because they make such a difference.

saneman

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I never claimed #1 although now that you mention it I wouldnt rule out adverse effects in general if worn long term.

#2 Well yes you could say the masks group had 20% less positives and you could argue thats a case for reduction. To me the study is little bit to lose to make something of 20%. For example it doesnt say the 6000 people tested negative before the test. Thats one variable to me. Also it says only ca. 4900 completed the study but doesnt say how many went missing in each group. Thats why I said to me thats inconclusive.

#3 Here you are making a logical error. When you do a real world/life test #3 doesnt actually matter. The results are hard numbers. 42 & 53. Whether these numbers came about through direct or indirect protection doesnt come into it. The numbers include all effects and side effects. It is what it is.

Edit:
However I will admit that there is no real statement to be made with regards to the protection of others. That would only be possible if those 6000 people were the only people in the test area. Of that I'm not sure but I assume they were not. So both groups would have interacted with 'outsiders'.

Btw you must be a real expert the way you're talking about 'canards' and 'shooting down'. I wouldnt claim myself to be this certain. Where do you take your certainty from? Is that from the 'not rocket science' facebook group or have you similar data to back it up?

Well that's big of you to admit given that it's one of the stated limitations of the study:

"Limitations:
Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others."

To quote the authors directly: "In our study we assessed if masks offer a protective effect to uninfected wearers - and not if masks reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from infected mask wearers out into the community."

That's a real statement...

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Lets not get hung up on #1. I'll give you that one.

As for #3. I just edited to the same effect.

And yes inconclusive means to it wasn't able to prove either thing. Which is hardly a rising endorsement for the masks are a no-brainer because they make such a difference.

The study couldn't prove or disprove #3, the barrier effects of masks, as it was not set up to do so.
The direct protective benefits of masks to the wearer is not a no-brainer, it was for that reason we were advised not to wear them as PPE in Spring.
The study suggests some protective element but not a game changer.
There is also the theory that masks reduce viral load meaning less severe infections, but that is a theory difficult to prove.

If we were mandated to wear masks as PPE, it would be fair to claim this study to undermine that basis.
But that is not the reason masks are mandated and this study, while interesting, could not assess that.

Either the study is inconclusive in which case it has nothing worthy of inconsideration OR you enter it as evidence, and the evidence it provides suggests no harm from masks as PPE and possible protective benefits.

CalamariFritti

I'm not saying here is the proof that masks are useless. The study's goal was not to show that masks are useless. It was an attempt to get at some information.

Because until now all we have are assumptions and educated guesses and computer simulations of situations that dont really apply to the real world. Like people trumpeting their sneeze snot through supermarket aisles. As if anyone actually did that. Or as if someone who might do that would now snot into their mask. There is not much plausibility there.

But what I am saying is it's the first real world study and it was unable to make a strong case or any case for masks.

TomSweeney

Seanergy wrote: »

Masking For A Friend: The Science of How Wearing A Mask Helps Us And Our Neighbors

A really fun kid's podcast by @wowintheworld it's about aerosol transmission and masks, a beautiful mix of whacky kid humour and science, well worth a listen, even for big kids.

Masking For A Friend: The Science of How Wearing A Mask Helps Us And Our Neighbors

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/944972985/masking-for-a-friend-the-science-of-how-wearing-a-mask-helps-us-and-our-neighbor

But it's not just a great looking addition to your face,

Cult.


Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to wear a mask in shops and public transport but it;s a necessary evil during this shyte pandemic.


Them trying to make it look good and great ? f*cking sick ...

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I'm not saying here is the proof that masks are useless. The study's goal was not to show that masks are useless...
But what I am saying is it's the first real world study and it was unable to make a strong case or any case for masks.

Your post is disingenuous.

The case for masks as what?
PPE or barriers?
Your post is worded in a vague way to create an impression of the study which the study itself declared out of scope.

You have declared the study was inconconclusive and admitted it declared that it did not attempt to answer the case for masks as barriers.

Yet still you spin it in this way.
It is misrepresentation.

The study showed some small protective benefit to mask wearers. That is all it did within its declared scope.

Seanergy

https://twitter.com/kate_cole_/status/1338652179163303936

Seanergy

TomSweeney wrote: »

Cult.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to wear a mask in shops and public transport but it;s a necessary evil during this shyte pandemic.

Them trying to make it look good and great ? f*cking sick ...

Did you just get that upset by the mask podcast Masking For A Friend: The Science of How Wearing A Mask Helps Us And Our Neighbors aimed at 3+ year olds?

Was that what you were quoting with But it's not just a great looking addition to your face.

CalamariFritti

odyssey06 wrote: »

Your post is disingenuous.

The case for masks as what?
PPE or barriers?
Your post is worded in a vague way to create an impression of the study which the study itself declared out of scope.

You have declared the study was inconconclusive and admitted it declared that it did not attempt to answer the case for masks as barriers.

Yet still you spin it in this way.
It is misrepresentation.

The study showed some small protective benefit to mask wearers. That is all it did within its declared scope.

You call it disingenuous or spin I call it drawing conclusions. Either way it was the first proper study with regards to mask efficacy and it did not show any meaningful difference between wearing a mask and not. It didnt cover all the angles and I called it inconclusive, but at the same time thats a statement in itself. If they were as strong a tool as some claim them to be the difference in numbers should have been much higher. A conclusive difference.

And its not like we didnt know that in a roundabout way already. Every link and every reasonably serious paper that people put up here in support of masks was full of words like 'can' and 'may'. When scientists use words like that what they mean is something cant be ruled out, but its not happening a lot. At all.

The masses wanted masks. It made them feel like they're doing something and better again they can show it. It didnt matter that every health board everywhere told them they're no good. The masses wanted masks and that was that. A bombardment of pseudo science and conjecture was churned out and repeated everywhere. I remember it well, it went on right here. Once it had momentum what politician or medic would want to be accused they're not doing everything they can? So the masses were given masks.

Graham

CalamariFritti wrote: »

The masses wanted masks. It made them feel like they're doing something and better again they can show it.

While I don't recall any 'we must have masks' protests, most people know masks are used to filter things.

We're in the realms of common sense here.

Logic.

Beyond question to be blunt.

I'm not sure how you could even simplify how it works for those with 'understanding issues'.

Big virus droplets. Small mask holes. Filtering. Good

Thats me

Just my 2c for masks:

1. Medical personnel was wearing masks long before covid. I'd guess there was other reasons than they would prefer to hide their faces from patients
2. Dr.Marik in this video from the late September, have mentioned their observations telling patients have milder illness if they were wearing masks. His idea severity of covid subsequences depends on amount of virions taken which is decreased by the mask.
3. Masks are not comfortable, creating excessive amounts of CO2, irritating skin etc. When they are mandatory to wear - many people would simply decrease visiting places where they have to wear masks with no real need. This would also decrease spread of infection. May be even better than mask itself.

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

You call it disingenuous or spin I call it drawing conclusions. Either way it was the first proper study with regards to mask efficacy and it did not show any meaningful difference between wearing a mask and not. It didnt cover all the angles and I called it inconclusive, but at the same time thats a statement in itself. If they were as strong a tool as some claim them to be the difference in numbers should have been much higher. A conclusive difference.

Mask efficacy at what though?
Masks as PPE or masks as barriers?
You keep dodging the question and wording your answer in a deliberately vague way because it highlights the spin and misrepresentation you are putting on this study.

The study declared it could not analyse masks as barriers given its scope.
Masks as barriers are the reason they are mandated in certain spaces here.

You again use deliberately vague wordings with "if they were as strong a tool as some claim them to be"... what are these claims?
For masks as barriers or masks as PPE?
And how can the study relate to them when:

The study, within its own parameters, showed a small protective element to wearing masks.
The study could not, within its own parameters, make any conclusions about masks as barriers.

Boggles

CalamariFritti wrote: »

The masses wanted masks.

You must not have been out and about before they became a requirement, because the vast vast majority of people were not wearing masks.

Unless you are talking about "masses" in a religious way?

TomSweeney

So in Ireland do you have to wear them outside ? even if it's sparse with people in whatever area you're in ?

CalamariFritti

You don't (yet). But I wouldnt take any bets. We're copying everything else whether it makes sense or not.

Boggles

TomSweeney wrote: »

So in Ireland do you have to wear them outside ? even if it's sparse with people in whatever area you're in ?

No.

CalamariFritti

odyssey06 wrote: »

Mask efficacy at what though?
Masks as PPE or masks as barriers?
You keep dodging the question and wording your answer in a deliberately vague way because it highlights the spin and misrepresentation you are putting on this study.

The study declared it could not analyse masks as barriers given its scope.
Masks as barriers are the reason they are mandated in certain spaces here.

You again use deliberately vague wordings with "if they were as strong a tool as some claim them to be"... what are these claims?
For masks as barriers or masks as PPE?
And how can the study relate to them when:

The study, within its own parameters, showed a small protective element to wearing masks.
The study could not, within its own parameters, make any conclusions about masks as barriers.

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of. I think about what I say here to make sure I dont get pulled over but I am not dodging anything.

We already agreed that this study can and did not make any statement to this fabled idea of 'I wear a mask not protect myself but to protect others'. What else do you want me to say?

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of. I think about what I say here to make sure I dont get pulled over but I am not dodging anything.

We already agreed that this study can and did not make any statement to this fabled idea of 'I wear a mask not protect myself but to protect others'. What else do you want me to say?

If you just talk about "mask efficacy", without qualification in a general sense you create the impression it relates to the effectiveness of masks for both PPE and barrier. Which creates the impression the study in some way undermines the basis for their current use in public places here.
I am challenging any comments which are worded without qualification and could create this impression.

So when talking about mask efficacy in the study, it needs to be clear you are talking about its use as PPE as that was all the study looked at.

CalamariFritti

Graham wrote: »

While I don't recall any 'we must have masks' protests, most people know masks are used to filter things.

We're in the realms of common sense here.

Logic.

Beyond question to be blunt.

I'm not sure how you could even simplify how it works for those with 'understanding issues'.

Big virus droplets. Small mask holes. Filtering. Good

Only it seems the big virus droplets dont actually seem to play much of a role in transmission. Something we knew all along because big virus droplets do - we'll, drumroll.... drop.

And the ones that are so small that they dont drop dont seem too impressed with those yokes we are supposed to wear.

On another note - when Joe Soap on the internet says something like what I highlighted above its almost certain to be a fvck up.

Its really mad. Anyone saying anything against masks is immediately being challenged to provide something to back it up with. And the whole masks thing has become an actual mantra with no scientific data other than conjecture to back it up with.

CalamariFritti

odyssey06 wrote: »

If you just talk about "mask efficacy", without qualification in a general sense you create the impression it relates to the effectiveness of masks for both PPE and barrier. Which creates the impression the study in some way undermines the basis for their current use in public places here.
I am challenging any comments which are worded without qualification and could create this impression.

So when talking about mask efficacy in the study, it needs to be clear you are talking about its use as PPE as that was all the study looked at.

The study does undermine it in the sense that it couldnt support it. If masks were such a great filter we would have seen clearer numbers. Much clearer numbers.

And this whole 'protecting others' thing is something I dont buy at all. Well I buy it in the sense that it does indeed make sense to some degree. It just appears not to be relevant to our scenario as shown by the rising numbers amongst other things.

We're always shown computer animations of how someone sneezes massively and then it shows how ghastly yellowy greeny mists crawl across the supermarket aisles.

Seriously. Who stands in the supermarket or the small shoe shop or whatever and trumpets like Dumbo through the place? Nobody does that. Even before covid. Its rude and disgusting.

And how are masks supposed to help with this anyway?

Are you telling me that if there were people who do such a thing they'd still be doing it now? And that they now sneeze their massive snots into their masks instead? Yay another life saved?

Thats a ridiculous idea. Nobody sneezes and coughs into their mask. it would create an ugly mess. It'll be almost like deliberately pissing into your pants.

And if you could actually find someone disgusting and ignorant enough to do this - there is still no way this would happen often enough to any statistically meaningful degree.

The whole scenario lacks plausibility in a big way.

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

The study does undermine it in the sense that it couldnt support it. If masks were such a great filter we would have seen clearer numbers. Much clearer numbers.

You have shown again you wilfully misunderstand the study.
It called out in its scope it could not investigate that aspect, could not support it or undermine it.
Simply out of scope.
For you to then use it for that purpose has zero foundation.

It is simply wrong to misrepresent the study in this manner.

CalamariFritti

odyssey06 wrote: »

You have shown again you wilfully misunderstand the study.
It called out in its scope it could not investigate that aspect, could not support it or undermine it.
Simply out of scope.
For you to then use it for that purpose has zero foundation.

It is simply wrong to misrepresent the study in this manner.

I am not saying it supports or undermines this particular aspect. I am saying it does not support the scenario it did examine and thereby at least to some degree does not support the whole masks case overall.

Conveniently the 'protect others' thing is impossible to quantify so we're just supposed to take it as true.

Graham

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Only it seems the big virus droplets dont actually seem to play much of a role in transmission. Something we knew all along because big virus droplets do - we'll, drumroll.... drop.

Virus droplets don't play a role in transmission? Riiiiigggghhhhht.

Wear a mask.

Then droplets don't drop.

robinph

CalamariFritti wrote: »

You don't (yet). But I wouldnt take any bets. We're copying everything else whether it makes sense or not.

Where are there mask regulations that require people to wear them when out and about with nobody else around?

Seanergy

CalamariFritti wrote: »

they now sneeze their massive snots into their masks instead? Yay another life saved?

Nobody sneezes and coughs into their mask.

And if you could actually find someone disgusting and ignorant enough to do this.......

I sneeze into my mask and I do not for one nano second consiser it disgusting and ignorant and BTW it could possibly well be another life saved or another lockdown averted. Every massive snot counts as do the thousands of smaller particles.

I always carry fresh spare masks, so it's no biggy to simply make my way outside to freshen up and change up my rig.

bush

Seanergy wrote: »

I sneeze into my mask and I do not for one nano second consiser it disgusting and ignorant and BTW it could possibly well be another life saved or another lockdown averted. Every massive snot counts as do the thousands of smaller particles.

I always carry fresh spare masks, so it's no biggy to simply make my way outside to freshen up and change up my rig.

You are a true hero

Seanergy

Here is a mask study that is fresh off the CDC press. Masks scored far better than unmasked. Note, One of the four limitations in this study was that parent report of frequency of mask or cloth face covering use at schools and child care programs was not verified. So with this in mind masks might even work better than scored.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6950e3.htm

Summary:

What is already known about the topic?

Community and close contact exposures contribute to the spread of COVID-19.

What is added by this report?

Among children and adolescents aged <18 years in Mississippi, close contact with persons with COVID-19 and gatherings with persons outside the household and lack of consistent mask use in school were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereas attending school or child care was not associated with receiving positive SARS-CoV-2 test results.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Close contacts with persons with COVID-19 and gatherings contribute to SARS-CoV-2 infections in children and adolescents. Consistent use of face masks and social distancing continue to be important to prevent COVID-19 spread.