To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

They are discussion several studies that prove and disprove the usefulness of masks in controlling the spread of covid -19.

That's not a discussion in that video. It's made for a purpose. In case you've missed it.

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

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.

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?

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).

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.

In fact quite the opposite is true.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

I've literally done that for you.

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

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

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.

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.