Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 8 days ago)
35,634 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50663
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Wasn’t there a study using mannequins to show that?
This study was in regards to benefit to the user.
Sure you don’t believe that masks are one way and that germs can get in but they can’t get out? It’s theoretical that “my masks protects you”.
In some countries, mask usage was never a thing, including Denmark, Sweden, etc. They based their decision on the scientific evidence. They expected this study would show that masks are beneficial to the wearer.
Can’t wait for it to be published, someone with a spine and interest in truth will do it.
From what I understand, the reason that masks aren't beneficial to the wearer is if you've got a bunch of unmasked people milling around coughing and sneezing, those particles are suspended in mid air. The way we've been told to apply perfume - spray it in the air and walk through the mist.
If you do that out in public, the droplets with virus get in your hair, on your shirt, etc, and when you take your shirt off you rub the virus particulates on the front of your shirt, onto your face. When you place your head on the pillow the particulates get on your pillow from your hair, and as you shift position in bed the particulates are on your face.
It doesn't appear anyone's going to publish it at this point, or anyway, not the big 3 they were hoping would. Because apparently before publishing (from what I understand) they peer review it and they've expressed they're not interested in doing that.
So if they don't just publish it themselves, I don't believe whatever information they found will be known.
We can’t read through the methodology until it’s published but based on what I can find, 3000 wore the mask anytime they left the house and had to do so for at least three hours a day. The other 3000 did not wear masks but followed the health authority recommendations, they also had to leave the house at least three hours a day. It sounds like a lot of the participants worked in grocery stores.
So what would be the measurement? As has already been pointed out, masks are not intended to protect the wearer, but everybody else. So did they measure how many people that came in contact with the study subjects got sick? That would seem pretty difficult.
Maybe that’s why they haven’t been able to get it published: poor study design.
From what I understand, the reason that masks aren't beneficial to the wearer is if you've got a bunch of unmasked people milling around coughing and sneezing, those particles are suspended in mid air. The way we've been told to apply perfume - spray it in the air and walk through the mist.
If you do that out in public, the droplets with virus get in your hair, on your shirt, etc, and when you take your shirt off you rub the virus particulates on the front of your shirt, onto your face. When you place your head on the pillow the particulates get on your pillow from your hair, and as you shift position in bed the particulates are on your face.
It doesn't appear anyone's going to publish it at this point, or anyway, not the big 3 they were hoping would. Because apparently before publishing (from what I understand) they peer review it and they've expressed they're not interested in doing that.
So if they don't just publish it themselves, I don't believe whatever information they found will be known.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 8 days ago)
35,634 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50663
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Theoretically.
It will get published. Don’t worry.
I wonder. There is the problem of the grant provider. What stipulations/expectations did they have for this research? Certainly their intent wasn't to fund this and then have it published on, say, PBS or ABC News.
They're in a pickle, with several factors causing problems, IMHO.
I do think it would be unethical to conduct testing where you seat someone in a mask across from someone unmasked and known to be infected. Yes, that would be unethical.
But there are other ways to test math effectiveness - as I had said before, have infected people put on a mask, sneeze many times, and test the particulates for COVID virus.
The other way to test this mask effectiveness is just to observe and take statistics from communities that either mask, or don't mask, when the virus is introduced.
The problem with doing the test you describe using infected subjects is that it is hazardous to the people conducting the test.
Your second suggestion has actually been done, though they look at before and after mask mandates:
"Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21 or more days after state face mask orders were signed, respectively. Estimates suggest that as a result of the implementation of these mandates, more than 200,000 COVID-19 cases were averted by May 22, 2020. The findings suggest that requiring face mask use in public could help in mitigating the spread of COVID-19."
I wonder. There is the problem of the grant provider. What stipulations/expectations did they have for this research? Certainly their intent wasn't to fund this and then have it published on, say, PBS or ABC News.
They're in a pickle, with several factors causing problems, IMHO.
You seem to be making up a nonexistent problems out of thin air. This is mind boggling.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 8 days ago)
35,634 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50663
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
You seem to be making up a nonexistent problems out of thin air. This is mind boggling.
I've worked in grants. Both from the grant allocation perspective, and the grant writer perspective. It's not at ALL a non-existent problem if you give a grant to a researcher, especially one as large as this grant, and they are unable to cross the goal line with published results.
I'm not trying to be annoying, or oppositional. This is a problem, MissTerri, if they can't do what they promised the grant provider. At this point, the financier has put a LOT of money into a pit with no results they can claim for their own reputation.
Going forward, both the foundation that provided this grant, and the research organization that accepted and used this grant, will miss out on the ability to boast that they were involved in very successful groundbreaking research. And that's a huge loss to both of them.
No shortage of people have no interest in being inconvenienced by a mask to protect others from one’s own droplets.
And so it spreads.
I'm healthy and not a danger to anyone. If you think you're sick, stay home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
