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.
I updated the OP to correct my mistake regarding double blind placebo controlled.
Is there truly any real evidence that masks protect others?
If they are going to let the mask wearer mingle with non-masked people, then this experiment isn’t designed to answer whether wearing masks decreases the risk of spreading the virus in a community.
I imagine you can gather natural observations and come up with a hypothesis. I’m reaching into my high school biology here.
Lets say we look at a society like South Korea or Taiwan where mask compliance is almost 100%. We can compare measures of infection in similar regions like FL or Louisiana where the mask compliance is low.
If FL has a much higher infection rate in the community, then maybe you can generate a hypothesis to explain it: wearing masks helps protect others (not 100%) but it does help limit the spread.
Then you can design an experiment where people are either in masked communities or not masked. Mingling them like this design you mentioned doesn’t seem like it addresses the real question: does wearing masks help limit community spread.
I feel like even in our own recent experiences we have had natural data to inform us. How many Trump friends in the campaign and at the Rose Garden event have tested positive in October? How many have tested positive in Biden’s camp? If the figures are drastically different, then it lends further support to the hypothesis that masks help limit community spread. It would make sense to design a good study to test the hypothesis. Unfortunately, this study you referenced doesn’t test that question. I’m not sure what the hypothesis being tested even is...
Can you tell us what these investigators are trying to study (without sketchy links and such)?
“Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Can’t seem to edit the title but it should say randomized, controlled study, not double blind placebo controlled. My mistake.
Danish researchers have been working on a large, randomized controlled mask study which is considered by many in the community to be the gold standard. Now that their study is done, no one will publish it. Why? The result are said to be controversial.
How can scientific findings from such a study be controversial? Did the results not match the mainstream view? And if so, is that really science to suppress information that does not align with the favored viewpoint? https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/10...test-news-171/
Just a suggestion - please don't try to dazzle us with science when you are so obviously ignorant of science. Lockdown skeptics is not exactly a known and trusted source for scientific information. And even at that, here's how the story at your link concludes (emphasis my own):
Quote:
Now one of the researchers who has been involved in the study has said that the finished research result has been rejected by at least three of the world’s leading medical journals.
These include the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Medical Association’s journal JAMA.
“They all said no,” says the Chief Physician in the Research Department at North Zealand Hospital, Professor Christian Torp-Pedersen.
However, the Professor does not wish to disclose the journals’ reasoning.
“We cannot start discussing what they are dissatisfied with, because in that case we must also explain what the study showed – and we do not want to discuss that until it is published,” explains Christian Torp-Pedersen.
Catch 22: "We cannot say what they are dissatisfied with because then we would have to tell you what our conclusions are, and we certainly can't discuss our own conclusions."
If Dr. Professor Christian Torp-Pedersen doesn't want to discuss it, then he shouldn't discuss it. The reason that refereed scientific journals such as JAMA reject papers is because the authors of said paper have not submitted an article which includes reproducible results.
For example, I could submit an article to JAMA stating that the germ theory of disease is incorrect because I sampled a subset of CD poc members and I could find no evidence of bacterial or viral infection in any of them even though they all displayed a propensity for sick thinking. When my article got rejected, I would then state that my conclusions were rejected because they are "unpopular" and I don't want to specifically discuss my conclusions, anyhow.
I swear, the American people all deserve to die of covid and then get their bodies cremated from global warming. It would serve the vast majority of us right if we did.
“Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Go ahead. Impugn the source. Tell me I’m misinterpreting it. Do what you have to do to ignore it. I understand.
But why did you leave this part out?
Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.
So based on my googling, the studies were “underpowered” to give you an answer. This is analogous to grabbing just two white marbles out of a bag of 100 marbles. Does the fact that you only pulled out two white marbles suggest there are no marbles of other colors in the bag? Did you pull enough marbles to draw that conclusion? And then, apparently, the studies themselves had subjects not adhering to masks. Well that sounds like a poor quality study. What’s that old saying about garbage in garbage out? Would be nice if they actually reviewed high quality studies only.
And then, there is this that you left out:
However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched.
THAT is why all of us grew up knowing it was rude not to cover your moth and nose with a tissue or your hand when coughing and sneezing. Because we've all known for generations that coughing and sneezing into the open air spreads disease.
So I’ll cover my mouth when I cough or sneeze, like normal, and wear a surgical mask when I’m performing surgery. Sounds good to me.
Have you ever thrown sand at a chain link fence? Did/would it stop the sand?
“Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Go ahead. Impugn the source. Tell me I’m misinterpreting it. Do what you have to do to ignore it. I understand.
No, you don't understand. The article you quoted is in regard to influenza, not the novel Coronavirus.
You are the one who is ignoring information from the CDC. Here you go, straight from the horse's mouth:
Quote:
How it Spreads
Similarities:
Both COVID-19 and flu can spread from person-to-person, between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet). Both are spread mainly by droplets made when people with the illness (COVID-19 or flu) cough, sneeze, or talk. These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.
It may be possible that a person can get infected by physical human contact (e.g. shaking hands) or by touching a surface or object that has virus on it and then touching his or her own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes.
Both flu virus and the virus that causes COVID-19 may be spread to others by people before they begin showing symptoms, with very mild symptoms or who never developed symptoms (asymptomatic).
Differences:
While COVID-19 and flu viruses are thought to spread in similar ways, COVID-19 is more contagious among certain populations and age groups than flu. Also, COVID-19 has been observed to have more superspreading events than flu. This means the virus that causes COVID-19 can quickly and easily spread to a lot of people and result in continuous spreading among people as time progresses.
Read the link I provided and then get back to us with your oh so informed conclusions.
Do you walk around in public without pants, touching your pee-ridden underwear again and again -- the way people touch their faces/masks/phones -- and then touch items, doorknobs, doors, keypads, etc.?
Facial masks are expected to protect against viral infection in two ways;
By reducing the risk of getting the virus in via the mouth or nose via respiratory droplets or aerosol
By reducing the transfer from virus-contaminated hands to the mouth or nose
Hypothesis The use of surgical facial masks outside the hospital will reduce the frequency of COVID-19 infection.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 11 days ago)
35,637 posts, read 17,989,189 times
Reputation: 50679
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Do you walk around in public without pants, touching your pee-ridden underwear again and again -- the way people touch their faces/masks/phones -- and then touch items, doorknobs, doors, keypads, etc.?
No I don't, but it would still be by far a better solution to keep pee off of things than not wearing underwear at all, which catches and holds the pee.
(before anyone gets the wrong idea, I don't pee in my pants It's the visual - that if you DO, and you're wearing underwear, that will keep the liquid contained and it won't hit the floor as it would if you weren't wearing covering).
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.
