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.
A "double blind" study would require that BOTH the participant and the researcher don't know which participants were wearing masks. Well. The participants would know! And it doesn't matter really if the researchers know which are or aren't wearing masks - the test is a positive lab test, not something like "felt headachy and lethargic", which is very open to interpretation.
How do you have a "placebo" as the article suggests? A placebo is something that looks very much like the treatment that's being tested, but isn't. A sugar pill, for example, rather than the medication they're testing.
Would a placebo mask be . . . what would it be? That the participants believe are masks, but they aren't.
So. No one right now is saying the mask protects the wearer. Everyone is saying the mask protects everyone else from the wearer's germs.
Here's how to test mask effectiveness, IMHO:
1. Have a large research project wherein communities all wore masks. In general, see what the contagion rate is per 100 people who are positive.
2. Get positive people to put on a mask, give them something to make them sneeze repeatedly on to a collection surface, and test the surface for COVID particulates. Give other positive people NO mask, give them something to make them sneeze, and collect their expelled particles, and see which person - the masked or unmasked - expels more covid particles per sneeze.
hey cat lady, are you still claiming the 'peaceful protests' this summer were all caused by right wing spies? asking for a friend. thanks
I’m not familiar with how these scientific studies are done. In language understandable to a layperson like me, can you explain how a study can be “blind” if the study subjects know whether they are wearing a mask or not? The intervention under investigation is a mask, and it would seem that is pretty hard to “blind”.
It's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Exactly. They expected to find that masks work. What did they find that was controversial? Hopefully a journal will have the guts to publish the study.
The rejections imply the methodology was poor, and it is. The biggest problem is the mask wearers only having to use them a minimum of three hours per day while outside the home, presumably at work. That leaves the option of socializing without a mask the rest of the day.
They are pretty much guaranteeing that masks will be shown not to work.
The rejections imply the methodology was poor, and it is. The biggest problem is the mask wearers only having to use them a minimum of three hours per day while outside the home, presumably at work. That leaves the option of socializing without a mask the rest of the day.
They are pretty much guaranteeing that masks will be shown not to work.
So in a sense, this is like a research study getting rejected when they find that parachutes don’t save lives of skydivers. Wow so “controversial”!!
But wait! It turns out the investigators were studying people jumping off airplanes while the planes are on the ground. And the journals said, “Well, you should really test the parachutes when people jump from an altitude of at least 10,000ft. You’re setting up the study to show no benefit with a parachute. And they have to use it all the time if they are randomized to use parachutes.”
Always look at the question asked and the methodology. Got it!
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.
I posted the summary from the relevant portion of the conclusion. I didn’t “leave anything out.” That’s why I posted the link, genius.
Nothing you pointed out goes against their conclusion. Is more research needed? Maybe. Honestly, it’s kind of stupid, the whole mask thing. You’re trying to stop golf balls with a tennis net. You’re using something designed to stop SPLASHES of fluids, not microscopic particles.
The reason the data doesn’t exist this long after they’ve been invented is because they weren’t designed for the job we’ve assigned to them, and nobody’s dumb enough to think they’re going to be all that effective for the task.
Finally, you REALLY need to re-read the last sentence in your quote. THINK about what that’s saying. Here, I’ll help. It says, “If you have no other options, a mask MIGHT help reduce OTHER INFECTIONS.” That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement, yet you seemed to think it was your coup d’etat.
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/
LOL....."follow the science" says the left. Up to the point wherre the science doesn't agree with them.
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:
Read the link I provided and then get back to us with your oh so informed conclusions.
I’ll read it if you quote something from it that’s relevant. Not wasting my time otherwise. What you quoted doesn’t challenge anything from the study I posted. Didn’t even mention masks, which is the subject at hand.
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,955 posts, read 5,550,060 times
Reputation: 8559
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowingFiend
I'm afraid the mask cultists will accept nothing less than 100% mask compliance at all times in all places, at least until after the Presidential election.
P.S. Those are the folks saying the HPV vaccine tests was killing girls in India and upon investigation they were counting deaths from traffic accidents, drowning and even snake bite.
Not going to get into your thing with Miss Terri, but I’ll gladly point out that the C19 “deaths” are counted the same way. If you die WITH C19, you’re a C19 death. That 200k+ figure includes deaths from heart attacks, car accidents, strokes, etc. Sounds EXACTLY like the HPV vaccine thing you just pointed out.
The bottom line is that people will manipulate data for their own gain, monetary or otherwise. You always have to question the motives of someone who wants to control you. Always.
I see people proselytizing about masks and other things as though it’s their new religion. Those people are controlled. I don’t care how effective masks are or how deadly the disease is - there is a large group of people who are behaving irrationally and illogically about this. The reactions they give when faced with information they don’t agree with is the same as you’d see when you tell someone their god doesn’t exist.
Fear is the best emotion for manipulating people. They’ll do ANYTHING if they’re scared. An awful lot of fear has been sold to us about this virus. You’d be an abject fool to assume that those issuing dictates in this country have only altruistic motivations.
Whatever happened to “question authority”? How did “the left” abandon that concept? How did “the right” come to be the ones saying it? We live in crazy times.
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.
