Posted on 11/01/2023 7:51:24 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
A review of the studies done so far has concluded that wearing masks really does help prevent the spread of covid-19. It is far from the first paper to come to this finding, so why does the issue remain so controversial? The problem is that it isn’t easy to carry out individual studies of the highest standard during a pandemic.
That standard is a randomised controlled trial (RCT), in which people are randomly assigned to either get a treatment or intervention, in this case wearing a mask, or not. Because of the practical difficulties, only two RCTs have looked at whether wearing masks prevents the spread of covid-19 outside of healthcare settings.
One, in Denmark, was too small to produce a statistically significant result. The other, in Bangladesh, found that in villages randomly chosen to be supplied with masks, 35 per cent fewer people aged more than 60 years old and 10 per cent fewer people overall got symptomatic infections, compared with villages that weren’t supplied with masks.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
It says on a box of masks: will not provide any protection against covid-19
https://gilmourlance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/mask.jpg
You’re correct. The packaginģ even says it’s not foŕ viruses.
It’s like trying to keep mosquitos out with a chain link fence.
The study as printed in the OP doesn’t list which mask(s) they tested.
It’s also been shown that masks contribute to other health issues such as redùced oxygen intake and facial infections.
Unlike the bs I see on weak minded people. Blocks brain cells too apparently.
Face masks do nothing to ward off CoVID-19. Not a single darn thing.
I live in a university town. The U had all sorts of mask and vaccine mandates. They bragged about having some better covid stats than the town at large. Omicron hit and their policies didn’t make any real difference. At that point the state and the U(Illinois) threw in the towel and still declared victory..
“ Ayn Rand was so ahead of her time in her writings.”
Yes she was. Rand and Orwell were modern day prophets.
If you have no idea who Cochran that already says a lot and you still have not provided link to your “gold standard mechanical study” which is utterly useless regardless for real life application.
It has become obvious you are a troll on this issue and blatantly trying to obfuscate the issue.
Now you try to stand on the term uncontrolled showing you have absolutely zero understanding that is exactly what any aggregate study of all other studies are. You show you have no clue how such studies work.
Once again explain how your vaunted, still not linked mechanical study translate to life application, hell you have not even acknowledge the study you are referring to is for N95 or better because your study is not applicable to the non sealed surgical masks everyone was using.
I am done responding to you, until you link the study AND show it applies to he paper masks in question AND how that applies to the common usage node in question anything else you trow out is a waste of everyone’s time.
“Yes she was. Rand and Orwell were modern day prophets.”
Add Aldous Huxley to that list.
I am not a troll, just not a rigid ideologue idiot. What Cochrane reviews is irrelevant if you don’t understand the problems with uncontrolled population studies they based their analysis on.
Regardless you totally missed the point of my initial response. The question was do masks offer protection against COVID. No uncontrolled population study can answer that. The only way to measure the efficiency of a mask is to actually test the mask.
Bullet proof vests offer protection but if you looked at a population of people that wore them, you would see plenty of people injured and killed while wearing them. That doesn’t mean the vests didn’t work at all, it means there was some other unknown variables in that group.
Baloney. Covid was never a circulating respiratory disease.
If someone wants to protect themselves why would anyone not let them wear a mask? Are they taking the option to be masked away from anyone? If not, then an argument would be silly.
New Scientist has been an obvious fraud since Day 1 because by their title they presumed to tell you (without explaining why) that there was something the matter with “old scientists.”
If that’s not compelling logic, it also bears mention they’ve also been evangelists for Man-Made Global Warming since Day 1.
“Brave New World” is a must read for everyone.
Ward off. Like garlic to a vampire.
Yes, but with fewer successful clinical trials.
Zackly.
🤣
But the FDA says “Y’all are not a horse. Srsly. Stop It”
Now I feel all scienced.
My job is quite busy these days, but I’ll check it out.
Thanks, Myrddin
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.