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 ...
Wow what an idiot. The Danish study was not too small. It had 5,000 people, that is huge. Found no statistical benefit with masking.
The Bangladesh study was propaganda. It has been disproven with several published studies that re-analyzed their data.
• A cluster-randomized trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh found a 9.3% reduction in symptomatic covid-19 seroprevalence as well as a further 11.9% reduction in covid-19 symptoms with surgical masks….. as among people who consistently used masks, 7.6% reported symptomatic infections, compared to 8.6% in the control group (Science. 2021;375:6577 DOI: 10.1126/science.abi9069). This study included both self-reported “COVID-like symptoms” and positive COVID serology tests, and so the absolute reduction was a bit smaller. Moreover, a reanalysis of the raw data from the study did not show even this small benefit (“Re-Analysis on the Statistical Sampling Biases of a Mask Promotion Trial in Bangladesh: A Statistical Replication,” Trials. 2022;23:786, doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06704-z). In the villages randomized to surgical masks (n = 200), the relative reduction was 11.2% overall (aPR = 0.89) and 34.7% among individuals 60+ (aPR = 0.65). The symptomatic seroprevalence was 0.76% in comparison villages, 0.74% in cloth mask villages and 0.67% in surgical mask villages. WHO-Defined COVID-19 Symptoms were seen in 8.6% of comparison villages, 7.9% of cloth mask villages and 7.5% in surgical mask villages. There was no significant decrease seen in symptomatic seroprevelence in anybody wearing cloth masks. With surgical masks there was no benefit for anybody less than 50 years of age but did decrease disease by 23% in 50-60 yo’s and by 34.7% in 60+ yo. This study stated that it could not reject that cloth masks have zero or only a small impact on symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Of note, the surveillance staff was not blinded to the interventions nor were the villages blinded to the surveillance staff. Data revealed imbalances in the starting size— likely because the trial failed to achieve concealment, leading more people to sign up in the intervention arm (who may be less committed to report + Covid symptoms; biasing results). Furthermore, absolute event differences were very small. The cost of this intervention as estimated to have been between $10K and $52K per life saved. The study had several flaws. If masks were the cause of the decrease, why would that only be in patients over fifty years of age? People in every younger decile showed no significant reduction. Should that not prompt the idea that older people had a different reason to account for that, since we know that every age group in the village experienced the same impact from others masking? The study tested only for antibodies—did these people become antibody-positive during the study, or were those antibodies pre-existing from a prior infection, even before the study? No testing for virus was performed, so the infection per se was not tested. Only 40 percent of symptomatic agreed to testing for antibodies—that introduced selection bias. Antibody testing has significant false positives and false negatives—would that eliminate all the statistical significance in that one age group, too? And logically, if less than half of villagers in the mask-wearing villages actually wore masks, would that account for significantly fewer symptomatic cases, when we know that masks do not even protect mask wearers themselves? A subsequent re-analysis of the study by statisticians at Cornell University found that there was in fact no benefit at all (https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.01296). “we find that the behavior of unblinded staff when enrolling study participants is one of the most highly significant differences between treatment and control groups, contributing to a significant imbalance in denominators between treatment and control groups. The potential bias leading to this imbalance suggests caution is warranted when evaluating rates rather than counts. More broadly, the significant impacts on staff and participant behavior urge caution in interpreting small differences in the study outcomes that depended on survey response.”
Fake protection against something no scientist, researcher, doctor or lab has ever isolated or identified.
OK, thanks for the link. I’m not seeing the worst methodology ever (at least the pre-print), probably on par with most community-based studies, even if Nature hailed it as a gold standard clinical trial, but when the authors tried to argue that Cochrane review was flawed because the intervention groups weren’t even wearing masks more than controls clearly they didn’t even believe the hype.
Looking at a few of Le Page’s other blogs. He’s an environmentalist whacko.
Absolute B.S. There have been many studies that have shown masks do no good.
I just grabbed the first negative report Google would let slip through.
It really is bad—and yes, community studies are dicey to start with. Here’s another take:
RE you stating: “While a mask cannot stop all COVID from passing through, it can increase the time it takes for a sufficient viral load to pass on to an uninfected person. Viral Load is the key and it is something many people are not understanding.”
Do you have any data to support this? I think is is only theoretical, particularly for C19. the infective dose likely can sit on the head of a pin....besides, that agreement is mute cause data shows masks don’t work (enough viruses go through or around masks to infection you). N95 masks are likely helpful for large bacteria size infections...like tuberculosis.
Consider this:
• Many studies have been conducted that provide information on the minimum infective dose (MID) of human viruses. However, due to differences in the epidemiology and culture methods for each virus and differences and limitations of experimental procedures, estimations of the MID should be interpreted with caution (Food Environ Virol. 2011; 3:1–30 doi:10.1007/s12560-011-9056-7). Notwithstanding these limitations, the MID of respiratory and enteric viruses appears to be low and should be viewed in relation to the likely host characteristics of the at-risk population of interest. These include host factors such as age, health status, and previous exposure to the virus; pathogen factors such as virulence of the viral strain and passage in cell culture; and experimental factors such as the route of inoculation and the sensitivity of the assay used to determine the viral dose administered.
One of the dings against mask wearing is that it causes people to touch their face more often, while adjusting the mask, scratching itches, adjusting because of glasses fogging, and so on.
Especially children.
Makes sense. I have horses, but I don’t allow poor behavior. I also don’t allow poor behavior of males around me.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
10% fewer...
Without saying how many actually got a transmittable viral infection.
Did 10 people get sick in one village and 9 get sick in another? 20 and 18? 40 and 36?
In any event, it is statistically insignificant.
Tell me that is 90% effective and THEN you have something.
“Simon Sez....”
Must be the same science that said:
It’s safe to walk around Wal Mart, but not around the local high school track.
It’s safe to go to Ace Hardware, but not to the local thrift store.
It’s safe for the state legislature to meet in a big auditorium, but not safe if you are meeting there for church.
It’s safe to have your mask off while eating at a restaurant, but it’s not safe if you’re not eating.
And the list goes on and on and on...
The "vaxx" provides trillions of DNA plasmids per injection that can be integrated with your genome. The plasmids are wrapped in LNP, so they can efficiently transfect a wide variety of cells. Some of the genetic material will make the intended SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in large volumes for the rest of your life. Some of it will convert the E. coli in your gut to be kanamycin resistant. If you make the mistake of using Kanamycin, the only bacteria that survive in your gut will be the Kanamycin resistant ones. No competition, so that E. coli will have a field day in your gut. There is so much more that the "vaxx" brings to the table. The curious can track down reports from Kevin McKernan on X for all the details.
Good for you. Some people aren’t able to (or just don’t) spend enough time with their animals and/or keep them in areas that are too small. The people I knew used those bug masks, which don’t impede breathing.
It is a good question. Viral load is not theoretical but the actual amount of virus required to infect a given individual is unknown and probably varies greatly. There certainly is a fairly high threshold for COVID transmission. While it might be lower than other respiratory virus’ and different COVID variants, the threshold is such that you are not getting COVID walking down the street in a crowd (although COVID virus particles are likely in the air). Or face to face with someone for a few moments unless perhaps they cough directly into your face.
“Citing many studies” and ignoring more studies that say that masks are ineffectual. Our scientific community is as corrupt as are the Democrats, FBI, DOJ, ATF and IRS.
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.