Go back
If masks work why is covid increasing?

If masks work why is covid increasing?

Debates

Torunn

Gothenburg

Joined
11 Mar 16
Moves
28302
Clock
19 Nov 20
Vote Up
Vote Down

@sh76 said
The benefit to other is greater, but there's clearly some benefit to the wearer; both in terms of decreased likelihood of infection and lower viral dose exposure.

The test was run with surgical masks. Personally, I use K95's. While not as good as N95s, the data indicates they're 30% better than surgical masks.
The negative side of wearing a face mask could be that keeping a distance gets less important, which is the most important measure together with hand hygiene.

Earl of Trumps
Pawn Whisperer

My Kingdom fora Pawn

Joined
09 Jan 19
Moves
20423
Clock
19 Nov 20
Vote Up
Vote Down

@torunn said
We are told that a face mask stops you from infecting others, but it doesn't stop others from infecting you.
strange. you would think it to be a two-way street.

Torunn

Gothenburg

Joined
11 Mar 16
Moves
28302
Clock
19 Nov 20
Vote Up
Vote Down

@earl-of-trumps said
strange. you would think it to be a two-way street.
I would guess there are different kinds. It could be a matter of cost.

moonbus
Über-Nerd (emeritus)

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8703
Clock
19 Nov 20
Vote Up
Vote Down

@earl-of-trumps said
Landmark Danish study shows face masks have no significant effect

In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-

-------------------------------


Masks. No help.
Masks alone don't help much. That's been my point all along: masks are only part of the solution. See the following study which shows significant protection from masks + social distancing:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

Laboratory test conditions of course do not mimic public behaviour in restaurants and shops. The degree of public compliance is a distinct factor in the analysis of how effective masks (with or without social distancing) may be. In countries, such as the USA, where public compliance is low, expect the protective effect of masks to be correspondingly low.

Furthermore, dedicated testing is needed to identify hotspots and flare-ups so that remedial action (such as mandatory mask wearing and travel restrictions) can be implemented to stop flare-ups from spreading to other communities. The Trump administration has been actively suppressing testing ('because it makes the numbers look bad' ), and this (in addition to poor public compliance) has contributed to a second wave worse than the first one in the USA. That is due to a failed policy . . . but Trump supporters don't want to hear that.

YEAH BOY

Madison Square Garde

Joined
03 Jan 06
Moves
240026
Clock
19 Nov 20

@divegeester said
You are gradually getting onto my s**t list.
I have so many lists. He's up there.

m

Joined
07 Feb 09
Moves
151917
Clock
19 Nov 20

@earl-of-trumps said
strange. you would think it to be a two-way street.
Masks do reduce the chances of infection at any distance. But not completely eradicate it.
In both directions, the rate of virus "slipping" through the material should be the same.
That is the point you are trying to make. And it is valid.
What the masks do for expelling of breath of an infected person is reduce the radius of infection.
A person who sneezes without a mask can spread the infection 6ft or more in any direction.
A mask will reduce that distance to inches.

Wearing a mask goes hand in hand with social distancing.
It doesn't eliminate the need for it.
And I think that is where people let their guard down.

Cheesemaster
😏

Joined
22 Sep 20
Moves
2987
Clock
19 Nov 20

@yeah-boy said
I have so many lists. He's up there.
Haha 😏

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22641
Clock
20 Nov 20

@sh76 said
Although nuance isn't exactly this board's strong point, I feel compelled to make two points:

1. The study did show some benefit to masking; the benefit just wasn't statistically significant. This means it didn't show benefit to a ~ 95% degree of certainty; but it does appear likely that masking provides some benefit.

2. The study only looked at the binary outcome of infec ...[text shortened]... uces innoculum, thereby making severe sickness less likely, even if some infection still does occur.
The study used disposable surgical face masks. Most people are wearing cloth face masks which are useless. Even those that wear disposable surgical face masks need to be taught how to properly wear them. That is why the Dutch government decided against mandatory masks for the most part.

Compare the UK Cov 19 death count to the Netherlands. Did mandatory masking in the UK make a difference for the better? No, the opposite. What does that tell you?

The US surgeon general explained why wearing masks could actually do more harm than good. I posted that a couple times in this thread.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22641
Clock
20 Nov 20

@moonbus said
Masks alone don't help much. That's been my point all along: masks are only part of the solution. See the following study which shows significant protection from masks + social distancing:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

Laboratory test conditions of course do not mimic public behaviour in restaurants and shops. The de ...[text shortened]... t one in the USA. That is due to a failed policy . . . but Trump supporters don't want to hear that.
The Lancet has a poor reputation. This article explains why.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/lancetgate-why-monumental-fraud-not-huge-scandal/5721761

shavixmir
Lord

Sewers of Holland

Joined
31 Jan 04
Moves
89770
Clock
20 Nov 20

@metal-brain said
The study used disposable surgical face masks. Most people are wearing cloth face masks which are useless. Even those that wear disposable surgical face masks need to be taught how to properly wear them. That is why the Dutch government decided against mandatory masks for the most part.

Compare the UK Cov 19 death count to the Netherlands. Did mandatory masking in the ...[text shortened]... hy wearing masks could actually do more harm than good. I posted that a couple times in this thread.
Sigh.

The UK has 4x the population of the Netherlands.
So times the Dutch death count by 4 to even get anywhere near a comparison.

The lower the deathrate in the Netherlands is due to them implementing their “intelligent” lockdown at a very early stage. 2 months before the UK.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22641
Clock
20 Nov 20

@shavixmir said
Sigh.

The UK has 4x the population of the Netherlands.
So times the Dutch death count by 4 to even get anywhere near a comparison.

The lower the deathrate in the Netherlands is due to them implementing their “intelligent” lockdown at a very early stage. 2 months before the UK.
Nope. Population was taken into account.
Look at the data yourself.

Very Rusty
Treat Everyone Equal

Halifax, Nova Scotia

Joined
04 Oct 06
Moves
639786
Clock
21 Nov 20

I can't remember when there wasn't a transition done without so much calling fraud. Trump has lost or had majority of all his cases thrown out of court because there is no evidence of election fraud by the courts as no evidence can be shown.

How many lives will be lost because Trump will not allow the transition to get under way? Isn't now the time to move on? He can still fight any court cases he wants over it.

-VR

moonbus
Über-Nerd (emeritus)

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8703
Clock
21 Nov 20

@metal-brain said
The Lancet has a poor reputation. This article explains why.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/lancetgate-why-monumental-fraud-not-huge-scandal/5721761
The Lancet does not have a poor reputation, and the authors retracted the paper. The article you cited explains why:

"A couple of weeks after the publication, The Lancet received a letter from more than a hundred physicians and researchers, jointly demanding a review of the study and the disclosure of the raw data used in it. When the company providing such data – Surgisphere – refused to relinquish it for independent inquiry, three of its four authors retracted the paper."

That is responsible, peer-reviewed, journalism in action.

Earl of Trumps
Pawn Whisperer

My Kingdom fora Pawn

Joined
09 Jan 19
Moves
20423
Clock
21 Nov 20

@moonbus

Can you imagine how long it would have taken to garner this kind of scrutiny in the days before internet?

😏

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22641
Clock
22 Nov 20

@moonbus said
The Lancet does not have a poor reputation, and the authors retracted the paper. The article you cited explains why:

"A couple of weeks after the publication, The Lancet received a letter from more than a hundred physicians and researchers, jointly demanding a review of the study and the disclosure of the raw data used in it. When the company providing such data – Surgisph ...[text shortened]... its four authors retracted the paper."

That is responsible, peer-reviewed, journalism in action.
Responsible, peer-reviewed, journals would not publish it to begin with.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.