HappyDays Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Can you also find well designed studies that suggest that they arent? Yes. Find me a well designed study, preferably a meta-analysis of multiple studies, that fails to show masks are effective in reducing the spread of covid-19. I posted three meta-analyses which are the gold standard in scientific research. The only link I've seen purporting to show the opposite is the one from the AAPS which I think I have soundly disproved.
HappyDays Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: The people spreading disinformation are those that think any old piece of cloth can prevent this virus from infecting them or others. I choose to think it is being pushed so people feel they have some measure of control over it (they do not). Even with that benign attribution, it can be harmful in leading to a false sense of security over contracting the virus. If it worked, we would all wear masks and be done with this. The country would be open, and as soon as the virus died out, we'd dispense with the masks. However, masks do not, can not, stop the transmission. I posted three different studies that show masks do reduce the spread. I don't know what other proof I can show that would change your mind. Nothing but a universally available vaccine will eradicate the virus, but masks plus social distancing plus good hygiene are an effective combination. We now know that the virus spreads almost exclusively through respiratory droplets. This is different from the cold and the flu which can also spread through surface contact. We also know that masks help to stop or mitigate the projection of respiratory droplets. I can post every study in the world but it should also just be common sense that a mask would do that. Of course an N95 mask is more effective than a cloth mask, and the studies I posted have shown that as well. But a cloth mask is still better than nothing, especially with other preventative measures like social distancing in place. I can't understand why this is so controversial. It is the most basic of scientific truths and still we have people arguing against it. Edited October 3, 2020 by HappyDays
BillsFanNC Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 Just now, HappyDays said: Find me a well designed study, preferably a meta-analysis of multiple studies, that fails to show masks are effective in reducing the spread of covid-19. I posted three meta-analyses which are the gold standard in scientific research. The only link I've seen purporting to show the opposite is the one from the AAPS which I think I have soundly disproved. I'm not going through pubmed and digging them all up. They are there. Unless the meta analysis you cite only looks at randomized controlled trials then they are not gold standard. 2
meazza Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 57 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: Some of us use this site at work. Can you please not ***** post nazi symbols for ***** sake ?
3rdnlng Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 1 minute ago, HappyDays said: Really, Wikipedia? Is that part of the Trumpian fake news network now? Come on man. The Lancet is a two century old scientific journal. What am I missing here? I'm not up to date on the latest Trumpian talking points. I've gotten far less interested in politics than I used to be over the last 4 years but the disinformation campaigns surrounding covid-19 are very concerning to me. I worry that more than ever we live in an age where people are able to discern good sources. To be fair it isn't just right-wing. There are a bunch of left-wing people theorizing that Trump is faking the illness in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I can't tell if people were always this bad at separating fact from fiction or if the internet has made it worse. Certainly there are a number of political organizations driving the misinformation but at the end of the day people are eating it up. The problem with Wikipedia as a definitive source is that anyone can edit it. The Lancet posted the findings of a study on Hydroxychloriquine a while back that didn't include zinc. They had to retract it after they were caught. The internet has made things worse..................................................................... and better. It is apparent here at PPP that a whole army of idiots with TDS and without any desire to actually discuss anything, has invaded the place and will continue to post nonsense ad nauseum and then demand that people who object to theirshit prove them wrong. On the other hand the internet has allowed the truly discerning people to research on their own and not rely on the mainstream media to feed us what they want. 1 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, HappyDays said: I posted three different studies that show masks do reduce the spread. I don't know what other proof I can show that would change your mind. Nothing but a universally available vaccine will eradicate the virus, but masks plus social distancing plus good hygiene are an effective combination. We now know that the virus spreads almost exclusively through respiratory droplets. This is different from the cold and the flu which can also spread through surface contact. We also know that masks help to stop or mitigate the projection of respiratory droplets. I can post every study in the world but it should also just be common sense that a mask would do that. Of course an N95 mask is more effective than a cloth mask, and the studies I posted have shown that as well. But a cloth mask is still better than nothing, especially with other preventative measures like social distancing in place. I can't understand why this is so controversial. It is the most basic of scientific truths and still we have people arguing against it. And I have posted more than three that show masks as little more than a placebo (excepting the N95s) ... over in the COVID thread (I linked because we now have four COVID thread down here). Feel free to go over and read. 🙂
meazza Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 So an anonymous White House aide contradicted the White House doctor and everyone is upset ? Can these idiots stop listening to anonymous sources? 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: I'm not going through pubmed and digging them all up. They are there. Unless the meta analysis you cite only looks at randomized controlled trials then they are not gold standard. I know. New voices are great, but sometimes...
HappyDays Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: I'm not going through pubmed and digging them all up. They are there. Unless the meta analysis you cite only looks at randomized controlled trials then they are not gold standard. I'm just asking for one or two. I tried looking up some examples myself. I found a couple articles from right-wing news aggregators that again use old studies about the flu and the cold as if every virus has the same manner of spreading. The best I could find is from the CDC, and even their conclusion is in line with what I've been saying: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article The filtration, effectiveness, fit, and performance of cloth masks are inferior to those of medical masks and respirators. Cloth mask use should not be mandated for healthcare workers, who should as a priority be provided proper respiratory protection. Cloth masks are a more suitable option for community use when medical masks are unavailable. Protection provided by cloth masks may be improved by selecting appropriate material, increasing the number of mask layers, and using those with a design that provides filtration and fit. Cloth masks should be washed daily and after high-exposure use by using soap and water or other appropriate methods. Ideally everyone would be wearing an N95 mask in public but an imperfect solution is still a solution. No one is saying mask mandates would eradicate the virus but it is helping to stop the spread while a vaccine is developed. Again, I dont know why this is so controversial.
dickleyjones Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: I'm not going through pubmed and digging them all up. They are there. Unless the meta analysis you cite only looks at randomized controlled trials then they are not gold standard. Rct are a terrible gold standard. They are routinely misinterpreted and misused. Damn shame really because Rct are useful, just not as useful as those invested in ebm would have you believe.
HappyDays Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: The problem with Wikipedia as a definitive source is that anyone can edit it. This is false. Wikipedia edits are subject to moderation. But what are you saying, that the AAPS is not a conservative political group? Are you saying Wikipedia is posting false information about some of the beliefs they've espoused in the past? Help me understand. Because the sources are right there for you to click on. Whether you believe Wikipedia or not, do you disagree with anything I said about that link that Foxx posted? 7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: The Lancet posted the findings of a study on Hydroxychloriquine a while back that didn't include zinc. They had to retract it after they were caught. You're saying a scientific organization retracted an article that didn't pass scrutiny? And you're using this as evidence that they are biased? Wow.
The Frankish Reich Posted October 3, 2020 Author Posted October 3, 2020 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Charming? Funny? Friendly? OH MY GOD, THE Q PEOPLE ARE RIGHT! THEY'VE REPLACED HIM WITH AN IMITATION TRUMP WHILE THE REAL ONE IS IN HIS SECRET BUNKER!! 1
HappyDays Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: It is apparent here at PPP that a whole army of idiots with TDS and without any desire to actually discuss anything, has invaded the place and will continue to post nonsense ad nauseum and then demand that people who object to theirshit prove them wrong. I can't speak for others but when I make claims I show my receipts. I have noticed an unwillingness from others to do the same over these last few pages. Science is hard. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm not saying we know everything about covid-19. But if you're going to make a negative claim like "masks do not reduce the spread of covid-19" I expect some level of good sourcing.
TBBills Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: So funny when they try to post stupid fluff... Of course it's Buffalo Gal who posts it lol
Hedge Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 14 minutes ago, meazza said: So an anonymous White House aide contradicted the White House doctor and everyone is upset ? Can these idiots stop listening to anonymous sources? Just for some background for those who aren't sure what Meazza is referring to: 2
Buffalo_Gal Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, HappyDays said: I can't speak for others but when I make claims I show my receipts. I have noticed an unwillingness from others to do the same over these last few pages. Science is hard. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm not saying we know everything about covid-19. But if you're going to make a negative claim like "masks do not reduce the spread of covid-19" I expect some level of good sourcing. It is not an unwillingness... go to the correct thread and start reading. The links are there. 🙂
The Frankish Reich Posted October 3, 2020 Author Posted October 3, 2020 10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: And I have posted more than three that show masks as little more than a placebo (excepting the N95s) ... over in the COVID thread (I linked because we now have four COVID thread down here). Feel free to go over and read. 🙂 I highly recommend the work that this group of scientists -- mostly mechanical engineers -- is doing. I know I post my fair share of snark here, but I am dead serious about this. I don't want people to be misinformed about the key things they can control in their lives without shutting down everything and cowering in fear at home to minimize the risk to themselves, their families, and others. And I want those who disagree with me here to be as safe as possible too, even if they are somewhat more willing to engage in all aspects of pre-COVID life than I am at the moment. We all make our choices, but those choices should be informed by the best information we have. On masks (from the FAQ ... also critical are the parts about indoor air flow and air exchange rates): Unfortunately there are many many misconceptions about masks, including: “Masks don’t work because the virus is much smaller than the pores of the mask.” First, the virus is not thought to be “naked” in the air, this is a misconception. Masks are just filters that we wear, so see this discussion below of filtering efficiency vs. size and why much of what you may hear online is wrong. Second, aerosol filtration does not work in the same way of a sieve that we may be more familiar with. Filters can capture aerosols that are much smaller than the pore size, see the Minute Physics video for a good explanation. “Masks do not work.” To say that masks do not work to remove a fraction of the aerosols (being either inhaled or exhaled) contradicts basic physics. It is like saying that if you put on a coat, you will not feel warmer. If you put on a coat, it will partially impede the flow of heat away from your body. In the same way a mask impedes the flow of particles across it, by capturing many of them. There is no other possibility. Of course the real efficiency depends on how good the mask material is as a filter, and of how well the mask fits without gaps. “Masks only protect against ballistic droplets, not aerosols.” Again, this is another misconception. Masks always provide some partial protection against exhaled and inhaled aerosols, with the protection depending on the quality of the mask material, how well they fit (no gaps between mask and face), and the size of the aerosols that matter. 1
Recommended Posts