Are masks the visible symbol of the COVID cultist?
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
So you say, mask minion.
"symbol," no, just the practice of those that aren't interested in spreading the reach of Covid to others nor catching the virus themselves
Who told you that, Anchovies?
Science
Is that so?
Evidence based medicine tends to focus predominantly on internal validity—whether primary research studies were “done right”—using tools to assess risk of bias and adequacy of statistical analysis.
External validity relates to a different question: whether findings of primary studies done in a different population with a different disease or risk state are relevant to the current policy question.
We argue that there should be a greater focus on external validity in evaluation of masks.
A rapid search of the literature on the wearing of masks by the general public during epidemics or pandemics by a team at the University of Galway (E Toomey, personal communication, 29 March 2020) found five peer reviewed systematic reviews:
- An “empty review” published on 27 March 2020—that is, a review showing no randomized trials of masks so far during the covid-19 pandemic
- A 2020 systematic review comparing standard surgical masks and respirator masks, which included a single small trial from 2009 of respirator masks, standard masks, and no masks among the general public during an influenza epidemic in Australia. That trial, which was considered robust, showed a benefit of masks over no masks, but no benefit of respirator masks over standard ones, and also showed that masks were worn less than 50% of the time
- A 2011 Cochrane review covering physical interventions and including 67 studies (many of poor quality), in which the main relevant study was the 2009 trial described above
- A 2010 systematic review of face masks in influenza epidemics, which included standard surgical masks and respirator masks and found some efficacy of masks if worn by those with respiratory symptoms but not if worn by asymptomatic individuals.
- A 2007 systematic review and expert panel deliberation, which acknowledged the difficulties in interpreting evidence and stated: “With the exception of some evidence from SARS, we did not find any published data that directly support the use of masks … by the public.” The evidence from SARS was not set out in the paper (so we assume it was expert opinion on the panel).
They identified 10 randomized controlled trials published between 1946 and 2018 that tested the efficacy of face masks (including standard surgical masks and commercially produced paper face masks designed for the public) for preventing laboratory confirmed influenza.
A pooled meta-analysis found no significant reduction in influenza transmission (relative risk 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 1.20; I2=30%, P=0.25).
They also identified seven studies conducted in households; four provided masks for all household members, one for the sick member only, and two for household contacts only.
None showed a significant reduction in laboratory confirmed influenza in the face mask arm. The authors concluded: “randomized controlled trials of [face masks] did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
A preprint of a systematic review published on 6 April 2020 examined whether wearing a face mask or other barrier (goggles, shield, veil) prevents transmission of respiratory illness such as coronavirus, rhinovirus, tuberculosis, or influenza.
It identified 31 eligible studies, including 12 randomized controlled trials.
The authors found that overall, mask wearing both in general and by infected members within households seemed to produce small but statistically non-significant reductions in infection rates. The authors concluded that “The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support the widespread use of face masks as a protective measure against covid-19”11 and recommended further high quality randomized controlled trials.
Contested interpretations
The heterogeneous and somewhat sparse primary literature described above has been inconsistently interpreted by policy makers. The World Health Organization, for example, recommends masks only for those with symptoms suggestive of covid-19, stating that masks should otherwise be reserved for healthcare workers.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention originally advised the public against wearing masks during the covid-19 pandemic, but this advice was updated on 4 April 2020.
None of the studies mentioned above tested the makeshift cloth masks that CDC has recommended. To our knowledge, there are no trials of cloth masks in the general public.
A three arm trial of cloth masks versus surgical masks versus “standard practice” in preventing influenza-like illness in healthcare staff found that cloth masks were the least effective, but “standard practice” usually involved a surgical face mask and there was no true control arm with no masks.
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435
Hoosier Daddy
Verified User
PEDO JOE AND HIS HO WANT YOU TO KNOW
Pedo Joe Biden says he wants the American public to wear masks for his first 100 days in office to help slow the spread of COVID-19.
But is it really necessary?
have you been hit on top of the head with a hammer recently? why else would you question the use of masks, dipshit?
Because of science.
Current guidance based on community exposure, for people exposed to people with known or suspected COVID-19 or possible COVID-19
Individual who has had close contact (within 6 feet for a total of 15 minutes or more)
Exposure to
- Person with COVID-19 who has symptoms (in the period from 2 days before symptom onset until they meet criteria for discontinuing home isolation; can be laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness)
- Person who has tested positive for COVID-19 (laboratory confirmed) but has not had any symptoms (in the 2 days before the date of specimen collection until they meet criteria for discontinuing home isolation).
Note: This is irrespective of whether the person with COVID-19 or the contact was wearing a mask or whether the contact was wearing respiratory personal protective equipment (PPE)
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/public-health-recommendations.html
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
A cultist isn't mainstream happening, ding dong.
your brain has rotted out
Your guy is a loser and he is disease written our guy is the winner and he is disease-free think before you post stupidity
Actually masks are the symbol of the democrat party from long ago for selling dope robbing people at knife and gun point shooting cops , terrorist bombings , raping women and children and sometimes men and goats. They have been associated with mask wearing for a long time especially inn the days of the clam hanging blacks . its just a tradition for them
Good point.
Your guy is a loser
It's not a big deal I'm very pleased that you don't wear a mask thank you for that the gene pool appreciates it
BidenPresident
Verified User
The CDC released a meta-analysis in May 2020 of 14 controlled, extended trials studying the effects of mask usage.
The study found no reduction in the rate of laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza, a similar respiratory illness.
Face Masks
In our systematic review, we identified 10 randomized controlled trials that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018.
In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.
One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group.
Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months.
The overall reduction in influenza-like illness or laboratory-confirmed cases in the face mask group was not significant in either study.
Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only, another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only, and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts.
None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed virus infections in the face mask group.
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids.
There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
The study found no reduction in the rate of laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza, a similar respiratory illness.
Face Masks
In our systematic review, we identified 10 randomized controlled trials that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018.
In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.
One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group.
Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months.
The overall reduction in influenza-like illness or laboratory-confirmed cases in the face mask group was not significant in either study.
Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only, another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only, and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts.
None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed virus infections in the face mask group.
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids.
There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article