• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Mask Efficacy |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check

Status
Not open for further replies.

Moomalade74

Banned
Jul 29, 2019
163
227
260
Home brew or laboratory testing aside, there's zero real world evidence masks have made any difference in societal conditions in terms of the trajectory of cases per million over time in any country they have been mandated.

There's no correlation whatsoever, regardless of what ones 'intuition' or 'common sense' tells them should be the case.

Carl Heneghan, Director of Evidence based medicine at Oxford University speaks on matter:

 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: CloudNull
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
They talked about the bacteria angle in the beginning of the video. Bacteria also live in the droplets we exhale, just as the viruses do. Detecting viruses is a lot harder and cannot be easily done in a home lab, which is why detecting the bacteria is a suitable substitute.

Again, like I said, yes a virus is absolutely tiny compared to bacteria and spittle. A cloth or surgical mask is blocking the spittle, which is what the virus rides on.

So we only measure what we can see even when we know that the virus is in the air and so small that we need specialized equipment to measure it? We just ignore it because it's hard to measure?

It is ridiculous and thoroughly unscientific to measure A and claim the results of the experiment can be applied to B when you know they are completely different.

You also seem to be implying that the virus is contained *only* in the visibly large spittle. Are you? Do you really think that the breath you can feel even just by putting your hand in front or to the sides of your mask contains zero viral particles?

Sure they succeed at reducing some of the forward propulsion, but does that actually have a significant effect at reducing the aerosolized amount of viral particles in a closed space? That's what needs to be measured, not some petri dish bacteria experiment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moomalade74

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,354
945
there's zero real world evidence masks have made any difference in societal conditions in terms of the trajectory of cases per million over time in any country they have been mandated.
There is also zero evidence of the opposite.

A lot of things were going on in parallel and you cannot isolate any single cause.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
There is also zero evidence of the opposite.

A lot of things were going on in parallel and you cannot isolate any single cause.

To recommend an intervention, surely you should be able to point to evidence of its effectiveness, no? If, after a year of data from thousands of municipalities around the world, mask mandate interventions did not demonstrate that they were responsible for positively changing the trajectory *anywhere*, then to continue recommending them would be illogical.

You're right to say that a lot of things were going on in parallel and single causes of changes to trajectories cannot be isolated, but that is no defense for mask mandates.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,354
945
To recommend an intervention, surely you should be able to point to evidence of its effectiveness, no?
It depends on the intervention.
Talking about something very expensive, surely you should have good reasons to invest into it.
But something as cheap as mask, just common sense is enough to me.


did not demonstrate that they were responsible
This is beating the same dead horse again.
The were studies, ironically, cited by anti-maskers in this very thread, that demonstrate effectiveness of masks.

"But countries as a whole" picture does not allow to isolate the effect, so we simply do not know anything on that scale.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
So we only measure what we can see even when we know that the virus is in the air and so small that we need specialized equipment to measure it? We just ignore it because it's hard to measure?
No, I'm not ignoring anything. They addressed this in the beginning of the video, so please watch the whole thing.

Both the virus and bacteria travel on the droplets we exhale. The droplets are too small to detect reliably with the bare eye. Therefore, we have to magnify the effect of the droplets in order to detect their presence. This is done by using the nutrient solution in the petri dish. The bacteria in the droplets will grow on them in large enough quantities that we can make a visual inspection. If we see a patch of bacterial growth, we can assume a droplet hit that area. These are the same droplets that carry BOTH bacteria and viruses. We can't see the virus, nor do they grow in a nutrient solution, but we can see the bacteria, and since the virus and bacteria travel on the same droplets, we can assume that if bacterial exposure was confirmed, we can also assume viral exposure too.

It is ridiculous and thoroughly unscientific to measure A and claim the results of the experiment can be applied to B when you know they are completely different.
The nature of bacteria and viruses are different, but this experiment is not measuring that. This experiment is measuring droplet exposure. Both bacteria and viruses travel on droplets.

You also seem to be implying that the virus is contained *only* in the visibly large spittle. Are you?
Nope, that's not what I'm implying.

Do you really think that the breath you can feel even just by putting your hand in front or to the sides of your mask contains zero viral particles?
Nope. The breath you can feel even by just putting your hand in front or to the sides of your mask probably contain some viral particles (which is why most masks aren't 100% effective) but they do trap a lot of the droplets and they also reduce the range at which the breath is expelled.

Sure they succeed at reducing some of the forward propulsion, but does that actually have a significant effect at reducing the aerosolized amount of viral particles in a closed space? That's what needs to be measured, not some petri dish bacteria experiment.
I posted that link before, but perhaps you didn't see it. Here it is again.


Scientists at the University of Tokyo built a secure chamber with mannequin heads facing each other. One head, fitted with a nebulizer, simulated coughing and expelled actual coronavirus particles. The other mimicked natural breathing, with a collection chamber for viruses coming through the airway.

A cotton mask on the receiver head reduced its viral uptake by up to 40% compared with no mask. An N95 mask, used by medical professionals, blocked up to 90%.

When a mask was attached to the coughing head, cotton and surgical masks blocked more than 50% of the virus transmission.




Here, we developed an airborne transmission simulator of infectious SARS-CoV-2-containing droplets/aerosols produced by human respiration and coughs and assessed the transmissibility of the infectious droplets/aerosols and the ability of various types of face masks to block the transmission. We found that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks all have a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by a virus spreader.


 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
there's zero real world evidence masks have made any difference in societal conditions in terms of the trajectory of cases per million over time in any country they have been mandated.
Yes there is.


What is already known about this topic?

Universal masking and avoiding nonessential indoor spaces are recommended to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

What is added by this report?

Mandating masks was associated with a decrease in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with an increase in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41–100 days after implementation and an increase in daily death growth rates 61–100 days after implementation.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Mask mandates and restricting any on-premises dining at restaurants can help limit community transmission of COVID-19 and reduce case and death growth rates. These findings can inform public policies to reduce community spread of COVID-19.
 

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
7,274
4,022
625
Yes, it's a red flag because you talk about data, but you don't actually reference the specific parts of it and explain the relevancy.

What happened to me being a solid poster and posting in good faith? Because I still am. Please don't interpret these messages in the context of some kind of cultural information war.
You are. Just the whole “red flag” thing is not how normal people talk to each other. “ Red flag” indicates that there is some sort of game or higher authority you are appealing to. And that you are the arbiter.

Just a suggestion if you want people to respond to you (both in real life and online) constructively rather than just assume you are an arrogant prick. (I don’t think you are).

I do talk about data. Just read it. But all of this is a red herring as it comes to the overall force of Fauci and the narrative that was not to be questioned. Lockdowns, origination, mask effective (and we are not going to agree that they were anything but marginally effective. All of that was not to be questioned. Anything but full support of the above, you were branded anti-science, conservative trump supporter, thus racist bigot etc.

it’s this I have the ultimate issue with. There is a lot of room to debate, question, discuss in good faith, but that is quelled over and over and now, it shows the science behind all of that was far from settled if not settled to the “marginal.”

That’s my issue. And Fauci was acting as a policy maker, not a scientist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: down 2 orth

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
7,274
4,022
625
Also, why do you keep saying this? What does this even mean?
Not really directed at you. But some folks continue to hold onto covid, masks, fear porn, instead of moving on. Strangely, I think some people viewed masks as their outward manifestation of their politics. That they “care” they are not “trumpers” etc.

hell, I can easily say that I have the same issue. I have to force myself not to wear the mask because I don’t want to be thought of as anti-science trumper. That’s just not true. It takes effort to get over that societal pressure in spite of there being absolutely no need to wear one once been vaxxed.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
40,637
68,933
2,525
California
manabyte.com

The county previously included deaths of anyone infected with the virus, regardless of whether COVID-19 was a direct or contributing cause of death.

Nick Jonas Wow GIF by Jonas Brothers
 

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
7,274
4,022
625
Yes.
Such as said viruses traveling in droplets, and masks pretty obviously blocking them.


blink-182 wtf GIF


You've lazy posted it, I've CITED the relevant part, and now I need to "actually read it"? Jesus Christ...


This gets us very strongly into made up theories territory.
You read the conclusions. Not the percentages.

we aren’t going to solve this today. And it doesn’t need to be. It’s over and in time, we will get Better data and studies.

recall my whole point was about the questioning of the dogma. Wuhan, masks, lockdowns, all that was not to be questioned. Fauci led down that path (with media happily going along if not driving). Turns out there is plenty of room to debate about all of our response.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
You are. Just the whole “red flag” thing is not how normal people talk to each other. “ Red flag” indicates that there is some sort of game or higher authority you are appealing to. And that you are the arbiter.

Just a suggestion if you want people to respond to you (both in real life and online) constructively rather than just assume you are an arrogant prick. (I don’t think you are).
Suggestion noted, but I would suggest to you that you don't read into things more than is warranted. Noting "red flags" in no way indicates an appeal to a higher authority. Nor does it imply that I am the arbiter of anything. I'm merely observing a pattern in your behavior.

You post links and then paraphrase your links, but paraphrase them wrongly.

do talk about data. Just read it.
I did read it, but you are jumping to conclusions that are not substantiated by your own sources that you cite. This is what I mean by "red flag". If I notice that you behaving in a manner that is associated with an error in judgement, it is my responsibility to point that out to you.

But all of this is a red herring as it comes to the overall force of Fauci and the narrative that was not to be questioned. Lockdowns, origination, mask effective (and we are not going to agree that they were anything but marginally effective. All of that was not to be questioned. Anything but full support of the above, you were branded anti-science, conservative trump supporter, thus racist bigot etc.

it’s this I have the ultimate issue with. There is a lot of room to debate, question, discuss in good faith, but that is quelled over and over and now, it shows the science behind all of that was far from settled if not settled to the “marginal.”

That’s my issue. And Fauci was acting as a policy maker, not a scientist.
All of this is irrelevant. Remove your emotional baggage from consideration, and just concern yourself with the data.

You cited a study that stated multiple layers of cloth masks can improve effectiveness. You also chided Fauci for suggesting the same thing. There is a contradiction here. Do you acknowledge this?
 
Last edited:

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
12,753
22,914
1,885
Many of the droplets of water that you expel from your mouth or nose while breathing are not bigger than the pores of the mask, and the virus is being carried on these droplets. The mask also provides an airflow barrier, which decreases the range at which any escaping droplets can go.

The infective material is not always droplets, though. The droplets eventually aerosolize and will slip through the mask just like air. A faceshield would actually work better than a mask to stop droplets.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Dr.Guru of Peru

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
Not really directed at you. But some folks continue to hold onto covid, masks, fear porn, instead of moving on. Strangely, I think some people viewed masks as their outward manifestation of their politics. That they “care” they are not “trumpers” etc.

hell, I can easily say that I have the same issue. I have to force myself not to wear the mask because I don’t want to be thought of as anti-science trumper. That’s just not true. It takes effort to get over that societal pressure in spite of there being absolutely no need to wear one once been vaxxed.
If it's not directed at me, then please refrain from using that phrase when directly quoting me. I will tell you up front that I do not belong to whatever group you feel that emotionally attached to mask wearing or non-mask wearing. I don't care about the politics involved in this, which is why I have never talked about those aspects in all of my responses to you. I think you'd agree that keeping the emotional baggage out of this debate helps clear the air, yes? I have done my best to do that, so I humbly ask that you do the same.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
The infective material is not always droplets, though. The droplets eventually aerosolize and will slip through the mask just like air. A faceshield would actually work better than a mask to stop droplets.
By aerosolized droplets, do you mean "microdroplets" that linger in the air for many minutes? Masks actually do impede their spread as well.


 
  • Like
Reactions: strange headache

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
12,753
22,914
1,885
By aerosolized droplets, do you mean "microdroplets" that linger in the air for many minutes? Masks actually do impede their spread as well.



Your models are for how masks block droplets being breathed out, not in.
The longer water droplets are in the air, the more they dissolve into it (i.e. aerosolize) and the smaller they get.

Fauci himself saying that they do not work and do not block the virus from infecting you if you wear it. Masks are effective at absorbing droplets as they are exhaled. This has been known for years.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
Your models are for how masks block droplets being breathed out, not in.
So? Mask wearing is a two-way street. It confers protection one way by blocking droplets and microdroplets from infected people. It also confers protection by blocking droplets and microdroplets from people breathing in, too. I can also cite sources about the latter as well.


Can a cloth mask protect the person wearing it?​

We found four studies of inward filtration, all of which showed useful levels of filtration, all using the same widely-accepted technology that measures salt particles in the fine particle (0.02 to 1.0 micrometer) range. A study of one-layer tea-towel masks and a study of two-layer masks made of T-shirt material both showed at least 50 per cent protection for fine particles. Two cloth masks of unknown materials randomly purchased from street vendors performed just as well. For comparison, two of these studies — using exactly the same methods — examined how well modern disposable medical masks worked when tested on volunteers: they filtered around 80 per cent of fine particles.

Three researchers from the University of Pittsburgh made complex masks with eight layers of pre-shrunk high-quality cotton T-shirts fitted to their own faces: each filtered more than 90 per cent of inward aerosol-sized fine particles, offering proof-of-concept for the idea of designing better cloth masks.

An animal experiment with tuberculosis bacteria provides further insight. Tuberculosis is usually considered an “airborne” disease, that is, one with an important transmission route through aerosols or fine particles. When caring for tuberculosis patients, health-care workers wear N95 masks, a high level of respiratory protection, to protect themselves and prevent onward transmission to others. When rabbits were exposed to aerosols of tuberculosis in controlled conditions, tuberculomas (infected abscesses) were reduced by 95 per cent in rabbits that wore close-fitting three- to six-layer gauze masks compared with those that did not.

Many of the cloth masks in current use, therefore, are likely producing useful levels of filtration to the person wearing them, and we have proof-of-concept for improved cloth mask materials and design.


The longer water droplets are in the air, the more they dissolve into it (i.e. aerosolize) and the smaller they get.
Okay. So what? Mask wearing prevents more droplets from entering communal air space, and they still block some but not all of the aerosolized particles, which is better than nothing.

Fauci himself saying that they do not work

He was either lying or misinformed.

and do not block the virus from infecting you if you wear it.
I don't think he specifically said that but feel free to provide a quote if I'm wrong.

Masks are effective at absorbing droplets as they are exhaled. This has been known for years.
OK. My point still stands, however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strange headache

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
12,753
22,914
1,885
So? Mask wearing is a two-way street. It confers protection one way by blocking droplets and microdroplets from infected people. It also confers protection by blocking droplets and microdroplets from people breathing in, too. I can also cite sources about the latter as well.


Can a cloth mask protect the person wearing it?​

We found four studies of inward filtration, all of which showed useful levels of filtration, all using the same widely-accepted technology that measures salt particles in the fine particle (0.02 to 1.0 micrometer) range. A study of one-layer tea-towel masks and a study of two-layer masks made of T-shirt material both showed at least 50 per cent protection for fine particles. Two cloth masks of unknown materials randomly purchased from street vendors performed just as well. For comparison, two of these studies — using exactly the same methods — examined how well modern disposable medical masks worked when tested on volunteers: they filtered around 80 per cent of fine particles.

Three researchers from the University of Pittsburgh made complex masks with eight layers of pre-shrunk high-quality cotton T-shirts fitted to their own faces: each filtered more than 90 per cent of inward aerosol-sized fine particles, offering proof-of-concept for the idea of designing better cloth masks.

An animal experiment with tuberculosis bacteria provides further insight. Tuberculosis is usually considered an “airborne” disease, that is, one with an important transmission route through aerosols or fine particles. When caring for tuberculosis patients, health-care workers wear N95 masks, a high level of respiratory protection, to protect themselves and prevent onward transmission to others. When rabbits were exposed to aerosols of tuberculosis in controlled conditions, tuberculomas (infected abscesses) were reduced by 95 per cent in rabbits that wore close-fitting three- to six-layer gauze masks compared with those that did not.

Many of the cloth masks in current use, therefore, are likely producing useful levels of filtration to the person wearing them, and we have proof-of-concept for improved cloth mask materials and design.



Okay. So what? Mask wearing prevents more droplets from entering communal air space, and they still block some but not all of the aerosolized particles, which is better than nothing.



He was either lying or misinformed.


I don't think he specifically said that but feel free to provide a quote if I'm wrong.


OK. My point still stands, however.

Fauci literally started this mask religion, and him saying it was bull is him lying or misinformed?

Ratboy Himself - Please Read in an Appropriately Raspy Voice said:
The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.

You can question how water droplets dissolve into air all you want, but that is how it works. Immediately exhaled droplets are large enough to be mostly caught by simple masks, but as time goes on the particles which were not caught get smaller and smaller as more water from the droplets diffuses into the surrounding air and becomes suspended. This is what aerosolization means. Eventually the droplets, and viruses they contained, are just individual particles (or relatively small groups of them) suspended in the air, and will pass right through cloth that has holes bigger than the particles.

You wearing a mask is entirely about preventing you from spreading the virus if you are infected and contagious, not protecting you.

Tuberculosis, as you noted, is caused by a bacteria, which is significantly larger than a virus. Not a good comparison.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ascend

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
Fauci literally started this mask religion, and him saying it was bull is him lying or misinformed?
He initially said to not wear masks because they don't work well. Later he revised this to recommend masks for everyone. He said he did this in order to prevent a mask shortage among our health care workers, not necessarily because what he was saying was true.
The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.

OK, but I just showed you multiple sources that indicate that masks are effective at keeping out and preventing the spread of the droplets that carry the virus.

You can question how water droplets dissolve into air all you want, but that is how it works.
Where did I question that at all? I don't think you read my post accurately. I acknowledged that. As droplets in the air evaporate, they get smaller.

Immediately exhaled droplets are large enough to be mostly caught by simple masks, but as time goes on the particles which were not caught get smaller and smaller as more water from the droplets diffuses into the surrounding air and becomes suspended. This is what aerosolization means.
Yes I know, which is why I showed you sources that masks are effective at blocking out aerosolized particles, or microdroplets, too.

Eventually the droplets, and viruses they contained, are just individual particles (or relatively small groups of them) suspended in the air, and will pass right through cloth that has holes bigger than the particles.
Again, so what? The "too small to stop" stage of the droplet lifecyle is just the end. There is the entire rest of the lifecycle where masks are good at blocking droplets and microdroplets. I also showed you sources that demonstrate protection against particles that are deemed "aeosolized".

You wearing a mask is entirely about preventing you from spreading the virus if you are infected and contagious, not protecting you.
It's about both. I provided evidence for both.
 

showernota

Member
Jun 6, 2020
3,224
9,499
610
How many of you wear goggles? If we had mandated goggles like masks so many lives could’ve been saved...

Look at the dramatic effect Just eyeglasses have. The blood is on their hands n’ such, y’know.
The study, which examined 276 individuals hospitalized with Covid-19 in Suizhou, China, found that the proportion of daily eyeglass wearers — those who wore eyeglasses for more than eight hours a day — was just 5.8 percent, while the number of local individuals who wore eyeglasses daily was 31.5 percent. Steinemann said the study suggests that daily wearers of eyeglasses may be less susceptible to Covid-19. But he thinks more studies need to be done around the topic in order to make public health recommendations.
 

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
7,274
4,022
625
Suggestion noted, but I would suggest to you that you don't read into things more than is warranted. Noting "red flags" in no way indicates an appeal to a higher authority. Nor does it imply that I am the arbiter of anything. I'm merely observing a pattern in your behavior.

You post links and then paraphrase your links, but paraphrase them wrongly.


I did read it, but you are jumping to conclusions that are not substantiated by your own sources that you cite. This is what I mean by "red flag". If I notice that you behaving in a manner that is associated with an error in judgement, it is my responsibility to point that out to you.


All of this is irrelevant. Remove your emotional baggage from consideration, and just concern yourself with the data.

You cited a study that stated multiple layers of cloth masks can improve effectiveness. You also chided Fauci for suggesting the same thing. There is a contradiction here. Do you acknowledge this?
That may not be your intention with the use of “red flag” but that’s what the phrase implies.

The pattern is only pointing out that the data is in fact marginal. (Also, the study said “may” different than “can” a subtle word change that effects a lot). My overall point is that the amount of militant dogma surrounding this and other measures was not deserving and we were mislead by just how much these things actually mattered. Especially as the science evolved.

It was not being able to discuss and question it without being branded some insane trump supporter.

If it's not directed at me, then please refrain from using that phrase when directly quoting me. I will tell you up front that I do not belong to whatever group you feel that emotionally attached to mask wearing or non-mask wearing. I don't care about the politics involved in this, which is why I have never talked about those aspects in all of my responses to you. I think you'd agree that keeping the emotional baggage out of this debate helps clear the air, yes? I have done my best to do that, so I humbly ask that you do the same.
I know you haven’t, but that was what I was talking about. Especially what started this. (Ie talking about Fauci). My issue is if he spoke like you do, no issue. Science and data driven. He started to put his thumb on the scale. Moreover, he absolutely deliberately mislead about the virus possible origins. (That you haven’t addressed nor the lockdowns which science has shown… meh).

Policy and politics, is a key feature of this pandemic. (Sadly).
 
Last edited:

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
7,274
4,022
625
Another good video showing what we knew about masks then vs what we know now. (timestamped)

That video doesn’t account for changes in behavior and didn’t have a control group. That’s just self-congratulating.

let’s get one thing clear. I’m not against mask wearing. I actually like it. But what I don’t like is the not being able to question that and all other measures withiut being branded some insane person. (Especially the origins of the virus.)

morevover, the messaging of the masks changed. It went from “this may help a little bit” (which is seems like it might a little bit… either through changed behavior or barrier) to “omg, this is a must or we all die!” (I know, hyperbole).
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: godhandiscen

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
That may not be your intention with the use of “red flag” but that’s what the phrase implies.
No it doesn't. That's just your interpretation. A metaphorical "red flag" is "a sign of some particular problem requiring attention". That's it.


The pattern is only pointing out that the data is in fact marginal.
You keep saying that even that is not the conclusion of the study. See what I mean?

(Also, the study said “may” different than “can” a subtle word change that effects a lot)
Semantic argument that is irrelevant to the point.

My overall point is that the amount of militant dogma surrounding this and other measures was not deserving and we were mislead by just how much these things actually mattered. Especially as the science evolved.
Dude drop the politics stuff. I'm not talking about that. You keep talking about the importance of data. I'm talking about the data. You keep bringing up the politics even though I repeatedly say that I'm not interested in that part.

It was not being able to discuss and question it without being branded some insane trump supporter.
I'm not part of that discussion and I don't care about that aspect of the debate at all.

I know you haven’t, but that was what I was talking about. Especially what started this. (Ie talking about Fauci). My issue is if he spoke like you do, no issue. Science and data driven. He started to put his thumb on the scale. Moreover, he absolutely deliberately mislead about the virus possible origins.
Again, irrelevant to this topic of masks. I've already commented on Fauci's terrible messaging.

That you haven’t addressed
Again irrelevant. First of all, that has nothing to do with mask effectiveness. I am talking about mask effectiveness and ONLY mask effectiveness in my conversation chain with you. I keep telling you not to get politics involved with this but you keep bringing it back for some reason. Second of all, I have commented about the origins of the virus before.

Policy and politics, is a key feature of this pandemic. (Sadly).
I don't disagree with that, but that is not what I'm trying to discuss here.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
That video doesn’t account for changes in behavior and didn’t have a control group. That’s just self-congratulating.
No control group? What are you talking about? There is a lot of research in both case-control studies and other studies that don't use a control.

From the sources:https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
  • A retrospective case-control study from Thailand documented that, among more than 1,000 persons interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations, those who reported having always worn a mask during high-risk exposures experienced a greater than 70% reduced risk of acquiring infection compared with persons who did not wear masks under these circumstances.38
Two studies have been improperly characterized by some sources as showing that surgical or cloth masks offer no benefit. A community-based randomized control trial in Denmark during 2020 assessed whether the use of surgical masks reduced the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers (personal protection) by more than 50%. Findings were inconclusive,54 most likely because the actual reduction in infections was lower. The study was too small (i.e., enrolled about 0.1% of the population) to assess whether masks could decrease transmission from wearers to others (source control). A second study of 14 hospitals in Vietnam during 2015 found that cloth masks were inferior to surgical masks for protection against clinical upper respiratory illness or laboratory-confirmed viral infection.55 The study had a number of limitations including the lack of a true control (no mask) group for comparison, limited source control as hospitalized patients and staff were not masked, unblinded study arm assignments potentially biasing self-reporting of illness, and the washing and re-use of cloth masks by users introducing the risk of infection from self-washing. A follow up study in 2020 found that healthcare workers whose cloth masks were laundered by the hospital were protected equally as well as those that wore medical masks.56

There is also no control group if you're doing cohort studies or population analysis.


Observational studies are an important category of study designs. To address some investigative questions in plastic surgery, randomized controlled trials are not always indicated or ethical to conduct. Instead, observational studies may be the next best method to address these types of questions. Well-designed observational studies have been shown to provide results similar to randomized controlled trials, challenging the belief that observational studies are second-rate. Cohort studies and case-control studies are two primary types of observational studies that aid in evaluating associations between diseases and exposures. In this review article, we describe these study designs, methodological issues, and provide examples from the plastic surgery literature.

Observational studies​

In an observational study, the epidemiologist simply observes the exposure and disease status of each study participant. John Snow’s studies of cholera in London were observational studies. The two most common types of observational studies are cohort studies and case-control studies; a third type is cross-sectional studies.

Cohort study. A cohort study is similar in concept to the experimental study. In a cohort study the epidemiologist records whether each study participant is exposed or not, and then tracks the participants to see if they develop the disease of interest. Note that this differs from an experimental study because, in a cohort study, the investigator observes rather than determines the participants’ exposure status. After a period of time, the investigator compares the disease rate in the exposed group with the disease rate in the unexposed group. The unexposed group serves as the comparison group, providing an estimate of the baseline or expected amount of disease occurrence in the community. If the disease rate is substantively different in the exposed group compared to the unexposed group, the exposure is said to be associated with illness.

Case-control study. In a case-control study, investigators start by enrolling a group of people with disease (at CDC such persons are called case-patients rather than cases, because case refers to occurrence of disease, not a person). As a comparison group, the investigator then enrolls a group of people without disease (controls). Investigators then compare previous exposures between the two groups. The control group provides an estimate of the baseline or expected amount of exposure in that population. If the amount of exposure among the case group is substantially higher than the amount you would expect based on the control group, then illness is said to be associated with that exposure. The study of hepatitis A traced to green onions, described above, is an example of a case-control study. The key in a case-control study is to identify an appropriate control group, comparable to the case group in most respects, in order to provide a reasonable estimate of the baseline or expected exposure.

let’s get one thing clear. I’m not against mask wearing. I actually like it.
OK, so does that mean you think they are effective at controlling the spread of COVID19 when used properly?

But what I don’t like is the not being able to question that and all other measures withiut being branded some insane person. (Especially the origins of the virus.)

morevover, the messaging of the masks changed. It went from “this may help a little bit” (which is seems like it might a little bit… either through changed behavior or barrier) to “omg, this is a must or we all die!” (I know, hyperbole).
I don't care about this in the context of this conversation and this is not what I'm talking about so stop bringing it up please.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member

Thanks for sharing. I did indeed miss that before.

Could you help me understand the result tables?





This is what the text says:

The blue bars and dots and the y axis on the left show virus titers. The brown bars and dots and the y axis on the right show the copy numbers of viral RNA. The numbers below the bars show the percentages relative to the leftmost control bar values. Triangles in panel I indicate that the value was below the detection limit. Data are presented as means ± standard deviations (SD). ND, none detected; w/o, without. The experiments were repeated three times (n = 3). * and † indicate significant differences from values for the control group (the leftmost column) (P < 0.05).

For example, look at F, in which both mannequins having no masks is the control bar value (100, 100) but with cotton masks the numbers below the bars, which are supposed to indicate the percentages relative to the control bar values, say "57, 57," which I take to mean that the detected viral titer (load) and viral RNA are both 57% of the control bar value, but the bars do not appear to indicate that? Viral titer of the control bar in this example appears to be around log10(5) , or 0.69897 PFU, whereas with cotton masks it's probably around log10(4.8), or 0.68124 PFU, which seems to be more like a 3% reduction. Why does it appear to be claiming a 43% reduction?

I'm assuming I'm just not understanding something correctly here, so I would appreciate if you could explain what this is showing in a bit more detail.


edit: Upon further investigation, I think I may have been thinking about it completely backwards, and I needed to be using an anti-logarithm calculator to get the right numbers. So, a 5 on the chart does not represent 0.69897 PFU, but 100,000 PFU and 4.8 does not represent 0.68124 PFU, but 63,095.7 PFU. That gets us to around 63.1%, so a lot closer to the stated 57%, and since I'm just eyeballing the chart (I wish they published the actual numbers).

I guess the question then becomes: does the reduction demonstrated in this experiment a. translate to real world settings, and b. actually lead to reduced infection if so? I don't know what the viral load threshold is to causing infection, but I imagine there are a lot of variables that determine that.

One thing that was very interesting to me about this test is that it seems to indicate that, even if two people are not wearing masks in a completely sealed tiny box, simply being distanced by 100 centimeters reduces transmission by around 70% or more. No wonder outdoor transmission is basically nonexistent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Moomalade74

Game Analyst

Member
Feb 10, 2009
6,361
2,311
1,295
soundcloud.com

Sky News host Rowan Dean says police in Victoria have crossed a “dangerous and scary line” by deciding in advance who is likely to commit a crime in the future.

Mr Dean said the “thuggery” of police, particularly in Victoria, during lockdowns was “chilling” and “shocked the free world”.

“Rather than China becoming more like us, are we becoming more like them?” he asked.

“It's not only the excessive use of physical force, it is the excessive use of authoritarian power.

“The police, rather than protecting the citizens, have become an extension of the government of Victoria, protecting the bureaucrats and the politicians, in this case the Labor Party, from facing much-needed criticism and legitimate lawful protest.

“The Andrews government has used its political force to suppress legitimate debate and the freedom of the press.”

Mr Dean pointed to the way police handled Avi Yemini, a journalist for Rebel News.

He said Mr Yemini had the “right” and “professional duty” to cover Saturday’s demonstrations but received a visit from police the night before.

“Put aside the grotesque actions of a police commissioner having the power to decide which journalists may or may not attend an event, a totalitarian give away if ever there was one, but you know we have crossed a very dangerous and scary line when the police start deciding in advance who is likely to commit a crime in the future,” he said.

“It's not quite as dramatic as the tank man with his plastic carrier bag standing up to the procession of communist tanks, but the principle, actually, is identical.

“The individual expressing his defiance of a brutal and oppressive state that has only one answer to dissent, and that is to crush it.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: vpance

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
7,274
4,022
625
No it doesn't. That's just your interpretation. A metaphorical "red flag" is "a sign of some particular problem requiring attention". That's it.



You keep saying that even that is not the conclusion of the study. See what I mean?


Semantic argument that is irrelevant to the point.


Dude drop the politics stuff. I'm not talking about that. You keep talking about the importance of data. I'm talking about the data. You keep bringing up the politics even though I repeatedly say that I'm not interested in that part.


I'm not part of that discussion and I don't care about that aspect of the debate at all.


Again, irrelevant to this topic of masks. I've already commented on Fauci's terrible messaging.


Again irrelevant. First of all, that has nothing to do with mask effectiveness. I am talking about mask effectiveness and ONLY mask effectiveness in my conversation chain with you. I keep telling you not to get politics involved with this but you keep bringing it back for some reason. Second of all, I have commented about the origins of the virus before.


I don't disagree with that, but that is not what I'm trying to discuss here.
But I am. You responded to me. (At least I think so. Don’t remember). I didn’t respond to you injecting politics. The question posed was about Fauci and the policy/politics he was employing. Quit sniffing your own farts. (Just a little levity)
 
Last edited:

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
5,727
5,392
760
Finland

So, here in Finland they've been making a drug against covid19.

What's included in that drug?
Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Funny to think how just a year ago these were downplayed by media, scientists and politicians.
Nah, you got to let big drug companies to make expensive vaccines before we can use anything less expensive. Also, of course because Trump endorsed hydroxychloroquine it wasn't an option to be for it.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: CloudNull

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Jun 7, 2004
10,568
2,143
1,925
Memphis
Welp, Nate Silver of all people is getting pushback for stating the obvious about the libs pooh-poohing the lab leak theory.


It's also been funny to watch Silver gently chide liberals about embracing rona narratives not based on any kind of data or reasoning. They get really mad when he does it since he's a liberal data scientist icon. He's a lot smarter than most of them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CloudNull

BouncyFrag

Member
Feb 10, 2014
10,049
9,751
865
Welp, Nate Silver of all people is getting pushback for stating the obvious about the libs pooh-poohing the lab leak theory.


It's also been funny to watch Silver gently chide liberals about embracing rona narratives not based on any kind of data or reasoning. They get really mad when he does it since he's a liberal data scientist icon. He's a lot smarter than most of them.
Going forward, anytime someone sites ‘C0nsPiRacy ThEoRY’ or ‘trust the science’ will cause the slowly awakening citizens of the world to point and laugh like this:
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
Thanks for sharing. I did indeed miss that before.

Could you help me understand the result tables?

Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2



This is what the text says:


For example, look at F, in which both mannequins having no masks is the control bar value (100, 100) but with cotton masks the numbers below the bars, which are supposed to indicate the percentages relative to the control bar values, say "57, 57," which I take to mean that the detected viral titer (load) and viral RNA are both 57% of the control bar value, but the bars do not appear to indicate that? Viral titer of the control bar in this example appears to be around log10(5) , or 0.69897 PFU, whereas with cotton masks it's probably around log10(4.8), or 0.68124 PFU, which seems to be more like a 3% reduction. Why does it appear to be claiming a 43% reduction?

I'm assuming I'm just not understanding something correctly here, so I would appreciate if you could explain what this is showing in a bit more detail.
The Y-axis is a logarithmic scale not a linear scale. A log scale is used when the numbers are really large in difference which would make your graph look weird. Here are a couple of helpful videos explaining this:


You can also find larger pictures and additional observational text in this link:


Viral loads in the inhalation droplets/aerosols were inversely proportional to the distance between the virus spreader and the virus receiver; however, infectious virus was detected even 1 m away (Fig. 2A). The blue bars and the brown bars in the figures show the viral titers and viral RNA copy numbers, respectively. The numbers below each bar show the percentages relative to the leftmost control column values. When a mannequin exposed to the virus was equipped with various masks (cotton mask, surgical mask, or N95 mask), the uptake of the virus droplets/aerosols was reduced. A cotton mask led to an approximately 20% to 40% reduction in virus uptake compared to no mask (Fig. 2B). The N95 mask had the highest protective efficacy (approximately 80% to 90% reduction) of the various masks examined; however, infectious virus penetration was measurable even when the N95 mask was completely fitted to the face with adhesive tape (Fig. 2B). In contrast, when a mask was attached to the mannequin that released virus, cotton and surgical masks blocked more than 50% of the virus transmission, whereas the N95 mask showed considerable protective efficacy (Fig. 2C). There was a synergistic effect when both the virus receiver and virus spreader wore masks (cotton masks or surgical masks) to prevent the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols (Fig. 2D and andEE).

We next tested the protective efficacy of masks when the amount of exhaled virus was increased. The viral load was augmented to 108 PFU and exhaled by the spreader; then the uptake of the virus droplets/aerosols was measured when various types of masks were attached to the receiver. As with the lower viral load (5 × 105 PFU) shown in Fig. 2B, the N95 mask sealed with adhesive tape showed approximately 90% protective efficacy (see Fig. 2F and andGG for a comparison of two N95 products). When the amount of exhaled virus was reduced to 105 PFU or 104 PFU, infectious viruses were not detected, even in the samples from the unmasked receiver (Fig. 2H and andI).I). Viral RNA was detected in all samples; however, due to the quantitative decrease, there was no difference in protective efficacy among all of the masks, including the sealed N95 masks.

Our airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks had a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by the virus spreader. Considerable viral loads have been detected in the nasal and throat swabs of asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic patients, as well as those of symptomatic patients, which suggests transmission potential (4). Accordingly, it is desirable for individuals to wear masks in public spaces. Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when fully sealed under the conditions that we tested. In this study, infectious SARS-CoV-2 was exhaled as droplets/aerosols and mask efficacy was examined. To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded. Although the efficiency of detecting infectious virus was reduced when the amount of exhaled virus was reduced, viral RNA was detected regardless of the type of mask used. These results indicate that it is difficult to completely block this virus even with a properly fitted N95 mask. However, it remains unknown whether the small amount of virus that was able to pass through the N95 masks would result in illness.

It has been reported that the stability of the virus in the air changes depending on the droplet/aerosol components, such as inorganics, proteins, and surfactants, suggesting that the permeation efficiency of masks is also affected by the components of viral droplets/aerosols (5, 6). In our experiments, the virus was suspended in culture supernatant without fetal calf serum or was diluted with phosphate-buffered saline. Further detailed analysis will be required to reveal the precise relationship between the protective efficiency of masks and the components of viral droplets/aerosols.

Our data will help medical workers understand the proper use and performance of masks (e.g., the importance of fitting masks and avoiding their reuse) and to determine whether they need additional protective equipment (e.g., a negative-pressure room or positive-pressure masks) to protect themselves from infected patients.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
But I am. You responded to me. (At least I think so. Don’t remember). I didn’t respond to you injecting politics. The question posed was about Fauci and the policy/politics he was employing. Quit sniffing your own farts. (Just a little levity)
My conversations with you in this thread and in the other thread about masks was always about strictly the data. The most recent thing I responded to you that kicked off this current train of conversation was asking you another data based inquiry that questions your reliability on sources, which you still have not answered, by the way.
 

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
7,274
4,022
625
My conversations with you in this thread and in the other thread about masks was always about strictly the data. The most recent thing I responded to you that kicked off this current train of conversation was asking you another data based inquiry that questions your reliability on sources, which you still have not answered, by the way.
Never mind. Not worth responding. Enjoy whatever it is you do.
 
Last edited:

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
7,274
4,022
625
Why not? This isn't a helpful conversation if I answer all of your questions but you don't answer mine.
I deleted a very long post and it’s for the better. But I will reiterate that we weren’t talking about mask efficiency, we were predominantly talking about the policy of steering discussion away from Wuhan origination theory, and you quoted me (I forgot who you were until you reminded me what I said to you). And how “consensus and groupthink” can in fact steer data.

and that’s the end of that. I don’t care if masks work. I don’t wear one. I’m vaxxed. Hopefully we will have better science by the next go around.
 
Last edited:

BadBurger

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2019
4,137
6,633
590
Get vaccinated
In actual virus-related news, a new kind of COVID-19 vaccine could debut soon. It works differently than the existing vaccines, and the manner in which they create it is fascinating.

 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,082
18,938
1,910
Best Coast
I deleted a very long post and it’s for the better. But I will reiterate that we weren’t talking about mask efficiency, we were predominantly talking about the policy of steering discussion away from Wuhan origination theory, and you quoted me (I forgot who you were until you reminded me what I said to you). And how “consensus and groupthink” can in fact steer data.

and that’s the end of that. I don’t care if masks work. I don’t wear one. I’m vaxxed. Hopefully we will have better science by the next go around.
What are you talking about? The majority of our conversations have been about mask efficacy and "following the science". You kept claiming that masks don't do anything, and I kept quoting science sources to show you that there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that they do.





Because if you read the actual science in there (and not them trying to spin it) it shows at best marginal.

and they don’t have a freakin clue behind that recommendation. In other words, read it.

I read the actual science and I'm not trying to spin it. I'm showing that the effect is more than marginal. I've quoted multiple studies with multiple varieties of methodologies. You say you care about science without spin, and that is the conversation that I'm trying to have with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.