CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.

[montado]

Because I want my dentist to be in uniform, and I don't want spit in my face. Don't confuse mask policy, mask efficacy for the prevention of the spread of disease, and wearing a mask to prevent your spit from going into someones mouth when doing dental work. These are all different discussions.

Here is a question for you. Lets say a seat belt is found to be 75 percent effective at saving lives in accidents at 60 miles an hour.

Does this make the seat belt just as effective at 120 miles an hour?

Mask policy has been relatively the same, with very little updates or explanations. However covid has gone from 60-120 according to this article:

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellne ... udy-680082

Covid today is 18x more airborne than original variant.

So question. If this data is true, how confident are you that the current mask policy is effective at all?

If you raced cars for a living, would you take the seat belt from you Kia rio and say "this one works at 60 pretty well, so its probably going to work just as well if I crash at 120!"

Would you accept that masks are less effective if covid is more transmissible? 18x more aerosols.

The research found that the viral load in the air from Alpha variant patients was 18x more than could be explained by the increased amounts of virus in nasal swabs and saliva.

Does your science evolve with the data? Or did you just put your mask on for a whole year and never think about why we are doing this? Is "its better than nothing" your philosophy ? "I will wear my 60 rated seat belt and drive 120 because its better than nothing" Seems very unscientific and seems like risk is not understood. Is the better answer not "I just wont drive 120 if I don't have a seat belt rated for 120" or "I just wont go out in public if I feel the risk of covid is to great". Maybe that's the way back to normal. Scared people stay home, because they are delusional with anti science policy that makes very little sense.

[dialdriver]

Because I want my dentist to be in uniform, and I don't want spit in my face. Don't confuse mask policy, mask efficacy for the prevention of the spread of disease, and wearing a mask to prevent your spit from going into someones mouth when doing dental work. These are all different discussions.

Here is a question for you. Lets say a seat belt is found to be 75 percent effective at saving lives in accidents at 60 miles an hour.

Does this make the seat belt just as effective at 120 miles an hour?

Mask policy has been relatively the same, with very little updates or explanations. However covid has gone from 60-120 according to this article:

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellne ... udy-680082

Covid today is 18x more airborne than original variant.

So question. If this data is true, how confident are you that the current mask policy is effective at all?

If you raced cars for a living, would you take the seat belt from you Kia rio and say "this one works at 60 pretty well, so its probably going to work just as well if I crash at 120!"

Would you accept that masks are less effective if covid is more transmissible? 18x more aerosols.

The research found that the viral load in the air from Alpha variant patients was 18x more than could be explained by the increased amounts of virus in nasal swabs and saliva.

Does your science evolve with the data? Or did you just put your mask on for a whole year and never think about why we are doing this? Is "its better than nothing" your philosophy ? "I will wear my 60 rated seat belt and drive 120 because its better than nothing" Seems very unscientific and seems like risk is not understood. Is the better answer not "I just wont drive 120 if I don't have a seat belt rated for 120" or "I just wont go out in public if I feel the risk of covid is to great". Maybe that's the way back to normal. Scared people stay home, because they are delusional with anti science policy that makes very little sense.

More false equivalent arguments.

Were you the only guy I saw in Home Depot yesterday without a mask, in violation of the law and medical policy?

I'm going to stick with competent medical advice.

[montado]

Because I want my dentist to be in uniform, and I don't want spit in my face. Don't confuse mask policy, mask efficacy for the prevention of the spread of disease, and wearing a mask to prevent your spit from going into someones mouth when doing dental work. These are all different discussions.

Here is a question for you. Lets say a seat belt is found to be 75 percent effective at saving lives in accidents at 60 miles an hour.

Does this make the seat belt just as effective at 120 miles an hour?

Mask policy has been relatively the same, with very little updates or explanations. However covid has gone from 60-120 according to this article:

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellne ... udy-680082

Covid today is 18x more airborne than original variant.

So question. If this data is true, how confident are you that the current mask policy is effective at all?

If you raced cars for a living, would you take the seat belt from you Kia rio and say "this one works at 60 pretty well, so its probably going to work just as well if I crash at 120!"

Would you accept that masks are less effective if covid is more transmissible? 18x more aerosols.

The research found that the viral load in the air from Alpha variant patients was 18x more than could be explained by the increased amounts of virus in nasal swabs and saliva.

Does your science evolve with the data? Or did you just put your mask on for a whole year and never think about why we are doing this? Is "its better than nothing" your philosophy ? "I will wear my 60 rated seat belt and drive 120 because its better than nothing" Seems very unscientific and seems like risk is not understood. Is the better answer not "I just wont drive 120 if I don't have a seat belt rated for 120" or "I just wont go out in public if I feel the risk of covid is to great". Maybe that's the way back to normal. Scared people stay home, because they are delusional with anti science policy that makes very little sense.

More false equivalent arguments.

Were you the only guy I saw in Home Depot yesterday without a mask, in violation of the law and medical policy?

I'm going to stick with competent medical advice.

Is it hard for you to have a discussion or what? When you don't like to answer tough questions you defer. Maybe send this question to your expert friend.

[photofly]

Mask policy has been relatively the same, with very little updates or explanations. However covid has gone from 60-120 according to this article:

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellne ... udy-680082

You might want to consider quoting this bit of the same article:

Researchers also found that face-coverings, such as surgical masks and cloths, reduce the amount of the virus breathed out into the air by about 50%.

[montado]

Mask policy has been relatively the same, with very little updates or explanations. However covid has gone from 60-120 according to this article:

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellne ... udy-680082

You might want to consider quoting this bit of the same article:

Researchers also found that face-coverings, such as surgical masks and cloths, reduce the amount of the virus breathed out into the air by about 50%.

Great point... 50% of 18x the amount of aerosols... even with the original variant the mask work probably filter 50% correct? The mask is not more effective with the new variant. Its clearly more transmissible and this may make the mask pretty much useless. Lets not pretend its effective when the science changes.

At what point does the viral load render masks ineffective? If the load keeps increasing the efficacy must be dropping and eventually you his a point where the masks aren’t really doing much… just like as speed increases eventually the seat belt becomes useless and not a difference maker in outcomes. The end result we should wear masks to stop covid spread and deaths, if the masks don’t really do that anymore then what’s the point of wearing one?

[cdnavater]

Mask policy has been relatively the same, with very little updates or explanations. However covid has gone from 60-120 according to this article:

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellne ... udy-680082

You might want to consider quoting this bit of the same article:

Researchers also found that face-coverings, such as surgical masks and cloths, reduce the amount of the virus breathed out into the air by about 50%.

Great point... 50% of 18x the amount of aerosols... even with the original variant the mask work probably filter 50% correct? The mask is not more effective with the new variant. Its clearly more transmissible and this may make the mask pretty much useless. Lets not pretend its effective when the science changes.

Holy f@*k,
No matter how you spin it, it’s still better than no mask.
If I’m going commando and I shart, my pants will be covered in shit but if I’m wearing underwear most of the shit will get filtered and maybe increase the odds nobody even knows I shit myself.

[cdnavater]

Also, for someone who claims the topic of masking is not important, your posts seem to indicate the opposite.
You have posted the word mask 232 times!
Dialdriver 9, Photofly 35, mostly quoting you!

[dialdriver]

Because I want my dentist to be in uniform, and I don't want spit in my face. Don't confuse mask policy, mask efficacy for the prevention of the spread of disease, and wearing a mask to prevent your spit from going into someones mouth when doing dental work. These are all different discussions.

Here is a question for you. Lets say a seat belt is found to be 75 percent effective at saving lives in accidents at 60 miles an hour.

Does this make the seat belt just as effective at 120 miles an hour?

Mask policy has been relatively the same, with very little updates or explanations. However covid has gone from 60-120 according to this article:

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellne ... udy-680082

Covid today is 18x more airborne than original variant.

So question. If this data is true, how confident are you that the current mask policy is effective at all?

If you raced cars for a living, would you take the seat belt from you Kia rio and say "this one works at 60 pretty well, so its probably going to work just as well if I crash at 120!"

Would you accept that masks are less effective if covid is more transmissible? 18x more aerosols.

The research found that the viral load in the air from Alpha variant patients was 18x more than could be explained by the increased amounts of virus in nasal swabs and saliva.

Does your science evolve with the data? Or did you just put your mask on for a whole year and never think about why we are doing this? Is "its better than nothing" your philosophy ? "I will wear my 60 rated seat belt and drive 120 because its better than nothing" Seems very unscientific and seems like risk is not understood. Is the better answer not "I just wont drive 120 if I don't have a seat belt rated for 120" or "I just wont go out in public if I feel the risk of covid is to great". Maybe that's the way back to normal. Scared people stay home, because they are delusional with anti science policy that makes very little sense.

More false equivalent arguments.

Were you the only guy I saw in Home Depot yesterday without a mask, in violation of the law and medical policy?

I'm going to stick with competent medical advice.

Is it hard for you to have a discussion or what? When you don't like to answer tough questions you defer. Maybe send this question to your expert friend.

Excuse me, what tough question?

I already told you what my medical expert said, but you keep posting articles that confirm wearing masks as evidence against them - who can discuss that intelligently?

[dialdriver]

Because I want my dentist to be in uniform, and I don't want spit in my face. Don't confuse mask policy, mask efficacy for the prevention of the spread of disease, and wearing a mask to prevent your spit from going into someones mouth when doing dental work. These are all different discussions.

Here is a question for you. Lets say a seat belt is found to be 75 percent effective at saving lives in accidents at 60 miles an hour.

Does this make the seat belt just as effective at 120 miles an hour?

Mask policy has been relatively the same, with very little updates or explanations. However covid has gone from 60-120 according to this article:

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellne ... udy-680082

Covid today is 18x more airborne than original variant.

So question. If this data is true, how confident are you that the current mask policy is effective at all?

If you raced cars for a living, would you take the seat belt from you Kia rio and say "this one works at 60 pretty well, so its probably going to work just as well if I crash at 120!"

Would you accept that masks are less effective if covid is more transmissible? 18x more aerosols.

The research found that the viral load in the air from Alpha variant patients was 18x more than could be explained by the increased amounts of virus in nasal swabs and saliva.

Does your science evolve with the data? Or did you just put your mask on for a whole year and never think about why we are doing this? Is "its better than nothing" your philosophy ? "I will wear my 60 rated seat belt and drive 120 because its better than nothing" Seems very unscientific and seems like risk is not understood. Is the better answer not "I just wont drive 120 if I don't have a seat belt rated for 120" or "I just wont go out in public if I feel the risk of covid is to great". Maybe that's the way back to normal. Scared people stay home, because they are delusional with anti science policy that makes very little sense.

The article you post as evidence against masks concludes:

"The take-home messages from this paper are that the coronavirus can be in your exhaled breath (and) is getting better at being in your exhaled breath, and using a mask reduces the chance of you breathing it on others," said Assistant Clinical Professor Jennifer German, a co-author of the study".

Did you even read it?

[photofly]

At what point does the viral load render masks ineffective?

Never. There is always someone at the marginal range of infection who would have escaped if the person infecting them had worn a mask.

Wear a mask.

[montado]

At what point does the viral load render masks ineffective?

Never. There is always someone at the marginal range of infection who would have escaped if the person infecting them had worn a mask.

Wear a mask.

Tell me to mask harder, this is what we really need. Mask harder to fight delta.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/randal ... he-fearful

Vaccine passports a comfort to the fearful… isn’t that just about all the pandemic policy, masks included?

Get vaccinated, live normal. Would be nice.

[montado]

I wanted to dive deeper into that Bangladesh study cpncrunch. Also wanted to be careful and not just dismiss it, so I took the time to dive in and read the whole thing.

Here is the figure with the difference from the control group. 1 percent difference in how many cases. Guess that data is inline with what the cdc says. Mask policy is about 0.5 to 1.9 percent effective. Here is the table:

50EEAFC5-42D4-4BC1-86C2-46450F018086.jpeg (194.17 KiB) Viewed 2403 times

The study also pointed out how cloth masks were noticeable in being more that half as effective as surgical masks.

Why is it we don’t wear N95s as policy. If we were actually interested in making an impact with masks (like a better than 1 percent impact), don’t you think we would wear a mask with some science behind it? Why so much confidence in cloth masks?

All things the same, in Canada if we had no mask policy what would be the difference in cases? About 16000 cases since the beginning of the pandemic? Of course those who want to mask could mask. Or we could use a more targeted approach. Why are kids in schools masking? This is not the only way.

It’s pathetic really how these studies come out that show very little difference, yet they draw these conclusions as if masks are incredible and working so great. I don’t know about you, but saying “we have 10k covid cases, but if we didn’t wear masks we would have 10500 cases” is not a great argument to mandate masks.

The vaccines on the other hand, when you look at the ratios of who’s ending up in hospital, it’s a clear path to success. It’s a shame vaccinated people are convinced masks should be worn. At the very least should be optional for the vaccinated… or maybe just everyone, because you know we are like 80 percent vaccinated and vaccine certificates policy and masks are just as dumb as ever at this point. Am I the only one with covid fatigue?

[kgb531]

Recognizing you lack both the requisite educational background and mental capacity to understand the subject matter should have been your first thought but shockingly, wasn't.
Having excess time and an internet connection to "dive deep" doesn't work if you can't already meet the above prerequisites.

I wanted to dive deeper into that Bangladesh study cpncrunch. Also wanted to be careful and not just dismiss it, so I took the time to dive in and read the whole thing.

Here is the figure with the difference from the control group. 1 percent difference in how many cases. Guess that data is inline with what the cdc says. Mask policy is about 0.5 to 1.9 percent effective. Here is the table:
50EEAFC5-42D4-4BC1-86C2-46450F018086.jpeg

The study also pointed out how cloth masks were noticeable in being more that half as effective as surgical masks.

Why is it we don’t wear N95s as policy. If we were actually interested in making an impact with masks (like a better than 1 percent impact), don’t you think we would wear a mask with some science behind it? Why so much confidence in cloth masks?

All things the same, in Canada if we had no mask policy what would be the difference in cases? About 16000 cases since the beginning of the pandemic? Of course those who want to mask could mask. Or we could use a more targeted approach. Why are kids in schools masking? This is not the only way.

It’s pathetic really how these studies come out that show very little difference, yet they draw these conclusions as if masks are incredible and working so great. I don’t know about you, but saying “we have 10k covid cases, but if we didn’t wear masks we would have 10500 cases” is not a great argument to mandate masks.

The vaccines on the other hand, when you look at the ratios of who’s ending up in hospital, it’s a clear path to success. It’s a shame vaccinated people are convinced masks should be worn. At the very least should be optional for the vaccinated… or maybe just everyone, because you know we are like 80 percent vaccinated and vaccine certificates policy and masks are just as dumb as ever at this point. Am I the only one with covid fatigue?

[dialdriver]

Here is the figure with the difference from the control group. 1 percent difference in how many cases. Guess that data is inline with what the cdc says. Mask policy is about 0.5 to 1.9 percent effective.

Once again montado is citing references to support his argument, that don't in fact support his argument.

From the CDC website:

"Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments that have measured blocking of all respiratory droplets, with cloth masks in some studies performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control".

"An investigation of a high-exposure event, in which 2 symptomatically ill hair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139 clients during an 8-day period, found that none of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection. The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as required by local ordinance and company policy at the time.

In a study of 124 Beijing households with > 1 laboratory-confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, mask use by the index patient and family contacts before the index patient developed symptoms reduced secondary transmission within the households by 79%.
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.

A study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an environment notable for congregate living quarters and close working environments, found that use of face coverings on-board was associated with a 70% reduced risk.

Investigations involving infected passengers aboard flights longer than 10 hours strongly suggest that masking prevented in-flight transmissions, as demonstrated by the absence of infection developing in other passengers and crew in the 14 days following exposure.

At least ten studies have confirmed the benefit of universal masking in community level analyses: in a unified hospital system, a German city, two U.S. states, a panel of 15 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., as well as both Canada and the U.S. nationally. Each analysis demonstrated that, following directives from organizational and political leadership for universal masking, new infections fell significantly. Two of these studies and an additional analysis of data from 200 countries that included the U.S.51 also demonstrated reductions in mortality. Another 10-site study showed reductions in hospitalization growth rates following mask mandate implementation. A separate series of cross-sectional surveys in the U.S. suggested that a 10% increase in self-reported mask wearing tripled the likelihood of stopping community transmission.53 An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product".

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html

['97 Tercel]

Basically masks are like airport security...they do a little but are mostly there for optics.

[montado]

Everyone’s evidence that masks need to be worn points to studies where the control group has 1 percent more cases of covid? This is the best you guys got?

Everyone here loves masks because in Canada if we didn’t have mandatory masks, out of our 1.6 million cases we may have have prevented about 15k cases with masks. Such a small impact… probably less impact with delta because we know it’s more aerosolized.

You guys need to stop going by what “you feel” and start reading data. That’s great what “you believe” about masks, the science says masks are not very effective.

[montado]

An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product".

Sounds like a religious statement not a scientific statement. If people believe in masks we can keep the economy going! "

I don’t disagree with that, if you tell people they are safe to work if they wear a mask they might keep working. But “belief that you are safe” is not data. Also telling people if we don’t wear masks we will “have to lockdown”. We can “have to lockdown” for any reasons the government wants to say. Big daddy government decides.

You guys aren’t objective thinkers. You are believers. Religious thinkers. Here’s another one that will sound familiar to you, “if you murder you will have to go to hell”. Same as “if we don’t mask we will have to lockdown”

If your religion is mask wearing, that’s great for you, but religious thinking is not data driven it’s belief driven.

If people did any critical thinking and stopped politicizing covid policy, we could get beyond the smoke and mirrors and move on like Norway. Maybe you don’t need lockdowns or masks.

[photofly]

When you have three hundred people trying to exit a burning airliner, you need one critical thinker and two hundred and ninety nine people to shut up and do exactly as they’re told.

[dialdriver]

An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product".

Sounds like a religious statement not a scientific statement. If people believe in masks we can keep the economy going! "

I don’t disagree with that, if you tell people they are safe to work if they wear a mask they might keep working. But “belief that you are safe” is not data. Also telling people if we don’t wear masks we will “have to lockdown”. We can “have to lockdown” for any reasons the government wants to say. Big daddy government decides.

You guys aren’t objective thinkers. You are believers. Religious thinkers. Here’s another one that will sound familiar to you, “if you murder you will have to go to hell”. Same as “if we don’t mask we will have to lockdown”

If your religion is mask wearing, that’s great for you, but religious thinking is not data driven it’s belief driven.

If people did any critical thinking and stopped politicizing covid policy, we could get beyond the smoke and mirrors and move on like Norway. Maybe you don’t need lockdowns or masks.

I cited the source you referenced in your post. Now you are faulting it and expecting people to take you seriously.

[montado]

Dialdriver it’s clear masks are your religion. I can appreciate that and respect your religious beliefs. I’m happy to let you be. Just don’t try to force your religion on other people.

That quote has nothing to do with the efficacy of masks and everything to do with the perception of masks. I already claimed that since the beginning, that telling people to wear masks was a way to make people believe they are safer. This is not something I would argue different, I already accepted that’s a fact. But it has nothing to do with how effective masks are at preventing the spread of an aerosol spreading disease. Belief that masks stop covid means nothing. Factual evidence on efficacy is science, not people’s perceptions. Very little data to support cloth masks have and substantial impact on cases. It looks like this when you read the research in masks:

Cloth masks might actually be worse than no mask at all
Surgical masks very little efficacy with blocking aerosols.
N95 shows effective when used correctly, n95 should be the standard if we wanted to prevent covid spread with masks.
Respirator very effective at reducing transmission, not really a feasible solution for general public use everywhere.

This is not surprising is it? Anyone here wear company issued cloth masks . . At the very least use a disposable mask and change out every couple hours.