Masks Vs Covid

[WestCanMan]

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/2/22/23609499/masks-covid-coronavirus-cochrane-review-pandemic-science-studies-infection

Re: Cochrane:

Quote

It’s a good place to go if you’re wondering if antidepressants work, if blood pressure medications help, if therapy does anything, and lots more. Cochrane reviews are frequently called the “gold standard” for evidence-based medicine.

Alt-left Vox is saying this, not Fox. 

Quote

Some observers have taken this as a final, authoritative conclusion on the matter, an opinion shared by the man behind the review. “There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop,” Tom Jefferson, the study’s lead author, said in an interview. Even fitted N95 masks in health care settings, the interviewer asked? “It makes no difference — none of it.”

 

IMO people who have to go out while they're sick should definitely wear masks, but the mask rules we had during covid were just silly. Especially when it came to kids. 

[CdnFox]

Honestly the article pretty much shoots down their work. From the article:

"First, the reasons I don’t totally buy the Cochrane review’s conclusions:

The review includes 78 studies. Only six were actually conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic, so the bulk of the evidence the Cochrane team took into account wasn’t able to tell us much about what was specifically happening during the worst pandemic in a century.

Instead, most of them looked at flu transmission in normal conditions, and many of them were about other interventions like hand-washing. Only two of the studies are about Covid and masking in particular.

Furthermore, neither of those studies looked directly at whether people wear masks, but instead at whether people were encouraged or told to wear masks by researchers. If telling people to wear masks doesn’t lead to reduced infections, it may be because masks just don’t work, or it could be because people don’t wear masks when they’re told, or aren’t wearing them correctly."

And that's the problem with any meta analysis.  If the studies are all good studies then you can tend to get some interesting new results and information, but if the studies are crap to begin with it's really hard to get anything useful.

 

The fact that the reports author doesn't think Covid originated in china doesn't help his credibility

[Boges]

I think people have thrown logic out the window in regards to masking. Or at least those who still choose to mask. 

In one breath we're being told COVID is constantly evolving and we need to keep getting Boosters to keep ahead of the curve with mutations. 

If that's the case we shouldn't fret being exposed to the virus. If we get it should be mild. 

There are people who are deathly afraid of being infected by COVID. It was serious when it was a Novel virus. 3 years in it's not terribly new to our immune systems anymore.

Unless you still spend all your time at home and only go out with an N95 mask. 

[TreeBeard]

44 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/2/22/23609499/masks-covid-coronavirus-cochrane-review-pandemic-science-studies-infection

Re: Cochrane:

Alt-left Vox is saying this, not Fox. 

 

IMO people who have to go out while they're sick should definitely wear masks, but the mask rules we had during covid were just silly. Especially when it came to kids. 

Here is what you said Feb 17:

 

What kind of dolt takes Vox seriously?

 

One week later, you’re a Vox guy because you happen to like what they say.  
 

Do you consider a statement to be true based on if you already agree with it?

 

 

 

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

 

1. The one that drives with the mask WHILE there is nobody beside them in the car. 

If anyone is kind enough to try to explain this to me, any kind of logic to support the above, I am willing to listen. 

Thanks. 

PS: I do wear the mask in public transit, especially now, down there is a warzone in my view. 

On my errands to town I usually had three - four stops at public places to make, post office, grocery store etc. the distance to town is 15 minutes but less than a minute between stops in town.

I'd put my mask in town and leave it on when driving between stops because the mask's straps always got tangled up with my hearing aids and glasses meaning talking it off and on was a hassle.  I had to spend a few minutes looking through the snow once for a hearing aid that flipped off when I took off a mask. 

If anyone laughed at me I found the best response was to just smile wave and say baaaaa!  Saying baaaaa in someone people's faces seems get up their noses even more effectively than flipping them the bird.

As for the effectiveness of masks and measures in general...I simply look at the levels of public disdain for measures and outcomes between the US and Canada where there was a clear unequivocal difference in attitudes towards the whole thing.  It seems patently obvious that a lot more Canadians were willing to smile and say baaaaa than Americans and they paid a greater price in terms of deaths and hospitalizations full stop.

Outcomes stemming from measures and attitudes were very predictable due to data from the Spanish Flu on these twinned issues and were why I said early in March 2020 that the US would fare much worse and I was right. Full stop.  Betsey remembers that, ask her  

Edited February 24, 2023 by eyeball

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Checkmate?!

No.   Genuine question. I am curious how one’s brain goes from “anything they say should be immediately disregarded” to “they speak the truth”.  

[TreeBeard]

Of course, the poster stopped reading the Vox article once it said what he liked….   
 

@WestCanMan didn’t quote the next part. 

 

I think Jefferson — an Oxford University epidemiologist who has a number of eccentric and flatly nonsensical opinions about Covid-19, including that it didn’t originate in China and may have been circulating in Europe for years before its global emergence — is overstating his case. There is something we can learn from the Cochrane paper, but it’s as much about the process of science as it is about the effectiveness of masks.

First, the reasons I don’t totally buy the Cochrane review’s conclusions: 

The review includes 78 studies. Only six were actually conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic, so the bulk of the evidence the Cochrane team took into account wasn’t able to tell us much about what was specifically happening during the worst pandemic in a century. 

Instead, most of them looked at flu transmission in normal conditions, and many of them were about other interventions like hand-washing. Only two of the studies are about Covid and masking in particular.

[WestCanMan]

21 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Here is what you said Feb 17:

What kind of dolt takes Vox seriously?

One week later, you’re a Vox guy because you happen to like what they say.  

Do you consider a statement to be true based on if you already agree with it?

I didn't get my info from Vox, I got this link to Vox for the leftards who like to dismiss inconvenient facts out of hand. 

[TreeBeard]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

I didn't get my info from Vox, I got this link to Vox for the leftards who like to dismiss inconvenient facts out of hand. 

The Vox article goes on to say why there are issues with that study.   That particular study looks to be faulty, and other studies point to the opposite conclusion.  Do you just choose the one that you like? 

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The Vox article goes on to say why there are issues with that study.   That particular study looks to be faulty, and other studies point to the opposite conclusion.  Do you just choose the one that you like? 

Don't forget you're talking to the guy who says Health Canada is lying in the same breath he says look at their data.

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Of course, the poster stopped reading the Vox article once it said what he liked….   
 

@WestCanMan didn’t quote the next part. 

 

I think Jefferson — an Oxford University epidemiologist who has a number of eccentric and flatly nonsensical opinions about Covid-19, including that it didn’t originate in China and may have been circulating in Europe for years before its global emergence — is overstating his case. There is something we can learn from the Cochrane paper, but it’s as much about the process of science as it is about the effectiveness of masks.

First, the reasons I don’t totally buy the Cochrane review’s conclusions: 

The review includes 78 studies. Only six were actually conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic, so the bulk of the evidence the Cochrane team took into account wasn’t able to tell us much about what was specifically happening during the worst pandemic in a century. 

Instead, most of them looked at flu transmission in normal conditions, and many of them were about other interventions like hand-washing. Only two of the studies are about Covid and masking in particular.

FYI:

Quote

Kelsey Piper is a senior writer at Future Perfect, Vox’s effective altruism-inspired section on the world’s biggest challenges. She explores wide-ranging topics like climate change, artificial intelligence, vaccine development, and factory farms, and also writes the Future Perfect newsletter.

The author you're quoting has no medical credentials to speak of, yet you're just writing her opinions down as if they carry weight - they don't. 

When a layman writes something like this about a Harvard-educated epidemiologist, you have to take it with a grain of salt:

Quote

an Oxford University epidemiologist who has a number of eccentric and flatly nonsensical opinions about Covid-19

But how do you take it with a grain of salt when it's just her opinion? She has no stats or anything there. 

I don't really care what she thinks about Jefferson, Cochrane in general, or anything else for that matter.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

think people have thrown logic out the window in regards to

Why would one need logic here (reason, common sense too)? When was the last time we used them here? All hail the brave new wisdom!

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

One week later, you’re a Vox guy because you happen to like what they say.  
 

Do you consider a statement to be true based on if you already agree with it?

Excuse you.  The MSM is all fake news until it says something I want to hear.  Then, it's reliable, but only for this.  

[TreeBeard]

20 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

FYI:

The author you're quoting has no medical credentials to speak of, yet you're just writing her opinions down as if they carry weight - they don't. 

When a layman writes something like this about a Harvard-educated epidemiologist, you have to take it with a grain of salt:

But how do you take it with a grain of salt when it's just her opinion? She has no stats or anything there. 

I don't really care what she thinks about Jefferson, Cochrane in general, or anything else for that matter.

You’re confused.  I’m not the one who linked the article and touted what it was saying.  You read 4 lines and decided you agreed with it.   Next time, read the article before you post it. 

[WestCanMan]

26 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The Vox article goes on to say why there are issues with that study.  

The Vox author goes on to.... give the unqualified opinion of a person whose main qualification is her leftist opinion.

Quote

That particular study looks to be faulty,

Au contraire, mon frere, that study does not appear to be faulty. It was done by a team of epidemiologists from Cochrane, and the only critique of it that you provided is the unsubstantiated opinion of a single journalist.  

Quote

and other studies point to the opposite conclusion.  

Cite required.

Quote

The review includes 78 studies. Only six were actually conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic, so the bulk of the evidence the Cochrane team took into account wasn’t able to tell us much about what was specifically happening during the worst pandemic in a century. 

FYI that part was just stupid. The fact that there are 72 other studies included doesn't minimize the reliability of the study in any way, nor does it prove that it didn't really have much to do with covid. 6 of those studies had everything to do with covid. 

What reason did she have for saying those 6 studies were insignificant? 

None. Again, it was not a thing more than just her own unqualified, unsubstantiated opinion. 

Quote

Do you just choose the one that you like? 

I chose to provide a link to information about masking during covid. 

IMO most almost all covid rules were arbitrary and stupid, like for example preventing healthy citizens of this country from walking outside in BC's provincial parks, just a week after people were allowed to fly in from Wuhan and go anywhere in any public building they wanted. 

If you'd like to post some research that showed masking was effective, why don't you do that? 

[WestCanMan]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You’re confused.  I’m not the one who linked the article and touted what it was saying.  You read 4 lines and decided you agreed with it.   Next time, read the article before you post it. 

I did read the article. 

FYI the article contained more than enough information for you to file it away in your head as pertinent information. 

The fact that the unqualified author opined a bit doesn't change anything. 

Instead of whining about the fact that the article is here, maybe you should think about why you're taking the unsubstantiated opinions of a completely unqualified 'journalist' over the weight of an entire team of epidemiologists from one of the pre-eminent research groups on earth. 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

If you'd like to post some research that showed masking was effective, why don't you do that? 

The other research linked in the Vox article that you didn’t read might be a good place for you to start.  

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The other research linked in the Vox article that you didn’t read might be a good place for you to start.  

You're the one who said "That particular study looks to be faulty" without substantiating your claim. The onus is on you to post some cites that arrive at your chosen conclusion. 

[Goddess]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The fact that the unqualified author opined a bit doesn't change anything. 

There are a lot of people out there who have been psychologically traumatized by 3 years of fear-mongering and I think they likely will never be normal again.  They can't let go of masking, they want more lockdowns no matter the continued economic devastation, they want more restrictions, they want more censorship, they don't think the government went far enough in coercing people - losing jobs and careers wasn't enough for them.  I've asked here many times - what more do they want - and gotten no reply.  I think they don't want to speak the words out loud, but I believe they want jailings, detention camps and possible firing squads, since they equate not masking to murder.

There was only one study on masking during covid put out by the CDC, in response to them not doing any studies, so they hurriedly put one together in Kentucky. Of course, showing masks stopped the spread.  That study was widely debunked almost the second it came out and no one even cites it anymore.

For people who have been psychologically damaged by the extreme fear pumped out relentlessly for years - there is no science, no studies, no data that will convince them that masks are useless, the lockdowns damaged society and the economy and stopped nothing, the restrictions were bizarre and non-sensical......like I say - there are some people who will never be normal mentally again.  And you're trying to convince them.  You can't.  They're mentally damaged.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Goddess

[Infidel Dog]

Not a fan of Vox. But I'll read it.

So I read...and then he mentioned the Bangladesh study. I'm familiar with that study. The guy is a lot more confident in that one than I am.

It does have the fact that it was performed during covid. Then what? As I recall the people administering the study were involved in some sort of connected but not medical program. I got the impression they were activists. The vox guy's big point against the 6 other studies done during covid from the meta study was you couldn't trust that people wore the masks. But he trusts Bangladeshi villagers to always tell the truth? Why? When I read about that one it smelled like there was a lot of confirmation bias behind it.

Also even if you're determined to throw yourself at the feet of the Bangladeshi study and grasp its ankles as the final word it's still 6 to 1. Well maybe 6 to 2. I don't know the other one he mentions but from the description the critique would be the same. They also couldn't be sure how much mask use was actually in play.

And why are we being asked to dismiss the many other studies done on flus? Because they're not covid? OK, but why? What's so different about Covid that it makes mask studies on flu irrelevant? The Cochrane review doesn't think they're irrelevant. Why is this guy trying to pass himself off as the superior authority without giving us clear and full reasoning as to why he's so sure flu studies on masks don't tell us anything about masks on Covid.

Masks don't work. The bulk of current science supports that. And you look stupid if you wear one. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Infidel Dog

[Goddess]

13 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

recognizing that personal tragedies can shape someone's view and ideology

That's exactly what I just said there.  What's gone on with this psy-ops has been a tragedy and some people will never be normal again.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

The key is to let impartial people to decide.

Yes.  That's why I don't trust much that comes from Big Pharma and the alphabet entities or the government, who relies on them as "experts".  Too much money and power grabbing involved.

I trust the experts - who were considered experts and at the tops of their fields BEFORE covid - who are impartial.  They aren't bought off by Pfizer, they have no horse in the race, many have risked their careers to be impartial AND they are the ones who have been on the frontlines during the whole time there were no jabs.  They know what is going on.  They've seen it all first-hand.  They are not bureaucrats who hired PR teams to "sell" the public on how great it is to be a lab rat for experimental jabs, rushed to market, that by-passed all the safety processes.

[OftenWrong]

I knew right from the get go that mandatory masking in the public was a mistake. Not because I'm Albert Einstein I assure you, but because of my experience at work. The truth is that you need to wear a well-sealed mask on your face, clean shaven, and one with enough quality to filter out the pathogens you are trying to avoid. Viruses are very very small and they pass easily through most filter materials.

That's why they have to press so tightly against your face, to make a good seal. But the thing is, these are meant to be worn during certain specific procedures where you may be at, not for all day long general use. They simply hurt too much for that application. Especially every day, day in day out as I'm sure many of you noticed.

So the natural thing to do is wear one that's more comfortable. Next thing you're told any face covering will do. But it defeats the purpose, that's the stupidity of it.

Even worse if it makes people think they are protected by their masks, when they actually aren't.

And like I said before to the fear mongerers among us, the most elitist and unaffected by the shut down since their already sitting at home and like it. So go wear your friggin masks, then! ?

Just don't bug me

Edited February 25, 2023 by OftenWrong
added bolding

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I knew right from the get go that mandatory masking in the public was a mistake. Not because I'm Albert Einstein I assure you, but because of my experience at work. The truth is that you need to wear a well-sealed mask on your face, clean shaven, and one with enough quality to filter out the pathogens you are trying to avoid. Viruses are very very small and they pass easily through most filter materials.

This has the ring of truth, athough i did see one study specifically addressing first generation covid and masks. It indicated that specifically in small enclosed poorly ventilated areas (inside someone's office for example) masks could be useful extending the amount of time you need to be exposed before you catch it.

In other words, if it took 15 mins of exposure without a mask it might take a half hour with one. You would still get it if you stayed long enough.

But the masks were useless outdoors, in well ventilated areas like larger high ceiling grocery stores etc. AND- that was original covid, not delta or later which was much more contagious. And it didn't address contact transmission.

So - USELESS? Probably not useless.  But - so CLOSE to useless that it only would be helpful in very very select circumstances  and not worth making mandatory at all.

[OftenWrong]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This has the ring of truth, athough i did see one study specifically addressing first generation covid and masks. It indicated that specifically in small enclosed poorly ventilated areas (inside someone's office for example) masks could be useful extending the amount of time you need to be exposed before you catch it.

In other words, if it took 15 mins of exposure without a mask it might take a half hour with one. You would still get it if you stayed long enough.

But the masks were useless outdoors, in well ventilated areas like larger high ceiling grocery stores etc. AND- that was original covid, not delta or later which was much more contagious. And it didn't address contact transmission.

So - USELESS? Probably not useless.  But - so CLOSE to useless that it only would be helpful in very very select circumstances  and not worth making mandatory at all.

Who are you talking to? Because I wasn't talking to you, do you remember that part?

So what... you're talking to me now?