Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Controlled study from Denmark; masks don’t work
NorthwestFresh
Member Posts: 7,972
in Tug Tavern
No statistically significant benefit to wearing them.
Comments
-
The only way the masks work is if the chicom crud carrier is coughing or sneezing in public. The actual droplets containing the virus will largely remain contained. But the aerosol virus will still be emitted into the space. A properly fitted and clean N95 mask will provide some protection for the user. But you don't see many N95 masks and they aren't mandated because they are expensive and need to be replaced or cleaned daily and there are billions of these things available. So like in March when Fow Chee said masks don't work he now says he was lying because he wanted the mask available for health workers. That's still true today. If masks worked then we would have any more chicom crud.
You would have better protection if the governors were promoting Vitamin D and zinc. But better protection isn't the priority. -
This can't be true, didn't the head of the CDC tell us that masks are more effective than even vaccines?NorthwestFresh said:No statistically significant benefit to wearing them.
-
Put on your Mask, Shut up and get in Line!
-
He did. But then he didn't. But then he did again.SFGbob said:
This can't be true, didn't the head of the CDC tell us that masks are more effective than even vaccines?NorthwestFresh said:No statistically significant benefit to wearing them.
Fow Flip Flop Chee
-
Listen to the scientists.PurpleThrobber said:
He did. But then he didn't. But then he did again.SFGbob said:
This can't be true, didn't the head of the CDC tell us that masks are more effective than even vaccines?NorthwestFresh said:No statistically significant benefit to wearing them.
Fow Flip Flop Chee -
Limitation:
Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.
Conclusion:
The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.
Takeaway seems to be that wearing a mask in an environment where other people are not wearing masks only gives you a statistically insignificant reduction in transmission risk. I think that more or less gels with the conventional wisdom circulating - wearing a mask doesn't do much to protect yourself, but they are a lot more effective in preventing you from spreading the disease to someone else. Obviously the study didn't explore the latter. -
SSSSSSSSCCCCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
-
It's ironic in a Alanis Morissette sort of way that people here on the Tug have a better grasp of the chicom crud than blue state governors and there supposed health advisors. Giving them the benefit of the doubt only means that they are fascists. I generally think both are true, ignorant and fascist. It's like having the dazzler run your state and country.
-
South Dakota beckons. Don't hesitate.WestlinnDuck said:It's ironic in a Alanis Morissette sort of way that people here on the Tug have a better grasp of the chicom crud than blue state governors and there supposed health advisors. Giving them the benefit of the doubt only means that they are fascists. I generally think both are true, ignorant and fascist. It's like having the dazzler run your state and country.
-
He claimed he was eating. H believed himHoustonHusky said:SSSSSSSSCCCCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
