Studies showing mask wearing has negative health affects.

[Gary K]

I was responding to Clete.

Oh, I see. So now you're complaining to Clete that I used balanced sources. Your complaint seems rather vapid. You listed 3 or 4 studies/reports that were negative about masks and left the rest alone. Why? Because they didn't agree with you. And then you use one report that refers to some poorly designed studies as if it is referring to all the studies I gave links to that report negatively on masks.

You actually engaged in what you were accusing Clete of doing. Cherry picking rather than looking at the studies over all. Typical of you, anna.

 

[annabenedetti]

Oh, I see. So now you're complaining to Clete that I used balanced sources. Your complaint seems rather vapid. You listed 3 or 4 studies/reports that were negative about masks and left the rest alone. Why? Because they didn't agree with you. And then you use one report that refers to some poorly designed studies as if it is referring to all the studies I gave links to that report negatively on masks.

You actually engaged in what you were accusing Clete of doing. Cherry picking rather than looking at the studies over all. Typical of you, anna.

No, you don’t “see,” as usual you write your own reality. I didn’t accuse Clete of cherry-picking. I responded to the links Clete chose. You have a problem with his choices, take it up with him.

 

[chair]

Do you consider it to be your life's mission to confront ffreeloader and others like him who are disseminating facts with which you disagree?

I consider accuracy important, especially when it relates to public health. Most of this aren't things that I just "disagree with"- they are plain wrong. The PEG example was the most blatant- so I won't let it go. It helps that I'm a chemist by training.

Is this my life's mission- of course not!

Is your life mission to insult people who you disagree with?

 

[ok doser]

... I won't let it go.

Are you on the spectrum?

 

[Clete]

pick and choose what part you report?

LIAR!

You are a liar!

What kind of stupid idiot fool are you? The links are RIGHT THERE!!!! Anyone in the entire world who reads either my post or the opening post can click on the link and read them for themselves! Something which you clearly don't have the brains enough to do!

Not only that but all of them come to conclusions that are not only reasonable in and of themselves but which are entirely consistent with the conclusions come to by all the others. If the phrase "scientific consensus" means anything at all then it aught to mean that when different people do different science to answer different but related questions, the answers are consistent with each other within whatever context they are related.

What more do you want anyway? Before the covid, EVERYONE knew that masks didn't help prevent the spread of infectious respiratory diseases. Even the lauded Dr. Fauci said so when this thing first hit and there was no science done to cause him to change his mind. He went from saying one thing one day and then a week later he flipped.

 

[Clete]

Your first choice was published April 2015, the study was conducted in 2011. There's no "no mask" control, so no way to gauge if a cloth mask was better than no mask at all.

They already know the infection rates without masks. It's called the general population.

Your second and third choices have right at the top: This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

That does NOT nullify the results and it is a blanket statement put at the top of any publication citing such studies in the last several months because people who are completely ignorant of how science works will read that and blow off everything below it as some sort of lie or something.

Further, those studies were more or less surveys of previous studies that had already been done. In other words, the peer review process would be redundant, a point you wouldn't know because you put more stock in the politically motivated disclaimer that someone other than the author put at the top of the article than you do in the substance of the article.

Further still, all of the conclusions that these studies come to are entirely reasonable and consistent with each other even though they were not done by the same people.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint

In the Conclusion of the third choice:

CONCLUSIONS Most included trials had poor design, reporting and sparse events. There was insufficient evidence to provide a recommendation on the use of facial barriers without other measures. We found insufficient evidence for a difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators and limited evidence to support effectiveness of quarantine. Based on observational evidence from the previous SARS epidemic included in the previous version of our Cochrane review we recommend the use of masks combined with other measures.​

Your political bias kept you from seeing the point! I very nearly quoted that whole paragraph but didn't for fear of people making the exact same error you just did.

The point being that the covid overlords claim that mask mandates are based on science but the study you just quoted to refute me states as plain as day that the data it looked at was insufficient to make any such claim.

In the Discussion of the second choice:

Facemasks appear be most effective when worn to prevent primary respiratory illness in relatively low risk situations: community settings where contact may be casual and relatively brief, such as on public transport, in shops, in workplaces and perhaps in university residences or schools with limited shared public spaces. Facemask wearing is probably not protective during mass gatherings, but evidence on use during mass gatherings is inconsistent. All studies focussed on Hajj pilgrimage which may not be a typical mass gathering event (especially large and prolonged). Facemask wearing within households where infection was already present was modestly effective in the included studies, and this evidence was fairly consistent (low-medium heterogeneity, I from 0% to 45%). Limited effectiveness of primary prevention at Hajj or secondary prevention within households may be because of the multiplicity of transmission pathways within these settings and high level of recurring contact. It may also be due to the late use of facemasks, usually > 24 hours after a household or group member became symptomatic which could be 48 hours after they became infectious (Centers for Disease Control, 2018).​

​

That facemasks might protect wearers has been cast in doubt during the COVID-19 outbreak (eg., Abramson, 2020; Geggel, 2020; Harris, 2020), often supported by the observation that surgical facemasks were designed (originally) to protect patients from the wearers, and that facemasks soon become very moist with condensation from wearer’s breath (facilitating microbial ingress and growth). Nevertheless, worn correctly for brief periods, wearing surgical masks have been shown to provide an average 6-fold reduction in exposure to aerosolized influenza virus (Booth et al., 2013), so it is unsurprising that facemask wearing was linked to fewer cases in our synthesis, especially primary observational studies in community settings.​

Umm, yeah. Same point as above.

Also, no one wears surgical masks as descibed here and most people wear cloth masks which not only don't help prevent the spead of aerosolized influenza virus but actually contribute to the spread of infectious diseases, especially bacteria based illnesses because they get warn or too long and don't get cleaned nearly often enough and they cause you to figit with your face, etc, etc, etc.

Your fourth choice:

At the top:

Editor’s Note: This article was published on April 1, 2020, at NEJM.org. In a letter to the editor on June 3, 2020, the authors of this article state “We strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.”​

Who cares what they support? It's a scientific study. The point is to go with the science right?

Fifth choice:

Is a "perspective" article, not a study, references health care workers in a clinical setting, not the general public, and notes:

"Masking all providers might limit transmission from these sources by stopping asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers from spreading virus-laden oral and nasal droplets.​

​

What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures."​

Once again - same point as I made above. You're arguing against yourself.

Your sixth choice:

Doesn't advocate against mask use or challenge their efficacy, it addresses common adverse effects on medical personnel having to wear them for the extraordinary amount of time they've had to during Covid. Many of us have seen photos of exhausted medical personnel with bruised and broken skin from extended mask use and the ways they've tried to innovate to protect their skin. This study of adverse effects in no way supports the OP's intent to discourage mask use.

Limitations​

While this survey captured the experiences of many health care professionals working on the front lines during COVID-19, there are some limitations to this study. First, preexisting conditions such as high BMI, asthma, and other conditions were not assessed in this survey, and these could be impacting or increasing the adverse effects addressed in this survey. Second, issues such as stress level and quality sleep were also not included in this survey, and these important factors could also attribute to adverse effects in the survey respondents.​

Conclusion​

This study identified various adverse effects of prolonged mask use experienced by healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. While healthcare professionals and the world at large wish this pandemic to end, and never return, various recommendations are presented for future prevention and management of these adverse effects.​

And still once more - you are arguing against your own position!

 

[ok doser]

Your first choice ... no way to gauge if a cloth mask was better than no mask at all.

:think:

Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97%

 

[annabenedetti]

They already know the infection rates without masks. It's called the general population.

Nope. No, "they" don't. Who's "they," Clete? The study was comparing the efficacy of cloth masks and medical masks used by healthcare workers in hospitals in Vietnam. The control group is clearly stated:

Intervention​

Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing).​

I myself choose to use a medical mask, because I'm able to afford to buy a box of medical masks and discard them. Many people here and around the world do not have that ability or perhaps they may prefer cloth. Even among cloth masks there's variability - between materials, number of layers, whether there's filter material in the layers, how they're sanitized, etc. But for those who wear cloth masks:

Conclusions​

This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.​

​

Most likely we all agree our medical professionals should be wearing medical masks or better. Unfortunately many of them were forced to use even medical grade protection in ways they weren't intended - repeated uses when they were supposed to have been discarded between patients or between shifts. But what exactly is the intent of the OP? Drop a pile of links purporting that wearing masks is bad for you? Compared to what, exactly? Do medical professionals endure the bruises and broken skin in order to better protect themselves against infection? If the OP was making an honest plea for people to choose medical masks over cloth masks, I could understand that. It's pretty clear medical masks are better. But do cloth masks help at all, even a little, if nothing else as a reminder not to touch one's face when running to the store in suburban U.S.? If you live in rural Vietnam, perhaps better guidelines on how to wear cloth masks when medical grade masks aren't even an option?

Anti-maskers simply don't want to wear a mask, and they don't want you to wear a mask.

That does NOT nullify the results and it is a blanket statement put at the top of any publication citing such studies in the last several months because people who are completely ignorant of how science works will read that and blow off everything below it as some sort of lie or something.

Strawman. I didn't say it nullified the results. It informs (or should) how you take in the information.

Further, those studies were more or less surveys of previous studies that had already been done. In other words, the peer review process would be redundant, a point you wouldn't know because you put more stock in the politically motivated disclaimer that someone other than the author put at the top of the article than you do in the substance of the article.

More? Or Less? Meta-research needs peer-review also. The rest of your personal blather I'll leave unanswered.

Further still, all of the conclusions that these studies come to are entirely reasonable and consistent with each other even though they were not done by the same people.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint

Your political bias kept you from seeing the point! I very nearly quoted that whole paragraph but didn't for fear of people making the exact same error you just did.

The point being that the covid overlords claim that mask mandates are based on science but the study you just quoted to refute me states as plain as day that the data it looked at was insufficient to make any such claim.

Umm, yeah. Same point as above.

Also, no one wears surgical masks as descibed here and most people wear cloth masks which not only don't help prevent the spead of aerosolized influenza virus but actually contribute to the spread of infectious diseases, especially bacteria based illnesses because they get warn or too long and don't get cleaned nearly often enough and they cause you to figit with your face, etc, etc, etc.

Who cares what they support? It's a scientific study. The point is to go with the science right?

Once again - same point as I made above. You're arguing against yourself.

And still once more - you are arguing against your own position!

"Covid overlords"

Okaaaay....

 

[Clete]

Nope. No, "they" don't. Who's "they," Clete? The study was comparing the efficacy of cloth masks and medical masks used by healthcare workers in hospitals in Vietnam. The control group is clearly stated:

Intervention​

Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing).​

I myself choose to use a medical mask, because I'm able to afford to buy a box of medical masks and discard them. Many people here and around the world do not have that ability or perhaps they may prefer cloth. Even among cloth masks there's variability - between materials, number of layers, whether there's filter material in the layers, how they're sanitized, etc. But for those who wear cloth masks:

Conclusions​

This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.​

​

Most likely we all agree our medical professionals should be wearing medical masks or better. Unfortunately many of them were forced to use even medical grade protection in ways they weren't intended - repeated uses when they were supposed to have been discarded between patients or between shifts. But what exactly is the intent of the OP? Drop a pile of links purporting that wearing masks is bad for you? Compared to what, exactly? Do medical professionals endure the bruises and broken skin in order to better protect themselves against infection? If the OP was making an honest plea for people to choose medical masks over cloth masks, I could understand that. It's pretty clear medical masks are better. But do cloth masks help at all, even a little, if nothing else as a reminder not to touch one's face when running to the store in suburban U.S.? If you live in rural Vietnam, perhaps better guidelines on how to wear cloth masks when medical grade masks aren't even an option?

Anti-maskers simply don't want to wear a mask, and they don't want you to wear a mask.


"Covid overlords"

Okaaaay....

You seem intent on missing the point. That figures since you're not interested in having the government make public health policy decision based on actual science.

The opening segment of last night's Greg Kelly program is the most reasonable position that I've heard anyone take on the subject of mask wearing. It's full of actual facts so I'm sure it won't move you an inch...

Greg Kelly Reports (2/5/21)

Steve Cortes in for Greg, discussing politics and news of the day

www.newsmaxtv.com

\

Denmark study...

ACP Journals

"A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%)."

The difference in infection rate between the the test group and the control group was statistically insignificant but because of other limitations in the study the results are inconclusive. In short, this study is completely consistent with all the other things that have been cited on this thread already. There just simply isn't any science that presents anywhere near what could be considered sufficient evidence to support mandating masks of any kind much less cloth masks! It's all a bunch of reactionary hokum that does nothing at all but erode the freedoms this country was founded to provide and protect, which is, of course, the mandate's actual purpose.

Clete

 

[annabenedetti]

Way to sidestep. The control was not the general population. At least you could admit that much.

 

[Clete]

Way to sidestep. The control was not the general population. At least you could admit that much.

I didn't side step it, I intentionally ignored it because you are wanting to change the subject and I'm smarter than that.

 

[annabenedetti]

I didn't side step it, I intentionally ignored it because you are wanting to change the subject and I'm smarter than that.

You sidestepped it because you were wrong.

 

[Clete]

You sidestepped it because you were wrong.

You're a liar. Good bye.

 

[way 2 go]

Your first choice was published April 2015, the study was conducted in 2011. There's no "no mask" control, so no way to gauge if a cloth mask was better than no mask at all.

 

[Gary K]

You sidestepped it because you were wrong.

Ah, so you're finally admitting why you sidestep, obfuscate, and ignore posts for which you have no answer. You have a long history of so doing.

 

[annabenedetti]

Ah, so you're finally admitting why you sidestep, obfuscate, and ignore posts for which you have no answer. You have a long history of so doing.

Oh, grow up, ffreeloader, you're so immature for an older guy. I told Clete he was wrong, he called me a liar, big deal, it's classic Clete - and then you jump in waving flags and blowing kazoos. Get over your pompous self. Good lord...

 

[annabenedetti]

View attachment 421

He's the source for his data? Who is he? Just curious.

 

[way 2 go]

He's the source for his data? Who is he? Just curious.

no , he aggregates the data from the net , do you believe his data is incorrect ?

Hospitalized per Million over Time

The COVID Tracking Project collects and publishes the most complete testing data available for US states and territories.

covidtracking.com

in September Florida opened up with no restrictions .

 

[annabenedetti]

no , he aggregates the data from the net , do you believe his data is incorrect ?

I don't know. Not saying it is or isn't, I just saw the graph for the first time. Looked at the sourcing, saw it was his graph. Looked at his profile, there's no info as to who he is, what kind of expertise he has, etc. So I don't know if all the data going in is accurate, or if it's been accurately interpreted. Elsewhere, some stats at different points have shown California looks better, some stats show Florida looking better, there are a lot of (sometimes shifting) variables.

 

[Clete]

I don't know. Not saying it is or isn't, I just saw the graph for the first time. Looked at the sourcing, saw it was his graph. Looked at his profile, there's no info as to who he is, what kind of expertise he has, etc. So I don't know if all the data going in is accurate, or if it's been accurately interpreted. Elsewhere, some stats at different points have shown California looks better, some stats show Florida looking better, there are a lot of (sometimes shifting) variables.

Why don't you go see if you can find a study that masks and/or lock downs make a statistically significant improvement in infection rates, hospitalizations or deaths?

Go on! Live up to your own standard! I DARE YOU!

You won't do it because it can't be done because there is no such study.