[ingliz]

there's evidence that masks may even increase the spread of the virus

Researchers* have found that weekly increases in per-capita mortality were four times lower in places where masks were the norm or recommended by the government, compared with other regions where they were not.

* C T Leffler et al. (2020) Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks

[SpecialOlympian]

Lmao @ Maz being shocked that a doctor goes on TV and advises people to do basic, proven medical stuff. Christ, anti-vaxxers are fucking stupid.

The real argument against mask mandates is that the evidence for masks significantly reducing transmission is weak, there's evidence that masks may even increase the spread of the virus, and that masks have serious side-effects like causing bacterial infections from inhaling microbes that get caught in the fabric. There's also the very legitimate concern that these kinds of mandates set dangerous precedents that will later be used as justification for imposing much more draconian public health interventions. People are also refusing to wear masks because they view wearing masks as a tacit endorsement of all the hype, disinformation and fearmongering coming out of the public health establishment and media to sell the public on lockdowns, mass surveillance and tracking, forced vaccination, and other Orwellian policies of the biosecurity-industrial-complex.

FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTT

[Sivad]

An overview of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks.

1. Studies on the effectiveness of face masks

So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.

A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source)

A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medince found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)

A Covid-19 cross-country study by the University of East Anglia found that a mask requirement was of no benefit and could even increase the risk of infection. (Source)

An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). (Source)

An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that cloth face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. (Source)

An April 2020 Cochrane review (preprint) found that face masks didn’t reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. (Source)

An April 2020 review by the Norwich School of Medicine (preprint) found that “the evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks”, but supports the use of masks by “particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.” (Source)
A July 2020 study by Japanese researchers found that cloth masks “offer zero protection against coronavirus” due to their large pore size and generally poor fit. (Source)

A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)

An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. (Source)
Additional aspects

There is increasing evidence that the SARS-2 coronavirus is transmitted, at least in indoor settings, not only by droplets but also by smaller aerosols. However, due to their large pore size and poor fit, cloth masks cannot filter out aerosols (see video analysis below): over 90% of aerosols penetrate or bypass the mask and fill a medium-sized room within minutes.

The WHO admitted to the BBC that its June 2020 mask policy update was due not to new evidence but “political lobbying”: “We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny.” (D. Cohen, BBC Medical Corresponent).

An analysis by the US CDC found that 85% of people infected with the new coronavirus reported wearing a mask “always” (70.6%) or “often” (14.4%). Compared to the control group of uninfected people, always wearing a mask did not reduce the risk of infection.
Japan, despite its widespread use of face masks, experienced its most recent influenza epidemic with more than 5 million people falling ill just one year ago, in January and February 2019. However, unlike SARS-CoV-2, the influenza virus is easily transmitted by children, too.

Many states that introduced mandatory face masks on public transport and in shops in spring, such as Hawaii, California, Argentina, Spain, France, Japan and Israel, saw a strong increase in infections from July onwards, indicating a low effectiveness of mask policies. (More examples)

Austrian scientists found that the introduction, retraction and re-introduction of a face mask mandate in Austria had no influence on the coronavirus infection rate.

In the US state of Kansas, the 90 counties without mask mandates had lower coronavirus infection rates than the 15 counties with mask mandates. To hide this fact, the Kansas health department tried to manipulate the official statistics and data presentation.
Contrary to common belief, studies in hospitals found that the wearing of a medical mask by surgeons during operations didn’t reduce post-operative bacterial wound infections in patients.

During the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic, the use of cloth face masks among the general population was widespread and in some places mandatory, but they made no difference.

Asian countries with low covid infection and death rates benefited not from face masks but mainly from early border closures. This is confirmed by Scandinavian countries like Norway, Finland and Denmark, which didn’t introduce mask mandates but closed borders early and saw very low covid infection and death rates, too.




2. Studies claiming face masks are effective

Some recent studies argued that cloth face masks are indeed effective against the new coronavirus and could at least prevent the infection of other people. However, most of these studies suffer from poor methodology and sometimes show the opposite of what they claim.

Typically, these studies ignore the effect of other measures, the natural development of infection numbers, changes in test activity, or they compare countries with very different conditions.

An overview:

A meta-study in the journal Lancet, commissioned by the WHO, claimed that masks “could” lead to a reduction in the risk of infection, but the studies considered mainly N95 respirators in a hospital setting, not cloth masks in a community setting, the strength of the evidence was reported as “low”, and experts found numerous flaws in the study. Professor Peter Jueni, epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, called the WHO study “essentially useless”.

A study in the journal PNAS claimed that masks had led to a decrease in infections in three global hotspots (including New York City), but the study did not take into account the natural decrease in infections and other simultaneous measures. The study was so flawed that over 40 scientists recommended that the study be withdrawn.

A German study claimed that the introduction of mandatory face masks in German cities had led to a decrease in infections. But the data does not support this claim: in some cities there was no change, in others a decrease, in others an increase in infections (see graph below). The city of Jena was an ‘exception’ only because it simultaneously introduced the strictest quarantine rules in Germany, but the study did not mention this.

A US study claimed that mandatory masks had led to a decrease in infections in 15 states, but the study did not take into account that the infection rate was already declining in most states at that time, and a comparison with other states was not made. After the study was published, infections began to increase in states with mask mandates (e.g. in California, Florida and Hawaii).

A Canadian study claimed that countries with mandatory masks had fewer deaths than countries without mandatory masks. But the study compared African, Latin American, Asian and Eastern European countries with very different infection rates and population structures.

A small review by the University of Oxford claimed that face masks are effective, but it was based on studies about SARS-1 and in health care settings, not in community settings.

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

[ingliz]

most studies

The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on.

[Sivad]

Anders Tegnell - On Masks - The evidence for the effect is very weak

Dr Tegnell is the state epidemiologist in Sweden

Carl Heneghan - On Masks

Carl Heneghan is a clinical epidemiologist with expertise in evidence-based medicine, research methods, and evidence synthesis.
He is Director of the NIHR SPCR Evidence Synthesis Working Group a collaboration of nine primary care departments across UK universities. He set up and directs the Oxford COVID Evidence Service, has over 400 peer-reviewed publications (current H Index 67); published 95 systematic reviews. He is Editor in Chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, and Editor of the Catalogue of Bias.

Director of CEBM & Programs in EBHC
Editor in Chief, BMJ EBM
NHS Urgent Care GP
NIHR Senior Investigator

Jaap van Dissel - On the basis of scientific knowledge there is no reason for mandatory face masks

Jaap van Dissel is a Dutch virologist and infectiologist.

Van Dissel is director of the Centrum Infectieziektebestrijding [nl] (CIb) of the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). He is also professor at the Leiden University with specialization Internal Medicine, in particular infectious diseases.


Oxford Epidemiologists - No Evidence that Coronavirus Masks Make Any Difference

Tom Jefferson is a British epidemiologist who works for the Cochrane Collaboration. Jefferson is an author and editor of the Cochrane Collaboration's acute respiratory infections group, as well as part of four other Cochrane groups. He is also a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, and an advisor to the Italian National Agency for Regional Health Services.

[SpecialOlympian]

Dr Tegnell is the state epidemiologist in Sweden

Lmao. Like, are you just pretending to be retarded or something or do you seriously know jack shit about anything besides what you see from people sharing Infowars level shit on Facebook? Sweden is not a model to be emulated, and you just quoted King Dunce of Dumbass Mountain.

From Science Magazine:

In the population as a whole, the impact of Sweden’s approach is unmistakable. More than 94,000 people have so far been diagnosed with COVID-19, and at least 5895 have died. The country has seen roughly 590 deaths per million—on par with 591 per million in the United States and 600 in Italy, but many times the 50 per million in Norway, 108 in Denmark, and 113 in Germany.

Another way to measure the pandemic’s impact is to look at “excess deaths,” the difference between the number of people who died this year and average deaths in earlier years. Those curves show Sweden did not suffer as many excess deaths as England and Wales—whose tolls were among Europe’s highest—but many more than Germany and its Nordic neighbors (see graphic, above). Immigrant communities were hit very hard. Between March and September, 111 people from Somalia and 247 from Syria died, compared with 5-year averages of 34 and 93, respectively.

[...]

Sweden’s light approach is more sustainable than the harsher methods used in other countries, Tegnell also argues. He regrets the death toll in nursing homes, he told Science, and says Sweden should have made it easier financially for caregivers to stay home. “It was a very bad situation for a month,” he says, “but after that it changed completely.” Once strong restrictions were in place, transmission in nursing homes “became lower than in the community.” Tegnell has also said he suspects the number of infections and deaths in other countries will eventually match Sweden’s. Einhorn finds this absurd: “If Norway ever catches up to Sweden in the proportion of people killed by COVID-19,” she says, “I’ll eat my hat.”

"We're just getting all the death out of the way early. Don't put off til tomorrow what you can do today," says giant fucking idiot.

Good job Googling up the first results from a search of "Idiots who agree with me." Truly inspiring posting on the level of "solar panels will lead to worldwide austerity." Good job, genius.

[Rancid]

Researchers* have found that weekly increases in per-capita mortality were four times lower in places where masks were the norm or recommended by the government, compared with other regions where they were not.

* C T Leffler et al. (2020) Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks

LIES!!!

STRAWMAN!!

Am I rite @Sivad?


The reality here is, that i don't really care all that much about the pro-anti-mask debate, but it is fun watching people go back and forth on it.

I'm guessing it's going to take years of research before the dust settles on this.

[Doug64]

The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on.

The debate trundles on because “the” evidence doesn’t support that face coverings are all that effective. As Sivad’s overview points out, there’s plenty of studies finding little to no evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks, and problems with studies that do. The problem with your “the” is that it makes it sound like all the evidence points one way when that very much isn’t the case—it’s as deceptive as the falsified presentation on the part of Kansas.

[Rancid]

The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on.

Yea, but we should temper that and say that it's ok for there to be debate on this. As I said before, the only way the science gets better, is when there are people picking it apart.

That said, masks sound/feel like such a non-intrusive thing for most of us, that I'm alright if we provisionally say, they work and that we should wear them. That said, this question should continue to be studied in the meantime.

The debate trundles on because “the” evidence doesn’t support that face coverings are all that effective. As Sivad’s overview points out, there’s plenty of studies finding little to no evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks, and problems with studies that do. The problem with your “the” is that it makes it sound like all the evidence points one way when that very much isn’t the case—it’s as deceptive as the falsified presentation on the part of Kansas.

That's the thing about studies, for everyone that say's masks are good, there's another that say's their bad. Reminds me of eggs. Eggs used to be unhealthy, then healthy, then unhealthy, then healthy.

I think the reason this happens is simply because there are so many factors that go into the stuff, it's easy to miss all sorts of important factors in these studies (i.e. hard to control the environment, and hard to control how the data is interpreted). When a subject gets politicized like this, people tend to just pick the group of studies that line up with whatever they wish to be true.

[Doug64]

That's the thing about studies, for everyone that say's masks are good, there's another that say's their bad. Reminds me of eggs. Eggs used to be unhealthy, then healthy, then unhealthy, then healthy.

I think the reason this happens is simply because there are so many factors that go into the stuff, it's easy to miss all sorts of important factors in these studies (i.e. hard to control the environment, and hard to control how the data is interpreted). When a subject gets politicized like this, people tend to just pick the group of studies that line up with whatever they wish to be true.

I certainly can’t disagree, as someone with an interest in history, economics, and religion to bolster my personal experience, I know how messy Real Life can be—which leads to another issue I don’t know how well the studies compensate for, compliance; it’s all well and good to speak of this country/state/county that has a mask mandate and that one that doesn’t, but how many people are complying with the mandate in the former and how many people are wearing masks anyway in the latter?

So yes, people are messy and coming to firm conclusions about what they do and the results that come from it is difficult. And certainly, personal bias plays a role as well, both pro-freedom and pro-State. The problem comes when the pro-State side cherry-picks the “science” that supports their own biases toward government power and institutions and then demands that the rest of us surrender our freedoms in the name of the “greater good.” It’s fascism with a smile.

It’s also a very Utilitarian “greatest good for the greatest number” approach that absolutely terrifies me when it comes to government. Personally, I find Utilitarianism attractive for judging my own personal behavior, and believe that God (knowing all possible ends and their likelihoods) can’t help but have a strong element of Utilitarianism in His own decision-making process. But Utilitarianism is incredibly problematic when it comes to government, for the simple reason that we are not God—we can’t see all possible ends and their likelihoods, and so have serious difficulty recognizing what the “greatest good for the greatest number” is. Which means that the governments operating on Utilitarian principles all too often end up victimizing their own citizens/subjects chasing a pipe dream. And “victims” are just what they are creating, because one thing is certain—that “greatest good for the greatest number” might turn out to be a pipe dream, but the harm inflicted on the suffering minority is always real with their only real comfort that those that inflicted that harm meant well ... maybe. Much better to as much as possible leave the decision to operate on Utilitarian grounds to the people themselves, so that those injured are self-sacrifices rather than victims.

For the Wuhan virus, the “best and the brightest” gave us Vietnam, and now they’ve given us economic catastrophe. And one thing you can be sure of, the “best and brightest” will be doing their best to convince us to ignore all the studies asserting they got it wrong—if not actively working to suppress those studies, as Social Media has been doing—because the last thing they can afford is to be exposed as idiots. If that actually happens, we might not listen to them when the next “useful” crisis comes along.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

A recent meta-analysis, from the IHME COVID-19 Forecasting Team:

Using a Bayesian meta-regression of 40 studies measuring the impact of mask use on respiratory viral infections, we estimated the reduction in transmission associated with the use of cloth or paper masks used in a general population setting.
...
Findings: Use of simple masks can reduce transmission of COVID19 by 40% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 20% to 54%).

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20209510v1

[Pants-of-dog]

The debate trundles on because “the” evidence doesn’t support that face coverings are all that effective. As Sivad’s overview points out, there’s plenty of studies finding little to no evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks, and problems with studies that do. The problem with your “the” is that it makes it sound like all the evidence points one way when that very much isn’t the case—it’s as deceptive as the falsified presentation on the part of Kansas.

Let us look at the overview cited by @Sivad .

The first source does not mention the Trump virus. It looks at influenza.

The second is an article about flu and not a study, so we can discount that one as well.

The third explicitly and clearly says that it should not be used as a critique of mask use.

The fourth is an article bemoaning the lack of data and it also says that you should wear a mask.

The fifth makes no mention of any lack of protection from masks when the infected person is wearing it.

I could go on, but so far it is zero out of five.

This seems like a Gish Gallop rather than an actual argument.

Either you or @Sivad need to read these sources and find one that actually supports the claim that masks are ineffective.

Please do so.

[Doug64]

Let us look at the overview cited by @Sivad .

The first source does not mention the Trump virus. It looks at influenza.

An interesting viewpoint, does that mean we need to ignore all studies advancing the efficacy of masks that aren’t specifically researching the effects of masks on the spread of the CCP virus? Do you believe we should extend that to all other diseases and conditions, no extrapolation permitted?

The second is an article about flu and not a study, so we can discount that one as well.

The second is a review of the only six studies on the efficacy of masks in the past decade, unless you’re like the flat-earthers that insist that if you can’t perform the research yourself you should ignore the results you should pay attention. As for flu, see above.

The third explicitly and clearly says that it should not be used as a critique of mask use.

From the abstract:

We found that ... requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact. Our results could help inform strategies for coming out of lockdown.

Sounds that they expect their findings to be made use of, though it is true that they state that their findings when it comes to wearing facemasks should be considered preliminary—but that issue applies just as much to other studies from the same period and earlier, including those that found benefits from mask wearing.

The fourth is an article bemoaning the lack of data and it also says that you should wear a mask.

What they actually state is:

We agree that the data supporting the effectiveness of a cloth mask or face covering are very limited. We do, however, have data from laboratory studies that indicate cloth masks or face coverings offer very low filter collection efficiency for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission, particularly from pre- or asymptomatic individuals who are not coughing or sneezing. At the time we wrote this article, we were unable to locate any well-performed studies of cloth mask leakage when worn on the face—either inward or outward leakage. As far as we know, these data are still lacking.

As for their recommendation, they state:

Despite the current [as of July 16] limited scientific data detailing their effectiveness, we support the wearing of face coverings by the public when mandated and when in close contact with people whose infection status they don't know.

Notice the word “despite”—their recommendation is not supported by scientific data and therefore is of no more value than anyone else’s.

The fifth makes no mention of any lack of protection from masks when the infected person is wearing it.

That’s actually covered elsewhere, more specifically the likely aerosolized nature of the spread of the Wuhan virus, for which cloth masks are useless. But what they do say is this:

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

All of that for when neither the infected nor the potential infectee are masked, mind. That matches well with the WHO’s admission that its June recommendation to wear masks wasn’t motivated by research.

I could go on, but so far it is zero out of five.

Actually it’s five for five, and if you’d continued you would have seen the July Japanese study that found that cloth masks offer “zero protection against coronavirus” due to their large pore size and poor fit, and the August review by a German professor that found that there is zero evidence of the efficacy of cloth masks and that improper daily use may lead to an increase in infections.

Either you or @Sivad need to read these sources and find one that actually supports the claim that masks are ineffective.

It seems to me that you need to read these sources with an eye to what they can tell you instead of how you can discredit them. Though I will admit that referencing the study on post-operative infection rates for masked and unmasked surgeons is a bit of a stretch.

[Pants-of-dog]

An interesting viewpoint, does that mean we need to ignore all studies advancing the efficacy of masks that aren’t specifically researching the effects of masks on the spread of the CCP virus? Do you believe we should extend that to all other diseases and conditions, no extrapolation permitted?

The second is a review of the only six studies on the efficacy of masks in the past decade, unless you’re like the flat-earthers that insist that if you can’t perform the research yourself you should ignore the results you should pay attention. As for flu, see above.

Unless you can show that the flu virus and the Trump virus share enough common characteristics to make this comparison, this “extrapolation” is hypothetical at best.

From the abstract:

We found that ... requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact. Our results could help inform strategies for coming out of lockdown.

Sounds that they expect their findings to be made use of, though it is true that they state that their findings when it comes to wearing facemasks should be considered preliminary—but that issue applies just as much to other studies from the same period and earlier, including those that found benefits from mask wearing.

From the study:

...we do not yet endorse using the results about face covering use (in our main model) being used to inform public policy.

This quote is in the fourth page of the study.

What they actually state is:

We agree that the data supporting the effectiveness of a cloth mask or face covering are very limited. We do, however, have data from laboratory studies that indicate cloth masks or face coverings offer very low filter collection efficiency for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission, particularly from pre- or asymptomatic individuals who are not coughing or sneezing. At the time we wrote this article, we were unable to locate any well-performed studies of cloth mask leakage when worn on the face—either inward or outward leakage. As far as we know, these data are still lacking.

As for their recommendation, they state:

Despite the current [as of July 16] limited scientific data detailing their effectiveness, we support the wearing of face coverings by the public when mandated and when in close contact with people whose infection status they don't know.

Notice the word “despite”—their recommendation is not supported by scientific data and therefore is of no more value than anyone else’s.

So we see that it does not say that wearing masks is ineffective, and it says that masks should be worn,

That’s actually covered elsewhere, more specifically the likely aerosolized nature of the spread of the Wuhan virus, for which cloth masks are useless. But what they do say is this:

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

All of that for when neither the infected nor the potential infectee are masked, mind. That matches well with the WHO’s admission that its June recommendation to wear masks wasn’t motivated by research.

And note that the text you quoted does not say that masks are useless in preventing infected people from infecting others when wearing the mask.

Actually it’s five for five,

No. it is still zero for five.

and if you’d continued you would have seen the July Japanese study that found that cloth masks offer “zero protection against coronavirus” due to their large pore size and poor fit, and the August review by a German professor that found that there is zero evidence of the efficacy of cloth masks and that improper daily use may lead to an increase in infections.

Go ahead and provide links to these studies.

It seems to me that you need to read these sources with an eye to what they can tell you instead of how you can discredit them. Though I will admit that referencing the study on post-operative infection rates for masked and unmasked surgeons is a bit of a stretch.

No, it is up to you to support your argument.

At this point. you have not found a single study that supoorts your claim.

[Doug64]

Unless you can show that the flu virus and the Trump virus share enough common characteristics to make this comparison, this “extrapolation” is hypothetical at best.

Considering that it’s the scientists making the extrapolation, don’t you think that’s fair?

From the study:

...we do not yet endorse using the results about face covering use (in our main model) being used to inform public policy.

This quote is in the fourth page of the study.

Interesting place to put your ellipses, it leaves out this part: “This heterogeneity combined with their recent introduction means that ...” In other words, the inability to make comparisons from one case to another combined with how recently the how recently face mask mandates had been ordered made any effective study of them impossible—which would make any other study on the issue impossible as well, as of May 5th, including any that found face masks efficacious for the general public.

So we see that it does not say that wearing masks is ineffective, and it says that masks should be worn,

No, we see that it says that there is real no evidence that wearing face masks is effective, and they say that masks should be worn anyway. Clearly, their recommendation wasn’t based on their findings.

And note that the text you quoted does not say that masks are useless in preventing infected people from infecting others when wearing the mask.

If a face mask is ineffective at preventing you from catching the Wuhan virus, it is certainly going to be ineffective at preventing others from spreading it.

Go ahead and provide links to these studies.

They’re in Sivad’s original link, look them up yourself.

No, it is up to you to support your argument.

I’m not the one insisting that everyone wear masks. I’d say that the burden of proof lies with those making that demand. In spite of that—

At this point. you have not found a single study that supoorts your claim.

The claim that we don’t have reliable evidence that masks work? Sure, we just presented a number of links that you’d prefer to disregard that say exactly that. Some of them are even later than that May 5th deadline for “too preliminary to be useful.”

So please post links for those studies that do say cloth face masks are efficacious for the general public, and explain why they are more reliable than these. Per your own statements the studies must be specific to the Wuhan virus, and must be later than the beginning of May.

[Pants-of-dog]

Considering that it’s the scientists making the extrapolation, don’t you think that’s fair?

No, since it is not the scientists who are making this extrapolation. The only person making that argument is the anonymous author of that webpage.

Interesting place to put your ellipses, it leaves out this part: “This heterogeneity combined with their recent introduction means that ...” In other words, the inability to make comparisons from one case to another combined with how recently the how recently face mask mandates had been ordered made any effective study of them impossible—which would make any other study on the issue impossible as well, as of May 5th, including any that found face masks efficacious for the general public.

Yes, the lack of data and relatively recent time since mask mandates were introduced makes it difficult for you and @Sivad to support the claim that masks are not effective.

No, we see that it says that there is real no evidence that wearing face masks is effective, and they say that masks should be worn anyway. Clearly, their recommendation wasn’t based on their findings.

And it also says that there is real no evidence that wearing face masks is ineffective, and they say that masks should be worn.

How this can be interpreted as evidence that masks have no effect is beyond me.

At best, this article is saying that the level of protection from masks is not supported by evidence (simply because we do nit have enough data yet) and is probably not as effective as social distancing and other measures.

If a face mask is ineffective at preventing you from catching the Wuhan virus, it is certainly going to be ineffective at preventing others from spreading it.

No, that is not how water vapour works.

As the breath leaves the body, it moves on air current. This air current shoots directly onto the material of the mask. Depending on the said material, it will have different properties and reactions. Natural fibres work better for trapping airborne moisture, because of the molecular structure. A small portion will escape through the cracks at the edges of the mask. This amount will be proportional to how well fitting the mask is, obviously. So, a well fitting mask made with two layers of cotton (180 thread count or above) with a layer of silk between them will catch almost all the airborne moisture.

Meanwhile, the exhaled vapour of someone not wearing a mask is not on a jet of air. It is more like a cloud that slowly falls. So it will float wherever the air does.

Now, put your hand over your nose and mouth. You will notice that your hand fits imperfectly and that a certain amount of air goes around your hand when you breathe in or out, allowing you to breathe almost normally. What is happening is that the same volume of air (that you normally breathe) is still going in and out of you. It is simply squeezing itself through a smaller area. The only real difference is that the air moves faster and is louder.

So, air will sort of be sucked through these tiny apertures at the edge of the mask, carrying with them any airborne moisture droplets. This is, of course, not all the air being inhaled. Some will go through the mask itself. But unlike exhaled air, there is no jet of air shooting the moisture directly on to the mask. And the mask itself will also have moisture from the exhaled air, providing more resistance for air currents travelling through the mask.

I hope that clarifies things.

They’re in Sivad’s original link, look them up yourself.

Are they part of the overview?

I’m not the one insisting that everyone wear masks. I’d say that the burden of proof lies with those making that demand. In spite of that—

The claim that we don’t have reliable evidence that masks work? Sure, we just presented a number of links that you’d prefer to disregard that say exactly that. Some of them are even later than that May 5th deadline for “too preliminary to be useful.”

So please post links for those studies that do say cloth face masks are efficacious for the general public, and explain why they are more reliable than these. Per your own statements the studies must be specific to the Wuhan virus, and must be later than the beginning of May.

Okay.

So you are no longer echoing @Sivad in his claims that masks are ineffective. You are now switching to the new argument that efficacy of wearing masks has yet to be supported by evidence.

Can you please confirm that this is your argument? Thank you.

[Doug64]

No, that is not how water vapour works.

As the breath leaves the body, it moves on air current. This air current shoots directly onto the material of the mask. Depending on the said material, it will have different properties and reactions. Natural fibres work better for trapping airborne moisture, because of the molecular structure. A small portion will escape through the cracks at the edges of the mask. This amount will be proportional to how well fitting the mask is, obviously. So, a well fitting mask made with two layers of cotton (180 thread count or above) with a layer of silk between them will catch almost all the airborne moisture.

Meanwhile, the exhaled vapour of someone not wearing a mask is not on a jet of air. It is more like a cloud that slowly falls. So it will float wherever the air does.

Now, put your hand over your nose and mouth. You will notice that your hand fits imperfectly and that a certain amount of air goes around your hand when you breathe in or out, allowing you to breathe almost normally. What is happening is that the same volume of air (that you normally breathe) is still going in and out of you. It is simply squeezing itself through a smaller area. The only real difference is that the air moves faster and is louder.

So, air will sort of be sucked through these tiny apertures at the edge of the mask, carrying with them any airborne moisture droplets. This is, of course, not all the air being inhaled. Some will go through the mask itself. But unlike exhaled air, there is no jet of air shooting the moisture directly on to the mask. And the mask itself will also have moisture from the exhaled air, providing more resistance for air currents travelling through the mask.

I hope that clarifies things.

Which is all fine, except that the CDC has acknowledged that the Wuhan virus is aerosolized, which means the particles it travels on are small enough that cloth masks' pores are too large to be effective and may, in fact, be detrimental. One of the links in Sivad's post that you didn't get to was a 2015 study on the effectiveness of cloth masks in protecting health care workers, and they came to this conclusion:

The trend for all outcomes showed the lowest rates of infection in the medical mask group and the highest rates in the cloth mask arm. The study design does not allow us to determine whether medical masks had efficacy or whether cloth masks were detrimental to HCWs by causing an increase in infection risk. Either possibility, or a combination of both effects, could explain our results. It is also unknown whether the rates of infection observed in the cloth mask arm are the same or higher than in HCWs who do not wear a mask, as almost all participants in the control arm used a mask. The physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk for HCWs. The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks,29 and modelling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks.30 Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. For example, a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer. We also showed that filtration was extremely poor (almost 0%) for the cloth masks. Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention.31 These effects may be associated with cloth masks.

They do note that one aspect of the study that could have an effect on the lack of efficacy of cloth masks was the nature of the disease those HCWs participating in the study were dealing with:

Unlike the previous RCTs, circulating influenza and RSV were almost completely absent during this study, with rhinoviruses comprising 85% of isolated pathogens, which means the measured efficacy is against a different range of circulating respiratory pathogens. Influenza and RSV predominantly transmit through droplet and contact routes, while Rhinovirus transmits through multiple routes, including airborne and droplet routes.32 ,33 The data also show that the clinical case definition of ILI is non-specific, and captures a range of pathogens other than influenza. The study suggests medical masks may be protective, but the magnitude of difference raises the possibility that cloth masks cause an increase in infection risk in HCWs. Further, the filtration of the medical mask used in this trial was poor, making extremely high efficacy of medical masks unlikely, particularly given the predominant pathogen was rhinovirus, which spreads by the airborne route. Given the obligations to HCW occupational health and safety, it is important to consider the potential risk of using cloth masks.

That is important because of the acknowledged aerosolized nature of Wuhan virus spread.

So you are no longer echoing @Sivad in his claims that masks are ineffective. You are now switching to the new argument that efficacy of wearing masks has yet to be supported by evidence.

Can you please confirm that this is your argument? Thank you.

I've always been arguing that the mask mandates aren't supported by science.

[SpecialOlympian]

Lmao



My only regret is that I have but only one son to sacrifice to Donald Trump.

[Patrickov]

Lmao

There has to be someone punishing China. Had they not compromised WHO there is no worldwide Wuhan pneumonia epidemic to begin with.

If Biden is not in such a suspicious position, and more importantly, is not representing a side so compromising to Chinese aggression (I acknowledge that he is not himself pro-China, but the pro-China people have no one else to turn to).

Although if he is to win so be it.

[Godstud]

The only person who compromised the WHO was Trump, @Patrickov


How did China "compromise the WHO"? That Trump and other fuckheads didn't listen to the WHO saying it was a pandemic, is not on China, you addle-minded kumquat.

If you are going to punish China, then who are you going to punish? Please be specific.

How are you going to punish them? Please be specific.

How are you going to enforce any kind of thing against China. You've noticed that USA does international War crimes and no one can hold them to account, right?

This has nothing to do with being pro-or anti-China(as you plainly are). It has to do with simple logic and facts. You present neither. It's the "someone has to pay or be at fault" argument. It isn't anyone's fault. Shit happens.