Forum > The RPGPundit's Own Forum

Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

<< < (755/853) > >>

Shasarak:

--- Quote from: Kiero on January 21, 2022, 06:43:24 PM ---How do you maskholes explain mask mandates causing "cases" to go up? And relaxation of restrictions, including masks, causing them to go down?

Not studies or "models", but real world observation.

--- End quote ---

Thats easy Kiero, a mask mandate is actually causing a reduction in the rise of cases compared to having no mask mandate.

So cases are going up but at a reduced rate.

Mistwell:

--- Quote from: Pat on January 21, 2022, 07:57:55 PM ---
--- Quote from: Mistwell on January 21, 2022, 05:32:10 PM ---
--- Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 20, 2022, 05:20:44 PM ---
--- Quote from: Mistwell on January 19, 2022, 04:22:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: Zelen on January 19, 2022, 12:10:15 AM ---If masks help, why do RCTs not (on balance) show they help? Surely if they helped, then the evidence would consistently show this, rather than null/negative effect?

--- End quote ---

For every legit study showing they don't help there are more legit studies showing they do help. Whenever someone posts one of those studies showing they do help here, people nitpick it in a way they don't nitpick the studies showing it doesn't help. So the answer to your question is confirmation bias.

--- End quote ---

This is so false as to almost be a direct lie.  There are 26 RCT studies of mask usage cited in various CDC publications (almost none of which deal with SARS-Covid-19 directly, as to be expected considering the timeline that such trials have).  Over 75% show weak or no correlation.  The Bangladesh study and the Danish studies, even if taken at face value, provide little support for either conclusion.  Most medical studies are done at p<0.05, which means that there is only a 1-in-20 chance of the correlation being mechanically wrong (the process or conclusions, however...).  Do enough studies, and your 1-in-20 chances will start popping up.  It's not that surprising, then, that one of the 26 studies cited (the Bangladesh study) goes against the data from the rest.  One, or even a handful, of studies does not prove ANYTHING.  You need consistent, reproducible, results to start drawing any conclusions... which we don't have.  So, until such time as the RCT studies on mask-wearing are clear, reproducible, and overwhelmingly in favor, no efficacy of masks has been proven at all...

--- End quote ---

When I clicked your link...oh wait. Right. Just more bullshit assertions from some bullshit article you read some time in the past from some bullshit source from your bubble spinning more bullshit.

If you want to prove what you're claiming, provide a link to a non-insane or non-clickbait website. And note I never claimed "cited in various" anything. I said studies show masks help. Not that they "prevent you from getting covid" because most of the studies I am referring to say they reduce the chance you will SPREAD covid to someone else. People love to call out studies claiming masks don't stop you from GETTING covid and pretend that's where the discussion of masks end when they know full well the claim is more typically that they help reduce the spread of covid from you outward.

Like, for example, this evidence review of face masks against COVID-19, stating, "The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts".

My guess is you will ignore all that, and again repeat that masks don't prevent you from receiving covid. Though you will know it's you misrepresenting everything I just said. Because you don't have jack shit on your side of this debate.

--- End quote ---
I've certainly linked to them before, as well as providing thorough summaries. Remember what happened, every time? You went silent, and stopped responding. Then, pages later, when you believed everyone had forgotten how your posts were thoroughly debunked, you popped up again to post the same ignorant nonsense.

And I like the way you attempt to preemptively discredit anyone who disagrees with you with the "non-insane or non-clickbait" claim. If you can't win an argument, I guess it's really important to insinuate anyone who dares to reply to you is insane.

Let's see:

2019 WHO meta-study (of 10 other studies). Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/non-pharmaceutical-public-health-measuresfor-mitigating-the-risk-and-impact-of-epidemic-and-pandemic-influenza
2020 CDC meta-study. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
2020 Danmask study (RCT with 6000 participants). Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
2020 another large RCT (8000 participants). Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240287
2020 Oxford review. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
2021 Review by the European CDC. Conclusion: No strong evidence in favor of masks (but we recommend them anyway... because reasons). https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-face-masks-community-first-update.pdf
Another 2020 review. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses
2021 survey of mask use in US states. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://escipub.com/irjph-2021-08-1005/
2021 study of the physics of masks. Conclusion: At best, masks indoor reduce aerosolized particles by 12%. At worst, they increase them. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0057100
2021 study in the NEJM. Conclusion: Masks don't work. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

I assume you'll dismiss them all, because clearly the CDC, the European CDC, the WHO, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal, and Oxford are insane clickbait sites and nobody should trust anyone who dares to link any of them.

Unlike your source, which we know is good because it's dated 5 day in the future, and anything involving time travel is always 100% legit.

--- End quote ---

I am happy to read your links but before I do, because you've read them yourself, which of these is about how well a masks prevents you from receiving a virus, as opposed to measuring how well it reduces the risk of you transmitting a virus to others? That has always been the distinction I've made over and over again, and always been the thing you gloss over. So let's have it - which of these addresses that issue?

As for "dated five days in the future" I want everyone to look at my link, look at Pat's claim, and answer the question as to if Pat is that fucking sloppy with something as simple as that why do you trust him with anything else?

Pat:

--- Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:18:14 PM ---I am happy to read your links but before I do, because you've read them yourself, which of these is about how well a masks prevents you from receiving a virus, as opposed to measuring how well it reduces the risk of you transmitting a virus to others? That has always been the distinction I've made over and over again, and always been the thing you gloss over. So let's have it - which of these addresses that issue?
--- End quote ---
I have read them, though it's been a while because this has been a long 15 days. Though I'm entertained by how you continue to make these subtle little insinuations. It's really despicable. You're like a mustache-twirling like popinjay.

But back to your point, to use that word very loosely. It's a false distinction, as always. How would you test that, without violating basic ethical standards? The only way is something like the hamster study, which like the physics study above, provides some context and rationale for the results of the other studies, but isn't a real world study and doesn't measure transmission under real world conditions. And it literally doesn't matter. What matters is whether wearing masks reduces infection in the observed population. Whether it works on input or output is irrelevant.

--- Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:18:14 PM ---As for "dated five days in the future" I want everyone to look at my link, look at Pat's claim...

--- End quote ---
At least I haven't had to void a check because I wrote 2021 instead of 2022. Happens to everyone. But of course you try to spin it into some grand act of malfeasance, you wicked little popinjay, because it's all you've got.

Mistwell:

--- Quote from: Pat on January 22, 2022, 08:09:50 PM ---
--- Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:18:14 PM ---I am happy to read your links but before I do, because you've read them yourself, which of these is about how well a masks prevents you from receiving a virus, as opposed to measuring how well it reduces the risk of you transmitting a virus to others? That has always been the distinction I've made over and over again, and always been the thing you gloss over. So let's have it - which of these addresses that issue?
--- End quote ---
I have read them, though it's been a while because this has been a long 15 days. Though I'm entertained by how you continue to make these subtle little insinuations. It's really despicable. You're like a mustache-twirling like popinjay.

But back to your point, to use that word very loosely. It's a false distinction, as always. How would you test that, without violating basic ethical standards?
--- End quote ---

Oh I don't know, TEST THE MASKS AGAINST A SPRAY BOTTLE? OR ANYTHING ELSE PROJECTING DROPLETS? For fucks sake, didn't you watch any of the mask demos I and others posted before? THEY TEST MASKS. You know, using scientific equipment, like you do when you certify safety equipment! Fuck dude, how did you not catch up to that basic level of knowledge two years ago?

Some studies measure how well masks prevent the spread from someone who is infected, others test if masks prevent you from receiving a virus, and some test for both. So which of the studies you cited test to see if masks help reduce the spread away from someone infected? If your answer is you don't know, just fucking say that instead of all this bullshit. Because if a study only tests if it's effective for preventing you receiving a virus, and isn't even looking to see if it reduces the risk you spread a virus, it's a not responsive to the question of "do masks help?"


--- Quote ---At least I haven't had to void a check because I wrote 2021 instead of 2022. Happens to everyone. But of course you try to spin it into some grand act of malfeasance, you wicked little popinjay, because it's all you've got.

--- End quote ---

Naw man you dug this hole now you eat the shit you found at the bottom. Nobody made you make a point of the date of the article. You chose to do that and so when it turns out you made a bad choice you don't get to then play the victim like I am picking on you for you choosing to bash me in what was a fuckup of your own. Just be responsible and say whoops sorry about that, like a mature fucking adult instead of the child you continue to behave like.

dkabq:

--- Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 09:50:04 PM ---
--- Quote from: Pat on January 22, 2022, 08:09:50 PM ---
--- Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:18:14 PM ---I am happy to read your links but before I do, because you've read them yourself, which of these is about how well a masks prevents you from receiving a virus, as opposed to measuring how well it reduces the risk of you transmitting a virus to others? That has always been the distinction I've made over and over again, and always been the thing you gloss over. So let's have it - which of these addresses that issue?
--- End quote ---
I have read them, though it's been a while because this has been a long 15 days. Though I'm entertained by how you continue to make these subtle little insinuations. It's really despicable. You're like a mustache-twirling like popinjay.

But back to your point, to use that word very loosely. It's a false distinction, as always. How would you test that, without violating basic ethical standards?
--- End quote ---

Oh I don't know, TEST THE MASKS AGAINST A SPRAY BOTTLE? OR ANYTHING ELSE PROJECTING DROPLETS? For fucks sake, didn't you watch any of the mask demos I and others posted before? THEY TEST MASKS. You know, using scientific equipment, like you do when you certify safety equipment! Fuck dude, how did you not catch up to that basic level of knowledge two years ago?

Some studies measure how well masks prevent the spread from someone who is infected, others test if masks prevent you from receiving a virus, and some test for both. So which of the studies you cited test to see if masks help reduce the spread away from someone infected? If your answer is you don't know, just fucking say that instead of all this bullshit. Because if a study only tests if it's effective for preventing you receiving a virus, and isn't even looking to see if it reduces the risk you spread a virus, it's a not responsive to the question of "do masks help?"


--- Quote ---At least I haven't had to void a check because I wrote 2021 instead of 2022. Happens to everyone. But of course you try to spin it into some grand act of malfeasance, you wicked little popinjay, because it's all you've got.

--- End quote ---

Naw man you dug this hole now you eat the shit you found at the bottom. Nobody made you make a point of the date of the article. You chose to do that and so when it turns out you made a bad choice you don't get to then play the victim like I am picking on you for you choosing to bash me in what was a fuckup of your own. Just be responsible and say whoops sorry about that, like a mature fucking adult instead of the child you continue to behave like.

--- End quote ---

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-surgical-masks-face-masks-and-barrier-face-coverings#s2
"If worn properly, a surgical mask is meant to help block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter that may contain germs (viruses and bacteria), keeping it from reaching your mouth and nose. Surgical masks may also help reduce exposure of your saliva and respiratory secretions to others."

Yep, yep. Absolutely. Exactly what surgical masks are designed to do. Of course, your hand, a tissue, or a vampire cough likely does just as well, but given that a surgeon notionally has their hands full, a mask makes sense. However...

"While a surgical mask may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets, a face mask, by design, it does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes, or certain medical procedures. Surgical masks also do not provide complete protection from germs and other contaminants because of the loose fit between the surface of the mask and your face."

So the surgical mask keeps the surgeon from coughing, sneezing, or spitting on you, it isn't going to protect you from the "very small particles in the air", hence the surgeon (wearing a surgical mask) could give you the flu.

And yes, I have seen any number of videos or CFD simulations of masks. And yes, droplets are caught and flow is diverted. All well and good, if, for you, that scenario has a probability not approaching zero. That is why health-care workers wear surgical masks. But as for others, or at least for me, I cannot remember a time when someone sneezed or coughed in my face. I have met juicy talkers in my time, but I have an American sensibility when I comes to personal space so I have never been in the splash zone -- YMMV. I am going to get covid one of there ways:

(1): Long-term exposure in an enclosed space. A mask isn't going to do anything to reduce the aerosol (viral) source term from others into the space or the viral concentration I am exposed to.

(2): Close proximity and/or kissing wife. Or as I like to call it, "the best way to get covid".  :)

(3): I go lick the keyboard and mouse of the guy in the cubicle catty-cornered from mine that came down with covid last week.

That said, perhaps your life looks more like a health care environment (up close and personal with people). In which case I can see why you would consider wearing a mask and asking those getting up close to you to also wear one. So knock yourself out, maybe even wear two, St. Fauci style. But stop stepping on my dick about it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version