"the California region where masks are taboo – and cases are rising"

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
It's not an accident that Asian mask wearing countries fared far better than Western non mask wearing countries.

It's also true that masks, vaccines & shutdowns are individually saving many thousands of lives, & together millions of lives.

People in Vietnam wear masks? How about Thailand? New Zealand?

Why is China's life expectancy lower than the United States with all of that mask wearing despite so many Americans being obese with diabetes?

The communists obviously know how to live! LOL.
 
People in Vietnam wear masks? How about Thailand? New Zealand?

Why is China's life expectancy lower than the United States with all of that mask wearing despite so many Americans being obese with diabetes?

The communists obviously know how to live! LOL.

Do you have a point, or just like to ask questions so X-Files can be your teacher, lol.
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
A study from South Korea, you know - one of those mask wearing Asian countries...

"In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface."

 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
Another study for H1N1.

Surgical masks do not provide protection from aerosolized viral particles, respiratory protection experts told an Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel that was considering personal protective equipment and novel H1N1.

A randomized clinical trial comparing N95 filtering facepiece respirators and surgical masks, found that "the surgical masks had no efficacy against any of the [measured] outcomes," reported C. Raina MacIntyre, MBBS, M App Epid, PhD, FRACP, FAFHM, Head of the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

 
A study from South Korea, you know - one of those mask wearing Asian countries...

"In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface."


"A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients" LOL

"This article has been retracted." LOL
 
Another study for H1N1.

Surgical masks do not provide protection from aerosolized viral particles, respiratory protection experts told an Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel that was considering personal protective equipment and novel H1N1.

A randomized clinical trial comparing N95 filtering facepiece respirators and surgical masks, found that "the surgical masks had no efficacy against any of the [measured] outcomes," reported C. Raina MacIntyre, MBBS, M App Epid, PhD, FRACP, FAFHM, Head of the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.


Some - "interesting" - comments from the same - 2009 article:

"The as-yet-unpublished study...

"...This evidence of the lack of protectiveness of surgical masks gained attention at the meeting. Yet other presenters expressed concern about confusing guidance and lack of compliance by health care workers.

"Frieden is considering a CDC shift to droplet precautions - gowns, gloves, and surgical masks - for health care workers caring for novel H1N1.

"The guidance is effectively going to apply to all individuals presenting with upper respiratory infection," cautioned Toby Merlin, MD, deputy director of the Influenza Coordination Unit at CDC.

... The IOM heard a range of research and perspectives on personal protective equipment and influenza:

Surgical masks vary from providing almost no protection to significant protection - but it's impossible to tell the difference between masks.

Roland BerryAnn, deputy director of NIOSH's National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, reported that a test of five randomly selected masks showed that their filtration efficiency ranged from 12% to 98%. "The problem is you don't know which one is the 11 or 12 or which one is the 90-something," he said. The Food and Drug Administration provides marketing clearance for surgical masks but doesn't certify their performance, he noted. In the tests, N95 filtering facepiece respirators had a filtration effectiveness of 98%. Studies have found that face seal leakage of surgical masks ranges from 15% to 40%, while N95s have a face seal leakage of just 3% to 5%, reported Lisa Brosseau, ScD, CIH, of the University of Minnesota.


"...When a study participant wore a surgical mask, there was a significantly smaller release of influenza RNA particles that were 5 µm and larger, he said."

"....Eye exposure alone did not lead to infection....indicating that transocular transmission did not occur - and that eye protection is not necessary to prevent infection."

"... Hospitals should also use other methods of hazard reduction, including isolation or cohorting and ventilation."
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
"A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients" LOL

"This article has been retracted." LOL

Reason for retraction:

We had not fully recognized the concept of limit of detection (LOD) of the in-house reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction used in the study (2.63 log copies/mL), and we regret our failure to express the values below LOD as “<LOD (value).” The LOD is a statistical measure of the lowest quantity of the analyte that can be distinguished from the absence of that analyte. Therefore, values below the LOD are unreliable and our findings are uninterpretable. Reader comments raised this issue after publication. We proposed correcting the reported data with new experimental data from additional patients, but the editors requested retraction.

A much bigger LOL. In other words, nitpicking to force a retraction.

People don't want to hear the truth.
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
Some - "interesting" - comments from the same - 2009 article:

"The as-yet-unpublished study...

"...This evidence of the lack of protectiveness of surgical masks gained attention at the meeting. Yet other presenters expressed concern about confusing guidance and lack of compliance by health care workers.

"Frieden is considering a CDC shift to droplet precautions - gowns, gloves, and surgical masks - for health care workers caring for novel H1N1.

"The guidance is effectively going to apply to all individuals presenting with upper respiratory infection," cautioned Toby Merlin, MD, deputy director of the Influenza Coordination Unit at CDC.

... The IOM heard a range of research and perspectives on personal protective equipment and influenza:

Surgical masks vary from providing almost no protection to significant protection - but it's impossible to tell the difference between masks.

Roland BerryAnn, deputy director of NIOSH's National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, reported that a test of five randomly selected masks showed that their filtration efficiency ranged from 12% to 98%. "The problem is you don't know which one is the 11 or 12 or which one is the 90-something," he said. The Food and Drug Administration provides marketing clearance for surgical masks but doesn't certify their performance, he noted. In the tests, N95 filtering facepiece respirators had a filtration effectiveness of 98%. Studies have found that face seal leakage of surgical masks ranges from 15% to 40%, while N95s have a face seal leakage of just 3% to 5%, reported Lisa Brosseau, ScD, CIH, of the University of Minnesota.


"...When a study participant wore a surgical mask, there was a significantly smaller release of influenza RNA particles that were 5 µm and larger, he said."

"....Eye exposure alone did not lead to infection....indicating that transocular transmission did not occur - and that eye protection is not necessary to prevent infection."

"... Hospitals should also use other methods of hazard reduction, including isolation or cohorting and ventilation."

When comments are more important to you than an actual peer reviewed study, you just might be a retard.
 
Surgical masks are useless. N95 masks is whats needed

There is no evidence of transmission from free-floating viral particles. The transmission is from respiratory droplets and aerosols, the smallest of which are in the 5 um range.

...and surgical masks filter down to 1um.

"The surgical mask blocked about 60% of .03 micron particles and over 90% of 1 micron and 2.5 micron particles."


"in one study, researchers tested particles down to .007 microns (even smaller than viruses) and found that a simple surgical mask blocked 80%."

"... it’s downright surprising that surgical masks are just as effective [as N95 masks]! Maybe virus particles are actually easy to capture because they fly on water droplets.

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/n95-mask-surgical-prevent-transmission-coronavirus/?rel=1
 
In other words, they didn't block enough to prevent infection.

Derp.

Is it your view that unless a mask, even a K95 mask, blocks 100% of particles they are useless at preventing infections, severe illnesses & deaths in the community?

Please say yes. LOL.

The same question could be asked re social distancing. Do you feel it is useless also if it doesn't make everyone 100% safe?
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
Is it your view that unless a mask, even a K95 mask, blocks 100% of particles they are useless at preventing infections, severe illnesses & deaths in the community?

Please say yes. LOL.

I'm the one here saying they don't work, dipshit.

Every single country has had their biggest surges in both cases and deaths in the midst of mask mandates.

Every single one.
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
Dozens of states in the United States removed their mask mandates well before the CDC guidance and not one saw a rise in cases much less deaths.
 
I'm the one here saying they don't work, dipshit.

Every single country has had their biggest surges in both cases and deaths in the midst of mask mandates.

Every single one.

So is it your view (based on that alleged & unsupported claim) that mask mandates led to, and caused, those alleged surges? If so, how?

Is it your view that masks themselves caused those alleged surges? If so, how did do you think they did that?
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
So is it your view (based on that alleged & unsupported claim) that mask mandates led to, and caused, those alleged surges? If so, how?

Is it your view that masks themselves caused those alleged surges? If so, how did do you think they did that?

What part of "masks are not effective" do you fail to comprehend?
 
Reason for retraction:

We had not fully recognized the concept of limit of detection (LOD) of the in-house reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction used in the study (2.63 log copies/mL), and we regret our failure to express the values below LOD as “<LOD (value).” The LOD is a statistical measure of the lowest quantity of the analyte that can be distinguished from the absence of that analyte. Therefore, values below the LOD are unreliable and our findings are uninterpretable. Reader comments raised this issue after publication. We proposed correcting the reported data with new experimental data from additional patients, but the editors requested retraction.

A much bigger LOL. In other words, nitpicking to force a retraction.

People don't want to hear the truth.

From the same - retraction - page:

"The author's interpretation of their results was misleading

A big problem with this study was the peculiar interpretation of the results by the authors. Their results, given in log copies per mL, show that surgical masks reduced median viral emission by 27.5% and cotton masks reduced median viral emission by 80.4%. Just the fact that a reusable cotton mask was more effective than a manufactured surgical mask was news worthy by itself. Instead, the public was misled to believe the masks were totally ineffective.
It is hard to understand how the authors deemed that an 80% reduction of viral emission constitutes an “ineffective” intervention. With 80% reduction of viral emissions writ large, tens of thousands who have died of Covid-19 might be alive today. Cotton masks have never been promoted as 100% effective, not even N95 masks are. So setting that up as a rigid pass-fail metric was misleading and has endangered public health by obfuscating important degrees of efficacy.

The Editors of Annals of Internal MedicineAmerican College of Physicians30 June 2020

Response from Editors​

Bae and colleagues proposed to provide additional data from new experiments done on additional patients. Such information would not correct the problems with the published study and should be evaluated as a new study. The editors continue to believe that the appropriate action was to retract the article. We would welcome the opportunity to review a new study with appropriately presented, interpretable data."
 
What part of "masks are not effective" do you fail to comprehend?

I comprehend you are avoiding an answer to these questions:

So is it your view (based on that alleged & unsupported claim) that mask mandates led to, and caused, those alleged surges? If so, how?

Is it your view that masks themselves caused those alleged surges? If so, how did do you think they did that?
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
From the same - retraction - page:

"The author's interpretation of their results was misleading

A big problem with this study was the peculiar interpretation of the results by the authors. Their results, given in log copies per mL, show that surgical masks reduced median viral emission by 27.5% and cotton masks reduced median viral emission by 80.4%. Just the fact that a reusable cotton mask was more effective than a manufactured surgical mask was news worthy by itself. Instead, the public was misled to believe the masks were totally ineffective.
It is hard to understand how the authors deemed that an 80% reduction of viral emission constitutes an “ineffective” intervention. With 80% reduction of viral emissions writ large, tens of thousands who have died of Covid-19 might be alive today. Cotton masks have never been promoted as 100% effective, not even N95 masks are. So setting that up as a rigid pass-fail metric was misleading and has endangered public health by obfuscating important degrees of efficacy.

The Editors of Annals of Internal MedicineAmerican College of Physicians30 June 2020

Response from Editors​

Bae and colleagues proposed to provide additional data from new experiments done on additional patients. Such information would not correct the problems with the published study and should be evaluated as a new study. The editors continue to believe that the appropriate action was to retract the article. We would welcome the opportunity to review a new study with appropriately presented, interpretable data."

Absolute evidence that, not only do you need to have other people make your arguments for you, but once again, you also think comments have more legitimacy than the studies themselves.

LMAO.

What a fucking dolt.

You ignored a comment, dipshit.

"In your retraction statement, you said, "We proposed correcting the reported data with new experimental data from additional patients, but the editors requested retraction." This is concerning. The scientific and medical community should welcome corrected reporting and new data. That's how we learn and grow and come closer to the truth. There is no down side to allowing you to public an updated/corrected study. This makes no sense and raises concerns about the motivations of the editors."

But that one doesn't quite fit your confirmation bias. Does it, retard?
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
I comprehend you are avoiding an answer to these questions:

So is it your view (based on that alleged & unsupported claim) that mask mandates led to, and caused, those alleged surges? If so, how?

Is it your view that masks themselves caused those alleged surges? If so, how did do you think they did that?

No, dipshit. "Not effective" means they provide no protection.

Is English your second language? JFC.
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
Why don't you post it, then, instead of an article that supports mask use, as shown by the comments from it i posted? LOL.

Your article said: "The as-yet-unpublished study...."

There are multiple studies discussed there, moron.

You seriously have the reading comprehension of a three year old.
 

MrTop

EOG Master
What part of "masks are not effective" do you fail to comprehend?



they do not help from getting it but they could help from you spreading it if you have it. Personally I do not think covid was that bad like TB which i had in the past. TB kills too..easier to know if you have it.. the cough is horrible...TB has meds get off it easier .
 
"The surgical mask blocked about 60% of .03 micron particles and over 90% of 1 micron and 2.5 micron particles."


"in one study, researchers tested particles down to .007 microns (even smaller than viruses) and found that a simple surgical mask blocked 80%."

"... it’s downright surprising that surgical masks are just as effective [as N95 masks]! Maybe virus particles are actually easy to capture because they fly on water droplets.

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/n95-mask-surgical-prevent-transmission-coronavirus/?rel=1
In other words, they didn't block enough to prevent infection.

Derp.

Wrong. In a community where masks are commonly used they will stop many infections. Which means they will stop many severe illnesses, hospitalizations, cases of long covid and deaths.

Furthermore, by blocking many virus particles, thereby reducing the number of particles able to infect others, therefore even many of those infected will not be infected with as high a load of virus particles, which means many will have a less severe illness than they would have otherwise, including many not dieing.
 
"The prevalence of COVID-19 was 2747 cases per 100,000 front-line health-care workers compared with 242 cases per 100,000 people in the general community."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30164-X/fulltext

Do health care workers wear masks? Only a rate of infection 12x higher than the general public.

In an environment how much more dangerous than the general public? 100X?

Do you have a point?

Masks work to save lives, as the scientific evidence i've posted supports.
 
I comprehend you are avoiding an answer to these questions:

So is it your view (based on that alleged & unsupported claim) that mask mandates led to, and caused, those alleged surges? If so, how?

Is it your view that masks themselves caused those alleged surges? If so, how did do you think they did that?

Still no answer.
 
From the same - retraction - page:

"The author's interpretation of their results was misleading

A big problem with this study was the peculiar interpretation of the results by the authors. Their results, given in log copies per mL, show that surgical masks reduced median viral emission by 27.5% and cotton masks reduced median viral emission by 80.4%. Just the fact that a reusable cotton mask was more effective than a manufactured surgical mask was news worthy by itself. Instead, the public was misled to believe the masks were totally ineffective.
It is hard to understand how the authors deemed that an 80% reduction of viral emission constitutes an “ineffective” intervention. With 80% reduction of viral emissions writ large, tens of thousands who have died of Covid-19 might be alive today. Cotton masks have never been promoted as 100% effective, not even N95 masks are. So setting that up as a rigid pass-fail metric was misleading and has endangered public health by obfuscating important degrees of efficacy.

The Editors of Annals of Internal MedicineAmerican College of Physicians30 June 2020

Response from Editors​

Bae and colleagues proposed to provide additional data from new experiments done on additional patients. Such information would not correct the problems with the published study and should be evaluated as a new study. The editors continue to believe that the appropriate action was to retract the article. We would welcome the opportunity to review a new study with appropriately presented, interpretable data."
Absolute evidence that, not only do you need to have other people make your arguments for you, but once again, you also think comments have more legitimacy than the studies themselves.

LMAO.

What a fucking dolt.

You ignored a comment, dipshit.

"In your retraction statement, you said, "We proposed correcting the reported data with new experimental data from additional patients, but the editors requested retraction." This is concerning. The scientific and medical community should welcome corrected reporting and new data. That's how we learn and grow and come closer to the truth. There is no down side to allowing you to public an updated/corrected study. This makes no sense and raises concerns about the motivations of the editors."

But that one doesn't quite fit your confirmation bias. Does it, retard?

The comments i posted already addressed that comment.

Furthermore, the authors of the study had no response to the first comment i posted above saying the study shows masks work. Neither did you.

Didn't you even read them?
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
In an environment how much more dangerous than the general public? 100X?

Do you have a point?

Masks work to save lives, as the scientific evidence i've posted supports.

So now you're just pulling numbers straight put of your ass. LMAO.

If masks work, they don't get infected 12x more than the general public, idiot.
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
Wrong. In a community where masks are commonly used they will stop many infections. Which means they will stop many severe illnesses, hospitalizations, cases of long covid and deaths.

Furthermore, by blocking many virus particles, thereby reducing the number of particles able to infect others, therefore even many of those infected will not be infected with as high a load of virus particles, which means many will have a less severe illness than they would have otherwise, including many not dieing.

That explains why death counts have been highest in every single country under mask mandates. LMAO.
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
The comments i posted already addressed that comment.

Furthermore, the authors of the study had no response to the first comment i posted above saying the study shows masks work. Neither did you.

Didn't you even read them?

LMAO. Uhh. Completely wrong.

When cherry-picked comments to a study mean more than the study itself, you are certainly retarded.
 
Top