The Danish Mask Study

[SAN compnerd]

6000 people, largest of it's kind to date, halfish in control arm. For some odd reason the Lancet and the NJEM refused to publish this study, even though they both published bogus 'studies' on hydroxycloroquine which were subsequently retracted.

This is the fuller post. The headline result–wearing a mask makes no difference in cases or in level of transmission in the community. It is obvious to all of us now, that this is true, as we can see the case growth in areas of the country with extremely high mask-wearing rates. Here is the cite. (Danish Mask Study) Coupled with the withdrawal of the county study which purported to show a benefit based on limited time period study, this should put an end to any Governor claiming that mask mandates are backed by science and data, but it won’t. As I noted in my flash report, people are already coming out with all kinds of BS criticisms of the trial. It is amusing in a sense, that people who just accepted all the mask modeling “research” without any quibbles or skepticism are finding all kinds of criticism directed at an actual randomized trial attempting to answer a real-life question–what is the effect of wearing a mask in the community.

https://healthy-skeptic.com/2020/11/...sh-mask-study/

Results:
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 between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

Conclusion:
The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

[PaperTarget]

I hate it when The Lancet and the NEJM are in on a coverup. How stupid can they be?

[cleonard]

6000 people, largest of it's kind to date, halfish in control arm. For some odd reason the Lancet and the NJEM refused to publish this study, even though they both published bogus 'studies' on hydroxycloroquine which were subsequently retracted.

https://healthy-skeptic.com/2020/11/18/flash-on-the-danish-mask-study/

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Don't have the time to read the papers, but the P values in what you quoted are real high. So high in fact that they mean basically nothing. You can't take is as saying that they don't work, but they sure don't say that they do work either.

[SAN compnerd]

Don't have the time to read the papers, but the P values in what you quoted are real high. So high in fact that they mean basically nothing. You can't take is as saying that they don't work, but they sure don't say that they do work either.

If you read the editorial on the study you will see that the authors had to put lots of "limitations" and other disclaimers in the study to even get it published.

Before describing the study and its findings, let me make a couple of preliminary observations. I have been reading medical research for 40 years and science papers for even longer. When you read this study and you know the history of the attempt to get it published, you are immediately struck by what the authors must have been forced to do to get any reputable journal to publish it. They were clearly forced to constantly refer to limitations and caveats about the study and there is a discussion about the confidence intervals around the results that you absolutely never see in the published reports of research. What kind of science is it that decides in advance what the results have to be and tries to suppress any research that challenges those pre-ordained results? When I complain that science has become completely politicized, what happened to this study is Exhibit A.

[Sousuke]

I’m a bit surprised no one has tried an actual dedicated study to mask use on covid. I was thinking something along the lines of this - assemble a group of animals that easily contract COVID (only thing that comes to mind are mink)in two test groups. Test group one gets exposure to an infectious covid patient for a few hours every day in a closed room with a mask. Group 2 gets exposure with no mask. If masks work one test group should have less infection.

[duenor]

Strangely, no one wants to volunteer to be part of group two. You'd think the "just the flu" people would be lining up to prove the libtard mythos for what it is...

The study is quite flawed, and reasons why are already fairly covered in the journal comments page. Namely, duration of test against incubation periods against serology testing; lack of consideration regarding infection via home members; overall outbreak intensity in Denmark, which is extremely low; and the weakness of "mask recommendation". There's probably more but I don't want to bother getting into it as this is a silly argument to have.

The physics of masks are pretty darn easy to understand and demonstrate. It's as simple as filtering stuff out. The virus is .2 microns or so, but it is not bouncing around by itself - it's attached to spittle microdroplets floating in the air. It's not like it can jump off of a person like a flea. it has to be expelled. Those microdroplets are what you want to keep in, or keep out. if you have higher quality media, you can keep more of it out, or more of it in. if you have a crap media, then more gets out and more gets in. how much of it you have to breathe in before you get sick depends on each person, but the basic physics are just that. it's not rocket science as all.

I don't know why the anti-mask crowd is so fervent about this. it's not like wearing a mask is shaving your beard, getting a tattoo, or chopping off a pinky yakuza-style. it's almost as if they believe that wearing a mask is somehow turning them into liberals.

at this point, I really don't care. wear one or not, it's your life. I think governments are silly for imposing mandates like newsom's "masks all the time while outside" because it is unenforceable - you might as well ask nicely instead and not produce more rancor. I do think it is reasonable to impose mask mandates for businesses, since we already have structures like that (osha, health dept, etc). it's not unreasonable to make a temporary mask regulation part of the strictures that these agencies already enforce. in return, I'd like to see these agencies give some kind of certification to businesses so that they can then have some defense against liability suits, and maybe even produce greater customer confidence (hey, this business got a gold star for safety - let's go there instead).

[SAN compnerd]

I’m a bit surprised no one has tried an actual dedicated study to mask use on covid. I was thinking something along the lines of this - assemble a group of animals that easily contract COVID (only thing that comes to mind are mink)in two test groups. Test group one gets exposure to an infectious covid patient for a few hours every day in a closed room with a mask. Group 2 gets exposure with no mask. If masks work one test group should have less infection.

There are about a dozen such studies from pre Wuflu. I have posted several here. They all come to the same conclusion. Mask offer no protection. This is in part due to the lack of protocol or rigor when donning/doffing the mask and PPE.

There's an article I posted here some time ago by a researcher who discussed Minimum Infectious Dose or MID and made the point that if your mask breaks the seal around your face even just for a second you have lost any potential protection.

There's a reason why the military trains people on how to properly don/doff chem/bio warfare gear, and there's a reason why you must ensure a proper fit and tight seal with your mask. This requires a clean shaven face. Part of the process for donning the mask is to clear the mask by exhaling after the seal is made, then test the seal by blocking the filter port and inhale to ensure proper seal. The mask should cling tightly to the face when this is done and no indication of leaks is acceptable. If your mask leaks you know for certain when they pop the teargas canister.

That's the level of rigor and training required to achieve protection from biological threats. Tying a sock to your face isn't doing anything by making you look a fool to the vets who have been trained. Hell even wearing an N95 looks pretty foolish to vets who understand what rigor must be observed to be protected.

[Sousuke]

Strangely, no one wants to volunteer to be part of group two. You'd think the "just the flu" people would be lining up to prove the libtard mythos for what it is...

The groups are lab animals lol. No volunteering for them. You should just need 1 or 2 infected people to be in the study and they could be isolated.

[balgor]

The study wasn't testing whether masks were effective against preventing covid transmission. The study was testing whether giving people free masks and telling them to wear them was effective at preventing transmission, i.e. it was testing whether giving some people free masks and a pamphlet, who will go on to wear them some of the time to none of the time, during a lockdown, would see a reduction in infections. And the result was inconclusive. Only 1/2 of the participants actually followed the guidelines, Denmark was locked down almost the full length of the study, and they powered the study to try and detect a 50% reduction in infections a huge effect, i.e. the study was underpowered to detect a realistic effect of some people who received free masks wearing them sometimes upon covid transmission. If, they quadrupled the sample size, they probably would have been sufficiently powered to detect the actual effect. There is a reason why multiple journals rejected this paper.

[Sousuke]

There are about a dozen such studies from pre Wuflu. I have posted several here. They all come to the same conclusion. Mask offer no protection. This is in part due to the lack of protocol or rigor when donning/doffing the mask and PPE.

There's an article I posted here some time ago by a researcher who discussed Minimum Infectious Dose or MID and made the point that if your mask breaks the seal around your face even just for a second you have lost any potential protection.

There's a reason why the military trains people on how to properly don/doff chem/bio warfare gear, and there's a reason why you must ensure a proper fit and tight seal with your mask. This requires a clean shaven face. Part of the process for donning the mask is to clear the mask by exhaling after the seal is made, then test the seal by blocking the filter port and inhale to ensure proper seal. The mask should cling tightly to the face when this is done and no indication of leaks is acceptable. If your mask leaks you know for certain when they pop the teargas canister.

That's the level of rigor and training required to achieve protection from biological threats. Tying a sock to your face isn't doing anything by making you look a fool to the vets who have been trained. Hell even wearing an N95 looks pretty foolish to vets who understand what rigor must be observed to be protected.

The study wasn't testing whether masks were effective against preventing covid transmission. The study was testing whether giving people free masks and telling them to wear them was effective at preventing transmission, i.e. it was testing whether giving some people free masks and a pamphlet, who will go on to wear them some of the time to none of the time, during a lockdown, would see a reduction in infections. And the result was inconclusive. Only 1/2 of the participants actually followed the guidelines, Denmark was locked down almost the full length of the study, and they powered the study to try and detect a 50% reduction in infections a huge effect, i.e. the study was underpowered to detect a realistic effect of some people who received free masks wearing them sometimes upon covid transmission. There is a reason why multiple journals rejected this paper.

Which is why they should do a fully controlled study on spread. The Denmark study had very little control, and the studies SAN compnerd are mentioning are the exact reverse of the situational data we are looking for.

Someone! I implore you, go grab up 100 healthy mink before they get culled. Jam half of them in Room 1 and half in Room 2. Then stick your infected neighbor in Room 1 for an hour, then slap a mask on him and throw him in room 2 for an hour. Bake for a few days, and start counting infected mink.

[eaglemike]

Question - is the 50 percent line a magic number? Is any reduction helpful?


Based on this from the OP:


Conclusion:
The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

[sbo80]

There's a reason why the military trains people on how to properly don/doff chem/bio warfare gear, and there's a reason why you must ensure a proper fit and tight seal with your mask.

Having done the gas chamber myself, I will say this isn't a perfect analogy. A gas mask needs to protect you even from nerve gas, and anything less than 100% protection is probably fatal, hence a full perfect seal. That just isn't true with general disease. Even if only 30% less chance of catching something can help when we're talking across the scale of the whole population. It doesn't have to "guarantee protection" or else it's useless. That's like saying don't bother wearing sunscreen if it's only spf 20. That just isn't how it works. I personally don't care about wearing a mask, and would have no issue shopping or eating out without one. But saying "masks don't help at all" is just not a defendable position. "I shouldn't be mandated to wear a mask" is a valid argument to make, particularly as the "if it saves one child" mantra is terrible government policy.

[Hateca]

Didn’t read it and don’t care. A study is only as good as the outcome you wish to achieve. I don’t believe any study at this point. I don’t believe anything the CDC says, it changes daily. I don’t trust and never trusted what a government official says. Like they say the well is already been polluted. Years from now when the real numbers come out everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.

[Epaphroditus]

It's pretty simple. Properly fitted N95 (or better) and eye protection or you are fooling yourself. That's what the science says.

The real question is why the CDC says don't wear N95?

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html

You do know there are stockpiles of N95 respirators that are not being distributed.

[BeerVi]

Which is why they should do a fully controlled study on spread. The Denmark study had very little control, and the studies SAN compnerd are mentioning are the exact reverse of the situational data we are looking for.

Someone! I implore you, go grab up 100 healthy mink before they get culled. Jam half of them in Room 1 and half in Room 2. Then stick your infected neighbor in Room 1 for an hour, then slap a mask on him and throw him in room 2 for an hour. Bake for a few days, and start counting infected mink.

It would be a very interesting experiment, lol. I think that the production of masks and their wearing is another business that is profitable for someone. It makes sense to wear masks only to those who are infected, but nothing more.