The Danish Mask Study

[Sousuke]

Anyone notice in the last 24 hours or so that the CDC guidelines may be changing?

I noticed a few interviews yesterday where the CDC is effectively now pushing "get a better mask". In summary, they were saying supply chains of N95 for hospital use are now secure, so they are encouraging people to now upgrade.

Basically, move away from cloth and toward N95, KN95, or FFP2s. If you cannot secure those use level 2 or 3 surgical at minimum.

[SAN compnerd]

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.

Would you feel the same if the test in the chamber was with Anthrax? The mask is not just for Chemical, it's for biological protection as well. Why? Because just as with nerve gas a tiny exposure means fatality.

This piece, which reviews over half a dozen studies on masking and effectiveness, explains it pretty clearly. Breaking the seal, even just momentarily, negates any perceived protection.

No masking study has ever proven masks effective at stopping or slowing the spread of viruses or seasonal flu. This author acutally lists all of the objections mentioned by others here as to why it's almost impossible to do a proper study on this, but many studys have been done seeking to find the answer to this question. Every study reviewed here found masks ineffective. Now the Danmask study finds the same thing.

Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.

https://www.technocracy.news/censore...sks-dont-work/

[SAN compnerd]

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...

Strangely the study had over a thousand people drop out of the masking arm. People in the non masking arm did not drop out. Seems like you either didn't read the study, or you are just spreading FUD as usual.

[Sousuke]

Strangely the study had over a thousand people drop out of the masking arm. People in the non masking arm did not drop out. Seems like you either didn't read the study, or you are just spreading FUD as usual.

He was actually not referring to the study you posted. He was responding to my suggestion about a controlled study I had mention. That was just a misunderstanding in that he thought I wanted to expose healthy people to the virus in the lab whereas I was referring to lab animals that show a high degree of infection from humans

[SAN compnerd]

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.

Very strange time we live in, one where the county level study on masks claiming effectiveness was retracted due to the huge spike in infections.

Why do you think that is?

https://fee.org/articles/authors-retract-study-showing-efficacy-of-mask-mandates-as-biden-pushes-nationwide-requirement/

[duenor]

He was actually not referring to the study you posted. He was responding to my suggestion about a controlled study I had mention. That was just a misunderstanding in that he thought I wanted to expose healthy people to the virus in the lab whereas I was referring to lab animals that show a high degree of infection from humans

The only problem with the mink idea is that some might see it as playing with fire (ie trying to get the virus to go from humans to animals). I don't think so, since it's already happened back and forth, but I can see the headlines.

Feel terrible for both the minks and the farmers. They got wiped out, bare earth. I think they will try to sell some pelts but the last I heard most will be incinerated.

[SAN compnerd]

Wonder why this study has been overlooked by the latest from the CDC?

[therealnickb]

Because some statements can't be walked back without losing what little credibility they had.