Real science: study shows that masks don't work

[deerdeerdeer]

Why post garbage from a dodgy website, when the study itself is readily available?

Impact of community masking on COVID-19: A cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial to measure the effect of community-level mask distribution and promotion on symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021 (N = 600 villages, N = 342,183 adults). We cross-randomized mask type (cloth vs. surgical) and promotion strategies at the village and household level. Proper mask-wearing increased from 13.3% in the control group to 42.3% in the intervention arm (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.29 [0.26, 0.31]). The intervention reduced symptomatic seroprevalence (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.91 [0.82, 1.00]), especially among adults 60+ years in villages where surgical masks were distributed (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.65 [0.45, 0.85]). Mask distribution and promotion was a scalable and effective method to reduce symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069

Always go to the primary source, goes for MSM too they don't do a great job reporting upon scientific papers either.

You keep breathing in that CO2+germs, along with the fact that the box says it doesnt stop coronavirus, science....

[PogoJack]

[deerdeerdeer]

Just use a plastic bag, that’s even more effective than double masking.

I use a plastic bag, put holes in the eyes, then I put a a brown paper bag with eyes for holes, then I put a mask on the outside of the bag, I am triple dipple protected.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I love it when it takes a study to admit the obvious. It reminds me of my work days in software. We knew empirically what the top three biggest problems in our department were, yet management demanded we collect years of metrics to prove it before getting off their duffs.

I don't think this study will change anything.

It never seems to. Perhaps, because it's usually about promoting for more funding than it is about 'breaking news.'

Just like 30 years ago I was driving to work in the morning, listening to the news on the radio and they announced a 'study' had shown that there is a definitive difference in how men and women view the World around them with the study recommending that more study was needed to investigate this phenomenon as if it was something no one had ever observed in the history of mankind.

[Deadon]

Why post garbage from a dodgy website, when the study itself is readily available?

Impact of community masking on COVID-19: A cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial to measure the effect of community-level mask distribution and promotion on symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021 (N = 600 villages, N = 342,183 adults). We cross-randomized mask type (cloth vs. surgical) and promotion strategies at the village and household level. Proper mask-wearing increased from 13.3% in the control group to 42.3% in the intervention arm (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.29 [0.26, 0.31]). The intervention reduced symptomatic seroprevalence (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.91 [0.82, 1.00]), especially among adults 60+ years in villages where surgical masks were distributed (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.65 [0.45, 0.85]). Mask distribution and promotion was a scalable and effective method to reduce symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069

Always go to the primary source, goes for MSM too they don't do a great job reporting upon scientific papers either.

Why be on a site about firearms when you hate firearms? Only to come here and spout your dodgy garbage?

[larkja]

Gonna' have to do better than that.

The Bangladesh study has been debunked by many. Here's the primary source - https://www.poverty-action.org/sites...ity_083121.pdf

Problems with the results (https://principia-scientific.com/ban...ly-weak-tea/):

The authors admit it themselves (and oddly do not seem to grasp that this invalidates their own mask claims)

AND

Why post garbage from a dodgy website, when the study itself is readily available?

Impact of community masking on COVID-19: A cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial to measure the effect of community-level mask distribution and promotion on symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021 (N = 600 villages, N = 342,183 adults). We cross-randomized mask type (cloth vs. surgical) and promotion strategies at the village and household level. Proper mask-wearing increased from 13.3% in the control group to 42.3% in the intervention arm (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.29 [0.26, 0.31]). The intervention reduced symptomatic seroprevalence (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.91 [0.82, 1.00]), especially among adults 60+ years in villages where surgical masks were distributed (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.65 [0.45, 0.85]). Mask distribution and promotion was a scalable and effective method to reduce symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069

Always go to the primary source, goes for MSM too they don't do a great job reporting upon scientific papers either.

[larkja]

AND...https://dailycaller.com/2021/09/02/c...dy-bangladesh/

Another data point that catches attention, though, is that the mask-wearing did virtually nothing for anyone under 50 years old. In villages that used surgical masks, COVID-19 prevalence in people aged 60 and over fell from 1.03% to 0.69%, a relative decrease of 34.7%. Ages 50-60 saw a relative drop of 23%. Below age 50, however, researchers found no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 seroprevalence.

[sd_shooter]

The 'scientists' can't see the forest for the trees. An N95 mask used in a lab setting probably seems rather effective.

In the real world:
- People either can't buy or don't want to bother with N95
- Even if they do run an N95, it's not worn properly
- Virtually no one would discard an expensive N95 after use (eg. after running into the store to pick up something). It is reused - and would be dirty.
- Most people would satisfied with a comfortable cloth mask which let's them "comply" with minimal inconvenience
- That cloth mask is certainly reused, sometimes for months. It's thrown away when it falls apart or starts to stink.
- People play with their masks all the time
- The mask is removed for a sneeze or cough - who wants phlegm in the mask!
- The mask collects bacteria, it likely ends up being the perfect breeding ground for all manner of bugs. Warm & moist. Maybe even more covid19?

A great idea in a hospital operating room. A bad idea for the general population.

[larkja]

A great idea in a hospital operating room. A bad idea for the general population.

'Nuff said.

[bigbossman]

Why post garbage......

Indeed. We all ask that very same question, every time we see your avatar.

[Deadon]

Indeed. We all ask that very same question, every time we see your avatar.

It's been slow over at dem underground. Not as many people post there anymore. It's a shame they can post here when you can't post there unless you're a flaming lib. I've been seeing them shout down dems now. Lol.

[Dan_Eastvale]

It's been slow over at dem underground. Not as many people post there anymore. It's a shame they can post here when you can't post there unless you're a flaming lib. I've been seeing them shout down dems now. Lol.

Not much for them to talk about now that they have POTUS and Congress.. And an uncontested free flow of illegals at the border

Probably pick up autumn 2022

[OlderThanDirt]

Masks are pretty effective as a temporary cure for ugliness.

[Tango_Down]

Masks are pretty effective as a temporary cure for ugliness.

The majority of humans are ugly. That's why I think many of then enjoy wearing the masks. This is their way of hiding from society.

[LBDamned]

it was never about an illness.