Disease X

  • Thread starter Thread starter harddriver
  • Start date Start date
How effective is a mask in preventing COVID‐19 infection? - PMC (nih.gov)

The current research results have shown that COVID‐19 is mainly transmitted via droplets in the air. There is a potential risk of airborne transmission in an indoor environment with poor ventilation. The distance of droplet transmission can extend up to 4 m. Based on this data, the recommended social distancing range of 1–2 m (CDC, 2020; WHO, 2020) may not necessarily guarantee the epidemic prevention. Therefore, wearing mask in public is essential as its effectiveness has already been well established by the current studies. For exhalation isolation, both surgical and N95 masks are shown to be effective in reducing the spread of respiratory diseases, but the former is more accessible and comfortable to wear compared to the latter. For inhalation protection, air filtering respirators such as N95 masks can filtrate contaminants, bacteria and other matters from reaching nose and mouth, and are more efficient in virus penetration inhibition than surgical masks.

Three major filtration mechanisms are identified, namely, interception, inertial impaction and diffusion. While interception takes place for nearby particles, inertial impaction is mainly dominated by some large particles. Diffusion mechanism primarily applies to small particles with diameters around 0.1 μm. A mask design needs to consider all these mechanisms in order to increase the filtration capacity for all particle sizes. As a result, the air filtering respirators are designed to prevent both airborne transmission and the droplets, and highly recommended for the indoor area especially in the high‐risk environment. Based on these studies, all people, regardless of physical conditions and professions, should wear masks at all times in prevention of COVID‐19. In this regard, inhalation protection via masks is particularly important in order to reduce the transmission of viruses that are potentially carried by droplets and aerosols. The mask requirement has already been proved to be effective, and recently mandated in all states of the United States (Does Your State Have a Mask Mandate Due to Coronavirus?). Considering limited resources in some regions, the home‐made masks are shown to have comparable filtration efficiencies compared to the medical masks. A conclusion can be reached based on the current studies: correctly wearing masks of all kinds, despite their different designs, functions and effectiveness, will to a large degree reduce the overall risks of COVID‐19 infection and enhance general protection from coronavirus.
 
IMG_7251.gif
 
You asked, there's the answer. Now STFU about it.
That’s not an answer Gramps. That’s just the CDC making assertions. The RCT meta analysis shows masks don’t work. But you can still wear one all you want!
 
I honestly don't know why anyone spends the time arguing here. It's like trying to teach chickens integral calculus i.e. futile.
I found this new game on my phone, and I’m too cheap to pay for no ads, so basically it’s like 30 seconds of game play, followed by 45-60 seconds of ads.
So I’ve been playing the ads in the background while banging my head against a wall here.
It’s been a productive night. Go Eagles!
 
That’s not an answer, gramps. That’s just the CDC making assertions. The RCT meta analysis show masks don’t work. But you can still wear one all you want!
It's not boolean... ie. work vs don't work. It reduces risk and can buy time in certain environments. Also depends on the type of mask to some degree but they all work to varying degrees. They are not 100% effective and they are not 100% ineffective either.

Also leave the condescending gramps shit out you little fuck.
 
It's not boolean... ie. work vs don't work. It reduces risk and can buy time in certain environments. Also depends on the type of mask to some degree but they all work to varying degrees. They are not 100% effective and they are not 100% ineffective either.
Maybe that’s true but that’s not what the meta analysis found. It did not show a statistically significant effect.
 
Maybe that’s true but that’s not what the meta analysis found. It did not show a statistically significant effect.
One meta analysis - others don't say that... Here's another random one... Look at the last sentence which I have made bold.

Effectiveness of Using Face Masks and Personal Protective Equipment to Reducing the Spread of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies - PubMed (nih.gov)

Abstract​

Recently published researches show that 59% of all transmission came from asymptomatic transmission and at the time of diagnosis health-care workers (HCWs) tend to present without respiratory symptoms. These evidences have raised questions on whether an essential policy for use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is the best approach in HCW and other people or not. Therefore, this study conducted to investigate the effectiveness of using face masks and PPE in reducing the spread of COVID-19 in health-care and non-health-care settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was prepared according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis statement and guided by meta-analysis of observational studies recommendations. Searches in databases were conducted from December 2019 to July 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of using face masks and PPE on spread of COVID-19. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I 2 metrics. In total, 9920 individuals from 14 studies were included in this study. In all settings, application of PPE or any type of masks was associated with reduction in risk of COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.29, 0.65]; I 2 = 85.21%). In the HCW subgroup, the protective effect had a combined OR of 0.33 (95% CI: (0.15,0.73), I 2 = 82.61%). Six studies were found protective effects of wearing mask in non-HCWs (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: (0.31, 1.06), I 2 = 85.63%). Results suggest that there is association between face mask/PPE use and reduction of COVID-19.
 
One meta analysis - others don't say that... Here's another random one... Look at the last sentence which I have made bold.

Effectiveness of Using Face Masks and Personal Protective Equipment to Reducing the Spread of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies - PubMed (nih.gov)

Abstract​

Recently published researches show that 59% of all transmission came from asymptomatic transmission and at the time of diagnosis health-care workers (HCWs) tend to present without respiratory symptoms. These evidences have raised questions on whether an essential policy for use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is the best approach in HCW and other people or not. Therefore, this study conducted to investigate the effectiveness of using face masks and PPE in reducing the spread of COVID-19 in health-care and non-health-care settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was prepared according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis statement and guided by meta-analysis of observational studies recommendations. Searches in databases were conducted from December 2019 to July 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of using face masks and PPE on spread of COVID-19. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I 2 metrics. In total, 9920 individuals from 14 studies were included in this study. In all settings, application of PPE or any type of masks was associated with reduction in risk of COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.29, 0.65]; I 2 = 85.21%). In the HCW subgroup, the protective effect had a combined OR of 0.33 (95% CI: (0.15,0.73), I 2 = 82.61%). Six studies were found protective effects of wearing mask in non-HCWs (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: (0.31, 1.06), I 2 = 85.63%). Results suggest that there is association between face mask/PPE use and reduction of COVID-19.
So to form a conclusion we need to look at the quality of each study and the studies they reference. Right off the bat I can tell you the Cochrane review only included RCTs and it doesn’t appear that this one did, but I’ll take a closer look.
 
I always try to put my best foot forward with people. Often though, having a different take on various topics triggers personal attack, to which I’ll usually respond in kind. Then the initiator typically gets doubly mad and butthurt about not only the topic being discussed but also my response to their personal attack 🤷‍♂️ These folks are a tough crowd and usually not very self-aware.
 
It’s near impossible to do a proper study of mask usage vs infections. The scientific method tests only one variable at a time, and mask usage in public has any number of variables at any given time. The only accurate way to test a mask is containment. It's controllable, repeatable and observable.
But even with that knowledge, human nature is still too varied for it to ever be set in stone. People need to wear their masks properly for them work properly, and many people don't. As mentioned before, some people touch their masks all day and don't wash their hands because they are slobs. On the other end of the spectrum, people may feel bulletproof because they are wearing one and then put themselves in situations where they are more likely to contract a virus than if they were not wearing a mask. Add to that the very nature of statistics and how easily they can be spun, and you have a recipe for absolute junk science.

Do masks contain any particulates? Yes they do. The more they contain the better they work. It's that simple. They aren't 100% effective, but they are effective. Sorry, not sorry

The media certainly played them up, but if you think they were supposed to be some miracle cure for the world, you are a dumbass and need to rethink your life. They were just one layer of protection for those who gave a shit to do so.
 
Do masks contain any particulates? Yes they do. The more they contain the better they work. It's that simple. They aren't 100% effective, but they are effective. Sorry, not sorry
…Above a certain size threshold, yes. Where are you getting this idea that they are effective though? At the very least don't you think we should compare the conflicting meta studies?
 
…Above a certain size threshold, yes. Where are you getting this idea that they are effective though? At the very least don't you think we should compare the conflicting meta studies?
My man, he slurps the kool aid like a child at a Jim Jones sponsored BBQ.
 
Back
Top