Do Masks Work?

[jc456]

Good.
Then, perhaps you understand the need to rephrase your racist question?

When I make one I will!

i call what I see, like you’re a punk!

 

[Dadoalex]

When I make one I will!

i call what I see, like you’re a punk!

ALL racists say that.
"Just calling what I see."
What does a blind man see?
If he does not see the murder did the murder happen?
Close your eyes to your racism if you please.
Because I'll be here to help you see.

 

[jc456]

ALL racists say that.
"Just calling what I see."
What does a blind man see?
If he does not see the murder did the murder happen?
Close your eyes to your racism if you please.
Because I'll be here to help you see.

again, since I'm not, you're welcome to stay inferior to me. let me know when you learn what racism is.

 

[Dadoalex]

again, since I'm not, you're welcome to stay inferior to me. let me know when you learn what racism is.

Sure. That's the other thing ALL racists say.

"Oh no! Not me! some of my best __________ are ___________!"

Sound familiar, racist?

 

[dudmuck]

These results are also in keeping with other information on mask types, such as this one, which is a pretty good article on the subject. and cites another study on this specific question.

Masks are NOT source control

Megan Mansell explains why masks are inappropriate as source control for COVID-19

rationalground.com

"Cloth masks have been shown to have 97% particle penetration, with 44% for surgical masks."

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

yea, a podcaster is the definitive source on mask effectiveness.

Leviticus 13:45

 

[Fueri]

yea, a podcaster is the definitive source on mask effectiveness.

Leviticus 13:45

I posted the link to the study they cited for that and said this "and cites another study on this specific question"

That citation goes to the NIH.

Very poor effort on your part.

 

[dudmuck]

I posted the link to the study they cited for that and said this "and cites another study on this specific question"

That citation goes to the NIH.

Very poor effort on your part.

those studies compare cloth masks vs medical masks for healthcare workers.
Healthcare workers need masks for protecting the wearer. Cloth masks for the general public have a different purpose: to reduce spread of a possibly infectious person to others. The only value of those studies for the general public is for people that want masks to protect themselves from other people.

 

[Fueri]

those studies compare cloth masks vs medical masks for healthcare workers.
Healthcare workers need masks for protecting the wearer. Cloth masks for the general public have a different purpose: to reduce spread of a possibly infectious person to others. The only value of those studies for the general public is for people that want masks to protect themselves from other people.

The citation was about particle penetration of these types of masks, very specifically, relative to one another and is perfectly valid when considering efficacy against airborne virus aerosols, your attempts to somehow discredit an NIH study now notwithstanding.

These have very poor ability to stop particles, especially the cloth type. In either direction.

 

[jc456]

Sure. That's the other thing ALL racists say.

"Oh no! Not me! some of my best __________ are ___________!"

Sound familiar, racist?

So you’re the racist, ahhh, I got it.

you know all the sayings

 

[dudmuck]

The citation was about particle penetration of these types of masks, very specifically, relative to one another and is perfectly valid when considering efficacy against airborne virus aerosols, your attempts to somehow discredit an NIH study now notwithstanding.

These have very poor ability to stop particles, especially the cloth type. In either direction.

those NIH studies were relevant in the context they were made: for medical staff pre-pandemic. They were done in 2015.

Today, there are much more studies on all type of cloth material effectiveness with more detail than most people would care about. The bottom line is the masks you buy in the store today are much better at preventing virus spread than the masks they were looking at in those 2015 NIH studies.

 

[Fueri]

those NIH studies were relevant in the context they were made: for medical staff pre-pandemic. They were done in 2015.

Today, there are much more studies on all type of cloth material effectiveness with more detail than most people would care about. The bottom line is the masks you buy in the store today are much better at preventing virus spread than the masks they were looking at in those 2015 NIH studies.

Now it's the year you are using to try to discredit a large scale rct study.

Cloth masks are now better than they were in 2015, due to the massive advances in......cloth. That's literally ridiculous. We have people sewing and selling them on ETSY and tossing bandanas on their face, FFS

Give me a break.

 

[jc456]

those NIH studies were relevant in the context they were made: for medical staff pre-pandemic. They were done in 2015.

Today, there are much more studies on all type of cloth material effectiveness with more detail than most people would care about. The bottom line is the masks you buy in the store today are much better at preventing virus spread than the masks they were looking at in those 2015 NIH studies.

You still haven’t addressed the language on the boxes! Does not protect against Covid 19! Explain

 

[buckeye45_73]

Long story short, the answer is no.

"In sum, of the 14 RCTs that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis, that masks might be useful. The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless—whether compared with no masks or because they appear not to add to good hand hygiene alone—or actually counterproductive. Of the three studies that provided statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis that was not contradicted within the same study, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks."

Do Masks Work?

“Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS!” So tweeted then–surgeon general Jerome Adams on February 29, 2020, adding, “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus.” Two days later, Adams said, “Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces...

www.city-journal.org

It's just used for control, nice post. Even Fauci was against them before the cult put a gun to his head

 

[buckeye45_73]

Wow.
The RWI stance to deny science.

Stay unmasked and risk it.
The Risk is NOT WORTH it you claim.

But Freedom........lol.

this post is gibberish

 

[dudmuck]

You still haven’t addressed the language on the boxes! Does not protect against Covid 19! Explain

because those types of masks are for reducing the amount of virus the wearer would be spreading. The purpose of those masks is to capture exhaled aerosol.

 

[Desperado]

The ultimate mask for those mask nazis

 

[Dadoalex]

So you’re the racist, ahhh, I got it.

you know all the sayings

Know your enemy as yourself.

 

[jc456]

Know your enemy as yourself.

So you are racist

 

[Lesh]

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

 

[basquebromance]