Massive Danish study: Mask do little against covid

[edthecynic]

Yeah lets panic and shut everything down with a death rate of .02%.

And if by .02% you mean 3% then you wouldn't be the worthless lying scum POS you are!

Its 2.1% 258,182 deaths in 12,052,527 cases not counting the additional at least 10 million who had it and never knew they did as they weren't tested.

WRONG!!!!
It's 260,226 deaths in 7,571,861 CLOSED cases. It is MORONIC to assume that not one more person will die in all the 4.5+ million cases still OPEN!!!!!

 

[fncceo]

I put my full and complete trust in the race of people who perfected the waffle recipe ... their science is without peer.

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

Post the link...!

Even the CDC shows that 85% of those infected with covid were wearing masks... I dont know where you pulled that shitty number from, but it looks like it was your ass.

The same CDC link where your BULLSHIT came from, which means you either went to the CDC website and therefore you know my numbers are true, or you just are mindlessly parroting Right-wing deliberately deceiving BULLSHIT!

Mask-wearing is ubiquitous but the numbers are spiking. Do the math.

Masks certainly were NOT ubiquitous at Tramp's superspreader rallies. Tramp is a one man pandemic!!

 

[Agit8r]

From the study cited:
"A systematic review of observational studies reported that mask use reduced risk for SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and COVID-19 by 66% overall, 70% in health care workers, and 44% in the community"

So, exactly the opposite of what the illiterate author of the Blaze article says.

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

Gee I failed to find that elusive 87% you brought up,

That's because it came from the CDC, and not from some fake foreign Right-wing source.
The CDC reported that of the 160 people who had tested negative, conversely, a total of 88.7% said they had worn a mask either "always" (74.2%) or "often" (14.5%).
So I was wrong, masks weren't 87% effective, they were 88.7% effective.
BTW the CDC study was cited in your FAKE STUDY, though typically dishonestly as ALL Right-wing sources do.

Only a 160 people? Pfff, get the fuck out of here.

That is 4 more people than in the CDC study the Trump Nazis used to claim 85% of mask wearers get covid.
So Pfff, get the fuck out of here to you too.

I dont buy either study. If you werent a retard, you wouldnt either.

You never saw "either" study, because they are the SAME study, the Right simply deliberately misrepresented the 85% as the control group I cited.

 

[Unkotare]

But have they studied the effects on people who are not Giant Danes?

Or minks........apparently they are having a lot of trouble with COVID and their mink industry.
Somehow I don't find the Danes very interesting in this calamity.

 

[edthecynic]

It’s not the number of mask-wearers who catch Wuhan but the number of those who catch Wuhan who wore masks.

Which is a useless deliberately misleading number, which is why the Right chose that number rather than the 88.7% who DIDN'T get the Trump-45 virus who wore a mask.

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

And if the left endorsed not wearing masks, you and all democrats would be against mask-wearing.

BULLSHIT!

Sure you would. Look how democrats currently vote against their own interests just to be part of the ‘group’. Just to ‘fit in’.

Pure projection.

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

And if the left endorsed not wearing masks, you and all democrats would be against mask-wearing.

BULLSHIT!

You democrats endorsed enormous left wing mobs gathering all year during a fucking pandemic.

When the Right know they are WRONG, they try to change the subject.

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

And if the left endorsed not wearing masks, you and all democrats would be against mask-wearing.

BULLSHIT!

You all endorsed enormous left wing mobs gathering during a fucking pandemic.

And Lester Holt had the nerve to refer to the trump rally as a “super spreader event” without including the context of BLM klan rally riots.

Do you mean the Tramp HATE rallies, where everywhere they were held are now increasing in covid cases? Those superspreader events?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

Post the link...!

Even the CDC shows that 85% of those infected with covid were wearing masks... I dont know where you pulled that shitty number from, but it looks like it was your ass.

The same CDC link where your BULLSHIT came from, which means you either went to the CDC website and therefore you know my numbers are true, or you just are mindlessly parroting Right-wing deliberately deceiving BULLSHIT!

Mask-wearing is ubiquitous but the numbers are spiking. Do the math.

Masks certainly were NOT ubiquitous at Tramp's superspreader rallies. Tramp is a one man pandemic!!

Non-sequitor and dishonest.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It’s not the number of mask-wearers who catch Wuhan but the number of those who catch Wuhan who wore masks.

Which is a useless deliberately misleading number, which is why the Right chose that number rather than the 88.7% who DIDN'T get the Trump-45 virus who wore a mask.

You’re dodging.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

And if the left endorsed not wearing masks, you and all democrats would be against mask-wearing.

BULLSHIT!

Sure you would. Look how democrats currently vote against their own interests just to be part of the ‘group’. Just to ‘fit in’.

Pure projection.

No, it’s empirical. Anti-abortion Catholics vote democrat. Anti-homo black churches vote democrat. Inclusivity proponents vote democrat segregation.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

And if the left endorsed not wearing masks, you and all democrats would be against mask-wearing.

BULLSHIT!

You all endorsed enormous left wing mobs gathering during a fucking pandemic.

And Lester Holt had the nerve to refer to the trump rally as a “super spreader event” without including the context of BLM klan rally riots.

Do you mean the Tramp HATE rallies, where everywhere they were held are now increasing in covid cases? Those superspreader events?

You’re as dishonest as Lester Holt.
You just made ignore since you can’t debate.

 

[Kilroy2]

My favorite part of the article

It appears that the study's authors had to twist their tongues in order to get this study published by noting that "the estimates were imprecise and statistically compatible with an effect ranging from a 46% decrease to a 23% increase in infection." They of course had to concede that their study doesn't definitely rule out the idea that masks could be effective!

further it says

the researchers cautioned that their findings "should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing [COVID-19] infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of [COVID-19] infection.


well one thing is certain, if you wear no mask you will get infected. Is the survey saying that front line doctors and nurses do not stand a chance when treating patients with COVID-19 when wearing masks?

I would love to find out why these 3 organization did not want anything to do with the Danish study.

it could be that they didn't buy into the methodology or whether it was peer reviewed. It is know that many mask on the market are not medical grade masks. They are cheap mask that do not work as well as medical grade masks. People do not wear mask 24/7.

The question is could it be worse and is the mask part of a plan which includes other things.

See, this is the strange aspect of your position.

Do tell... what possible reason would they have for concluding masks are not a benefit? You seem to be implying they were 'trying to twist' the results.

Why would they do this?

I know why they would have motivations to find masks were effective. The companies making billions selling these things obviously have a reason to pay for favorable results.

Governments have obviously backed the idea of taking away freedoms and forcing people to wear masks. Biden supporters even want him to violate the constitution to put in a mask mandate, threading freedom and limited government that isn't run by a dictator.

So we know why they would want to find a reason to claim masks are effective.

What possible benefit.... other than... oh I don't know... actual science in trying to find real effective methods of controlling the virus, and not wasting resources on masks that do nothing........ Other than that motivation.... what reason do you think they would have to find masks are not effective?

You do know that research done years ago showed that masks were not particularly effective, right? This isn't the first study to find this.

the researchers cautioned that their findings "should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing [COVID-19] infections,

what part of that statement taken from the article do you not understand.
They just contradicted their own study.

should not

conclude that

wear mask

would not be effective in reducing infections.

3 organizations refused to publish it

This study is just to feed the "No mask for Me" crowd.

What part of the actual data are you not able to understand?

Here's the problem. The people who are pushing masks, are the ones who need to provide evidence they work.

The very fact this research could not find evidence that they were all that beneficial, is proof enough to question the 'divine wisdom' that masks are so helpful.

You people on the left-wing, demanding the right to deny freedom of choice to everyone around you, even while harming them..... you need to provide the proof that masks work. Not us. We don't need to provide proof they don't, because we're not trying to force masks on others.

Do you understand that basic logic? I'm not being sarcastic.

We're not trying to dictate anything on you. So we don't need to prove anything to you.

You are trying to dictate to us. You are trying to force others, to obey your dictations.

So it's on you to provide absolute concrete proof that they work, and so far there isn't any evidence they work at all.

More than 900 Mayo Clinic staff members diagnosed with Covid-19 in Midwest over two weeks | CNN

More than 900 staff members across the Midwest Mayo Clinic system have been diagnosed with Covid-19 over the last 14 days, a spokesperson told CNN.

www.cnn.com

Do you even want to attempt to claim that all the Mayo Clinic staff were not wearing masks? Or not following any of the social distancing rules?

Or maybe the masks are not all that effective, just like how the Danish research couldn't find any conclusive evidence they were all that effective?

You do know there are actually quite a few other research papers that showed they were not all that effective, right?

Well they did not suggest masks in the beginning and that is known

Does mask work in the hospital setting with doctors and nurses using them?

Mask are just part of the response. yes low level masks do not provide optimal protection that is already known. It one of several suggestions to help people and gives them some control in the face of adversity. It is about using other strategies also. It's about knowing how to use it and what they did.

Here is what they did

Among 6,000 participants in Denmark, half were told to wear masks and half were not. The researchers found 42 of the participants who were told to wear masks contracted COVID-19, while 53 in the control group got the disease.

simple but does not take into account what they did. No one wears mask all the time. People at home do not wear masks. Family member and relatives float in and out. I see people at work they wear the mask but at times they pull it down because its to much for them.

We do not know what they did.

here is the deal if you do not wear a mask you will get the disease. Wearing the mask might give you an edge.

There may not be any significant statistical difference and that is their point.

But if at least half of 6,000 participants which is about 3,000 wore masks and only 42 contacted the disease. Something is fishy in Denmark. It seems a lot who wore masks did not get the disease. But by comparing the one who got the disease who wore a mask and compare it to the ones who did not wear a mask. 42 to 56. That is there opinion that it is not statistically significant. An argument to give to the rabble who do not wish to wear a mask by saying there is minimal differences between the two

Yet there was a difference of 14 people It is not numbers it is people. So what is important people or statistics? It is about the spread. It is not about a high percentage survives. 250,000 deaths and yeah statistically when looking at the total number of infection it is minimal.

Mask worn by the general public has to be in conjunction with other variables. I see people wearing mask and that mask is dirty. They wear it over and over which you should not do.

I see smokers buying a pack of cigarettes wearing their mask.

Its not just about contacting the virus but it also is about spreading the virus to others. Something the study did not address.

Trump's white house with the president and his wife and son contracting the disease. Even his son contracted it. Also other people in his surroundings. They did not wear mask because the head of the family refused to. Yet when he went to the hospital where people were being treated by COVID 19 he wore a mask.

If mask do not matter why would he wear a mask in that setting

are you saying that Trump did something that was useless?

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

Post the link...!

Even the CDC shows that 85% of those infected with covid were wearing masks... I dont know where you pulled that shitty number from, but it looks like it was your ass.

The same CDC link where your BULLSHIT came from, which means you either went to the CDC website and therefore you know my numbers are true, or you just are mindlessly parroting Right-wing deliberately deceiving BULLSHIT!

Mask-wearing is ubiquitous but the numbers are spiking. Do the math.

Masks certainly were NOT ubiquitous at Tramp's superspreader rallies. Tramp is a one man pandemic!!

Non-sequitor and dishonest.

IOW the truth!
Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

It’s not the number of mask-wearers who catch Wuhan but the number of those who catch Wuhan who wore masks.

Which is a useless deliberately misleading number, which is why the Right chose that number rather than the 88.7% who DIDN'T get the Trump-45 virus who wore a mask.

You’re dodging.

IOW, I caught you being dishonest.
Thank you again.

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

And if the left endorsed not wearing masks, you and all democrats would be against mask-wearing.

BULLSHIT!

Sure you would. Look how democrats currently vote against their own interests just to be part of the ‘group’. Just to ‘fit in’.

Pure projection.

No, it’s empirical. Anti-abortion Catholics vote democrat. Anti-homo black churches vote democrat. Inclusivity proponents vote democrat segregation.

You are insane!

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, they are only 87% effective, you can't get any littler than that.

And if the left endorsed not wearing masks, you and all democrats would be against mask-wearing.

BULLSHIT!

You all endorsed enormous left wing mobs gathering during a fucking pandemic.

And Lester Holt had the nerve to refer to the trump rally as a “super spreader event” without including the context of BLM klan rally riots.

Do you mean the Tramp HATE rallies, where everywhere they were held are now increasing in covid cases? Those superspreader events?

You’re as dishonest as Lester Holt.
You just made ignore since you can’t debate.

Your white flag is accepted!

 

[JordannaNY]

Wearing a mask in public spaces keeps higher risk people safer from getting the virus from you. It's a small inconvenience while we wait for the vaccine. It may not be 100% effective but if it makes it harder for the virus to spread to someone that could really suffer from the virus then i'll wear a mask. I know too many people that are either high risk or have family members that are high risk to be casual with their safety when i'm around them.