New Study Says Masks Didn't Slow the Spread of COVID

[excalibur]

As I have said for more than a year, masks don't work.

NB I am putting this in Current Events because it is so important.

Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against respiratory viruses, and observational studies conflict on whether mask use predicts lower infection rates. We hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use are associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates in the United States.

Methods We calculated total COVID-19 case growth and mask use for the continental United States with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. We estimated post-mask mandate case growth in non-mandate states using median issuance dates of neighboring states with mandates.

Results Case growth was not significantly different between mandate and non-mandate states at low or high transmission rates, and surges were equivocal. Mask use predicted lower case growth at low, but not high transmission rates. Growth rates were comparable between states in the first and last mask use quintiles adjusted for normalized total cases early in the pandemic and unadjusted after peak Fall-Winter infections. Mask use did not predict Summer 2020 case growth for non-Northeast states or Fall-Winter 2020 growth for all continental states.

Conclusions Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges. Containment requires future research and implementation of existing efficacious strategies.​

Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment

Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against...

www.medrxiv.org

 

[xband]

As I have said for more than a year, masks don't work.

NB I am putting this in Current Events because it is so important.

​

Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against respiratory viruses, and observational studies conflict on whether mask use predicts lower infection rates. We hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use are associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates in the United States.​

​

Methods We calculated total COVID-19 case growth and mask use for the continental United States with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. We estimated post-mask mandate case growth in non-mandate states using median issuance dates of neighboring states with mandates.​

​

Results Case growth was not significantly different between mandate and non-mandate states at low or high transmission rates, and surges were equivocal. Mask use predicted lower case growth at low, but not high transmission rates. Growth rates were comparable between states in the first and last mask use quintiles adjusted for normalized total cases early in the pandemic and unadjusted after peak Fall-Winter infections. Mask use did not predict Summer 2020 case growth for non-Northeast states or Fall-Winter 2020 growth for all continental states.​

​

Conclusions Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges. Containment requires future research and implementation of existing efficacious strategies.​

ake

Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment

Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against...

www.medrxiv.org

Masks make snowflakes feel good, psycho therapy.

 

[BULLDOG]

As I have said for more than a year, masks don't work.

NB I am putting this in Current Events because it is so important.

​

Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against respiratory viruses, and observational studies conflict on whether mask use predicts lower infection rates. We hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use are associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates in the United States.​

​

Methods We calculated total COVID-19 case growth and mask use for the continental United States with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. We estimated post-mask mandate case growth in non-mandate states using median issuance dates of neighboring states with mandates.​

​

Results Case growth was not significantly different between mandate and non-mandate states at low or high transmission rates, and surges were equivocal. Mask use predicted lower case growth at low, but not high transmission rates. Growth rates were comparable between states in the first and last mask use quintiles adjusted for normalized total cases early in the pandemic and unadjusted after peak Fall-Winter infections. Mask use did not predict Summer 2020 case growth for non-Northeast states or Fall-Winter 2020 growth for all continental states.​

​

Conclusions Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges. Containment requires future research and implementation of existing efficacious strategies.​

Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment

Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against...

www.medrxiv.org

From your link.

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

What is an unrefereed preprint?​

Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.
Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing
other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.
We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous.

 

[KissMy]

Bogus study! Counties, Cities & Business mandated masks regardless of any mask politics state governors were playing.

I saw more people in Florida wearing mask than in any of the 10 other states I have been in since Trump's Covid-19 Shutdown.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was playing mask politics while all the county officials mandated masks. Pinellas county Florida was fining people $500 for violating their mask mandate. Most people there were wearing mask walking down the streets or driving alone in their vehicles.

 

[sparky]

osha 1910-1030 folks.....~S~

 

[Burgermeister]

How many different ways do we need to see data that show that

 

[Tommy Tainant]

As I have said for more than a year, masks don't work.

NB I am putting this in Current Events because it is so important.

​

Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against respiratory viruses, and observational studies conflict on whether mask use predicts lower infection rates. We hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use are associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates in the United States.​

​

Methods We calculated total COVID-19 case growth and mask use for the continental United States with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. We estimated post-mask mandate case growth in non-mandate states using median issuance dates of neighboring states with mandates.​

​

Results Case growth was not significantly different between mandate and non-mandate states at low or high transmission rates, and surges were equivocal. Mask use predicted lower case growth at low, but not high transmission rates. Growth rates were comparable between states in the first and last mask use quintiles adjusted for normalized total cases early in the pandemic and unadjusted after peak Fall-Winter infections. Mask use did not predict Summer 2020 case growth for non-Northeast states or Fall-Winter 2020 growth for all continental states.​

​

Conclusions Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges. Containment requires future research and implementation of existing efficacious strategies.​

Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment

Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against...

www.medrxiv.org

Is there a video to support this important research ?

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

As I have said for more than a year, masks don't work.

NB I am putting this in Current Events because it is so important.

​

Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against respiratory viruses, and observational studies conflict on whether mask use predicts lower infection rates. We hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use are associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates in the United States.​

​

Methods We calculated total COVID-19 case growth and mask use for the continental United States with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. We estimated post-mask mandate case growth in non-mandate states using median issuance dates of neighboring states with mandates.​

​

Results Case growth was not significantly different between mandate and non-mandate states at low or high transmission rates, and surges were equivocal. Mask use predicted lower case growth at low, but not high transmission rates. Growth rates were comparable between states in the first and last mask use quintiles adjusted for normalized total cases early in the pandemic and unadjusted after peak Fall-Winter infections. Mask use did not predict Summer 2020 case growth for non-Northeast states or Fall-Winter 2020 growth for all continental states.​

​

Conclusions Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges. Containment requires future research and implementation of existing efficacious strategies.​

Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment

Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against...

www.medrxiv.org

Shocking I tell you! Who would have thought such a thing ? No , if masks don't work , what happened to the flu this year? Someone got sum splaining to do .

 

[ColonelAngus]

Leftists who are in love with masks are such triblaist brainwashed fucknuts. Its just amazing.

I wish Trump would have pushed for masks just so these dumb fucks would not be obsessed with them.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

 

[KissMy]

Leftists who are in love with masks are such triblaist brainwashed fucknuts. Its just amazing.

I wish Trump would have pushed for masks just so these dumb fucks would not be obsessed with them.

Trump Shutdown the Economy for Political Reasons!!! Pelosi & Biden tried to prevent Trump's Economic Destruction. President Joe Biden said "I'm NOT going to shut down the country. I'm going to shut down the virus"

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[excalibur]

be erroneous.

And? Nice diversion from the actual study though.

And peer review is a scam.

... First, that peer-reviewed journals publish only trustworthy science; and second, that trustworthy science is published only in peer-reviewed journals

Scientists allowed these myths to spread because it was convenient for us. Peer-reviewed journals came into existence largely to keep government regulators off our backs. Scientists believe that we are the best judges of the validity of each other's work. That's very likely true, but it's a huge leap from that to "peer-reviewed journals publish only good science." The most selective journals still allow flawed studies—even really terribly flawed ones—to be published all the time. Earlier this month, for instance, the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences put out a paper claiming that mandated face coverings are “the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic.” PNAS is a very prestigious journal, and their website claims that they are an “authoritative source” that works “to publish only the highest quality scientific research.” However, this paper was quickly and thoroughly criticized on social media; by last Thursday, 45 researchers had signed a letter formally calling for its retraction.

Now the jig is up. Scientists are writing papers that they want to share as quickly as possible, without waiting the months or sometimes years it takes to go through journal peer review. So they're ditching the pretense that journals are a sure-fire quality control filter, and sharing their papers as self-published PDFs. This might be just the shakeup that peer review needs.

The idea that journals have a special way to tell what’s good science and what’s bad has always been an illusion. In fact, the peer review process at journals leaves much to be desired. When a paper goes through, only those reviewers invited by the editor can weigh in on its quality, and their comments almost never get shared with readers. Journal peer review typically means that authors get a small dose of vetting—a few drops of criticism—on the way to publication. In contrast, when a paper is posted as a preprint, the authors’ peers still review it, but their vetting isn’t forced through the tip of a pipette. Instead, a firehose of criticism gets turned on. Because a preprint is public, any scientist can review the paper, and their comments may be posted to it using annotation software such as hypothes.is, or shared on social media for all readers to consider. That tends to make for better science, in the end

...​

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Don't Really Do Their Job

The rapid sharing of pandemic research shows there is a better way to filter good science from bad.

www.wired.com

 

[EvMetro]

As I have said for more than a year, masks don't work.

NB I am putting this in Current Events because it is so important.

Great article. Masks do not stop covid.

This thread belongs in current events or politics, since masks are a political thing.

No lefty on this site has ever been able to explain how the holes or pores in masks are able to filter out viruses and droplets that are 1000 times smaller.

 

[Oddball]

Bogus study! Counties, Cities & Business mandated masks regardless of any mask politics state governors were playing.

I saw more people in Florida wearing mask than in any of the 10 other states I have been in since Trump's Covid-19 Shutdown.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was playing mask politics while all the county officials mandated masks. Pinellas county Florida was fining people $500 for violating their mask mandate. Most people there were wearing mask walking down the streets or driving alone in their vehicles.

Didn't need a study....The boxes of face diapers had it printed on the side of them in plain English that they were ineffective.

 

[Lesh]

Bogus study! Counties, Cities & Business mandated masks regardless of any mask politics state governors were playing.

I saw more people in Florida wearing mask than in any of the 10 other states I have been in since Trump's Covid-19 Shutdown.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was playing mask politics while all the county officials mandated masks. Pinellas county Florida was fining people $500 for violating their mask mandate. Most people there were wearing mask walking down the streets or driving alone in their vehicles.

Exactly. This study pretends that mask use was consistent. Either all were wearing or none were.

Neither is true

 

[BULLDOG]

be erroneous.

And? Nice diversion from the actual study though.

And peer review is a scam.

... First, that peer-reviewed journals publish only trustworthy science; and second, that trustworthy science is published only in peer-reviewed journals​

​

Scientists allowed these myths to spread because it was convenient for us. Peer-reviewed journals came into existence largely to keep government regulators off our backs. Scientists believe that we are the best judges of the validity of each other's work. That's very likely true, but it's a huge leap from that to "peer-reviewed journals publish only good science." The most selective journals still allow flawed studies—even really terribly flawed ones—to be published all the time. Earlier this month, for instance, the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences put out a paper claiming that mandated face coverings are “the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic.” PNAS is a very prestigious journal, and their website claims that they are an “authoritative source” that works “to publish only the highest quality scientific research.” However, this paper was quickly and thoroughly criticized on social media; by last Thursday, 45 researchers had signed a letter formally calling for its retraction.​

​

Now the jig is up. Scientists are writing papers that they want to share as quickly as possible, without waiting the months or sometimes years it takes to go through journal peer review. So they're ditching the pretense that journals are a sure-fire quality control filter, and sharing their papers as self-published PDFs. This might be just the shakeup that peer review needs.​

​

The idea that journals have a special way to tell what’s good science and what’s bad has always been an illusion. In fact, the peer review process at journals leaves much to be desired. When a paper goes through, only those reviewers invited by the editor can weigh in on its quality, and their comments almost never get shared with readers. Journal peer review typically means that authors get a small dose of vetting—a few drops of criticism—on the way to publication. In contrast, when a paper is posted as a preprint, the authors’ peers still review it, but their vetting isn’t forced through the tip of a pipette. Instead, a firehose of criticism gets turned on. Because a preprint is public, any scientist can review the paper, and their comments may be posted to it using annotation software such as hypothes.is, or shared on social media for all readers to consider. That tends to make for better science, in the end​

​

...​

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Don't Really Do Their Job

The rapid sharing of pandemic research shows there is a better way to filter good science from bad.

www.wired.com

Got it. scientifically peer reviewed articles are no more believable than anything written by anybody. Thank you for giving us the official opinion of all the idiots out there.

 

[EvMetro]

be erroneous.

And? Nice diversion from the actual study though.

And peer review is a scam.

... First, that peer-reviewed journals publish only trustworthy science; and second, that trustworthy science is published only in peer-reviewed journals​

​

Scientists allowed these myths to spread because it was convenient for us. Peer-reviewed journals came into existence largely to keep government regulators off our backs. Scientists believe that we are the best judges of the validity of each other's work. That's very likely true, but it's a huge leap from that to "peer-reviewed journals publish only good science." The most selective journals still allow flawed studies—even really terribly flawed ones—to be published all the time. Earlier this month, for instance, the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences put out a paper claiming that mandated face coverings are “the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic.” PNAS is a very prestigious journal, and their website claims that they are an “authoritative source” that works “to publish only the highest quality scientific research.” However, this paper was quickly and thoroughly criticized on social media; by last Thursday, 45 researchers had signed a letter formally calling for its retraction.​

​

Now the jig is up. Scientists are writing papers that they want to share as quickly as possible, without waiting the months or sometimes years it takes to go through journal peer review. So they're ditching the pretense that journals are a sure-fire quality control filter, and sharing their papers as self-published PDFs. This might be just the shakeup that peer review needs.​

​

The idea that journals have a special way to tell what’s good science and what’s bad has always been an illusion. In fact, the peer review process at journals leaves much to be desired. When a paper goes through, only those reviewers invited by the editor can weigh in on its quality, and their comments almost never get shared with readers. Journal peer review typically means that authors get a small dose of vetting—a few drops of criticism—on the way to publication. In contrast, when a paper is posted as a preprint, the authors’ peers still review it, but their vetting isn’t forced through the tip of a pipette. Instead, a firehose of criticism gets turned on. Because a preprint is public, any scientist can review the paper, and their comments may be posted to it using annotation software such as hypothes.is, or shared on social media for all readers to consider. That tends to make for better science, in the end​

​

...​

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Don't Really Do Their Job

The rapid sharing of pandemic research shows there is a better way to filter good science from bad.

www.wired.com

Got it. scientifically peer reviewed articles are no more believable than anything written by anybody. Thank you for giving us the official opinion of all the idiots out there.

No need for a study when no lefty on this site will post what kind of mask he would wear if he had to enter a room known to contain a deadly virus.

 

[Lesh]

No need for a study when no lefty on this site will post what kind of mask he would wear if he had to enter a room known to contain a deadly virus.

Full hazmat self contained breathing.

But then I wouldn't enter that room.

So much for your stupid "no lefty would..." garbage

 

[EvMetro]

No need for a study when no lefty on this site will post what kind of mask he would wear if he had to enter a room known to contain a deadly virus.

Full hazmat self contained breathing.

But then I wouldn't enter that room.

So much for your stupid "no lefty would..." garbage

Why wouldn't you wear a cheap cloth mask if you had to enter a room known to contain a deadly virus? Is this where you are going to need to evade?