I wore the mask. Did your read the links provided? They are credible sources and as time marches arm so does science. According to the studies, wearing masks did very little, but if you are closed minded thatās on you.
www.nature.com
still not a description of the purpose of the mask.
No I asked him to explain to you in tiny wordsyour tiny mind can comprehend.Yeah, Iāll let the Phd with 10 patents, working at a prestigious university on nano technologies , know you think heās ignorant.
a mask is PPE Dad
Glom?This is an opinion piece, originally published in the Washington Examiner, and if you read to the end, the study it says the following:
"The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children."
Their data was flawed and they cannot draw any conclusions of the efficacy of masks.
While your opinion piece says this metadata study is the "gold standard" of research, it is not. A double blind study is the gold standard. Metadata studies mine conclusions from data, but they don't control the data selection or the criteria for each data set.
Then there's the overall problems with using metadata in research. The data subsets may not have matching criteria, and the results may be reliable as a result.
Obstacles to the reuse of study metadata in ClinicalTrials.gov - Scientific Data
Metadata that are structured using principled schemas and that use terms from ontologies are essential to making biomedical data findable and reusable for downstream analyses. The largest source of metadata that describes the experimental protocol, funding, and scientific leadership of clinical...
You can't keep glooming onto every half baked study that proves your bias, when all of the validated and direct research says otherwise.
In the USA, just look at the rates of disease and death in counties where there was a mask mandate. It was half the number of sick and dying as the counties with no mask requirements. What is shocking to me is that this simple and effective precaution, that does you no harm, makes you people so crazy.
There are more important things in life to get upset about and having to wear a mask isn't one of them. American keep looking for pointless to go crazy about.
yes they were WW, one can read the doctrine in it's entirety here>
This is an opinion piece, originally published in the Washington Examiner, and if you read to the end, the study it says the following:
"The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children."
Their data was flawed and they cannot draw any conclusions of the efficacy of masks.
While your opinion piece says this metadata study is the "gold standard" of research, it is not. A double blind study is the gold standard. Metadata studies mine conclusions from data, but they don't control the data selection or the criteria for each data set.
Then there's the overall problems with using metadata in research. The data subsets may not have matching criteria, and the results may be reliable as a result.
Obstacles to the reuse of study metadata in ClinicalTrials.gov - Scientific Data
Metadata that are structured using principled schemas and that use terms from ontologies are essential to making biomedical data findable and reusable for downstream analyses. The largest source of metadata that describes the experimental protocol, funding, and scientific leadership of clinical...
You can't keep glooming onto every half baked study that proves your bias, when all of the validated and direct research says otherwise.
In the USA, just look at the rates of disease and death in counties where there was a mask mandate. It was half the number of sick and dying as the counties with no mask requirements. What is shocking to me is that this simple and effective precaution, that does you no harm, makes you people so crazy.
There are more important things in life to get upset about and having to wear a mask isn't one of them. American keep looking for pointless to go crazy about.
Wrong. They saved lives if people wore them correctly. . Covid is more contagious now but less deadly because of the vaccines. Read the CDC recommendations for 2023. They have ALL THE MEANINGFUL STUDIES. No one has access to as many studies as the CDC. You call it open minded NOT TO READ THE STUDIES commissioned by all the medical research institutes in the US ?
Wait, what? One of the few folks I knew that died from Covid wore the damn things religiously. My opinion is that the masks gave him, as Fauci said early on, the mask gave him a false sense of security.
Yupyes they were WW, one can read the doctrine in it's entirety here>
they (the CDC) decided it all a bit much to impose on the public , so they settled on 'mask' alone
understandably so.....
yet it alone was not enough to break the chain of infection
they knew that as well , as well as further allowing said chain to fester via those thinking they were infallible with one
~S~
Wow. He still wasnāt reading how the common masks worked was he. Neither was his friends. You knew someone who wore a mask and died.
That means we shouldnāt listen to every research facility posting in the United States, but just a few jerk offs.
~S~
