Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID, scientific review finds

[basquebromance]

send this study to every deranged liberal you know. make them know they're full of it

Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID, scientific review finds

A new scientific review suggests that mask mandates, per the CDC's recommendations, may have done little to nothing to curb the transmission of COVID.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Oddball]

 

[shockedcanadian]

There.was at least one elderly.Canadan killed by the police because he didn't wear a mask at a grocery store and it escalated. For what? How many have died due to angering others for not wearing a mask? I assumed they would do some good and I didn't resist wearing them, though I disliked it greatly. It.would be great if we had people who questioned science rather than accepted the W.H.O.

 

[frigidweirdo]

send this study to every deranged liberal you know. make them know they're full of it

Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID, scientific review finds

A new scientific review suggests that mask mandates, per the CDC's recommendations, may have done little to nothing to curb the transmission of COVID.

www.foxnews.com

Well....

"
However, Dr. Marc Siegel, professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center and a Fox News medical contributor, pointed out a key limitation: "The researchers focus primarily on randomized trials, but most of the studies that have been done on masks are population studies," he said.

"There are very few randomized trials on masks.""

I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it seems to suggest the studies were "population studies" as opposed to actual" trials on masks". Seeming to suggest the data isn't actually aimed at finding out whether masks worked or not, but they looked and came to that conclusion anyway.

"The study authors did admit to some limitations and a risk of bias, including the low number of people who followed mask guidance and the wide variation of outcomes."

In other words, "masks didn't work" because people didn't give a fuck about wearing masks.
Try this, when I was a kid I got a bad eye, it's still bad, I have like 2/20 vision or something, I can only read really big letters. They gave me glasses and then I went back 6 months or a year or two years later, I don't remember, and the optician asked "do you wear the glasses?" I said "yes", he said "the glasses aren't working". I wasn't wearing the glasses.

Of course the glasses weren't working.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There.was at least one elderly.Canadan killed by the police because he didn't wear a mask at a grocery store and. It escalated. For what? How many have died due to angering others for not wearing a mask? I assumed they would do some good and I djdn't resist wearing them, though I disliked it.greatly. It.would be great if we had people who questioned science rather than accepted the W.H.O.

Problem is the people you're talking about who "questioned science", weren't using science to question science. They were just making shit up out of the air.

 

[scruffy]

Well....

"
However, Dr. Marc Siegel, professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center and a Fox News medical contributor, pointed out a key limitation: "The researchers focus primarily on randomized trials, but most of the studies that have been done on masks are population studies," he said.

"There are very few randomized trials on masks.""

I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it seems to suggest the studies were "population studies" as opposed to actual" trials on masks". Seeming to suggest the data isn't actually aimed at finding out whether masks worked or not, but they looked and came to that conclusion anyway.

"The study authors did admit to some limitations and a risk of bias, including the low number of people who followed mask guidance and the wide variation of outcomes."

In other words, "masks didn't work" because people didn't give a fuck about wearing masks.
Try this, when I was a kid I got a bad eye, it's still bad, I have like 2/20 vision or something, I can only read really big letters. They gave me glasses and then I went back 6 months or a year or two years later, I don't remember, and the optician asked "do you wear the glasses?" I said "yes", he said "the glasses aren't working". I wasn't wearing the glasses.

Of course the glasses weren't working.

"Randomized" is a buzzword in social sciences, implying controls.

You're supposed to eliminate outside influences and alternative hypotheses.

On the other hand, this is a standard for strict science, and in this case the law of large numbers makes the data significant "by inspection".

One can easily observe, plenty of Covid cases in areas where masks were mandatory. One can argue, that there may have been other factors, but in a law of large numbers scenario, such other factors are expected to average themselves out.

Besides which, the hard science says the masks are too porous to work against such a tiny virus.

Besides which, the CDC never issued any public instructions on how to wear them properly.

It makes one wonder who came up with the brilliant idea of a masked population, and why.