Massive Danish study: Mask do little against covid

[Circe]

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

Source your numbers, people, or else we'll suspect you're pulling them out of thin air.

 

[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.

 

[debbiedowner]

wonder what the party of science, the democrats think about this

Horowitz: Massive Danish study found that recommendation to wear masks did not provide statistically significant reduction in infection rates among mask wearers | Blaze Media

Data

www.theblaze.com

I just watched the danes speak on tv and other studies had to done but more with masks in their first study did not get infected vs the ones that did. So masks are effective in almost most of the cases.

 

[debbiedowner]

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

This says about 50-50 but that is not what the Danish guy said on the news.

ACP Journals

 

[jbrownson0831]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

 

[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!

 

[edthecynic]

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

So your "knowledge" of the matter overrules the Danish medical study?
Why does that sound like bullshit?

It is NOT the Danish Medical Society who funded the study, but a SUPERMARKET foundation, The Salling Foundations, that funded it, IDIOT!!!!!

 

[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.

 

[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.

You still haven't showed where it is, I looked around for it.

Why can't you post the link to it, is it so hard for you to do?

Meanwhile you claim fake news, but post zero evidence for it, that doesn't impress anyone.

Funny how you Trump Nazis didn't require a link when GOP hate media claimed the CDC said 85% of mask wearers got covid, but my data comes from the same CDC report!!!!!
Here is a hint my data comes from the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
But thank you for proving I'm a better researcher than YOU!

 

[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.

 

[Godboy]

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.

 

[edthecynic]

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

Source your numbers, people, or else we'll suspect you're pulling them out of thin air.

The Right never source their numbers, do you suspect they pull them out of their fat asses?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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 think the terms are skewed, Charlie the Tuna.
It’s not the number of mask-wearers who catch Wuhan but the number of those who catch Wuhan who wore masks. That percentage may be closer to 100.

 

[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!

 

[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’.

 

[Godboy]

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.

 

[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.

 

[edthecynic]

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

This says about 50-50 but that is not what the Danish guy said on the news.

ACP Journals

Do you mean the Danish guy funded by a SUPERMARKET foundation?????