Topic: Coronavirus Outbreak - page 29. (Read 29719 times)

See, the protocols of some of these studies aren't even that useful in the real world. Even if they change them for whatever reason, it's not like we learn anything from the start.

What do we learn from a meta analysis where they examine COVID confirmed fatality rate? Do we actually learn what the fatality rate of COVID is? No, not unless you take into account the general age of the population, other confounding variables, and then take the data and cross reference it to other data. I remember when researchers tried to use China's numbers to try and determine the fatality rate of Covid. No matter what the protocols (aka experimental basis), the results don't mean anything.

You are leaving out one critical part of a rigorous study; the protocols.

It should be the case that a study is designed around a hypothesis.  The details of how the study is to be performed are known as the study protocols.  They should be agreed upon ahead of time.  The agreement should be between interested parties ('stakeholders' is the current buzzword).  The protocols should define exactly how the study is to be performed and what the observations lead to what understandings.  aka 'interpenetration.'

If the protocols are changed after the study begins it should be terminated and started over from scratch.

Science is like a chain being only as strong as it's weakest link.  That's what the whole 'citations' things is all about.  Any paper predicated on citations from a study which was not performed correctly and honestly is subject to itself become damaged.  That's why it is so important that 'scientists' be neutral and honest.  Unfortunatly that car crashed into the weeds a long time ago and we entered the new dark ages of 'scientism'.

  https://www.corbettreport.com/the-crisis-of-science/

This mask argument reminds me of when twitchyseal tried to convince that flat earth guy that the moon wasnt a hologram projected into the sky

doesnt matter what the experts say, crazy guy did his own research

This coronavirus outbreak literally break everyone's heart, kills everyone's body and paralyze every countries' economy and it shock the world pandemic, without being aware that this really is a serious one, that in a first place they did not permit it to anyone's country to permit those who are responsible for the spread of these virus. Its like a domino effect...everyone is affected obviously.

No no, you're right I absolutely did not read that one article you linked because I figured it'd be a waste of time, and in fact it was! I've already tried to see if there was any decent research about there on masks, there isn't any. There are laboratory replications and then "meta analysis" case type studies.


They are *case* studies. All that means is that they take data that is already produced and then try to make sense of it. This is different from a scientific experiment where you conduct an experimental assay, record the data, and then analyze the data.

What's wrong with meta analysis type case studies? They aren't scientific assays, they don't have a control group, most importantly they don't account for confounding variables. Go look into this, the most crucial part of a scientific experiment is controlling the confounding variables. So when I saw apply critical thinking skills, this isn't some petty shot at your intelligence, all this is saying is that because you can find a case study that saw a reduction in Covid cases because of masks, it's not right to immediately attribute that reduction in Covid cases due to masks alone, and not some other variable.

And secondly, I'd argue that the data is cherry picked because looking at the Italian or US Covid case chart, there isn't any correlation to mask usage and a reduction in Covid cases. When the experts talk about using masks, they usually talk about it within the context of stopping aerosol particles from spreading. And again, I'm not disputing this. I agree with the experts. I'm talking about asymptomatic spread where someone isn't going into a restaurant and then spitting on everyone, then leaving. If you have Covid, it's beneficial for you to mask up. If you are asymptomatic and mask up, which is what a mask mandate accomplishes, it doesn't make much sense.

I've been applying critical thinking skills all along.  I think it's pretty clear that you've made up your mind about what 'the truth' is (which is a flawed way of thinking in itself) a long time ago, and the basis for your belief is grounded in politics, not science.  Let's back up and look at your response each of the four times I posted the same article.

I initially responded to you saying this:


I responded with a list of studies and articles, and you responded:


And I responded...


And then, without reading the article, you said:


This is an important point.  You had clearly come to a conclusion, And it's now clear you didn't even bother reading the article (as I'm about to show).

In my response I linked the article again, and this time I copy pasted part of the abstract and explained that there were about a dozen studies included in the article.

And your reply included:


These weren't laboratory studies.  They were real world studies.  If you read the article, I don't think you would have said what you did.

So then I literally took a screen shot of the table for you, from the article I posted 4 times for you, basically forcing you to look at it, and you come back with:



Now, instead of coming back with accusations of me taking things out of context since I didn't parse every word either of us wrote, how about you go read what the most qualified experts in the field think about masks and how they interpret the data.  Don't look for the one off anti-masker with a phd, or pull a tvbcof act like you're more educated on the subject than they are.  Forget all your preconceived notions about masks and just read what the scientists behind these studies with current leading rolls in their field think.  Then you'll have applied critical thinking skills.

Dr. Fausti is, as we used to say, 'up Shit Creek without a paddle.'  He's about to be fed to he wolves.  That should be fun because he was the feature of such a 'cult of personality' operation that it would have made Joe Stalin blush.  I doubt that most of these idiots (a lot of my friends and family shamefully enough) will be able to let go their savior figure very easily such was the magnitude of the corp/gov sponsored mind-fuckage.  The cognitive dissonance will only add to their vaccine damage mental woes.  Probably 'Orange Man Bad' will help them through their grief for another year or two though.

I would urge the people who matter to not let the Dr. Fausti thing draw away attention from the real issues.  He was a minor cog in the wheels of what's going on here.  Don't let him become an effective scapegoat and let the big fish get away.  If we do so, they WILL be circling around to bite off another limb.

  https://www.bitchute.com/video/0faTJx5l9pbR/

Good, we have the case studies -- now let's apply some critical thinking skills.

In these meta analysis type studies, we don't have a control base line nor do we have any way to separate confounding variables. The data of mask usage is also self reported which is already going to be skewed.

In circumstances where people wear masks, is it also true that a person that wears a mask would also engage in other precautions like handwashing, self isolating when exhibiting symptoms or when in close contact with infected people, and most importantly, follows social distancing guidelines? The answer is yes.

Remember, all these mask mandates were in conjunction with social distancing, and we all know social distancing absolutely works without a doubt. It's also probably true that someone who is willing to wear a mask is probably more willing to engage in social distancing too. So how are we able to separate masks as the differential here? We can't. These case studies just that, case studies that cherry pick data without having a control group, without taking into account confounding variables.

Goes without saying, correlation is not causation.

If you look at the mask mandate in April for the entire US, you can selectively take the data and indicate that the mask mandate clearly worked because there was a *momentarily* decrease in caseload. But that's only if you take the data and refuse to look at the entire timeline.

This is now the fourth time I've linked this: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

I said I wouldn't hold your hand, but I'll make an exception just this one time and post a screen shot from the article:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

April 2020 is when the CDC changed their guidelines and no more than a month late nearly every state in America mandated masks.

Show me the correlation between mask usage and the reduction in case load. Point me to where the masks worked. In fact, I'll make it easier for you -- show me states that lifted their mask mandates, or states that were loose with their mask mandates, like Florida, and show me the association between a lack of a mask mandate. The data does lie.

You're linking me to laboratory studies which refer to aerosol particle spread when people are "loud speaking", was one of the phrases your links used. Find me a single study that take into account real world factors of the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, etc. It doesn't exist. Turns out, Covid spread doesn't just happen by a single person going into a store, screaming at the top of their lungs, and then leaving. Masks are marginally effective at best, and there is *zero* conclusive evidence that they are effective at stopping spread within the general public, especially when community spread already exists. Again, show me the data that they work, not a test of aerosol spread, I'm not disputing that mask can help stop aerosol spread. Do you know the exact extent that an asymptomatic individual will produce aerosol particles? Nope, and neither do the "experts."

The only way masks work is placebo effect... mind over matter. But placebo effect is rarely taken into account for anything, even though it is a major contributor... like 3% that is known. Could be close to 100%.

Sometimes PE works in reverse, like for Deborah Birx - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57144067.

And the experts are saying you're wrong.  Studies show that masks stop the spread of the virus, whether the spreader is symptomatic or not.  The fact that so many are asymptomatic is why before the vaccine they recommended everyone where a mask.

This article explains it better than I could: Face masks essential in combating asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 aerosols and droplets  Here's the study it's based on: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422

But wait, that one's oveer a year old, ok, here's a more recent study (it's really based on about 12 separate studies, that I've already posted for you)  from Feb 2021 (this is the third time I've linked it for you): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536


There's plenty more, open your eyes.

Ahh okay now we're back to the first square and this discussion was pointless. I didn't say masks were not effective, I'm saying they are virtually useless in stopping asymptomatic spread in the general population. If you are symptomatic and sneeze into a mask, it captures some of the droplets and then a mask is effective, no one is disputing that, I said that earlier very clearly. My point is masking up the general population, vast majority being asymptomatic, has shown no evidence to stop the spread when you consider that asymptomatic people don't transmit the virus to a great extent to begin with, when you consider the masks people use are reused, very porous, do not create a proper seal with the face, and people keep touching the damn thing (in fact, in medical settings, you are to discard your mask if you touch it with your hands and then wash your hands)...So when you keep linking these studies, they aren't looking at normal people breathing in a room using a mask they pulled out of their glove compartment. They aren't taking someone that's Covid positive, putting a mask on them, and then putting them in a room with non infected people to see whether the virus is actually stopped by the mask.

Cool, click on another one then, try this one? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Read the abstract, check out the table with all the different studies and results...and don't just bring up one study that you think is easiest to discredit and then use it to discredit all of them.  Look at the results of all the studies as a whole. I'm not going to keep holding your hand and do all the research for you.  It's obvious the evidence clearly points to masks being effective.  We're still learning new stuff and we don't know precisely how effective, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective.

Your 10 seconds of google searching isn't a replacement for quality studies that account for real world factors, I had a feeling you knew that though. I clicked on the nature article you linked, because it's a credible journal, and they posted a study that was identical to what I said earlier, a laboratory setting where masks are used to measure the spread of aerosol particles in a controlled setting. Covid spread is not that simple, don't know how many times I need to say it. It was just two months ago when the CDC revised its social distancing guidelines from 6 feet to 3 feet. It was 4 months ago when they said it was 15 minutes in totality for high risk transmission, not just 15 minutes of sustained contact. We've been at this for over a year and we barely know anything. We don't know the exact mechanism of "super spreaders" either.

^^^ Fauci said something he didn't know about masks. That's not the bad thing. The bad part is that he knew he didn't know, but said it anyway. Why not simply tell the truth, that he didn't know for sure if he didn't. That's enough to send him to prison right there.

It's really not that complicated.  Early in the Pandemic there were a lot of unknowns.  We didn't have the evidence we have now that the virus was being spread by asymptomatic people or that masks were a very effective way to stop it from spreading.  We did have a shortage of masks for medical workers, and we knew that medical workers should be first in line to have them.

You're shitting on Faucci for not knowing what nobody knew.  In the interview he was clear, the whole point was the shortage of masks at that time.  More people going out and buying masks would result in medical workers being less protected, which overall would be bad for the situation.  I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to do a better job than the one Fauci did.  I think your gripe is purely political and based on the fact that Fauci doing the right thing shined light on the fact that Trump was not fit to handle the situation.



I googled it for you, some are articles explaining studies, with links to the studies, some are actual studies:

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent
https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/674/open
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-know
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

And what is wrong with what I said? He's downplaying the effectiveness of masks here. He isn't saying they are effective.

He was right when he said this too. Masks will stop droplets from being propelled, but we don't have any idea how the virus spread, apart from it's an upper respiratory virus that is airborne. We don't know the extent of asymptomatic spread or pre-syptomatic spread, how long viral particles stay in the air, whether they are effectively caught in the masks, or whether viral particles just go around the mask due to a poor sealing on the face.

NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything.

The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

What we dispute about masks is whether viral spread occurs because people enter a store, sneeze on everyone, and leaves -- and that a mask would somehow solve the issue, or whether the virus spreads through more complicated mechanisms that aren't well understood. And this isn't even taking into account the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which presumably has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, ect.

Sure, in a laboratory setting, you can create a circumstance where droplets are captured in a mask, the real world isn't so neat and tidy.

You might ask why this is a bad thing, who cares if people wears masks? Well, Dr. Fauci explained it. It gives people a false sense of confidence. And well, it's also anti science from the party of everything scientific.

From the March 2020 interview on 60 minutes that right wing media keeps taking out of context:

I hate to break it to you but we still don't know how effective masks are, and Dr. Fauci could have recommended face coverings at the least, like neck gaiters, bandanas, whatever. You can even take an old t shirt and turn that into a mask. Why didn't Fauci recommend those? He said masks were not effective, he didn't say masks were effective but we should save them for the healthcare community, now did he?

Then, some months later, he recommended DOUBLE masking, because it's just "common sense." Was there conclusive evidence that double masking worked? Nope. Did a ground breaking study confirm that double masking was effective? Nope. Why wasn't double masking common sense back in April 2020.

Way back in April, the CDC decided that people wear masks not based on science, but based on case studies that saw masked up societies had lower covid spread. The general public does not use masks properly. They reuse them, they touch their face, their mask, and then other surfaces, they don't close the nose strap, and those shitty masks you get at the gas station don't even create a good seal with the face. That's why Fauci and others suggested to everybody that masks weren't needed to fight an upper respiratory virus, they never were used for it.

This moron has been wrong at every level and this isn't because of Trump.

Here is Fauci saying we can mask up during flu season.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/10/covid-masks-flu-season-fauci

The evidence that masking up during Flu season is overwhelmingly studied and there is a lot of evidence that debunks this bullshit.