|
Post by Bevo on Aug 8, 2020 18:05:30 GMT
Still not worth trying to have a serious discussion with. Sigh.
Oh well, I tried.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 8, 2020 18:54:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 8, 2020 21:38:40 GMT
Still not worth trying to have a serious discussion with. Sigh. Oh well, I tried. I guess this is easier than providing the overwhelming evidence that masks don't work, and explaining how the only study you used has swayed your opinion on masks, but not hand washing. Also probably easier than explaining why ignoring the mechanism of how masks work is pro-science.
Don't worry. I'll exit this echo chamber like many others have. The virus is not a big deal, masks aren't effective, and mask mandates are communism. The pending cancellation of college football is because of the liberal hippie snow flakes.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 8, 2020 21:44:09 GMT
I have explained everything in this thread. Mechanisms can be accurate, but still not be evident in mass application. I’ve explained how this is possible at least twice.
You just aren’t interesting in any serious discussion of the topic. You’ve got your liberal dogma viewpoint and aren’t interested in anything other that belittling anyone who dares challenging your snowflake point of view.
Maybe, you could take a shot at talking about football ?
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 9, 2020 1:52:30 GMT
You simply dismissed the mechanism, but only after you realized the false statement you made about how the virus spreads. The deterministic study you want doesn't exist, and will never exist, because there are too many variables at play. The meta study you posted had to throw out 95% of their studies, and questioned the ones that remained.
You started out early on by saying that masks do more harm than good, which at least you back tracked on. You haven't really explained why you would be against masks, aside from people might not use them correctly and wearing them for extended time sucks. You admitted that they don't do more harm than good, that there is at least some evidence that they work, and that mechanistically they are proven. So what is the big deal about wearing masks? Why the resistance?
If you want to dismiss this as liberal dogma, go ahead. I generally trust the medical and scientific community, and think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to a new virus that does in fact kill people . If that is liberal dogma, I would be embarrassed and ashamed to be a conservative.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 9, 2020 16:50:00 GMT
You simply dismissed the mechanism, but only after you realized the false statement you made about how the virus spreads. The deterministic study you want doesn't exist, and will never exist, because there are too many variables at play. The meta study you posted had to throw out 95% of their studies, and questioned the ones that remained. You started out early on by saying that masks do more harm than good, which at least you back tracked on. You haven't really explained why you would be against masks, aside from people might not use them correctly and wearing them for extended time sucks. You admitted that they don't do more harm than good, that there is at least some evidence that they work, and that mechanistically they are proven. So what is the big deal about wearing masks? Why the resistance? If you want to dismiss this as liberal dogma, go ahead. I generally trust the medical and scientific community, and think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to a new virus that does in fact kill people . If that is liberal dogma, I would be embarrassed and ashamed to be a conservative. I dismissed the mechanism because, there HAVE been studies done.. double blind studies... that show mask wearing in the general public have no significant impact in stopping similar respiratory viruses. I also said I am wearing my masks, waiting on data specific this THIS virus. Even though I have little faith it helps. There are studies underway, now. We will get better data on this. I have explained why I don't like State-wide mask mandates, or even worse, a Nation-wide mandate. Primarily because, they do not work. Partially because, people don't wear them, or use them correctly. But, also because they don't stop the very small virus containing droplets. Wearing a mask while riding a bike on a trail (as Biden was doing yesterday) is literally worthless. Wearing a mask at the beach is even worse. Wide-spread mandates ignore all common sense. If we're going to accept the premise that even an infinitesimal positive benefit justifies everyone wearing a mask every time their leave their house, then we're going to be wearing them forever. Again, I would LOVE for mask-wearing to be the key to stopping COVID. That would be outstanding. Sadly, the available data suggests it's not.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 9, 2020 17:49:00 GMT
You simply dismissed the mechanism, but only after you realized the false statement you made about how the virus spreads. The deterministic study you want doesn't exist, and will never exist, because there are too many variables at play. The meta study you posted had to throw out 95% of their studies, and questioned the ones that remained. You started out early on by saying that masks do more harm than good, which at least you back tracked on. You haven't really explained why you would be against masks, aside from people might not use them correctly and wearing them for extended time sucks. You admitted that they don't do more harm than good, that there is at least some evidence that they work, and that mechanistically they are proven. So what is the big deal about wearing masks? Why the resistance? If you want to dismiss this as liberal dogma, go ahead. I generally trust the medical and scientific community, and think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to a new virus that does in fact kill people . If that is liberal dogma, I would be embarrassed and ashamed to be a conservative. I dismissed the mechanism because, there HAVE been studies done.. double blind studies... that show mask wearing in the general public have no significant impact in stopping similar respiratory viruses. I also said I am wearing my masks, waiting on data specific this THIS virus. Even though I have little faith it helps. There are studies underway, now. We will get better data on this. I have explained why I don't like State-wide mask mandates, or even worse, a Nation-wide mandate. Primarily because, they do not work. Partially because, people don't wear them, or use them correctly. But, also because they don't stop the very small virus containing droplets. Wearing a mask while riding a bike on a trail (as Biden was doing yesterday) is literally worthless. Wearing a mask at the beach is even worse. Wide-spread mandates ignore all common sense. If we're going to accept the premise that even an infinitesimal positive benefit justifies everyone wearing a mask every time their leave their house, then we're going to be wearing them forever. Again, I would LOVE for mask-wearing to be the key to stopping COVID. That would be outstanding. Sadly, the available data suggests it's not. Do you know what a double blind study is? It is where neither the participants nor the executors of an experiment know who is getting what treatment. You are suggesting that there have been multiple studies about the efficacy of a mask in public, where neither the subjects nor executors knew that wearing a mask was the treatment?
I would love to see those studies.
I fully acknowledge that you can't reasonably get a randomized trial about the efficacy of masks in public due to the complexities, if that is the standard then we will never have proof that masks work. But I'm definitely down to learn how they not only accomplished this, but also did it as a double blind experiment.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 10, 2020 0:55:08 GMT
AuFan,
Those infrared demonstrations of air born droplets traveling among people (with and without masks) is pretty convincing to me. So most of us are listening and not contending consensus science. So please don't leave. Bevo is the only one contending. He might be the guy that you alluded to earlier citing a source ( from Fox News or similar ) with evidence that the Earth is flat . Talk some Auburn football too.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 10, 2020 3:29:38 GMT
I dismissed the mechanism because, there HAVE been studies done.. double blind studies... that show mask wearing in the general public have no significant impact in stopping similar respiratory viruses. I also said I am wearing my masks, waiting on data specific this THIS virus. Even though I have little faith it helps. There are studies underway, now. We will get better data on this. I have explained why I don't like State-wide mask mandates, or even worse, a Nation-wide mandate. Primarily because, they do not work. Partially because, people don't wear them, or use them correctly. But, also because they don't stop the very small virus containing droplets. Wearing a mask while riding a bike on a trail (as Biden was doing yesterday) is literally worthless. Wearing a mask at the beach is even worse. Wide-spread mandates ignore all common sense. If we're going to accept the premise that even an infinitesimal positive benefit justifies everyone wearing a mask every time their leave their house, then we're going to be wearing them forever. Again, I would LOVE for mask-wearing to be the key to stopping COVID. That would be outstanding. Sadly, the available data suggests it's not. Do you know what a double blind study is? It is where neither the participants nor the executors of an experiment know who is getting what treatment. You are suggesting that there have been multiple studies about the efficacy of a mask in public, where neither the subjects nor executors knew that wearing a mask was the treatment?
I would love to see those studies.
I fully acknowledge that you can't reasonably get a randomized trial about the efficacy of masks in public due to the complexities, if that is the standard then we will never have proof that masks work. But I'm definitely down to learn how they not only accomplished this, but also did it as a double blind experiment.
The one I read in detail was not a blind trial, but it was randomized with a control group. It was conducted in a dormitory setting. One group did nothing extra. One group wore masks several hours a day when in public. The third group wore masks and did extra hand washing. They all were monitored for several weeks during the height of flu season. While some minor differences were observed, the researchers concluded the differences were NOT statistically significant. I’ll go look for it again tomorrow. It was a large group of people. More than 1100 total. There is a new study underway in Denmark that looks really well set up. Meanwhile, we have tons of data in the various US states that is being statistically analyzed. It’s not impossible to measure. From the available data in the US states, it’s pretty clear the difference, if there is any, is minimal.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 10, 2020 12:36:33 GMT
Do you know what a double blind study is? It is where neither the participants nor the executors of an experiment know who is getting what treatment. You are suggesting that there have been multiple studies about the efficacy of a mask in public, where neither the subjects nor executors knew that wearing a mask was the treatment?
I would love to see those studies.
I fully acknowledge that you can't reasonably get a randomized trial about the efficacy of masks in public due to the complexities, if that is the standard then we will never have proof that masks work. But I'm definitely down to learn how they not only accomplished this, but also did it as a double blind experiment.
The one I read in detail was not a blind trial, but it was randomized with a control group. It was conducted in a dormitory setting. One group did nothing extra. One group wore masks several hours a day when in public. The third group wore masks and did extra hand washing. They all were monitored for several weeks during the height of flu season. While some minor differences were observed, the researchers concluded the differences were NOT statistically significant. I’ll go look for it again tomorrow. It was a large group of people. More than 1100 total. There is a new study underway in Denmark that looks really well set up. Meanwhile, we have tons of data in the various US states that is being statistically analyzed. It’s not impossible to measure. From the available data in the US states, it’s pretty clear the difference, if there is any, is minimal. Is that the study that did show a significant decrease in the hand washing and mask wearing group? That study had plenty of flaws anyways, like self reporting of illness, "suggested" use outside of the dorms and no requirements during their spring break away from campus.
Regardless, please show me the "double blind" studies about using masks in public, since you said those are why you dismiss the mechanism of spread. I'll wait.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 10, 2020 17:10:25 GMT
Ok, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said "Blind" trials... what I should have said is "RCT" trials. Here is the one I was referring to: academic.oup.com/jid/article/201/4/491/861190Funny thing about this one that caught my eye was, other "meta-studies" were using THIS trial as proof that masks show a benefit. That's because, these researchers suggested that in their conclusion: Conclusions. These findings suggest that face masks and hand hygiene may reduce respiratory illnesses in shared living settings and mitigate the impact of the influenza A(H1N1) pandemic.However, when you look at their actual results, it doesn't show this at all. It shows practically NO difference. In fact, the hand-washing mask wearing group reported a HIGHER instance of "chills". There is nothing significant found in this study, an yet they reported it as a success. This study then gets cited by bunches of others. It's dishonest. And then, there is this one: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002101Again, they WANTED to find a benefit, but couldn't. At least, they were honest about it. In conclusion, there remains a serious deficit in the evidence base of the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions. And this one: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/They also rather coyly mis-reported their findings, allowing them to be picked by both "for" and "Against" meta-studies. That's interesting. Although our study suggests that community use of face masks is unlikely to be an effective control policy for seasonal respiratory diseases, adherent mask users had a significant reduction in the risk for clinical infection. Another recent study that examined the use of surgical masks and handwashing for the prevention of influenza transmission also found no significant difference between the intervention arms (12). They showed some benefit (although, it's really quite small) among a subset of their test group for people who were their mask properly and ALL the time. But, overall? No benefit. Because half of their group reported problems with wearing the mask. Then, there is THIS one, from Hong Kong: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18461182/They also tried to make excuses for their lack of desired result, but at least they were honest about their findings: The laboratory-based or clinical secondary attack ratios did not significantly differ across the intervention arms.
I've seen other quite a number of other studies. I haven't taken the time to delve deeply into them all. For the ones I have, the results have always been the same, regardless of what they claim. No significant benefit. I truly wish it were THAT easy to stop the spread of a respiratory virus. Life would be much simpler.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 10, 2020 21:14:16 GMT
Again you back track. This time on your statement about double blind mask use in public, that is the third time you have just said something because it sounds good, not because it is true, and have had to back track. The thought of executing a double blind study on masks did make me laugh. Placebo masks I guess?
Then you dismiss a study’s conclusions, because one of the four self report symptoms was higher. This was the flawed study you mentioned before... based on self reported symptoms of college kids who went on spring break in the middle of it.
The other study noted that people didn’t adhere to wearing a mask. The other two were the same study about preventing spread within a house hold.
None of these were about effectiveness in public, either. The study you want (and claimed existed and backed your view point) does not exist. Even the study that concluded that masks and hand sanitation was effective has my doubts, and certainly doesn’t translate to public usage. I personally wouldn’t cite this as the reason to wear masks.
In the meantime the prudent thing to do is to go by the scientific mechanism, educate the populace on why we believe masks work and how to use them, and have strong leadership guiding us. But I guess that would be the dreaded socialism, can’t have that.
Even if we had the proof you are requiring, with a double blind (still makes me laugh) mask use in public study, I firmly believe much of the population would still resist, doubting science, government, or both.
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Aug 10, 2020 21:16:50 GMT
Again you back track. This time on your statement about double blind mask use in public, that is the third time you have just said something because it sounds good, not because it is true, and have had to back track. The thought of executing a double blind study on masks did make me laugh. Placebo masks I guess? Then you dismiss a study’s conclusions, because one of the four self report symptoms was higher. This was the flawed study you mentioned before... based on self reported symptoms of college kids who went on spring break in the middle of it. The other study noted that people didn’t adhere to wearing a mask. The other two were the same study about preventing spread within a house hold. None of these were about effectiveness in public, either. The study you want (and claimed existed and backed your view point) does not exist. Even the study that concluded that masks and hand sanitation was effective has my doubts, and certainly doesn’t translate to public usage. I personally wouldn’t cite this as the reason to wear masks. In the meantime the prudent thing to do is to go by the scientific mechanism, educate the populace on why we believe masks work and how to use them, and have strong leadership guiding us. But I guess that would be the dreaded socialism, can’t have that. Even if we had the proof you are requiring, with a double blind (still makes me laugh) mask use in public study, I firmly believe much of the population would still resist, doubting science, government, or both. Masks are worthless crap
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Aug 10, 2020 21:18:04 GMT
AuFan, Those infrared demonstrations of air born droplets traveling among people (with and without masks) is pretty convincing to me. So most of us are listening and not contending consensus science. So please don't leave. Bevo is the only one contending. He might be the guy that you alluded to earlier citing a source ( from Fox News or similar ) with evidence that the Earth is flat . Talk some Auburn football too. The last thing you know about is consensus science
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 10, 2020 21:25:10 GMT
AuFan, Those infrared demonstrations of air born droplets traveling among people (with and without masks) is pretty convincing to me. So most of us are listening and not contending consensus science. So please don't leave. Bevo is the only one contending. He might be the guy that you alluded to earlier citing a source ( from Fox News or similar ) with evidence that the Earth is flat . Talk some Auburn football too. The last thing you know about is consensus science Consensus is the first refuge of a scoundrel. Especially where science is concerned.
|
|