Rigorous international study of N95 masks upends federal COVID narrative
(justthenews.com)
Comments (36)
sorted by:
And we should be confident that these findings are correct, as every study pre covid showed masks don't work to combat the spread of a respiratory virus. Only after government bodies pushed for lockdowns did masks somehow start working in this fashion. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-1966
Just pointing out that comments from this user are virtually never supported by any proof.
And every piece of software you use absolves itself of any responsibility for any damage it might cause. Read your End User License Agreements. And the fine print on any contract you sign.
bro you only think you are posting proof. you post studies you think prove you right, but after checking them they are often so specific or exclusionary that they don't really say anything of consequence. The fact you won't even take the packaging of the product you are trying to defend at it's word speaks worlds about how hard you are coping on this subject.
You're entitled to your opinion, but without a link to something else that's all it is: some unknown person beaking off on social media.
You're offering people a choice between your opinions on the one hand and the outcomes of research by institutions from around the globe with decades or even centuries of experience in scientific education and research.
Those institutions say get vaccinated, keep up with the vaccinations, and wear a mask in crowds. If you don't like the mRNA vaccinations get one of the more traditional ones.
Why should anyone listen to you?
lol right on cue
Of course.
Hi Dumbass can you respond to this one too?
Don't take the word of anonymous people on social media folks.
didn't realize the CDC had a facebook page
No one knows who u/Pegases is and the article they link to is unsigned, so this is another claim by anonymous people.
Don't get your medical advice from anonymous people on social media folks.
Here's the study the article links to: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-1966
If you look it over you'll see that they are not testing the effectiveness of masks overall - there would have to be a control group with no masks in order to test that. They are just comparing the two face coverings, and they find that they perform about the same, with a slight edge going to the N95s.
"In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group."
"In conclusion, among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks when compared with HRs of RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 for N95 respirators."
So this study is telling the same tale as others. For example: 2022 Oct 22 "Our findings indicate that both respirators and medical masks provide a high as-worn bioaerosol protection efficacy against virus containing aerosols, and therefore, a very high protection against airborne diseases. Considering the higher comfort, better availability, and lower price of medical masks in contrast to respirators, it is recommendable to use medical face masks especially in low risk situations and in general public." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36317154/
since we already know that regular masks are ineffective, that fact that the filtered n95 masks did not perform any better was a bit unexpected. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
and seeing covid has had 10% of the world's population in infections, It would be statistically average that 10% of the participants got an infection. And since they were all wearing masks, and their chances were still on par, therefore masks no work, thanks for playing.
also you skipped this line in the study "The observed results are consistent with a range of protection, from a 23% reduction in the HR with medical masks to a 69% risk increase."
Nothing about covid in that link folks. Read it yourself. Don't take the word of anonymous strangers on social media.
but the study you posted wasn't the current strain, so it too is therefor unable to be used as a analog for other similar viruses.
also only the first paragraph was about the study I posted, the other two were about the original study of discussion.
Clutching at straws,folks. One study was about covid, the other was not.
Unfortunately they have nothing to back up the rest. It's like they think they can out-science the scientists without doing any science.
Folks, cherry-picking a line out of the study doesn't change its conclusion.
nope, sorry, wasn't the current strain so the study doesn't count. I wouldn't want to gain valuable information for suitable analogs.
i find the '69% risk increase' part of the sentence far more interesting. And what was the study's conclusion exactly?
Folks, they were perfectly willing to accept a study that wasn't even about covid.
It's not surprising they would completely ignore the study's conclusion.
what was the study's conclusion?
still not wearing it. sorry
Of course not. You're an independent thinker who comes to your own conclusions.
"If you’re not a scientist, and you disagree with scientists about science, it’s actually not a disagreement. You’re just wrong." - somebody on the Internet.
Hi Dumbass can you respond to this one too?