Latest 'Gold Standard' Review Puts The Final Nail In The Coffin For Masks

You'll never give them up. You never wore them for your whole life before this moment, but now you feel the need to wear them everywhere you go for your whole life. Odd, but you do you.

 

So, are you another type who thinks N100 and P100 respirators aren't effective?

Those "masks" protect YOU and no one else has to do anything they don't want. Do you object?

 

You, of course, will continue spreading false information about N100 and P100 respirators.

Why is that? Do you feel compelled to have people not wear any mask, even if they're old and/or have preexisting coditions?

 

Not me. I wanted people who needed protection to have a good option and leave the others who wanted to take their chances free to not wear anything. Do you object to have choices? Does everyone have to take their chances with your approach?

 

~ Morticians are reporting this unusual request is becoming more common ...

 

The bottom line is you're trying to pretend people were wearing those when they were not.

 

Always look on the bright side. Now everyone knows that the CDC speaks with forked tongue -- especially those who pretend not to have noticed.

"“***Face Masks***

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10).”

Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020, Policy Review, Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling, Author affiliations: University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (*** mine)
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

 

They are effective for their engineered purposes. Viruses are not one of those purposes. You know this; I've told you this; I've explained to you why this is.

Why the two years of mask mandates then? Why were they ever implemented to begin with?

 

Viruses are not usually free-floating. They come in tiny droplets (5 microns), and sometimes aerosols (.25-4.99 microns). Studies have shown that masks do make a difference in such particles (literally testing the mask's ability).

Note that the smallest aerosols will get past N95, and a larger proportion get past cloth masks, but not all. Then, factors like the number of viral particles for infection come into play. The greater transmissibility of omicron made masks much less effective in preventing infection.

A mask policy is different, because compliance with law/RCT is so low. Can't tell the difference when people choose to wear or not wear masks regardless of which study group they are in. One could also note the wide confidence intervals involved. Underpowered. The OP is not correct because they do not properly interpret the study. The study fails to prove effectiveness, it is not the same as proving ineffectiveness.

 

I don't think I saw a single person wearing one of those.

Do you have some other point?

 

You, of course, will continue ignoring truthful information about mathematics and engineering specs of masks.

I literally just said "you do you". Yes, I will continue to remind you how stupid it is to believe that a mask can stop a virus, but the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives will not force anyone around them to remove the mask, yet liberals will force everyone around them to likewise don the mask.

 

Yes, they are.

... which evaporate.

... which evaporate (and can be smaller than that).

Most studies are bogus. Mathematics and engineering specs speak for themselves.

... thus N95's do not work against small aerosols and most viruses, including COVID.

... thus cloth masks do not work against most aerosols and most viruses, including COVID.

Technically all it takes is one. However, due to functioning immune systems, it usually takes quite a few more.

How does transmissibility alter the size of mask pores?

If masks work against viruses, and people wishing to "protect themselves" are wearing masks, then why the need for a mask policy? Hint: you already stated what the masks are actually about.

 

The masks are actually about reducing infection. Evaporating fomites are not a significant source of infection. The engineering specs don't help you because you don't seem to realize that infectious particles of covid are contained in droplets/aerosols that can be filtered. This reduces the number of viruses that get through, lowering the likelihood of infection. Infective dose is a key determinant of how infectious something is. Requiring only hundreds of virions is considered highly infectious and is a good estimate for omicron. MERS requires thousands. Bacterial enterocolitis typically requires tens of thousands (fewer for Shigella, e.g.). Even the most infectious of diseases require more than 1 to get through to establish infection, on average. Sure, it could happen with only one, but in policy we want to know what usually happens.

So if a mask reduces the viruses that get through by 95%, it could stop an infection that usually requires thousands of virions, but less likely to stop an infection that only requires 100 on average. On the other hand, viral load and severity could be affected by the initial dose as well.

No the point was controlled trials on masks haven't provided good data because people do not comply with their group designation (mask or no mask). This does tell us that mask policies are of limited effectiveness because people don't comply, NOT because masks themselves are ineffective.

 

Excellent summation my friend!
And it may well be the difference between “getting a sub clinical”. Infection (no symptoms) and turning up your toes (putting it very simply here)

 

Nope.

https://www.tvo.org/article/once-and-for-all-masks-reduce-the-risk-of-spreading-covid

 

Interesting "OPINION" piece.

 

It’s more than opinion if you understood what was being addressed.

 

They're wearing them in hospitals.

Good grief. The lose velocity imparted by exhaling. They hang around in the room.

How do you think hospital workers in covid wards avoided getting sick?

Look at pictures from inside hospitals.

 

I'm waiting for someone to acknowledge that P100 and N100 respirators provide a lot of protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 

From whom? You?

Hard to believe you expect to be taken seriously after this nonsense.

 

They wear them in hospitals and other places caring for covid positive patients.

They do that, too.

So, all these folks are stupid? You, of course, are "educated on the matter."

Are you really this clueless?

P100 and N100 respirators have a one-way valve that lets the individuals breath out. There's little protection for others.

But not imparted by the guy exhaling, sneezing, etc.

I can't imagine why you're posting so much misleading information about respirators.

 

Some people do, but most do not. You're making stuff up.

 

Yes, and you've proven you don't know what you're talking about.

They may have some statistical impact where they reduce the virus load just enough to prevent an infection. Maybe. Not much to say for it.

 

LoL sure.

 

So what? Why do I care what you say you saw?

I did speak to a 3M rep about their respirators in terms of how much demand the company faced. He said there was considerable increased demand from the general public, but I said I wondered if it was a run on the masks by usual customers worried about possible shortage. He allowed (Spring, 2020) that a feared shortage had to be a good part of demand.

Well, other than a lot of anti-mask and/or anti-vax types are prepared to shamelessly lie. I can't name names. Forum rules.