PETER HITCHENS: Wear a mask if you want - but understand it's about fear and control, NOT health...

So no proof. Got it

 

Nurses are asked to wear masks for the obvious reasons: to protect the patients. They go from patient to patient so they would get lot of patients infected (some of whom with weakened immune systems) if they did not follow simple guidelines.

 

I not interested in writing a novel.

 

Wearing a mask is protection from infecting somebody with germs no matter what the situation. A maskless person could cough on you in a crowd and you could inhale those covid viruses and get sick yourself. I guess one can always find an excuse to not to wear a mask.

 

I'm in one of the nation's top one. The Cleveland Clinic.

 

What you describe is not comparable to a surgeon during surgery, which was the situation that I commented upon. Everything in life is a calculated risk. There is nothing legitimately analogous about the calculated risk of a surgeon going maskless during surgery versus someone walking around in public without a mask.

 

Dude the mask they were Including is about keeping crap out if the incisions they make in your just as the nurse next to them is there to keep their sweat from dripping into your open wounds the situation aren't even close to analogous.

 

It should never be mandated by govt. If a store, hospital, doctors office, etc decides to have a mask policy that is ok as that is something that should be left to the private enterprise to decide.

 

I agree completely.

 

Not to mention they wash their hands each and every time as well.

 

The only time is if a public safety hazard with a highly infectious disease. It has been done before prior to Covid and laws are already on the books to allow that.

 

When (in the US) were masks mandated prior to COVID? In my 55 years there wasn't a time (prior to COVID) when masks were mandated.

 

2.1 vs 1.8 is about a 15% reduction

How is that insignificant?
The person that said so is a fool — I don’t believe that is enough to force people to wear masks but it is enough for businesses to be able to set their own policies.

 

oh my! It didn’t happen during your lifetime so it must not have ever happened

https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/w...ic-isnt-new-1918-many-americans-were-slackers

It wasn’t a mandate per say as they didn’t really have medical mandates in 1918 but it’s funny how the regressives of 100 years ago are still regressives today

 

If they cut corners with masks, they probably do it with everything else as well. Maybe they don't even rinse the tubes between colonoscopies.

I know they have staffing issues. I was at Cleveland Clinic one time, and to my surprise, there was one doctor and 9 patients, and we went around the table discussing our issues one by one while others listened. It was a group session, and I had never seen anything like it before.

 

Oh my, I didn't say it didn't happen. I was simply asking when it did happen. So there's that.
And per your info it wasn't a mandate. Thanks

 

The staffing issues is based on burnout during the Covid pandemic where nurses were working some 60 to 80 hours per week, not to mention they could not go home for a while. But hospitals try not to cut corners with staffing among nurses or medication. And why they suspended elective surgeries for a period of 6 months or so during 2020.

 

1800s during the cholera breakout, and flu epidemic in the 1920s among certain communities as well as other incidents. If dysentery was aboard the ship, no one from that ship disembarked. No one and masks were mandated for those who went on board the ship to treat the infected persons and could not come back until dysentery ran its course. The local government there required masks and even restricted travel for instance. It may not have been "universal" like today, but then again, people rarely traveled outside their town in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries until cars and roads became more widely available.

 

The word "insignificant" or more accurately statistical singificance holds a specific meaning when dealing with statistical sampling in a study. From a laymans perspective, it basically is analogous to the margin of error in a poll.

If a poll has a margin of error of 3%, and one candidate is winning by 1%, statistically that is considered a tie because that poll is not statistically empowered to detect differences within 3% of each other.

In a medical study where you are looking at a drug vs a placebo, if the drug arm has a numerical advantage that is not stitistically significant, that means that it failed to separate itself from placebo. They are considered equal. In this case, the mask group failed to separate from the control group that did not wear a mask. They are considered equal.

 

Wasn't there more resistance?

 

there was resistance yes. But they were placed under "house" arrest most of the time. A few were locked up in a local jail by the Town marshal or its own citizens. A few were even hanged without a trial if I do recall.

 

What are the laws that are on the books that allows mask mandates?

 

I read about it, but forget the details. Thanks.

 

To be equal this study would have had to have a moe of ~15%. If that’s the case then I — a master armchair statistician — would argue this study is statistically irrelevant.

Edit: After looking at the Danish study directly I see what you are speaking about. A 15% reduction would still be significant to me personally

 

Shame on you for pointing that out!

There have many double blind clinical trials since WWII that have proved that masks do not prevent the spread of viruses, but just ignore all that.
You will feel better.