Why should we follow guidelines?
Why should we follow guidelines?
Originally posted by SurturNobody cares Surt... the election is over.
Photos emerge of California Gov. Gavin Newsom dining unmasked with large party — and even CNN is criticizing the blatant hypocrisyWhy should we follow guidelines?
Dutch study has finally passed peer review and got published on the public use and efficacy of mask wearing:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
And the results: 1.8% of the mask-wearing group got infections over the study period. 2.1% of the non-mask-wearing group got infections over the study period. A result which was deemed "not statistically significant." Meaning, there was no statistical difference between the two groups.
But they did a deeper dive into the data because the "mask group" had 3 levels of mask-adherence: exactly as instructed, mostly as instructed, not very well.
In the "exactly as instructed group", which was about 40% of the study group, the infection percentage is 2.0%. The comparable control group is 2.1%. Meaning, when they looked at the group of strictly wearing mask adherents in the study group, the infection rate when up and matched "no mask." Again, none of these differences were deemed statistically significant.
Three post hoc (not preplanned) analyses were done. In the first, which included only participants reporting wearing face masks “exactly as instructed,” infection (the primary outcome) occurred in 22 participants (2.0%) in the face mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group...
And the researchers were clear on the setting for this research:
During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings (22). This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks.
Meaning, they'd get the absolute best results to measure for the non-mask group since almost no people were wearing masks, at the time. But they still found no statistically significant difference even with these factors at play.
Even more bad news: eyeglasses provided no additional protection when they stratified the participants into eyeglass and non-eyeglass wearing groups. This is bad news because we thought that having eye glasses might offer some protective benefit from conjunctival infections. But it doesn't. Face shields are still a relevant area to study, though. We need data on faceshields.
In their conclusion statement:
Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon. Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect.
So it is possible, where social distancing is not possible, that masks could still provide a protective benefit.
They also reviewed other studies and why they are weak or just not great science when it comes to mask wearing efficacy.
A recent meta-analysis that suggested a protective effect of face masks in the non–health care setting was based on 3 observational studies that included a total of 725 participants and focused on transmission of SARS-CoV-1 rather than SARS-CoV-2 (12). Of 725 participants, 138 (19%) were infected, so the transmission rate seems to be higher than for SARS-CoV-2. Further, these studies focused on prevention of infection in healthy mask wearers from patients with a known, diagnosed infection rather than prevention of transmission from persons in their surroundings in general. In addition, identified comparators (control participants) not wearing masks may also have missed other protective means.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
One thing to note, though, is it looks like N95s make a comeback in one of the studies they referenced with a significant result showing a marked protective benefit from the N95s. Likely, they are citing (in the cited meta analysis study) the research I already have cited in this thread. To be fair, there is also RCT research out there that contradicts the protective benefit of he N95 and you should probably save those for the immuno-compromised (like my mother and -Pr-) and healthcare workers.
Social distancing, however, still appears to work. Stay out of people's personal space.
Originally posted by Surtur
Saw an article about this earlier, so the "but they had masks on!" defense used whenever lefties gathered by the thousands to "protest" is bullshit?
Yeah, pretty much.
We still don't have a quality RCT with a large sample size for mask efficacy when social distancing is not possible such as high-volume trains, busses, and workspaces (like train stations). It's possible that in a situation where social distancing is not possible, masks could still provide a protective benefit and a preventative benefit. More data is needed.
Originally posted by Surtur
Of course this is largely irrelevant. Now that Trump has lost the masks are coming off that this was all about politics.
Biden will still make masks mandatory.
But it seems like hand hygiene and social distancing are more effective measures? So we should be yelling at each other to wash hands, sanitize hands, and social distance. Instead of yelling at each other to wear masks.
And if you see someone wearing an N95, just assume they are immuno-compromised and don't shame them for taking masks away from medical workers.
Rounded 256k deaths today. Looking like the US is still on track to hit and now surpass 300K by the new year in threads stay the same.
Originally posted by Robtard
Rounded 256k deaths today. Looking like the US is still on track to hit and now surpass 300K by the new year in threads stay the same.
Nobody cares, the election is over.
Originally posted by RobtardOh yeah I forgot about that.
Rounded 256k deaths today. Looking like the US is still on track to hit and now surpass 300K by the new year in threads stay the same.
399k before new year?