Originally posted by dadudemon
Good news: the only quality meta-analysis done on masks, including N-95s, that included actual real-world outcomes via RCTs, showed anywhere from a detriment to a very tiny net benefit with most RCTs showing no difference/slight detriment.The masks are anywhere from placebos to worsening the situation - they do nothing and the hyperfocused, "does not translate to the real world", studies are not applicable. The public shamings for not wearing masks are anti-scientific. In fact, it would be more scientific to shame people for wearing masks than not based on the meta-analysis.
It becomes obvious why this is true - the masks function as Petri dishes of microbial inhalants when they become contaminated. So the benefits that you'd see from the masks disappears as people go about their day. This "problem" is so strong that the meta-analysis also found no difference between N-95s and surgical masks.
This is not to say that a surgeon should not get the full sanitization and PPE get-up before performing surgery. That's not the scenario tested. But it is not realistic to force all medical personnel to get the full sanitization and PPE "armored" getup to treat patients...but that's what it would really take for every single person to go out into public to reduce SARS, Flus, and MERS from spreading.
But that doesn't make you wrong. I view Republicans as laughably hypocritical. Same for the Dems.
lots of unsubstantiated claims and opinions in there. i know you hate when someone says "citation needed" so why don't we just agree to disagree concerning breathing masks.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
lots of unsubstantiated claims and opinions in there. i know you hate when someone says "citation needed" so why don't we just agree to disagree concerning breathing masks.
It's not that hard for me to requote my post:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I did more research and it looks like I might be wrong. A meta-analsysis of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of masks was undertaken, already.Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial”, American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 - 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002 N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.
Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review”, Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.
bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence”, Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x “There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”
Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 “We identified 6 clinical studies ... In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.” 3
Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 “Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:
Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial”, JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214 “Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381 “A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The
4 use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.
Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).
Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.
Masks and respirators do not work.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340570735_Masks_Don't_Work_A_review_of_science_relevant_to_COVID-19_social_policy
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
*She; Eon posted last night that she is a transgender woman and prefers she/her pronouns.
Originally posted by Eon Blue
Should men looking to be women and vice versa be encouraged or even allowed to cut their body parts off which causes irreparable damage to their bodies and mental stability solely on their feelings etc? [/B]
the language here suggests he doesn't acknowledge transgenderism as a real thing; and he actively argues against those rights (all of them, not just sex-reassignment).
i will respect and accommodate him according to his true beliefs, not his temporary "feelings", as he seems to believe and prefer (per his own words), out of respect for his beliefs and preferences.
eon's ceasing of all the cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics concerning the topic might solve the confusing issue of "what is eon" (baby don't hurt me....don't hurt me...no more)
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"the only quality meta-analysis done on masks"^this is a plea for accepted cherry-picking for the sake of confirmation bias
When presented with very strong science, do you think you should change your behavior and your beliefs? If not, is your denial of the science indicative of confirmation bias and avoidance to cognitive strain?
I know I won't change your mind on this topic because you're very much married to the idea that masks are an absolutely important and essential tool for combating the spread for SARS-CoV-2. Perhaps others, who are not science deniers, may be interested in high-quality research on the efficacy of masks.
So this next part of my post is not for you, it's for anyone interested in genuinely learning. Please ignore the next parts and respond with the standard immature, insulting, and angry stuff you usually do.
Random Controlled Trials are the gold standard for science:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6235704/
And among the strongest science is the meta-analysis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049418/
Focusing the data on real-world outcomes, instead of literal petri-dish observations (how other studies that sought to study the efficacy of masks), are also far higher quality studies.
Disagreeing with these positions would could be backed up by publishing your own research that cover your with RCTs, meta-analyses, and real-world "patient outcomes."
Do you have input into the research and the conclusions drawn by the meta-analysis and the studies involved in the meta-analysis?
If not, do you have input from the recent South Korean study that states that surgical masks are ineffective for filtering SARS-CoV-2 viruses?
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/85814
Originally posted by dadudemon
When presented with very strong science, do you think you should change your behavior and your beliefs? If not, is your denial of the science indicative of confirmation bias and avoidance to cognitive strain?I know I won't change your mind on this topic because you're very much married to the idea that masks are an absolutely important and essential tool for combating the spread for SARS-CoV-2. Perhaps others, who are not science deniers, may be interested in high-quality research on the efficacy of masks.
So this next part of my post is not for you, it's for anyone interested in genuinely learning. Please ignore the next parts and respond with the standard immature, insulting, and angry stuff you usually do.
Random Controlled Trials are the gold standard for science:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6235704/
And among the strongest science is the meta-analysis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049418/
Focusing the data on real-world outcomes, instead of literal petri-dish observations (how other studies that sought to study the efficacy of masks), are also far higher quality studies.
Disagreeing with these positions would could be backed up by publishing your own research that cover your with RCTs, meta-analyses, and real-world "patient outcomes."
Do you have input into the research and the conclusions drawn by the meta-analysis and the studies involved in the meta-analysis?
If not, do you have input from the recent South Korean study that states that surgical masks are ineffective for filtering SARS-CoV-2 viruses?
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/85814
Dude you giving him data, etc. is like trying to teach a fish poetry.