The Coronavirus, not the beer

[nsacpi]

I’ll simply state that engaging you in providing you information is an absolutely worthless endeavor and a complete waste of my time. Not only do you not acknowledge or accept objective facts, you dismiss them when they are presented to you.

Looks like you were right not to engage. I think the rest of us should learn.

 

[sturg33]

I think that post further proved my point.

There is quite literally zero evidence.

Number one, that "study" is hilarious and was universally mocked. Even the abstract essentially tells you they are just guessing... I hope you read it.

Secondly, reinfection is RARE from natural immunity. And when it has happened, it has been MILD. As far as I can tell, there is not a single death or hospitalization in the US from a reinfected patient. I am also not aware of a single reinfected patient from someone who has had both doses of vaccines

Continue with your agenda. I'll be here to call bull****. If and when you have that data that exists today on March 19, please do share.

 

[goldfly]

Lol

A new favorite is the mental giant acting like a victim and now trying to perceive himself as a hero of “no more” when confronting people by calling everyone that doesn’t agree with him stupid lol

 

[sturg33]

Looks like you were right not to engage. I think the rest of us should learn.

You didn't present any evidence.

You posted a study that says "masks may reduce infection" but zero proof of such

Then you posted an article about rare cases of old people getting reinfected.

This is not a study. This is nothing but your usual conjecture.

 

[sturg33]

Summary of research on efficacy of masks:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

This is one of the funniest "Studies" I've ever read.

This is what has 330M americans wearing a mask 24/7...

Cloth masks have been used in healthcare and community settings to protect the wearer from respiratory infections. The use of cloth masks during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is under debate. The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly. Multilayer cloth masks, designed to fit around the face and made of water-resistant fabric with a high number of threads and finer weave, may provide reasonable protection. Until a cloth mask design is proven to be equally effective as a medical or N95 mask, wearing cloth masks should not be mandated for healthcare workers. In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be educated about their correct use.

It goes on to talk about how in order to achieve these potential benefits, the mask should be washed every day.

There is zero study comparing cloth masks to no masks.

And all studies done show lack of efficacy against face-fitting masks like N95.

If finally goes on to say that future studies need to be done in order to get better data

More research on cloth masks is needed to inform their use as an alternative to surgical masks/respirators in the event of shortage or high-demand situations. To our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial (4) has been conducted to examine the efficacy of cloth masks in healthcare settings, and the results do not favor use of cloth masks. More randomized controlled trials should be conducted in community settings to test the efficacy of cloth masks against respiratory infections. According to the US Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, more research on the engineering design of cloth masks to enhance their filtration and fit is needed (16). Moreover, various methods for decontaminating cloth masks should be tested.

Thank you for re-posting this to once again prove how foolish Fauci is. There is, once again, no evidence suggesting they are useful.

 

[nsacpi]

The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. (published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 2021)

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

While most people are unlikely to get the disease again for at least six months, the elderly are more prone to reinfection, according to the results published Wednesday in the Lancet. The study of test results in Denmark last year showed that those under age 65 who’d had Covid were about 80% protected from getting it again. Protection dropped to 47% for those 65 and older. (published in Lancet, March 2021)

https://theprint.in/health/older-pe...vid-reinfection-study-in-lancet-shows/623835/

 

[nsacpi]

This is one of the funniest "Studies" I've ever read.

This is what has 330M americans wearing a mask 24/7...



It goes on to talk about how in order to achieve these potential benefits, the mask should be washed every day.

There is zero study comparing cloth masks to no masks.

And all studies done show lack of efficacy against face-fitting masks like N95.

If finally goes on to say that future studies need to be done in order to get better data



Thank you for re-posting this to once again prove how foolish Fauci is

what are you doing still here

i guess Lancet and National Academy of Sciences are just a bunch of stooges...tululush had you pegged exactly right

 

[sturg33]

what are you doing still here

Because you have failed miserably, like so many times before... Your first "study" you posted said the opposite of what you said it did.

I see you wisely have pivoted away from that and went with the PNAS study... once again, there is not a single cloth mask RCT study conducted. They simply project and make assumptions based on cherry picked data.

The only RCT study that has been done was the one in Denmark, which concluded

A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

Conclusion
The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

I know that the left is very anti-science these days... but using assumption and theoretical studies that aim to support draconian laws is not how science works. The only study done on masks vs no masks concluded no statistically significant reduction in infection.

And then we have the issue of preventing re-infection for people who already have immunity! Which is what this conversation is all about. I'm afraid to report to you, that there is no evidence to support such a thing.

I understand your desire to rid me from these boards... it must be annoying having someone consistently calling bull **** on your lectures that have proven to be wrong at every single instance.

Keep digging old man.

 

[sturg33]

It's clear you guys just read the article headlines of the study and not the study itself.

I would expect nothing less of non critical thinkers

 

[nsacpi]

Not surprised to see heavy duty gaze averting to studies published by the National Academy of Sciences (January 2021) and Lancet (March 2021)

iiwii

 

[nsacpi]

It's clear you guys just read the article headlines of the study and not the study itself.

I would expect nothing less of non critical thinkers

dude the National Academy of Sciences...real scientists with affiliations at Oxford, Brown, etc say you are wrongo dongo

what are you still doing here

 

[sturg33]

dude the National Academy of Sciences...real scientists with affiliations at Oxford, Brown, etc say you are wrongo dongo

what are you still doing here

The one that didn't conduct a randomized control trial?

Or a different one?

And do you not believe in the vaccine is providing immunity?

Sounds like you are always going to be for masks because there was once a person who got reinfected and thus, we could all get reinfected

better keep that mask on, old man. evidence be damned

 

[nsacpi]

The one that didn't conduct a randomized control trial?

Or a different one?

And do you not believe in the vaccine is providing immunity?

Sounds like you are always going to be for masks because there was once a person who got reinfected and thus, we could all get reinfected

better keep that mask on, old man. evidence be damned

what are you still doing here

the National Academy of Sciences article is one of the most systematic reviews of all the research and evidence that has been published

it concludes: Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.

what are you still doing here

 

[sturg33]

what are you still doing here

the National Academy of Sciences article is one of the most systematic reviews of all the research and evidence that has been published

it concludes: Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.

what are you still doing here

This is not a ****ing study, dude. Where was the trial they ran? Is your persuit of your new covid religion made you this much of an anti-science loser?

They are doing what you do... cherry-picking places where decreasing infections correllating with mask mandates. But there were just as many places where the opposite occurred, which were ignored multiple studies

Based on our assessment of this CDC mask mandate report, we find ourselves troubled by the study methods themselves and by extension, the conclusions drawn. The real-world evidence exists and indicates that in various countries and US states, when mask mandates were followed consistently, there was an inexorable increase in case counts. We have seen that in states and countries that already have a high frequency of mask wearing that adding mandates had little effect. There was no (zero) benefit of adding a mask mandate in Austria, Germany, France, Spain, UK, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, and states like California, Hawaii, and Texas. Importantly, we do not ascribe a cause-effect relationship between the implementation of mask mandates and the rise in case rates, but we also demand the same approach when it comes to claiming some sort of causal relationship between the introduction of mask mandates and likely claims by the CDC that their findings could support their implementation countrywide.

You are simply repeating what you are being told rather than critically examining it.

And I'm still here because you have yet to show me the evidence that wearing a mask is necessary once immunity is achieved.

 

[nsacpi]

The National Academy of Sciences article is an extremely thorough review of the literature. And reaches a very clear conclusion.

what are you still doing here

 

[sturg33]

The National Academy of Sciences article is an extremely thorough review of the literature. And reaches a very clear conclusion.

what are you still doing here

Their conclusion:

Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.

"our review of the literature" = "we did not run a trial

"and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission" - this is verifiably false

There has been one scientific CRT conducted. I posted the conclusion above.

Sowwwwwwwy

And I'm still here because even if masks are useful, there is, yet again, no scientific evidence they are necessary in a post vaccinated body

Sowwwwwwwy

 

[sturg33]

Meanwhile, the scientific community demanded the "National Academy of Sciences" retract a paper they wrote last June because the evidence was so misrepresented that the community feared it would be believed and acted on by the public.

The scientists, who sent a signed letter to the journal PNAS on Thursday, say that the paper is based on false statements and flawed statistical analysis and could encourage people to put themselves at risk by congregating in groups, believing that wearing a mask is enough to protect them from infection.

“One of the things we really worry about is that people will take this as rigorous science and base their actions on it,” Noah Haber, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University who helped organize the letter calling for the paper’s...

Soon after the paper appeared online, other scientists started posting eviscerating critiques of its assumptions and methods on Twitter. “There were just so many errors and issues with the paper that it almost seemed hard to know where to start,” Kate Grabowski, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University who signed the letter calling for the study’s retraction, told Buzzfeed News.

...

“The paper made extraordinary claims about routes of transmission, the effectiveness of mask-wearing, and by implication, the ineffectiveness of other non-pharmaceutical interventions. While we agree that mask-wearing plays an important role in slowing the spread of COVID-19, the claims in this study were based on easily falsifiable claims and methodological design flaws,” the letter says. “Given the scope and severity of the issues we present, and the paper’s outsized and immediate public impact, we ask that the Editors of PNAS retract this paper immediately.”

This is the paper that nsacpi is uncritically blindly believing... bc he has the best judgement, after all

Linkhttps://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/mario-molina-coronavirus-face-masks-pnas

 

[nsacpi]

I will leave the board if you post the data you claim to have that shows wearing a mask prevents reinefection for someone who has immunity.

National Academy of Sciences

Lancet

if you had any honor you would pack up and say your goodbyes...but you dont...it is sad and pathetic

 

[thewupk]

The sheep will avert their gaze, but this is getting really out of hand

[Tw]1371941404306513927[/tw]

So glad I don't live in that state

 

[nsacpi]

The scientists, who sent a signed letter to the journal PNAS on Thursday, say that the paper is based on false statements and flawed statistical analysis and could encourage people to put themselves at risk by congregating in groups, believing that wearing a mask is enough to protect them from infection.

this is such a bizarre hook for mask deniers to hang their hats on

no one is saying that masks will make it safe to congregate in close spaces indoors...the only claim is it lowers transmission

mein gott varum hast du verlassen sturg