Red Mosquito

simple schoolboy wrote:Don't the biggest reasonably well run studies show at best a 10% decrease in community transmission for those 60 and up when everyone is wearing cloth or surgical masks? Such a marginal improvement doesn't seem to command some great fealty to the practice of shitty mask wearing.

Everyone’s running around in crummy cloth masks.

Lol everyone

I didn’t wear a mask and I didn’t get covid. Not wearing a mask works.

macphisto wrote:I didn’t wear a mask and I didn’t get covid. Not wearing a mask works.

Guarantee you got covid

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:I didn’t wear a mask and I didn’t get covid. Not wearing a mask works.

Guarantee you got covid

Haven’t had more than the sniffles since this whole party started. My immune system must be amazing.

macphisto wrote:

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:I didn’t wear a mask and I didn’t get covid. Not wearing a mask works.

Guarantee you got covid

Haven’t had more than the sniffles since this whole party started. My immune system must be amazing.

Same. Only I haven't even had sniffles

macphisto wrote:

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:I didn’t wear a mask and I didn’t get covid. Not wearing a mask works.

Guarantee you got covid

Haven’t had more than the sniffles since this whole party started. My immune system must be amazing.

Guarantee my whole fam had covid multiple times

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:I didn’t wear a mask and I didn’t get covid. Not wearing a mask works.

Guarantee you got covid

Haven’t had more than the sniffles since this whole party started. My immune system must be amazing.

Guarantee my whole fam had covid multiple times

Is heaven beautiful? If you see a very sweet tuxedo cat, give her a scratch for me

spike wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Don't the biggest reasonably well run studies show at best a 10% decrease in community transmission for those 60 and up when everyone is wearing cloth or surgical masks? Such a marginal improvement doesn't seem to command some great fealty to the practice of shitty mask wearing.

Everyone’s running around in crummy cloth masks.

Hey man, let's get N-95s readily available and more elaborate forced air systems for those with respiratory issues. But we're not doing that and never attempted to.

The powers that be settled on double masking as a way to pretend "the science has changed". It has not. Your graphic on masks and Omicron was 100% cope and I hope you feel ashamed some day for sharing that dreck.

verb_to_trust wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:I didn’t wear a mask and I didn’t get covid. Not wearing a mask works.

Guarantee you got covid

Haven’t had more than the sniffles since this whole party started. My immune system must be amazing.

Same. Only I haven't even had sniffles

Have you had diarrhea?

macphisto wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:I didn’t wear a mask and I didn’t get covid. Not wearing a mask works.

Guarantee you got covid

Haven’t had more than the sniffles since this whole party started. My immune system must be amazing.

Same. Only I haven't even had sniffles

Have you had diarrhea?

Yeah but only because of going for a run after drinking a diet coke or something.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bammer wrote:

Rob wrote:Who wants to tell Verb and Mac (and Bammer?) that they’re the other side of the crazy coin in that meme?

Hey simple schoolboy, how does it feel that they’re leaving you out of our little club here?

He gives them nothing to latch on to. Plus, he wraps it all in this oblique packaging. It's art.

That's a generous way of saying I hedge and qualify like a little bitch.

simple schoolboy wrote:Don't the biggest reasonably well run studies show at best a 10% decrease in community transmission for those 60 and up when everyone is wearing cloth or surgical masks? Such a marginal improvement doesn't seem to command some great fealty to the practice of shitty mask wearing.

No. I think you might be getting that number from the Bengladesh study which was more about distributing masks, with an added variable or promoting the benefits of masking up vs not promoting at all. It’s hard to use that as an example because it wasn’t one village of 100% masking vs 0% or any number between them.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/ ... 06e1-H.pdf

This study suffers from a true control group as well, but it’s based on people who were present in indoor public spaces in the 2 weeks prior to a test and their masking behavior. With normal odds of contracting Covid (no mask) representing an odds ratio of 1.0:

Cloth masks .50 (or half the chance of contracting)
Surgical .38
N95/KN95 .22

Obviously not an end all be all study, but any reputable source (I.e. research universities) support that there’s reduction in community spread while indoors while everyone is masked.

Masks suck to wear and they’re not 100%, but they make a not insignificant difference in reducing transmission. I wish it wasn’t beneficial to wear one, but data repeatedly supports it.

Mecca wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Don't the biggest reasonably well run studies show at best a 10% decrease in community transmission for those 60 and up when everyone is wearing cloth or surgical masks? Such a marginal improvement doesn't seem to command some great fealty to the practice of shitty mask wearing.

No. I think you might be getting that number from the Bengladesh study which was more about distributing masks, with an added variable or promoting the benefits of masking up vs not promoting at all. It’s hard to use that as an example because it wasn’t one village of 100% masking vs 0% or any number between them.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/ ... 06e1-H.pdf

This study suffers from a true control group as well, but it’s based on people who were present in indoor public spaces in the 2 weeks prior to a test and their masking behavior. With normal odds of contracting Covid (no mask) representing an odds ratio of 1.0:

Cloth masks .50 (or half the chance of contracting)
Surgical .38
N95/KN95 .22

Obviously not an end all be all study, but any reputable source (I.e. research universities) support that there’s reduction in community spread while indoors while everyone is masked.

Masks suck to wear and they’re not 100%, but they make a not insignificant difference in reducing transmission. I wish it wasn’t beneficial to wear one, but data repeatedly supports it.

Ah yes, a survey based study on self reported behaviors. Way stronger than the Bangladesh study and there was a follow up Northern European study that was similarly disappointing.

Provide a physical model of how cloth masks work to decrease viral load enough to prevent transmission and I might buy it, but that has not been forthcoming.

They originally claimed masks didn't work because they wanted to reserve N-95s for medical professionals, then realized they shot themselves in the foot for a respiratory disease with negligible fomite transmission.

Then masking is important became tied up with signalling this is a serious disease and figuring out we were almost entirely dependent on Asia for N-95s and unable or unwilling to increase domestic supply.

There was never an official determination of "surgical masks are good enough". It was a political decision of we must do something, and this is something.

ive never seen a circle jerk before until the top 3/4 of this page


again for those in the back who are hard of hearing. masks will not directly stop a pandemic but it does help slow the spread. Just like a vaccine doesnt 100% eradicate the virus but it does lesson the symptoms that you may face.

I promise you. having trouble catching your breath is not a fun experience and i wouldnt wish that on anyone.

Hear! Hear!

And as usual I'll take the position that makes me unpopular with both sides. I don't doubt that masks provide some benefit on the micro level to the wearer or people who come into contact with her/him. However, I think the data is clear that mask mandates/lockdowns/NPI's have not been effective (at least enough to remain justified). We have two years of natural experiments and if it were true that mask mandates were effective then we should see a clear negative correlation between mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death and a clear positive correlation between a lack of mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death. That's not what we see, especially in age-adjusted data. Sweden and Florida didn't become death factories and New York and California didn't defeat it with their lockdowns and mandates.

4/5 wrote:And as usual I'll take the position that makes me unpopular with both sides. I don't doubt that masks provide some benefit on the micro level to the wearer or people who come into contact with her/him. However, I think the data is clear that mask mandates/lockdowns/NPI's have not been effective (at least enough to remain justified). We have two years of natural experiments and if it were true that mask mandates were effective then we should see a clear negative correlation between mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death and a clear positive correlation between a lack of mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death. That's not what we see, especially in age-adjusted data. Sweden and Florida didn't become death factories and New York and California didn't defeat it with their lockdowns and mandates.

Everyone’s running around in crummy cloth masks.

spike wrote:

4/5 wrote:And as usual I'll take the position that makes me unpopular with both sides. I don't doubt that masks provide some benefit on the micro level to the wearer or people who come into contact with her/him. However, I think the data is clear that mask mandates/lockdowns/NPI's have not been effective (at least enough to remain justified). We have two years of natural experiments and if it were true that mask mandates were effective then we should see a clear negative correlation between mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death and a clear positive correlation between a lack of mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death. That's not what we see, especially in age-adjusted data. Sweden and Florida didn't become death factories and New York and California didn't defeat it with their lockdowns and mandates.

Everyone’s running around in crummy cloth masks.

Yeah could be. Maybe it'd be different if it were N-95s or if there were stricter enforcement or if people weren't allowed to remove the masks to eat or drink outside of their home, but none of those things are true, so the reality is that the mandates haven't worked even if they may work if everything was done with 100% fidelity. I don't think the efficacy of policies should be measured based on "well if everybody acted perfectly..." because that just isn't the world we live in.

4/5 wrote:

spike wrote:

4/5 wrote:And as usual I'll take the position that makes me unpopular with both sides. I don't doubt that masks provide some benefit on the micro level to the wearer or people who come into contact with her/him. However, I think the data is clear that mask mandates/lockdowns/NPI's have not been effective (at least enough to remain justified). We have two years of natural experiments and if it were true that mask mandates were effective then we should see a clear negative correlation between mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death and a clear positive correlation between a lack of mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death. That's not what we see, especially in age-adjusted data. Sweden and Florida didn't become death factories and New York and California didn't defeat it with their lockdowns and mandates.

Everyone’s running around in crummy cloth masks.

Yeah could be. Maybe it'd be different if it were N-95s or if there were stricter enforcement or if people weren't allowed to remove the masks to eat or drink outside of their home, but none of those things are true, so the reality is that the mandates haven't worked even if they may work if everything was done with 100% fidelity. I don't think the efficacy of policies should be measured based on "well if everybody acted perfectly..." because that just isn't the world we live in.

Yeah for sure, just wanted to be clear it wasn’t science that failed, but rather typical human behavior/apathy.