Do Covid 19 masks work?

[Benroon]

1 hour ago, mcambl61 said:

So, you have no actual verified evidence that masks have reduced the spread of the virus, but say that doesn't mean that it doesn't, while again virtue signaling that your opinions make you a better person. 

Amazing. Sad, but still amazing. 

Correct - if you had read the post again, perhaps more slowly, you wouldn't have had to ask as the answer was in it. I'm afraid only your misguided misinterpretation could have possibly come to the conclusion I consider myself a better person. My parents frequent references to how much money they wasted on my education would have removed any such thoughts ! But surprisingly I did ok on lifes wheel !

Can you please drop the 'virtue signalling' tag, I understand every hippy wants to use it now (perhaps 'blue sky thinking' and 'getting duck eggs in a row' has gone out of fashion) - or any other toe curling expressions that make you sound like an agitated schoolboy. thks

[mcambl61]

32 minutes ago, shanghailoz said:

Unless in this instance, correlation is very much causation.  
You asked for a study, here you go - 

Lets look at a study of mask studies:

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

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

A Cochrane review (15) on physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses included 67 RCTs and observational studies. It found that “overall masks were the best performing intervention across populations, settings and threats.” 

One preprint systematic review (19) including epidemiological, theoretical, experimental, and clinical evidence found that “face masks in a general population offered significant benefit in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses especially in the pandemic situation, but its utility is limited by inconsistent adherence to mask usage.”

(i.e. wear your mask over your nose, not under it, as I often see foreigners doing - at least 2 of those today walking along Sukhumvit, vs zero Thai...)

Randomized control trial evidence that investigated the impact of masks on household transmission during influenza epidemics indicates potential benefit. Suess et al. (21) conducted an RCT that suggests household transmission of influenza can be reduced by the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions, namely the use of face masks and intensified hand hygiene, when implemented early and used diligently.

Leffler et al. (29) used a multiple regression approach, including a range of policy interventions and country and population characteristics, to infer the relationship between mask use and SARS-CoV-2 transmission. They found that transmission was 7.5 times higher in countries that did not have a mask mandate or universal mask use, a result similar to that found in an analogous study of fewer countries 

Another study looked at the difference between US states with mask mandates and those without, and found that the daily growth rate was 2.0 percentage points lower in states with mask mandates

High viral titers of SARS-CoV-2 are reported in the saliva of COVID-19 patients. These titers have been highest at time of patient presentation, and viral levels are just as high in asymptomatic or presymptomatic patients, and occur predominantly in the URT (46, 47). Asymptomatic people seem to account for approximately 40 to 45% of SARS-CoV-2 infections (48). An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral load by patient age showed that viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 in children are similar to adults (49). Another paper showed no significant difference in saliva loads between mildly symptomatic and asymptomatic children. These findings support the contention that everyone, adults and children, should wear masks (50).

Van der Sande et al. (78) found that “all types of masks reduced aerosol exposure, relatively stable over time, unaffected by duration of wear or type of activity,” and concluded that “any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, despite imperfect fit and imperfect adherence.”

Their conclusion - 

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.

Right then, assertions that mask mandates were more effective, without having any data on what percentage or type of masks were used... In other words, a guess. 

 

But then... 

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-#

[Benroon]

I genuinely find it funny that adults can get so worked up about wearing a face mask in a pandemic! 

Might I suggest wait for the pandemic to be over, wait for the report that says wearing a mask was never a good idea (good luck with that) and then you will have an open goal to gloat your way to martyrdom. But in the meantime sssshhhh !

Carry on ...

[Benroon]

5 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

Right then, assertions that mask mandates were more effective, without having any data on what percentage or type of masks were used... In other words, a guess. 

But then... 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-#

Does not 'significantly' reduce, so it reduces then correct ? 

[mcambl61]

1 minute ago, Benroon said:

I genuinely find it funny that adults can get so worked up about wearing a face mask in a pandemic! 

Might I suggest wait for the pandemic to be over, wait for the report that says wearing a mask was never a good idea (good luck with that) and then you will have an open goal to gloat your way to martyrdom. But in the meantime sssshhhh !

Carry on ...

I find it very sad that you think you have the right to dictate to others what measures are required to make you feel better about yourself,while virtue signaling about yourself. 

[mcambl61]

3 minutes ago, Benroon said:

Does not 'significantly' reduce, so it reduces then correct ? 

Or, you could also say that it does not have any effect at all, unless of course you are a triggered self righteous mask shaming nazi... Of which there are many. 

[longwood50]

40 minutes ago, Fester said:

So simplistic -  only to be expected, I supose

   Obviously not simple enough for you to comprehend.  Let me try this one.  With medicines they have two groups.  One given the medicine, one doesn't get it.  If there is no discernable difference in the outcome, the medicine is deemed to be ineffective. 

Now this will be tricky for you but now lets try the same thing with masks. 

Sweden did not require masks, the other countries required masks.  There was no discernable difference in the rate of covid infections per million.  Now the really tricky part for you.  Given there was no difference the conclusion would be the masks were really not effective in keeping those countries using masks from having a lower Covid infection rate than Sweden.  Hence, masks did little to nothing. 

 

[Smithydog]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Otherwise Sweden's rate of infection would be markedly higher than the other European Countries and it is not.  Can masks help?  Perhaps.  But turning ones head away from a Covid infected person when they cough or sneeze "can help" too.  That does not mean that turning ones head away is a truly effective way of stopping the spread of Covid and the same is true of masks.  The governments around the world really don't have any effective means to stop Covid other than via vaccines.  However they need to have an answer when pressed what they are doing to protect their citizens.  The mask mandates, quarantines, lock downs etc. give them an answer.  The fact that those measures do little to nothing is irrelevant. 

 

I liked your argument better this time, however your data supplied earlier is notable for the countries you left off. The concern I have with the way you are offering your opinion is that it is missing some key factors.

Finland and Norway both share a land border with Sweden at 1660km and 545 km respectively. You are not questioning your findings against either those countries or even Denmark which is connected by a land bridge 16km long. Instead, you are comparing against countries like Estonia and Lithuania that are separated by a sea!

Why? Well perhaps because all 3 countries of the countries that actually border Sweden have achieved far better results than Sweden has and all using more restrictions than Sweden did. Compared to the Swedish result of 109,164 cases per million (your data example), Denmark has had 57,013 cases, Norway 26,519 and Finland 20,977 cases (one fifth of Sweden).

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases

I’ll give you my empirical opinion, not that any of our opinions really matter in the scope of things we can't change.

 Denmark, Finland and Norway have all achieved better Covid-19 results through greater and more timely use of a variety of measures both voluntary and mandated than their immediate neighbour Sweden has been able to achieve with its delayed and less use of such measures.

 But who ultimately cares about our empirical opinion? The only data that really means anything is the one that shows how people have suffered through the Pandemic for one reason or another. Be it by Covid-19, financial ruin, family loss, job loss or sheer depression as to their circumstances.

 That unfortunate piece of data exists in all countries and is caused by all methods.

 I’ll leave that as my last word on this topic for now. The sheer numbers we have been debating with are depressing in themselves.

 

 

 

[SnapDragon]

7 minutes ago, Benroon said:

I genuinely find it funny that adults can get so worked up about wearing a face mask in a pandemic! 

Might I suggest wait for the pandemic to be over, wait for the report that says wearing a mask was never a good idea (good luck with that) and then you will have an open goal to gloat your way to martyrdom. But in the meantime sssshhhh !

It's only a 'pandemic' because we are told it is.

The goalposts were moved in 2019, so that a 'pandemic' could be called, allowing the drug manufacturers to step in with 'emergency use' drugs. Also part of that sorry deal was the understanding that the WHO would not promote any cures other than 'vaccines'.

Look around the world. No more deaths than one might normally expect.

 

[Benroon]

8 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

Or, you could also say that it does not have any effect at all, unless of course you are a triggered self righteous mask shaming nazi... Of which there are many. 

You could say anything but that's not what YOUR quoted post said did it ? Perhaps you didn't spot the obvious weakness in it that I did. So now you're resorting to putting words into the mouth of the author in a desperate attempt to shore up your heavily flawed conspiracy.

Nazi ? Oh dear, take a lie down

[Benroon]

16 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

I find it very sad that you think you have the right to dictate to others what measures are required to make you feel better about yourself,while virtue signaling about yourself. 

NURSE !!!!!!

[mcambl61]

3 minutes ago, Benroon said:

You could say anything but that's not what YOUR quoted post said did it ? Perhaps you didn't spot the obvious weakness in it that I did. So now you're resorting to putting words into the mouth of the author in a desperate attempt to shore up your heavily flawed conspiracy.

Nazi ? Oh dear, take a lie down

Well, you seem to be quite triggered.

 

No significant difference does mean that it is not a viable deterrent. If you do not understand that, then obviously you are in favor of everyone else wearing masks to deal with your irrational fear so that you can feel better. 

[Benroon]

12 minutes ago, snapdragon said:

 

Look around the world. No more deaths than one might normally expect.

That line got me thinking (happens occasionally) so I found this

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

I'm afraid it appears to show you're quite wrong - it only lists USA but 'excess' deaths ie out of the norm, appeared to start rising just before May 20 and recently, post vaccine, have started to fall back into line.

Interesting stats

 

[mcambl61]

16 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

I liked your argument better this time, however your data supplied earlier is notable for the countries you left off. The concern I have with the way you are offering your opinion is that it is missing some key factors.

Finland and Norway both share a land border with Sweden at 1660km and 545 km respectively. You are not questioning your findings against either those countries or even Denmark which is connected by a land bridge 16km long. Instead, you are comparing against countries like Estonia and Lithuania that are separated by a sea!

Why? Well perhaps because all 3 countries of the countries that actually border Sweden have achieved far better results than Sweden has and all using more restrictions than Sweden did. Compared to the Swedish result of 109,164 cases per million (your data example), Denmark has had 57,013 cases, Norway 26,519 and Finland 20,977 cases (one fifth of Sweden).

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases

I’ll give you my empirical opinion, not that any of our opinions really matter in the scope of things we can't change.

 Denmark, Finland and Norway have all achieved better Covid-19 results through greater and more timely use of a variety of measures both voluntary and mandated than their immediate neighbour Sweden has been able to achieve with its delayed and less use of such measures.

 But who ultimately cares about our empirical opinion? The only data that really means anything is the one that shows how people have suffered through the Pandemic for one reason or another. Be it by Covid-19, financial ruin, family loss, job loss or sheer depression as to their circumstances.

 That unfortunate piece of data exists in all countries and is caused by all methods.

 I’ll leave that as my last word on this topic for now. The sheer numbers we have been debating with are depressing in themselves.

What is even more depressing is the massive economic destruction of hundreds of millions of people and their businesses that seem to be ignored in all this virtue signaling about the draconian measures being mandated. 

 

All of which is exponentially worse and longer lasting than any case numbers or fatality rates. 

[mcambl61]

3 minutes ago, Benroon said:

That line got me thinking (happens occasionally) so I found this

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

I'm afraid it appears to show you're quite wrong - it only lists USA but 'excess' deaths ie out of the norm, appeared to start rising just before May 20 and recently, post vaccine, have started to fall back into line.

Interesting stats

I believe that he is referring to all the other causes of deaths, not just this low fatality rate virus. 

[longwood50]

1 hour ago, Fester said:

Empirical my foot. Look at the relative population densities.

Oh so now it is population density that counts.  OK  try this the states in the USA with the highest covid rate per million. are Rhode Island, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Arkansas.  Those are some of the lowest population density states in the USA. 


Now do you see any of those densely populated states like California, New York, New Jersey,  The two areas with the highest population density in the USA are Washington D.C. and New Jersey.  

Washing DC has a population density almost 9 times greater than second place New Jersey.  at over 11,000 people per square mile. 4,251 per square kilometer.  Oh SUPRISE SURPRISE.  Washington DC ranks 45th 'LOWEST"  out of the 50 states plus Washington DC in terms of Covid infections per million.  Its cases per million are more than 50% lower than Rhode Island and South Dakota.  

Do you want to try another another theory on why those other countries have virtually the same Covid infection rate as Sweden.  Perhaps you can conjecture it is because they eat fewer meatballs than the Swedes. 


 

Edited August 14, 2021 by longwood50

[Benroon]

8 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

What is even more depressing is the massive economic destruction of hundreds of millions of people and their businesses that seem to be ignored in all this virtue signaling about the draconian measures being mandated. 

All of which is exponentially worse and longer lasting than any case numbers or fatality rates. 

Jesus wept have you posted anything without 'virtue signalling' in it ?

Hang on I've just checked - No ! 

[Benroon]

8 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

I believe that he is referring to all the other causes of deaths, not just this low fatality rate virus. 

Errr No - you really need to read things more slowly - there are several options you can select to present you with various dashboards - they are self explanatory (I like to think ) and it is not difficult to drill down to excess deaths during the Covid era.

I don't think he actually states it is due to Covid, that's the whole point, he just presents the stats, but they go up markedly around the time Covid started and are now back to where they were. You can make your own mind up what that infers.

I found an independent and not cherry picked a loon who wants some YouTube airtime

[mcambl61]

2 minutes ago, Benroon said:

Jesus wept have you posted anything without 'virtue signalling' in it ?

Hang on I've just checked - No ! 

It doesn't take much to find it, as it is used constantly. The only people who can't see it are the same self righteous mask shaming twits that populate forums and the governments and their media sycophants. 

[Fester]

31 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

   Obviously not simple enough for you to comprehend.  Let me try this one.  With medicines they have two groups.  One given the medicine, one doesn't get it.  If there is no discernable difference in the outcome, the medicine is deemed to be ineffective. 

Now this will be tricky for you but now lets try the same thing with masks. 

Sweden did not require masks, the other countries required masks.  There was no discernable difference in the rate of covid infections per million.  Now the really tricky part for you.  Given there was no difference the conclusion would be the masks were really not effective in keeping those countries using masks from having a lower Covid infection rate than Sweden.  Hence, masks did little to nothing. 

 

You're right. That is tricky...so much so you seem to have tricked yourself.

Sweden remains 18/200+ countries in terms of cases per million - how successful was that effort?

[SnapDragon]

16 minutes ago, Benroon said:

That line got me thinking (happens occasionally) so I found this

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

I'm afraid it appears to show you're quite wrong - it only lists USA but 'excess' deaths ie out of the norm, appeared to start rising just before May 20 and recently, post vaccine, have started to fall back into line.

Interesting stats

I think that the best guide to deaths would be to compare year to year over a 20 year period.

Not looked at that many, but the ones I have researched show that 2020 was nothing out of the ordinary. If anyone could point me to a country that shows differently, I'll take a look.

In a so-called pandemic, one might expect to see a significant increase in deaths.

[mcambl61]

1 minute ago, Fester said:

You're right. That is tricky...so much so you seem to have tricked yourself.

Sweden remains 18/200+ countries in terms of cases per million - how successful was that effort?

Cases are not and never will be the measure of success. 

 

Deaths per capita is, as well as factoring in that they did not destroy their economy or peoples jobs in the process. 

 

That seems to be ignored by the geniuses who demand draconian measures. 

[Fester]

18 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Oh so now it is population density that counts.  OK  try this the states in the USA with the highest covid rate per million. are Rhode Island, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Arkansas.  Those are some of the lowest population density states in the USA. 


Now do you see any of those densely populated states like California, New York, New Jersey,  The two areas with the highest population density in the USA are Washington D.C. and New Jersey.  

Washing DC has a population density almost 9 times greater than second place New Jersey.  at over 11,000 people per square mile. 4,251 per square kilometer.  Oh SUPRISE SURPRISE.  Washington DC ranks 45th 'LOWEST"  out of the 50 states plus Washington DC in terms of Covid infections per million.  Its cases per million are more than 50% lower than Rhode Island and South Dakota.  

Do you want to try another another theory on why those other countries have virtually the same Covid infection rate as Sweden.  Perhaps you can conjecture it is because they eat fewer meatballs than the Swedes. 

Thanks for proving my point. Rhode Island, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Arkansas. also have some of the lowest mask-wearing percentages - all low 20's. Golly gosh and gee whizz!

This data also includes population denisities. Is that because they might be relevant too?

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249891.s001

 

(CSV)

 

 

[Fester]

21 minutes ago, snapdragon said:

I think that the best guide to deaths would be to compare year to year over a 20 year period.

Not looked at that many, but the ones I have researched show that 2020 was nothing out of the ordinary. If anyone could point me to a country that shows differently, I'll take a look.

In a so-called pandemic, one might expect to see a significant increase in deaths.

That took me 5 seconds. Behave.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/373/bmj.n896/F1.medium.jpg

Edited August 14, 2021 by Fester

[mcambl61]

1 minute ago, Fester said:

Thanks for proving my point. Rhode Island, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Arkansas. also have some of the lowest mask-wearing percentages - all low 20's. Golly gosh and gee whizz!

This data also includes population denisities. Is that because they might be relevant too?

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249891.s001

 

(CSV)

Just how on earth people determine "mask wearing percentages" 

Using what methods? 

 

The fact that anyone, anywhere thinks they can measure this with any degree of reality is a joke. A poll? You have to be joking. 

 

Let's just cut to the chase, you think that people should be wearing masks as long as covid exists.

 

It will exist for decades.