Masks: Do they work? CDC Says No

[Reformed1689]

Are you really curious or do you just want to argue?


Some of us have lives outside of this forum. I have had work deadlines, a friend whose mother was severely injured last week and needed my assistance. I also sat with him during her extensive surgery and helped out with practical needs. I also needed to help my in-laws with some things. Believe it or not, those things are more important to me than responding to your mistaken ideas.


Yes, exactly. If I thought the anti-maskers were actually curious to know what was true, I would forsake sleep and meals to assist. When all they want to do is argue, I am not highly motivated.


FYI, I reviewed this study back when you posted it on the other thread. The problems were so obvious, and I had so little time, I left it to others to explain.


I’m sure you feel completely vindicated by one obscure study since you have labeled it as the conclusive statement of “SCIENCE!”

First things first. The title of this thread is a lie. The CDC does NOT claim that masks don’t work. Even a casual review of current mask statements demonstrates the lie. As you said in the other thread, one “has to dig” to find anything that may demonstrate that masks are ineffective. What you are digging into are studies from around the world that explains observations and results, some much better than others. Cherry-picking one Chinese study that is an aberration from others and designating it as “Science” and/or the definitive CDC position is a demonstration of extreme ignorance of how science works, the function of the CDC, a lack of ability to evaluate evidence, or simple dishonesty.

Looking at the study, we can see a number of factors that have to be considered:

(1) It’s a Chinese study. That doesn’t matter to me, but for all of the conspiracists out there who currently claim that the virus was created by China as a bioweapon, they shouldn’t take this study at face value. To the conspiracist, the Chinese are trying to harm us with this virus, so we should do the opposite of what they say. However, I take it at face value and think it is relevant, once one understands what is being said.

(2) We should also note that this study covers hand hygiene and masks. Their results appeared to indicate that hand washing is ineffective. Do anti maskers also refuse to wash their hands? Do they verbally assault people who wash their hands?

(3) The study primarily involves reviews of other studies in households, residence halls, and in Hajj pilgrimages from persons from various countries. In all of these situations, there was no mention of social distancing -- which is part of the mask protocol, since masks simply deflect/divert the virus-carrying vapor plume. If one wears a mask without social distancing, the mask will be ineffective.

(4) As you stated upfront, this is not a study of COVID-19 transmission, but of influenza transmission. Even during influenza outbreaks, I have never heard social distancing recommendations, other than persons who have flu symptoms should stay home and away from others. Often, because of the lack of social distancing in homes, whole families come down with the flu — and that’s what this study seems to corroborate.

So in conclusion:

• The CDC did not make the claim that masks are ineffective.

• The study cherry-picked as an example of “science” does not support the claim that masks with required social distancing protocols are ineffective.

Who is the science denier now? It's the mask proponents.

 

[Gold Dragon]

You even quoted the part where it says it doesn't protect the infected OR the uninfected. You should read the article again.

I addressed this in the post above it.

Here are the 5 studies they looked at that assessed masking source infectious patient and seeing if household contacts get infected.

Facemasks and hand hygiene to prevent influenza transmission in households: a cluster randomized trial - PubMed

Preliminary findings of a randomized trial of non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent influenza transmission in households - PubMed

Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on URIs and influenza in crowded, urban households - PubMed

Findings from a household randomized controlled trial of hand washing and face masks to reduce influenza transmission in Bangkok, Thailand - PubMed

The role of facemasks and hand hygiene in the prevention of influenza transmission in households: results from a cluster randomised trial; Berlin, Germany, 2009-2011 - PubMed

In all of them there was a reduction in the masked group vs the unmasked group when you mask the infected patient. That reduction was not statistically significant which is a common problem in small underpowered studies when you are assessing a difference that is small. The designers of those studies also note methodology problems of things like

1) the masking may have been given too late and the household contacts were already exposed by the time the masking started.
2) poor adherence to correct consistent use of the masks.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Why do you still believe in asymptomatic carriers?

Because that is what the evidence states occurs.

https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/jammi-2020-0030

We screened 2,454 articles and included 13 low risk-of-bias studies from seven countries that tested 21,708 at-risk people, of which 663 were positive and 111 asymptomatic. Diagnosis in all studies was confirmed using a real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction test. The asymptomatic proportion ranged from 4% to 41%. Meta-analysis (fixed effects) found that the proportion of asymptomatic cases was 17% (95% CI 14% to 20%) overall and higher in aged care (20%; 95% CI 14% to 27%) than in non-aged care (16%; 95% CI 13% to 20%).

 

[FollowTheWay]

I had posted this in another thread but the mask supporters never answered:

Sure Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

This study is about influenza but the way the two are spread are almost identical.

But here is a quote of note from the article:

Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

No. That's what Trump said and he was a disaster at slowing the spread of this virus. Read and learn.

Things to Know about the COVID-19 Pandemic | CDC

Important Ways to Slow the Spread

• Wear a mask that covers your nose and mouth to help protect yourself and others.
• Stay 6 feet apart from others who don’t live with you.
• Get a COVID-19 vaccine when it is available to you.
• Avoid crowds and poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
• Wash your hands often with soap and water. Use hand sanitizer if soap and water aren’t available.

Masks are a critical step to help prevent people from getting and spreading COVID-19. A cloth mask offers some protection to you as well as protecting those around you. Wear a mask and take every day preventive actions in public settings and mass transportation, at events and gatherings, and anywhere you will be around other people.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Your point? Social distancing works equally well with or without masks.

Social distancing works without masks, but you have to be MUCH farther away. The mist from our breath travels a surprising distance, so masks diffuse the jet of aerosols, allowing us to be 6-8 feet apart without much risk.

THAT’S why masks work, and it has been communicated endlessly for more than a year.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Who is the science denier now?

You are.

 

[Reformed1689]

You are.

Yeah, that's funny, but no.

 

[Reformed1689]

No. That's what Trump said and he was a disaster at slowing the spread of this virus. Read and learn.

Things to Know about the COVID-19 Pandemic | CDC

Important Ways to Slow the Spread

• Wear a mask that covers your nose and mouth to help protect yourself and others.
• Stay 6 feet apart from others who don’t live with you.
• Get a COVID-19 vaccine when it is available to you.
• Avoid crowds and poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
• Wash your hands often with soap and water. Use hand sanitizer if soap and water aren’t available.

Masks are a critical step to help prevent people from getting and spreading COVID-19. A cloth mask offers some protection to you as well as protecting those around you. Wear a mask and take every day preventive actions in public settings and mass transportation, at events and gatherings, and anywhere you will be around other people.

Or just live life.

 

[Reynolds]

Social distancing works without masks, but you have to be MUCH farther away. The mist from our breath travels a surprising distance, so masks diffuse the jet of aerosols, allowing us to be 6-8 feet apart without much risk.

THAT’S why masks work, and it has been communicated endlessly for more than a year.

Ok. The guideline have been 6 ft apart without masks is OK. The guidance the schools received said wear masks when you can't maintain 6ft distancing. Yall on the left can't make up your mind. Faucci told the truth the first time when he said masks were not effective.
Kinda funny how states without mask mandates fared Covid much better than the leftist cesspools that had mask mandates.

 

[Reformed1689]

Ok. The guideline have been 6 ft apart without masks is OK. The guidance the schools received said wear masks when you can't maintain 6ft distancing. Yall on the left can't make up your mind. Faucci told the truth the first time when he said masks were not effective.
Kinda funny how states without mask mandates fared Covid much better than the leftist cesspools that had mask mandates.

Shhhh you are talking about actual science again....

 

[Reynolds]

Risk of coronavirus in U.S. is 'minuscule' NIH's Dr. Anthony Fauci says

 

[Baptist Believer]

Ok. The guideline have been 6 ft apart without masks is OK.

Please document this claim.

The guidance the schools received said wear masks when you can't maintain 6ft distancing.

When was this guidance given? Also, this is guidance for children/teens who were believed to be at much less risk of COVID-19.

Yall on the left can't make up your mind.

So this is a political issue to you? It's not to me. That's probably why you can't think straight about it.

Faucci told the truth the first time when he said masks were not effective.

He told the truth in regard to masks below N95 being worn as a SELF-protective measure. It was based on our understanding at the time. Science is like that. Scientists have the ability to change their minds as the evidence changes. Politically-driven people often have contempt for evidence.

Kinda funny how states without mask mandates fared Covid much better than the leftist cesspools that had mask mandates.

And politics again, with a heavy dose of contempt. When you have contempt for other people, you are in sin (according to Jesus - Matthew 5:21-22), and cannot think clearly and truthfully about them.

You didn't present any evidence for your assertion, but I'm guessing that your claim is based on the fact that metropolitan areas had higher raw numbers of sickness than rural levels. That simply has to do with more people living in those areas. Percentage-wise, a number of places without mask mandates had a worse time.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Risk of coronavirus in U.S. is 'minuscule' NIH's Dr. Anthony Fauci says

It’s clear you didn’t watch the video.

The headline is completely misleading.

I suggest everyone who is following this thread to actually watch the video since it refutes the claims of a few of our armchair political “epidemiologists.”

 

[Baptist Believer]

Shhhh you are talking about actual science again....

No, you and Reynolds are simply spreading misinformation again. But you like it — it’s better than reality.

 

[Reynolds]

It’s clear you didn’t watch the video.

The headline is completely misleading.

I suggest everyone who is following this thread to actually watch the video since it refutes the claims of a few of our armchair political “epidemiologists.”

I watched it.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I watched it.

Did you understand it?

 

[Reynolds]

Please document this claim.


When was this guidance given? Also, this is guidance for children/teens who were believed to be at much less risk of COVID-19.


So this is a political issue to you? It's not to me. That's probably why you can't think straight about it.


He told the truth in regard to masks below N95 being worn as a SELF-protective measure. It was based on our understanding at the time. Science is like that. Scientists have the ability to change their minds as the evidence changes. Politically-driven people often have contempt for evidence.


And politics again, with a heavy dose of contempt. When you have contempt for other people, you are in sin (according to Jesus - Matthew 5:21-22), and cannot think clearly and truthfully about them.

You didn't present any evidence for your assertion, but I'm guessing that your claim is based on the fact that metropolitan areas had higher raw numbers of sickness than rural levels. That simply has to do with more people living in those areas. Percentage-wise, a number of places without mask mandates had a worse time.

Coronavirus Disease 2019

6 ft without masks. It's in there.

 

[Reynolds]

Did you understand it?

Yep.
The purpose is to discredit the clown Faucci. Have you looked at how many 180s he does? He is a joke. He drifts whichever way Nancy blows.

 

[Reynolds]

No, you and Reynolds are simply spreading misinformation again. But you like it — it’s better than reality.

No. You are just repeating junk you hear. Typical Democrat tactic of repeat a lie until it becomes true.
Your sources are not voting science. They simply stating their opinions as fact.

 

[Reformed1689]

No, you and Reynolds are simply spreading misinformation again. But you like it — it’s better than reality.

No, that would be you sir.