BREAKING: Danish Mask Study Just Released- Masks Don't Work

You know what causes ground glass opacities? Coronavirus.

I found this earlier today when dealing with one of the covibots:

Here is the mask use for 2020 in New York:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/new-york?view=mask-use&tab=trend

Here is Taiwan:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/taiwan-(province-of-china)?view=mask-use&tab=trend

New York: 1753 deaths/M

Taiwan: 0.3 death/M (5832x less than NY)

Masks have no effect on mortality.

Miasma wrote:

Masks work but the Allen53 obviously doesn’t. Get a job bum!

At least P. Roy and Harambe have jobs: designated full-time spambots for covidophobia promotion.

"Two More Weeks!"

campaigner wrote:

Who the hell is scouring the internet for “breaking” mask studies to post on a running website?

The funny part is that this particular study has been widely anticipated for weeks now.

The problem: it gave the "wrong" result.

Had this study given the "right" result it would be plastered all over the news and social media today. Instead, we get a study that shows no meaningful efficacy from mask-wearing. A p-value of 0.38. Statistical insignificance.

Notable quotes:

"a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation."

"In the third post hoc analysis, which investigated constellations of patient characteristics, we did not find a subgroup where face masks were effective at conventional levels of statistical significance."

"...the 95% CIs are compatible with a possible 46% reduction to 23% increase in infection among mask wearers." In other words, wearing a mask might actually *increase* your risk. Certainly true if you have been told repeatedly that "masks work" and you let your guard down and don't social distance.

Note that this study issued surgical masks to participants with a set of instructions for proper use. So a much higher standard that the home-made and fashion-statement masks sold on amazon.

Not that this should be any surprise. It was well-demonstrated even before SARS-Cov-2 that cloth masks don't inhibit viral spread.

el hombre wrote:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/

I love that the chart pictured on the link shows that cases in Texas peaked 2-3 weeks after the mask mandate (which is what you would expect if they were slowing transmission given a ~10-14 day incubation period and the 5-7 day wait for test results we were experiencing at the time. Thanks for proving their efficacy!

The context is that no matter when during the infectious cycle masks were introduced, there was no effect or a negative effect (cases went up). But go ahead and cling to your little piece of straw in the flood.

A former CDC director's take:

Although no single strategy can control the pandemic, widespread masking in the community can mitigate spread as part of a comprehensive approach. Masks have been shown to protect others and, despite the reported results of this study, probably protect the wearer. Maximum benefit of masking is likely to result from the combination of source control and wearer protection (1). If everyone wears a mask when near others, everyone is safer.

I also love that the text claims a 99.99% survival rate for sub 50. As near as I can tell from a quick search about 15-20K such people have died.

So...

How many infections, when you back calculate, would that correspond to exactly. lol? :-)

real info wrote:

A former CDC director's take:

Although no single strategy can control the pandemic, widespread masking in the community can mitigate spread as part of a comprehensive approach. Masks have been shown to protect others and, despite the reported results of this study, probably protect the wearer. Maximum benefit of masking is likely to result from the combination of source control and wearer protection (1). If everyone wears a mask when near others, everyone is safer.

*probably*

*despite the reported results*

Real vigorous science there.

4ttg4g wrote:

Why are you calling him a liar, diaper-face boy?

Go away weirdo with sh!t insults.

But but but muh President said.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-requiring-people-to-sign-coronavirus-waiver-tulsa-rally-2020-6

Intentionally omitting that this was for mask wearers shows yet again that Allen is only interested in intellectual dishonesty. Pathetic.

Wigins, what was your prediction about Covid deaths again? Mind repeating it for the rest of the class?

mofong wrote:

Intentionally omitting that this was for mask wearers shows yet again that Allen is only interested in intellectual dishonesty. Pathetic.

Need some big bubbly handwriting for this intellectual giant:

I've noticed an, er, recent "spike" or surge of corporate/mainstream mass-media reports touting the effectiveness of masks. They're amplifying and echoing public-health authorities; the state Gauleiters and their Public-Health Ministry Oberführers insist that "the science" proves that the draconian regime of masks, social distancing, frequent (i.e. compulsive) hand-washing and sanitizing are necessary and effective in reducing the Megadeath Virus of Doom (MVD) threat.

When fraudulent statistics show an alleged reduction in "cases" or "infections", or whatever they're calling them this week, they praise assiduous compliance with these "proven, scientific" rituals as the reason for the decline.

When other fraudulent statistics show an alleged rise in cases-- and this week the "Second Wave" propaganda has come to a boil again-- the authorities blame renegade citizens who wantonly and selfishly refuse to comply with these virtuous remedies. I can't remember offhand which Gauleiter said it-- I live in the "tri-state area" run by a trio of Democratic Gauleiters: Wolf (PA), Murphy (NJ), and Carney (DE)-- but one of those Stern Adults blamed the current "spike" on residents who insisted in congregating in private "small gatherings" and putting the entire population at risk.

A Scientist wrote:

Studies like this don't make sense in a low background environment. Denmark has, even to date, had few cases. By the end of May their total was <15K.

With 100? cases per day in a population of 6 M???? You can't tell anything useful.

Such a study done this week in somewhere like Wisconsin..the result would be far different.

And, even so, if this lame mask trial were a vaccine trial, it would be deemed marginally effective. 56% of the cases were in the control group if I read correctly.

Will there be anything else?

Hi "A Scientist",

So what you are talking about is called the "power" of the study. It is an important principle of study design that must be considered BEFORE initiating the study to determine how many participants to have. No one wants to do a study to only find out that their sample size was too small to show an effect.

The authors of this study discuss this. They chose the number of participants based on the estimated positivity rate at that time and a hypothesis that masks would be 50% effective in reducing COVID. The reason they have to make an estimate that masks are 50% effective is because the smaller the effect (COVID positivity being the effect in this case), the larger the sample size would need to be to show an effect. It's much easier to prove something that has a fairly large effect than something that only has a small effect.

That is, if masks only reduce COVID 19 by 10%, you would need a much larger sample size. That means if masks are only 10% effective in reducing COVID, this particular study was underpowered, since it was looking for a larger effect. But the fact is, if masks are only 10% effective in reducing COVID infections we probably wouldn't care all that much about them anyway.

It is a solid study. The main limitation, however, is that it does not say anything about masks reducing transmission to others, which many have argued (although there is no proof) that this is their main functionality.

Do you have nothing better to do than cherry pick studies that somewhat support what dribble you are trying convey?

S*** man, that means lockdowns and social distancing are way more important than we originally thought!

Thanks Allen53 for reminding me to email and write letters to my liberal governor for another lockdown because right now there is nothing preventing the spread if we aren't forcibly locked down!

cmon rally wrote:

Do you have nothing better to do than cherry pick studies that somewhat support what dribble you are trying convey?

You want to talk about cherry picking data? The new york times podcast "the daily" had an entire episode earlier this week about how europe was doing so much better than the US because of lockdowns. They cited 2 countries (Belgium and one other, I forget), whose curves had flattened, as evidence.

But the rest of Europe is currently doing horrendously. Italy is doing nearly as badly as it was in the spring and deaths are still climbing daily. Spain, France, and Italy have higher total death than the U.S., and France is just about to pass us in total cumulative deaths.

The US death curve, however, has been relatively flat (I say relatively because deaths have increased somewhat, but the current death rate is about where it was in early August).

The cognitive dissonance is literally insane.

cmon rally wrote:

Do you have nothing better to do than cherry pick studies that somewhat support what dribble you are trying convey?

I presume you engaged with your friends and helped them understand how ineffective masks are for this purpose and that they really do not need to worry.

Just kidding.

I know you prefer loud, public virtue signaling to actual science.