If cloth masks provided no greater protection to the wearer than no mask, we would see some data that shows a higher Covid rate for mask wearers, which none of the studies show. Directionally, all the studies are in agreement that masks confer protection to the wearer. The magnitude of that protection remains unquantified.
why would we see a higher rate for mask wearers than for non wearers? the studies show a statistically insignificant difference which would indicate the same rate.
that said, the statistically insignificant difference is all on one side, so probability is that there is some small benefit. i support wearing masks, i do not support the misuse and mischaracterization of science to support an agenda.
1 Like
That was my point. That if all the studies that are statistically inconclusive have mask positive protection as a result, the probability of that occurring by chance is very low. A meta-analysis of the studies and data confirms this.
I wouldn’t characterize it as a small benefit. It is unknown. It could be large.
WuWei
246
If it is unknown, why is it mandated?
Ben and I are being specific about masks conferring protection to the wearer.
I don’t think there is much debate about masks providing protection to others if the wearer is infected. That remains the primary reason to wear masks.
1 Like
the probability that a so far to be shown statistically insignificant difference could be “large” is beyond reason. the only conclusion one can make, is that if there is a difference to be discerned from statistically insignificant differences, its rather small. maybe not, but that’s whats supported so far. again, far from determined, needs more study. until it is determined… wear a mask. the anecdotal evidence may not be determinative, but it is highly suggestive. better safe.
This is what I have been seeing, the really good masks the 3MM N95 ones that China kept and turned back the ships can really protect people. The ones you see 90% of the people in the U.S. wearing ‘not so much’.
“Large” is in the eye of the beholder.
Samm
252
That makes no more sense than it did the first time.
And you might want to refresh your understanding as to the definition of irony.
The original numbers you threw out would require masks be 100% successful. You then changed the numbers because you knew that was silly.
Irony when you ask me to use words that mean sense?
read your sentence again.
Samm
254
I did not change the numbers. The two different numbers, 70% and90%, came from two different sources. Furthermore, the difference in those two numbers does not have anything to do with the rest of my comment. The point is, wearing masks cannot be shown to substitute for herd immunity to protect the population. All they can do is act as a valve that limits the rate of contagion. Ultimately, because they do no prevent the wearer from being infected, the same number of people will be infected. In fact, possibly more infections will occur because it adds to the time that a person is at risk of being infected, so it reaches people who could not maintain their isolation. The only thing that will interrupt the path toward natural herd immunity is an effective vaccine.
Mean vs. make was a typo, not irony. I still have no idea what you meant in the statement that that was in reply to.
Is anyone saying that? I’m not.
Ok. It certainly was humorous to read.
Samm
256
So, as usual, you are making an argument with something that I’m not saying.
It doesn’t take much to amuse you.
The so called “study” also cannot account for people who changed their minds as time when on and people got more and more scared of the virus who decided on their own to start taking more precautions.
LOL they can leave their houses for 2 hours per day. Do they have a meter they can insert quarters on their front porch?
2 Likes
JimmyC
263
I don’t get what’s so funny. If we had Australia’s death rate we’d have 590,000 fewer dead Americans.
