Quote:
Originally Posted by Ennewi
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
studies
|
Are we reading the same papers?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23413265/ compares medical masks to N95 respirators. There was no unmasked study control group. Further, a P value of 0.02 basically means the study is noise (while a 1/50 chance of randomness
sounds impressive, the reality is that 50 trials were done and this is the only one that was published).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4941587 has the same problem and seems to be based on the same study. Simply put, there is no actual science supporting mask usage.
https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/ has a good summary of, yes, peer reviewed papers that show why. The biggest randomized clinical trial in Denmark (6000 participants) came up negative or, if you want to be generous, indicated a very, very small and not statistically significant reduction in transmission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G13
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
|
I also read this paper. May I suggest you take a different tack? The guy is an exercise physiologist. His area of expertise is oxygen starvation. The biggest problem we have right now is "oh, it's no big deal, just wear a mask" people. What you should be saying is "Let us imagine that masks did somehow work and stop COVID. Guess what? They increase your resting heart rate by 5 bpm! They increase your stress response! Low oxygen causes CANCER! Where are your clinical studies that long term mask wearing is safe? Because you only have a 0.25% chance of dying from COVID aka the flu. If improving your odds there costs you a 10% chance of a bout with cancer due to low oxygenation, are you really winning?"