Coronavirus

[DrGriz]

There was 17 studies in the WHO link and ten in the cdc links I posted earlier.

I have found you posted one (1) WHO metanalysis that filtered out 10 studies for Influenza (not Covid) that did not pull out N95 masks and looked at (probably cloth) mask studies of students in residence halls and people in their homes. Those situations would be wildly uncontrolled. They had no way of showing compliance and yes, if someone is not wearing their mask most of the time when it might be protective, it might not be protective.

The one (1) CDC metanalysis (again 10 studies) link you posted concluded this: "We did not consider the use of respirators [N95] in the community."

Please share controlled studies looking at N95 masks to show that they don't work. A metanalysis is not a controlled study.

Please don't ask us for controlled studies until you come up with some of your own.

 

[juk]

I expect you to read the article you posted, and now you are off on "Dr. of Gender Studies" which has naught to do with the discussion at hand. Please try staying on task.

So to get the magnitude increase observed in the study due to survivors bias the death rate in the unvaccinated would have to have been 75.75% assuming zero benefit from the vaccines. This number approaches 100% very quickly if you ascribe any benefit to the vaccines.

As this is complete BS. We know that the vaccines have a negative effect on long Covid.

So now you see why I didn’t quote it. It’s fanciful.

You should have seen right through it too!!!

 

[DrGriz]

You expect me to believe that magnitude deficit is due to survivors bias from a product that fades to negative effectiveness relatively quickly?

What percentage of unvaccinated would have to die to make that happen?

I’m gonna need numbers here.

I would also like numbers. I don't expect you to believe that vaccination causes either increased risk for long covid or not at this point.

I happen to agree with you here, They don't have enough power in their study to address this.

"But we could not find any literature on this association, and based on this study, we cannot imply causation."

For one thing, it is still quite hard to define long covid. There may be many missing cases from the database.

Long covid is a novel, ill-defined condition and needs far more study.

 

[juk]

I have found you posted one (1) WHO metanalysis that filtered out 10 studies for Influenza (not Covid) that did not pull out N95 masks and looked at (probably cloth) mask studies of students in residence halls and people in their homes. Those situations would be wildly uncontrolled. They had no way of showing compliance and yes, if someone is not wearing their mask most of the time when it might be protective, it might not be protective.

The one (1) CDC metanalysis (again 10 studies) link you posted concluded this: "We did not consider the use of respirators [N95] in the community."

Please share controlled studies looking at N95 masks to show that they don't work. A metanalysis is not a controlled study.

Please don't ask us for controlled studies until you come up with some of your own.

So what your saying is that the who review of all available evidence up to 2019 showed no evidence of protection from masking for respiratory viruses.

All I’m saying is that there’s still no evidence.

You saying there isn’t doesn’t really disagree.

What did you think about the leakage rates, and is everyone’s fit tested?

 

[juk]

I would also like numbers. I don't expect you to believe that vaccination causes either increased risk for long covid or not at this point.

I happen to agree with you here, They don't have enough power in their study to address this.

"But we could not find any literature on this association, and based on this study, we cannot imply causation."

For one thing, it is still quite hard to define long covid. There may be many missing cases from the database.

Long covid is a novel, ill-defined condition and needs far more study.

I popped some numbers in above for those playing along at home.

 

[DrGriz]

So what your saying is that the who review of all available evidence up to 2019 showed no evidence of protection from masking for respiratory viruses.

All I’m saying is that there’s still no evidence.

You saying there isn’t doesn’t really disagree.

What did you think about the leakage rates, and is everyone’s fit tested?

Well, I totally agree that N95 masks leak and, in the hospital, setting we ordinarily do fit testing.

However, your proposition appears to be based on an assumption that the virus is a free-floating powder, whereas I would submit that it exists within various sized droplets of water plus other materials that likely result in better filtering by N95.

And again, it doesn't have to be a 100% filter to be effective. It just has to reduce the dose to a level that your system can handle, and that will depend on multiple factors as already discussed.

 

[DrGriz]

I popped some numbers in above for those playing along at home.

Bring us a controlled study that shows that N95 doesn't work for Covid. Not "college students in residence halls that sometimes wore cloth masks still got the flu" studies you posted.

 

[juk]

Well, I totally agree that N95 masks leak and, in the hospital, setting we ordinarily do fit testing.

However, your proposition appears to be based on an assumption that the virus is a free-floating powder, whereas I would submit that it exists within various sized droplets of water plus other materials that likely result in better filtering by N95.

And again, it doesn't have to be a 100% filter to be effective. It just has to reduce the dose to a level that your system can handle, and that will depend on multiple factors as already discussed.

The free floating- yes sub micron.

If it goes around the mask it doesn’t matter the size or the matrix.

I believe that is the main means of failure. Foggy glasses anyone?

 

[PACEMD]

Why’s it a paradox?

What’s the mechanism?

Double is a large effect.

You are gonna love Elon’s Covid files.

That doesn't make a bit of sense. What does the statement an observational paradox mean in the medical literature?

 

[juk]

Bring us a controlled study that shows that N95 doesn't work for Covid. Not "college students in residence halls that sometimes wore cloth masks still got the flu" studies you posted.

Remember when Fauxi said we only needed a hurdle rate of50% for the vaccines?

The Centre for Data Corruption or CDC claim masks are 83%. That’s three times better than what Fauxi claimed for the vaccines. (17/50).

If any of that were true this would have been over before the vaccines came along.

Ergo. Not true.

Happy to look at any data you think contradicts the WHO.

 

[juk]

That doesn't make a bit of sense. What does the statement an observational paradox mean in the medical literature?

It means they wanted it to go the other way.

It’s an observational bias in the conclusion not the data.

 

[PACEMD]

It means they wanted it to go the other way.

It’s an observational bias in the conclusion not the data.

Not even close, learn how to use the literature.

 

[juk]

Not even close, learn how to use the literature.

Whatever. It increased the risk by 132%.

That’s a sh1tty deal.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Remember when Fauxi said we only needed a hurdle rate of50% for the vaccines?

The Centre for Data Corruption or CDC claim masks are 83%. That’s three times better than what Fauxi claimed for the vaccines. (17/50).

If any of that were true this would have been over before the vaccines came along.

Ergo. Not true.

Happy to look at any data you think contradicts the WHO.

50% was the threshold for FDA approval in US. Is that what you’re talking about?

 

[PACEMD]

You drew a conclusion for an observation. An observation not even studied. That's totally bogus. And absurd. You can mention it and say interesting. But then you have to question it, see if it's repeated, or how about studying it? But under no circumstances can you go around acting like a random observation is a truth. So.......learn the basics of interpreting the medical literature. A steep hill to climb apparently.

 

[PACEMD]

Whatever. It increased the risk by 132%.

That’s a sh1tty deal.

What? At least try to back up one single thing with actual evidence. Or deal with any of the reality. Blah blah troll blah.....No really, stop.......

 

[juk]

50% was the threshold for FDA approval in US. Is that what you’re talking about?

No. With use of medicines to abolish a disease there’sa minimum threshold where if you Medicate above that then the target dies out by not being able to replicate fast enough with regard to finding new hosts.

So according to the cdc, masks are three times better than the vaccines, when we thought that the vaccines were preventative.

And yet we still haven’t put a dent in this pandemic.

 

[juk]

What? At least try to back up one single thing with actual evidence. Or deal with any of the reality. Blah blah troll blah.....No really, stop.......

It was the second strongest signal in the study with a p value of 0.01.

 

[PACEMD]

So according to the cdc, masks are three times better than the vaccines, when we thought that the vaccines were preventative.

Sure, one more assertion which you cannot or will not even bother to attempt to verify. Acid is groovy.......

 

[PACEMD]

It was the second strongest signal in the study with a p value of 0.01.

Cool! P values.......What? Signal? Excuse me, I'm getting a signal I need a bathroom break......