The study you linked says that it used poor methods and can’t draw any firm conclusions
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.
@yogthos@roho also, the whole point of the initial article is to explain that you don’t test masks’ efficiency via randomized trials (for the same reason you don’t test parachutes that way): though it may seem counterintuitive at first, this is actually not really a medical question but an physical/engineering one.
You need to prove that the mask effectively blocks aerosols, that it blocks transmission is then a direct consequence ;)
i dont’ think i can find the source for this one, but; there was a group doing a questionaire under people who didn’t trust the media’s perception. The outcome surprised the group. it seemed that those people having work where they have much contact with people were better of during the pandemic health wise than those having a more secluding life. ofcourse the “more research is required” clause applies.
Actually, it was talking about the studies it had available as sources. Bascially, garbage in garbage out.
As i read it, they don’t disqualify their own used methods.
No, it’s very clearly including their methods, and there’s no basis for arguing otherwise. You clearly don’t care about the actual science and this is an ideological issue for you.
The plain language says that the study can’t draw any real conclusions, yet here you are telling everyone that it proves the masks don’t work. If you cared about the science you wouldn’t be misrepresenting the findings.
yeah, i conclued similar as what your article says about the writer of the link i provided;
“There is just no evidence that they make any difference,” the lead author said in a media interview. This brought an unusual chastisement from the Cochrane Library’s editor-in-chief, who stated it was “not an accurate representation of what the review found.”
if they can’t say with certainty that it does/doesnt’ work based on all the previous studies. i read it as; There’s no firm prove it works against resporatory virusses. That’s why i wouldn’t bet on it like my life depends on it.
If the methodology in studies is flawed then it doesn’t actually show much of anything. Nobody is claiming anywhere that masks provide a guarantee against contracting a virus, what they do is reduce the number of viral particles that you inhale and reduce the chances of infection. There is also literally zero downside to wearing a mask, so this is a really weird hill to choose to die on.
Hi. The article starts with a reference to a publication dated February 10, 2021
This publication dated Jan 2023 says masks were hardly effective [edit: they were unable to make firm conclusions either way]
The study you linked says that it used poor methods and can’t draw any firm conclusions
@yogthos @roho also, the whole point of the initial article is to explain that you don’t test masks’ efficiency via randomized trials (for the same reason you don’t test parachutes that way): though it may seem counterintuitive at first, this is actually not really a medical question but an physical/engineering one.
You need to prove that the mask effectively blocks aerosols, that it blocks transmission is then a direct consequence ;)
indeed.
i dont’ think i can find the source for this one, but; there was a group doing a questionaire under people who didn’t trust the media’s perception. The outcome surprised the group. it seemed that those people having work where they have much contact with people were better of during the pandemic health wise than those having a more secluding life. ofcourse the “more research is required” clause applies.
Actually, it was talking about the studies it had available as sources. Bascially, garbage in garbage out. As i read it, they don’t disqualify their own used methods.
No, it’s very clearly including their methods, and there’s no basis for arguing otherwise. You clearly don’t care about the actual science and this is an ideological issue for you.
Don’t immediately throw the ideology card please. Further down in ‘plain language’ they state;
Believe what you will. Cheers
The plain language says that the study can’t draw any real conclusions, yet here you are telling everyone that it proves the masks don’t work. If you cared about the science you wouldn’t be misrepresenting the findings.
yeah, i conclued similar as what your article says about the writer of the link i provided;
if they can’t say with certainty that it does/doesnt’ work based on all the previous studies. i read it as; There’s no firm prove it works against resporatory virusses. That’s why i wouldn’t bet on it like my life depends on it.
If the methodology in studies is flawed then it doesn’t actually show much of anything. Nobody is claiming anywhere that masks provide a guarantee against contracting a virus, what they do is reduce the number of viral particles that you inhale and reduce the chances of infection. There is also literally zero downside to wearing a mask, so this is a really weird hill to choose to die on.