[W:4,590] Study Finds Face Masks Didn’t Slow Spread Of Covid-19

[RealityChecker]

The thread started out with a lie and you are determined to keep the lie alive.

Well that did not take long I just scrolled up until I found your last post before this one and viola there was your post number 5571 with the above double lie. See if you can get 3 lies into one sentence next time as it will surely enhance you already stellar reputation for truth seeking.

 

[Fledermaus]

Well that did not take long I just scrolled up until I found your last post before this one and viola there was your post number 5571 with the above double lie. See if you can get 3 lies into one sentence next time as it will surely enhance you already stellar reputation for truth seeking.

What lie?

Quote me telling a lie that would lead to others catching COVID.

 

[Casca XV]

MIT researchers say time spent indoors increases risk of Covid at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study challenging social distancing policies

The CDC and WHO guidelines fail to factor in the amount of time spent indoors, which increases the chance of transmission the longer people are inside.

www.cnbc.com

Maybe next time read the whole sourced article instead of cherry-picked excerpts.

There is not a single reputable study says face diapers do anything except grow bacteria. Concerning covid, states and areas with no mask mandates are doing about the same or better.

 

[Fledermaus]

There is not a single reputable study says face diapers do anything except grow bacteria. Concerning covid, states and areas with no mask mandates are doing about the same or better.

Wrong on many levels.

 

[Casca XV]

Wrong on many levels.

Why, because you say... I'll pass.

 

[jaeger19]

One of your more cogent retorts.

Well as the number of cases increases you see more mask mandates and more people wearing masks. Often peak mask wearing in a community coincides with the peak wave of COVID-19 cases. So if one looks at whether mask mandates are often followed by a declining number of new cases it would be easy to get the impression that the increased wearing of face masks is what caused the decline. The problem is we see similar declines in places that mandate masks wearing and do not mandate it.

And you are the guy that would have said it is unethical to do a RCT of beta-carotene supplements to determine whether or not the observational data, which mostly showed higher beta carotene intake and/or higher levels of beta-carotene in the blood was associated with less cancer and improved health. Of course, the result would have been more people taking beta-carotene supplements and more lung cancer instead of less. Stop your bull and stop being so naïve.

BTW- Wasn't that mask education you liked done in a poor country? Was it unethical because all those people in the control villages were not told the value of face masks?

Except..the studies didn't show a similar decline in cases in demographically similar areas without masks..the studies that compared similar areas..found a statistically significant difference..
Second..not all research compared mask use in this way. For example one of tge studies compared household transmission and tge wearing of masks..and they found a statistical significant decrease in transmission in the use of masks.
Nope..I would not have said it was unethical to do an rct with betacarotene supplement. It would be now..but not then.
Some of tge mask studies were done in poorer countries..where masks were recommended.
One study in particular followed newly infectious patients and asked about how often they used masks in the household.
( masking..hand washing and distancing were all recommended by the medical community so all subjects were aware of this information)
Subjects were asked how often recommendations of masking hand washing and distancing were followed..
Those that wore masks more often..had less infection spread within the household.

So..if you believe smoking causes lung cancer because of observational studies.
Why not believe the findings of observational studies on mask wearing???

Hmmm...same research method..observation?

Please explain.

 

[Airyaman]

Why, because you say... I'll pass.

Ironic.

 

[Fledermaus]

Why, because you say... I'll pass.

No, because science.

 

[RealityChecker]

Except..the studies didn't show a similar decline in cases in demographically similar areas without masks..the studies that compared similar areas..found a statistically significant difference..

Not a consistent result and similar areas is insufficient. The Bangladesh study used randomized similar villages but they were not identical and they had to agree to do the educational program and it is likely those that refused or were reluctant to do so ended up in the control group.

Second..not all research compared mask use in this way. For example one of tge studies compared household transmission and tge wearing of masks..and they found a statistical significant decrease in transmission in the use of masks.

I did not say all studies did it that way did I? But if you look at people who better comply with mask wearing advice they probably also complied better with social distancing, hand washing, and were also likely more health conscious than those who did not wear masks. So again we have confounding variable that were not controlled for.

Nope..I would not have said it was unethical to do an rct with betacarotene supplement. It would be now..but not then.

Hum, and I said the time to do the RCT on mask was early on in the pandemic. Sadly only one was done in Denmark and it showed paper surgical masks wering failed to significantly reduce the risk of catching SARS-CoV2.

Some of tge mask studies were done in poorer countries..where masks were recommended.
One study in particular followed newly infectious patients and asked about how often they used masks in the household.
( masking..hand washing and distancing were all recommended by the medical community so all subjects were aware of this information)
Subjects were asked how often recommendations of masking hand washing and distancing were followed..
Those that wore masks more often..had less infection spread within the household.

Again those who complied with medical advice were likely different than those who did not. That is why these studies are far from conclusive.

So..if you believe smoking causes lung cancer because of observational studies.
Why not believe the findings of observational studies on mask wearing???

Because the difference between smokers and nonsmokers risk of lung CA is far greater than the studies of masks vs no mask wearing. And dat showed women who did not smoke but lived with men who did got more lung CA. Same for people who did not smoke but worked in smoke-filled businesses. And we have proof from RCT in animals including primates that smoking also greatly increases their risk of lung CA and the risk of having precancerous lesions in their lungs. And they have found several proven carcinogens in tobacco smoke too. When you look at all the evidence there is no plausible confounding variables that might explain these huge difference in the risk of lung CA in smokers vs nonsmokers. We do not have that type of compelling evidence to justify the many any old mask will do mandates.

Hmmm...same research method..observation?

Well observational data alone merely suggests causation. You need other data to support that observational evidence. We have it for smoking but not for flimsy cloth face masks. Mandates do not specify the type of face masks that must be worn. Do you believe all masks are efficacious?

 

[jaeger19]

Not a consistent result and similar areas is insufficient. The Bangladesh study used randomized similar villages but they were not identical and they had to agree to do the educational program and it is likely those that refused or were reluctant to do so ended up in the control group.

Actually it has been a consistent result as meta analysis has shown from these observational studies.

I did not say all studies did it that way did I? But if you look at people who better comply with mask wearing advice they probably also complied better with social distancing, hand washing, and were also likely more health conscious than those who did not wear masks.

Yep.. but then you look at the evidence of studies that look at a community before masks became mandatory and after they became mandatory. And these studies often see that those communities that instituted more mask wearing and had more mask wearing reported.. did better afterward.
The only factor that changed was masks being required.. no change in making people wash hands or be more "health conscious."

So again we have confounding variable that were not controlled for.

Hum, and I said the time to do the RCT on mask was early on in the pandemic. Sadly only one was done in Denmark and it showed paper surgical masks wering failed to significantly reduce the risk of catching SARS-CoV2.

But you could not do one early in the pandemic for source control. Because it would be unethical. this has been explained to you.
AN RCT on whether masks provided protection to the WEARER could be done NOW. But thats NOT why masks are being recommended.
You seem to have GREAT difficulty understanding this simple concept.
MASKS ARE NOT RECOMMENDED AS A PROTECTION TO THE WEARER.

MASKS ARE RECOMMENDED SO AN INFECTIOUS PERSON IS LESS LIKELY TO SPREAD THE DISEASE!.

the only way to do an RCT studying source control.. (and this has been explained to you)..is to have a newly infectious patient.. go out into the community without a mask.. and study how many if any they infect (control group)
And then have another group of newly infectious patients.. wear masks. and go out into the community and see how many people they infect. (experimental group).
That is unethical.. because a known newly infectious person should be told to stay home and isolate.. mask or not.

 

[jaeger19]

Again those who complied with medical advice were likely different than those who did not. That is why these studies are far from conclusive.

actually no.. because think about it. IF you have similar communities.. in similar regions.. you would have the likely the same number of people who would be compliant in each group.

Because the difference between smokers and nonsmokers risk of lung CA is far greater than the studies of masks vs no mask wearing

Actually no. Because think of all the things that cause risk of lung ca.. asbestos, second hand smoke from living with a heavy smoker, other toxins like petroleum products.. smog from exhaust.. etc.
With a mask.. its easy.. wearing mask.. not wearing mask.

. And dat showed women who did not smoke but lived with men who did got more lung CA.

So they could be both being exposed to other toxins that caused the lung cancer.. since they lived together. Like asbestos in their house.

Same for people who did not smoke but worked in smoke-filled businesses. And we have proof from RCT in animals including primates that smoking also greatly increases their risk of lung CA and the risk of having precancerous lesions in their lungs. And they have found several proven carcinogens in tobacco smoke too. When you look at all the evidence there is no plausible confounding variables that might explain these huge difference in the risk of lung CA in smokers vs nonsmokers. We do not have that type of compelling evidence to justify the many any old mask will do mandates.

Sure we do. Not only do we have compelling evidence.. but we have a pandemic where the risk of death.. from covid.. is way worse. The benefit of mask wearing so so so .. outweighs the risks of mask wearing.

Well observational data alone merely suggests causation. You need other data to support that observational evidence. We have it for smoking but not for flimsy cloth face masks. Mandates do not specify the type of face masks that must be worn. Do you believe all masks are efficacious?

Well actually.. you can;t always get other data to support observational evidence. For example.. lets say that the observational data being studied on the johnson and johnson vaccine indicates that women on a certain type of birth control are the ones that are most likely to get blood clots.
Would you suggest that we do an RCT where we take two groups of women on that birth control.. and then give one group the johnson and johnson vaccine to see how many get blood clots?
I would hope not.

You miss the power of observational data.. which is REAL WORLD experimental data. As you say.. mandates do not specify the type of face mask.. so in the area near me where stores mandated face coverings... some people wore just a face shield.,, some wore a single cloth hankerchief type covering.. some people had medical grade surgical masks..some had two layer cloth masks. Obviously not all the same quality.
Plus.. not all were being worn correctly. Some had the nose sticking out. Some people had big gaps. Some people had masks turned inside out or had obviously become wet.
Now.. ALL of those variables.. are likely to REDUCE the likelihood that there will be a significant difference between the mask wearing community and the non mask wearing community.. or if the same community. the before mandate and after mandate group.
SO.. if you do see a significant difference between these groups? Then it means that masks work. Its very powerful evidence.

 

[RealityChecker]

Actually it has been a consistent result as meta analysis has shown from these observational studies.

Meta-analysis of similar flawed observational studies prove nothing. All the observational studies showing higher serum beta-carotene levels and/or dietary intake levels were associated with less cancer but the RCT that isolated the effect of beta-carotene alone (as a supplement) showed it actually promoted cancer and especially increased lung CA in smokers. Such observational studies have confounding variables that can often weaken or eliminate real causal effects (as you noted correctly) but can also create false correlation that suggests something is causal when in reality it is merely coincidental.

Yep.. but then you look at the evidence of studies that look at a community before masks became mandatory and after they became mandatory. And these studies often see that those communities that instituted more mask wearing and had more mask wearing reported.. did better afterward.
The only factor that changed was masks being required.. no change in making people wash hands or be more "health conscious."

But it ignores the fact that these mandates often get put in near the peaks of cases and deaths. Since this respiratory virus (like many others) comes in waves this creates the illusion that masks mandates are what caused the decline in COVID-9 cases and/or deaths. You seem to still not get that very likely explanation for what is observed.

But you could not do one early in the pandemic for source control. Because it would be unethical. this has been explained to you.

You could in poor countries were masks were not available or affordable for many people. Without the study few people would be wearing masks even if they had CoVID-19.

AN RCT on whether masks provided protection to the WEARER could be done NOW. But thats NOT why masks are being recommended.
You seem to have GREAT difficulty understanding this simple concept.
MASKS ARE NOT RECOMMENDED AS A PROTECTION TO THE WEARER.

So you agree wearing face masks does little or nothing to prevent the wearer from catching the Wuhan virus then? Yes or No?

 

[Fledermaus]

Meta-analysis of similar flawed observational studies prove nothing. All the observational studies showing higher serum beta-carotene levels and/or dietary intake levels were associated with less cancer but the RCT that isolated the effect of beta-carotene alone (as a supplement) showed it actually promoted cancer and especially increased lung CA in smokers. Such observational studies have confounding variables that can often weaken or eliminate real causal effects (as you noted correctly) but can also create false correlation that suggests something is causal when in reality it is merely coincidental.

But it ignores the fact that these mandates often get put in near the peaks of cases and deaths. Since this respiratory virus (like many others) comes in waves this creates the illusion that masks mandates are what caused the decline in COVID-9 cases and/or deaths. You seem to still not get that very likely explanation for what is observed.

You could in poor countries were masks were not available or affordable for many people. Without the study few people would be wearing masks even if they had CoVID-19.

So you agree wearing face masks does little or nothing to prevent the wearer from catching the Wuhan virus then? Yes or No?

More intentional ignorance on display.

 

[Fledermaus]

@RealityChecker

Quote me telling a lie that would lead to others catching COVID.

 

[jaeger19]

Meta-analysis of similar flawed observational studies prove nothing.

Except whats the likelihood that all the flaws.. ;like "well there was a surge and then it went down naturally".. and "well they were different villages etc".. are all going to be EXACTLY alike. Totally unlikely.. which is usually the case with meta analysis.

All the observational studies showing higher serum beta-carotene levels and/or dietary intake levels were associated with less cancer but the RCT that isolated the effect of beta-carotene alone (as a supplement) showed it actually promoted cancer and especially increased lung CA in smokers.

Except beta carotene levels are not masks and population demographics. Sorry dude.. but they are just not the same.

Such observational studies have confounding variables that can often weaken or eliminate real causal effects (as you noted correctly) but can also create false correlation that suggests something is causal when in reality it is merely coincidental

Yes.. so can RCT's by the way. But as stated.. you can control for that .. and its unlikely that those confounding variables will be EXACTLY the same a study of populations and masks.
Sorry dude.. but you don;t just throw out all observational studies because you can find an example of an observational study that found something that was coincidental. And by the way.. I would want to read these observational beta carotene studies because... if beta carotene supplements in an RTC showed an increase in lung cancer...
Well why wouldn;t that be picked up in an observational study of beta carotene? What would have been controlled for with an RTC.. that would NOT be controlled with an observational study?
My thought is that it wasn;t the choice of an observational study that was the problem.. it was the design of the study that failed to account for variables.

.

But it ignores the fact that these mandates often get put in near the peaks of cases and deaths.

No it doesn't.. the actually study period may have been at an entirely different time and not be related to a peak or valley. And in fact.. in a good study design that would be accounted for. . Second.. there are studies that compare different geographical but similar demographically groups. For example one county with a mandate with the next county over not having one. Both peaks and deaths should be similar.

Since this respiratory virus (like many others) comes in waves this creates the illusion that masks mandates are what caused the decline in COVID-9 cases and/or deaths.

Yeah no... first.. there are studies that compared similar populations that only differed in mask mandates.. so you would see the same decline in cases in both groups... unless the mask work.
Second.. there are studies on masks that use the same population and in home transmission that look at the rate of infection from a household member between families that the infected member wore a mask.. and household were the infected did not wear a mask. Peaks and valleys in cases would have no influence on those studies.
Third.. the timing and the length of the studies vary.. in the various studies and most studies use a comparable population that does not wear masks as a form of control

You could in poor countries were masks were not available or affordable for many people. Without the study few people would be wearing masks even if they had CoVID-19.

No you could not.. it would be unethical to tell infected people to go out into the community to see who got infected. You really have trouble with such a simple concept. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY HAVE MASKS OR NOT... IF A PATIENT IS INFECTIOUS THEY SHOULD QUARANTINE!!!.
You are saying that your study would IGNORE MEDICAL ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE... and instead of quarantining individuals that are known to be infectious.. but have them go out into the community to see how many they infect.

So you agree wearing face masks does little or nothing to prevent the wearer from catching the Wuhan virus then? Yes or No?

YES YOU RIDICULOUS DUDE.. yes.. wearing a mask does little to protect the wearer.. unless that mask is an N95 and is worn in conjunction with eye protection, and other PPE.

 

[CaughtInThe]

32,000 views of this thread.

i wonder how many other people this OP reached (from people here) and how many people then died.

 

[RealityChecker]

YES YOU RIDICULOUS DUDE.. yes.. wearing a mask does little to protect the wearer.. unless that mask is an N95 and is worn in conjunction with eye protection, and other PPE.

Okay, then we agree that the flimsy cloth face masks most Americans wear are likely largely if not completely ineffective then? So what then do most public mask mandates not specify the type of mask people ought to wear, especially if they are infected or had close contact with someone who was infected?

My argument all along here has been that public policy ought not be misleading people into believing the flimsy cloth face masks most people buy and still wear are likely useless or nearly so for protecting themselves and no doubt far from the best option for "source control" too should they be infected and are quarantining in a home with others as is usually the case?

Do you really believe my take on the efficacy of face masks is ridiculous as it seems we are not as far apart on what the best research about face masks tells us is or is not true?

 

[RealityChecker]

No you could not.. it would be unethical to tell infected people to go out into the community to see who got infected. You really have trouble with such a simple concept. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY HAVE MASKS OR NOT... IF A PATIENT IS INFECTIOUS THEY SHOULD QUARANTINE!!!.
You are saying that your study would IGNORE MEDICAL ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE... and instead of quarantining individuals that are known to be infectious.. but have them go out into the community to see how many they infect.

Nope. As I stated before in poor countries (and even in the USA) most people quarantined at home. We know most cases of COVID-19 are caught from other people living in the same home. The smaller the home the harder it is to socially distance from a sick family member. So the RCT gives masks (maybe one group gets a flimsy cloth mask, maybe a second gets free paper surgical masks, and a third group gets free N95 masks and the control gets no free masks of any kind). All groups are given the same advice to socially distance, was hands, etc.. So the researchers check those living in the same household get tested for the Wuhan virus for 2-3 weeks. Also given the realities of poor countries many of the subjects Dx with COVID-19 will still go to work (unless very sick and most won't be) so the researchers will check those they spend time with at work too. In the US, where it is now standard practice and nearly everyone can buy face masks to recommend them but I still think you could do the study but it would have to be limited to various types of face masks to determine their relative efficacy.

 

[RealityChecker]

Except beta carotene levels are not masks and population demographics. Sorry dude.. but they are just not the same.

I did not say they were did I? You claimed that confounding variables weaken real correlations and so make them harder to find. I agreed that is often the case, but confounding variables can also make very weak or false correlations look stronger or even result in statistically significant correlations that are the opposite of reality.

Sorry dude.. but you don;t just throw out all observational studies because you can find an example of an observational study that found something that was coincidental. And by the way.. I would want to read these observational beta carotene studies because... if beta carotene supplements in an RTC showed an increase in lung cancer... Well why wouldn;t that be picked up in an observational study of beta carotene? What would have been controlled for with an RTC.. that would NOT be controlled with an observational study? My thought is that it wasn;t the choice of an observational study that was the problem.. it was the design of the study that failed to account for variables.

Okay so you asked the right question. "What would have been controlled for with an RTC.. that would NOT be controlled with an observational study?" J19 So what possible variables could have accounted for the statistically significant correlations in multiple observational studies between higher beta-carotene levels in the diet and/or serum with a significantly reduced risk of developing multiple diseases including CVD and cancers? Large RCT are generally far more expensive than observational studies, but the consistency of higher beta-carotene levels in the diet and/or blood were so consistent sales of beta-carotene supplements had really taken off. Many MDs, DCs, RDs, and other health professionals were promoting beta-carotene supplements. So two large RCT were funded (one in US and I believe the other was in Sweden). Both studies randomly assigned the subjects to either a beta-carotene supplement or a placebo. Both studies looked at the beta-carotene levels in the blood of all subjects periodically and went on I believe a few years.

Both studies showed beta-carotene supplements did not reduce cancer but surprisingly both actually significantly increased lung CA by about 25%, which was statistically highly significant. Here's the key finding to understanding why the enthusiasm for beta-carotene supplements plummeted especially among smokers. When the researchers looked at the serum beta-carotene levels in the control group they found that the higher the subject's beta-carotene levels the LOWER their risk of cancer. This was even true for lung CA among smokers!! Now keep in mind the control group subjects were not taking the generous beta-carotene supplements of the experimental group was taking, so their serum beta-carotene levels must have come from their diets. So where does beta-carotene come from in the diet? Fruits and vegetables. Of course, fruits and vegetables have many other phytochemicals and not just beta-carotene. Indeed, there are many other carotenoids and other substances and not just beta-carotene. But in hindsight it is clear that beta-carotene was simply a biomarker for diets higher in fruits and vegetables. Researchers have long seen reduced CVD and cancer in people eating more fruits and vegetables and now thanks to these two large RCTs we know the benefit of fruits and vegetables is not just due to their beta-carotene content. Make sense?

 

[jaeger19]

Okay, then we agree that the flimsy cloth face masks most Americans wear are likely largely if not completely ineffective then? So what then do most public mask mandates not specify the type of mask people ought to wear, especially if they are infected or had close contact with someone who was infected?

My argument all along here has been that public policy ought not be misleading people into believing the flimsy cloth face masks most people buy and still wear are likely useless or nearly so for protecting themselves and no doubt far from the best option for "source control" too should they be infected and are quarantining in a home with others as is usually the case?

Do you really believe my take on the efficacy of face masks is ridiculous as it seems we are not as far apart on what the best research about face masks tells us is or is not true?

Oh stop. Masks are effective for source control.
Not personal protection.
NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT MASKS ARE TO PROTECT THE WEARER.
Seriously dude..you don't have a clue.
You need to stop

 

[jaeger19]

I did not say they were did I? You claimed that confounding variables weaken real correlations and so make them harder to find. I agreed that is often the case, but confounding variables can also make very weak or false correlations look stronger or even result in statistically significant correlations that are the opposite of reality.

Okay so you asked the right question. "What would have been controlled for with an RTC.. that would NOT be controlled with an observational study?" J19 So what possible variables could have accounted for the statistically significant correlations in multiple observational studies between higher beta-carotene levels in the diet and/or serum with a significantly reduced risk of developing multiple diseases including CVD and cancers? Large RCT are generally far more expensive than observational studies, but the consistency of higher beta-carotene levels in the diet and/or blood were so consistent sales of beta-carotene supplements had really taken off. Many MDs, DCs, RDs, and other health professionals were promoting beta-carotene supplements. So two large RCT were funded (one in US and I believe the other was in Sweden). Both studies randomly assigned the subjects to either a beta-carotene supplement or a placebo. Both studies looked at the beta-carotene levels in the blood of all subjects periodically and went on I believe a few years.

Both studies showed beta-carotene supplements did not reduce cancer but surprisingly both actually significantly increased lung CA by about 25%, which was statistically highly significant. Here's the key finding to understanding why the enthusiasm for beta-carotene supplements plummeted especially among smokers. When the researchers looked at the serum beta-carotene levels in the control group they found that the higher the subject's beta-carotene levels the LOWER their risk of cancer. This was even true for lung CA among smokers!! Now keep in mind the control group subjects were not taking the generous beta-carotene supplements of the experimental group was taking, so their serum beta-carotene levels must have come from their diets. So where does beta-carotene come from in the diet? Fruits and vegetables. Of course, fruits and vegetables have many other phytochemicals and not just beta-carotene. Indeed, there are many other carotenoids and other substances and not just beta-carotene. But in hindsight it is clear that beta-carotene was simply a biomarker for diets higher in fruits and vegetables. Researchers have long seen reduced CVD and cancer in people eating more fruits and vegetables and now thanks to these two large RCTs we know the benefit of fruits and vegetables is not just due to their beta-carotene content. Make sense?

So in that case the observation studies were not done on beta carotene supplements.
If they were..then they would have found that people that had been taking them were more likely to have cancer or not be significantly improved over those not taking supplements.
In other words it was not the fault of the research design being observational.

 

[jaeger19]

Nope. As I stated before in poor countries (and even in the USA) most people quarantined at home. We know most cases of COVID-19 are caught from other people living in the same home. The smaller the home the harder it is to socially distance from a sick family member. So the RCT gives masks (maybe one group gets a flimsy cloth mask, maybe a second gets free paper surgical masks, and a third group gets free N95 masks and the control gets no free masks of any kind). All groups are given the same advice to socially distance, was hands, etc.. So the researchers check those living in the same household get tested for the Wuhan virus for 2-3 weeks. Also given the realities of poor countries many of the subjects Dx with COVID-19 will still go to work (unless very sick and most won't be) so the researchers will check those they spend time with at work too. In the US, where it is now standard practice and nearly everyone can buy face masks to recommend them but I still think you could do the study but it would have to be limited to various types of face masks to determine their relative efficacy.

Well great.
That type of study was done with the only difference that masks were not given.
They simply asked later if any masks were worn.
And they found a significant difference in the group that reported wearing a mask.
See again masks work.

 

[Fledermaus]

Okay, then we agree that the flimsy cloth face masks most Americans wear are likely largely if not completely ineffective then? So what then do most public mask mandates not specify the type of mask people ought to wear, especially if they are infected or had close contact with someone who was infected?

My argument all along here has been that public policy ought not be misleading people into believing the flimsy cloth face masks most people buy and still wear are likely useless or nearly so for protecting themselves and no doubt far from the best option for "source control" too should they be infected and are quarantining in a home with others as is usually the case?

Do you really believe my take on the efficacy of face masks is ridiculous as it seems we are not as far apart on what the best research about face masks tells us is or is not true?

No. No agreement at all.

Your argument has been disassembled time and again.

The masks have been shown time and again to help prevent the transfer of the disease from infected to uninfected.

You stupidly return to the "masks are ineffective in protecting the wearer" routine when that is NOT what the mask mandates are intended to do.

 

[RealityChecker]

Oh stop. Masks are effective for source control.
Not personal protection.
NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT MASKS ARE TO PROTECT THE WEARER.
Seriously dude..you don't have a clue.
You need to stop

No one!?!?!? This is what you stated in your POST #3268:

"If masks were a drug then in no way would the FDA withdraw approval.. not when there is a plethora of good evidence that shows that masks work as source control. In addition.. even for wearer protection..it would not be [with]drawn.. because there is also good evidence that it helps grant some wearer protection.. AND there is virtually no medical risk to wearing a mask." Jaeger19

So do not pretend that you never claimed face masks protect the wearer. It is likely most people are wearing face masks are doing because they have been duped into believing flimsy cloth face masks protect them from catching SARS-CoV2. The best evidence suggests that is not the case for flimsy cloth face masks that most of the public is wearing and been misled into believing are protecting them from being infected with the Wuhan virus. The only RCT of paper surgical face masks in Denmark showed they too provided no statistically significant protection against the wearer catching the Wuhan virus. At best, flimsy cloth and the paper surgical masks offer little or no protection against catching the Wuhan virus. N95 masks [especially if checked for leaks] certainly offer some protection against infection, but plenty of people have caught the Wuhan virus wearing them too.

Seriously dude you need to stop lying and be more honest about what the scientific research suggests is and is not most likely to be reality.

 

[Fledermaus]

No one!?!?!? This is what you stated in your POST #3268:

"If masks were a drug then in no way would the FDA withdraw approval.. not when there is a plethora of good evidence that shows that masks work as source control. In addition.. even for wearer protection..it would not be [with]drawn.. because there is also good evidence that it helps grant some wearer protection.. AND there is virtually no medical risk to wearing a mask." Jaeger19

So do not pretend that you never claimed face masks protect the wearer. It is likely most people are wearing face masks are doing because they have been duped into believing flimsy cloth face masks protect them from catching SARS-CoV2. The best evidence suggests that is not the case for flimsy cloth face masks that most of the public is wearing and been misled into believing are protecting them from being infected with the Wuhan virus. The only RCT of paper surgical face masks in Denmark showed they too provided no statistically significant protection against the wearer catching the Wuhan virus. At best, flimsy cloth and the paper surgical masks offer little or no protection against catching the Wuhan virus. N95 masks [especially if checked for leaks] certainly offer some protection against infection, but plenty of people have caught the Wuhan virus wearing them too.

Seriously dude you need to stop lying and be more honest about what the scientific research suggests is and is not most likely to be reality.

it helps grant some wearer protection

It is not the reason for the mask mandate.

It never was.

It is a beneficial side effect of the mask mandate.