Beer Virus V

[ghuns]

...The authors point out one of the possible reasons, adherence, only 46% of the mask group actually wore the mask as recommended.

They also took that into account...

Based on the lowest adherence reported in the mask group during follow-up, 46% of participants wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended, and 7% not as recommended...

In a per protocol analysis that excluded participants in the mask group who reported nonadherence (7%), SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in 40 participants (1.8%) in the mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.4 percentage point [CI, −1.2 to 0.5 percentage point]; P = 0.40) (OR, 0.84 [CI, 0.55 to 1.26]; P = 0.40). Supplement Figure 2 provides results of the prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary composite end point. No statistically significant interactions were identified.


In the preplanned sensitivity analysis, those who had a positive result on an antibody test at 1 month but had not provided antibody results at baseline were considered to have had positive results at baseline (n = 18)—that is, they were excluded from the analysis. In this analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 33 participants (1.4%) in the face mask group and 44 (1.8%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.4 percentage point [CI, −1.1 to 0.4 percentage point]; P = 0.22) (OR, 0.77 [CI, 0.49 to 1.22]; P = 0.26).


Three post hoc (not preplanned) analyses were done. In the first, which included only participants reporting wearing face masks “exactly as instructed,” infection (the primary outcome) occurred in 22 participants (2.0%) in the face mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.2 percentage point [CI, −1.3 to 0.9 percentage point]; P = 0.82) (OR, 0.93 [CI, 0.56 to 1.54]; P = 0.78). The second post hoc analysis excluded participants who did not provide antibody test results at baseline; infection occurred in 33 participants (1.7%) in the face mask group and 44 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.4 percentage point [CI, −1.4 to 0.4 percentage point]; P = 0.33) (OR, 0.80 [CI, 0.51 to 1.27]; P = 0.35). In the third post hoc analysis, which investigated constellations of patient characteristics, we did not find a subgroup where face masks were effective at conventional levels of statistical significance

None of these analysis resulted in a significant difference between the infection rates of mask wearers vs non mask wearers.

 

[BugI02]

It's certainly fun to do a study like that as a starting point and to add to the information but it doesn't conclude that masks don't help.

One key Point here is that there was low Community use of masks. I think we already know the protection level of a surgical mask is pretty low if the infected person is not wearing a mask

No one is saying interventions will have zero effect, although there is some question whether that effect will be meaningfully distinguishable from zero. No one is saying crystal healing will have zero effect, with the same caveat

The question is, as we go from 'no published studies were specifically designed to test the spread of covid, so the results won't extrapolate' to now having several studies showing the preferred interventions really aren't all that, the goalpost has become whether said interventions will have some 'non-zero' effect on transmission without regard to whether 'non-zero' will be meaningful or statistically significant or in any way worth the inevitable economic disruption as well as embodying a presumption of efficacy that just isn't appearing in peer review

 

[nonobaddog]

Is that not the cohort of possible masks that we are being urged and/or required to wear? Has not the lack of standards in construction or materials been criticized regularly?

Yes, those are the masks available and even mandated to stick on our faces. Your point?

And if you're saying we should be mandated to wear N95s, do you want a run on N95s? Because that's how you get a run on N95s and Fauci saying don't buy them they won't help not because they don't work but because they're aren't enough to go around

If you re-read my post you should be able to see I said nothing about being mandated to wear N95 masks at all! In fact I didn't even mention N95 masks or mandates either for that matter. The comment was about the futility of that study.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

That's called reality, it's why mask mandates are just feel good orders so politicians feel like they are 'doing something' lol.

That WAS the reality 7-8 months ago when the study was performed... anyhow, your logic is circular and goes something like the following:

Fake to prove a point, but this is what I hear a lot of you basically saying over and over:

Onion/Babylon Bee Study shows masks only 25% effective -So they don't work - why wear them?

On the serious side, it's also why that particular study was "under powered". To get conclusive results they would have needed slight more than twice as many participants. (1/0.46 = 2.18x)

 

[BugI02]

Yes, those are the masks available and even mandated to stick on our faces. Your point?



If you re-read my post you should be able to see I said nothing about being mandated to wear N95 masks at all! In fact I didn't even mention N95 masks or mandates either for that matter. The comment was about the futility of that study.

You'll have to forgive me if I have difficulty discerning your point based on a post where the first line, "It's certainly fun to do a study like that as a starting point and to add to the information but it doesn't conclude that masks don't help." seems to be questioning, and perhaps ridiculing, the minimally effective results determined to be possible with the most widely used type of masks. Are you saying that masks should be of more effective construction or that we should be made to wear them at higher levels of compliance or both? Just exactly what is your point

And why mention subsequently that the protection level of a surgical mask is low in the presence of the unmasked? Again, are you implying that the quality of the mask in use is inadequate or that everyone should be forced to wear a mask (whose efficacy you question in the previous line). So, do you want everyone to wear a mask, everyone to wear a surgical mask, the public to wear a surgical mask and HCPs to wear an N95 or everyone to wear N95s. What level of 'safety' do you presume will be sufficient?

 

[drillsgt]

That WAS the reality 7-8 months ago when the study was performed... anyhow, your logic is circular and goes something like the following:

Fake to prove a point, but this is what I hear a lot of you basically saying over and over:

Onion/Babylon Bee Study shows masks only 25% effective -So they don't work - why wear them?

On the serious side, it's also why that particular study was "under powered". To get conclusive results they would have needed slight more than twice as many participants. (1/0.46 = 2.18x)

There's nothing circular about my logic it's impenetrable. I was referring to adherence, not whether masks work or not (actually in this study 93% indicated decent mask use which is worse for your case). If the public adherence is low then mask mandates are useless. I'm not sure why you think this study is underpowered or what your little calculation was. The authors conducted a power/sample size analysis that was appropriate for their primary research question (diff of infection between groups) and actually recruited a lot more subjects than necessary. They did indicate all their secondary analyses may have been underpowered as well as looking at other respiratory infections. It was interesting in that this was done at a time where mask use was not universal so the control group was exposed to non-mask wearers and still did not fare much worse than the mask group.

 

[nonobaddog]

You'll have to forgive me if I have difficulty discerning your point based on a post where the first line, "It's certainly fun to do a study like that as a starting point and to add to the information but it doesn't conclude that masks don't help." seems to be questioning, and perhaps ridiculing, the minimally effective results determined to be possible with the most widely used type of masks. Are you saying that masks should be of more effective construction or that we should be made to wear them at higher levels of compliance or both? Just exactly what is your point

And why mention subsequently that the protection level of a surgical mask is low in the presence of the unmasked? Again, are you implying that the quality of the mask in use is inadequate or that everyone should be forced to wear a mask (whose efficacy you question in the previous line). So, do you want everyone to wear a mask, everyone to wear a surgical mask, the public to wear a surgical mask and HCPs to wear an N95 or everyone to wear N95s. What level of 'safety' do you presume will be sufficient?

I didn't make that post.

 

[churchmouse]

There's nothing circular about my logic it's impenetrable. I was referring to adherence, not whether masks work or not (actually in this study 93% indicated decent mask use which is worse for your case). If the public adherence is low then mask mandates are useless. I'm not sure why you think this study is underpowered or what your little calculation was. The authors conducted a power/sample size analysis that was appropriate for their primary research question (diff of infection between groups) and actually recruited a lot more subjects than necessary. They did indicate all their secondary analyses may have been underpowered as well as looking at other respiratory infections. It was interesting in that this was done at a time where mask use was not universal so the control group was exposed to non-mask wearers and still did not fare much worse than the mask group.

As much as I would like to get nutty with the member you are referencing he is seriously stuck in that mode. Nothing you say or do will sway him. I have seen more evidence that they are a waste of time and effort than towards a positive that they actually help.
I have seen good argument that they may prevent someone that is seriously effected by this bug from catching it but those numbers are low as well.
In that......If you are of that challenged group then stay your but at home. Stop hampering our ability to live our lives. Protect yourself and do not lay this on us. If you need assistance there are a hundred groups or individuals us being some of them that will help you.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

There's nothing circular about my logic it's impenetrable.

I don't think that word means what you want it to mean when referring to logic.

I was referring to adherence, not whether masks work or not (actually in this study 93% indicated decent mask use which is worse for your case).

46% of the participants in the mask group followed the recommendations for the masks. That's less than half an NOT helpful if you're trying to determine whether or not there is a measurable effect wearing the masks.

47% "predominately" adhered to the recommendations.... that means that more often than not, they wore the mask and wore it correctly... that helps you not at all if you aren't wearing or wearing wrong when exposed. And it tells you nothing about whether they got infected while adhering (the masks didn't work) or during non-compliance (didn't wear or nose snorkled, etc).

7% did not adhere to the recommendations.

Bottom line is they knew how many mask wearers they needed to make conclusions... they only got 46% of the sample size they needed, and an equal number that "contaminated" the possible results.

"If the public adherence is low then mask mandates are useless.

Yup, I think we can all agree to that. The question is if it was high, would it make a difference in cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

So to be clear that means BOTH does wearing an effective mask correctly lead to reduced infections rates AND/OR reduced incidence of severe/critical infections. The CDC has issued new guidance about a week ago citing 12 studies indicating it does both... all real-world sudies or observational case studies.

I'm not sure why you think this study is underpowered or what your little calculation was. The authors conducted a power/sample size analysis that was appropriate for their primary research question (diff of infection between groups) and actually recruited a lot more subjects than necessary.

Because, after drop-outs, they recruited the number the needed... but AFTERWARDS found out only 46% fully followed the recommendations for mask wear. 54% didn't to some level. It was 54% under-powered.

They did indicate all their secondary analyses may have been underpowered as well as looking at other respiratory infections. It was interesting in that this was done at a time where mask use was not universal so the control group was exposed to non-mask wearers and still did not fare much worse than the mask group.

I read it as during April into early May, it was almost universal no mask wearing with the Dane public at large. And, although the adhering mask group nominally benefited slightly, the sample size was underpowered to the extent that the results were underpowered. The 95% confidence interval for those that complied or predominately complied was 45% benefit to 26% negative effect. The 45% is pretty close to their null-hypothesis of 50% - hence they determined it was inconclusive - either way.

 

[qwerty]

I guess they know the truth.......

 

[churchmouse]

I don't think that word means what you want it to mean when referring to logic.




46% of the participants in the mask group followed the recommendations for the masks. That's less than half an NOT helpful if you're trying to determine whether or not there is a measurable effect wearing the masks.

47% "predominately" adhered to the recommendations.... that means that more often than not, they wore the mask and wore it correctly... that helps you not at all if you aren't wearing or wearing wrong when exposed. And it tells you nothing about whether they got infected while adhering (the masks didn't work) or during non-compliance (didn't wear or nose snorkled, etc).

7% did not adhere to the recommendations.

Bottom line is they knew how many mask wearers they needed to make conclusions... they only got 46% of the sample size they needed, and an equal number that "contaminated" the possible results.


Yup, I think we can all agree to that. The question is if it was high, would it make a difference in cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

So to be clear that means BOTH does wearing an effective mask correctly lead to reduced infections rates AND/OR reduced incidence of severe/critical infections. The CDC has issued new guidance about a week ago citing 12 studies indicating it does both... all real-world sudies or observational case studies.



Because, after drop-outs, they recruited the number the needed... but AFTERWARDS found out only 46% fully followed the recommendations for mask wear. 54% didn't to some level. It was 54% under-powered.



I read it as during April into early May, it was almost universal no mask wearing with the Dane public at large. And, although the adhering mask group nominally benefited slightly, the sample size was underpowered to the extent that the results were underpowered. The 95% confidence interval for those that complied or predominately complied was 45% benefit to 26% negative effect. The 45% is pretty close to their null-hypothesis of 50% - hence they determined it was inconclusive - either way.

Brother I will give you this......Man you are dedicated to your cause sir. \
+10.....

I do not agree In the least but yeah you keep doing what you are doing and I will keep living my life.

 

[Phase2]

I guess they know the truth.......

I'll believe we should wear masks, socially distance and not gather when the people who tell us to do so are doing the same and not before. We are not their subjects.

 

[actaeon277]

More than you'd think.

My SIL just completed his USMC sergeants course 100% online.

Not really the same thing.
A course like that, in my day, read a book, maybe attend a class in a room. Then a test.
Nothing in the class would be demonstrated with a field event.

Of course, I don't know about USMC sergeants..
I will admit, it may be a LOT different than Navy stuff i did.

But when I made 2nd Class PO, it was all book work, then a test.
The test results were put into a formula.
Things in the formula..
Test Score.
Evaluations (military bearing, technical knowledge, stuff like that)
Time in Rank.
Medals/Awards

So, for 2nd Class, I never had to boss someone around, or even fix a Radar system.

 

[actaeon277]

I guess they know the truth.......

Rules for thee
But not for me

 

[Phase2]

Rules for thee
But not for me

The chump effect: Rules only apply to those that follow them. Follow those dictates peon!

 

[drillsgt]

I don't think that word means what you want it to mean when referring to logic.




46% of the participants in the mask group followed the recommendations for the masks. That's less than half an NOT helpful if you're trying to determine whether or not there is a measurable effect wearing the masks.

47% "predominately" adhered to the recommendations.... that means that more often than not, they wore the mask and wore it correctly... that helps you not at all if you aren't wearing or wearing wrong when exposed. And it tells you nothing about whether they got infected while adhering (the masks didn't work) or during non-compliance (didn't wear or nose snorkled, etc).

7% did not adhere to the recommendations.

Bottom line is they knew how many mask wearers they needed to make conclusions... they only got 46% of the sample size they needed, and an equal number that "contaminated" the possible results.


Yup, I think we can all agree to that. The question is if it was high, would it make a difference in cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

So to be clear that means BOTH does wearing an effective mask correctly lead to reduced infections rates AND/OR reduced incidence of severe/critical infections. The CDC has issued new guidance about a week ago citing 12 studies indicating it does both... all real-world sudies or observational case studies.



Because, after drop-outs, they recruited the number the needed... but AFTERWARDS found out only 46% fully followed the recommendations for mask wear. 54% didn't to some level. It was 54% under-powered.



I read it as during April into early May, it was almost universal no mask wearing with the Dane public at large. And, although the adhering mask group nominally benefited slightly, the sample size was underpowered to the extent that the results were underpowered. The 95% confidence interval for those that complied or predominately complied was 45% benefit to 26% negative effect. The 45% is pretty close to their null-hypothesis of 50% - hence they determined it was inconclusive - either way.

That word means exactly what I want it to mean (insert snarky smiley face like I think I know something). Sorry that's not how power and sample size works, nobody but you would call this underpowered. In a real world pragmatic study like this getting 93% to roughly follow the protocol is better than I would expect. The incidence of infection in the non-mask group was already so low that even if the non-adherers in the mask group affected their incidence rate it likely wouldn't have mattered. In fact when they took out the somewhat adhered group and just tested the absolute adherers their infection rates got worse. Their results clearly show that for this population mask vs. no mask didn't matter. You keep getting stuck on this 46% vs. 23% that they indicate as inconclusive but what they are arguing is they couldn't decide if wearing the mask helped or hurt within that group, because the effect was non-significant lol. They weren't arguing that the overall result of the study was inconclusive. That part was only put in there to appease and support the mask wearing narrative at time of publication. Go back and read the first paragraph of the discussion and you'll see it in context. Sorry but this article just doesn't support your narrative.

 

[jamil]

Ok, this is where I would disagree... IF and ONLY IF we reached a point where hospitals were stretched beyond capacity by severe and critical COVID patients... no capacity for heart attacks, car accidents, etc. as well as "severe" but savable COVID patients dying from lack of oxygen tanks and simple steroids, etc. then THAT is a scenario that calls for another lock down.

Full on Northern Italy in late March with people dying in the streets.

I understand both of you believe that couldn't happen here... I hope you are right, but I'm seeing no evidence yet that it can't or won't.

Hopefully tapping the brakes, downshifting the phases, and people changing their infection control habits turns the current tide.

We’re pretty ****ing resourceful. We’d figure it out. No need to kill someone on this side of the teeter-totter so we can think we might save someone on the other. Shutdowns are immoral.

 

[churchmouse]

We’re pretty ****ing resourceful. We’d figure it out. No need to kill someone on this side of the teeter-totter so we can think we might save someone on the other. Shutdowns are immoral.

And they are not the answer here.
We ate at Big woods pizza in Speedway for lunch. Limited to 50% capacity and they had to turn folks away. We ate and rolled to the Lowes on west 10th. Parking lot was slammed full and elbow to elbow inside. This whole thing is the biggest cluster **** I have ever seen in the total of my long life. Anyone that believes this is helping is just wrong. There is no consistency. There can be no consistency.

 

[wingrider1800]

And they are not the answer here.
We ate at Big woods pizza in Speedway for lunch. Limited to 50% capacity and they had to turn folks away. We ate and rolled to the Lowes on west 10th. Parking lot was slammed full and elbow to elbow inside. This whole thing is the biggest cluster **** I have ever seen in the total of my long life. Anyone that believes this is helping is just wrong. There is no consistency. There can be no consistency.

Nuts is an understatement. I want to know what genius figured that the rona comes out in full force after 10pm

 

[churchmouse]

Nuts is an understatement. I want to know what genius figured that the rona comes out in full force after 10pm

There is zero sense in any of this :BS:
None.
This all comes off as a stage rehearsal for the real play that is soon to come.