To mask or not to mask....That is the question. Part II

[AtTheMurph]

The problem with masks is that we have done a **** poor job of education and now wearing one, or not wearing one, is seen as a political symbol beyond all reasoning.

I would love for you to educate us on mask wearing.

Why should anyone in a community setting wear a cloth mask?
Why should anyone in a community setting wear an N95 mask?
What evidence is there that wearing any of these masks in a community setting has stopped or slowed the spread of the virus?
There are known dangers with prolonged mask wearing. Are they offset by the benefits the masks provide in slowing or stopping the spread of the virus?
Why are kids playing school sports wearing masks?
What evidence of benefits does staying 6 feet apart have?
Can we trust the Covid data when we know that 1) The PCR test is prone to errors in up to 90% of positive results? 2) The perverse financial incentive to the health system to categorize any death as one from COVID. 3) Does the fact that the COVID Czar, Dr. Anthony Fauci funded research into bat corona viruses at the Wuhan lab nearly certainly the source of the SARS COV2 virus, make you or anyone else uneasy?

 

[bobzilla]

So screw the researchers at Stanford.

"The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks."

“Follow the science” until it stops fitting your agenda.

 

[nonobaddog]

“Follow the science” until it stops fitting your agenda.

Then make up and call it 'science' and find idiots to repeat it like sheepy parrots.

 

[raider600]

What many of us have said for a long time...

Study Results: Facemasks are Ineffective to Block Transmission of COVID-19 and Actually Can Cause Health Deterioration and Premature Death | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

A recent study reported by the NCBI, which is under the National Institutes of Health, showed that masks do absolutely nothing to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and their use is even harmful. NIH published a medical hypothesis by Dr.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Ff

This is a list of hypotheses, that study isn't real science. I mean you can't just read the headline...

 

[buckwacker]

This is a list of hypotheses, that study isn't real science. I mean you can't just read the headline...
View attachment 136541

Only my science is science.

 

[Ingomike]

This is a list of hypotheses, that study isn't real science. I mean you can't just read the headline...
View attachment 136541

Was waiting on naysayers...

 

[d.kaufman]

“Follow the science” until it stops fitting your agenda.

Hell, who needs to "follow the science" All you have to do is look at the the numbers that allegedly kept rising, despite the fact of mask mandates, lockdowns, "social distancing", etc. Hell, the numbers were lower in states and cities that didn't mandate masks. The writing is on the wall. Masks have/had zero effect.

The we can also "follow science" where studies long prior showed almost zero effect. And now we have a more recent study from the CDC (dealing directly with Kung Flu) that shows nearly zero effect.

Hmmm....seems to be correlation on all accounts....science and just plain old common sense, show the damn face diapers are worthless

 

[jamil]

Then make up and call it 'science' and find idiots to repeat it like sheepy parrots.

There's certainly a bit of truth to that.

 

[jamil]

Well, if it says gateway pundit, just accept everything it says without question. Right?

 

[nonobaddog]

Well, if it says gateway pundit, just accept everything it says without question. Right?

It is kinda like subatomic particles, there is more stability when you balance the left spin with the right spin.

 

[LostHoosier]

Then make up and call it 'science' and find idiots to repeat it like sheepy parrots.

We are now in year 2 of that. Only two weeks to stop the spread

 

[bobzilla]

Well, if it says gateway pundit, just accept everything it says without question. Right?

Don’t know. I used the article to go to the study itself. That’s what I took the time to read. Not some biased article about the study. But yeah we should totally ignore the substance and completely disregard it because of where it was cited.

 

[jamil]

It is kinda like subatomic particles, there is more stability when you balance the left spin with the right spin.

If you have a balance of bs you still have bs. Spin on the left countered by spin on the right doesn’t result in truth.

 

[jamil]

Don’t know. I used the article to go to the study itself. That’s what I took the time to read. Not some biased article about the study. But yeah we should totally ignore the substance and completely disregard it because of where it was cited.

I didn’t say disregard it. I’m saying the article is untruthful, which is the GWP’s way. There are interesting points made in article GWP cited. But GWP was dishonest in what they reported it to be. It is not a scientific study. It is a paper that explains a hypothesis and gives the author’s analysis of other studies to support it. It’s interesting, informative, but. THAT’S not a study. Stop calling this a study.

While I found the hypothesis informative, it is not authoritative proof of anything near what the GWP implies.

One point I thought the GWP article does well at is highlighting the way the blue-checks on Twitter responded to it. It exemplifies how tribes respond to information that is counter to their beliefs. Some of you guys do it too. Many of you respond to information that even hints at positive things about masks just like twitter did with this..

If you call something 0% that’s really something more like 20%, or maybe the other side calls it 100%, but really it’s 80%, it’s an indicator that the ones saying it are 20% full of ****.

 

[drillsgt]

This is a list of hypotheses, that study isn't real science. I mean you can't just read the headline...
View attachment 136541

Medical Hypotheses is the name of the Journal, it looks like a decent middle of the road Journal with an impact factor of around 1.4 which isn't bad. Having a hypothesis or a list of hypotheses is the basis for any scientific inquiry, why is this bad lol?

 

[drillsgt]

I didn’t say disregard it. I’m saying the article is untruthful, which is the GWP’s way. There are interesting points made in article GWP cited. But GWP was dishonest in what they reported it to be. It is not a scientific study. It is a paper that explains a hypothesis and gives the author’s analysis of other studies to support it. It’s interesting, informative, but. THAT’S not a study. Stop calling this a study.

While I found the hypothesis informative, it is not authoritative proof of anything near what the GWP implies.

One point I thought the GWP article does well at is highlighting the way the blue-checks on Twitter responded to it. It exemplifies how tribes respond to information that is counter to their beliefs. Some of you guys do it too. Many of you respond to information that even hints at positive things about masks just like twitter did with this..

If you call something 0% that’s really something more like 20%, or maybe the other side calls it 100%, but really it’s 80%, it’s an indicator that the ones saying it are 20% full of ****.

There's nothing wrong with calling a literature review a 'study'. Lit reviews are pretty comprehensive reports about the current state of knowledge on a topic, they can often be a lot more work then a simple experiment or observational study. If you have a well done comprehensive literature review or meta-analysis it can likely become one of your most cited papers. One of mine on Vietnam Veterans has over 100 citations and another on herbal medicine is almost at 80. Skepticism to how a study is reported in the press is always warranted though, gun control studies for example are almost always mis-represented by the MSM.

 

[chipbennett]

There's nothing wrong with calling a literature review a 'study'. Lit reviews are pretty comprehensive reports about the current state of knowledge on a topic, they can often be a lot more work then a simple experiment or observational study. If you have a well done comprehensive literature review or meta-analysis it can likely become one of your most cited papers. One of mine on Vietnam Veterans has over 100 citations and another on herbal medicine is almost at 80. Skepticism to how a study is reported in the press is always warranted though, gun control studies for example are almost always mis-represented by the MSM.

I'd call a literature review just that: a literature review. Or perhaps a survey.

It's not a study. IMHO, anyway.

 

[jamil]

There's nothing wrong with calling a literature review a 'study'. Lit reviews are pretty comprehensive reports about the current state of knowledge on a topic, they can often be a lot more work then a simple experiment or observational study. If you have a well done comprehensive literature review or meta-analysis it can likely become one of your most cited papers. One of mine on Vietnam Veterans has over 100 citations and another on herbal medicine is almost at 80. Skepticism to how a study is reported in the press is always warranted though, gun control studies for example are almost always mis-represented by the MSM.

It's a paper that can be cited, yes. Is this one authoritative on masks? Well, not if you think it says masks are 0% effective. And it's still not a study. It does support my view that mask mandates aren't actually useful enough to justify mandating them, and certainly not useful enough to support a viewpoint that shames people who are skeptical. That's not the same narrative that the GWP is trying to push, or saying they're 0% effective.

 

[drillsgt]

I'd call a literature review just that: a literature review. Or perhaps a survey.

It's not a study. IMHO, anyway.

It is an opinion, to some anything short of a RCT isn't a 'study' lol. Yes, in the strictest sense lit reviews are not what we consider a defined 'study' but also doesn't warrant them being dismissed as jamil tried to do. This example since it started with defined hypotheses would be a systematic review since it attempts to answer defined research questions vs a broad literature review.

 

[Ingomike]

Well, if it says gateway pundit, just accept everything it says without question. Right?

Way more truth at GwP than in the deep state mockingbird media...