Oh well, the libs will get rid of MANdates. They said they were going to get rid of all the MAN words.
WOMANdates are safe.
Oh well, the libs will get rid of MANdates. They said they were going to get rid of all the MAN words.
maybe for you!WOMANdates are safe.
maybe for you!
Last I looked there were over a dozen studies on mask effectiveness... here's just one, in as close to a closed lab experiment as you can get
Here is an actual excerpt from the study you quote. Not only is mask wearing not credited with a 70% reduction anywhere, but it is not even studied in isolation from other preventive measures. Hardly 'proof'A study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an environment notable for congregate living quarters and close working environments, found that use of face coverings on-board was associated with a 70% reduced risk.35
Abstract
Compared with the volume of data on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks among older adults, relatively few data are available concerning COVID-19 in younger, healthy persons in the United States (1,2). In late March 2020, the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt arrived at port in Guam after numerous U.S. service members onboard developed COVID-19. In April, the U.S. Navy and CDC investigated this outbreak, and the demographic, epidemiologic, and laboratory findings among a convenience sample of 382 service members serving aboard the aircraft carrier are reported in this study. The outbreak was characterized by widespread transmission with relatively mild symptoms and asymptomatic infection among this sample of mostly young, healthy adults with close, congregate exposures. Service members who reported taking preventive measures had a lower infection rate than did those who did not report taking these measures (e.g., wearing a face covering, 55.8% versus 80.8%; avoiding common areas, 53.8% versus 67.5%; and observing social distancing, 54.7% versus 70.0%, respectively). The presence of neutralizing antibodies, which represent antibodies that inhibit SARS-CoV-2, among the majority (59.2%) of those with antibody responses is a promising indicator of at least short-term immunity. This report improves the understanding of COVID-19 in the U.S. military and among young adults in congregate settings and reinforces the importance of preventive measures to lower risk for infection in similar environments.
You're using way too much toilet paper.Sometimes after flushing the toilet, I get tired of watching the water swirl and just wish the water would go down.
Here's the full study, not just the abstract. The word mask is used nowhere... face covering, on the other hand, is used throughout (in 7 places) and found to be a measure that INDEPENDENTLY reduced infections:Here is an actual excerpt from the study you quote. Not only is mask wearing not credited with a 70% reduction anywhere, but it is not even studied in isolation from other preventive measures. Hardly 'proof'
Lower odds of infection were independently associated with self-report of wearing a face covering (55.8% versus 80.8%; OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.2–0.5),
That's a tacit admission I don't talk of my ass. Proof you care about my opinions and love me!Recycling?
Sure seems to be quite a few more problems coming our way than the need to wear a face diaper. Just sayin....
Here's the full study, not just the abstract. The word mask is used nowhere... face covering, on the other hand, is used throughout (in 7 places) and found to be a measure that INDEPENDENTLY reduced infections:
SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Serologic Responses from a Sample of U.S. Navy Service Members — USS Theodore Roosevelt, April 2020
Though you are correct that is not 70% by itself.
They don't define how their "convenience" sample was comprised, but I seriously doubt they "cherry picked" their sample, let alone for positive mask results, in April while the CDC was advising against masks. And it wasn't just CDC docs, Navy docs too.I don't think I would put much faith in the numbers in that study. Their "convenience sample" is not representative of the population of the ship and is more heavily loaded with positive cases.
If you look at the data flow chart, the numbers on the uninfected side are too tiny to make valid conclusions.
It looks like more CDC propaganda saying "wear your silly face coverings".
Lower odds of infection were independently associated with self-report of wearing a face covering (55.8% versus 80.8%; OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.2–0.5), avoiding common areas (53.8% versus 67.5%; OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4–0.9), and observing social distancing (54.7% versus 70.0%; OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.3–0.8), compared with service members who did not report these behaviors.