Africa travel ban

Hammster said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

Well at least you are consistent, I will give you that. However, we disagree on the fundamentals of Tyranny.

Hammster said:

That’s the thing about tyranny. It doesn’t ask.

Click to expand...

By that definition you're already living under tyranny, and have been doing so every day of your life.
At some point you will be required by the government to do something, which will equate to tyranny.

Hammster said:

You might want to expand your sources. It’s not a consensus.

Click to expand...

Nature: Daily briefing: Masks work against COVID, finds a huge randomized trial

Johns Hopkins: Coronavirus Face Masks & Protection FAQs

Stanford: Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows

CDC: COVID-19 ARCHIVED WEBPAGE

Hammster said:

Do you want my links?

Click to expand...

Yes I would like to see them.

In the mean time here are a variety of other actual scientific studies from legitimate medical experts supporting the wearing of masks:

JAMA: Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2

Mask use during COVID-19: A risk adjusted strategy - ScienceDirect

NIH: Face Mask Use in the Community for Reducing the Spread of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

TLK Valentine said:

You indentured yourself to your employer -- feel free to back out at any time.

Click to expand...

This is a rather intriguing statement you made. To ask everyone, who is YOUR employer? It's suited more for another topic to pursue however in a strictly objective sense you and I have indentured ourselves to very different employers of thought, reasoning and even how to discuss important topics.

To quote, "IGNORANCE is the root of all EVIL." To quote from one of the leading experts in history on how gnosis can be applied within discussions and debates, "Of course a lie is permitted if the truth would lead to another prohibited thing that is worse than lying. Then it is permissible" Imam Al-Ghazali.

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread? Nothing and everything about how a person reaches their own conclusions and discusses them in every thread found on CF.

Hammster said:

If you’re still around later, I’ll get to it.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I look forward to it.

Parmallia said:

Nature: Daily briefing: Masks work against COVID, finds a huge randomized trial

Click to expand...

From your link;


So yes, the study proved that they "work" to reduce COVID risk by less than 10%. A more accurate, although less compelling, headline would have been, "Daily briefing: Masks reduce the risk of COVID by less than 10%, finds a huge randomized trial".

Parmallia said:

Johns Hopkins: Coronavirus Face Masks & Protection FAQs

Click to expand...

This isn't a study. This is someone saying masks "work" with no data to support that hypothesis.

Parmallia said:

Stanford: Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows

Click to expand...

This is another take on the same study that found a reduction in risk of less than 10% from your first link. You're just posting the same study from two different sources.

Parmallia said:

CDC: COVID-19 ARCHIVED WEBPAGE

Click to expand...

These are the CDC's recommendations for wearing masks, not evidence for their efficacy.

For another, pre-pandemic take on masks, check out this CDC analysis of the efficacy of masking against the flu. Some excerpts;

Parmallia said:

In the mean time here are a variety of other actual scientific studies from legitimate medical experts supporting the wearing of masks:

JAMA: Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2

Click to expand...

From your link;

This "study" of the efficacy of masking in a hair salon has become infamous. But it's not a study at all. It's an anecdote passing itself off as "science". There's no control group. It's severely underpowered. It's observational. It's literally the lowest quality "evidence" available.

Parmallia said:

NIH: Face Mask Use in the Community for Reducing the Spread of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Click to expand...

From your link (emphasis added);


Even when you read the studies in support of masking, they make clear that the benefits of masking are quite marginal. We've adopted the phrase "masks work", but they work in the same way that wearing a baseball cap in a motorcycle crash "works" to protect your head.

14 RCTs on masking. You can read an analysis with links to the actual studies below. From the article;

probinson said:

From your link;

Overall, in the villages where the team distributed masks, symptomatic infections were 9.3% lower.​

So yes, the study proved that they "work" to reduce COVID risk by less than 10%. A more accurate, although less compelling, headline would have been, "Daily briefing: Masks reduce the risk of COVID by less than 10%, finds a huge randomized trial".


This isn't a study. This is someone saying masks "work" with no data to support that hypothesis.



This is another take on the same study that found a reduction in risk of less than 10% from your first link. You're just posting the same study from two different sources.


These are the CDC's recommendations for wearing masks, not evidence for their efficacy.

For another, pre-pandemic take on masks, check out this CDC analysis of the efficacy of masking against the flu. Some excerpts;

In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks

...

One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group

...

The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies

...

None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group

...

There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

...

Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures​

Click to expand...

Masks apparently do work, per the experts.

probinson said:

From your link;

At a hair salon in which all staff and clients were required to wear a mask under local ordinance and company policy, 2 symptomatic, infected stylists attended to 139 clients and no infections were observed in the 67 clients who were reached for interviewing and testing.
​

This "study" of the efficacy of masking in a hair salon has become infamous. But it's not a study at all. It's an anecdote passing itself off as "science". There's no control group. It's severely underpowered. It's observational. It's literally the lowest quality "evidence" available.



From your link (emphasis added);

For reducing infection rates, the estimates of cluster-RCTs were in favor of wearing face masks vs. no mask, but not at statistically significant levels​

Even when you read the studies in support of masking, they make clear that the benefits of masking are quite marginal. We've adopted the phrase "masks work", but they work in the same way that wearing a baseball cap in a motorcycle crash "works" to protect your head.

Click to expand...

Masks appear to be effective per the experts.

Parmallia said:

Masks apparently do work, per the experts.

Click to expand...

Your chosen study shows a risk reduction of 9.3%. I suppose that "works", if your standard for something "working" is a sub-10% improvement.

probinson said:

Your chosen study shows a risk reduction of 9.3%. I suppose that "works", if your standard for something "working" is a sub-10% improvement.

Click to expand...

All of the citations I posted showed that masks are effective. I can find more if you like. But right now I've presented something like 6-10 studies and references from legitimate scientific sources which all say that masks are effective in the fight against COVID.

Parmallia said:

But right now I've presented something like 6-10 studies and references from legitimate scientific sources which all say that masks are effective in the fight against COVID.

Click to expand...

Anyone with Google could do that.

Have you read any of them? You're not addressing the very legitimate concerns with these studies. The fact that they are observational in nature and therefore the quality of evidence is very low and poor, that they are underpowered, that there are multiple confounders not accounted for, that there are biases in the selection and presentation of the data.

For example, you've referenced the Bangladesh study multiple times from different sources. But please take a few moments to read this;

What were the effects of the Bangladesh mask intervention?

This is a critical look at the conclusions of that study (which only found a 9.3% risk reduction in COVID even with all of its flaws). Now I'm pretty certain you'll just say this isn't a "legitimate scientific source", because that will allow you to completely ignore the valid concerns in the analysis. Nevertheless, the concerns are real and valid, whether you address them or not.

probinson said:

Anyone with Google could do that.

Click to expand...

Actually I spent my time on Scholar.google and ensured that the sources were legitimate high level medical sources.

Have you read any of them? You're not addressing the very legitimate concerns with these studies.

Click to expand...

They all said that masks were effective. The fact that you wish to quibble with one paper's estimate of "how" effective doesn't really change the fact of the matter that masks are effective.

The fact that they are observational in nature and therefore the quality of evidence is very low

Click to expand...

Isn't all empirical science "observational"? There's obviously a role for theory but studies like these are by nature observational.

and poor, that they are underpowered, that there are multiple confounders not accounted for, that there are biases in the selection and presentation of the data.

Click to expand...

It is highly unlikely that they "confounded" any variables. That's usually something that is parsed out relatively quickly with stats through leverage plots. I am curious about your claim of underpowered. Can you give me the citation you are talking about? I would be surprised that a major medical research facility like Johns Hopkins or those folks who publish in Nature would wind up with a power problem in their stats. But I'd be interested in seeing specifically what you are referring to.

For example, you've referenced the Bangladesh study multiple times from different sources. But please take a few moments to read this;

What were the effects of the Bangladesh mask intervention?

This is a critical look at the conclusions of that study (which only found a 9.3% risk reduction in COVID even with all of its flaws). Now I'm pretty certain you'll just say this isn't a "legitimate scientific source", because that will allow you to completely ignore the valid concerns in the analysis. Nevertheless, the concerns are real and valid, whether you address them or not.

Click to expand...

This is not at all uncommon in the sciences. There's always studies and counters to those studies. Thankfully Bangladesh is not the ONLY study I've referenced so far.

Think of it like this:

You have two competiting hypotheses:

Ho: there is no beneficial effect from masking
Ha: there is a beneficial effect from masking

If I go with the variety of studies which indicate that, indeed, there IS an effect and I wish to reject the null (Ho) but I am making a Type I error in my rejection of Ho the downside is "Meh, some folks were annoyed to wear a piece of cloth on their face."

IF, however, YOU are wrong and in your rejection of Ho you have made an error the downside can be quite dire. People can get hurt even die.

Given that neither you nor I are medical experts on this topic may I ask why you wish to go with the view that, if in error, is much more dangerous than the other way 'round?