« FFT4 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Masks are …..BAAAAAACK!

By: zzstar in FFT4 | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 04 Jun 23 9:07 PM | 42 view(s)
Boardmark this board | FFT4
Msg. 07639 of 13929
(This msg. is a reply to 07637 by Zimbler0)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Another bullshit study called major.

You GOTTA BE STUPID TO BELIEVE THAT AIRBORNE DISEASES/VIRUSES CANNOT BE MITIGATED BY MASKS. TOTALLY STUPID.

Masks have and are being worn in hospitals and in the field ACROSS THE WORLD FOREVER.

Now, these jackasses want to tell us otherwise.

Do you want YOUR SURGEON to not wear a mask on your operating table? Do you want to walk into a room of intubated Covid patients WITHOUT A MASK, AND NOT VACCINATED?

Be my guest, because if you do, I won’t cry for an idiot who died trying to prove someone else’s BULLSHIT.




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Masks are …..BAAAAAACK!
By: Zimbler0
in FFT4
Sun, 04 Jun 23 9:01 PM
Msg. 07637 of 13929

>>>
A major new study shows that masks don't stop the spread of COVID. Will the mandaters apologize?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/a-major-new-study-shows-that-masks-dont-stop-the-spread-of-covid-will-the-mandaters-apologize/ar-AA172j6T

The COVID pandemic is in the rearview mirror. We have plenty of data about it, including studies telling us how well our countermeasures worked.

A dozen scientists from around the world conducted a massive metastudy of our efforts to fight COVID, as well as similar efforts to fight the flu, and they published the results in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

The authors examined 78 different studies on the efficacy of different mitigation efforts such as masking, distancing, screening, quarantining, and hand-washing. How did these interventions affect the spread of the flu, COVID, or similar viruses?

The studies included were diverse. They covered epidemics as well as periods of low transmission. They covered rich countries and poor countries, suburban schools and inner-city neighborhoods, hospitals and villages.

Most important was what they had in common: They were all randomized controlled trials or at least cluster-RCTs. These are the gold standard for studies because they have the greatest chance of avoiding confounding factors. Non-randomized, non-controlled trials — for example, observational studies — can be compromised if, say, people become more likely to wear masks at times or places that already have higher rates of spread, or if people who wore masks were also more fastidious hand-washers.

So, what did the studies find?

For starters, hand-washing was effective in stopping the spread of these illnesses. That’s not surprising.

But here’s the most eye-opening finding: “Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness/COVID‐19-like illness compared to not wearing masks.” In other words, masks didn't do much — if anything.
>>>

(Article does continue. Zim.)


« FFT4 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next