To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

You don't seem to understand data and prefer to insult me instead.

That's ok.

I have literally explained to you that there is NOTHING to see in the global data. That is literally the whole point.

You don't seem to understand data and prefer to insult me instead.

You didn't explain one bit. One would expect someone claiming his career is working with data, will do better...

It is up to YOU to prove that masks did something meaningful, because the data doesn't show it.

Why? Am I the one bombing this thread with unsupported claims?

Nope.

If you can't , stop insulting me or at the very least, make some coherent point on this thread.

I gave my view on the masks plenty times here, and I don't feel the need to post it over and over. When it comes to the insults, insulting is posting garbage without any back up and then play a victim here .. IMO

So what is it gonna be? Can you show me how did you come to your conclusions on masks, or you gonna keep flooding this thread with more unsupported nonsense?

I've literally done that for you.

Look I'm very sorry for repeating myself, but you haven't..

And you think this is some proof for your claims? It's just as bad as your famous 25k cases post circulating here over and over.

And please don't take this as an insult.

Have a nice Sunday

all I done is applied your logic and criteria with which you attack and argue with others posters here. Seems like you don’t like the taste of your own medicine, funnily enough.

If you did not noticed yet, believe that a multidisciplinary approach to complex issues, such as this, is a better approach than just focusing on what can be brought to the table only by health and medical ‘experts’. I mean we had those virtually running this country for the last two years and We will have to deal with outcomes of that for decades to come. The more we draw from other sciences and involve the experts from other fields, the better the perspective, research and thus science. I personally make no attempts to discredit the papers and have no issues with the affiliation, background or current roles of authors of those publications mentioned by partjungle.

It is you however who should have raised a red flag if you were in any shape truthful and consistent with your approach to the debate. Clearly, you are not. Period.

Time and time again you attempt to discredit papers, publications and scientists based on some ridiculous reasons that do not stand up to any scrutiny. When challenged, you fail to disclose your credentials. You have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to judging the quality of source, information, data etc.

Just to reiterate, I have no intention to get involved in discussion that is aimed to waste time, deflect from the issue on hand and derail the debate. These are the usual intentional tactics that are to make conversation fruitless.

This is what I wrote:

Who said all mask studies are pretty worthless? That's a strawman without foundation. I said you are looking for a standard of study which is not feasible in the real world. A standard of study which is not necessary or required for public health measures.

It is that the mask studies are all limited in some way or another, need to be assessed as a whole in light of lab studies and case studies by the public health authorities whose role it is to assess such evidence.

So your post is an entirely dishonest deliberate misrepresentation of another poster's comments.

Proof positive you are unable to debate your position in good faith when you are have to resort to these con jobs.

The amount of time and ‘effort’ these types invest in harebrained theories always puzzles me.

Maybe it’s because they get their ‘kicks’ from contraryerism and obfuscation and trying too hard to be different.

Very strange individuals I always find.

Re-analysis on the statistical sampling biases of a mask promotion trial in Bangladesh: a statistical replication

https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-022-06704-

Conclusion of the re analysis here.

it would not be reasonable to conclude from this trial that there is a direct causal link between mask wearing and the number of residents in villages and households, any causal claims based on effects of similar size in this trial should be considered with caution. In particular, both COVID symptoms and COVID symptomatic seroprevalence exhibited similar magnitudes (and much weaker significance) than population differences which arose from bias and chance alone.

It is tempting to argue that the recruited and unrecruited individuals would have to be substantially different in how they report symptoms or test positive on serology in order for the recruitment bias to entirely account for the reported effect on endpoints. While a large difference between these populations may be unlikely, the bias evident in the trial outcomes demands caution regardless of assumptions one might be willing to make about unobserved individuals in the control arm.

In particular, it is critical to consider that all of the outcomes in the study are based on self-reporting of symptoms. Even for the serology endpoint, which may appear unbiased at first glance, subjects were only eligible for a blood draw if they had reported symptoms. Thus, all endpoints are subject to behavioral biases. Our analysis of the population size shows that behavioral biases can produce a highly significant 9% difference between the control and intervention arm in the absence of any causal link with the intervention. It is thus also premature to conclude a similarly sized causal effect on any other variable that is subject to behavior bias, including the trial endpoints.

The purpose of randomized control trials is to establish a causal link between interventions and outcomes. However, causal implications are diminished in the presence of unblinding, ascertainment bias, and bias-susceptible endpoints. Unfortunately, in the Bangladesh mask trial we evidence of all of the above.

The study in question raises intriguing questions about the role of public health interventions in changing behavioral patterns to decrease COVID case rates in low- and middle-income countries. The mask intervention was highly effective at modifying behaviors (distancing, mask-wearing, symptom reporting). Nonetheless, the data is consistent with mask wearing having modest or no direct effect on COVID-related outcomes in this experimental setting.

So you don't have an answer to why cases dropped in healthcare settings when workers were given masks?

And an answer to when mask mandates ended and how do you not know there wasn't an increase in cases when they scaled back testing and contact tracing?

I think that is a good decision and I refer to your statement that it won't be a surprise which side..keeps it going around and around and around ... which 'side ' would that be ?

I note you were posting away on the thread last night when everyone else was long gone ...you must be wrecked .

Take care .

I'm sure you remember well how at the beginning it was all about contact and touching surfaces, so they went went cleaning surfaces, hand washing and hand sanitizing as protection measures.

People were terrified going around wearing their gloves while shopping if you don't remember.

None of that helped in healthcare settings though and cases started to drop in healthcare settings when they allowed healthcare workers to wear masks.

No reaction yet,I wonder why

Outside…..?

Why would I go outside,chip?

I am not wearing a mask these days but I will if the public health advice changes. I want to reduce the risk to me and others, so if advised, yes I want to comply and that may involve wearing a mask in certain situations.

Unfortunately the data expert pulled the 95+% figure out of his arse, he has no clue.

I would say most want to follow public health advice, maybe that is why you are not seeing huge numbers in the shops but you are seeing huge numbers in healthcare settings.

'Wanting' to wear a mask has nothing to do with anything, you either want to follow public health advice or you don't.