In article <sfmbto$ra9$1@dont-email.me>, <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 8/18/21 4:24 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't argue with children, and I'm done arguing with petulant
> > you. No matter the evidence proving otherwise, you will remain adamant
> > that masks don't reduce infection count. Okay, bury your head in the
> > sand. Everyone else will stare at the weird kid trying to hide.
> >
> >> You sure put a lot of effort in that. Unfortunately,
> >> ALL of the studies on masks on various types ALL
> >> show that they DO NOT work against the spread of
> >> viruses.
> >
> > Interesting bias on your conclusion when the summaries declare
> > otherwise. Now I suspect you're just playing Devil's Advocate, and
> > arguing inanely just to occupy your time. >
> >> Masks are for show and nothing else.
> >
> > Boy, you sure are ticked at having to pay $2 for a 10-pack of disposable
> > masks. If you're that poor, lots of stores dole them out for free.
> >
>
> Hi Vanguard,
>
> You can even debate your viewpoint, so you revert
> to name calling.
>
> Here is some homework for you:
>
> On respiratory droplets and face masks
> https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0015044
>
> The above shows how masks actually work. Aerosol
> goes right through.

actually, it doesn't show that at all.

what it shows is that 'the nominal efficiency of the present mask is
~91%', the opposite of ;goes right through'.

it also found that masks 'significantly reduces the droplet cloud'.

yet another finding was that the distance droplets traveled is about
half as far with a mask than without one.

in other words, masks are highly effective, although not perfect
(nothing is).

Wearing a mask close enough to the face significantly reduces
the droplet cloud. However, some droplets still continue traveling
to considerable distance, even further than 1 m (see at 2 s and 3 s
in Fig. 6). Wearing a mask also reduces the lateral dispersion, but
it does not eliminate it (Figs. 8 and 9). As we will show in Sec. III
C, the nominal efficiency of the present mask is ~91%.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Without wearing a mask, droplets travel to about 70 cm.
2. Wearing a mask, the bulk of droplets will travel about half
the distance.
....
10. By wearing a mask, it will also provide greater protection to
the wearer as it blocks the droplets expelled from another subject
and further decelerates the incoming jet.

if any of the above is confusing, there are some clear diagrams that
show how effective masks actually are:
<https://aip.scitation.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/aip/journals/c
ontent/phf/2020/phf.2020.32.issue-6/5.0015044/20200613/images/large/5.00
15044.figures.online.f6.jpeg>
<https://aip.scitation.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/aip/journals/c
ontent/phf/2020/phf.2020.32.issue-6/5.0015044/20200613/images/medium/5.0
015044.figures.online.f11.jpg>

>
> Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory
> viruses
> https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full
>
> The pooled results of randomised trials did not show
> a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection
> with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal
> influenza.

selective snipping to alter context.

just prior to the above sentence is the following:

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome
measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions
during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising
the findings to the current COVID 19 pandemic.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low
moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the
effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different
from the observed estimate of the effect.

in other words, that study is mostly worthless.

> The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a
> systematic review of the scientific evidence
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/
>
> None of the studies established a conclusive
> relationship between mask/respirator use and
> protection against influenza infection.

more selective snipping to alter context.

the very next sentence:

Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as
part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene.
The effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early,
consistent and correct usage.

you also ignored the conclusion:

A trial conducted amongst crowded, urban households found that,
despite poor compliance, mask wearing coupled with hand sanitiser
use, reduced secondary transmission of upper respiratory
infection/influenza-like illness/laboratory-confirmed influenza
compared with education; hand sanitiser alone resulted in no
reduction in this aggregated outcome.11

Another study found a significant reduction in laboratory-confirmed
influenza amongst household contacts that began hand hygiene or
hand hygiene plus a mask within 36 hours of the index case s
illness.8 A trial conducted amongst resident university students
detected significant reductions in influenza-like illness during
weeks 4 6 in the mask and hand hygiene group after adjusting for
vaccine receipt and other potential confounders.10

All but two12, 13 of the case­control studies in healthcare workers
reported that wearing masks and/or respirators appeared to protect
workers from acquiring SARS.14-17

> CDC Study: 85% of Coronavirus Patients Reported Wearing Masks ŒAlways¹
> or ŒOften¹
> https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf

nope. that study was widely misrepresented.

<https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/politics/fact-check-trump-cdc-masks-85-p
ercent/index.html>
...The CDC study, which was released in September, did not say that
85% of all people who wear masks get infected with the coronavirus.
In fact, it did not even attempt to figure out what percentage of
people who wear a mask get infected with the coronavirus.
....
Here's how one of the co-authors, Christopher Lindsell, co-director
of the Center for Health Data Science at Vanderbilt University
Medical Center, described the study's data on masks.

"The data suggest that among a group of patients who are already
showing symptoms that prompted them to get testing for the virus,
there was no statistical evidence of a difference in mask wearing
behavior between those who tested positive and those who tested
negative," Lindsell said in an email. "This is very different from
the question of whether wearing masks prevents you becoming
infected with the virus, and it is also different to the question of
how many or what percentage of people who wear masks contract
the virus. The study was not designed to answer these questions."
....
And while, again, 70.6% of the infected people said they had "always"
worn a mask over the previous 14 days, 40.9% also said they had gone
to a restaurant -- where, obviously, people take off their masks.
....
There is scientific evidence that masks provide protection to the
people who wear them. But even if mask-wearers do end up getting
infected, that does not mean masks aren't working at all -- because
masks can still help others from getting infected. Haynes said, "CDC
guidance on masks has clearly stated that wearing a mask is intended
to protect other people in case the mask wearer is infected."

<https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-cdc-study-exposure/fact-ch
eck-misrepresented-cdc-study-about-community-exposure-to-the-new-coronav
irus-idUSKBN2741WF>
Jason McDonald, a spokesman for the CDC, told Reuters via email that
³the aim of the study was to assess possible situations for community
exposure, not mask use.² The study, McDonald noted, found that ³going
to places where mask use and social distancing cannot be maintained²,
like restaurants, coffee shops and bars, ³might be an important risk
factor for COVID-19.²

For each reported activity, participants were asked to quantify
degree of adherence to recommendations such as wearing a face
mask of any kind or social distancing among other persons at that
location, with response options ranging from ³none² to ³almost all.²
Descriptive and statistical analyses were performed to compare
case-patients with control-participants, assessing differences in
demographic characteristics, community exposures, and close
contact. Although an effort was made initially to match case-patients
to control-participants based on a 1:2 ratio, not all potential
participants were eligible or completed an inter- view, and
therefore an unmatched analysis was performed.

>
>
> Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare
> Settings‹Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
> https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article#tnF2
>
> We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks
> are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza
> transmission, either when worn by infected persons
> (source control) or by persons in the general community
> to reduce their susceptibility

once again, you snipped to alter context.

the very next sentence:

However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce
the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an
influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched.

>
> If masks actually worked, there would be clear
> scientific evidence that they did. AND THERE
> IS NONE.

except for the clear scientific evidence that shows they *do* work, in
the links you provided, that is.

if you're going to claim there is no evidence for something, it's
generally a good idea to not provide any of it yourself.

> And you so much as admitted to this when you
> reverted to name calling, instead of arguing
> your point with actual science.

there's no need for anyone to argue at all given that you provided all
of the actual science that's needed to refute your claims.

> It is very, very easy to get me to change my mind.

that is not possible, especially when you ignore the evidence in your
own links that prove you wrong.

> You
> just have to use real, actual science.

such as the actual science that *you* provided?

> Name calling
> does not cut it.

no name calling needed.

you proved yourself wrong and should be complimented for that.