FiascoBarbie t1_j89b5us wrote
Reply to comment by Papa--Mochi in City’s public hospital system to continue mask requirements by geoxol
Meta-analysis (one of many) https://www.journal.acorn.org.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=jpn
Obviously not only airborne infections.
And just for the heck of it
Review of the efficacy of masks in general
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/
And for kicks and giggles some of the other studies. (You can pick which of these you think have be “de bunked”, although I can pretty much bet this is the last we will hear from you)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33087517/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34041970/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473312/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32579379/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35105851/
Papa--Mochi t1_j89ywh8 wrote
>Meta-analysis (one of many) https://www.journal.acorn.org.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=jpn
Ouch. You fell at the first hurdle, here:
"Traditionally there are two reasons for staff to wear surgical masks in the
OR: firstly, to protect surgical sites from microorganisms transferred
from the faces and respiratory tract of scrubbed staff and, secondly, to
protect health care professionals from sprays and splashes of patients’
blood and body fluids during surgery.
>And for kicks and giggles some of the other studies. (You can pick which of these you think have be “de bunked”, although I can pretty much bet this is the last we will hear from you)
These threadbare models just don't cut it, three years into the pandemic.
The comprehensive review of gold-standard RCTs is far more compelling: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
Its conclusion? The real-world evidence supporting masks is utterly threadbare.
This always seemed obvious to some. After all, we had wave after wave after wave of Covid throughout our mask mandate era.
Alas, it's good to have it finally confirmed.
The dark times of mandates, masks and lockdowns have been discredited forever. They will never return.
Gozillasbday t1_j8e7xmz wrote
Did you even read this? It's a flawed study that admits people didn't adhere to mask wearing.
"The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement.
There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of 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"
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments