https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18...fection-rates/

Coles: Masks are useless


A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection.

“The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use,” the authors summarized their results.


While mask-wearing has been advertised by health officials all around the world, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, the Danish researchers found that there was no statistically significant difference between wearing a mask or not in preventing people from contracting COVID-19.

“In the third post hoc analysis, which investigated constellations of patient characteristics, we did not find a subgroup where face masks were effective at conventional levels of statistical significance,” researchers found.

The randomized-control trial, which is considered the “gold-standard” design for scientific research, had a large sample size of more than 6,000 people. Most studies conducted on various kinds of face masks against various coronaviruses are neither randomized, controlled trials nor conducted regarding the specific SARS-CoV-2 virus currently affecting the world.

This clinical trial was conducted from April through June in Denmark, a largely unmasked area with government recommendations only to social distance and wash hands frequently as the country began to reopen in May. Roughly half of the 6,024 participants, 4,862 of whom completed the study, were randomly assigned to wear surgical masks “outside the home among other persons together” while the other half continued to operate in public without a mask.

After a month, 42 of the mask-wearers in the study (1.8 percent) were infected with the virus while 53 of the non-mask-wearers (2.1. percent) were infected with the virus. Statistically, this is not a significant difference between the two groups, suggesting these infection differences were a product of chance, say the study authors.

“The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results,” the study states. “Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.”

Some have noted Denmark’s population at the time of the study was less than 2 percent infected, participants were in charge of reporting their own COVID-19 tests, and other limitations. Dr. Christine Laine, editor-in-chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine, where the study is published, told The New York Times the research shows masks “are not a magic bullet.” In an article, Laine and other editors defended the journal’s decision to publish the study despite pushback.

“More irresponsible would be to not publish the results of carefully designed research because the findings were not as favorable or definitive as some may have hoped,” they wrote.

The mask study one of the largest of its kind ever completed.

“These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect,” the study states, noting that the trial “did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism

lol

feelsbadman srs

Right? Lol@ maskcells.

I am a part time maskcell...Feelsbatman

Only way to protect yourself is to be an FA remote worker

inb4 but they're supposed to protect others not the wearer and we learn that somehow cloth masks are unidirectional

Saw a chick wearing 2 masks yesterday also one wearing goggles and a mask, lmao peak clown world

So the maskcells got sick at the same or faster rate because other maskcells didn't wear masks in the maskcell only zone?

Fuark, Brb doing another study

Unless you go full hazmat suit, it's just part of your clown outfit for this clown world.

Canadian gubbment says we should wear masks while fukking.

Real quick, how does one perform oral sex with a mask on? Or is it like eating in a restaurant, mask while walking to table only? Masks during foreplay, but you can remove it for other actions?

Just tryin to stay legal brah. In 4 answers..

let's also shut down schools and small businesses, but keep bars/liquor stores open

Priorities brah

MaskCels, when will they learn

It would be great if most of you would just stop having sex. Already too many idiots running around.

be well

No chit.....the more we are mandated to wear masks, the more the infection rates increase.

Maskcels and Faucci are *******s

That is what maskcels will say to ignore the results of this study, and funnily it is impossible to do a study on the reverse scenario and find whether masks protect others from the infected. Based on these results, there's a very high chance they don't.

you were inb4 me, but the study did something wrong and looked at contraction rates from wearing the mask. It's already well-established that you can get the virus if you wear it. they should be looking at rate a spread FROM mask wearers, not TO, but that's going to be tough because a lot of people don't wear masks, and only wear masks when they're supposed to.

the study is just totally flawed. It tried to compare contraction rates between these two groups, but they were put into their respective communities where they experience the same spread and amt of pathogens in the air. You're going to get it regardless whether you wear the mask or not if it's already in the air, and we already know this. If you want to actually compare masks vs no masks, then you need to test what the masks claim to do, which is prevent the wearer from spreading. In that case, the mask group can ONLY ever be around other people wearing masks, and the no mask group can ONLY ever be around people not wearing masks. There's no way to control this in a city... It seems pretty obvious why they got the results that they got, the community spread both groups were exposed to was the same, and we already know that you still get it if you wear the mask, we should be more interested in if you still give it if you wear the mask.

It's almost like they want the infection rates to increase so they can enforce more lock downs and push a vaccine on us.
Tinfoilhat.

cannot imagine what would happen if this made it to the main stream media (which is likely wont because cucks)

this article is actually really interesting srs.

The article article says the opposite of what you said. I don't know if you're trolling or retarded but I negged you anyway.

I think that it is on surfaces more than you think. My theory, people are fukking around touching and adjusting their masks all the time, then touching doorknobs etc and fukking everyone over.

And masks that you breathe on constantly will be saturated with whatever is on your breath..

is anyone telling people not to touch their masks, then touch other things?

Exactly....

It's more and more blatant everyday

Infection rates = positive test, NOT actualy being sick.

A pcr test w/ 30+ cycles is useless.

A test that mistakes influenza, rhinovirus, or any of the other 32,000 covid strains is useless

sorry, must be a language thing living in Japan..

what part of the following says that masks work?

"A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection."

so if not language...are you trolling or retarded?

Also, Neg this *******.

Epidemiologists told our governor if a mandatory mask policy was introduced, new cases would be near zero within 3 weeks. Well it's been 4 months and cases never went down.

Masks do nothing, especially how they are utilized

A study like that is simply impossible. And besides, there is no reason to think that if masks don't work in one direction that they would work in the other. Sorry maskcels, you are just plain wrong.

read my comment. plus you should already know that masks don't prevent contraction. they're "supposed" to prevent spread, which this study did NOT test.

ya, I couldnt imagine how you would design a study like that.