Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » New research shows CDC exaggerated the evidence for masks to fight COVID
  1. Results 31 to 60 of 252
  2. Page 2 of 9
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  8. 4
  10. Last

Thread: New research shows CDC exaggerated the evidence for masks to fight COVID

post 1676932973 02-10-2023, 01:19 PM
-
#31
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By ImpressiveGainz⏩
Bandanas, crocheted masks, balaclavas...etc. These were all deemed ACCEPTABLE by people as "masks" in most places across the country. Are you just ignoring this fact?
Policy and politics aren't the same as science and evidence.

Just because policy and people made silly choices, doesn't mean there are no good choices available or benefit to sensible mitigation strategies.
post 1676933023 02-10-2023, 01:20 PM
-
#32
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Dave22reborn⏩
Are you slow? What happens if you don't wear a seatbelt correctly, and you get into a head on collision?

I'm really starting to believe you're on the spectrum.
Right. So if someone doesn't benefit from a seatbelt, because they used it improperly, that does not mean seatbelts are useless. It means human error can have consequences.
post 1676933053 02-10-2023, 01:21 PM
-
#33
  1. InVentive44
  2. Snakin down your chimney
  1. InVentive44
  2. Snakin down your chimney
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Posts: 12,842
  5. Rep Power: 108456
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Policy and politics aren't the same as science and evidence.

Just because policy and people made silly choices, doesn't mean there are no good choices available or benefit to sensible mitigation strategies.
The science stated that they worked you Fuking dolt
Superight Crew
AntiVaxx Cew
COVID is a jok Crew
post 1676933183 02-10-2023, 01:22 PM
-
#34
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By InVentive44⏩
The science stated that they worked you Fuking dolt
Which science? Let's evaluate the studies
post 1676933263 02-10-2023, 01:24 PM
-
#35
  1. jtaylor2010
  1. jtaylor2010
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,186
  6. Rep Power: 441422
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
It's not the item that is basis of the argument. My point is that something doesn't become useless simply because some people use the item improperly.

I previously used a firearm analogy. If someone has an ND while holstering a pistol, are holsters useless or bad? Are pistols useless or bad? Or does the operator need some training?
But your analogy is trash because cloth masks don’t work even if the user does “wear them correctly”. So the seatbelt analogy for this thread would be

“There are some seatbelts that may help prevent injuries in a crash, but it isn’t feasible to have them used in all cars and 95+% of people are driving around with a cloth seat belt that is going to do fukk all in a crash and policies treat all seatbelts the same….then some people wonder why seat belt usage has no impact on car crash injuries”.
post 1676933353 02-10-2023, 01:24 PM
-
#36
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 27,464
  5. Rep Power: 171374
It's all pretty simple. The media and public health officials oversold the fear right away, especially to the majority population that were at incredibly low risk (people under ~55). The lie that masks were effective was to keep people comfortable clothes shopping, grandma going to the grocery store, college students not dropping out for a full school year. Thanks to the oversold fear propaganda a lot of 30 yr olds allowed to go back to work weren't going without the masks. It's the sole reason Fauci went from mocking masks to a week later saying they'd be effective.

The media couldn't undo their fear lies so to prevent economic collapse, here's a lucky rabbit's foot guyz. It's effective, contrary to decades of proof it isn't. This time it's different, trust us bro.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
post 1676933373 02-10-2023, 01:25 PM
-
#37
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
But your analogy is trash because cloth masks don’t work even if the user does “wear them correctly”. So the seatbelt analogy for this thread would be

“There are some seatbelts that will help prevent injuries in a crash, yet 95+% of people are driving around with a cloth seat belt that is going to do fukk all in a crash and policies treat all seatbelts the same….then some people wonder why seat belt usage has no impact on car crash injuries”.
I entered the thread discussing fit testing for N95 respirators.

Cloth masks made no sense. They might have helped slightly to reduce droplets, but covid's primary transmission route is aerosol.
post 1676933793 02-10-2023, 01:30 PM
-
#38
  1. Stizzel
  2. Rothbardian
  1. Stizzel
  2. Rothbardian
  3. Join Date: Apr 2008
  4. Location: Your Mom
  5. Posts: 83,768
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 384441
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
I entered the thread discussing fit testing for N95 respirators.

Cloth masks made no sense. They might have helped slightly to reduce droplets, but covid's primary transmission route is aerosol.
Do you still wear a mask?

If so does your husband wear one also?
“It’s the bill of rights, not the bill of requests. Rights are not up for negotiations.” Thomas Massie, MAGA enemy #1
post 1676933823 02-10-2023, 01:30 PM
-
#39
  1. jtaylor2010
  1. jtaylor2010
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,186
  6. Rep Power: 441422
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
I entered the thread discussing fit testing for N95 respirators.

Cloth masks made no sense. They might have helped slightly to reduce droplets, but covid's primary transmission route is aerosol.
Thanks for admitting that you entered the thread to deflect away from yet another lie from the establishment.
post 1676934003 02-10-2023, 01:33 PM
-
#40
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Stizzel⏩
Do you still wear a mask?

If so does your husband wear one also?
post 1676934023 02-10-2023, 01:34 PM
-
#41
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
Thanks for admitting that you entered the thread to deflect away from yet another lie from the establishment.
No, I was addressing a post from JUSA. I quoted it in my reply.
post 1676934203 02-10-2023, 01:38 PM
-
#42
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 27,464
  5. Rep Power: 171374
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Which science? Let's evaluate the studies
The highest to be found on the pro side of masks is them making people 10% less likely to get infected. But you'll continue arguing an already lost argument because you're close-minded.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
post 1676934323 02-10-2023, 01:39 PM
-
#43
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
The highest to be found on the pro side of masks is them making people 10% less likely to get infected. But you'll continue arguing an already lost argument because you're close-minded.
Can you share it so we can review it together?

This one found a 19% reduction in R with community mask wearing:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2119266119
post 1676934513 02-10-2023, 01:42 PM
-
#44
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
It's even Bayesian <3


"We directly analyze the effect of mask wearing on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, drawing on several datasets covering 92 regions on six continents, including the largest survey of wearing behavior (n= 20 million) [F. Kreuter et al.,https://gisumd.github.io/COVID-19-API-Documentation(2020)]. Using a Bayesian hierarchical model, we estimate the effect of mask wearing on transmission, by linking reported wearing levels to reported cases in each region, while adjusting for mobility and nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as bans on large gatherings. Our estimates imply that the mean observed level of mask wearing corresponds to a 19% decrease in the reproduction number R. We also assess the robustness of our results in 60 tests spanning 20 sensitivity analyses. In light of these results, policy makers can effectively reduce transmission by intervening to increase mask wearing."
post 1676934713 02-10-2023, 01:45 PM
-
#45
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
All of the data and code are available, so it's a good one to get into.
post 1676935793 02-10-2023, 02:04 PM
-
#46
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  3. Join Date: Jan 2005
  4. Location: Ill.
  5. Posts: 120,479
  6. Rep Power: 316531
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
The highest to be found on the pro side of masks is them making people 10% less likely to get infected. But you'll continue arguing an already lost argument because you're close-minded.
A seatbelt protects the person wearing it, does a mask protect the person wearing it?
post 1676936853 02-10-2023, 02:23 PM
-
#47
  1. jtaylor2010
  1. jtaylor2010
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,186
  6. Rep Power: 441422
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
No, I was addressing a post from JUSA. I quoted it in my reply.
Right…you ignored all the posts talking about the subject of the thread, and ignored the vast majority of JUSA’s post in order to hone in on one tiny part of it in hopes of steering the whole conversation in that direction, which means away from the topic of yet another huge lie fed to the population. A lie that resulted in millions(billions?) of people breathing in harmful things for no reason, adding literally thousands of tons of unnecessary trash to our earth, and stunting lots of kids emotional development while adding to anxiety. Would you like to discuss any of that?
post 1676937013 02-10-2023, 02:26 PM
-
#48
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
Right…you ignored all the posts talking about the subject of the thread, and ignored the vast majority of JUSA’s post in order to hone in on one tiny part of it in hopes of steering the whole conversation in that direction, which means away from the topic of yet another huge lie fed to the population. A lie that resulted in millions(billions?) of people breathing in harmful things for no reason, adding literally thousands of tons of unnecessary trash to our earth, and stunting lots of kids emotional development while adding to anxiety. Would you like to discuss any of that?
Sure.

Do you have anything you can share regarding stunted emotional development or adding anxiety with mask use?

Let's dig into it!
post 1676937153 02-10-2023, 02:30 PM
-
#49
  1. litljay
  2. Time to Work
  1. litljay
  2. Time to Work
  3. Join Date: Oct 2009
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Age: 53
  6. Posts: 17,547
  7. Rep Power: 123114
From the OP dataset
We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic.
RCT=Randomly Controlled Trial
.Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks

We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).

N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks

We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low‐certainty evidence).

One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non‐inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID‐19 patients.
You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great.
post 1676937383 02-10-2023, 02:34 PM
-
#50
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By litljay⏩
From the OP dataset
RCT=Randomly Controlled Trial
Also from the OP

Authors' conclusions

"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 of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children."
post 1676937513 02-10-2023, 02:37 PM
-
#51
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
"What are the limitations of the evidence?

Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory‐confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators. The results might change when further evidence becomes available. Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies. "
post 1676937803 02-10-2023, 02:43 PM
-
#52
  1. litljay
  2. Time to Work
  1. litljay
  2. Time to Work
  3. Join Date: Oct 2009
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Age: 53
  6. Posts: 17,547
  7. Rep Power: 123114
So, the way the CDC, NIH, and FDA, along with all of the other "public health agencies" around the country handled masking resulted in:

1. masks being ineffective
2. distrust in the public health agencies.
You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great.
post 1676937993 02-10-2023, 02:47 PM
-
#53
  1. sfgiants13
  2. Էպշտեյնը իրեն չսպանեց
  1. sfgiants13
  2. Էպշտեյնը իրեն չսպանեց
  3. Join Date: Feb 2003
  4. Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
  5. Posts: 12,532
  6. Rep Power: 88624
All of the studies the cdc used to justify mandates were garbage and got rightfully criticized. Unfortunately the msm and those with power never let that criticism see the light of day. The studies, especially the ones promoting masks in schools, were chit and already had a pre decided outcome in their favor before the “study” started. An end to justify a means so to speak.
post 1676938003 02-10-2023, 02:47 PM
-
#54
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By litljay⏩
So, the way the CDC, NIH, and FDA, along with all of the other "public health agencies" around the country handled masking resulted in:

1. masks being ineffective
2. distrust in the public health agencies.
Number 2, definitely.

Number 1, not so much.
post 1676938183 02-10-2023, 02:54 PM
-
#55
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By sfgiants13⏩
All of the studies the cdc used to justify mandates were garbage and got rightfully criticized. Unfortunately the msm and those with power never let that criticism see the light of day. The studies, especially the ones promoting masks in schools, were chit and already had a pre decided outcome in their favor before the “study” started. An end to justify a means so to speak.
The Alberta government did an accidental experiment where some school boards required masks and others did not. There were three times more outbreaks in schools without mask policies and increased adult hospitalizations in those communities as well.
post 1676938293 02-10-2023, 02:57 PM
-
#56
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,153
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98572
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
I entered the thread discussing fit testing for N95 respirators.
There's always some confusion about what you're talking about here.

Most people think of N95 masks as the ones similar to the surgical masks, a filter that is held on with rubber bands that doesn't do much of anything. None of those are fitted, there's only one size.

You can also get N95 cartridge filters for silicone face masks. They only come in three sizes that I'm aware of. Most of the fitting is just getting the straps tight enough to form a seal.


I wore a mask during covid just so I wasn't that ******* making things difficult for store or restaurant employees. I knew from years of construction work that even for sawdust the silicone masks with various cartridges were the only thing worth wearing.
post 1676938463 02-10-2023, 03:02 PM
-
#57
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Seatard⏩
There's always some confusion about what you're talking about here.

Most people think of N95 masks as the ones similar to the surgical masks, a filter that is held on with rubber bands that doesn't do much of anything. None of those are fitted, there's only one size.

You can also get N95 cartridge filters for silicone face masks. They only come in three sizes that I'm aware of. Most of the fitting is just getting the straps tight enough to form a seal.


I wore a mask during covid just so I wasn't that ******* making things difficult for store or restaurant employees. I knew from years of construction work that even for sawdust the silicone masks with various cartridges were the only thing worth wearing.
post 1676938983 02-10-2023, 03:13 PM
-
#58
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,153
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98572
^^^


Yep, that's one (nice) version of a mask where the filter material is N95 rated. It doesn't seal worth a chit against your face though.
post 1676939073 02-10-2023, 03:15 PM
-
#59
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Seatard⏩
^^^


Yep, that's one (nice) version of mask where the filter material is N95 rated. It doesn't seal worth a chit on your face though.
The picture depicts an N95 respirator. The type referred to in these studies.

Those are what are fit tested in medical settings.
post 1676939273 02-10-2023, 03:19 PM
-
#60
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 27,464
  5. Rep Power: 171374
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Can you share it so we can review it together?

This one found a 19% reduction in R with community mask wearing:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2119266119
But did they really though? To go through it would take hours. From what I skimmed the authors mention plenty of numbers from tons of other studies as well. 3-10% from one, 8.6% from another, and so on. I notice they dismiss the Bangladesh study because it's Bangladesh. Lolz. Oh yes let me spend the entire weekend splitting hairs with you about one insignificant number vs. another insignificant number.

As the Cochrane library analysis said, little to no benefit. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts