The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

Archy1221 said:
Mad.. :laughpound    

I mean I and most of society has moved on as teach said earlier.  Why you so mad about learning that societal mask mandates didn’t work?  

The only ones who seem mad are those who had their narrative busted yet keep trying to hold on to it 
Click to expand...
Also, to say "they don't work" and "they didn't work" are two different things. Just so you know. 

 
knapplc said:
Someone better tell the tens of millions of medical professionals wearing masks in hospitals, ORs and ERs that they're all wasting their time.

OR people could stop being stupid about wearing a bit of cloth on their face from time to time and we can all be adults.
Click to expand...
Just to put a bow on how ridiculous the comparison is….

This past Friday/Saturday I worked a Society meeting of medical/surgical professionals meaning they see both clinic based patients and surgical patients.  The meeting was held inside a hotel ballroom with at least a hundred attendees grouped together.  Want to know how many wore a mask during the meeting??  2 that I saw.  
 

Now remember, these are the same people you are saying we should tell that they are wasting their time :lol:

 
Scarlet said:
Yep @Archy1221didn't read nor understand it
Click to expand...
:dunno   :facepalm:   
 

Just checking to see if you read her thread?

If you did, you would realize she didn’t dispute the study outside of saying it involved RCT’s.  Yet on post 7, she says the earlier non-RCT’s came to the same conclusion.  Hmmm

She is basically just complaining that there isn’t more data on the subject while stating all the data to date agrees with the outcome of the Cochran analysis :dunno    

Do you understand this? 

 
I guess it is not over, not for the Big Ten anyway.  Minny BB had to cancel their game with Illinois tomorrow because of Covid.

 this is getting stupid.  Is the Big Ten the only conference still postponing games?

 
Archy1221 said:
:dunno   :facepalm:   
 

Just checking to see if you read her thread?

If you did, you would realize she didn’t dispute the study outside of saying it involved RCT’s.  Yet on post 7, she says the earlier non-RCT’s came to the same conclusion.  Hmmm

She is basically just complaining that there isn’t more data on the subject while stating all the data to date agrees with the outcome of the Cochran analysis :dunno    

Do you understand this? 
Click to expand...
She's pointing out that the Cochran study was mainly based on studies conducted BEFORE the covid pandemic:


Plus the study doesn't have sufficient evidence to draw strong conclusions (like you are doing). And the study doesn't take into account whether masking mandates were complied with:


Not quite the slam dunk that you are claiming.

 
Archy1221 said:
Just to put a bow on how ridiculous the comparison is….

This past Friday/Saturday I worked a Society meeting of medical/surgical professionals meaning they see both clinic based patients and surgical patients.  The meeting was held inside a hotel ballroom with at least a hundred attendees grouped together.  Want to know how many wore a mask during the meeting??  2 that I saw.  
 

Now remember, these are the same people you are saying we should tell that they are wasting their time :lol:
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between February 4th and 5th 2023 and the summer of 2020 as far as knowledge of the virus, how fast it really was going to spread, how deadly it was going to be and....one era has nobody vaccinated while the other era has many people vaccinated.

Really meaningless to try to equate sitting around a room today with a group of people and the early months of the pandemic.

 
Archy1221 said:
Puts the nail in the coffin on mask mandates.  Study comes from the Cochran Institute even.  
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11702865/Masks-make-little-no-difference-Covid-infections-massive-cross-country-meta-analysis-finds.html
Click to expand...




Because the folks at Cochrane are responsible scientists, they are reluctant to draw the firm conclusions that the Daily Mail loves to turn into clickbait. 

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.

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. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

 
Back
Top