Welp. Its official. Masks are useless.

[frutistafreeze]

lol

Actually plays perfectly into all of this. Tell people that masks work, when in reality they don't and are more likely to get sick because of them. The infection rates will continue to rise even with the mask mandates, people will panic and be open to even stricter regulations.

[Hutrapper]

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.

People who wore masks actually were actually at slightly higher risk of contracting it than non mask users.

Why would that be? One would assume the people in both tests were physically around the same number of people also wearing masks.

Why would the contraction rate be higher when wearing masks? If they did nothing to prevent catching COVID, and only worked to prevent others from catching it, why did mask weares catch it more frequently?

Also, when mask wearing was implemented why are transmission rates going up?

We as a world are missing something.

[sooby]

I have my doubts about how effective masks are, especially the non-medical ones. Basically cases were dropping to fairly low levels before the mask mandate here.


But that study was looking infection rates for the user that wears the mask versus somebody that isn't wearing the mask. The argument for masks is that you wear it to protect other people not yourself. It also states that it didn't test source control for the infection.

I think possibly those who wore masks probably thought they were more effective in preventing the spread of the virus so they probably engaged in more "risky" behaviour such as large gatherings which could explain higher infection rates. I think we all know that maintaining distance is way more effective than a mask, you're probably not going to catch a virus from some dude a few metres away from you and that being in close contact with a person regardless of having a mask or not puts you at a much higher risk.

Would be interesting to see if a RCT study could be designed around tracking the rate of spread and infection rates between communities that wear masks vs communities that don't wear masks, rather than simply an individual that wears/not wears a mask and try to control the other variables at play there.

you can't conclude on this study that masks are useless. at the same token, there really isn't any compelling evidence that cloth masks significantly reduce the infection rates and spread in a community to the point where a mask mandate is justified.

[Hutrapper]

To add to my point, I have less and less confidence that anyone is in charge and anyone has even the foggiest idea of what to actually do.

I will continue to wear a mask where required, but feel bad for citycells.

Lives being fukked over because no one really knows what the fuk to do.

[PenorBrahNoHomo]

But that study was looking infection rates for the user that wears the mask versus somebody that isn't wearing the mask. The argument for masks is that you wear it to protect other people not yourself. It also states that it didn't test source control for the infection.

Seems to me it's an untestable, or at least untested, hypothesis. Designing policy based on such a hypothesis while claiming to be scientific is what governments are doing.

[Ninshark]

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.

there isn't anything plain wrong besides the article in question. I already know such a study would pretty much be impossible, but I'm just telling you how science should be done. If it's not done to those standards, we cannot draw any useful conclusions about it. and regarding directionality, I see what you're saying, but you're looking at it in a very narrow way. You're only looking at it as the virus particles traveling through the mask material, but you should also consider imperfect fit and the direction of air flow. If the droplets are already in the air, then they'll go through the holes due to imperfect fit and the mask-wearer probably would still catch the virus. So a study should look at the concentration of droplets in the air. If the mask-wearer is sick, we may hypothesize that the droplets are caught by the mask material and a few slip out backwards through the holes of improper fit. This study should look at whether mask-wearing reduces the amt of total droplets that end up airborne to test that claim. Instead though, the study just said something we already knew, but it adds more negativity toward masks. It's really quite lame, just like if some kid's pants fly is open in class and everyone laughs at him for 5 minutes, and then stop, then another kid makes the intelligent comment, hey your fly is open. It's really kind of a useless comment.

[Hutrapper]

I have my doubts about how effective masks are, especially the non-medical ones. Basically cases were dropping to fairly low levels before the mask mandate here.


But that study was looking infection rates for the user that wears the mask versus somebody that isn't wearing the mask. The argument for masks is that you wear it to protect other people not yourself. It also states that it didn't test source control for the infection.

I think possibly those who wore masks probably thought they were more effective in preventing the spread of the virus so they probably engaged in more "risky" behaviour such as large gatherings which could explain higher infection rates. I think we all know that maintaining distance is way more effective than a mask, you're probably not going to catch a virus from some dude a few metres away from you.

Would be interesting to see if a RCT study could be designed around tracking the rate of spread and infection rates between communities that wear masks vs communities that don't wear masks, rather than simply an individual that wears/not wears a mask and try to control the other variables at play there.

you can't conclude on this study that masks are useless. at the same token, there really isn't any compelling evidence that cloth masks significantly reduce the infection rates and spread in a community to the point where a mask mandate is justified.

No one has any fukkin idea.

I'm just trying to avoid people. lol

[elterrible987]

but muh dropplets

but south korea


inb4 panicels argue with this medical study claiming they know better science than the experts because this was disproves the other BS we have been fed

[nosirrahx]

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

I saw a guy with an illuminated helmet driving.

Its like a competition to prove you how pro mask you are.

[frankdtank20]

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..

In the UK they banned sex with someone you don't live with weeks ago.

[Jatt24]

Well they told me that if I voted for joe Biden, I can’t get the virus.

So jakes on you OP

[PenorBrahNoHomo]

there isn't anything plain wrong besides the article in question. I already know such a study would pretty much be impossible, but I'm just telling you how science should be done. If it's not done to those standards, we cannot draw any useful conclusions about it. and regarding directionality, I see what you're saying, but you're looking at it in a very narrow way. You're only looking at it as the virus particles traveling through the mask material, but you should also consider imperfect fit and the direction of air flow. If the droplets are already in the air, then they'll go through the holes due to imperfect fit and the mask-wearer probably would still catch the virus. So a study should look at the concentration of droplets in the air. If the mask-wearer is sick, we may hypothesize that the droplets are caught by the mask material and a few slip out backwards through the holes of improper fit. This study should look at whether mask-wearing reduces the amt of total droplets that end up airborne to test that claim. Instead though, the study just said something we already knew, but it adds more negativity toward masks. It's really quite lame, just like if some kid's pants fly is open in class and everyone laughs at him for 5 minutes, and then stop, then another kid makes the intelligent comment, hey your fly is open. It's really kind of a useless comment.

Maskcels are wrong, because they assume masks prevent spread, with no good evidence, and also claim to be following the science but ignore science which goes against their assumption.


My government said this earlier in the year, and then proceeded to enforce mask mandates. Why would they do that?

[BloodFireDeath]

What type of masks are they talking about? Incel variety cloth, simple surgical masks or n95s?

[elterrible987]

there isn't anything plain wrong besides the article in question. I already know such a study would pretty much be impossible, but I'm just telling you how science should be done. If it's not done to those standards, we cannot draw any useful conclusions about it. and regarding directionality, I see what you're saying, but you're looking at it in a very narrow way. You're only looking at it as the virus particles traveling through the mask material, but you should also consider imperfect fit and the direction of air flow. If the droplets are already in the air, then they'll go through the holes due to imperfect fit and the mask-wearer probably would still catch the virus. So a study should look at the concentration of droplets in the air. If the mask-wearer is sick, we may hypothesize that the droplets are caught by the mask material and a few slip out backwards through the holes of improper fit. This study should look at whether mask-wearing reduces the amt of total droplets that end up airborne to test that claim. Instead though, the study just said something we already knew, but it adds more negativity toward masks. It's really quite lame, just like if some kid's pants fly is open in class and everyone laughs at him for 5 minutes, and then stop, then another kid makes the intelligent comment, hey your fly is open. It's really kind of a useless comment.

they got laws and executive orders saying we must wear masks of arbitrary and unknown filtration ability from whatever material of our choosing. A lot of the laws allow for a face shield in lieu of a mask. These mask and face shields are not required to meet any spec or certification.

its a fuking joke

muh science

[Hutrapper]

there isn't anything plain wrong besides the article in question. I already know such a study would pretty much be impossible, but I'm just telling you how science should be done. If it's not done to those standards, we cannot draw any useful conclusions about it. and regarding directionality, I see what you're saying, but you're looking at it in a very narrow way. You're only looking at it as the virus particles traveling through the mask material, but you should also consider imperfect fit and the direction of air flow. If the droplets are already in the air, then they'll go through the holes due to imperfect fit and the mask-wearer probably would still catch the virus. So a study should look at the concentration of droplets in the air. If the mask-wearer is sick, we may hypothesize that the droplets are caught by the mask material and a few slip out backwards through the holes of improper fit. This study should look at whether mask-wearing reduces the amt of total droplets that end up airborne to test that claim. Instead though, the study just said something we already knew, but it adds more negativity toward masks. It's really quite lame, just like if some kid's pants fly is open in class and everyone laughs at him for 5 minutes, and then stop, then another kid makes the intelligent comment, hey your fly is open. It's really kind of a useless comment.

although its a very weak correlation, based on this study it could be argued that for the individual wearer, wearing a mask could increase your individual chances of catching it.

[Hutrapper]

In the UK they banned sex with someone you don't live with weeks ago.

da fuk

[ImpressiveGainz]

Wear your mask, pleb! The important people have things to do!

[frankdtank20]

I saw a guy with an illuminated helmet driving.

Its like a competition to prove you how pro mask you are.

I know people that are posting selfies of driving with a mask on. By themselves of course. On election day, that "I voted" sticker had to be seen too. Gonna break their backs if they try virtue signaling any harder.

[Slie]

People who wore masks actually were actually at slightly higher risk of contracting it than non mask users.

Why would that be? One would assume the people in both tests were physically around the same number of people also wearing masks.

Why would the contraction rate be higher when wearing masks? If they did nothing to prevent catching COVID, and only worked to prevent others from catching it, why did mask weares catch it more frequently?

Also, when mask wearing was implemented why are transmission rates going up?

We as a world are missing something.

One situation wearing a mask can increase your chances of contracting a disease is a false sense of security while misusing the mask.

Let's be real. A lot of people wearing masks don't know how to wear masks. They are a tool only as effective as the person using that tool. How many people sanitize their hands before putting on a mask, put on a mask by the straps only and don't touch the face covering? How many people re-adjust their masks only after sanitizing their hands? How many people wear masks around their chins, over their mouth but under their nose, change their masks after they become wet from moisture? How many people reuse their masks, pull down their mask to get a breath of fresh air, pull down their masks to cough/sneeze? I've seen all these examples of how not to wear mask pretty much daily.

If someone was sneezing/coughing towards you right now. Would you rather them have a mask on or would you be fine if they had no mask?

[sooby]

Seems to me it's an untestable, or at least untested, hypothesis. Designing policy based on such a hypothesis while claiming to be scientific is what governments are doing.

I don't think it's exactly impossible, there are probably some indirect and creative ways that it can be done that can test it as best as possible. There have already been some studies testing it but it was in a lab so it lacks some ecological validity, but at least there is something that could suggest it could protect others in an actual community setting. i'm not necessarily opposed to wearing a mask in general in places of business but obv govt is using this to fuel more draconian measures like full on lockdowns and mandatory vaccines which I disagree with.


I've lost alot of trust in the government and health officials as it is so I'm going to take anything that they say or recommend with a grain of salt. They've been contradictory with their recommendations and have shown they are just making stuff up as they go along.

[Hutrapper]

One situation wearing a mask can increase your chances of contracting a disease is a false sense of security while misusing the mask.

Let's be real. A lot of people wearing masks don't know how to wear masks. They are a tool only as effective as the person using that tool. How many people sanitize their hands before putting on a mask, put on a mask by the straps only and don't touch the face covering? How many people re-adjust their masks only after sanitizing their hands? How many people wear masks around their chins, over their mouth but under their nose, change their masks after they become wet from moisture? How many people reuse their masks, pull down their mask to get a breath of fresh air, pull down their masks to cough/sneeze? I've seen all these examples of how not to wear mask pretty much daily.

If someone was sneezing/coughing towards you right now. Would you rather them have a mask on or would you be fine if they had no mask?

Like I always say, you adjust your wet ass mask, then grab a door handle.

I think contact transmission is bigger than people think.

[PenorBrahNoHomo]

If someone was sneezing/coughing towards you right now. Would you rather them have a mask on or would you be fine if they had no mask?

Weak logic, the answer would be the same pre-covid. You think everyone should have been muzzled 100% of the time since forever?

[Hutrapper]

Weak logic, the answer would be the same pre-covid. You think everyone should have been muzzled 100% of the time since forever?

I once was on a 12 hour flight to Hong Kong four years ago with an Asian fella behind me coughing directly on the back of my head the whole flight.

That was nice.

[Ninshark]

Why would that be? One would assume the people in both tests were physically around the same number of people also wearing masks.

I seriously don't think you understand the ramifications of the quotes you mentioned. both groups were indeed around the same amount of people who wear masks, but that just means both groups are exposed to the same amount of pathogens - if that amount is high enough, then both groups are going to get it. there are holes due to improper fit of the masks so you're going to get it. the 2 groups got the virus because other people in the community were spreading it.

Why would the contraction rate be higher when wearing masks? If they did nothing to prevent catching COVID, and only worked to prevent others from catching it, why did mask weares catch it more frequently?

I think you answered your question yourself, they did nothing to prevent catching, only worked to prevent spread, of course the mask wearer would catch it. Did we ask if the other people in the community got it?? Nope. If they work to prevent spread, then we must test for the spread. You can't test for contraction when you know they're supposed to prevent spread. Geez... think man. I'm just trying to help people understand proper science.

Also, when mask wearing was implemented why are transmission rates going up?
.

another easy question - did we ever get to find out how high the transmission rate would go up if mask-wearing weren't implemented? It could be the case that if nobody wore masks at all since March 2020 that the transmission rate would be the same, or even higher, but we don't have those numbers. yes the transmission rate is going up, but I also know most people don't wear masks unless they're told to. So basically, we have so many other variables that are contributing to the transmission rate. You cannot draw any conclusions about wearing masks unless you are certain everyone is wearing them when they are supposed to.

[wangbadan]

If you actually want to talk results of the study you better know how confidence intervals and p-values work. But you probably don’t

[Ninshark]

Maskcels are wrong, because they assume masks prevent spread, with no good evidence, and also claim to be following the science but ignore science which goes against their assumption.


My government said this earlier in the year, and then proceeded to enforce mask mandates. Why would they do that?

would love to read this when I get this chance. I'm not a maskcel, that's just your bigotry because we have different opinions. You've settled on one thing and I am still open. Don't you get it though? OP made a statement about masks due to an article he brought up. Wouldn't it be better if he linked your article instead? The article he linked is bunk. and does everything wrong. I was literally trying to help you guys come up with a stronger argument, but you guys mistook my disagreement as hostility and ended up being hostile yourself.

[ko300zx]

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.

That would require you to find a bunch of infected individuals and send them out in the community and have them cough all over everyone, while wearing a mask, to see if they spread the disease. Something tells me that study isn't going to happen...

[PenorBrahNoHomo]

You're only looking at it as the virus particles traveling through the mask material, but you should also consider imperfect fit and the direction of air flow. If the droplets are already in the air, then they'll go through the holes due to imperfect fit and the mask-wearer probably would still catch the virus.

Air flows in and out when you breathe. If they can get in then they can get out, so the inefficacy of masks to prevent contraction obviously implies their inefficacy in preventing spread. Why are maskcels so determined to argue that masks work?

would love to read this when I get this chance. I'm not a maskcel, that's just your bigotry because we have different opinions. You've settled on one thing and I am still open. Don't you get it though? OP made a statement about masks due to an article he brought up. Wouldn't it be better if he linked your article instead? The article he linked is bunk. and does everything wrong. I was literally trying to help you guys come up with a stronger argument, but you guys mistook my disagreement as hostility and ended up being hostile yourself.

No, I am open to the possibility that masks work, if evidence can be provided. Until then my assumption is that they don't, your assumption seems to be that they do. Why?

[Hutrapper]

I seriously don't think you understand the ramifications of the quotes you mentioned. both groups were indeed around the same amount of people who wear masks, but that just means both groups are exposed to the same amount of pathogens - if that amount is high enough, then both groups are going to get it. there are holes due to improper fit of the masks so you're going to get it. the 2 groups got the virus because other people in the community were spreading it.



I think you answered your question yourself, they did nothing to prevent catching, only worked to prevent spread, of course the mask wearer would catch it. Did we ask if the other people in the community got it?? Nope. If they work to prevent spread, then we must test for the spread. You can't test for contraction when you know they're supposed to prevent spread. Geez... think man. I'm just trying to help people understand proper science.



another easy question - did we ever get to find out how high the transmission rate would go up if mask-wearing weren't implemented? It could be the case that if nobody wore masks at all since March 2020 that the transmission rate would be the same, or even higher, but we don't have those numbers. yes the transmission rate is going up, but I also know most people don't wear masks unless they're told to. So basically, we have so many other variables that are contributing to the transmission rate. You cannot draw any conclusions about wearing masks unless you are certain everyone is wearing them when they are supposed to.

so your argument is basically hinging on "people werent wearing their masks peoperly"

So in other words, just like everyone else in the world?

Also, we have to assume the variables in each group are the same. The same number of people walking around wearing them, the same number of infected people around test subjects.

So you suggesting the rate of infection in the mask group being higher is due to improper fit?

Shouldnt the maskless people get it far more if your argument is the masked people are getting it more because their masks arent fitting right?

I will concede the correlation is weak, but its there.

[sooby]

If someone was sneezing/coughing towards you right now. Would you rather them have a mask on or would you be fine if they had no mask?

That doesn't really address anything. In a real life scenario nobody is coughing or sneezing at you. If people are coughing and sneezing they are probably staying at home. Mask usage pre-covid was used so that people who are sick and exhibited symptoms could go out in public and minimize spread via any coughing or sneezing that may happen, and they weren't wearing cloth masks.

But now you are mandating everybody to wear a mask, the vast majority of whom are asymptomatic or don't have the virus.