Nice cherry picking from google
I’m looking for data.. not some “journalists” opinion on the data
I’m looking for data.. not some “journalists” opinion on the data
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Wearing Masks
- Thread starter EsterEssence
- Start date
- Status
Absolem
Active member
MIT deals in data. It's what they look at. How is using MIT as a source cheery picking?
"The paper, “Causal Impact of Masks, Policies, Behavior on Early Covid-19 Pandemic in the U.S.,” has been posted on the MedRxiv preprint server and as part of the Covid Economics paper series by the Center for Economic Policy Research in London. The authors are Chernozhukov; Hiroyuki Kasahara, a professor at the Vancouver School of Economics at the University of British Columbia; and Paul Schrimpf, an associate professor at the Vancouver School of Economics at the University of British Columbia."
That’s an article from mit news.
Written by a journalist.
It’s not a study or an analysis of a study.
It’s some ducking guy giving u his opinion.
I linked to an actual study.
I know u will have to look at the data urself and form ur own opinion which is hard for you.
Some people prefer their opinions to be spoon fed sludge like baby food.
MO, always a ray of sunshine and truth. Cough, cough.
You mentioned in an earlier post CLOTH MASKS are only for butch's and effeminate men....you must have experience or curious which you mirror more?
The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks provide some protection if well designed and used correctly.
It's not used in medical healthcare, yet, ample for outside/inside use, so WRONG-O , MO. It does decrease exposure to COVID.
Have several with washable carbon filters, adding a layer more protection. Cloth masks need to be snug on face with no gaps under chin.
You mentioned in an earlier post CLOTH MASKS are only for butch's and effeminate men....you must have experience or curious which you mirror more?
The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks provide some protection if well designed and used correctly.
It's not used in medical healthcare, yet, ample for outside/inside use, so WRONG-O , MO. It does decrease exposure to COVID.
Have several with washable carbon filters, adding a layer more protection. Cloth masks need to be snug on face with no gaps under chin.
Absolem
Active member
Could you quote the part of your link you want me to look at. It's mostly about people with obesity being more at risk.
"Mask usage by the public is postulated to decrease infection by blocking the spread of respiratory droplets,1 and was successfully implemented during other coronavirus outbreaks (i.e., SARS and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome).6 In the context of the ongoing pandemic, we assessed the impact of masks on per-capita COVID-19–related mortality, controlling for the aforementioned factors. We hypothesized that in countries where mask use was either an accepted cultural norm or favored by government policies on a national level, the per-capita mortality might be reduced, as compared with countries which did not advocate masks."
You are quite right...it does help.....not like healthcare grade masks, but better than a dirt sock or nothing.
Soon, requirements will be such using a mask indoors- cloth masks do work.
Idgaf if u look at it at all.
Was just saying there is data regarding mask mandates and other public health measures for 183 countries.
Some of the data is in that study.
I’m so sorry it hasn’t been compressed into a two paragraph article written at fifth grade level for you (from the prestigious mit news)
Your probably better off to just pretend it never happened.
Absolem
Active member
I do consulting work and my days are spent reading data. I read the entire link you gave me. Even posted a quote from it. But yet you have posted no quotes.
What part of your link backs up your claims? It's not there if you even read it.
The FEDeral government wants you to wear a mask.
Even thought the data clearly shows mask mandates have negligible effect on infection rates.
I guess it’s not longer about trusting the science but in having FAITH in ur fearless leaders like arid
Even thought the data clearly shows mask mandates have negligible effect on infection rates.
I guess it’s not longer about trusting the science but in having FAITH in ur fearless leaders like arid
Absolem
Active member
You haven't posted any data to back up your claims. The link you gave us said no such thing.
You say you trust science but can't post the science to back up what you say. Shouldn't be this hard to back up your claim.
PopAndSonGrows
New member
over 370 pages of people arguing about common sense. Wow.
For real though. . ...covering your nasty ass mouth is more effective than NOT covering it, in terms of mitigating the spread of a respiratory disease.
IT'S. THAT. SIMPLE. If you really need an "expert" to tell you that, YOU should be the MFer that stays home.
For real though. . ...covering your nasty ass mouth is more effective than NOT covering it, in terms of mitigating the spread of a respiratory disease.
IT'S. THAT. SIMPLE. If you really need an "expert" to tell you that, YOU should be the MFer that stays home.
Absolem
Active member
mowood.
More from your link. It says the opposite of what you claim. lol. Thanks for giving us a link that backs up what we have been telling you. Excellent self own.
"Was the association of mask usage with lower mortality an artifact of including countries for which the outbreak had only recently arrived? We repeated the model of Supplemental Table A4 using only the 187 countries for which the outbreak was estimated to have begun at least 60 days before the mortality assessment on May 9 (i.e., by March 17). Once again, masks were significantly associated with lower mortality (P < 0.001). Each week that masks were recommended during the outbreak was associated with an 8.1% increase in per-capita mortality (instead of the 55.7% increase seen each week when masks were not recommended). The prevalence of age older than 60 years (P < 0.001) and urbanization (P = 0.03) were associated with higher per-capita mortality, whereas the time since the start of international travel restrictions continued to be associated with lower mortality (P = 0.045). Duration of the lockdown (P = 0.83) and temperature (P = 0.99) were not associated with mortality. The model explained 48.7% of the variation in per-capita mortality."
More from your link. It says the opposite of what you claim. lol. Thanks for giving us a link that backs up what we have been telling you. Excellent self own.
"Was the association of mask usage with lower mortality an artifact of including countries for which the outbreak had only recently arrived? We repeated the model of Supplemental Table A4 using only the 187 countries for which the outbreak was estimated to have begun at least 60 days before the mortality assessment on May 9 (i.e., by March 17). Once again, masks were significantly associated with lower mortality (P < 0.001). Each week that masks were recommended during the outbreak was associated with an 8.1% increase in per-capita mortality (instead of the 55.7% increase seen each week when masks were not recommended). The prevalence of age older than 60 years (P < 0.001) and urbanization (P = 0.03) were associated with higher per-capita mortality, whereas the time since the start of international travel restrictions continued to be associated with lower mortality (P = 0.045). Duration of the lockdown (P = 0.83) and temperature (P = 0.99) were not associated with mortality. The model explained 48.7% of the variation in per-capita mortality."
Listen I’m not writing a paper for you or anyone,
U aren’t gonna believe what I posit and vice versa.
I’m writing these posts for people that aren’t religious zealots... people with the ability to look at data sets regarding mask MANDATES and see that they clearly show in almost all of the 183 countries very little to any correlation between mask mandates and infection rates.
It’s not rocket science...
I’m just saying the government ordering people to do things usually doesn’t work.
It hasn’t with drugs, booze...
And it hasn’t with masks
Anyway, someday mayb you will take a look...
You should check out @tomwoods YouTube video on the fact free covid dystopia and or the covid cult
He has all of the data cited and referenced in the notes on the talk....
It’s all gonna come out in the wash and u covid hysterics should be afraid of your countrymen... not some virus with a 99% recovery rate.
Last edited:
some shit leaves stains that will be visible forever. we'll see whose hands are dirty before it is over.
I wasnt speaking of mask usage.. I was speaking of mask mandates.. do I need to explain the difference between voluntary and mandatory?
The difference between rape and consent ?
Anyway I was looking real fast for anything with the raw data, I do realize that study claims a positive relationship
Between wearing cloth masks and viral infection rates... which may or may not be true..
What the data does clearly show is that mask mandates don’t do shit for viral spread
Eloquent as always.
I think trump dog has worn off on u all.
It’s in ur verbiage.
Ur subconsciously copying him.
It’s sooo cute
Come make me
Absolem
Active member
Spoken like a politician. "What I was speaking about isn't what I was speaking about".
- Status
