Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
Bruddah IZ
DA
Then came DANMASK-19: The first randomized controlled trial for public masking during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In this study, “A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%)…Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.” Of course, DANMASK-19 had some limitations, with a small number of infections during trial period, antibody tests used to verify 84% of infections, difficulty in determining compliance, no blinding (not possible with participants), and self-reported data.
Yet the political pushback from the study was much more informative than the results of the study itself. First, despite no significant difference between masked and control groups in the study, the authors felt compelled to voice their support for universal masking in the discussion of the paper. Second, as an unusual decision, the journal Annals of Internal Medicine published a critique at the same time as the article authored by Tom Frieden, former CDC director and fierce advocate of universal masking. Third, the chief editor of AIM, Christine Laine, published an apologetic commentary in the same issue, defending the decision to even allow the study to be published.
The New York Times, with obvious pre-publication access to the study results, released an article originally titled “Danish Study Questions Use of Masks to Protect Wearers” that acknowledged the outcome, but also downplayed the effect that the study would have on mask mandates. Yet they changed the headline the very next day, to read “A New Study Questions Whether Masks Protect Wearers. You Need to Wear Them Anyway”.
In contrast the the advocacy journalism of the New York Times, Professor Carl Heneghan’s own analysis of the DANMASK-19 study was flagged as misinformation on Facebook.
Not surprisingly, a CDC study of a limited time period after mask mandates validated its own recommendations, with decreased cases in multiple areas of the U.S. three weeks after implementation of mask mandates. And of course this one had some limitations, too, as the only significant difference was in ages <65, and the study only examined a period of March-October, 2020, and ignored subsequent surges in the fall in many of the areas analyzed.
Interestingly, a similar study by Monica Gandhi and others was retracted, because they didn’t ignore the subsequent surges in the fall. Their retraction letter noted the group will work to publish further work using data on the 2nd and 3rd waves, but these haven’t been forthcoming, almost a full year later.
An analysis of the effect of lifting mask mandates was eventually done by independent analyst Youyang Gu, who despite being 26 years old and living with his parents, managed to develop a COVID model more accurate than the IHME. His analysis showed no differences in cases in states where mask mandates were lifted compared to those where they were retained:
Yet the political pushback from the study was much more informative than the results of the study itself. First, despite no significant difference between masked and control groups in the study, the authors felt compelled to voice their support for universal masking in the discussion of the paper. Second, as an unusual decision, the journal Annals of Internal Medicine published a critique at the same time as the article authored by Tom Frieden, former CDC director and fierce advocate of universal masking. Third, the chief editor of AIM, Christine Laine, published an apologetic commentary in the same issue, defending the decision to even allow the study to be published.
The New York Times, with obvious pre-publication access to the study results, released an article originally titled “Danish Study Questions Use of Masks to Protect Wearers” that acknowledged the outcome, but also downplayed the effect that the study would have on mask mandates. Yet they changed the headline the very next day, to read “A New Study Questions Whether Masks Protect Wearers. You Need to Wear Them Anyway”.
In contrast the the advocacy journalism of the New York Times, Professor Carl Heneghan’s own analysis of the DANMASK-19 study was flagged as misinformation on Facebook.
Not surprisingly, a CDC study of a limited time period after mask mandates validated its own recommendations, with decreased cases in multiple areas of the U.S. three weeks after implementation of mask mandates. And of course this one had some limitations, too, as the only significant difference was in ages <65, and the study only examined a period of March-October, 2020, and ignored subsequent surges in the fall in many of the areas analyzed.
Interestingly, a similar study by Monica Gandhi and others was retracted, because they didn’t ignore the subsequent surges in the fall. Their retraction letter noted the group will work to publish further work using data on the 2nd and 3rd waves, but these haven’t been forthcoming, almost a full year later.
An analysis of the effect of lifting mask mandates was eventually done by independent analyst Youyang Gu, who despite being 26 years old and living with his parents, managed to develop a COVID model more accurate than the IHME. His analysis showed no differences in cases in states where mask mandates were lifted compared to those where they were retained:
P.S. Sylvia, the best way to not catch a virus is to eat healthy, exercise daily and have talks with God everyday about how grateful you are for the amazing immune system you have. If you want to take it the levels like Crush and lose almost 45 pounds and now have six pack, well then you need to do the following: 1. Stop eating meat for 30 days. 2. Stop drinking booze for 30 days. Thirdly, take a few days and get truthful with yourself. Confess the good, bad and ugly and look for a fresh start and a new smile. Fourthly, confess out loud to the one's you need to confess to for healing purpose only, not for forgiveness. Only God forgives. It's the human's job to forgive 7 x 77 x 777 times. Tell loved one's your sorry. Look to take long walks and look for new ways to make revenue so your never owned again. 5. Follow the Light- Dr. F
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Hahaha! I feel like we've cycled through this at least once before. The bulk of the "we" on this board got the vaccine and wear masks when required. If you are going to be a preacher, you better get your message out to the unwashed masses that need it.
Again, you miss the point. It's not, "our leaders don't follow the rules, so why should I", it's "the behavior of the leaders of a culture will represent the behavior of the culture".
There is one thing that demonstrably "worked" here - the vaccine. Let's take a walk down memory lane at a headline that team fear held close not so long ago.
CDC director says face masks may offer more protection against COVID than a vaccine. Here's what other experts say.
Health experts point out that we don't yet know how effective a vaccine will be – but we do know masks help stop the spread.
www.cbsnews.com
Oops. The vaccine not only worked well in a "lab" setting, it actually worked in practice.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The most recently hyped mask study compared villages in Bangladesh that received intensive promotion, instruction, and materials for cloth or surgical masking, compared with villages that did not receive any intervention. This study reported a significant decrease in seropositive individuals, but only in those over 50 and only with surgical masks. The interpretation of this study has some serious limitations, which are well-covered here and here. First, the researchers used case numbers as a starting point to group villages without knowing testing levels, then used seropositivity as the measured outcome. Second, the researchers really pushed masks on the population, so there’s little way of knowing exactly how this affected reporting, blood sampling, and changes in other behavior, which they noted was affected in masked villages (e.g. more distancing). And it’s unlikely the modest differences observed couldn’t be easily swamped by any number of those possible confounders.
If one actually takes the time to consider the preponderance of evidence regarding universal masking, it becomes extremely difficult to conclude that it has had, or was ever expected to have, a significant effect on the course of the pandemic. The evidence certainly doesn’t come even close to matching the quasi-religious fervor exhibited by the popular media, mask-mandating helicopter politicians, or your judgy virtue-signaling neighbor. And all of the new evidence that supports universal masking should be even more suspect considering the stratospheric bias of the media, public health agencies, politicians, and a terrified public all clamoring for studies that report positive effects, despite their obvious limitations.
In contrast to evidence, it is much more easy to conclude that safety culture politics trampled our understanding of this intervention so completely and at a level previously unknown in our lifetime, that it will take years to sort out its real-world effects. And it doesn’t take a PPE expert to realize that.
If one actually takes the time to consider the preponderance of evidence regarding universal masking, it becomes extremely difficult to conclude that it has had, or was ever expected to have, a significant effect on the course of the pandemic. The evidence certainly doesn’t come even close to matching the quasi-religious fervor exhibited by the popular media, mask-mandating helicopter politicians, or your judgy virtue-signaling neighbor. And all of the new evidence that supports universal masking should be even more suspect considering the stratospheric bias of the media, public health agencies, politicians, and a terrified public all clamoring for studies that report positive effects, despite their obvious limitations.
In contrast to evidence, it is much more easy to conclude that safety culture politics trampled our understanding of this intervention so completely and at a level previously unknown in our lifetime, that it will take years to sort out its real-world effects. And it doesn’t take a PPE expert to realize that.
What are you mad at me for? I told you that you could go back to telling yourself fairy tales. Just say those experts don’t know anything, and that even Taiwan had someone die last Tuesday, therefore it is all equal.
I mean, you’ll still be wrong, but you’ll feel better about it.
what-happened
GOLD
Funny statement given what I do for a living. I've learned you can't save everyone. The old saying you can lead a horse to water.....is quite true when dealing with human beings.
Who said I was mad at you? I love preachers. Y’all are fun. One of most intellectually satisfying years of my life was my 3l year where I was basically decamped at the div school for the guy I was seeing.
you are the one who is all po’d at the experts being constantly wrong and us outsiders being more right than they were. It puts your world upside since that’s not the way things are supposed to operate
and it’s a huge assumption that I don’t feel good about it. My thing is enlightenment reasoning and I feel hella good having stood up for it against the inquisition. It makes me think had I lived in those days maybe I would have had the guts to do the same and stand up to the flat earthers.
what-happened
GOLD
Your utopia does not exist and it was/is inevitable. Humans are funny creatures. They are going to believe what they want to believe. Parties, restaurants and gambling trips did not kill over half of a million people. It's silly to even say it. Sounds like a news bite. If these types of things were as pivotal in death contribution as you say, we would be in the millions by now. Did selfish actions by humans kill other humans? Sure, we are humans and we directly and indirectly kill each other every day. Your big hand little map approach to life isn't really tenable.
Here is what also has killed 100s of thousands of people: Shitty messenging by our government, shitty public health care policy execution(remember those long term facilities?), shitty and slanted media coverage. Imagine a world where a vaccine would have just been a vaccine and not a polititcal entity all to itself. It's pathetic and shameful
what-happened
GOLD
You need to consider applying for a writing gig at a few media outlets. You have a future.
The thread is different from this site. The density of anti-vax and anti-mask people is just higher here.Hahaha! I feel like we've cycled through this at least once before. The bulk of the "we" on this board got the vaccine and wear masks when required. If you are going to be a preacher, you better get your message out to the unwashed masses that need it.
Again, you miss the point. It's not, "our leaders don't follow the rules, so why should I", it's "the behavior of the leaders of a culture will represent the behavior of the culture".
There is one thing that demonstrably "worked" here - the vaccine. Let's take a walk down memory lane at a headline that team fear held close not so long ago.
CDC director says face masks may offer more protection against COVID than a vaccine. Here's what other experts say.
Health experts point out that we don't yet know how effective a vaccine will be – but we do know masks help stop the spread.
Oops. The vaccine not only worked well in a "lab" setting, it actually worked in practice.
If you remember, that was the main reason for the creation of the covid off topic area. Someone would ask whose club could find field space, and it would turn into a 20 page diatribe full of reposted garbage from Breitbart.
What do you think enabled the virus to spread? People gathering indoors with other people.
what-happened
GOLD
That's all you need or that's all you can? You do know that reality is constructed by your brain. Your brain unconsciously bends your perceptions to meet your desires and expecations. You need a bit of yoga in your life.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Speaking of garbage.
what-happened
GOLD
You are completly missing the point of our attempt at a discussion. I'm not disagreeing with you that it was A cause. You are angry at those people and think it's the primary cause. I'm here to tell you that it's not the only cause. The more dangerous aspect of this event has been the inadaquate response by our national and local health care system. I know you can't see that and it's ok. Your fences are high, you acreage is small and your experience outside of thoses fences are minimal. You are coming to a conclusion with a bias. Common actually.
A result of piss poor policy making……ie Closing Parks and Beaches.
It’s funny you blame the masses for not following policy, but don’t blame the policy makers for making bad policy the masses (including the policy makers themselves….see Pelosi, Newsome, etc) don’t care to follow.
Bruddah IZ
DA
False.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Its match day, but, quickly, there is much to unpackage with respect to laying blame at the foot of the public health response. Part of the unpackaging, from my perspective, would involve public health messaging vs a counteracting infodemic. For example, just yesterday, rehashed data where some Twitter doctor says "Hey vaxx not working" but just a 5 min look at the underlying numbers in a table that most will never both to look at shows vaxx with a 2.5X protective effect over unvaxxed. Another part would involve public heath measures being but forth as some form of tyranny akin to rounding people up into gas chambers. And so forth. In the end it would distill towards having a government that is effective as our fragmentation allows us to have. And partisan arguments ensue as to which side is to blame. whatever. But from a strict epidemiological standpoint our inability to act rapidly and collectively cost lives early on and continues to do so now. For a bIt while longer but this is mostly done at this point. Our division was a form of weakness the virus could exploit. But it is also a form of weakness that can be exploited by other actors, and, as I see it, that's just getting started. So ultimately, in this country with so many advantages, it's on us. Was the human costs of the pandemic worth pursuing our little excercise in social disfunction? I'd say the answer appears to be yes.
The local and national health care system instituted measures so strict that many argue they are unconstitutional, funded the development of multiple vaccines and made them available for free to anyone who would take them, and waged a public information struggle with disinformation sourced by idiots and opportunists -- what more do you think they should have done?
He needs some heart warmer's bro to open the heart chakra. Dude is ice cold and hard hearted and needs some plants from nature to wake his ass up and open the right side of his dead brain.
