Because while being out in public while wearing the mask, touching doorknobs and pulling down their mask to talk because they think nobody can hear what they are saying, they rub their eyeball or itch their lip, etc. People are so stupid that everything that goes in a microwave has to have a disclaimer on the package that reads, at the end of the cooking instructions, "CAUTION: Food will be hot!" That's why all these studies are pointless. People are dishonest/inaccurate on the questionnaire about their mask usage.
Yet another thing Jem has a lazy child's understanding of. Worthless study. In addition to they do work on the whole if worn properly the variolation effect is very important. If somebody concluded umbrellas don't work because shoes still get wet, failure as a man Jem would make a post about it.
I’m aware of this study. This study is a great example of why there is no such thing as bad information. While the results cannot be verified without a control, it’s findings should lead to other studies with controls. The problem with bad information is some people don’t know how to use and just because it might agree with their viewpoint, they cite it as gospel. And that is exactly why we should leave this stuff to professionals.
You are aware of this study? They had a 3000 person control group. Which is why this study is so compelling. Morons like Fauci said we could never do a study like this because he would never have people nto wear a mask so all we could have is meta studies. But those of us who knew the results of previous studies.... knew he was lying his ass off. it was authored by.. (DMSc - I believe means doctor of medical sicence.) Henning Bundgaard, DMSc , Johan Skov Bundgaard, BSc , Daniel Emil Tadeusz Raaschou-Pedersen, BSc , Christian von Buchwald, DMSc , Tobias Todsen, MD , Jakob Boesgaard Norsk, MD , Mia M. Pries-Heje, MD , Christoffer Rasmus Vissing, MD , Pernille B. Nielsen, MD , Ulrik C. Winsløw, MD , Kamille Fogh, MD , Rasmus Hasselbalch, MD , Jonas H. Kristensen, MD , Anna Ringgaard, PhD , Mikkel Porsborg Andersen, PhD , Nicole Bakkegård Goecke, PhD , Ramona Trebbien, PhD , Kerstin Skovgaard, PhD , Thomas Benfield, DMSc , Henrik Ullum, PhD , Christian Torp-Pedersen, DMSc , Kasper Iversen, DMSc
A control is the constant comparison. In this study people were self reporting. You need a control group that is definitely doing the thing you’re studying. This is like when you didn’t understand what weighting was and kept referring to something you called “oversampling.” The study itself is a starting point for more studies with actual controls.
you just said they needed a control now you are saying you are not happy with the control. that is a big difference. but why would you be unhappy with a control group which did not wear masks? That is exactly what they were studying, isn't it?
I don’t follow your logic. If you’re trying to determine the effectiveness of wearing masks to protect you from contracting Covid, why would the group not wearing masks be your control? We know the rate of transmission from exposure will be high there already. What this study is good for is looking at the effectiveness of wearing masks to prevent contraction, not spread. So, what is needed is a reliable control group that wears masks with high frequency. The group in this study was more random and self reporting- that data is not reliable, but interesting nonetheless. I’d like to say that we wear masks to stop the spread, not the contraction. It’s an important distinction. Any benefit of wearing a mask to lessen contraction would be a bonus.
Generally yes, I'm not sure we need studies, we know they work of used correctly and by enough people, we know they have less (not no) overall benefit if society if sulk of shitheads. We don't need to waste time placating people with a political agenda not a scientific one. What needs to be done is a defence production act on masks that work particularly well, are comfortable and have an option to be powered for people who have genuine breathing difficulties and in especially humid conditions where the electrostatic properties are compromised. Also virus killing as well as trapping masks are quite cool and coming soon. Engineering, not politics is what is needed. It would have been easy to get republicans feeling competitive to have better masks than others etc. Just pay Wayne LaPierre to promote them.
1. if you don't understand why you would use a control group which does not wear a mask to compare it with the group which did... I really can't help you. That is just a common sense understanding of statistics.... you either have a feel for how to test a hypothesis or you don't. In this case you want to have a large enough group spending enough time outside the home to see if the group wearing the mask gets infected at a statistically significant lower rate than a similar group which did not wear a mask. 2. Now you are bullshitting your ass off... just like GWB... try reading the study. They even did a post hoc analysis of exactly what you wished for. In a per protocol analysis that excluded participants in the mask group who reported nonadherence (7%), SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in 40 participants (1.8%) in the mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.4 percentage point [CI, −1.2 to 0.5 percentage point]; P = 0.40) (OR, 0.84 [CI, 0.55 to 1.26]; P = 0.40). Supplement Figure 2 provides results of the prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary composite end point. No statistically significant interactions were identified. In the preplanned sensitivity analysis, those who had a positive result on an antibody test at 1 month but had not provided antibody results at baseline were considered to have had positive results at baseline (n = 18)—that is, they were excluded from the analysis. In this analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 33 participants (1.4%) in the face mask group and 44 (1.8%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.4 percentage point [CI, −1.1 to 0.4 percentage point]; P = 0.22) (OR, 0.77 [CI, 0.49 to 1.22]; P = 0.26). Three post hoc (not preplanned) analyses were done. In the first, which included only participants reporting wearing face masks “exactly as instructed,” infection (the primary outcome) occurred in 22 participants (2.0%) in the face mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.2 percentage point [CI, −1.3 to 0.9 percentage point]; P = 0.82) (OR, 0.93 [CI, 0.56 to 1.54]; P = 0.78). The second post hoc analysis excluded participants who did not provide antibody test results at baseline; infection occurred in 33 participants (1.7%) in the face mask group and 44 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.4 percentage point [CI, −1.4 to 0.4 percentage point]; P = 0.33) (OR, 0.80 [CI, 0.51 to 1.27]; P = 0.35). In the third post hoc analysis, which investigated constellations of patient characteristics, we did not find a subgroup where face masks were effective at conventional levels of statistical significance (data not shown). A total of 52 participants in the mask group and 39 control participants reported COVID-19 in their household. Of these, 2 participants in the face mask group and 1 in the control group developed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggesting that the source of most observed infections was outside the home. Reported symptoms did not differ between groups during the study period (Supplement Table 3).