{"id":39726,"date":"2023-02-13T19:06:51","date_gmt":"2023-02-14T00:06:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=39726"},"modified":"2023-02-13T19:06:51","modified_gmt":"2023-02-14T00:06:51","slug":"major-study-proves-what-we-already-knew-masks-are-worthless","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=39726","title":{"rendered":"Major study proves what we already knew. Masks are worthless"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. If there is anything that will remind people of the Great Panicdemic of 2020, it was being forced to wear face masks everywhere you went. When the mask mandates were being ordered, many people said that this was a complete waste of time, and were using studies from before the panicdemic. They were flat out suppressed by Big Tech.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Finally, the courts stepped in and ruled that the CDC, which had been ordering these mandates, had no authority to do so. As soon as the ruling was announced, the masks came off to cheers and applause from 10\u2019s of millions of people. Now we have confirmation that masks didn\u2019t do squat. Here are the detail from Just The News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

Researchers in “gold standard” collaboration struggle to find benefit from surgical over no masks, or N95 respirators over surgical. Findings buoy warnings by PPE expert that even “perfect rate of capture” by N95s can’t stop COVID transmission. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

An international research collaboration that reviewed several dozen rigorous studies of “physical interventions” against influenza and COVID-19 through last year failed to find even a modest effect on infection or illness rates from masks of all qualities. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Published in the peer-reviewed Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews<\/a>, run by the British evidence-based medicine charity Cochrane, the study raises new doubts about ongoing mask mandates and public health recommendations worldwide. <\/b><\/p>\n

New doubts? Who needs new doubts? The old ones were perfectly satisfactory. Of course, it\u2019s always nice to have confirmation in a peer reviewed study by a group that actually understands how the scientific method actually works, unlike the politically driven Centers for Disease Control in the United States.<\/p>\n

The CDC is still recommending masking in areas with “high” transmission levels<\/a> \u2014 fewer than 4% of U.S. counties \u2014 as well as indoor masking to protect high-risk contacts in “medium” counties (27%). <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Masks are still required in educational institutions in Democratic strongholds such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington and California, according to the Daily Mail<\/a>. <\/b><\/p>\n

No surprises there. The mask mandates were never about public health. They\u2019re about absolute totalitarian control of the American people.<\/p>\n

Boston Public Schools denied its “temporary masking protocol”<\/a> in early January was a “mandate,” following a public letter against the policy<\/a> by student Enrique Abud Evereteze. <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

So, people could go in without masks? Sure they could! And if you believe that, I have a bridge over the Charles River you might like to purchase.<\/p>\n

South Korea is still requiring masks on public transport and in medical facilities after dropping COVID mandates in most indoor settings, including gyms, Monday, Reuters reported<\/a>. <\/b><\/p>\n

That doesn\u2019t concern me. That is something the South Korean people need to deal with.<\/p>\n

The researchers for the Cochrane study are affiliated with a geographically disparate range of institutions in the U.K., Canada, Australia, Italy and Saudi Arabia. Half are affiliated with the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Australia’s Bond University. The corresponding author is the University of Calgary’s John Conly. <\/b><\/p>\n

Now that is a major group of somebodys. This isn\u2019t some \u201cFly by night\u201d group, (Which describes a good chunk of the Government health systems around the world), it\u2019s people who actually know what the scientific method is and how to utilize it. I suspect that if anyone said \u201cThe science is settled\u201d to one of these scholars, they would sneer with utter contempt at the speaker.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The story on Just The News continues with the methodology and the various groups who looked into the effect wearing a mask has in preventing the transmission of airborne viruses. (Hint, no effect at all) It also talks abut the problems they had getting the various studies published and how Big Tech actively censored them since their findings went against the narrative.<\/p>\n

Researchers had more trouble determining the effect of respirators such as N95s \u2014 which the CDC only recommended two years into the pandemic<\/a>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0versus surgical masks. Five studies (four healthcare and one household), with a total of 16,000 participants, found a risk ratio of 0.70 for “clinical respiratory illness” but deemed it “very low-certainty evidence,” with a wide confidence interval. The RR was 0.82 for influenza-like illness, deemed “low-certainty” with a smaller confidence interval.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n

They were more confident in results for respirators versus surgical masks on lab-confirmed influenza: RR of 1.10 among the 8,400 participants in those trials, and no difference when the household trial was excluded.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n

So, if I\u2019m reading this correctly, they freely admitted the issues they were having with their studies. Now the N95 respirators, as I understand it, were designed from the ground up to deal with viruses. However, the way the work, they offer no protection to other people. They filter air coming in, but vent unfiltered exhalations right out. I may be incorrect in my understandings of course.<\/p>\n

While the Department of Health and Human Services’ fact sheet on N95s<\/a> says they “can” filter particles under 0.3 microns, which can include SARS-CoV-2, Mansell said they aren’t rated to capture matter below that threshold.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The sheet also warns N95s can’t filter gases and vapors, which include aerosolized COVID, and N95 maker Honeywell sets the minimum at 0.3 microns<\/a> as well, she said. <\/b><\/p>\n

“More than 90% percent of exhaled particulates have been shown to fall <\/b>under<\/b><\/em> 0.3 \u00b5m,” Mansell’s essay says, citing a January study in Elsevier journal Environmental Research<\/a>. Such small matter can stay aloft for “hours, even days, depending on air exchange rates within the given space,” she wrote, citing a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases research letter<\/a> to the New England Journal of Medicine. <\/b><\/p>\n

Here is an easy way to picture this. These masks have about the same chance of stopping viruses as a chain link fence has at stopping a mosquito. Basically, none at all. There is an awful lot of technical stuff in the article with a lot of links to other sites. I strongly recommend that you do your own research.<\/p>\n

As for me? I will wear a mask when I have no other choice, which usually means going to the dentist or other medical facility. I\u2019ve seen exactly one business in my area that requires you to wear a mask. I walk right past it and take my business, and money, elsewhere.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (2<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n