Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Can you actually be forced to wear a mask in the building indefinitely?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4655726" data-attributes="member: 63706"><p>More from the above paper:</p><p></p><p>"No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.</p><p></p><p>Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below)."</p><p></p><p>"</p><p><strong>Why There Can Never Be an Empirical Test of a Nation-Wide Mask-Wearing Policy</strong></p><p>As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results [because]:</p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics"</li> </ol><p>"</p><p>Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:</p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The 50-percent probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virions</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There are typically 10 to 3rd power − 10 to 7th power virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μm</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The 50-percent probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet...</li> </ol><p>All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.</p><p></p><p><strong>Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. </strong>For example, such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008)."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4655726, member: 63706"] More from the above paper: "No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below)." " [B]Why There Can Never Be an Empirical Test of a Nation-Wide Mask-Wearing Policy[/B] As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results [because]: [LIST=1] [*]Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity. [*]Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown. [*]Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012). [*]The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits. [*]Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses. [*]Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors. [*]Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful. [*]Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions. [*]Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics" [/LIST] " Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features: [LIST=1] [*]Most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility [*]It is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host [*]The 50-percent probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virions [*]There are typically 10 to 3rd power − 10 to 7th power virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μm [*]The 50-percent probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet... [/LIST] All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. [B]Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. [/B]For example, such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008)." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Can you actually be forced to wear a mask in the building indefinitely?
Top