Liang, M., Gao, L., Cheng, C., Zhou, Q., Uy, J. P., Heiner, K., & Sun, C. (2020). Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel medicine and infectious disease, 36, 101751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101751Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S, Schünemann HJ; COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020 Jun 27;395(10242):1973-1987. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9. Epub 2020 Jun 1. PMID: 32497510; PMCID: PMC7263814.
Abboah-Offei, M., Salifu, Y., Adewale, B., Bayuo, J., Ofosu-Poku, R., & Opare-Lokko, E. (2021). A rapid review of the use of face mask in preventing the spread of COVID-19. International journal of nursing studies advances, 3, 100013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2020.100013MacIntyre CR, Chughtai AA. A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and respirators against coronaviruses and other respiratory transmissible viruses for the community, healthcare workers and sick patients. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Aug;108:103629. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103629. Epub 2020 Apr 30. PMID: 32512240; PMCID: PMC7191274.
I have no idea what you mean. You just think 1+1 sums up to 2 and draw your conclusions. The masks are recommended to be used for x hours and then replaced. Some masks are washable and there are instructions out there as to how you can do that. If you are arguing incorrect use of face masks, that's something else. But to claim that they are intrinsically flawed, the evidence is just stacked against that assumption. You're dead wrong there. I can't even begin to understand how you do not see that. Masks work, intrinsically speaking. This is sheer and utter fact, regardless of your biological explanations of how they may not work. In the end, the evidence has shown that they work. That doesn't mean that you are inheritly wrong with your biological explanation (though I suspect that you are), but the end net result is that they reduce infectivity and it's as simple as that. You clearly don't have the background to fully comprehend the efficacy, working mechanism and how a net result is procured and reported. Therefore, you are not the one who should argue against the use of face masks. The best you can do is lobby for additional evidence regarding the efficacy of face masks, provided by an unaffiliated third party. That would be correct, in fact, I would commend you for it because even when a minority requests the investigation of a wrong hypothesis, it helps us sharpen our understanding of the subject as well as gives us insight in what the public (or in this case the minority that requests said research) understands of the subject. People like you spouting around and about all sorts of bullshit tell the medical and political world that they have failed in properly educating you and properly helping you understand why these things are necessary.
Sorry, I got back on my word to gave you the last word. I just can't help pointing out how incredibly wrong you are with your conclusion. Do you also call Trump a genetically black democrat by any chance? :|
/e I assume, but do tell me if I'm wrong, that your "masks increase infectivity" statement is derived from watching infection rates go up shortly after the mask mandate was given. That is not how epidemiology works. Please pick up a book on epidemiology. "Post hoc ergor propter hoc", I think you are wrongfully attributing causality to the mandate. It is not because there is a temporality in the matter that thus all other causal criteria are instantly met, and even if they are, it's still open to discussion because causality can never truly be proven, the truth in that subject can only be approached. This is an intrinsic to the definition of causality.
This post was edited by Forg0tten on Dec 29 2020 07:24am