Viruses / Vaccines 2

mrussel1

As you  might expect, Stephens took an inconclusive study, drew conclusions, and then levied a political weapon against the CDC to advance his argument.  Here is the actual conclusion by the authors of the study:

Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

mickeyrat

something from the op-ed that jumped out to me....

No study — or study of studies — is ever perfect. Science is never absolutely settled. What’s more, the analysis does not prove that proper masks, properly worn, had no benefit at an individual level. People may have good personal reasons to wear masks, and they may have the discipline to wear them consistently. Their choices are their own.

But when it comes to the population-level benefits of masking, the verdict is in: Mask mandates were a bust. Those skeptics who were furiously mocked as cranks and occasionally censored as “misinformers” for opposing mandates were right. The mainstream experts and pundits who supported mandates were wrong. In a better world, it would behoove the latter group to acknowledge their error, along with its considerable physical, psychological, pedagogical and political costs.

Gern Blansten

mrussel1 said:

As you  might expect, Stephens took an inconclusive study, drew conclusions, and then levied a political weapon against the CDC to advance his argument.  Here is the actual conclusion by the authors of the study:

Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

Crazy....I have seen him on Bill Maher a few times. He is generally a pretty fair interview. I really don't understand why he is resurrecting this bullshit.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

As you  might expect, Stephens took an inconclusive study, drew conclusions, and then levied a political weapon against the CDC to advance his argument.  Here is the actual conclusion by the authors of the study:

Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

Crazy....I have seen him on Bill Maher a few times. He is generally a pretty fair interview. I really don't understand why he is resurrecting this bullshit.

Opinion piece..that's how it goes. 

Gern Blansten

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

As you  might expect, Stephens took an inconclusive study, drew conclusions, and then levied a political weapon against the CDC to advance his argument.  Here is the actual conclusion by the authors of the study:

Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

Crazy....I have seen him on Bill Maher a few times. He is generally a pretty fair interview. I really don't understand why he is resurrecting this bullshit.

Opinion piece..that's how it goes. 

Always a solid conservative argument I guess.

mickeyrat

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

As you  might expect, Stephens took an inconclusive study, drew conclusions, and then levied a political weapon against the CDC to advance his argument.  Here is the actual conclusion by the authors of the study:

Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

Crazy....I have seen him on Bill Maher a few times. He is generally a pretty fair interview. I really don't understand why he is resurrecting this bullshit.

Opinion piece..that's how it goes. 

Always a solid conservative argument I guess.

coming in to 2024 election season, gotta push culture war shit and I think this is at least adjacent

Gern Blansten

mickeyrat said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

As you  might expect, Stephens took an inconclusive study, drew conclusions, and then levied a political weapon against the CDC to advance his argument.  Here is the actual conclusion by the authors of the study:

Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

Crazy....I have seen him on Bill Maher a few times. He is generally a pretty fair interview. I really don't understand why he is resurrecting this bullshit.

Opinion piece..that's how it goes. 

Always a solid conservative argument I guess.

coming in to 2024 election season, gotta push culture war shit and I think this is at least adjacent

I will say that it's interesting to see tRump pushing Desantis over his virus response. Of course now Desantis acts like FL didn't react to the virus at all but tRump is quick to point out that he's full of shit.

I love watching snakes eat rats.

jwhjr17

Gern Blansten said:

Can't the argument still be made that the mask mandates didn't work because they weren't followed closely enough?

Of course it would work if done correctly. It just seems so elementary to me I don't understand why it creates such an argument.

And this Bret Stephens guy is the one that threw a fit and quit Twitter for awhile because someone called him a "bedbug."

We don't know this do we?

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

As you  might expect, Stephens took an inconclusive study, drew conclusions, and then levied a political weapon against the CDC to advance his argument.  Here is the actual conclusion by the authors of the study:

Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

Crazy....I have seen him on Bill Maher a few times. He is generally a pretty fair interview. I really don't understand why he is resurrecting this bullshit.

Opinion piece..that's how it goes. 

Always a solid conservative argument I guess.

coming in to 2024 election season, gotta push culture war shit and I think this is at least adjacent

Litigating masks, vaccines and the pandemic is red meat for the base, but the rest of the country, including the swing voters, have moved way past that.  It's a political loser, but that never stopped the GOP.  Look how the "Stop the Steal" candidates did last fall. 

Gern Blansten

https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/1628427962243481601

A good breakdown of that Stephens piece here...

benjs

jwhjr17 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can't the argument still be made that the mask mandates didn't work because they weren't followed closely enough?

Of course it would work if done correctly. It just seems so elementary to me I don't understand why it creates such an argument.

And this Bret Stephens guy is the one that threw a fit and quit Twitter for awhile because someone called him a "bedbug."

We don't know this do we?

Propensity to contract an airborne disease is proportional to viral load a person is exposed to, which spreads easier (and a greater amount of viral load travels) without a mask than with one. If you know anyone who needs to sneeze, you could do an experiment right now to prove that.

What part of this are you uncertain about?

mickeyrat

will point out too, the vaccine also reduces the viral load of someone vaxxed who test positive thereby REDUCING transmission... ..

Merkin Baller

Hold up…. covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze helps prevent the spread of germs? 

Mind = blown 

Gern Blansten

Merkin Baller said:

Hold up…. covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze helps prevent the spread of germs? 

Mind = blown 

Not if you cover your mouth with my face. Fake science!

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

Hold up…. covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze helps prevent the spread of germs? 

Mind = blown 

Not if you cover your mouth with my face. Fake science!

I’ve come around on appreciating the entertainment value in this thread. It really is the gift that keeps on giving. 

benjs

Merkin Baller said:

Hold up…. covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze helps prevent the spread of germs? 

Mind = blown 

I had to stop while I was writing my explanation to ask myself - am I really having to explain this to an adult human? Did the education system fail them that much? Tragically, the answer was yes.

mrussel1

benjs said:

Merkin Baller said:

Hold up…. covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze helps prevent the spread of germs? 

Mind = blown 

I had to stop while I was writing my explanation to ask myself - am I really having to explain this to an adult human? Did the education system fail them that much? Tragically, the answer was yes.

Sneeze guards at the Golden Corral must be removed immediately.  It's nothing but virtual signaling and more proof that we've lost our country. 

TJ25487

mickeyrat said:

will point out too, the vaccine also reduces the viral load of someone vaxxed who test positive thereby REDUCING transmission... ..

Will also point out that the vaccine may also reduce your life span thereby REDUCING transmission. 

Merkin Baller

TJ25487 said:

mickeyrat said:

will point out too, the vaccine also reduces the viral load of someone vaxxed who test positive thereby REDUCING transmission... ..

Will also point out that the vaccine may also reduce your life span thereby REDUCING transmission. 

lol

jwhjr17

benjs said:

jwhjr17 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can't the argument still be made that the mask mandates didn't work because they weren't followed closely enough?

Of course it would work if done correctly. It just seems so elementary to me I don't understand why it creates such an argument.

And this Bret Stephens guy is the one that threw a fit and quit Twitter for awhile because someone called him a "bedbug."

We don't know this do we?

Propensity to contract an airborne disease is proportional to viral load a person is exposed to, which spreads easier (and a greater amount of viral load travels) without a mask than with one. If you know anyone who needs to sneeze, you could do an experiment right now to prove that.

What part of this are you uncertain about?

None of it.  Since it wasn't done correctly according to the comment we don't know what the impact would have been and can only speculate.