Hey, remember that Cochrane meta-study showing that masks don't work? The Cochrane folks have apologized and explained what the study really showed:
- Interventions to increase mask wearing may or may not work. The evidence is inconclusive.
- The study doesn't even address the question of whether mask wearing itself helps to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.
Got that?
The damage is already done. Good job, Cochrane.
This. I'm not out very much, but I heard a number of people ranting about this, saying loudly to everyone that scientists had proven masks don't work at all "Not even N95 ones."
I'm sure they'll be fine with mask-free surgeons during their open-heart.
The original story was front page news. The only reason I know about this is because Kevin linked it.
Peut-être, c'était la conception ?
Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details
visit this article... https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
Zeynep Tufekci has an excellent op-ed on this. She totally debunks the cochrane study.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochrane-study.html
Do masks work?
At the NY Times, it's just a matter of opinion.
https://twitter.com/biblioracle/status/1634177311799910400?s=20
I am waiting for an apology from NYT's Bret Stephens. I know, it'll be a long wait.
Agreed. Editorial writers, like Stephens who know next to nothing about how science works really should not write about science. He did the same thing in the NYT recently with Canadian legislation on medical assisted dying. In both cases his understanding was shallow and poorly informed.
Fortunately the cognizant experts in our top notch media outlets carefully explained . . . Never mind!
I have just received my 3rd payment order and $30,000 that I have built up on my laptop in a month through an online agent…!u91) This job is good and his regular salary is much better than my normal job. Work now and start making money online yourself....... Just Copy And Open My Profile Name Link,
Please ban this spammer.
Any piece of journalism that starts "A new study shows that..." is almost always a red flag. Unless the author is an *extremely* experienced and reliable sci/med reporter, it's inevitably going to be a load of horseshit. Most writers have no idea how to read a scientific study and know where the certainties/uncertainties are in the dense science-speak most of these things are written in.
That's why in the last two weeks we've had headlines from "Masks Totally Ineffective Say Scientists" to "Covid Was a Lab Leak Confirms DOE". Both completely wrong. Both now completely mainstream beliefs among whatever portion of the public still looks at news/current events.
I agree with everything you say, but in this case, the problem was that the study lead author was personally saying that masks don't work to anyone who put a microphone in his face. The media journalists, inexperienced as they are understanding scientific publications, went with what the author was telling them the study said, even when the study didn't actually said such a thing.
And apparently the lead author is a professional dingbat who has a long standing dislike for masks. When I read Stephens' screed I had a feeling that maybe it wasn't entirely kosher and it turns out that in a prior paper Tom Jefferson, the lead author, *cited* a paper in which a study was done where 1/2 the group (medical professionals) used cloth masks and the other 1/2 used N95s. The cloth mask wears were 16 times more likely to contact a respiratory illness. Jefferson's conclusion? Cloth masks must actually make people 16 times more susceptible than no mask at all.
The biggest issue with this isn't so much what the actual study said (which I doubt many read in the first place), but that all the media "Masks don't work" headlines were based on comments given by the lead author of the Cochrane review study.
The study itself was full of the typical limitation caveats found in most scientific writings, including the warning to there not being enough good quality data to make any big conclusions, or the need for more studies, etc, but the lead author does seem to have an ideological ax to grind against masks, and really went loose on his comments.
When speaking, any type of scientific moderation went out the window and he said what he knew he couldn't say in a scientific writing without sounding like a quack. If I'm not mistaken the first comments were given to someone working for a libertarian leaning organization, and there he flat out said masks don't work, and then he went on to repeat those comments in other interviews given.
The headline should have been “Mask mandates are not always effective.” Even if such a statement were true, it really just suggests that people don’t know how to wear masks. My observation is that people have no idea how to properly wear a mask.
There is a mountain of research demonstrating that masks prevent transmission of pathogens.
Actually, it's worse than that. The study should have said, masks don't work when people don't wear them.
Bingo.
The fatal analytical flaw is very deep.
The conservative's have convinced, and I mean absolutely convinced, their base that the reason America is "great" is that we lead the world in "not telling people what to do."
Well, its an easy con, since the US throws around the word "freedom" like its going out of style and like no one else has it.
But when the R's wear their cute flag pin everyone knows the score - its the "freedom" to not have liberals tell you what to do. Your church telling you, and forcing other people, to do stuff or not do stuff is fine by them.
Because liberals are committed to analyzing stuff on its merits, I see no counter balance to this, even though the counter argument is obvious, since there is a direct connection to the democratic regulation of a society and its society wide wealth.
The fact that we are not great "because" we lead the world in not telling people what to do would be a nice point to get out there, and then it might not be as easy to con the rubes into thinking liberals are coming up with pandemic related public health rules just for the sheer fun of it.
This is silly. They should issue a correction and a real apology.
Exactly. What other way could it be interpreted?
I'm getting so tired of these mephitic piles of doo doo spouting off foul air without even looking at what they are writing. Even more so, I am sick and tired of the media regurgitating doo doo without checking the source and it's truth.
We are all getting over whelmed with this sickness. Soon we will just have to stop reading "news".
The inherent problem we have is that all supposed "news" outlets depend on eyeballs and clicks, and when your wallet depends on something you do more of it. This results in a distortion filter for every story, every headline, every quote. Look at every single photo chosen to accompany stories. They always choose the one that suits the idiotic headline. Clinton looking sly, Trump looking angry, Biden looking old, etc. Whatever generates the most clicks wins at the expense of truth, which is often not a yes or no, left or right, up or down answer. Anything grey is shaded to be darker in most cases. Anger generates more clicks after all.
You're preaching to the choir.
I believe in masks and vaccines. The big news lately is that we stopped seeing excess mortality in most of the United States in early January, if the CDC's "Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Week Ending Date and State" dataset can be trusted. (I'm not sure I do trust it, but the total death counts are not discernibly higher than would be expected with pre-pandemic rates.)
The CDC notes that they receive death information on a 1 to 8 week lag. If you're seeing noticeable changes in Jan or Feb, it might be due to this delay in data availability.
That's true. But a month ago they seemed at least close to up to date through the end of December, so I expected they'd have most of January by now.
What they show for February is clearly not complete as the total deaths dwindle rapidly each week in the below-normal range.
At Breitbart, Townhall, etc, the study not only proved that masks don't work, but also Tony Fauci intentionally lied to our great nation, causing untold deaths. Those impressions are permanent.