Coronavirus Thread: Worldwide Pandemic

Liu Kang

Liu Kang

KING KILLAYAN MBRRRAPPÉ
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
13,770
Reputation
5,523
Daps
29,962
the cac mamba said:
i did, i dont agree with it. and denmark says the japanese are fulla shyt

How Much Does Wearing a Mask Protect You?
Click to expand...
:beli: Ok I got time.

First, that Danish isnt disagreeing with anything at all as they do not measure the same thing.
Second, here's the actual Danish study not an interpretation about it : ACP Journals
Third, here's what the Danish says actually about its own limitations :
Limitation:
Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.
Click to expand...
Fourth, the Japanese study actually measured the COVID load through the mask while the Danish is just reporting through self-reporting/interviews
Fifth, here's the final 2 paragraphs in that Danish study
Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon. Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect.

Reduction in release of virus from infected persons into the environment may be the mechanism for mitigation of transmission in communities where mask use is common or mandated, as noted in observational studies. Thus, these findings do not provide data on the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing in the community in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections. They do, however, offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect. The findings also suggest that persons should not abandon other COVID-19 safety measures regardless of the use of masks. While we await additional data to inform mask recommendations, communities must balance the seriousness of COVID-19, uncertainty about the degree of source control and protective effect, and the absence of data suggesting serious adverse effects of masks (45).
Click to expand...
What that means is that the Danish study did not study the effectiveness of mask in themselves but of masks on top of other respected health measures outside the home. That means that study suggests that if you respect social distancing, washing your hand, and properly ventilation, you MIGHT not need masks OUTSIDE.

Here's the Japanese study if you have time : Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
 
Liu Kang

Liu Kang

KING KILLAYAN MBRRRAPPÉ
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
13,770
Reputation
5,523
Daps
29,962
And if it's needed, here are the summed up graphs.
- Spreader is on the left, receiver is on the right
- Numbers below the bars are the levels measured compared to the base 100 that is both spreader and receiver without mask


graphic-2.large.jpg


graphic-3.large.jpg


Viral loads in the inhalation droplets/aerosols were inversely proportional to the distance between the virus spreader and the virus receiver; however, infectious virus was detected even 1 m away (Fig. 2A). The blue bars and the brown bars in the figures show the viral titers and viral RNA copy numbers, respectively. The numbers below each bar show the percentages relative to the leftmost control column values. When a mannequin exposed to the virus was equipped with various masks (cotton mask, surgical mask, or N95 mask), the uptake of the virus droplets/aerosols was reduced. A cotton mask led to an approximately 20% to 40% reduction in virus uptake compared to no mask (Fig. 2B). The N95 mask had the highest protective efficacy (approximately 80% to 90% reduction) of the various masks examined; however, infectious virus penetration was measurable even when the N95 mask was completely fitted to the face with adhesive tape (Fig. 2B). In contrast, when a mask was attached to the mannequin that released virus, cotton and surgical masks blocked more than 50% of the virus transmission, whereas the N95 mask showed considerable protective efficacy (Fig. 2C). There was a synergistic effect when both the virus receiver and virus spreader wore masks (cotton masks or surgical masks) to prevent the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols (Fig. 2D and E).

We next tested the protective efficacy of masks when the amount of exhaled virus was increased. The viral load was augmented to 108 PFU and exhaled by the spreader; then the uptake of the virus droplets/aerosols was measured when various types of masks were attached to the receiver. As with the lower viral load (5 × 105 PFU) shown in Fig. 2B, the N95 mask sealed with adhesive tape showed approximately 90% protective efficacy (see Fig. 2F and G for a comparison of two N95 products). When the amount of exhaled virus was reduced to 105 PFU or 104 PFU, infectious viruses were not detected, even in the samples from the unmasked receiver (Fig. 2H and I). Viral RNA was detected in all samples; however, due to the quantitative decrease, there was no difference in protective efficacy among all of the masks, including the sealed N95 masks.
Click to expand...
 
the cac mamba

the cac mamba

Veteran
Bushed
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
102,485
Reputation
13,694
Daps
299,379
Reppin
NULL
Liu Kang said:
And if it's needed, here are the summer up graphs.
- Spreader is on the left, receiver is on the right
- Numbers below the bars are the levels measured compared to the base 100 that is both spreader and receiver without mask


graphic-2.large.jpg


graphic-3.large.jpg
Click to expand...
i can tell im coming off as anti mask, which wasnt even what i was getting at

so why dont i just say, feel free to wear one through 2060 if you want :salute: i will not be joining you
 
Liu Kang

Liu Kang

KING KILLAYAN MBRRRAPPÉ
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
13,770
Reputation
5,523
Daps
29,962
the cac mamba said:
i can tell im coming off as anti mask, which wasnt even what i was getting at

so why dont i just say, feel free to wear one through 2060 if you want :salute: i will not be joining you
Click to expand...
My dude, you said this :
the cac mamba said:
the mask doesnt stop you from getting it. it stops you from spreading it
Click to expand...
Just admit you were wrong :yeshrug:

I dont care if you dont wear a mask, your body, your choice (:lolbron:) but just dont say incorrect stuff and double down on them when proven wrong.

If you're not convinced by the above study (once again it actually measured the viral load behind the mask) then there's nothing to talk about indeed.
 
the cac mamba

the cac mamba

Veteran
Bushed
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
102,485
Reputation
13,694
Daps
299,379
Reppin
NULL
Liu Kang said:
My dude, you said this :

Just admit you were wrong :yeshrug:

I dont care if you dont wear a mask, your body, your choice (:lolbron:) but just dont say incorrect stuff and double down on them when proven wrong.

If you're not convinced by the above study (once again it actually measured the viral load behind the mask) then there's nothing to talk about indeed.
Click to expand...
that study doesnt say masks stop you from getting it. i wasnt wrong about shyt :heh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top