• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Covid-19 - Treatments & Vaccines

Not really. That study gets cited a lot, but not for what it should be cited for. Its actual conclusion is that surgical masks (which it does a poor job of defining as there are a wide variety) are effective.

Here is how they define them, "The surgical mask had three layers of 100% non-woven polypropylene (the exterior and interiors were spunbond and the middle layer was meltblown), elastic ear loops, and a nose bridge." What other information did you want?

But more importantly, you misunderstood why this study is so critical. Mask efficacy on population level is very hard to accurately study. Unlike a vaccine, or many studies of medications, the use of masks is not a "yes/no" situation. An N95 isn't very effective if worn below the nose, on the chin, or only used half of the day. For this reason, population studies of mask efficacy need two crucial components: 1) they need to involve a large number of participants so the variability in use does not influence the results, and 2) they need to be randomized. The study from Bangladesh meets both of these criteria - there were over 300,000 participants and mask use was randomized by village. No other study comes close to this number of participants in a randomized trial design.
 
I'm 100% behind redirecting public funds from the state university system of FL to K-12 education. As this board illustrates all too well, a number of state university departments could experience a little (a lot?) of belt-tightening. Is there a petition somewhere that I can sign?

But how do we solve for the states with Dem governors and deep blue local school boards?

1 - plenty of bloat in university ecosystems. Of course, you believe they are libs indoctrinating your poor conservative children rather than teaching them to think critically and realizing their magat parents are ruining this country

2 - "Proudly and belligerently stupid" just about covers it since, you know, it's your snowflake feelings rather than actual information coloring your perception. But feel free to provide any evidence to the contrary. Ask for Mr blue. I'll be over here holding my breath.
 
Uhh, changes in local COVID numbers maybe. Several school boards reversed their votes in advance of the opening of schools. The vote changed from 5-4 against masks to 7-2 in favor. Do you think they all have COVID and are about to die ?

It could be worse. At least we’re not in union county. Yeesh.
 
Here is how they define them, "The surgical mask had three layers of 100% non-woven polypropylene (the exterior and interiors were spunbond and the middle layer was meltblown), elastic ear loops, and a nose bridge." What other information did you want?

But more importantly, you misunderstood why this study is so critical. Mask efficacy on population level is very hard to accurately study. Unlike a vaccine, or many studies of medications, the use of masks is not a "yes/no" situation. An N95 isn't very effective if worn below the nose, on the chin, or only used half of the day. For this reason, population studies of mask efficacy need two crucial components: 1) they need to involve a large number of participants so the variability in use does not influence the results, and 2) they need to be randomized. The study from Bangladesh meets both of these criteria - there were over 300,000 participants and mask use was randomized by village. No other study comes close to this number of participants in a randomized trial design.

LOL.

You are very patient person, Dr. Rafi. 2&2 has obviously done his research.
 
Here is how they define them, "The surgical mask had three layers of 100% non-woven polypropylene (the exterior and interiors were spunbond and the middle layer was meltblown), elastic ear loops, and a nose bridge." What other information did you want?

But more importantly, you misunderstood why this study is so critical. Mask efficacy on population level is very hard to accurately study. Unlike a vaccine, or many studies of medications, the use of masks is not a "yes/no" situation. An N95 isn't very effective if worn below the nose, on the chin, or only used half of the day. For this reason, population studies of mask efficacy need two crucial components: 1) they need to involve a large number of participants so the variability in use does not influence the results, and 2) they need to be randomized. The study from Bangladesh meets both of these criteria - there were over 300,000 participants and mask use was randomized by village. No other study comes close to this number of participants in a randomized trial design.

 
Yep. It’s been 18 months and school children have never been a policy priority.

They will be when Republicans pin this mess of their own making on Biden next summer. The whole narrative will be about how things got worse under the Biden admin, and no amount of fact checking on what happened at the state and local level is going to matter to the Brads of the world.
 
Here is how they define them, "The surgical mask had three layers of 100% non-woven polypropylene (the exterior and interiors were spunbond and the middle layer was meltblown), elastic ear loops, and a nose bridge." What other information did you want?

But more importantly, you misunderstood why this study is so critical. Mask efficacy on population level is very hard to accurately study. Unlike a vaccine, or many studies of medications, the use of masks is not a "yes/no" situation. An N95 isn't very effective if worn below the nose, on the chin, or only used half of the day. For this reason, population studies of mask efficacy need two crucial components: 1) they need to involve a large number of participants so the variability in use does not influence the results, and 2) they need to be randomized. The study from Bangladesh meets both of these criteria - there were over 300,000 participants and mask use was randomized by village. No other study comes close to this number of participants in a randomized trial design.

Meh, I’m gonna wait see what Angus has to say about this “study.”
 
Here is how they define them, "The surgical mask had three layers of 100% non-woven polypropylene (the exterior and interiors were spunbond and the middle layer was meltblown), elastic ear loops, and a nose bridge." What other information did you want?

But more importantly, you misunderstood why this study is so critical. Mask efficacy on population level is very hard to accurately study. Unlike a vaccine, or many studies of medications, the use of masks is not a "yes/no" situation. An N95 isn't very effective if worn below the nose, on the chin, or only used half of the day. For this reason, population studies of mask efficacy need two crucial components: 1) they need to involve a large number of participants so the variability in use does not influence the results, and 2) they need to be randomized. The study from Bangladesh meets both of these criteria - there were over 300,000 participants and mask use was randomized by village. No other study comes close to this number of participants in a randomized trial design.

I didn't misunderstand anything about that study. I never said it was a poor study, as a study it is perfectly fine. I said it is being used to support conclusions that it did not reach. I know doctors aren't known for their reading comprehension, but if you can't correctly interpret what I wrote in a few sentences, then I guess it makes sense why people aren't interpreting the 100+ pages of the study correctly.
 
I didn't misunderstand anything about that study. I never said it was a poor study, as a study it is perfectly fine. I said it is being used to support conclusions that it did not reach. I know doctors aren't known for their reading comprehension, but if you can't correctly interpret what I wrote in a few sentences, then I guess it makes sense why people aren't interpreting the 100+ pages of the study correctly.

You continue to misunderstand. The main takeaway from the study is very broad - masks work to decrease the spread of COVID, period. The primary outcome of the study was actually to determine which strategies work best to promote mask wearing. But the investigators also looked at COVID transmission and found masks decrease transmission. Now, a persnickety individual could argue that the study only shows that masks work in villages in Bangladesh from November 2020 to January 2021, but that would be a silly conclusion. Many aspects of this study are generalizable, which is why it is the definitive study on mask use to decrease COVID transmission.
 
Can somebody post the Reddit link again? I can't find it in the thread and it must be there somewhere. Sorry for not knowing how to properly use the search function.
 
Back
Top