Some warm-up exercises, then we review the Bangladeshi paper.
But first a reminder: I have no burden, no burden whatsoever, not even in the least degree, to prove mask mandates don’t work. Mask mandate supporters, however, must show conclusive evidence that their mandates provide value. This they cannot do, and have not done.
WARM UP
Headline: Fauci Said Masks ‘Not Really Effective in Keeping Out Virus,’ Email Reveals.
Dr. Anthony Fauci wrote in February 2020 that store-bought face masks would not be very effective at protecting against the COVID-19 pandemic and advised a traveler not to wear one.
I am loath to agree with anything this foolish man says, but when he’s right, he’s right. And he’s right.
Headline: Study: Surgical and Cloth Masks Filter Roughly 10% Efficient at Blocking Aerosols.
The commonly worn cloth and surgical masks are roughly 10 percent efficient at blocking exhaled aerosols, a University of Waterloo study found.
The study, examining the effects of masks and ventilation, ultimately found that commonly used cloth and surgical masks do little to filter exhaled aerosols.
“The results show that a standard surgical and three-ply cloth masks, which see current widespread use, filter at apparent efficiencies of only 12.4% and 9.8%, respectively,” the study concluded, noting that KN95 and N95 masks were far more effective at filtering out aerosols.
“Apparent efficiencies of 46.3% and 60.2% are found for KN95 and R95 masks, respectively, which are still notably lower than the verified 95% rated ideal efficiencies,” researchers continued in the data published last month prior to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reversing course, advising fully vaccinated individuals to wear masks if they are in high-risk areas.
The study’s conclusion continued:
Furthermore, the efficiencies of a loose-fitting KN95 and a KN95 mask equipped with a one-way valve were evaluated, showing that a one-way valve reduces the mask’s apparent efficiency by more than half (down to 20.3%), while a loose-fitting KN95 provides a negligible apparent filtration efficiency (3.4%). The present results provide an important practical contrast to many other previous experimental and numerical investigations, which do not consider the effect of mask fit when locally evaluating mask efficiency or incorporating mask usage in a numerical model. Nevertheless, if worn correctly, high-efficiency masks still offer significantly improved filtration efficiencies (apparent and ideal) over the more commonly used surgical and cloth masks, and hence are the recommended choice in mitigating the transmission risks of COVID-19.
Golly. The peer-reviewed paper is “Experimental investigation of indoor aerosol dispersion and accumulation in the context of COVID-19: Effects of masks and ventilation” in Physics of Fluids by Shah et al. Abstract abstract:
However, leakages are observed to result in notable decreases in mask efficiency relative to the ideal filtration efficiency of the mask material, even in the case of high-efficiency masks, such as the R95 or KN95. Tests conducted in the far field (2?m distance from the subject) capture significant aerosol build-up in the indoor space over a long duration (10?h).
This is another paper testing masks under “ideal” conditions. Which are, of course, scarcely realized in practice.
The study, which analyzed some 90,000 elementary students in 169 Georgia schools from November 16 to December 11, found that there was no statistically significant difference in schools that required students to wear masks compared to schools where masks were optional.
“The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional,” the CDC said. “This finding might be attributed to higher effectiveness of masks among adults, who are at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but might also result from differences in mask-wearing behavior among students in schools with optional requirements.”
Golly times two.
Results
From June 2, 2020 through August 12, 2020, there were 40,771 reported cases of COVID-19 within Bexar County, with 470 total deaths. The average number of new cases per day within the county was 565.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 394.6–736.2). The average number of positive hospitalized patients was 754.1 (95% CI 657.2–851.0), in the ICU was 273.1 (95% CI 238.2–308.0), and on a ventilator was 170.5 (95% CI 146.4–194.6). The average deaths per day was 6.5 (95% CI 4.4–8.6). All of the measured outcomes were higher on average in the postmask period as were covariables included in the adjusted model. When adjusting for traffic activity, total statewide caseload, public health complaints, and mean temperature, the daily caseload, hospital bed occupancy, ICU bed occupancy, ventilator occupancy, and daily mortality remained higher in the postmask period.
Conclusions
There was no reduction in per-population daily mortality, hospital bed, ICU bed, or ventilator occupancy of COVID-19-positive patients attributable to the implementation of a mask-wearing mandate.
These pre- post- intervention studies are common enough. And yes, it’s true, it could very well be that something besides mask wearing caused deaths to increase.
Yet there is zero evidence here masks work. As is zero.
(Never, ever put confidence intervals around an observation unless that observation is measured with error, which is here not zero. You saw 565.4 average patients a day. You didn’t see a confidence interval.)
BANGLADESHI PAPER
The paper is “The Impact of Community Masking on COVID-19: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Bangladesh” by Abaluck and a slew of others. This appears to be an NBER pre-print.
My conclusion (for those short of time): even if masks work, the effect is below even trivial. Am not changing my mind. Mask mandates are useless. Now for the details.
Abstract Method (my emphasis):
We conducted a cluster-randomized trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021 (N=600 villages, N=342,126 adults). We cross-randomized mask promotion strategies at the village and household level, including cloth vs. surgical masks. All intervention arms received free masks, information on the importance of masking, role modeling by community leaders, and in-person reminders for 8 weeks. The control group did not receive any interventions. Neither participants nor field staff were blinded to intervention assignment. Outcomes included symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (primary) and prevalence of proper mask-wearing, physical distancing, and symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (secondary)…
Plain enough.
Right away, we see reporting should be done by village, hierarchically. Summing across villages is dangerous because of the very real possibility of Simpson’s paradox, especially if those villages differ widely in population. In other words, we shouldn’t see the authors summing across all villages, but averaging effects across “randomized” (and not blinded) villages.
Let’s recall their goal: “Outcomes included symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (primary)…”
Let’s see their reporting (my emphasis):
Blood samples were collected from N=10,952 consenting, symptomatic individuals. Adjusting for baseline covariates, the intervention reduced symptomatic seroprevalence by 9.3% (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) = 0.91 [0.82, 1.00]; control prevalence 0.76%; treatment prevalence 0.68%). In villages randomized to surgical masks (n = 200), the relative reduction was 11.2% overall (aPR = 0.89 [0.78, 1.00]) and 34.7% among individuals 60+ (aPR = 0.65 [0.46, 0.85]).
Red flag #1: They summed across villages, with the real possibility of Simpson’s paradox. Red flag #2: they collected data only on (some) “symptomatic individuals”, and not all individuals. Since many “symptomatic” did not have Covid (as you will see), “symptoms” were badly defined, even though the definitions were from the WHO. Just what were the symptoms symptoms of? Why report on symptom differences when only a fraction of those with symptoms had Covid? Reducing symptoms is therefore almost meaningless.
Red flag #3: They only collected blood on 10,952/342,126 = 3% of the population. This isn’t necessarily a red flag, because that sample size could be sufficient. But if they grabbed all “symptomatic” people, then at worst only 3% of the population developed symptoms, which is small. Meaning Covid did not spread much, because only a fraction of that 3% had Covid at the time of testing. They didn’t test for antibodies, so people infected previously were missed.
Red flag #4: They don’t present the raw numbers, only the “adjusted” numbers. Meaning some model was used. This is odd because they do show the raw numbers for the other outcomes, like mask compliance rates (obviously higher in those who were reminded to wear them).
Pay attention now. The adjusted rates in those with symptoms only were this: control prevalence = 0.76% and treatment prevalence = 0.68%. Thus, at best, and only for people with “symptoms”, free masks and mask education reduced prevalence by 0.76 – 0.68 = 0.08%. Real percent, not relative percent.
I’ll repeat that: the reduction, at best, and assuming no Simpson’s paradox, and assuming nothing screwy with the strange “symptoms” definition and sampling, and assuming nothing screwy with the adjusting model (huge assumption!), was only 0.08%. That is zero-point-zero-eight percent. And only in those with “symptoms.”
Important. It appears from the text they grabbed all people with symptoms: “We collected capillary blood samples from participants who reported
COVID-like symptoms during the study period.” This is 3.2% of the population.
That means the population reduction of masks, given all those other caveats hold, is 0.032 x 0.0008 = 0.000026, or 0.0026%.
At best.
Masks reduce seroprevalence in the population by 0.0026%. At best. And assuming zero has gone wrong in all the experiment and modeling steps, and assuming the only cause active was masks, and that no other behavior changed in the mask group.
Since we can’t be sure of all that, there is some margin of error in that 0.0026%. Meaning the real reduction could be, and likely is. even smaller.
Since seroprevalence is not a direct measure of disease severity, and we know only a fraction of those with the bug become seriously ill, even fewer than that “at best” 0.0026% are protected against illness. No better than, say, 1%, on average across all ages become seriously ill or die.
That means masks protection against serious illness is 0.01 x 0.000026 = 0.00000026, or 0.000026%.
Conclusion: Skip mask mandates. They do nothing.
Bonus rant Stop looking at relative rate ratios! Look at comparisons of actual rates. It’s too damned easy to fool yourself with proportions. As people have done here.
A rate change from 0.0000000002 to 0.0000000001 is 50%. Wow! 50%! Halved! Alert the media! Yet the real reduction is 0.0000000001.
Stop using relative numbers in cases like this.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here
Thank you for this very clear and informative analysis. Thank you so much!
https://www.studyfinds.org/chinese-made-kn95-masks-health-standards/ KN95 are masks made by the people who infected us. How absolutely brain dead do you have to be to use the masks made by the enemy? I’m still looking for the moron who thought having your enemy make your pharmaceuticals was a good idea. I guess if we die, we deserve it for being such idiots. (Idiots are first to die of fear, so there is a silver lining.)
N95 masks used in hospitals are tested for size and fit–thoroughly. They are used ONCE and only once. No moron in a hospital, except one that deserves to die due to stupid, wears the same mask all day. Without testing fit and changing masks from room to room or surgery to surgery (which is usually NOT an N95 mask), you might as well just inhale the ebola germs directly or whatever you’re trying to avoid.
The smoke here is very thick due to the progressive nitwits burning the West (and Smokey the Bear with it–God forbid a bear tell us we can prevent forest fires. WE NEED ELECTRIC CARS. Everyone knows that.) If I have to paint the outside of the garage wall we replaced while the smoke is still here, I wear an N95 mask (precovid purchase) and paint for maybe 30 minutes, then run in and pant for 30 minutes. N95 significantly reduces how much air you get–they HAVE to or they would not work. I did research this in 2018 when I needed to paint the house while the nitwits burned their states back then. A respirator might be better and may be necessary in the future, though as my husband pointed out, I tend to freak out with such things. Too claustrophobic. I’m not wearing a mask to mow my lawn–it can grow as high as it wants. One must prioritize.
Masks are meant to dehumanize and condition you for the vexxine which is the stage 2 grooming for your obedience collar mark of the vexx so that you can move around, work, eat, buy and sell and possibly maybe even vote for nothing disguising itself as something.
They are meant to do something to your brain. Nothing to do with viruses. Hence to the controllers they are working, but not as advertised.
Even the paper masks reduce air flow. I used to laugh at the folks who wore their masks wrong. I have taken to wearing my mask wrong. I breathe through my nose most of the time anyway. All of the demonstrations of how masks work are of people sneezing or coughing through their mask. By all means run away from someone who is having a coughing fit. Especially if they are just using their mask to contain the fit. How in the world do I explain to the phobic the problems of epidemiology. 1.5 … That is the overall RR for smoking. It starts to be just a little too close to the Risk associated with 2nd Hand Smoke. If someone still lives with someone who smokes in their house (I still know smokers; I know none who smoke in their house), 2nd hand smoke may be a significant issue. But for the folks who have people in their lives who smoke behind the shed, it is not.
My apologies to Sheri for not forcing the people at the door to enforce the rule. I still manage to not put on my mask in several stores. The balancing act between being rude and trying to make the system see its stupidity is hard. We have morons running the state.
The news says the Idaho is in dire straights right now. Gotta go check in with a friend and see just how true that is..
Briggs, is there a way we could get a succinct write-up like this from you on the inefficacy of masks that one could send to his workplace muck-a-mucks that isn’t tied directly to your blog? I ask because I work in a technical environment, so there is an appreciation of numeracy, but as with all places in post-America America, I would expect the fact that you’re an open badthinker on your blog would poison the well to even looking at your arguments. Diversity being our strength and all that.
And frankly, I’d expect the response to be, “Well he isn’t the CDC, so… no.” But it would be worth a shot.
Nuke1776,
You’re right. I’ll do this.
Please – it’s a dead horse, stop beating it. Want definitive? try this:
—
The gold standard for claims about the effectiveness or otherwise of anything medical is the randomized clinical trial. In 2014, and so well before the current insanity hit, a number of people with real Ph’ds in closely related specializations published a careful review of ten such trials: Wong VW, Cowling BJ, Aiello AE. Hand hygiene and risk of influenza virus infections in the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis. In May of 2020 a larger team including the original author reported revisiting the issue to include four more in the CDC’s Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases as: Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings-Personal Protective and Environmental Measures.
The key sentence from the summary for that report is:
“Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
That’s the science: 14 randomized clinial trials, all done before today’s double goodthink became mandatory, and no evidence that masks used in non medical settings reduce viral infections.
—
The big issues here aren’t whether masks work – they don’t, and everyone knows it. The big issues are:
1 – why is it that government’s reaction to failure is always to do more of whatever failed? and,
2 – why do people willingly accept obviously false generalizations drawn from severely delimited special cases?
e.g. The Waterloo “study” reasonably found that masks, used once under lab conditions, stopped some aerosols for some time – but people conclude that this is evidence that they sometimes work to some extent when in fact those aerosols that are captured in real life first shrink a bit due to surface evaporation and then get blown out where ever the person has wandered off to between capture and release – thus achieving the opposite of the intended goal?
Mr Statistician to the Stars, you do stellar work!
Not only are those masks useless at filtering out virus particles (eg, at 10% reduction of aerosols it requires 20 masks to a 90% reduction) they also introduce lots of fibers into your lungs!
2 – why do people willingly accept obviously false generalizations drawn from severely delimited special cases?
Because MPAI!
Most people will believe literally anything if they hear it on the news several times. It’s that simple.
Where is Swordfish?
We need his insight
Why to people double down on stupid? They are emotionally invested in their decisions, rightly or wrongly; and they simply cannot lose face by admitting error (mostly, for a real adult will own their mistakes). This is squared for governments (bureaucrats in particular). What will the plebes think if government (and any authority other than God) admit error? Quelle horror.
I wonder if the real world mask effectiveness can assessed via looking at the case counts for people working dental offices, barber shops, etc. For example I visited my dentist last week, spent an hour sitting in a chair without a mask, the office has 5 rooms, so they can upwards of 50 patients a day. So statistically they are likely to get someone COVID positive at least once a day (current infectivity rate in LA is above 2%). Do they show higher incidences of the office personnel testing positive? I could not find any stats.
Johnno: Graphene in masks is the latest I have read about for problems. Since the writer is a genuine conspiracy nut, I have no idea if it’s true or not. I either use the masks I have for woodworking or make cloth ones. One cloth one was labelled “Government Muzzle”.
Brad—I wear mine upside down, or color out like Biden used to. Good to know others are doing the same! I only wear my mask for medical appointments. My husband just blows off the people at doors that want to hand out masks. There really isn’t much of a rule here in Wyoming for wearing them. My husband could care less about the “rude” part—these are people who probably deserve being rude to.
cdquarles: Yes, that is the problem. A REAL adult will own their mistakes. We are a society of whiney, scared children that simply cannot understand. We have way too few adults.
And by all means let it also be duly noted that no firm statistical evidence supports speed limits on highways nor laws against drunk driving. Just sayin….
Important update: CDC redefines vaccine.
“Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
Vaccine: A PREPARATION THAT IS USED TO STIMULATE THE BODY’S IMMUNE RESPONSE AGAINST DISEASES. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.”
I added the caps to emphasize the NEW definition, custom made for the failure of the Covid “vaccination”. No more do you need the actual germ. I bet some of the new cancer drugs even qualify. This was September 1st. Orwell strikes again.
https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/national-testing
A friend sent this to me. Fascinating details of occupancy of hospitals last updated yesterday…. Overall occupancy in the US is not exactly scary, unless you are a company running a hospital, in which case you might be a little nervous. Low occupancy has to make a guy who has to pay the bills a little nervous.
The challenges are quite likely related to staffing rather than available beds…
It is not easy when you are firing people for not vaccinating.
Common sense would tell you that breathing in excess CO2 (especially in kids with developing brains) would not be good for you…
Not to mention all manner of nasty bacteria that accumulates on them & is then breathed in…
The mask cultists believe that wearing the mask gives them some semblance of *control* over the dreaded virus, which obviously cannot be controlled…
This *illusion of control* is hazardous to their health…
Their desire to mandate their use is hazardous to MY health…
brad tittle
September 8, 2021 at 7:40 pm
https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/national-testing
“A friend sent this to me. Fascinating details of occupancy of hospitals last updated yesterday…. Overall occupancy in the US is not exactly scary, unless you are a company running a hospital, in which case you might be a little nervous. Low occupancy has to make a guy who has to pay the bills a little nervous.
“The challenges are quite likely related to staffing rather than available beds…
“It is not easy when you are firing people for not vaccinating.”
Especially when “available beds” are dependent on staffing. No staff, no bed. Hospital beds don’t evaporate into thin air; how they count them depends on the staff they have available at the time.
Joey Zamboni
September 8, 2021 at 8:06 pm
“Common sense would tell you that breathing in excess CO2 (especially in kids with developing brains) would not be good for you…
“Not to mention all manner of nasty bacteria that accumulates on them & is then breathed in…”
Not to mention the mold, which many are allergic to, plus all the other coronaviruses and rhinoviruses and flu viruses which can accumulate on the mask.
And the developmental issues with kids not recognizing facial cues. Actually, the eyes are big tell, so they’ll probably notice when people are lying to them anyway. Don’t play poker with these kids!
On the subject of masks, vaccine mandates, etc.
“It is amusing to think that there are people in the world who have renounced all the laws of God and nature only to invent laws for themselves, which they scrupulously obey, as, for example, Mahomet’s soldiers, thieves and heretics, and likewise logicians.
It would seem that their license should be without bounds or barriers, considering the number of just and sensible ones they have transgressed.” — Blaise Pascal
Periodontists should be weighing in academically on the subject of Masks and Oral Hygiene ~ bacteria, gum disease, tooth decay, loss of bone, etc. ~ but I won’t be holding my breath in anticipation.
The proper fit of a ventilator mask for effectiveness is well known and has an OSHA regulation.
The regulation says that if your job requires you to wear a ventilator, then you must be clean shaven. There are hefty fines if an employee is caught wearing a ventilator and is not clean shaven.
So, one can prove to any reasonable person that mask mandates as currently implemented are nothing but “We have to been seen doing something” theater using just one word.
BEARDS
If all mask wearers are not required to be clean shaven, then any mask mandates, including N-95, are useless.
Brad Tittle- not sure what you are referring to in Idaho. Forest fires and smoke? Some days, yes. We’ve had blue skies for a couple weeks now, but today is hazy. Face diapers? No requirements. Only the Branch Covidians wear them. The school my grandkids attend gave parents a survey before the school year regarding kids wearing the Garment of Gates, and we voted No. So, no requirement to wear. No teachers or staff are wearing, and only 3 kids whose moms are named Karen.
Thanks for taking on this study, Briggs! I had a vague notion the treatment of clustering might be a problem but thought it might not apply because of “cluster randomization.” You’re insight on Simpson’s paradox set me straight!
Paul Murphy, I agree this was all settled with that 2014 study. The only doubt in my mind had been any possible difference between flu and coronavirus, but the evidence out lately about the aerosol spread of corona set that to rest.
It’s all been pure theatre from the beginning. The problem is, too many NPCs seem to be enjoying their new roles as Masked Crusaders saving the world from the most super-duper scary virus ever, one muzzle at a time!
Prime example of Covid mask theater in action: Last night at the US Open, during Djokovic’s match late in the evening, the roof had to be closed due to an impending storm. Since it was about 11PM and Djokovic was cruising, the stadium was nowhere near full, I’d say about 15k out of full capacity of 24k. The Open had been very mask free even with large crowds, surprisingly since it is being held in Blahsio’s New York, home of leftists and mainstream media (but I repeat myself) who are the ones mostly pushing the mask cult. But, when the roof closed (in a very large – for tennis – stadium at about 60% capacity, whose roof is a couple hundred feet in height), they asked people to put on masks (does everyone assume people just always carry one everywhere now? LOL) due to the match now being “indoors.”
Many promptly complied with this inanity – as if the neighboring spectators they’d been sitting next to all night suddenly became intensely infectious the moment the roof closed! – like good obedient NPCs. About half remained un-muzzled though, without being harassed by power-tripping ushers – so at least some signs that some people are waking up. But, as I’ve said before, and as last night’s example indicated, it appears a good half the country is just forever gone, brainwashed beyond repair and forever willing to slap a muzzle on any time some officious nincompoop tells them to. I was especially disappointed to see the people in Djokovic’s player’s box comply – since he’s been one of the few players willing to speak out about Covid inanity, especially the jabs, so I’m sure his wife, coach, PT, etc. know the muzzles are useless BS.
How do you work that out? If you’re making the claim that they don’t work, you have a burden of proof for that claim.
Burden of proof: the obligation to prove one’s assertion. [OED]
All,
Here’s a fun tale.
Swordfishtrombone is walking down the street and man comes up to him, “Put on this tinfoil hat.”
SFT says, “Why?”
“Do it because I’m from the government and I said so and because it keeps Bigfoot away.”
SFT sadly realizes he will have to prove the tinfoil hats do not keep Bigfoot away, an arduous task. He puts on the hat and slinks away. “[OED]”
Like many in dealing with the justice system, Swordfish doesn’t understand how “burden of proof” works, and who bears the burden in a particular case.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that the burden of proof (that they work, that any alleged benefits outweigh harms resulting from their imposition etc.) here is on those who would impose face masks on society, has a screw loose, and is a tyrant and moral terrorist.
Dennis,
Science isn’t the justice system. If you make a claim, you have a burden of proof for that claim.
Calm down Karen.
I never said it was. The reference to the justice system was an analogy, not a statement of exact equivalence. Forced masking is not “science” either – only The Science(TM), politicized moral theatre and psychological terrorism.
And, yes, with regard to masks, the burden of proof is clearly on those who would impose this insanity on society to prove their efficacy, as well as moral and legal justification – which they have not done (and, indeed, cannot do).
If you press swordfishtrombone long enough his response will inevitably be either to ignore you, or to say you have to adopt his position because an “expert” said it (making Mr. trombone irrelevant.)
The one exception is when the topic is on God, because swordfishtrombone really, really, hates God.
On topic though, I’ve noticed two things in the last few weeks regarding mask mandates:
-Young adults and teenagers are starting to ignore them. Some just out right don’t wear masks, some wait until they are well into the masking zone before putting them on, and even the ones that do wear them in the right places very rarely wear them anything close to properly. This is in sharp contrast to last year where young adults and teens wore masks even in many places they weren’t required.
-It is very rare that anyone calls them out on not wearing masks, even when they are flagrantly disobeying a mandate.
The only way these things stick is if we go full Australia and have tons of police whose only job is to go around looking for the unmasked.
Yes…Rudolph, I’m seeing fewer kids and young people masked – no mandates around here though – and even in the few stores that still have perfunctory signs up, no one bothers anyone for not wearing a mask. And after seeing an uptick in generalized muzzling again a couple weeks ago due to Delta scariant fearmongering, it seems to have subsided again. At store today back down to about 20% muzzled (even most employees not).
I saw Biden announced his latest terrorist scare tactics today to coerce people into getting jabbed – aimed, it seems, largely at pushing employers with over 100 employees (and any who do business with feds) to force jabs or weekly testing on all. Surprised he didn’t try to force some national muzzle mandate as well – it’s not as if he gives a damn about the Constitution or the limits of Presidential power. As applies to fed contractors, his lawless acts of aggression may be upheld by compliant judges, but the attempt to force jabs (or weekly tests on all in lieu of jab, even for people with zero symptoms of anything) on all employers everywhere without exeception with more than 100 employees, should be a non-starter legally and Constitutionally. Everyone affected should simply not comply, anyway. And if upheld, I could see any employers hovering around, say 101-130 employees, simply finding ways to trim the books. If I had employees and a business that size, I’d rather fire a few – or a dozen – than comply with such tyrannical acts of aggression by the government against my business and person.
The “citation” problem is real. Back when I used to bother arguing these things on the interwebz (remember when we thought we might win those arguments and this would all be gone in a few months) I would post the link to an analysis similar to what Mr. Briggs has here. The response was invariably “those people are (fill in the blank)”. Usually the dismissal would be cut and pasted straight from Wikipedia which is happy to label people and groups. The actual studies and/or arguments would never be addressed.
Karen (Dennis),
IOW, a false analogy.
Yes and no, but mostly no. The government doesn’t have to prove that the scientific concensus on which its mask policy is based is correct, although it can (and did) fund more research. The scientific concensus, based on experimentation and evidence is that masks do work, although obviously not perfectly. In real-world situations, with many wearing very poor masks (to look trendy), or wearing them under their nose (to look dumb), or refusing to wear them at all (to look childish), you would hardly expect otherwise.
I think those dozen employees would be justified in calling you a tyrant. Could you not just ask them first if they minded being tested and/or vaccinated?
If the worst thing about masks is that they are useless, I’d be very happy. Here’s some important info on maks.
Sporadic use of a mask, a few minutes here and there, is probably not a problem unless you are using one of those things that has been “treated” with all kinds of poisons, including potent pesticides or Zinc Pyrithione
Zinc Pyrithione
This italian guy received his in the mail from the health authrities in the Piedmont province.
https://www.facebook.com/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgisella.valenza.3%2Fvideos%2F3154225171283748%2F%3Ft%3D0
He checked to see what kind of product was that and was duly horrified.
https://www.caymanchem.com/msdss/29154m.pdf
He said, so now I have to buy a second mask to protect me from the mask these assholes sent me.
But really the big problem is prolonged use of masks, (especially if combined with toxic masks as above)
A good place to start might be this site
https://pdmj.org/
Especially Part 3 of Volume I (hypoxia, hypercapnia and physiological effects).
The person who created that site, Colleen Huber, used to be on twiter, regularly censored for posting about the dangers of masks, until her account was nuked.
One of the first things that made me realize the sinister nature of this covid operation was that if you googled anything having to do with oxygen intake and masks, or CO2 and masks etc. the first thing you’d see were pages and pages of debunkers and fact checkers and videos of supposed doctors assuring you there was no reduction in oxygen intake, no hypoxia, no dangerous levels of CO2 and so on.
There are many videos measuring those things. Anybody can do it. Within 15 seconds or less of putting on the mask, the oxygen content of the air under it drops from the normal 20.9 % or so, to the 16-17 range. In one test I saw done by a firefighter testing several masks, the drop with the most common mask was from 20.8 to 15.5. I lot of people take this to mean a 5.3 % reduction. But the actual reduction in oxygen intake with every breath is 5.3/20.8 which is more thatn 25% less oxygen.
The deceit in the fact-checkers videos was that attempted to fool the viewers by measuring oxygen saturation in blood, with that gadget on your finger for a few minutes. Of course there is not drop for a good while because your body tries to keep O2 saturation steady by breathing a bit harder, a bit faster, and perhaps increasing heart rat too a little bit. But this cannot be kept indefinitely. Depending on what shape you are in, O2 saturation will begin to get into hypoxic territory within 1-2 hours. And in the meantime your kidneys will be doing also extra work to eliminate the acidity from theCO2 build-up.
Because regarding CO2, the air under the mask goes from the normal (about 400 ppm) to over 10,000 in a matter of seconds.
A funny thing is that OSHA 5,000 ppm the maximum allowed and only for limited periods.
OSHA also considers that any atmosphere below 19.5% Oxygen is considered an “oxygen deficient atmosphere” and special measures and regulations apply.
Basically the mask mandates are ordering millions of people to live and work in what the government’s safety regulators consider illegal conditions.
CO2 under mask
https://odysee.com/@Pugliani:8/CO2_level_under_mask:5
Oxygen under mask (firefighter testing various masks)
https://www.brighteon.com/0d950115-364b-4729-b821-3752eb493f4c
Oxygen under mask
https://www.brighteon.com/ca85b176-0f69-456f-bf6d-d70b825c4a33
Oxygen under mask
https://d.tube/#!/v/markdgold99/QmTMUUEmA7BCKLcvj9Vswp96gL2jAAPYJxLkpETt8Dv3co
OSHA Oxygen standards
https://ohsonline.com/Articles/2005/05/Understanding-Oxygen-Sensor-Performance.aspx?Page=2
OSHA CO2 standards
https://ohsonline.com/Articles/2006/07/Carbon-Dioxide-Measures-Up-as-a-Real-Hazard.aspx?Page=3
Brain fog from masks is not a myth.
Look at this lady in a gas station
https://rumble.com/vig5vr-brain-fog-dont-mask-and-drive.html
Two OSHA whistleblowers talk about masks
https://rumble.com/vjd8ur-osha-workers-on-masks.html
All things considered masks are silent killers. Hypoxia and hypercapnia, which inevitably occur during prolonged mask use, are conditions under which all kinds of cancers and various serious illnesses feel very cozy and happy to develop.
——
By the way, there is no special virus, neither natural nor man-made. The whole thing is fraud. Just like with the swine flu and the various other killer viruses they keep making up.
On this topic Jon Rappoport has many articles.
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/09/20/the-failure-to-prove-the-virus-exists/
You can also check the work of Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman.
https://twitter.com/BenLubalas/status/1434653089521352707?s=20
The virus is a fraud. The operation is quite sinister, though.
Thanks for the breakdown of the Bangladesh study (and the other stuff). I was also not impressed by their numbers. But with respect to relative vs absolute reduction, isn’t relative the better number to use? Given that the disease prevalence was low, and we want to be able to generalize to situations where the prevalence is higher? Or am I missing something?
In either case it would be crazy to justify mask mandates in schools and other places in the US based on a study of Bangladeshi villages… but ok.
For me another red flag was that the control villages didn’t receive ANY intervention. So whatever difference they find can be due to increased awareness of the disease in the “mask” villages, causing people to be more careful.
Pingback: Masks Actually Hurt You, You Know? – dch
Question: when forced to don a mask, do you sneeze or cough with the thing in place and then continue to wear the sloppy thing? No, of course you do not, just like every rational other person. You pull the damned thing down, which probably caused the twinge that provoked the sneeze in the first place, so you would not have wear the gooey piece of crap post cough or sneeze.
Pingback: The Attack on Scientific Dissent Becomes Ever More Brutal ? Brownstone Institute - Vaccine Safety Info
A difference of 20 between groups, apparently:
http://www.argmin.net/2021/11/23/mask-rct-revisited/
Pingback: Los Angeles Will Soon Be In Shackles Again – Issues & Insights
Pingback: UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris just sent us a major gift – The Burning Platform
Pingback: Stev Kirsch Takes On The Academics And Demonstrates The Covid Vaccine Causes A Lot Of Probems | peckford42
Pingback: UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris Just Sent us a Major Gift – Understanding Deep Politics
Pingback: UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris Just Sent us a Major Gift - United Push Back
Pingback: UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris Just Sent us a Major Gift - LewRockwell