I don't need to do my own study. Your own study found that masks "worn" by naive (i.e. not-infected) hamsters did not significantly reduce the COVID-19 transmission rate: "The use of surgical mask partition to protect naive hamsters reduced the transmission rate to 33.3%, although this did not reach statistical significance." To the best of my knowledge, no study has found that mask wearing (other than N-95 or equivalent) by healthy persons has a significant effect.
Actually I'm an engineer who understands statistics. The only randomized study that I'm aware of tracked over 3000 people and concluded that wearing a mask reduced transmission by 0.3% (basically zero). The number allowed the researchers to conclude at 95% confidence interval that the "real" effect of a mask is between -1.2% to +0.4%. In other words, in the best mask study published (that I'm aware of) the authors concluded with 95% confidence that masks have basically zero effect on transmission, positive or negative. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
I'll ask again: Regardless of your credentials, do you know of any study showing a statistically significant reduction in covid transmission by healthy people wearing a mask?
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.
limitation basically says the whole study was pointless to begin with
yet you took that to mean conclusive evidence masks don't work
Hi! I'm a doctor! I've read all the literature on mask-wearing as it pertains to preventing upper respiratory viral infections. None of them had statistically significant results.
I am, sorry. Not only am I an MD in the United States, but I was also worked several years in molecular biology labs before medical school. You can check my post history where I reference that I'm a physician.
the efficacy of the membrane was the subject of the test, not how the membrane was attached to your face
So the test wasn't testing masks. The test was testing mask materials (badly). Stop citing it as a test of masks.
absolutely meaningless
Of course it's not absolutely meaningless. They even apologise in the paper for failing to standardise airflow because they know themselves that it's a material factor.
I don't need to do my own study. Your own study found that masks "worn" by naive (i.e. not-infected) hamsters did not significantly reduce the COVID-19 transmission rate: "The use of surgical mask partition to protect naive hamsters reduced the transmission rate to 33.3%, although this did not reach statistical significance." To the best of my knowledge, no study has found that mask wearing (other than N-95 or equivalent) by healthy persons has a significant effect.
you're not a doctor. "to the best of your knowledge" means absolutely nothing
Actually I'm an engineer who understands statistics. The only randomized study that I'm aware of tracked over 3000 people and concluded that wearing a mask reduced transmission by 0.3% (basically zero). The number allowed the researchers to conclude at 95% confidence interval that the "real" effect of a mask is between -1.2% to +0.4%. In other words, in the best mask study published (that I'm aware of) the authors concluded with 95% confidence that masks have basically zero effect on transmission, positive or negative. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
I'll ask again: Regardless of your credentials, do you know of any study showing a statistically significant reduction in covid transmission by healthy people wearing a mask?
limitation basically says the whole study was pointless to begin with
yet you took that to mean conclusive evidence masks don't work
you're a moron
Youre a mask cucked faggot. Eat shit and die!
Hi! I'm a doctor! I've read all the literature on mask-wearing as it pertains to preventing upper respiratory viral infections. None of them had statistically significant results.
you're not a doctor
I am, sorry. Not only am I an MD in the United States, but I was also worked several years in molecular biology labs before medical school. You can check my post history where I reference that I'm a physician.
His lack of knowledge means that he can't provide evidence to support your claim.
Your study does not constitute evidence.
I'm not going to deny science, but I am going to wait for some.
means nothing, they're just a testable subject
means nothing, the efficacy of the membrane was the subject of the test, not how the membrane was attached to your face
absolutely meaningless
all droplets are the same
take a science class
So the test wasn't testing masks. The test was testing mask materials (badly). Stop citing it as a test of masks.
Of course it's not absolutely meaningless. They even apologise in the paper for failing to standardise airflow because they know themselves that it's a material factor.
I feel I need to teach one. To you.