A debate on the efficacy of masks

The evidence surrounding vapor based viral load in an enclosed environment where people wear masks, suggests that masks have no effect on transmission. Where I guess they may have a benefit is in the amount of viral load. It is believed, though not proven, that the bigger the viral load received the worse the infection. This on the face of it seems to make sense, but it is counter intuitive. With covid there is anecdotal evidence to suggest viral load directly effects the seriousness of the infection.
 
SmallTown said:
You can't have missed my point...
Click to expand...
He said he saw his neighbour blow out a match whilst wearing a blue mask. That's breath. Which contains amongst over things, water vapour. Remember when your grandad used to breathe on his glasses to clean them or wipe a smudge off of the window with his breath?
 
RandySavage said:
He said he saw his neighbour blow out a match whilst wearing a blue mask. That's breath. Which contains amongst over things, water vapour. Remember when your grandad used to breathe on his glasses to clean them or wipe a smudge off of the window with his breath?
Click to expand...
Hmmm I wonder if anything could be used to stop the water vapour but not the breathe? :unsure::unsure::unsure:
 
ST there is no measurable scientific test results that say wearing a mask has any benefit. There are, however, scientific, measurable studies done that suggest quite strongly that masks have no benefit at all.
I am not advocating for or against the wearing of masks, I am simply stating a fact.
 
Laughing said:
ST there is no measurable scientific test results that say wearing a mask has any benefit. There are, however, scientific, measurable studies done that suggest quite strongly that masks have no benefit at all.
I am not advocating for or against the wearing of masks, I am simply stating a fact.
Click to expand...
It's impossible to carry out a scientific test for masks and coronavirus. You'd have to get symptomatic coughers and asymptomatic breathers to stand for varying times in front of people with masks and without masks, with the people selected to have the same potential infection risk. And then the same again with different sets of people with different infection risks. And then repeat with different mask and face covering types. It would not be ethical or practical to carry out such a test so it won't happen.

Alternatively, the US have studied where mandatory mask wearing was introduced and, within two weeks and taking all factors into account have come up with a statistically significant result that masks reduce infection rates.
 
Laughing said:
ST there is no measurable scientific test results that say wearing a mask has any benefit. There are, however, scientific, measurable studies done that suggest quite strongly that masks have no benefit at all.
I am not advocating for or against the wearing of masks, I am simply stating a fact.
Click to expand...

From the way you write you can tell you're not a scientist, and if you are, you're a bad one.

I suggest people listen to scientists when it comes to scientific issues, not lay people or journalists with no scientific training for that matter.
 
red_harrington said:
From the way you write you can tell you're not a scientist, and if you are, you're a bad one.

I suggest people listen to scientists when it comes to scientific issues, not lay people or journalists with no scientific training for that matter.
Click to expand...
You were siding with the philosopher yesterday.
 
SmallTown said:
Did he blow it out with his breathe or with water vapour?
Click to expand...
To be honest it was an amusing, and in the circumstances, interesting stunt. The next test would be to see if you could light a fart through one.

i doubt mask wearing, sorry, face coverings the way we are using them make much difference. I follow the rules but it doesn’t mean I have to believe in them. Unlike many on here I’m not an expert virologist, instinct says they should help, but instinct says cold water should freeze quicker than boiling water, the reverse is true.
 
bear66 said:
It's impossible to carry out a scientific test for masks and coronavirus. You'd have to get symptomatic coughers and asymptomatic breathers to stand for varying times in front of people with masks and without masks, with the people selected to have the same potential infection risk. And then the same again with different sets of people with different infection risks. And then repeat with different mask and face covering types. It would not be ethical or practical to carry out such a test so it won't happen.

Alternatively, the US have studied where mandatory mask wearing was introduced and, within two weeks and taking all factors into account have come up with a statistically significant result that masks reduce infection rates.
Click to expand...
Your first point Bear, is true as far as it goes, however any particle the same size as the covid 19 virus could be used, and in fact has been used in scientifically measured tests.

Your second example is anecdotal, the result may be statistically significant, but then so is the number of people who marry compatible birth signs. Statistical significance does not equate to scientifically measurable evidence. I do, of course, not dismiss anecdotal evidence out of hand, I simply prefer the scientifically measurable evidence, of which the video debate links to.
 
red_harrington said:
From the way you write you can tell you're not a scientist, and if you are, you're a bad one.

I suggest people listen to scientists when it comes to scientific issues, not lay people or journalists with no scientific training for that matter.
Click to expand...
What an insulting crock. I suggest you do your own research instead of bad mouthing mine.
 
Laughing said:
Your first point Bear, is true as far as it goes, however any particle the same size as the covid 19 virus could be used, and in fact has been used in scientifically measured tests.

Your second example is anecdotal, the result may be statistically significant, but then so is the number of people who marry compatible birth signs. Statistical significance does not equate to scientifically measurable evidence. I do, of course, not dismiss anecdotal evidence out of hand, I simply prefer the scientifically measurable evidence, of which the video debate links to.
Click to expand...
Statistically significant isn't anecdotal and such means are used across real life 'science experiments'.

There has always been a view that droplet based transmission is a means of infection (wash your hands), but, although the possibility of air transmission was put forward in February, it's only recently that asymptomatic transmission looks more feasible as virus quantities in air have been measured.

The flu, measles, 'colds' and coronavirus all transmit differently so no one mask experiment for one is any use for the others or even the one under experimentation because of the number of variables.

We still don't even know how much viral load is necessary to infect different groups of people.
 
bear66 said:
Statistically significant isn't anecdotal and such means are used across real life 'science experiments'.

There has always been a view that droplet based transmission is a means of infection (wash your hands), but, although the possibility of air transmission was put forward in February, it's only recently that asymptomatic transmission looks more feasible as virus quantities in air have been measured.

The flu, measles, 'colds' and coronavirus all transmit differently so no one mask experiment for one is any use for the others or even the one under experimentation because of the number of variables.

We still don't even know how much viral load is necessary to infect different groups of people.
Click to expand...
But Bear it is anecdotal. It is using examples, or stories. So for example, they looked at states that had mandatory mask wearing. against states that didn't have mandatory mask wearing in place. Now let's look at that. In the mandatory example, how many people were wearing masks? In the non-mandatory study how many people were wearing masks? What was the population density in each area? How well was social distancing being carried out? That is why it is anecdotal evidence.

For any science to become universally accepted, at least in the hard sciences, the test must be repeatable and measurable.

I agree that that we are only beginning to understand how the covid 19 virus transmits. However to dismiss a test on flu, for example, as being useful in determining how effective masks are because of the variation, but accept your first example seems to be cherry picking.

One study showed that the air in an enclosed space is almost as loaded when people wear masks, as when they do not, and it is almost certainly over the infection rate required to catch corona-virus.

EDIT don't get me wrong I am not dismissing the statistical evidence for mask wearing. I am saying 2 things. Firstly that there is counter evidence, and in my opinion stronger counter evidence, to suggest masks don't help. Secondly the vitriol aimed at people who don't want to wear a mask, based on an article someone reads, or an assumption folks make, kinda sticks in the craw.

Finally, I wear a mask, as I don't see the harm in it as I have a washable cloth mask and don't toss it on the ground when I am done. Also I am fit and healthy, so for me, nor real harm, it's a bit uncomfortable, is all. Not everyone is in the same position as I am though.

I wonder, for example, if you are a smoker and exhale much higher levels of toxic chemicals, is wearing a mask increasing your risk of cancer? If you have not been diagnosed with COPD, what harm can a mask do, beyond just making you breathless, for example.
 
Last edited:
Laughing said:
But Bear it is anecdotal. It is using examples, or stories. So for example, they looked at states that had mandatory mask wearing. against states that didn't have mandatory mask wearing in place. Now let's look at that. In the mandatory example, how many people were wearing masks? In the non-mandatory study how many people were wearing masks? What was the population density in each area? How well was social distancing being carried out? That is why it is anecdotal evidence.

For any science to become universally accepted, at least in the hard sciences, the test must be repeatable and measurable.

I agree that that we are only beginning to understand how the covid 19 virus transmits. However to dismiss a test on flu, for example, as being useful in determining how effective masks are because of the variation, but accept your first example seems to be cherry picking.

One study showed that the air in an enclosed space is almost as loaded when people wear masks, as when they do not, and it is almost certainly over the infection rate required to catch corona-virus
Click to expand...
No, it was a study of infection rates. It was found statistically significant in 15 States that had mandated the use of masks.
 
bear66 said:
No, it was a study of infection rates. It was found statistically significant in 15 States that had mandated the use of masks.
Click to expand...
With way too many variables to draw a conclusion from, it is not repeatable. Let me give you another example of why mandated mask wearing may reduce infection rates. Perhaps the states that mandate mask wearing has better social distancing guidelines and enforcement in place? Perhaps the population are more fearful of going out so there is not as much foot traffic around? perhaps from state to state there are other differences. This is evidence only, and it is based on so few factors, well, 1 factor only.
 
Laughing said:
With way too many variables to draw a conclusion from, it is not repeatable. Let me give you another example of why mandated mask wearing may reduce infection rates. Perhaps the states that mandate mask wearing has better social distancing guidelines and enforcement in place? Perhaps the population are more fearful of going out so there is not as much foot traffic around? perhaps from state to state there are other differences. This is evidence only, and it is based on so few factors, well, 1 factor only.
Click to expand...
Thats what statistically significant means. The reduction in rate could not statistically have happened without masks no matter what else was going on.
 
I guess you're busy replying to bear @Laughing but I think it would strengthen your argument with both him and me if you pointed to these peer reviewed repeatable test reviews you have seen so we can see the evidence for ourselves.
 
SmallTown said:
I guess you're busy replying to bear @Laughing but I think it would strengthen your argument with both him and me if you pointed to these peer reviewed repeatable test reviews you have seen so we can see the evidence for ourselves.
Click to expand...
Yes arguing all over the place ST! Let me go find the relevant article and post on this thread.

Bear I am no statistician, but statistically significant means greater than chance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top