Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-18-2021, 08:13 PM   #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Andy Dufresne's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2020
Posts: 192
Default Stanford study: Masks are very bad

Quote:
A group of Stanford researchers published a study that says masks are ineffective and could have long-term health consequences.

“Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established,” the article states.

In January, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention performed a study and concluded that universal masking is recommended to slow the spread of COVID-19.
Quote:
But Stanford researchers disagree and say not only are masks ineffective, but could also be causing long-term health problems.

“Both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to reduce human-to-human transmission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19,” the article details. “Wearing facemasks has adverse physiological and psychological effects … [and] long-term consequences of wearing facemasks on health are detrimental.”


The group’s research suggests that the long-term practice of wearing facemasks has the “strong potential for devastating health consequences,” and states that masks should be “avoided from use.”


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720333028
Andy Dufresne is offline  
Old 04-18-2021, 08:23 PM   #2  
In a land of unicorns
 
dera's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: 175 FO
Posts: 4,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Dufresne View Post
Alzheimer? Yeah right.

You clearly didn't read the article because you copied the hypothesis part. There is nothing studied in this article. You should read the crap you share first before regurgitating it here.
dera is offline  
Old 04-18-2021, 08:41 PM   #3  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Andy Dufresne's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2020
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dera View Post
Alzheimer? Yeah right.

You clearly didn't read the article because you copied the hypothesis part. There is nothing studied in this article. You should read the crap you share first before regurgitating it here.
“I love science as long as I agree with it!!!1!”

I copied the hypothesis because that’s the meat of the study. The study is packed full of DATA. Cold, hard, statistics. Like this, for example:



Quote:
The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25].

Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26]. [b{The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. [/b] Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people [26]. This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase [27].
Quote:
A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, [bwthis meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28].[/b]A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29].

Another meta-analysis of 44 non-RCT studies (n = 25,697 participants) examining the potential risk reduction of facemasks against SARS, middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and COVID-19 transmissions [30]. The meta-analysis included four specific studies on COVID-19 transmission (5,929 participants, primarily health-care workers used N95 masks). Although the overall findings showed reduced risk of virus transmission with facemasks, the analysis had severe limitations to draw conclusions. One of the four COVID-19 studies had zero infected cases in both arms, and was excluded from meta-analytic calculation. Other two COVID-19 studies had unadjusted models, and were also excluded from the overall analysis. The meta-analytic results were based on only one COVID-19, one MERS and 8 SARS studies, resulting in high selection bias of the studies and contamination of the results between different viruses. Based on four COVID-19 studies, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate risk reduction of facemasks for COVID-19 transmission, where the authors reported that the results of meta-analysis have low certainty and are inconclusive [30].

Last edited by Andy Dufresne; 04-18-2021 at 08:52 PM.
Andy Dufresne is offline  
Old 04-18-2021, 08:48 PM   #4  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Andy Dufresne's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2020
Posts: 192
Default

More DATA. Science!

Quote:
The adverse physiological effects were confirmed in a study of 53 surgeons where surgical facemask were used during a major operation. After 60 min of facemask wearing the oxygen saturation dropped by more than 1% and heart rate increased by approximately five beats/min [45]. Another study among 158 health-care workers using protective personal equipment primarily N95 facemasks reported that 81% (128 workers) developed new headaches during their work shifts as these become mandatory due to COVID-19 outbreak. For those who used the N95 facemask greater than 4 h per day, the likelihood for developing a headache during the work shift was approximately four times higher [Odds ratio = 3.91, 95% CI (1.35–11.31) p = 0.012], while 82.2% of the N95 wearers developed the headache already within ≤10 to 50 min [46].

With respect to cloth facemask, a RCT using four weeks follow up compared the effect of cloth facemask to medical masks and to no masks on the incidence of clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections among 1607 participants from 14 hospitals [19]. The results showed that there were no difference between wearing cloth masks, medical masks and no masks for incidence of clinical respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections. However, a large harmful effect with more than 13 times higher risk [Relative Risk = 13.25 95% CI (1.74 to 100.97) was observed for influenza-like illness among those who were wearing cloth masks [19]. The study concluded that cloth masks have significant health and safety issues including moisture retention, reuse, poor filtration and increased risk for infection, providing recommendation against the use of cloth masks [19].
Andy Dufresne is offline  
Old 04-18-2021, 10:51 PM   #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
flydrive's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 105
Default

So, when is the class action lawsuit against the CDC and all of our employers for endangering our health?
flydrive is offline  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:10 AM   #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PossibleDeviation's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Position: Student of the game
Posts: 186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flydrive View Post
So, when is the class action lawsuit against the CDC and all of our employers for endangering our health?
Won't ever happen. This study, along with others, will continue to be suppressed by big tech..... eh.... the government.....eh the CDC...... eh..... you get the point
PossibleDeviation is offline  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:38 AM   #7  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,199
Default

Well I can definitely agree that masks interfere with our normal social interactions... further aggravtaing the effect that tech and social media compartmentalize people in their safe space bubble of choice, isolating them from other, real, people.

It's like zoom... probably fine if you already have a relationship, but hard to make and grow new ones.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 04-19-2021, 06:19 AM   #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 4,621
Default

Driving down the Merritt in CT last week, come to blockade of slow traffic. Eventually, we all get by this left lane bandit doing 54 mph, driving a Tesla, double-masked, all alone. Told me all I needed to know about COVID-fearing, climate activists preaching safetyism.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 04-19-2021, 06:31 AM   #9  
maxing the min/Moderator
 
jetlaggy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: 757 F/O
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Dufresne View Post

Sounds like the same possible effects from flying in an airplane
jetlaggy is offline  
Old 04-19-2021, 06:37 AM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FlewUnderWires's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2021
Posts: 166
Default

So...all I had to do was type in the name of the author of this “study”.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/16/diamond-and-silk/medical-hypotheses-journal-article-lacks-evidence-/

And since you are going to disagree with politifact for being leftist.

https://www.amgenbiotechexperience.com/seeing-not-necessarily-believing

This article is literally being used as a method to teach people about how to identify misinformation.
FlewUnderWires is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vaguely reminiscent of Tuskegee Study Excargodog COVID19 10 11-28-2020 08:21 AM
Argue Masks / CDC / Politics Here!!!! DWC CAP10 USAF Delta 1169 09-29-2020 01:34 PM
"It aint that bad..." My final thoughts skypine27 Cargo 2 08-07-2007 03:04 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:46 AM.