You see guys, this happens to me all the time.
Masks do zero. Nothing. Nada. Zip, Zilch and any other very small engineering number for the prevention of viral communication.
You lefties don wanna listen. I know it hurts when conservatives are right EVERY SINGLE TIME, but you ought to.
See, the reason I’m right all the time is not because I am a really good guesser. You figure the rest out.
the Air Vent 
Really – you’re hilarious:
> The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID‐19 pandemic.
And it’s not like other meta-analyses or systemic reviews haven’t shown a range of findings.
Because they have.
But of course you pick one study (from 2020) to draw a broad conclusion, to the exclusion of other research that shows contrasting findings.
I’m shocked.
Ah. I see there IS an updated version. Worth taking a look. Cochrane reviews are generally well regarded (’cause they’re “experts.”)
But let’s get back to how you were suckered by that article at dailyclout.
Hahaha. Joshie, you need to relax. I knew that would mix you up.
Show me any study that proves me wrong and I’m then proven wrong.
Or you can tell me about naomi some more.
> Show me any study that proves me wrong and I’m then proven wrong.
Once again showing you may every well not even understand science.
Only takes one to prove mw wrong. The problem for you is that they don’t exist.
Very sad.
So looking just a bit…
This is perfect.
The review says the evidence isn’t sufficient to draw conclusions. It says the evidence is very uncertain.
EXACTLY AS I’VE SAIDwhole you’ve claimed absolute certainty.
The EXACT same situation as the nutbar Wolf’s website. Claiming results from studies that aren’t supported by their results.
You’re hilarious.
You exaggerate their statements.
Sad.
Lol. Right.
Meanwhile you cute the article in support of this statement:
> Masks do zero.
More evidence you don’t understand science.
Pathetic.
Hehe.
Settle down .. find paper.
Prove id stupid!
There are no papers that prove (or even support) your contention and the very paper you linked supports mine.
And you don’t even understand.
You be need to only show one which demonstrates masks work.
My contention, now proven beyond words, has been that despite my belief that they should, they do not.
The onus is on you.
And you already lost the argument before it started because …science.
Look kid, I thought they should work, science says otherwise. It’s ok for you to be wrong, just try harder next time.
Who cares what you thought? It’s irrelevant. Get over yourself.
You’re wrong. The evidence is uncertain. The evidence doesn’t support firm conclusions. Because the evidence isn’t good enough to support firm conclusions.
Yet you keep making statements with absolute certainty.
You even cite a study which explicitly talks of the uncertainty and the insufficiency of the evidence to support your absolute claims.
It looks like you don’t understand science. It maybe you’re just pretending that you don’t for some odd reason.
Joshie, the evidence is 100 percent certain. That is what it means when studies produce working results. They are literally parsing the last dredges of a potentially detected signal to say whether any signal even existed.
Hahahaha
One paper big guy. Only one needed.
Go get er.
Or maybe you could admit I was right.
> Joshie, the evidence is 100 percent certain.
Pathetic. And you cute the Cochrane Review as if to prove how pathetic. The evidence available doesn’t support certainty (either way).
The only remaining question is whether you’re just pretending to be that pathetic or whether you’re really that pathetic.
It is fitting that you also cite lunatics like Wolf and Huff, though.
Again, the open question is whether you actually believe their crapola or are just pretending for some odd reason.
Only one paper.
Sooo sad.
Jeff –
I can’t provide you one paper that proved that masks work. I’ve never said there’s proof that masks work.
You can’t provide any papers that prove that masks don’t work yet you’ve said there’s proof that masks don’t work.
I’m right.
You’re wrong.
Again.
Do you really not understand or are you only pretending to not understsmd?
Actually, they all show masks don’t work. That’s what lack of significance means.
Like I’m arguing with a 12 year old.
> Actually, they all show masks don’t work. That’s what lack of significance means
Wow. OK. You actually don’t understand science. No one can pretend that well.
Weird. The null hypothesis is that they don’t work, then they don’t show any signal and then you say I don’t understand but somehow……
you can’t explain.
Seems like normal Josh.
If you read the Cochrane Report then you read their characterization of the evidence.
If you read their characterization of the evidence and you understand science then you’d know why the existing research doesn’t prove that masks don’t work.
That you linked that report thinking it’s proof that masks don’t work is off the charts.
Unless you’re pretending to not understand science. And I no longer think there’s much plausibility to that theory.
Oh, and btw, at the beginning of the pandemic, I thought it was unclear whether masks worked, or actually could in balance cause more harm by making people over-confident, or actually becoming a vehicle for transmission.
So I looked at much of the available evidence and have been tracking it loosely since.
I haven’t seen anything conclusive in either direction, although my priors have shifted somewhat..
I think them being a vehicle for transmission is less likely than I previously though. I have shifted from seeing potential value in preventing someone from getting COVID, towards seeing potential value in them lessening the probabilities that someone infected will infect others. In that sense, while in my view some people clearly overestimate mask efficacy in preventing the wearer from getting infected, and thus may actually increase their probability of getting infected by exposing themselves to more risk than they would otherwise, that factor doesn’t really have a big impact because, again, the primary potential benefit is in reducing the probability that an (asymptomatic) infected person will infect others. I guess there’s a chance that people who know they’re infected will have closer contact with others than they would otherwise because they overestimate the benefit of wearing a mask, but I think that’s fairly unlikely.
At any rate – clearly they don’t prevent all transmission. It seems if they do prevent some, the quality of the mask matters. I think there’s a ton of uncertainty (as reflected in the Cochrane Review) and much depends on a multitude of contextual factors.
In the end, I think that it’s a matter of risk mitigation, of juggling low probability risk against high damage function. The clincher for me is the potential compounding of a marginal individual risk benefit to the population level. So I wear a mask in crowded indoor settings, particularky if the ventilation seems sub-standard.
I think it’s unfortunate that it’s become such a politicized issue, as so many thing COVID have become. The politicization, unfortunately “motivates” people to mis- characterize or mis-reoreswnr the available evidence.
My guess is that that the focus on masks unfortunately distracts from focusing on improving ventilation, which obviously has a bigger impact – and not just for COVID.
Anyway, carry on with your posts on this subject. It’s fun to watch and it’s a great case study for understanding motivated reasoning.
Josh,
They do not reduce transmission,
They do not.
Nothing, nada zip.
Just science.
Hard for lefties.
Your bloviation means nothing.
Heh
“Bloviation” !!
‘Wait, dude –
> Heh
>> “Bloviation” !!
I think you forgot that you’re pretending you haven’t read any of my comments!!!
Of course masks didn’t/don’t stop respiratory viral spread.
We know that for a fact because the day before the China Wuhan Virus, The CDC et al said so and they’ve provide zero evidence otherwise.
A little fact about masks…….
There’s zero difference in post operative infection rates with masking/no masking in surgery…….
Wow. Didn’t know that about surgery; i figured bacterial spread had to be reduced. I’d have to read a couple dozen papers but i may have fallen for the same trap twice!!