1/ The overall effects of this study are miniscule—0.07% absolute reduction in seroprevalence. But the topline finding is “We decreased seroprevalence by 10%!”
Technically true...
But even this finding is questionable. Let's explore.
2/2/
What the study ACTUALLY measures is the impact of mask promotion on symptom reporting. Only if a person reports symptoms, are they asked to participate in a serology study—and only 40% of those with symptoms chose to have their blood taken.
3/ Is it possible that that highly moralistic framing and monetary incentives given to village elders for compliance might dissuade a person from reporting symptoms representing individual and collective moral failure—one that could cost the village money? Maybe?
4/ Given that the difference is tiny, if this had even a small impact, it could completely skew the results. Might the same factors be at play when an individual weighed whether or not to be tested? After all, a positive test would indicate that your village was “failing”
5/ The fact that age stratification shows that interventions had no impact on younger people, but did on older people calls this finding into question. There is no physical mechanism by which universal masking would protect the elderly, but not the young.
6/ Such a result could be explained by the mask promotion campaign creating a sense of fear that resulted in elderly sequestering themselves. If that were the case, a more elderly-targeted approach could achieve the same results.
7/ It is also possible that elderly people in intervention groups were less likely to report symptoms. 60+ are 2-3x more likely to be symptomatic than <40. Again, when having symptoms means you failed your village, might you choose not to mention them?
8/ Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the study is the difference between surgical and cloth mask villages. The authors claim that this is supported by the different filtration efficiencies of cloth and surgical masks.
8/ However, these filtration efficiencies are taken in a no-gap scenario. And there is ALWAYS a gap. We can see that when considering gaps—the most important element of filtration--fabric & surgical masks perform nearly identically--not at all.
10/ Given physical improbability, it is possible that this effect too, might be an artifact of bias in the control group. Surgical masks are “fancier," & might feel like more of an intervention, and may make those in such a village even more likely to repress symptom reporting.
11/ Whatever the result of the surgical masks, this shows that the impact from cloth masks is 0. (.02% absolute reduction and a p-value of 0.540 is zero, even if the authors want to pretend otherwise).
12/ Color me skeptical on this one. This study increased mask wearing to 40%. In much of blue America mask compliance approached 100% for almost a year. Even with that kind of incredible compliance, there was no impact on case transmission rates.
1/ Trying to mask the abject failure of blue state COVID responses, a new success metric has been rolled out: Vax levels. But whole pop. vax levels, mask much lower variance in at-risk groups. What's more, deaths in 65+ from Jan-Jun are NOT linked to vax levels.
2/
Some will say that the vaccination level of the population is important b/c those other vaccinations are shielding the at-risk further. But excess deaths since January are NOT tied to higher levels of whole population vaccination.
4/ The push to vax well beyond the at-risk represents another installment of “following the science” where sadly, fealty to “the science” does not produce any measurable result. This new metric—whole pop. Vax—is designed to wash away all the other failures docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
1/ The proof (long-suspected) that the mRNA (like AZ DNA) vaxes do not offer sterilizing immunity is now being used to push wider vaccination among kids to acquire “herd immunity.” This makes no sense—it should be the opposite. wsj.com/articles/vacci…
2/ AZ is the only manufacturer that did weekly testing of trial participants to evaluate the efficacy of vaccines in stopping infection—not just disease. These results showed that the AZ standard dose had no impact on reducing asymptomatic infection.
3/ Neither Pfizer’s nor Moderna’s trials did this. Pfizer’s recorded 170 infections (162 control v. 8 vax) However, data in the FDA’s review showed an additional 3410 suspected cases—1816 control/1594 vax. This would reduce efficacy from 95% to 19%. blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04…
1/ FL parents send 6 masks to a lab...
- 100% of masks contaminated.
- 50% w/pathogens, including multiple strains of pneumonia- and meningitis-causing bacteria.
- 1/3 with antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
- 2 masks w/more than 70 strains of bacteria.
2/ "Masks work" has become such a powerful mantra for public health, it has stifled not only research showing it doesn't, but also the ability to even question if it might cause harm.
3/ This is a testament to the power of children's immune systems. Every one of these pathogens is SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous to children than SARS-CoV2. Yet they have been exposed over, and over, and over again.
(note, no SARS-CoV2 was found on the mask, because... )
1/ More than a year into the pandemic, we can start to evaluate the overall efficacy of our COVID responses. The U.S. provides a unique opportunity to evaluate different policy responses.
2/
The graphic below ranks states by their overall COVID policy score: This score takes into account COVID deaths/million, access to education, and increased unemployment ABOVE Feb 2020. All numbers are over the course of the entire year.
3/
In order not to overly penalize or reward “outliers,” the score is based on rank relative to other states. Raw data is linked below, to create your own scorecard.
No matter how you slice it, doesn't look good for heavy-handed approaches
2/
Comparing the jets of cigarette smoke, in truth, the exhalation would be rocketing past the apparatus. This is reflected in the incredibly low particle numbers—10/sec @ max. The actual # is 1000 - 10K particles/sec--which excludes <0.5 micron. pnas.org/content/117/22…
3/
The study notes that it does not include particles under 0.5 microns—the vast majority of aerosols, as seen below. Though it is clear from the measured particles/second, that the apparatus is missing 99.9% to 99.99% of the particles emitted.
1/ OSHA is working at both federal & state levels to CONTINUE mask reqs. Over the last 2 days, I have been on 2 OSHA calls.
@ Federal level they give NO information, you CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS--just talk at them and hope to "influence". reginfo.gov/public/do/eo/n… RIN is 1218-AD36
2/ The Cal OSHA one is going on now--link to join below.
CA is proposing (even after 7/31) that employers offer ALL un-vaxed fitted N-95s. If they choose not to wear the N-95, ALL other employees have to wear masks.