Why Face Masks Don’t Work, According To Science - Ben Swann

submitted by fred_red_beans from youtube.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]noice 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Are we looking at the same paper?

The Kaplan-Meier curves showed no significant differences in the outcomes between two arms (p>0.050; figure 2).

There was no association between mask use by the index cases and rates of infectious outcomes in household members (table 3). Although the risks of CRI, ... ILI..., and laboratory-confirmed viral infections were lower in the mask arm, the difference was not statistically significant.

It's not until they conduct the post hoc analysis that they see a statistical difference.

I'm not suggesting that everyone in the mask group only wore the mask for 1 hr. I'm saying that their study as designed found no statistical difference, and then they found a way to achieve statistical significance by afterward moving more (based on the numbers, non-event) subjects into the mask group.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I believe we are.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5223715/

The part you quoted only pertains to household members who were likely spending time in thoroughly contaminated environments. Even with that being the case, the data did show a benefit from the masks but not a strong enough correlation to accept without post hoc analysis.

Conclusions

The study indicates a potential benefit of medical masks for source control, but is limited by small sample size and low secondary attack rates. Larger trials are needed to confirm efficacy of medical masks as source control.

This is why we must rely on more recent reviews that collate data from many sources. Like the original paper I cited.

[–]noice 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah we're talking about the same paper. I stand by my statements, and I think that means I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation. McIntyre et al.'s review touting McIntyre et al's study is recent, yeah, but it's not as conclusive as you imply.