It is a long and convoluted trip to this point, but such is the nature of internet chat.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Stores Will Continue to Require Masks for Now
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Now that I have an extra minute, let me fill in my comments a bit further...
The actual results you are quoting say this:
- Based on the limited data obtained, there is a 66% chance (1-P) that masks reduce infection of the wearer by 18% (1 - odds ratio) or more. Somewhere around 1/5 fewer cases.
- There is a 33% chance that masks reduce infection of the wearer by less than that.
- They wanted a higher than 66% confidence in their data (their threshold of statistical significance), and since they don't have that, they're saying they don't have sufficient data to make a definitive statement as to the effectiveness of masks beyond their stated conclusion that they believe it doesn't reduce transmission to the wearer by more than 50%.
- 50% was chosen here because the data would support protection up to 46% (the upper range of the 95% confidence interval).
They then go on to say that their data assumes nobody but the wearer is using a mask, so this data says nothing about masks preventing transmission from an infected individual-- and preventing transmission from infected individuals is the reason medical professionals are suggesting wearing masks.
So this study tends to contradict your stated interpretation, but its authors don't feel the data is conclusive enough to make anything but a broad declaration and the test they're doing is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.
Last edited:
I think that may be a simplistic way to look at this. The motorcycle's brakes are not deliberately disabled - unless you consider the destruction of societal health through drugs, obesity, lethargy, fast food, and indolence, all of which have been deliberate. The motorcycle is on its last legs and is ready to be blown over. There is no saving it. But it is hurtling down the road nonetheless, all manner of things wrong with it. But it is almost every motorcycle. A few motorcycles that are in good shape still exist, and they can handle small and large bumps.
This entire conversation elides the fact that we have constructed an anti-healthy society and are demanding capitalism to fix it, when capitalism is the thing that destroyed it. TV dinners. Latchkey lifestyles. Fast food. Cola. Eating out. Energy drinks. Snacking. Lack of energy-expending jobs or vocations, poor exercise (if at all), and little time spent outside.
We also keep very few records for basic illnesses and therefore are primed for stymie when an illness goes to record and to media.
Even if I agreed with all the parameters of this pandemic as reported, still, I would beg you to at least look at the connections of the companies making the vaccines to the origin of the virus, to the insane focus we put on reactionary medicine rather than health.
It makes no sense at all unless you first assume an unhealthy society that will only get worse and the job of that society is to treat symptoms rather than create robust and healthy individuals.
do you mean to imply that the virus was created on purpose in order to sell vaccines?
It's kinda funny how far out of context folks can take a simple comment.
I cited motorcycle/volvo in reference to differing risk tolerances -- context being the differing reactions of healthy fully vaccinated individuals potentially encountering an unmasked unvaccinated person.
I'm unsure how @LonestarOne managed to misconstrue that into some sort antivax/antimask promotion, but it's the internet and people read their own views into stuff I guess.
In any event, I can assure you that my motorcycles were far more meticulously maintained than some of the volvos I've seen.
I think part of the journey, imo, within this thread is:
- taking facts out of context
- misinterpretation of results
- some amount of conspiracy theory
- hearsay
That's why it's a long and convoluted trip.
No, that is NOT what they are saying. At all! Look at the results. It's as clear as day what they are saying. No complex study of this magnitude can account for every variable, hence the limitations. They are trying to be as honest and detailed about the study so that when it's peer reviewed, scientists have as much information as possible. If you knew anything about stats, you wouldn't have brought up the Hajj study nor would you be arguing that this study is invalid based on the limitations. In fact, just about every scientific study ever conducted would be invalid according to you.
It's pretty clear to me that you are not willing to look at this issue with an open and objective mind so I will end the conversation here.
You're right in that not everyone agreed on the conclusion when looked at from the standpoint of what they were trying to accomplish. But when it comes to the efficacy of masks on infection rates, which is what we're discussing, that becomes far less controversial. Not only were the findings between mask wearers and non-wearers statistically insignificant, but when you put it into further context by comparing it with their first study, the evidence is overwhelming.
Thanks to the DANMASK-19 study, Denmark is the only country in the world for which we have reliable estimates around the rates from both the first and the second epidemic wave. The study was conducted just after the first epidemic peak in Denmark (April–May 2020), so we know that the rate during that period of time was about 2% per month. During the second peak (Oct–Nov 2020), the infection rate in the general population was just about 2% per month, hence very similar compared to the first peak. That suggests that all mitigating measures that have been taken in Denmark to prevent a second wave had no tangible effect on the spread of Covid-19. Those measures included a universal mask mandate.
how do you know that the second wave would not have been much worse if those mitigating measures had not been taken?
"Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others."
that is a quote straight from the study itself. it is indeed clear as day
You seem to misunderstanding what I was pointing out, I did not argue that the study was invalid, I merely quoted the study itself to show that it concludes neither what spr nor yourself claim it concludes.
not accepting someone else's characterization of a group of studies conclusions is not an unwillingness to have an open mind.
around the rates of what? transmission? infection? either way that is quite a claim
I'm curious, if these studies provide such overwhelming evidence that wearing masks does not help to slow the spread of covid-19 then why do you suppose it is that the entire global public health, medical and scientific communities have not abandoned this advice?
have they not seen the study? do they not understand how to read scientific studies as well as you do?
Last edited:
Agree with this. I am not a political anti-mask person. There are certainly reasonable precautions that people should take to avoid getting sick. I have always been a regular hand-washer and believe in staying home when sick to avoid passing it on to others. Again, there are two fundamentally different potential goals: 1) Ensure necessary risk mitigations to protect the collective society from severe disruption due to pandemic (lack of hospital beds, not enough ventilators, not enough health care workers, etc.), and 2) keep everyone from getting sick.
I am arguing that #2 is none of the government's business (or corporations, for that matter). Humans have always been at risk from colds, flu, and other contagious diseases. We know how to take precautions against them. We also are responsible for ourselves.
Once the pandemic subsides to the point where it no longer threatens the common good (#1 above), then we need to return to the way human society has operated for thousands of years - we live with risk and deal with it individually as we see fit.
Totally agree that warnings, guidelines, etc are great - the government is providing information so that individuals can make informed decisions. I didn't say to restrict information or avoid making recommendations. The problem is when the recommendation rises to a mandate. Many risky activities in the U.S. are undertaken under the doctrine of "informed consent" - if you go skydiving (I have), you will be required to read and/or watch lengthy warnings about the potential for death or injury, the statistics on the historical level of risk, etc. Armed with that information, you make an informed decision. The key is, you still have the right to make that decision. I am just saying we need to resist moving toward mandates that require individuals to assume less risk than they may be otherwise willing to accept. Masks have always been available and would always have reduced the spread of many illnesses, including colds and flu. Pandemics have been happening every 100-500 years since the start of recorded time. We've been expecting this one for a long time. It's just another part of life on Earth, and it won't happen again in our lifetimes.
Yes, it's far less controversial. The authors themselves agree with my position on this and specifically say their work "should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections"-- and yet here you are.
You continue to use "statistically insignificant" like that gives you evidence of some sort. "Statistically insignificant" doesn't mean small, it means the evidence is not as complete as they'd like. It means you don't have sufficient data to form incontrovertible statistics-- in this case they only have 66% confidence that it reduces transmission instead of the 95% or whatever they would like to show.
The study you are quoting as evidence in support of your theory is, in fact, evidence against your theory. Not terribly strong evidence, but certainly compatible with the broader consensus that masks are beneficial. The authors don't endorse your view. What ever ad-hoc non-controlled study you're trying to form on the fly with first wave and second wave numbers has no scientific grounding.
I suspect if it wasn't for people willfully misinterpreting "statistically insignificant" to try and confuse the general public into thinking there was some doubt around masks, this study would have just found its way to the Annals of Unremarkable Studies.
It is quite funny that you even ask this. Connections like this are well known and drawn all the time in various circumstances, and often trotted out in the media. Others are not. And people understand the connections and it is one reason that certain groups are working to remove money from politics at the least. It is another reason that monopolies are broken up, but nothing can be done in international situations when the financiers and capitalists move from one company or one segment of the market to another, or fund almost every branch in a single area.
I think it silly to not look at the connections the way we look at those of politicians and especially those we dislike.
It is the internet, but I think it wrong to call a thing conspiracy theory, especially when most internet talk is about this or that conspiracy, the only difference being when the conspiracy is on the side of the majority or minority. In this case, I am in the minority, and the majority never broaches any space for any other narrative, true or not, factual or non factual. It is a wonderful tactic and it should be obvious to anyone that it is employed by all sides.
so you're not going to quite answer the question but continue to imply that the virus was intentionally manufactured by pharmaceutical companies to sell vaccines by eluding to shady connections.
so the pharmaceutical companies created a virus to sell vaccines, but also did such a poor job that no one actually has the virus. we just think there is a global pandemic becaise only your wife and your friends actually know how to test for a virus properly
that’s quite a story!
Last edited:
this is some of the most non-sensical pseudo-intellectual defense of a conspiracy theory I've ever read.
You are reading what I said wrong and doing the old straw man thing. But I can't stop you from doing that so I won't even address it.
I do not believe that the pharmaceutical companies created the virus. However, you can trace ownership of the lab in china to a number of individuals on governing health bodies that are now pushing for every new rule including the vaccine. And, you can also look (no one bothers) to see how the CEOs of this medical company become the leaders in a governing body and vice versa.
Absolutely there is conflict of interest. But this is well known.
There are loads of researchers that are open about the problems, but whenever they speak up, they are removed from the conversation. Heck, even the former Pfizer CEO is quite open about the many problems. When he wasn't, he was a darling for the media and as soon as he isn't, he is sent to the back and treated as a quack.
Fortunately for all of us and you especially, there has never been a conspiracy, nor has the media or governments every lied. We live in a perfect world of perfect cooperation. I guess that is that.
what exactly are you trying to say then?
your obfuscating style of writing certainly makes it difficult to pin down. you seem to want create confusion and mistrust without making any specific accusations seemingly in an attempt to make yourself impermeable to debate, that is, so that you do not have to defend any specific claim
and when you do make a specific claim you will not answer any question about it whatsoever
so, for example, when you “beg [us] to look at the connections of the companies making the vaccines to the origin of the virus”
1) what do you expect us to find?
2) what do you believe is the implication of this finding?
and on the other matter
1) who are your wife and your phd friends?
2) and where do we find their guidance that pcr tests are being done incorrectly?
3) and if your point bringing up the topic of pcr testing was not to claim that covid is not as prevalent as many believe, then what was your point?
Last edited:
Conspiracies, big business, big Pharma, and all that aside, there are people like myself who saw Covid wreck a family. The entire family got sick, killed the husband. His wife, several months later, is still in a wheelchair unable to walk, even the older kids were out for weeks. He sat clinging to life waiting for an ICU bed for 4 days before dying. (A relative of mine).
I talk to nurses I know who worked the covid wards and had to watch people say goodby via FaceTime tablets - they got vaccinated pretty quickly without any question.
Meanwhile, I see some of those who saw no death or had no one that they know affected by this laughing at it, calling it the common cold, and (some) refusing to even acknowledge it.
I am convinced that those of us who gave a damn (distanced, wore a mask, etc) had a big part to play in keeping this from becoming more than what it could have become. Apparently caring about others is becoming a lost ability in our species today.
I'm always skeptical of big conspiracies. As a manager of <20 people, I work full time just to keep people on a similar path. People don't naturally work together and I find it difficult to believe that there is mass collaboration like most of these conspiracies need to survive. I don't doubt that there's some of that - $ is king and the reason most of us exist, understood. But just because I saw covid affect relatives and I took it seriously doesn't mean I'm naive or blind. (Not saying you said this).
i’m very sorry to hear about your relatives
this is what makes the various covid conspiracy theory proponents so disturbing and dangerous. they not only discount real human tragedy and suffering but also seem to want to prevent anyone from attempting to mitigate it
not unlike like the gun rights people that claim that school shootings are staged (not saying that they all claim that)
i think it’s worth pointing out that this is not my stance at all, nor have i said any such thing
of course governments and media lie,
and i am completely against modern global feudal capitalism which conspires to redistribute wealth from the many to the few
however people do the fight against tyranny a massive disservice when they conflate the attempt to contain a global health emergency with an attempt to enforce tyranny
will some attempt to profit from this emergency or use to tighten control?
absolutely
does that mean that the emergency is not real or that all efforts to mitigate it should be fought against?
absolutely not
interestingly, before covid many governments of various political stripes had already or were in the process of making covering one’s face out right illegal, either in protest situations or in general, in order to make organized protest against capital and the state more difficult by making it more dangerous for the individual
Last edited:
Your final point is a good one. The yellow vest protest (across the aisle, third position, progressive, traditional, anarchist, all of it) was essentially quashed. I wonder this though, have you seen the John's Hopkins Event 201, which, three or four months before the pandemic officially kicked off in the media, the exact outline of every single detail, even protests, was detailed for the entire public. Every single thing we are doing now, including numbers, was outlined. The same is true for military procedures outlined the year before.
It's obviously not a cold, but this thing isn't what anyone thinks it is. The places with healthy, fit populations are barely even bothered by either sick or death stats (again, which obviously elide the truth) numbers, and those with insanely high population densities such as Hong Kong? 28 deaths? 7 millions people? There is no way to stuff that number down no matter how well you mask up or anything.
The thing we are in is not what we think it is.
The big death will happen very soon as meat production basically crashes and therefore so do entire economies and food scarcity wipes out loads of people. Even if I believed the media and governmental narratives, what we have done is kill generations of people thanks to the panic wars that will spring from this.
A year ago, the vaccine passport was seen as a conspiracy theory. So was the great reset and many of the other things we now discuss normally today or even push. I challenge every person, no matter their political narrative, to look at this from an aloof vantage. It is not what we think it is.