It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Impact of community masking on COVID-19: A cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MDDoxs

And were the villagers on anything such as therapeutics, or better living conditions, or eating better.


I would make the argument those who took the time to “correctly” wear a mask were probably more likely to eat better, take better care of themselves, and were probably more likely to isolate (hide from the world)


It's a small village in the sticks, the answer is almost certainly no, and even if it was yes it would have been recorded as part of the study.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: LordAhriman

So where can you see these samples? Because some lawsuits filed here in the US by the people (who won these cases btw) asked the very thing I did and the parties being sued couldn't or wouldn't provide Any images of live samples and therefore lost their suits. There are letters from the CDC and FDA stating that they actually can't test for varients. This "virus" has patents on it and if anyone were to see a live sample they would see how manmade it is and the tech they used for it.
The true weapons are the.vaccine. Notice the rise in pushing for HIV testing? And the rise in HIV in people that never had it like people in nursing homes?
Notice the rise in HIV correlates to the rise in vaccines administered?

There is HIV banding in the vaccines....... Now Pfizer developed a pill for covid that also has a chemical in it that is fairly good at attacking the HIV. There is talk now about VAIDS which is vaccines acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. People dont seem to put these things together. Also people should think twice about taking the vax or boosters because soon people will need to take it every 3 months just to survive. There are no coincidences!



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: putnam6
The current population of Bangladesh is 167,158,346 as of Tuesday, January 4, 2022,

Just a couple of points it doesn't look like Bangladesh is getting hit hard at all for a country with such a large population and its population density of 1,094 per square km





They're not checking nearly so much as in Western countries, and there is a greater stigma among the populace at large, which could be suppressing reported figures


I agree 100% there are kinds of variables in play here, It's obviously a viable study. I'd like to know more about Bangladesh's COVID timeline to see if this coincided with a wave or a trough in COVID infections. As well as their normal deaths by year

FWIW Ive got no problem with those at risk, the elderly, and those with respiratory issues wearing masks. It's just the mandating them to be worn.

When do we discuss the COVID elephant in the room, with skyrocketing verified case counts, we aren't seeing a corresponding degree of rising in deaths. It's a much much less ratio than the ATH, is it not?

Here are the past month's totals it's way off the all-time highs



metrics.covid19-analysis.org... in_click=%7B%22lat%22%3A22.8571947009697%2C%22lng%22%3A89.5520492984407%2C%22.nonce%22%3A0.855937123681252%7D&compare_metric=%5B%22rt%22%2C%22case_rat e%22%2C%22death_rate%22%5D&compare_submit=0&table_select_resolution=%22auto%22&table_date=%222021-11-15%22&select_resolution=%22country%22&compare_sel _states=null&compare_sel_counties=null




If this was an issue it should have been included in the notes during the review process. The fact that nobody has cited it as a potential influencing factor suggests that it almost certainly wasn't.

It's not really relevant through as based on past trends those peaks and troughs are likely due to outbreaks in densely packed urban areas and would take weeks for any noticeable ripple effect to reach the provinces.

Like how a peak in NYC affects national metric, but not those of small town miles away.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: BerkshireEntity

Ask your pathogen supplier, they should be able to order you a batch, covid only has minimum controls on it as it's considered to be low risk, at least as far as pathogens go..
It hardly ebola.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 07:02 AM
link   
health.clevelandclinic.org...

they type of mask is important. As with the study in the OP, they used surgical masks. Not cloth masks made from t-shirt material. But that little tidbit isn't nearly as important as scoring political points.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I've seen multiple studies that mask wearing increased the spread of germs. As wearers continually touch the mask, several times a minute, the germs are now on the mask directly in front of your mouth/nose. Wasn't specific to COVID but obviously with how contagious it's claimed to be would no doubt spread faster.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
health.clevelandclinic.org...

they type of mask is important. As with the study in the OP, they used surgical masks. Not cloth masks made from t-shirt material. But that little tidbit isn't nearly as important as scoring political points.


I think that pretty much every study done these days defaults to those kind of masks unless it's specifically a study of the cheaper ones. For the simple reason that you need a common baseline.

They are studying the effectiveness of mask, not comparing the effectiveness of different kinds of masks.

People who wear those cheaper ones aren't really doing themselves any favors, but even if the only offer a small amount of protection it's better than nothing.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I've seen multiple studies that mask wearing increased the spread of germs. As wearers continually touch the mask, several times a minute, the germs are now on the mask directly in front of your mouth/nose. Wasn't specific to COVID but obviously with how contagious it's claimed to be would no doubt spread faster.


Link please, and that's mostly people's poor personal hygiene. Unless you want Biden to bring in a law preventing people from picking their noses there isn't much that you can do about it.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: MDDoxs

So based on a small sample that they could mostly carefully control that had more to it than just masking that would be extremely hard to replicate on anything approaching a national level, they claim to have maybe achieved a 10% difference?

Given their many interventions: in-home mask distribution, in-person reminders, mask education, constant announcements and signage to remind, etc. (there was more), I don't think you'd see the same results on a national level because you would not get the implementation on a national level.

Uncle Joe just promised everyone their own at-home test kits to be delivered to them, and you can see how well that's going. So let's just look at the likelihood of point one - a constant stream of in-home mask delivery. Yeah, I doubt that'll happen. So already the compliance and results will be eroding. After all, other randomized control trials of mask wearing have found that wearing your mask over and over can actually aid viral transmission because the virus hangs out on your mask and gets transferred eventually to your hands and then to your face. The constant stream of fresh masks would at least cut that, but you and I know, if we're being halfway intellectually honest, that it wouldn't happen in the US.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: MDDoxs

Excellent. Now, without Google can you tell me what a cluster-randomized trial is?

I just want to know if you know what you're actually reading.



Now, let’s take a look at some numbers…according to worldometer, the US has had 59 million cases. The conservative 11% reduction could equate to approximately 6.5 million less cases! I would imagine that would also mean there would be a relative reduction in the 800k deaths. Imagine if all safety protocols were followed more closely….


At .1% mortality that's a whopping 6,500 lives saved (number corrected, thanks ScepticScot), but of course the data was from villages in Bangladesh where masks are likely the only hygiene method available. Not a very good comparison. Then we add in that a large number of those US cases were asymptomatic and merely tested because they were required, which leads us to even fewer lives saved.

If you like studies from that part of the world you should look up the one on early treatment with Ivermectin.
edit on 1/7/22 by Ksihkehe because: Number error



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: putnam6
The current population of Bangladesh is 167,158,346 as of Tuesday, January 4, 2022,

Just a couple of points it doesn't look like Bangladesh is getting hit hard at all for a country with such a large population and its population density of 1,094 per square km





They're not checking nearly so much as in Western countries, and there is a greater stigma among the populace at large, which could be suppressing reported figures


I agree 100% there are kinds of variables in play here, It's obviously a viable study. I'd like to know more about Bangladesh's COVID timeline to see if this coincided with a wave or a trough in COVID infections. As well as their normal deaths by year

FWIW Ive got no problem with those at risk, the elderly, and those with respiratory issues wearing masks. It's just the mandating them to be worn.

When do we discuss the COVID elephant in the room, with skyrocketing verified case counts, we aren't seeing a corresponding degree of rising in deaths. It's a much much less ratio than the ATH, is it not?

Here are the past month's totals it's way off the all-time highs



metrics.covid19-analysis.org... in_click=%7B%22lat%22%3A22.8571947009697%2C%22lng%22%3A89.5520492984407%2C%22.nonce%22%3A0.855937123681252%7D&compare_metric=%5B%22rt%22%2C%22case_rat e%22%2C%22death_rate%22%5D&compare_submit=0&table_select_resolution=%22auto%22&table_date=%222021-11-15%22&select_resolution=%22country%22&compare_sel _states=null&compare_sel_counties=null




If this was an issue it should have been included in the notes during the review process. The fact that nobody has cited it as a potential influencing factor suggests that it almost certainly wasn't.

It's not really relevant through as based on past trends those peaks and troughs are likely due to outbreaks in densely packed urban areas and would take weeks for any noticeable ripple effect to reach the provinces.

Like how a peak in NYC affects national metric, but not those of small town miles away.


www.bd-pratidin.com...

Well Ive visited the health ministry of Bangladesh's website as well as some of their newspapers, they hardly mention COVID at all, latest COVID situation report was October, even a story about Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina State of the Union address doesn't even mention COVID. I mean really they hardly even have a story on it, that's weird don't you think







posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Let's, for the sake of argument, say that masks do indeed provide some small reduction in infection rates. So what do we do with this information? Do we automatically have the entire world mask up?

I could also do a study that shows that not driving leads to a reduction in traffic accidents, injuries, and death. So what do we do with THAT information? Do we automatically have the entire world stop driving? How about a study that shows people only choke to death when they eat, so let's stop eating in order to reduce choking deaths?

My point is that while this is useful information to have, pure data does NOT make decisions for us. We each have to take multiple data points, like the efficacy of masks, the cost of masks both economically and environmentally, the impact of masking in regards to child development, and a hundred other data points to make decisions that are best for ourselves and our families. This is what we've been doing wrong this entire time - the experts should not be setting policy, they should be providing recommendations that we each then weigh against other factors to determine the best course of action for ourselves and our families.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: MDDoxs

Excellent. Now, without Google can you tell me what a cluster-randomized trial is?

I just want to know if you know what you're actually reading.



Now, let’s take a look at some numbers…according to worldometer, the US has had 59 million cases. The conservative 11% reduction could equate to approximately 6.5 million less cases! I would imagine that would also mean there would be a relative reduction in the 800k deaths. Imagine if all safety protocols were followed more closely….


At .1% mortality that's a whopping 3,200 lives saved, but of course the data was from villages in Bangladesh where masks are likely the only hygiene method available. Not a very good comparison. Then we add in that a large number of those US cases were asymptomatic and merely tested because they were required, which leads us to even fewer lives saved.

If you like studies from that part of the world you should look up the one on early treatment with Ivermectin.


.1% mortality does not equate to 3,200 lives from 6.5 million cases and the mortality rate isn't .1%.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I have more than 47 studies all from the CDC and NIH that state the opposite and when were the studies done? Before everyone got their hand in the profit cookie jar
a reply to: MDDoxs



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MDDoxs

And were the villagers on anything such as therapeutics, or better living conditions, or eating better.


I would make the argument those who took the time to “correctly” wear a mask were probably more likely to eat better, take better care of themselves, and were probably more likely to isolate (hide from the world)


Another thing they never seem to take into consideration with these analysis, is the fact that you cannot give what you don't have.

They want to take into consideration the possibilities of asymptomatic and pre-infection spread, but they completely reject the possibility that some just are not infected, and yet they still consider them as threats.

Asymptomatic had become synonymous with being infected.

Just as natural immunity has become a threat.

This is not about science, unless it is the science of deception, manipulation and control.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: MDDoxs

Excellent. Now, without Google can you tell me what a cluster-randomized trial is?

I just want to know if you know what you're actually reading.



Now, let’s take a look at some numbers…according to worldometer, the US has had 59 million cases. The conservative 11% reduction could equate to approximately 6.5 million less cases! I would imagine that would also mean there would be a relative reduction in the 800k deaths. Imagine if all safety protocols were followed more closely….


At .1% mortality that's a whopping 3,200 lives saved, but of course the data was from villages in Bangladesh where masks are likely the only hygiene method available. Not a very good comparison. Then we add in that a large number of those US cases were asymptomatic and merely tested because they were required, which leads us to even fewer lives saved.

If you like studies from that part of the world you should look up the one on early treatment with Ivermectin.


.1% mortality does not equate to 3,200 lives from 6.5 million cases and the mortality rate isn't .1%.


No comment on the irrelevance of the study, eh?

Correct, I made an error when copying and pasting data. I calculated the numbers from a few different mortality stats. Please give me the mortality data you find acceptable and we can recalculate. I was calculating for .1% which I though was generous. That's 6,500.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: MDDoxs

Excellent. Now, without Google can you tell me what a cluster-randomized trial is?

I just want to know if you know what you're actually reading.



Now, let’s take a look at some numbers…according to worldometer, the US has had 59 million cases. The conservative 11% reduction could equate to approximately 6.5 million less cases! I would imagine that would also mean there would be a relative reduction in the 800k deaths. Imagine if all safety protocols were followed more closely….


At .1% mortality that's a whopping 3,200 lives saved, but of course the data was from villages in Bangladesh where masks are likely the only hygiene method available. Not a very good comparison. Then we add in that a large number of those US cases were asymptomatic and merely tested because they were required, which leads us to even fewer lives saved.

If you like studies from that part of the world you should look up the one on early treatment with Ivermectin.


.1% mortality does not equate to 3,200 lives from 6.5 million cases and the mortality rate isn't .1%.


No comment on the irrelevance of the study, eh?

Correct, I made an error when copying and pasting data. I calculated the numbers from a few different mortality stats. Please give me the mortality data you find acceptable and we can recalculate. I was calculating for .1% which I though was generous. That's 6,500.


.1% across the full-time period would mean there have been at least 800 million cases in the US.

I don't think applying the overall death rate to cases would give a very realistic impact as fatality rate has changed over time.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I don't think applying the overall death rate to cases would give a very realistic impact as fatality rate has changed over time.

a reply to: ScepticScot

If only we had some sort of graph of cases and deaths and maybe the Rt from Bangladesh since the beginning might offer some guidance...

dashboard.dghs.gov.bd...



metrics.covid19-analysis.org...


edit on 7-1-2022 by putnam6 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-1-2022 by putnam6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

I'm with you today MIM. Look at it simply:

A mask is a barrier
A wall is a barrier
A door is a barrier
A tarp is a barrier
Gloves are a barrier
Hand lotion is a barrier
Ignorance is a barrier.

This is the entire mask argument, nothing more. Not if-or-is it-is it not....but...it's just a barrier.

It helps us some that's all. Even when painting a room.

So many many variables.....

Stay well over there MIM ✌️



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: BerkshireEntity
a reply to: LordAhriman

So where can you see these samples? Because some lawsuits filed here in the US by the people (who won these cases btw) asked the very thing I did and the parties being sued couldn't or wouldn't provide Any images of live samples and therefore lost their suits.


Link please, and not to a botchute video by an osteopath with their own line in herbal remedies.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join