2
0

Face masks have no significant effect: Danish study


 invite response                
2020 Nov 19, 8:52am   306 views  6 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

https://spectator.us/landmark-danish-study-shows-face-masks-significant-effect/

Wednesday marked the publication of a long-delayed trial in Denmark which hopes to answer that very question. The ‘Danmask-19 trial’ was conducted in the spring with over 3,000 participants, when the public were not being told to wear masks but other public health measures were in place. Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomized controlled trial — making it the highest quality scientific evidence. ...

In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by COVID-19. ...

When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not.

But overall, there is a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks and COVID-19. There have only been three community trials during the current pandemic comparing the use of masks with various alternatives — one in Guinea-Bissau, one in India and this latest trial in Denmark. The low number of studies into the effect different interventions have on the spread of COVID-19 — a subject of global importance — suggests there is a total lack of interest from governments in pursuing evidence-based medicine.

Comments 1 - 6 of 6        Search these comments

1   Ceffer   2020 Nov 19, 12:26pm  

What a bogus study. Everybody knows that wearing masks is effective against rabid Karens, shunning, police brutality and overreach, access to services, transportation and stores, fines based on official illegal and unconstitutional abrogation of personal rights and freedoms, and sanctioned beat downs by deputized criminal elements.

However, I agree, it is absolutely ludicrous and ineffective against actual disease and virus. Contaminated KommieKunt Globalist Blue Pill Panic society is the pathogen that they protect from.
2   Onvacation   2020 Nov 19, 12:34pm  

Ceffer says
What a bogus study.

Obviously.

If you don't wear a mask you will die of starvation.
3   Patrick   2020 Nov 23, 5:54pm  

https://reclaimthenet.org/oxford-academics-slam-big-tech-censorship-of-scientific-study/

"Independent fact-checkers" - i.e., third party companies contracted by Facebook, Twitter, Google and others to, all too often arbitrarily decide what is true and what is false, are at it again - this time taking on two Oxford scientists.

Their article about a study looking at the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of face masks when worn to prevent coronavirus infection, originally published in The Spectator, the world’s oldest weekly magazine, and shared on Facebook, got flagged as "false information."

This happened to the consternation of its authors, one of them being Professor Carl Heneghan, who posted about the incident on Twitter where he has some 70,000 followers.

Heneghan said that no information contained in the article was false, indicating that he is aware a similar sort of censorship is happening to other Facebook users, and wondering, "What has happened to academic freedom and freedom of speech?"


Globalist cock-suckers like Apocalypsefuck are what happened to freedom of speech.
4   Patrick   2020 Nov 23, 5:54pm  

https://reclaimthenet.org/oxford-academics-slam-big-tech-censorship-of-scientific-study/

"Independent fact-checkers" - i.e., third party companies contracted by Facebook, Twitter, Google and others to, all too often arbitrarily decide what is true and what is false, are at it again - this time taking on two Oxford scientists.

Their article about a study looking at the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of face masks when worn to prevent coronavirus infection, originally published in The Spectator, the world’s oldest weekly magazine, and shared on Facebook, got flagged as "false information."

This happened to the consternation of its authors, one of them being Professor Carl Heneghan, who posted about the incident on Twitter where he has some 70,000 followers.

Heneghan said that no information contained in the article was false, indicating that he is aware a similar sort of censorship is happening to other Facebook users, and wondering, "What has happened to academic freedom and freedom of speech?"


Globalist cock-suckers like Apocalypsefuck are what happened to freedom of speech.
5   Patrick   2020 Nov 23, 5:55pm  

https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-censors-former-senator-jim-demints-accusations-of-censorship/

Facebook censors former Senator Jim DeMint's accusations of censorship
Former Senator Jim DeMint was censored by Facebook for discussing the censorship of scientific articles. Facebook is labeling scientific studies as false information if they do not match their chosen narrative.

“My friend, Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, was locked out of Twitter for daring to tell the scientific truth on masks: they don’t work at stopping COVID. He simply shared the news of the long-anticipated Danish study of over 6,000 randomized people which came to the conclusion: ‘A recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident infection compared with no mask recommendation,’” DeMint wrote in the censored Facebook post.
6   Karloff   2020 Nov 23, 6:22pm  

Guaranteed the goose-stepping censors who deny their acts of censoring are completely oblivious to the irony of censoring someone who is complaining about their censorship.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions