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

a reply to: putnam6

Unless you can narrow down those graphs to at least the approximate region where the survey took place they're not really of much use as those cases might be hundreds of miles away from where the study was conducted.

For example, Bangladesh has an areaa of approximately 92,000km, which is close to the size of New York State, yet NCY is a hot spot while many of the small towns outside of it are more or less untouched.

a reply to: putnam6

OK, now search the Bengali language pages which have about 100 times the content on any given subject.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

I was using the OP numbers, if the 6.5 million is incorrect you'd have to take it up with them.

Mortality changes, but there is still an overall mortality. You're saying mortality is invalid when used in aggregate? If that's the case I have some shocking news for you about how public health agencies calculate their statistics.

Also, a study in Bangladesh doesn't give a very realistic impact for people in the US wearing masks. That alone invalidates all this projecting numbers. I'm just trying to extrapolate, from the OPs own data, how many lives would be saved by requiring 350,000,000 people to mask up for two years. An absurd expectation at any rate, but I wanted to follow the fantasy to it's conclusion to see how many lives would be saved.

originally posted by: Subsonic
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.

Mask wearing is only part of the strategy, which includes social distancing, hand washing, vaxxination, and closing down all of the fun places to get a beer. You can't take it in isolation.

A high fence won't 100% protect my family from a home invasion
A big dog won't 100% protect my family from a home invasion
Motion activate yard lights won't 100% protect my family from a home invasion
CCTV won't 100% protect my family from a home invasion
Maximizing my 2A rights won't 100% protect my family from a home invasion

This doesn't mean that I'm going to pin a map with the location of my daughters' bedroom on my front door and leave it on the latch. Which is what you're suggesting.

You need to combine everything to get the best protection

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

I was using the OP numbers, if the 6.5 million is incorrect you'd have to take it up with them.

Mortality changes, but there is still an overall mortality. You're saying mortality is invalid when used in aggregate? If that's the case I have some shocking news for you about how public health agencies calculate their statistics.

Also, a study in Bangladesh doesn't give a very realistic impact for people in the US wearing masks. That alone invalidates all this projecting numbers. I'm just trying to extrapolate, from the OPs own data, how many lives would be saved by requiring 350,000,000 people to mask up for two years. An absurd expectation at any rate, but I wanted to follow the fantasy to it's conclusion to see how many lives would be saved.

I didn't say the 6.5million was incorrect. It's the .1% mortality rate that is incorrect.

I don't you can draw a firm conclussions about number of lives saved in the US from a case study in Bangladesh.

What the study does strongly suggest is that a higher degree of mask wearing would have resulted in less cases and so less deaths. It would need a lot more detailed analysis to put a number on that.

a reply to: MDDoxs

Strange how this study's statistically significant result is acceptable to you but none of the statistically significant ivermectin studies are.

Those studies have an extremely higher reduction in deaths of above 80%.

Puzzled as to your standards of acceptance of these studies.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

I was using the OP numbers, if the 6.5 million is incorrect you'd have to take it up with them.

Mortality changes, but there is still an overall mortality. You're saying mortality is invalid when used in aggregate? If that's the case I have some shocking news for you about how public health agencies calculate their statistics.

Also, a study in Bangladesh doesn't give a very realistic impact for people in the US wearing masks. That alone invalidates all this projecting numbers. I'm just trying to extrapolate, from the OPs own data, how many lives would be saved by requiring 350,000,000 people to mask up for two years. An absurd expectation at any rate, but I wanted to follow the fantasy to it's conclusion to see how many lives would be saved.

I didn't say the 6.5million was incorrect. It's the .1% mortality rate that is incorrect.

I don't you can draw a firm conclussions about number of lives saved in the US from a case study in Bangladesh.

What the study does strongly suggest is that a higher degree of mask wearing would have resulted in less cases and so less deaths. It would need a lot more detailed analysis to put a number on that.

Every scientist already knew it would reduce transmission, we didn't need a study to tell us that. The question is how much it reduces transmission. If the study can be used for that conclusion, and subsequently be used in OP to calculate how many cases could have been avoided, then why would there be an issue using total mortality to calculate lives saved?

Either the OP is using the data improperly or my mortality figure is also valid, assuming anybody is willing to tell me what they find an acceptable number. Official US numbers put it just over 1% if you don't account for all the cases where COVID was not primary COD. It's lower if you look at it with any kind of scrutiny.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

How do cheap masks that don’t seal with a matrix with holes too large to stop the virus, and not made to lock in moisture for hour after hour, and not made to be worn during physical activity control covid.

Don't look at me, I've got an hermetically sealed mask with a dual lock cartridge filter. It's good for covid, teargas, and most forms of nerve gas stockpiled by our enemies.

It's not my fault if other people choose to strap a doily to their face.

I wish you wear that hermetically sealed mask more. How do you breath in that mask of yours?

A hermetic seal is any type of sealing that makes a given object airtight (preventing the passage of air, oxygen, or other gases).

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

I was using the OP numbers, if the 6.5 million is incorrect you'd have to take it up with them.

Mortality changes, but there is still an overall mortality. You're saying mortality is invalid when used in aggregate? If that's the case I have some shocking news for you about how public health agencies calculate their statistics.

Also, a study in Bangladesh doesn't give a very realistic impact for people in the US wearing masks. That alone invalidates all this projecting numbers. I'm just trying to extrapolate, from the OPs own data, how many lives would be saved by requiring 350,000,000 people to mask up for two years. An absurd expectation at any rate, but I wanted to follow the fantasy to it's conclusion to see how many lives would be saved.

I didn't say the 6.5million was incorrect. It's the .1% mortality rate that is incorrect.

I don't you can draw a firm conclussions about number of lives saved in the US from a case study in Bangladesh.

What the study does strongly suggest is that a higher degree of mask wearing would have resulted in less cases and so less deaths. It would need a lot more detailed analysis to put a number on that.

Every scientist already knew it would reduce transmission, we didn't need a study to tell us that. The question is how much it reduces transmission. If the study can be used for that conclusion, and subsequently be used in OP to calculate how many cases could have been avoided, then why would there be an issue using total mortality to calculate lives saved?

Either the OP is using the data improperly or my mortality figure is also valid, assuming anybody is willing to tell me what they find an acceptable number. Official US numbers put it just over 1% if you don't account for all the cases where COVID was not primary COD. It's lower if you look at it with any kind of scrutiny.

Where did the OP provide a mortality figure, he seems to have been talking about cases?

I agree that a straight deaths/ cases over states the death rate, however .1% is also clearly far too low.

ETA there are a number of posters on this site who don't believe it reduces transmission.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MDDoxs

Is 10% really detectable in a study like this, or an expected range for error of analysis…..

10 percent is well within the detectable range, you'd expect maybe a 2 or 3 percent margin for error, this is a statistically significant output and could result in several tens of thousands fewer cases when expanded to a national level.

Ha. Your funny. Based on what.

A study can be fudged, I mean data collected in a way it can have any outcome…

Example

U.S. EPA reaffirms that glyphosate does not cause cancer
mobile.reuters.com...

Vs

CNN Common weed killer glyphosate increases cancer risk by 41%, study says

I would say this is an example of a huge margin of error…

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: putnam6

Unless you can narrow down those graphs to at least the approximate region where the survey took place they're not really of much use as those cases might be hundreds of miles away from where the study was conducted.

For example, Bangladesh has an areaa of approximately 92,000km, which is close to the size of New York State, yet NCY is a hot spot while many of the small towns outside of it are more or less untouched.

you do know Bangladesh's population density 1,134.54 people per square kilometer are pretty damn high it's #11 on countries by population density for comparison the US is 30

originally posted by: BerkshireEntity
Just to be clear, if there is no live sample of the virus available for anyone to see, then how do they know someone was even affected by coronavirus and its 125 variants and not the flu or common cold? There is nothing to compare the alleged variants to. The only thing they ever show us besides the fake cgi animation was a dead sample of something they claim is coronavirus but it has graphene stitching on it....obviously that occurs in nature all the time (sarc)

Just to be clear, here are some electron microscope images of the Sars-Cov-2 virus:

www.niaid.nih.gov...

Are you going to claim these are fake?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

I was using the OP numbers, if the 6.5 million is incorrect you'd have to take it up with them.

Mortality changes, but there is still an overall mortality. You're saying mortality is invalid when used in aggregate? If that's the case I have some shocking news for you about how public health agencies calculate their statistics.

Also, a study in Bangladesh doesn't give a very realistic impact for people in the US wearing masks. That alone invalidates all this projecting numbers. I'm just trying to extrapolate, from the OPs own data, how many lives would be saved by requiring 350,000,000 people to mask up for two years. An absurd expectation at any rate, but I wanted to follow the fantasy to it's conclusion to see how many lives would be saved.

I didn't say the 6.5million was incorrect. It's the .1% mortality rate that is incorrect.

I don't you can draw a firm conclussions about number of lives saved in the US from a case study in Bangladesh.

What the study does strongly suggest is that a higher degree of mask wearing would have resulted in less cases and so less deaths. It would need a lot more detailed analysis to put a number on that.

Every scientist already knew it would reduce transmission, we didn't need a study to tell us that. The question is how much it reduces transmission. If the study can be used for that conclusion, and subsequently be used in OP to calculate how many cases could have been avoided, then why would there be an issue using total mortality to calculate lives saved?

Either the OP is using the data improperly or my mortality figure is also valid, assuming anybody is willing to tell me what they find an acceptable number. Official US numbers put it just over 1% if you don't account for all the cases where COVID was not primary COD. It's lower if you look at it with any kind of scrutiny.

Where did the OP provide a mortality figure, he seems to have been talking about cases?

I agree that a straight deaths/ cases over states the death rate, however .1% is also clearly far too low.

ETA there are a number of posters on this site who don't believe it reduces transmission.

I said every scientist, not every member. I think most people here know it reduces transmission, but like me (and almost all of public health prior to 2020) they believe that it is negligible in general public settings. Masks are very effective under certain circumstances, but untrained use in general public settings isn't one of them.

The OP didn't list mortality, they did calculate the number of cases that it would have prevented. Mortality, whatever number is acceptable, is then just a quick calculation away. I'm not arguing this is a valid method, just using the same methods and data as OP.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: putnam6

OK, now search the Bengali language pages which have about 100 times the content on any given subject.

No links at all? not to mention these were translated from these sources below

Prothom-Alo is the most popular Bangla daily newspaper. Bangladesh Pratidin is the highest Circulated Newspaper from Bangladesh.

Here are both sources in Bengali , it's absolutely nothing different content-wise

www.bd-pratidin.com...
www.prothomalo.com...

Do these look like they have different stories



from the English versions?

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: putnam6

Unless you can narrow down those graphs to at least the approximate region where the survey took place they're not really of much use as those cases might be hundreds of miles away from where the study was conducted.

For example, Bangladesh has an areaa of approximately 92,000km, which is close to the size of New York State, yet NCY is a hot spot while many of the small towns outside of it are more or less untouched.

you do know Bangladesh's population density 1,134.54 people per square kilometer are pretty damn high it's #11 on countries by population density for comparison the US is 30

Bingo.

The specific use case for masks is in close interactions, finally somebody gets it. This is a terrible case to use for an example. Some person walking around Home Depot is not the same as a person in Bangladesh surrounded by walls of unwashed masses that have limited access to other hygiene methods like hand washing.

a reply to: ketsuko

And where do those mask filled with all the microorganisms they protected us from go?

I live in the woods on a 5 mile dirt road, and I saw at least five on my walk a few days ago.

They have a ship load of workers being transported in and out of these woods. Some are agriculture workers, some are utility workers, and I am sure that is where they came from.

But you can't talk about how highly effective masks are against such a highly transmissible virus, and have taken no measures for the biohazard they become the moment you put them on your face.

That is if they are doing what they claim they do, protect those from spreading those from getting.

So what happens to those viruses in those used masks that are carried in pockets, cars, purses, and dropped and the ground?

They can't be that effective if there is no importance placed on disposing of them, retrieving them, and destroying them.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I never mentioned a mortality statistic. My only comment was that hopefully mortality rate would decrease at a relative rate.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Truth? I am using the same mask I started the week with. When we had to work out in they got laundered more often, but that was because of the sweat.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: putnam6

Unless you can narrow down those graphs to at least the approximate region where the survey took place they're not really of much use as those cases might be hundreds of miles away from where the study was conducted.

For example, Bangladesh has an areaa of approximately 92,000km, which is close to the size of New York State, yet NCY is a hot spot while many of the small towns outside of it are more or less untouched.

For the record New State isn't untouched in any county, it's getting slammed each county in the whole state except one is busting out 1000 plus cases per million the highest on the scale. Only Allegany has dropped below 1000 per mill.

This COVID spread mapper is an excellent tool, with fresh updates daily from John Hopkins. If you are serious you might want to play around with it a little bit. the comparison tool is great.



metrics.covid19-analysis.org... e_metric=%5B%22rt%22%2C%22case_rate%22%2C%22death_rate%22%5D&compare_submit=0&table_select_resolution=%22auto%22&table_date=%222021-11-15%22&select_re solution=%2284000013%22&compare_sel_states=null&compare_sel_counties=null

here's what a state looks like when it's cases are clustered around population centers



This COVID spread mapper is an excellent tool

Our method requires the following data:

Daily new cases and deaths: we used data from Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering (JHU-CSSE) Coronavirus Resource Center (Dong, E., et al, 2020).

The input parameter values of the distribution of the disease serial interval: We used a Gamma distribution with a mean of 5.2 days and a standard deviation of 5.1 days (He, X., et al, 2020).

For a full description of our method, please see our paper:

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Truth? I am using the same mask I started the week with. When we had to work out in they got laundered more often, but that was because of the sweat.

You and damn near everybody else. Most people just have it tucked away until they are "required" to wear one.

For me this is the biggest give away.

When a virus is so deadly and so transmissible that they have to shut down businesses, close schools, and churches. So transmissible that you have maintain 6 feet of distance, and wear masks indoor and out. Yet they make no attempts to provide the masses with virus grade masks, and make no attempt to collect or destroy those virus laden items, tells me all I need to know. That this all pure BS. It is government manipulation, and overreach, for political and financial gain.

I worked too many years fighting with CMS, the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and hospital authorities, trying to get my patients life saving medication and treatment. I know what they think about us, and you are sorely deceived if you think they give one damn bit about your health, your well being, or your life.

It is the long con people. Remember one thing. "It is a big club." "And you and I aren't in it". - George Carlin