Funny events in anti-woke world

[Silvanus]

It is literally what they concluded... There is no evidence that masks actually did anything but the media narrative was that you are killing people if you don't wear a mask.
Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks

You'll notice that statement is substantially different to "no evidence masks do anything".

There is a link...

...which is paywalled.

And let's be honest. You haven't paid for it, have you? Else you'd be providing us the data, I'm sure. Which means you haven't actually looked at the data you're using to make this argument.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You'll notice that statement is substantially different to "no evidence masks do anything".



...which is paywalled.

And let's be honest. You haven't paid for it, have you? Else you'd be providing us the data, I'm sure. Which means you haven't actually looked at the data you're using to make this argument.

There is no evidence that masks do anything. Like I said, you people that claim masks work have to prove your claim, and that has not been proven. Masks "probably makes little difference or no difference" means there's no evidence that masks actually did anything.

Lots of data is paywalled, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Most data from studies is paywalled and you can only see the abstract. Unless you think someone made up a chart and then linked to a paywalled article saying it's there.

 

[Silvanus]

There is no evidence that masks do anything.

Once again: I don't care what you think or say on this matter.

You said Cochrane said that. But they didn't.

Lots of data is paywalled, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Most data from studies is paywalled and you can only see the abstract. Unless you think someone made up a chart and then linked to a paywalled article saying it's there.

I have no idea. Maybe the person reposting it robbed some important context. Maybe its foundation is shaky. Remember, you once provided us with a graph that showed the incidence of heart problems.... but which conveniently excluded the sample size so the reader couldn't see how negligible the numbers were.

But your argument is the one resting on this data, so if you can't even access or read the data yourself, then I don't see why you would be confident in it.

 

[Asita]

No, it's not, there is no evidence that masks do anything. You have to prove something works, I (or nobody) has to prove said thing doesn't work, that's not how science works.

There's ample evidence that masks do a great deal. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7301882/

You can even try a simple experiment to feel the difference a mask makes:

Put your hand about a foot in front of your mouth and exhale as if your doctor had just directed you to. You should feel appreciable airflow reaching your hand. Now put on a mask and do the same again. You'll notice that the airflow reaching your hand is significantly reduced, as it redirects the air out the sides of the mask. And if you move your hands around, you'll notice that the force of air from any direction is significantly reduced.

For airborne diseases, this translates to a significantly lower risk of transmission as the particulate matter that the disease is carried by doesn't have as much momentum and travels a much shorter distance before settling, roughly half the distance for the bulk of the droplets. This appreciably helps lower the rate of infection in the population.

This is not remotely new information, nor is it controversial. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3470452/
You're confusing the fact that the issue was settled decades ago and therefore nobody was treating "masks work" as some novel revelation for the claim being untested.

Lots of data is paywalled, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Bluntly, that's rich from you, considering that you have consistently and almost constantly argued that your own unfamiliarity with information conflicting with your preconceptions means that the data does not exist and therefore any conflicting data that is shown to you in the course of conversation must necessarily be dismissible as 'bad data'. For Pete's sake, this isn't even a hard study to find! https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36715243/
Shall I quote it for you?

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear.

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks
We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence).

N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks
We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).

One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.

Hand hygiene compared to control
Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence).

We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

Mind, the paper was also quick to point out (Author's Conclusions) that the results were necessarily hasty and predicated on studies that unfortunately had compromised results through:
1) Low adherence rates ("Adherence with interventions was low in many studies", compromising the ability to detect a measurable effect)
2) The studies largely being constructed in a way that subjected them to a high chance of bias (And I quote : "Most included trials were open label, and there were concerns about bias due to non-compliance, loss to follow-up, and selective outcome reporting")
3) Inconsistent measurement and criteria between them. (Including heterogeneity in Outcome Definitions, Mask Types, Populations, and Settings)

Leading to them to directly state that they had - at best - low to moderate confidence in the very results you're quoting. Cochrane presented this as a preliminary result that did more to highlight the lack of robust recent studies than actually evidencing a given conclusion.

Interpreting this as saying 'Cochrane said there’s no evidence masks work' is like concluding 'condoms don’t work' based on a meta-analysis of pregnancy rates in populations where the studies openly admit people weren’t using them consistently or correctly. Much as that conclusion would not be an accurate representation of the condom data, neither is 'Cochrane said there’s no evidence masks work' an accurate representation of this data.

Hence Cochrane's own follow-up which cautioned against exactly the reading that you are making. https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/n...t-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review

Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.

It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.

The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: 'The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.' Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm.

To be a lot more direct, the conclusions were that the quality (or lack thereof) and capaciousness of the studies they were reviewing rendered their results unreilable and unable to draw robust conclusions from. Never mind that the underlying studies tested the effectiveness of interventions encouraging people to wear masks, rather than testing the effectiveness of masks themselves

For further reading see:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10484132/
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/y...reading-covid-despite-review-saying-they-dont
and

What the Cochrane Review Says About Masks For COVID-19 - and What It Doesn’t - FactCheck.org

People online are touting the results of a Cochrane review to incorrectly claim that it shows masks “don’t work” against the coronavirus. But the primary conclusion of the review is that it’s uncertain from randomized controlled trials whether mask interventions in the community help slow the...

www.factcheck.org

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Not defending Hasan, but I love how left-wingers and liberals have to be literal saints to avoid being canceled, but you can, for example, rape a woman and still be taken seriously enough to be able to run for president of Ireland(One of many examples) if you're on the other side.

That said, if you treat your dog like a slave in a Skyrim Game(There are shock collar mods), you shouldn't get a dog.

Wait, that fashion style is around again?

 

[Casual Shinji]

oh please, please please give us another of your comedy gold interviews, Andrew! Your legacy starts here, mate!

Verifying Device

"we are in this together"

There's a joke here, I'm sure of it.

 

[bluegate]

That lady's style is on point

if you're on the other side.

Other side of what?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Once again: I don't care what you think or say on this matter.

You said Cochrane said that. But they didn't.



I have no idea. Maybe the person reposting it robbed some important context. Maybe its foundation is shaky. Remember, you once provided us with a graph that showed the incidence of heart problems.... but which conveniently excluded the sample size so the reader couldn't see how negligible the numbers were.

But your argument is the one resting on this data, so if you can't even access or read the data yourself, then I don't see why you would be confident in it.

Yes they did. If they said masking PROBABLY makes little or no difference, that means there's no objective evidence showing masks DO INDEED work. There is no proof that masks work essentially.

Sweden did well by most metrics, that is plainly a fact.

There's ample evidence that masks do a great deal. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7301882/

You can even try a simple experiment to feel the difference a mask makes:

Put your hand about a foot in front of your mouth and exhale as if your doctor had just directed you to. You should feel appreciable airflow reaching your hand. Now put on a mask and do the same again. You'll notice that the airflow reaching your hand is significantly reduced, as it redirects the air out the sides of the mask. And if you move your hands around, you'll notice that the force of air from any direction is significantly reduced.

For airborne diseases, this translates to a significantly lower risk of transmission as the particulate matter that the disease is carried by doesn't have as much momentum and travels a much shorter distance before settling, roughly half the distance for the bulk of the droplets. This appreciably helps lower the rate of infection in the population.

This is not remotely new information, nor is it controversial. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3470452/
You're confusing the fact that the issue was settled decades ago and therefore nobody was treating "masks work" as some novel revelation for the claim being untested.



Bluntly, that's rich from you, considering that you have consistently and almost constantly argued that your own unfamiliarity with information conflicting with your preconceptions means that the data does not exist and therefore any conflicting data that is shown to you in the course of conversation must necessarily be dismissible as 'bad data'. For Pete's sake, this isn't even a hard study to find! https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36715243/
Shall I quote it for you?



Mind, the paper was also quick to point out (Author's Conclusions) that the results were necessarily hasty and predicated on studies that unfortunately had compromised results through:
1) Low adherence rates ("Adherence with interventions was low in many studies", compromising the ability to detect a measurable effect)
2) The studies largely being constructed in a way that subjected them to a high chance of bias (And I quote : "Most included trials were open label, and there were concerns about bias due to non-compliance, loss to follow-up, and selective outcome reporting")
3) Inconsistent measurement and criteria between them. (Including heterogeneity in Outcome Definitions, Mask Types, Populations, and Settings)

Leading to them to directly state that they had - at best - low to moderate confidence in the very results you're quoting. Cochrane presented this as a preliminary result that did more to highlight the lack of robust recent studies than actually evidencing a given conclusion.

Interpreting this as saying 'Cochrane said there’s no evidence masks work' is like concluding 'condoms don’t work' based on a meta-analysis of pregnancy rates in populations where the studies openly admit people weren’t using them consistently or correctly. Much as that conclusion would not be an accurate representation of the condom data, neither is 'Cochrane said there’s no evidence masks work' an accurate representation of this data.

Hence Cochrane's own follow-up which cautioned against exactly the reading that you are making. https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/n...t-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review



To be a lot more direct, the conclusions were that the quality (or lack thereof) and capaciousness of the studies they were reviewing rendered their results unreilable and unable to draw robust conclusions from. Never mind that the underlying studies tested the effectiveness of interventions encouraging people to wear masks, rather than testing the effectiveness of masks themselves

For further reading see:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10484132/
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/y...reading-covid-despite-review-saying-they-dont
and

What the Cochrane Review Says About Masks For COVID-19 - and What It Doesn’t - FactCheck.org

People online are touting the results of a Cochrane review to incorrectly claim that it shows masks “don’t work” against the coronavirus. But the primary conclusion of the review is that it’s uncertain from randomized controlled trials whether mask interventions in the community help slow the...

www.factcheck.org

First one is a modeling study, I don't care about modeling numbers. The track record of models during covid were infamously wrong. Second paper, again not a real world study, and states "When the masks were placed in the manner in which the product is commonly worn, however, significantly higher numbers of particles were recovered.", complete shocker that it doesn't work in the real world.

I've already had this discussion with Silvanus when the data wasn't paywalled years ago and he dismissed excess mortality as an important metric. Thus, I don't really care about finding the data again.

Those are the best mask studies from a methodology standpoint. 99.99999% of mask studies had even more bias. They would notoriously pick time periods during cold season in the South (which means not cold season in the North) and they say masks work because red states without mask mandates had more covid infections during that time than northern blue states with mask mandates. Or you had that stupid barber mask "study" or the infamous dummy study that they did. That was the level of mask studies we were getting during covid and you're gonna claim the very best ones we actually do have have bias when all the other ones were even more massively biased. Funny when you also search for mask studies and make the date range anywhere prior to 2020 (to remove the political covid bias), you get the same results that there is nothing concrete showing that masks lower flu infections. And several of those studies forced mask adherence that you're complaining about.

 

[Asita]

First one is a modeling study, I don't care about modeling numbers. The track record of models during covid were infamously wrong. Second paper, again not a real world study, and states "When the masks were placed in the manner in which the product is commonly worn, however, significantly higher numbers of particles were recovered.", complete shocker that it doesn't work in the real world.

I've already had this discussion with Silvanus when the data wasn't paywalled years ago and he dismissed excess mortality as an important metric. Thus, I don't really care about finding the data again.

Those are the best mask studies from a methodology standpoint. 99.99999% of mask studies had even more bias. They would notoriously pick time periods during cold season in the South (which means not cold season in the North) and they say masks work because red states without mask mandates had more covid infections during that time than northern blue states with mask mandates. Or you had that stupid barber mask "study" or the infamous dummy study that they did. That was the level of mask studies we were getting during covid and you're gonna claim the very best ones we actually do have have bias when all the other ones were even more massively biased. Funny when you also search for mask studies and make the date range anywhere prior to 2020 (to remove the political covid bias), you get the same results that there is nothing concrete showing that masks lower flu infections. And several of those studies forced mask adherence that you're complaining about.

First: Deflection, pure and simple. You were trying to make a point about mask mechanics, and so the most pertinent response was always going to use a model to illustrate those mechanics. Bluntly, your response makes me strongly suspect that you don't understand the paper and were just looking for an excuse to dismiss it, and in the process you belied an unfamiliarity with how models are widely used across disciplines, epidemiology included.

This is only reinforced by your second point in which you quote "When the masks were placed in the manner in which the product is commonly worn, however, significantly higher numbers of particles were recovered" as a gotcha, when in fact that's contextually a critique of improper usage. To conclude from that that "masks don't work" is as false as saying "contraception being greatly reduced when people don't wear condoms correctly shows that condoms aren't an effective contraceptive" or that "improper use of seatbelts greatly reduces their efficacy in saving lives in car crashes", when in fact it says precisely the opposite: That the mechanism is quite effective, but that effectiveness is predicated on proper usage.

You might as well be pointing at a student who sleeps through class, doesn't study, and then fails the final to claim that the curriculum was 'obviously' deficient. Human error does not impugn the efficacy of the mechanism, and it's the mechanism is explicitly what you are disputing when you say that "there's no evidence that masks do anything."

And to your "I don’t really care about finding the data again"? Wow. Just wow. I just handed you the very study you were citing, not paywalled, the one you and Silvanus were arguing about not having access to...and your response was "I don't care"? Setting aside that you clearly either don't remember or never knew it's contents, what a thing to say that you don't care about having ready access to the very source you were actively discussing! You're functionally declaring that you don't care about referencing or verifying your claims, because you've already reached your conclusion and refuse to question it!

And then we get your "best mask studies". No, they really weren't. For goodness sake, the very source you claim to be deferring to doesn't even focus on "mask studies" but rather studies about the efficacy of interventions encouraging people to wear masks and, by its own account, had too many methodological errors to draw reliable conclusions from.

Bluntly, the way you responded and are treating my explanation of their own findings and conclusions as if they were instead my own criticisms makes me doubt that you even read the thing. You clearly aren't trying to understand them, you're just looking for an excuse to say that it doesn't matter and therefore they cannot even make you question your presumptions.

Let me reemphasize: Your evidence for your claim was that Cochraine said "there is no evidence that masks do anything". And not only does the study you're citing clearly not say that, Cochrane itself has publicly clarified that their review does not support the claim that masks don’t work. If your position relies on that misreading, it's built on a false foundation.

And to be direct, your conclusion is rather explicitly that no study can be trusted unless it already supports your view, that you don't care to even check your sources, and have shown that you will fight against their own clarifications and admitted limitations tooth and nail to maintain the conclusion that you are invoking them to support. You're all but bragging about your argument being nothing more than confirmation bias.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes they did. If they said masking PROBABLY makes little or no difference, that means there's no objective evidence showing masks DO INDEED work. There is no proof that masks work essentially.

*little or no difference was conclusively shown in one context.

But this doesn't matter: saying X probably doesn't do Y isn't the same as saying there's no evidence X does Y anyway. They are different statements. I don't care about your interpretation of their statements, because i don't respect your opinion. I care more about what they said. And they didn't say what you said.

Sweden did well by most metrics, that is plainly a fact.

K. So to be clear, you haven't actually seen any data to substantiate the claim they have the best mortality in Europe, and you can't provide it here?

 

[Silvanus]

this isn't even a hard study to find! https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36715243/

Slight confusion here: the section of my post to which Phoenix is responding here actually isn't referring to the Cochrane piece. Its referring to the source data for the graph he posted at the bottom of this post.

It gets confusing since he doesn't segment his quotes, and we've discussed multiple sources (well, "sources") in tandem.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

And here we have an ICE agent pointing a weapon at the face of a protestor with his finger on the trigger.

​

And before anyone decides to declare "it's a less-lethal weapon, it wouldn't hurt him": I'm sure Victoria Snelgrove would argue with you if, y'know, she hadn't been killed by a less-lethal weapon that hadn't even been aimed at her. (And also, if you try to argue that, you prove that you're an idiot; there's a reason they're called "less-lethal" these days rather than "non-lethal".)

Interesting side note: BORTAC is an elite anti-terrorism border patrol unit whose mission is "to respond to terrorist threats of all types anywhere in the world in order to protect our nation's homeland". Here we see them up against those who Republicans consider to be terrorists: American citizens who don't bend the knee to Trump.

 

[Gergar12]

That lady's style is on point

Other side of what?

The other side of the political spectrum.

 

[Gergar12]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/14/world/asia/china-stem-visa-racist-backlash.html

Basically, a New York Times Article states the obvious. Many people in leadership in developed countries are facing backlash on immigration, and sometimes it happens before there are that many immigrants to begin with, like in China, and it has to do with racism and economics. Most of the people here seem to be against one group, and that is the Indians and South Asians in general.

The reason is simple: the more of something or someone there is, the less they are wanted, all things being equal. In the UK, I have seen comments against Americans coming/immigrating because there are more people in the US than in the UK, yet the US is okay with software developers from Europe. There is also the added case of economics, where if you are a poor person, they do not want you even more.

That is why, in geopolitics, I say it's hell to be a dynamic geopolitical heavyweight; it's an even bigger hell not to be one.

Welcome to 2025, everyone.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Oh, look, a line even Fox News and Newsmax won't toe: Pete Hegseth wants reporters to sign an agreement to not report on "national security" stories without permission, even if the information is unclassified; those who refuse to sign don't get press passes. (And breaking the agreement could get someone deemed "a security or safety risk".)

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/fox-news-pentagon-press-restrictions-00608019

President Donald Trump told reporters Tuesday that Hegseth “finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace, and maybe security for our nation.”

Of course he thinks that. If the press would just do (what he thinks is) its job and only say good things about him, everything would be wonderful- he'd tell us so!

 

[thebobmaster]

 

[Gergar12]

Wait, that fashion style is around again?

Yes fashion happens in cycles.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Oh, look, a line even Fox News and Newsmax won't toe: Pete Hegseth wants reporters to sign an agreement to not report on "national security" stories without permission, even if the information is unclassified; those who refuse to sign don't get press passes. (And breaking the agreement could get someone deemed "a security or safety risk".)

Seems like a move designed to give unearned credibility to US press. Refuse this obviously unreasonable demand, pretend we're at odds.

 

[thebobmaster]

Seems like a move designed to give unearned credibility to US press. Refuse this obviously unreasonable demand, pretend we're at odds.

I want to think that's all this is, but this is the same administration that has deemed anti-Charlie Kirk speech to be worthy of visa revocation, so they really might be that thin-skinned to think that critiquing the government is a security risk.

 

[bluegate]

The other side of the political spectrum.

You're just ignoring the existence of Donald Trump and every Republican bending over backwards to glaze him, aren't you?