Study shows probability of getting COVID for mask wearers vs. non-mask wearers

Hmmm I wonder if this is the same study that's just been torn to shreds on the peak prosperity yt channel.

Its amazing how when the data support their claims, no RCT is needed. There are too many variables to truly know if masks were the only reason there was a difference in the numbers. Mask wearers, in general, would tend to be more afraid of the virus and, therefore, more careful with hand hygiene, for one. More rigorous studies have shown that masks less than N95 were ineffective for influenza, a larger microbe than covid. It would likely follow the same would be true for a virus of smaller particle size.

In the US, states with and without mask mandates experienced statistically the same level of spread during the same time period. Communal immunity is constantly changing as people are exposed to the virus. I didn't see any mention of controlling for these variables.

Personally, I had a documented infection Mar 2020. Symptoms were similar to a mild flu, I was over it in 5 days. I lived as normally as possible and hadn't had as much as a sniffle until vaccinated in Nov '21. The vaccine put me in the hospital and felt 10x worse than my first bout with COVID. I recently (Jul '21) tested positive with an at home test. I felt fine, but had a slight  runny nose. My father in law had a "pretty bad cold" for a few weeks, testing negative a couple times. I tested myself at the first sign of any symptom mostly out of curiosity. I will gladly have a runny nose for a couple days every two years if I don't have to wear a mask most my waking life.

I was onboard wearing masks at first if there was any chance of eradicating the disease. The virus is mutating and/or immunity waning too quickly for any chance of eradicating it. We have a new cold virus, I accepted that years ago, it's here to stay if one wears a mask or not. Watch a video of a person vaping in a mask if you need more evidence of their efficacy.

this study js such crap...they cherry picked 13 out of 1300 and still barely found any correlation. It is amazing how fast the media just blindly spew this garbage.

This article was a complete waste of my time...

Oh, please, first it was, "wear your mask, you won't get covid", then it was "wear your mask so you don't spread covid", then it was "get the vaccine,  you won't get covid", then it was "get the vaccine, it will make covid less severe",  then it's "we have to change the definition of vaccine because of these mrna clot shots are not working". To be honest, all you doctors took an oath and let your political views get in the way of that. And this site is just as bad. It's agenda pushing propaganda.

So, I see no attempt to delineate covariables in this metastudy. Right off the bat, that's a huge red flag. You don't do univariate studies when the correlation you are studying has multiple independent variables. For example, people wearing masks are more likely to have received one or more vaccine doses. You have to control for that, along with behavioral differences. Mask-wearing undoubtedly has a positive correlation with other preventative measures. Studying only one of those variables (and likely the least effective one) will show a correlation that is NOT causally related.

The selection criteria for the studies chosen for inclusion should be disclosed, particularly how 48 of the 61 that "met the criteria" were eliminated from consideration. Without that information, this result could be entirely due to cherry-picking the set that confirms the authors' a priori conclusion.

This is likely another study that will never muster peer review, at least not in any reputable journal. It'll languish in pre-print while propagandistic sources tout it as a meaningful result.

And yet, this article is yet another publication of individuals not actually studying the effect of mask use. No one has actually put a mask up in front of a source with the pathogen and studied what actually got thru it! You just promoted another misleading article that does little more than steal the results of other studies that just did systematic reviews. Come on, someone actually do the real research like a real scientist.

Did the kind of mask matter or did I miss that part?

I used to do contamination compliance measurements for biotech and nanotech with particle counters capable of detecting particles down to 80nm  (the size of a coronavirus).  In a controlled environment with laminar flow in a class one cleanroom there is no difference between wearing a mask or not with regards to particles in the sub-micron range when the sensor is placed about a foot in front of your face.  In fact, if you cough you get so many sub-half micron particles that the sensor of our machine needed to be sent back to the factory to be cleaned as it would ruin it.  There isn't a mask manufacturer out there that will claim their masks are capable of impeding viral transmission, in fact they state precisely the opposite on their packaging. There's no way any study, now that this issue has been so politicized and corrupted by bribed-science, is ever going to convince me that a simple mask in open air does jack against a viral particle anymore than a chain-link fence stops mosquitoes.   Every bit of my career experience says otherwise, as does the pre-Covid published literature.