Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
That reply by Golfing Eagle is NOT correct. He made up a number to fit his personal opinion of this pandemic and how it should be managed. The degree of protection provided to the mask wearer is not known and making up an extremely low number is a bald faced attempt to manipulate the reader by a retired physician who should know better. Instead the comment might say the amount of protection is unknown.
Golfing eagle also attempts to slam the reports from the CDC saying this:
He, I would think, knows better. Why is CDC in quotes? He knows how to find CDC reports. Here is what is on the CDC website regarding the issue of masks and protection for the wearer:
The circumstances of the report from Thailand are not similar to everyday use in a community. So do not expect 70% benefit to yourself from mask wearing. Nowhere is a number given and making up a number is irresponsible. CDC reports on their website represent official consensus statements of the CDC. And the CDC is clearly saying that there is enough real benefit of mask wearing for the wearer that they devote a section of their report and much of their conclusion to discussing that benefit. |
Yes, it's obviously a fictitious number just to show that personal protection from the usual type of mask is minimal. The CDC was in quotes because I didn't see the statement. The media loves to quote/misquote someone who works at the CDC as if it was the gospel truth.
A retrospective case controlled study from Thailand??????? I can't think of a worse study design. Retrospective studies are suspect in the best of circumstances, and I'm not convinced that Thailand is the definitive word on COVID. Have you considered that the infection rate was down 70% because everyone else around these people were also wearing masks?
Lastly, why did you make this personal? I've never responded to your posts in such a way.