- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stanford study says masks are ineffective, have devastating health consequences
Posted on 4/18/21 at 11:52 am to Lou
Posted on 4/18/21 at 11:52 am to Lou
quote:
I hope the science of aerodynamics doesn't change mid flight
Sure physics is a science but other than sub atomic we've pretty much fleshed out all the numbers. Especially the ones humans deal with on a daily basis.
0
Posted on 4/18/21 at 11:52 am to LegendInMyMind
quote:Correct. And, they are going to skate with no sanctions.
All I know is that we are grappling with a pandemic caused by china that started in china that was covered up by china that is still being covered up by china
Posted on 4/18/21 at 11:52 am to tgrgrd00
quote:
There are studies showing masks don’t cause hypoxia
quote:
Are there?
quote:
Twenty-eight people were approached, 3 declined participation, and 25 participants (mean age, 76.5 years [SD, 6.1 years]; 12 women [48%]) were enrolled. Nine participants (36%) had at least 1 medical comorbidity (Table 1). The pooled mean Spo2 was 96.1% before, 96.5% while, and 96.3% after wearing the mask (Table 2). None of the participants’ Spo2 fell below 92% while wearing masks. The paired mean differences in Spo2 while wearing the mask were minimal when compared with the value before they wore the mask (0.46%; 95% CI, 0.06%-0.87%) and the value after wearing the mask (0.21%; 95% CI, -0.07% to 0.50%), with both 95% CIs excluding a 2% or greater decline in Spo2.
From JAMA
Posted on 4/18/21 at 11:53 am to RollTide1987
I’m betting the people that actually read the entire study and not just skip to the abstract, is incredibly high on the TD.
Just a cursory read through draws skepticism as to the wide array of conclusions these researchers are making.
Just a cursory read through draws skepticism as to the wide array of conclusions these researchers are making.
Posted on 4/18/21 at 11:53 am to Jake88
quote:
It is a garbage "study." I'm no huge mask proponent, but stuff like this will only lead our side to be readily dismissed
That's an opinion and debatable.
I'd say the results are significant in showing that there IS an impact and anyone buying the media narrative that masks have zero impact on our health are full of shite.
Posted on 4/18/21 at 11:57 am to Athos
quote:
Just a cursory read through draws skepticism as to the wide array of conclusions these researchers are making.
Anyone who reads this critically will see there are immediate, glaring holes in the paper (and typos? Lol). They present what they say as fact when previous research has already debunked their claims. It’s not peer-reviewed. But “Stanford study says masks are ineffective, have devastating health consequences” confirms the OT’s preconceived biases so this is now the “science” they will follow, which ironically makes them like the libtards who only follow the science that backs their politics. I say this making no judgments on masks themselves, as I had an awesome, maskless night out yesterday at a local brewery.
Posted on 4/18/21 at 11:58 am to cwil177
quote:
Twenty-eight people were approached, 3 declined participation, and 25 participants
25 people huh? Well it's settled.
What kind of scientific study uses 25 people to represent 200 million or more? Statistics 1001 tells you this isn't acceptable.
People are shitting on actual scientific studies yet accepting a sample size of 25? frick me
Sorry, thats not science, that's bullshite.
This post was edited on 4/18/21 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:00 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
That's an opinion and debatable.
quote:
It is a garbage "study."
If you’re being objective it’s not that debatable. It’s not peer reviewed. It’s not a randomized controlled trial. It’s not published in a reputable journal. The author makes dubious or outright false claims and presents them as fact. If the author used the same quality methods and came to the conclusion “BLM rallies don’t spread COVID” or “face masks are 100% effective” you would reject them.
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:01 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:Not really.
That's an opinion and debatable.
quote:What results? He didn't do any actual research. It is all supposition based and extreme extrapolation. Does he even have a "methods" section where he describes his work?
I'd say the results are significant
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:03 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
25 people huh? Well it's settled.
Find me better data that proves me wrong. Sounds like the burden of proof (showing masks cause hypoxia) is on you
So your study had more surgeons but their O2 dropped 1%? Again, 1% isn’t even clinically significant. But you’ll probably reject this because it doesn’t fit your politics, which is sad.
This post was edited on 4/18/21 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:06 pm to Jake88
quote:
What results? He didn't do any actual research. It is all supposition based and extreme extrapolation. Does he even have a "methods" section where he describes his work?
You’re wasting your time on this guy. Politics>science. Oh the irony.
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:09 pm to cwil177
quote:
This isn’t science. It’s conjecture.
As are most of the COVID-related actions taken by the government since this “pandemic” hit. Actually, it’s more manipulation than conjecture.
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:10 pm to cwil177
quote:
BLM rallies don’t spread COVID” or “face masks are 100% effective”
the media has 100% suggested both of these. try again
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:10 pm to cwil177
quote:
So your study had more surgeons but their O2 dropped 1%? Again, 1% isn’t even clinically significant. But you’ll probably reject this because it doesn’t fit your politics, which is sad.
shite, this reminds to read the CDC study on mask efficacy. Thanks.
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:14 pm to High C
quote:
As are most of the COVID-related actions taken by the government since this “pandemic” hit. Actually, it’s more manipulation than conjecture.
We’re talking the study in the OP. But I guess you agree that it’s conjecture.
quote:
the media has 100% suggested both of these. try again
Try what? I agree with you, it’s bullshite. Just like this study. Try again, to read this “study,” with a more critical mind.
This post was edited on 4/18/21 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:16 pm to Klark Kent
quote:That was his point. Those were shite and this is shite. shite comes from both sides.
the media has 100% suggested both of these. try again
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:16 pm to The Boat
quote:
All of the most mainstream anti-lockdown and anti- masks studies have come out of Stanford. You know there’s some people there who are pissed over that.
My sister went to Stanford it’s not as left wing as you’d think. They have a very open and free thinking atmosphere and select students who are well rounded. All of their research and studies are to seek truth and facts without political agenda. It’s a great school and nothing like the Ivy League schools
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:17 pm to cwil177
Everyone is so full of confirmation bias at this point that it doesn’t really matter what any “study” says.
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:19 pm to High C
Lmao y’all are in here downvoting peer reviewed, well-designed studies from JAMA and upvoting “research” from a Facebook Karen, but when shite hits the fan y’all are gonna run to a doctor who gets their research from JAMA, not Facebook.
Posted on 4/18/21 at 12:31 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
Honest question:
Are the health consequences the same for health care workers who have always had to wear them for work? If not, why?
Honest question:
Do you believe healthcare workers pre-covid wore masks to prevent patients from contracting respiratory viruses?
Page 7 of 12
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News