International Covid-19: Asthma inhaler reduces hospitalization risk by 90%, says Lancet study

The ScorpioN said:
Only N95s, there's mixed evidence at best that surgical or cloth masks work, including evidence that they do more harm than good.
Vit D, HCQ, Ivermecin, corticosteroids, if used early before the patients need hospitalization have shown very good outcomes.
Really makes you think why shit like remdesevir with 0 evidence was hailed as the "standard of care" at one point, while repurposed drugs with 60+ years of safe use needed ridiculous studies to "debunk" their benefits.
Maybe add "pharma corps caring about profits rather than the patients" in your next 'conspiracy theories that go against expert opinion' thread.
Click to expand...
Let’s play a game where we both spit on each other wearing cloth masks and see how it goes . Covid isn’t magical and you get it with one microbial piece. It comes down to viral load and obviously wearing a mask reduces the larger viral , spit load to get fully into the air and therefore into you . And if masks don’t do shit explain the low flu numbers this year . You think it’s all washing hands and social distance. And actually the evidence isn’t mixed on masks unless you’re reading Breitbart or Thedonald.com. Masks help reduce transmission . Period . Is it 100? No . Are seat belts 100. No . But you don’t stop wearing seat belts unless you’re dumb . Even cloth masks although they aren’t as effective as N95 . It’s not controversial and no it doesn’t lower your immune system to wear them. Stop going to Breitbart and Newsmax bud. Your life will improve. And I’m shocked you’re not banned yet . Good job hanging around .
 
HunterAcosta said:
Let’s play a game where we both spit on each other wearing cloth masks and see how it goes . Covid isn’t magical and you get it with one microbial piece. It comes down to viral load and obviously wearing a mask reduces the larger viral , spit load to get fully into the air and therefore into you . And if masks don’t do shit explain the low flu numbers this year . You think it’s all washing hands and social distance. And actually the evidence isn’t mixed on masks unless you’re reading Breitbart or Thedonald.com. Masks help reduce transmission . Period . Is it 100? No . Are seat belts 100. No . But you don’t stop wearing seat belts unless you’re dumb . Even cloth masks although they aren’t as effective as N95 . It’s not controversial and no it doesn’t lower your immune system to wear them. Stop going to Breitbart and Newsmax bud. Your life will improve. And I’m shocked you’re not banned yet . Good job hanging around .
Click to expand...
Keep reading the thread and learn something.
Thank me later
 
superpunch said:
This could actually help explain why minorities are getting hurt more the virus. Obviously people evolved light skin to get more vitamin D from using sunlight as a catalyst. Is it true that people with dark skin are more likely to have vitamin D deficiencies?
Click to expand...
A large part of why minorities get it more is because illegal aliens continue working whether they have it or not. Something like 75% of cases in Durham County are hispanic
 
The ScorpioN said:
Yes using masks was not statistically significant in reducing infection rates. That's the point. The sample size was the largest to date.
Your 1) defeats your 2)... If masks were useful, you'd have a statistically significant reduction of community transmission. If they aren't, you'd have no statistically significant difference, which seems to be the case.
3) yeah, as is with any and every population study, hence ~5k sample size. I can't see how a study can test the risk of infecting others without serious ethical problems.
As I said in my original post, the data is inconclusive at best (my argument), and if @JDragon can lend us some of that German knowledge, there may be evidence that those masks make it even worse since people often don't use them correctly possibly leading to bacterial pneumonia.
Click to expand...
Statistical significance is an expresson of certainty of results. Results not being statistically significant doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily true, it just means you can't say with 95% certainty that they are true. This isn't a particularly large sample size considering what the study was testing for, and a larger one might have produced more certainty of results because the variation would have been smaller.

The study didn't examine community transmission, it tested for infection rate amongst the two groups. Community transmission would include risk of spreading the virus as well, which as we talked about they didn't test for. It wouldn't be more or less ethical doing that, it would just be more complicated. But that would be the most accurate way of figuring out how effective masks can be.

You used it as an example of masks not working, and that would be the wrong conclusion. The conclusion from this study is that they found a protective effect of mask wearing vs non-mask wearing in regards to getting infected, however the results were uncertain.
 
Sano said:
Statistical significance is an expresson of certainty of results. Results not being statistically significant doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily true, it just means you can't say with 95% certainty that they are true. This isn't a particularly large sample size considering what the study was testing for, and a larger one might have produced more certainty of results because the variation would have been smaller.

The study didn't examine community transmission, it tested for infection rate amongst the two groups. Community transmission would include risk of spreading the virus as well, which as we talked about they didn't test for. It wouldn't be more or less ethical doing that, it would just be more complicated. But that would be the most accurate way of figuring out how effective masks can be.

You used it as an example of masks not working, and that would be the wrong conclusion. The conclusion from this study is that they found a protective effect of mask wearing vs non-mask wearing in regards to getting infected, however the results were uncertain.
Click to expand...
You seem to be very confused.
Statistical significance is in regards to the difference between the groups of mask vs non-masks, as in the difference between 2.3% and 1.8% is not significant and could be due to chance. Meaning they found that wearing a mask did not affect covid infection.
If the results said for example masked group got covid at 1.8%, and non-masked got it at 50%, that would be statistically significant, and they can say with certainty that masked are protective and the difference in infection is not due to chance.
No where did I say wearing masks categorically do not work, I said the data is inconclusive which it is.
I'm done with this free education, thank me later.
 
Headkicktoleg said:
A large part of why minorities get it more is because illegal aliens continue working whether they have it or not. Something like 75% of cases in Durham County are hispanic
Click to expand...


Also, they tend to live in more cramped conditions with lots of people under one roof which will only increase the spread. It's a bit of a perfect storm, really.
 
The ScorpioN said:
You seem to be very confused.
Statistical significance is in regards to the difference between the groups of mask vs non-masks, as in the difference between 2.3% and 1.8% is not significant and could be due to chance. Meaning they found that wearing a mask did not affect covid infection.
If the results said for example masked group got covid at 1.8%, and non-masked got it at 50%, that would be statistically significant, and they can say with certainty that masked are protective and the difference in infection is not due to chance.
No where did I say wearing masks categorically do not work, I said the data is inconclusive which it is.
I'm done with this free education, thank me later.
Click to expand...
You don't understand how p-values and 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) are calculated dude. While mean change is part of the formula, or here proportion change, so is Standard Deviation (SD), as well as number of participants (n). Larger samples almost always result in lower p-values/greater certainty in 95% CI regardles of change in results, because of higher n and smaller SD.

The mean proportion between the two groups could have been 1,9% vs 2% and still had been statistically significant. The results in the study of 1,8% vs 2,3% is actually a reduction in risk of 28%, or 0,72 lower odds. That's not small at all, although as we've talked about, in this specific instance we can't be certain of results, as they were not statistically significant. That could have been different if the study had a larger cohort, for reasons explained above.

You did say it was inconclusive. I missed that. That would be a fair, although slightly uncharitable, takeaway from this specific study. As far as the overall evidence on mask, I'd say there's no doubt they have an effective function in reducing viral spread through vapor and aerosols.
 
Sano said:
You don't understand how p-values and 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) are calculated dude. While mean change is part of the formula, or here proportion change, so is Standard Deviation (SD), as well as number of participants (n). Larger samples almost always result in lower p-values/greater certainty in 95% CI regardles of change in effect, because of higher n and smaller SD.

The mean proportion between the two groups could have been 1,9% vs 2% and still had been statistically significant. The results in the study of 1,8% vs 2,3% is actually a reduction in risk of 28%, or 0,72 lower odds. That's not small at all, although as we've talked about, in this specific instance we can't be certain of results.

I'd grant you that, you said it was inconclusive. I missed that. That's would be a fair, although slightly uncharitable, takeaway from this specific study. As far as the overall evidence on mask, I'd say there's no doubt they have an effective function in reducing viral spread through vapor and aerosols.
Click to expand...
You're still confused. The interval gives you the odds of the results matching reality. As in they're saying that they're 95% sure that there is no statistical difference in mask vs no mask in the study. 5% those results might be due to chance.
Your "reduction" is 95% due to chance.
 
The ScorpioN said:
You're still confused. The interval gives you the odds of the results matching reality. As in they're saying that they're 95% sure that there is no statistical difference in mask vs no mask in the study. 5% those results might be due to chance.
Your "reduction" is 95% due to chance.
Click to expand...
No I'm not confused at all. Re-read my post.
 
Sano said:
No I'm not confused at all. Re-read my post.
Click to expand...
You misused statistical significance, now you're giving me hypotheticals that the reduction could be significant, if the same % of infection was the same in a much larger sample size... yeah and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. There's a 95% chance the results with a larger sample size would be the same.
 
The ScorpioN said:
You misused statistical significance, now you're giving me hypotheticals that the reduction could be significant, if the same % of infection was the same in a much larger sample size... yeah and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. There's a 95% chance the results with a larger sample size would be the same.
Click to expand...
I didn't misuse anything, I'm trying to explain to you what statistical significance is. I don't disagree with you that the study is inconclusive, but you don't understand why that is. There's not a 95% chance the results would be the same with a larger sample size, because the 95% is based on a calculation including the number of participants and the standard deviation, both of which are a factor of the sample size. The 95% is always based on if we did this exact same study again, with the same participants and same sample size. This is legitimately not something you'd know unless you'd taken statistics, and took me a long time to understand as well. We're going off a tangent here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,980
Messages
55,459,140
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top