Deep Dive on the NYT’s “The mask Mandate did nothing” article
twitter.com
twitter.com
If two are standing in front of each other an spitting in their opponents face, even a simple sheet of cloth would minimize the spitters spitt getting spitted on the other spitter's face.
Then we have that shiat byatch viros! Much, much smaller than the sticky and jelly, sincerely accumulated mass of spit.
The conclusion is to take denser cloth for the virus not to pass through thread holes.
And, maybe the proper handling the masks. They won't work if the people do not cover their noses.
What's even more with that Cochrane metastudy, there hasn't been a differentiation of what masks are subjected to the question. I overflow it and medical masks and n95/ffp3 has been mixed together.
I would say that guy authoring the study should be excluded from the science society for being not all about science - but rather stupid, neglecting and a big fan of personal flowering the data & resume.
Please, someone has to stop that guy :) he's not worth to be called a scientist.
But it's ok to down vote without a discussion.
Its just like a worm in an apple. By having one apple with a worm, you can't tell all apples are wormed. Because, just of pure experience, there are apples without a worm, too.
So you need more than one apple to be confident about your statement.
And so it goes. The bigger the cohort, the less influence can be seen on the results.
And that's all about. The same applies to the studies that showed ivermectin have a use in an infection with the (COVID) virus.
The cohorts have been between 40 and 200 people in all of round about 30 studies. Compared to the millions and now billions of people doing the jabs.
So. You see at once, if a study can be trusted or not, by looking into the size of cohorts/samples. The bigger the cohort, the more trustworthy the study.
Have a nice time :)