Study shows Covid fatalities higher in areas using masks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amity Island

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
This study applied secondary data on case updates, mask mandates, and demographic status related to Kansas State, USA. A parallelization analysis based on county-level data was conducted on these data. Results were controlled by performing multiple sensitivity analyses and a negative control.

A parallelization analysis based on county-level data showed that in Kansas, counties with mask mandate had significantly higher case fatality rates than counties without mask mandate, with a risk ratio of 1.85 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.51–2.10) for COVID-19-related deaths. Even after adjusting for the number of “protected persons,” that is, the number of persons who were not infected in the mask-mandated group compared to the no-mask group, the risk ratio remained significantly high at 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24–1.72). By analyzing the excess mortality in Kansas, this study determines that over 95% of this effect can solely be attributed to COVID-19.

These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them, making mask mandates a debatable epidemiologic intervention.


journals.lww.com

The Foegen effect: A mechanism by which facemasks... : Medicine

med to determine whether mandatory mask use influenced the case fatality rate in Kansas, USA between August 1st and October 15th 2020. This study applied secondary data on case updates, mask mandates, and demographic status related to Kansas State, USA. A parallelization analysis based on...
journals.lww.com journals.lww.com
 
Last edited:
www.mcgill.ca

The Fögen Effect Masks a Big Methodological Issue

Have you heard of the Fögen effect, alternatively spelled “Foegen?” It is the idea, or so goes the claim, that wearing a mask could make COVID-19 more severe. And you might be tempted to take it seriously because it has a very scientific-sounding name. Surely, if this mechanism of action has...
www.mcgill.ca
 
Bruce Stephens said:
www.mcgill.ca

The Fögen Effect Masks a Big Methodological Issue

Have you heard of the Fögen effect, alternatively spelled “Foegen?” It is the idea, or so goes the claim, that wearing a mask could make COVID-19 more severe. And you might be tempted to take it seriously because it has a very scientific-sounding name. Surely, if this mechanism of action has...
www.mcgill.ca
Click to expand...
I agree, I've not heard of it (foegen effect) either, but whatever the action/reason, it does make clear in the conclusion "These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them". Whatever the reason, the study does provide valid evidence regardless of the term used.

I've got to say, to me, the general public wearing spatter masks which according to the W.H.O have no evidence of any benefit in preventing transmission in respiratory viruses, were always advised against wearing them from the outset and many doctors said wearing these masks can cause more problems than they solve.

And where were the bio hazard bins for them?
 
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
I agree, I've not heard of it (foegen effect) either, but whatever the action/reason, it does make clear in the conclusion "These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them". Whatever the reason, the study does provide valid evidence regardless of the term used.

I've got to say, to me, the general public wearing spatter masks which according to the W.H.O have no evidence of any benefit in preventing transmission in respiratory viruses, were always advised against wearing them from the outset and many doctors said wearing these masks can cause more problems than they solve.

And where were the bio hazard bins for them?
Click to expand...

Just to clarify what the link from @Bruce Stephens says, it completely shreds the credibility of the original paper.

Re the WHO and masks, they're in favour.
www.who.int

When and how to use masks

WHO's guidance and advice on the use of masks to protect against and limit the spread of COVID-19.
www.who.int www.who.int
 
Rob Oldfield said:
Just to clarify what the link from @Bruce Stephens says, it completely shreds the credibility of the original paper.

Re the WHO and masks, they're in favour.
www.who.int

When and how to use masks

WHO's guidance and advice on the use of masks to protect against and limit the spread of COVID-19.
www.who.int www.who.int
Click to expand...
The study shows Covid fatalities higher in areas using masks. That's what the data shows. As I said, i've not heard of Foegen effect either, but I can certainly work out how the non medically trained public wearing masks could actually make their health worse by wearing them.

Regarding WHO.

According to the WHO report (see section 2 page 13 of the report attached by WHO for pandemic preparedness for respiratory viruses like flu (covid is a respiratory virus too)). In this they state quite clearly that there was no evidence for masks etc being of any benefit).

Face Masks: there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission
Respiratory Etiquette: there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing influenza transmission
Surface and object cleaning: there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission
Contact tracing: Active contact tracing is not recommended in general because there is no obvious rationale for it in most Member States
Quarantine of exposed individuals: Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure.
 

Attachments

I will continue to make decisions based on what seems right and logical to me. I am one of the few who still wear a mask to go shopping etc and in my N=1 study it is working 🙄 .... I am still healthy and successfully dodging the virus with no negative impact to me apart from my reading glasses fogging up when I try to read nutritional info labels on packaging. It would take a lot for me to be convinced by a study of the actions and behaviour of a group of people in America particularly o_O
 
@Amity Island

Re WHO, your link is from 2019. Mine is from 2021. Yours is about influenza, mine is about Covid.

It's 100% clear what the WHO's current attitude to masks and Covid is. They work.
 
nonethewiser said:
Tell that to surgeons nurses dentists to name few.

You don't give up easily on the anti covid/vaccine issue do you AI.
Click to expand...
I don't give up on common sense. I never refered to medical settings. We are talking about the public. Surgeons wear masks to protect the open wounds of their patients during surgery.

@nonethewiser Please share with us all, why wearing a mask is good for your health.
 
Rob Oldfield said:
@Amity Island

Re WHO, your link is from 2019. Mine is from 2021. Yours is about influenza, mine is about Covid.

It's 100% clear what the WHO's current attitude to masks and Covid is. They work.
Click to expand...
Rob, watch this. This is the w.h.o advice, see at 26mins onwards about wearing masks for covid19.

www.pscp.tv

World Health Organization (WHO) @WHO

Media briefing on #COVID19 with @DrTedros. #coronavirus
www.pscp.tv www.pscp.tv
 
Amity Island said:
Rob, watch this. This is the w.h.o advice, see at 26mins onwards about wearing masks for covid19.

www.pscp.tv

World Health Organization (WHO) @WHO

Media briefing on #COVID19 with @DrTedros. #coronavirus
www.pscp.tv www.pscp.tv
Click to expand...
The key part is where that says "Ended 2 years ago". The video is before their latest statement. The latest statement is their current position (after they got it wrong earlier in the pandemic). I don't really know how else to say that.

You might as well post a statement from the Catholic Church discounting Galileo's theories in the 17th century, and claiming that has any form of current validity.
 
Amity Island said:
This study applied secondary data on case updates, mask mandates, and demographic status related to Kansas State, USA. A parallelization analysis based on county-level data was conducted on these data. Results were controlled by performing multiple sensitivity analyses and a negative control.

A parallelization analysis based on county-level data showed that in Kansas, counties with mask mandate had significantly higher case fatality rates than counties without mask mandate, with a risk ratio of 1.85 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.51–2.10) for COVID-19-related deaths. Even after adjusting for the number of “protected persons,” that is, the number of persons who were not infected in the mask-mandated group compared to the no-mask group, the risk ratio remained significantly high at 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24–1.72). By analyzing the excess mortality in Kansas, this study determines that over 95% of this effect can solely be attributed to COVID-19.

These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them, making mask mandates a debatable epidemiologic intervention.

The cause of this trend is explained herein using the “Foegen effect” theory; that is, deep re-inhalation of hypercondensed droplets or pure virions caught in facemasks as droplets can worsen prognosis and might be linked to long-term effects of COVID-19 infection. While the “Foegen effect” is proven in vivo in an animal model, further research is needed to fully understand it.

journals.lww.com

The Foegen effect: A mechanism by which facemasks... : Medicine

med to determine whether mandatory mask use influenced the case fatality rate in Kansas, USA between August 1st and October 15th 2020. This study applied secondary data on case updates, mask mandates, and demographic status related to Kansas State, USA. A parallelization analysis based on...
journals.lww.com journals.lww.com
Click to expand...
How about concentrating on helping others with diabetes instead of sharing this nonsense
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rob Oldfield said:
Probably not. The WHO were hideously slow in catching up on the airborne nature of Covid.
Click to expand...
Well, in that case I can't win. You'd have said I was wrong on both occasions. If I'd of said they (WHO) were right, that masks don't help the general public (which I still beleive is true), you would of said I and the WHO are wrong, when I say now they are wrong, you say they are right. :rofl:
 
Amity Island said:
Well, in that case I can't win. You'd have said I was wrong on both occasions. If I'd of said they (WHO) were right, that masks don't help the general public (which I still beleive is true), you would of said I and the WHO are wrong, when I say now they are wrong, you say they are right. :rofl:
Click to expand...

You can believe whatever you want to believe re masks. It's just you don't have any current scientific consensus to back your belief up. I'd suggest you really think about what made you post the original link given that it's dead easy to show it is nonsense. Whatever environment you're picking that stuff up from is lying to you. Think about it.
 
Rob Oldfield said:
You can believe whatever you want to believe re masks. It's just you don't have any current scientific consensus to back your belief up. I'd suggest you really think about what made you post the original link given that it's dead easy to show it is nonsense. Whatever environment you're picking that stuff up from is lying to you. Think about it.
Click to expand...
Hi Rob,

With all respect, I am and always do refer only to official and peer reviewed sources in all my posts. You said you didn't believe what the WHO were saying, not me. It's not picking up anything from any environment. I am speaking plain common sense backed up by official sources and statements.

It's obvious that wearing a mask is no good for your own health, how could it be? It's also obvious what the WHO have offically said in the past, which I provided links to. This is not a tin hat theory, just basic common sense. The report I posted identified some data suggesting that more people died from covid in areas under mask mandates. Given the germs and bacteria masks can harbour, the data in the study does not surprise me at all.

Can you not see what has happened over past 3 years? They keep changing their facts/advice/definitons to suit themselves not the science. It's all politically driven, not science or good health driven. It's like @everydayupsanddowns once pointed out. They mandated masks for everyone, then rang the dinner bell with their free meal tokens to get people back out into the restaurants, which helped spread the virus. Is this not politically driven?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top