Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 179

By December 4, 2022Commentary

I am seriously behind on research summaries.  First I want to encourage people to read the substack and other material by the people at the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine.  In their latest writing, they remind us of their early warning about the potential abuse of PCR testing, and subsequent contact tracing efforts.  Like everything else, test and trace proved to be a big waste of money that did nothing to stop transmission.  We have seen everything they warned about in regard to excessive and inaccurate testing come true.   (CEBM Article)

And speaking of futile interventions, masking is one of the worst, because it not only doesn’t stop transmission, it has negative effects, particularly on children.  This study found that an N-95 mask, which is supposedly superior, was no more effective than a surgical mask in preventing infections in health care workers who were treating CV-19 patients.  Now the mask wearing that was monitored was in the work setting. And among the group that became infected, we don’t know where or how they contracted that infection, but given that they were treating CV-19 patients, in the work setting is certainly a possibility.  Health care workers are likely to be more consistent mask wearers outside their work.  A fair number in each group got infected, which should make us dubious about the value of masks anywhere, any time and of any type.  (Annals Study)

I expressed my dubiousness about “long” CV-19 some time ago.  Nothing has lessened that skepticism, partly because research indicates that after any serious health episode people tend to experience, or imagine, or just be more highly attuned to, all kinds of symptoms.  Better to forget it and move on with your life, but then you wouldn’t get sympathy, long-term disability, free health care, etc. etc.  This study examines the frequency of reported symptoms 3 months after an illness.  The researchers took 1000 people who reported symptoms consistent with CV-19.  All were tested, some were positive, some were negative.  Oh look, the people who tested negative for CV-19 were actually more likely to continue to report symptoms 3 months after the test.  Let’s be honest, our country is full of slackers and malingerers and people who are overly-sensitive and just have little toughness, and if you ask people about symptoms, they probably will report some.  (JAMA Article)

According to this study from the Philippines, being vaccinated was associated with far lower levels of household transmission of CV-19.  (JID Article)

A third dose of mRNA vax was associated with some reduction of risk of infection from recent Omicron variants in this study from Japan, but within two months, this initially modest effectiveness was already waning.  (JID Article)

This review of the research found that most adults have antibodies stemming from a prior CV-19 infection and those antibodies offered some protection against a reinfection, but the protection was lower in regard to Omicron variants and waned over time.  (Annals Article)

Join the discussion 5 Comments

  • Scott in AR says:

    Please stop playing lose with the studies to make a point. There’s plenty of solid points to be made without doing so. I read this site regularly because you site things i don’t see other places. However, using the Scott Adams BS spotting techniques produces a wide range of interpretive credibility in these writings.

    What does it mean when someone references a study and doesn’t site either the percentage or count? It means they are pushing an agenda unusually hard. It’s bad enough when either the count or percentage is sited but here you make a claim about masks and site neither. You also fail to note that the study was to see how ‘medical’ masks compare to N-95 not to check mask efficacy against infection. Around 10% of the wearers of each mask type became infected in a completely uncontrolled environment. That might be interpreted as something that probably provides some level of protection. But I, and you, know that really can’t be stated because that wasn’t what was being tested. This study is at best anecdotal in relation to efficacy against infection, isn’t it?

    As you have said for a long time nothing is completely effective against something like COVID-19. IMO, good random fibre masks (medical, N-9* etc) are like sun screen, they allow one to stay in an environment longer than without them. For those of us with family with conditions that any respiratory infection could be really bad news wearing a defensive mask isn’t stupid.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      I have always said wear them if you want to, but don’t for one second imagine that they provide any significant protection. There is zero evidence to that effect, really none.

  • Scott in AR says:

    This study, that didn’t study what you and Kyle Becker are trying to say it did, could easily be interpreted to say masks are about 90% effective. There’s only “zero evidence” that masks don’t work when you apply the nebulous qualifier of ‘significant’. Another clear sign of a writer pushing a narrative.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      ummm, I have no idea what you could possibly mean, there is no way that study shows masks to be 90% effective, in fact event the most biased mask study any where shows that. Are you literally subtracting a 10% infection rate from 100% of the population? You can’t be serious

  • Scott in AR says:

    Of course I’m serious in the context of the statement I made. Lazy use of numbers from bad studies being applied to any narrative is a sign of low credibility.

    In case it wasn’t clear from my apparently tricky statement. I do not think masks are anywhere near 90% effective. But i also don’t think random fiber masks are 0% effective. Anecdotally I know that a well seated N95 filters out odor, perfumes etc. How much does that help?

Leave a comment