Attacking Mr. Dwyer's sources and then going on for several paragraphs with un-cited claims to the contrary strikes me a as a bit - shall we say - unpolished for a learned colleague.
I get it, it's the internet and anybody can say anything, but we need to be smart enough to back up what we say either with professional authority (which neither of us have
wrt virology) or credible sources. Just throwing stuff out as "facts" is not exactly taking the highest road, would you agree?
I am not going to do your research for you, or your math. Here's my cite:
https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/masks/msg587551/#msg587551 You predict an outcome, you get an accurate result in the test, QED.
But I am sure there are the hemmers and hawers so
And this one from shortly before:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article Wherein:
Face Masks
Thumbnail of Meta-analysis of risk ratios for the effect of face mask use with or without enhanced hand hygiene on laboratory-confirmed influenza from 10 randomized controlled trials with >6,500 participants. A) Face mask use alone; B) face mask and hand hygiene; C) face mask with or without hand hygiene. Pooled estimates were not made if there was high heterogeneity (I2 >75%). Squares indicate risk ratio for each of the included studies, horizontal lines indicate 95% CIs, dashed vertical
Figure 2. Meta-analysis of risk ratios for the effect of face mask use with or without enhanced hand hygiene on laboratory-confirmed influenza from 10 randomized controlled trials with >6,500 participants. A) Face mask...
In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35). Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Also note:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546829/wherein:
Conclusion: Surgical mask wearing among individuals in non-healthcare settings is not significantly associated with reduction in ARI incidence in this meta-review.
And those are just those I found in peer-reviewed articles in a brief search.
So, it's no different from wearing a "Biden 2020" armband or carrying a rabbit's foot.
Fauci lying about masks is well-documented, but here he is lying about herd immunity (New York Times interview):
"In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying '70, 75 percent' in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said '75, 80, 85 percent' and '75 to 80-plus percent,'" the Times reported.
"In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks," the report continued.
In case you misunderstood the implication of any of the above, Fauci, November 12:
"I was talking with my U.K. colleagues who are saying the U.K. is similar to where we are now, because each of our countries have that independent spirit,” he said on stage. “I can understand that, but now is the time to do what you’re told.”
It's not "independent spirit", like it is some sort of whimsical dream -
independence is the justification for government's existence and codified in law. You can't really understand that, and still say "do what you are told" like Joseph Stalin.
So, Chuck, good enough- statistical math, cites from peer-reviewed journals (the same ones that recently told you to wear TWO masks? Could that be because one doesn't work (in a general public setting)? ) and direct quotes from Fauci where he admits lying to manipulate people.
Brett