40) Canuckistani doctor feels bad about masks
It turns out they don't do what they never intended to do: protect the wearers. But wearing them makes stupid people feel better about not getting sick, which makes the MD feel bad, because it doesn't help.
Why this wandering dribble got published in a medical journal is anyone's guess (maybe the publisher is his uncle or something), but there's a dearth of anything beyond feeling bad supporting any of it.
It makes me feel bad for Canada's medical expertise, is this is the level of discourse in their supposedly scholarly journals.
41) Lancet "study" of Hajj pilgrims
"Findings: From October 13 to 17 in 2013, October 2 to 6 in 2014, and September 22 to 26 in 2015, 7,687 adult participants from 318 tents were randomised to facemasks or no facemasks; 3,864 participants from 149 tents were assigned to the Facemask group and 3,823 participants from 169 tents to the Control group. In the Facemask arm, respectively 27% and 51% participants used facemasks daily and intermittently, 22% did not; in the Control arm, respectively 15% and 38% participants used facemasks daily and intermittently, 47% did not."
And based on the haphazard, half-assed, slap-dash inshallah version of masking, what did Dr. Fuckhead and Dr. Shitforbrains conclude?
"Interpretation: Facemask use does not prevent clinical or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims."
I can't make up pseudo-science this retarded out of thin air. Apparently, you have to go to medical school to have a gallon of shit pumped into your head to substitute for brains.
That The Lancet would publish such total fecal material tells you everything you need to know about the skill behind the Britistani National Health System.
42) Facemasks in the COVID era
Abstract: (wait for it...)
"This survey has been retracted."
Aesop Summary:
Non-shocker for everyone not living in Switzerland: passing a law doesn't mean 100% compliance.
And the plural of bullshit is still not "data", no matter how many other people's invalid and poorly-constructed "studies" with methodological gaps big enough to drive a pandemic through you wave around as if they were factual information.
a) they misstate the purpose of masking in hospitals, straw-manning the argument by only the second sentence
b) go from small lies to outright whoppers about rationale for masking in hospitals, and its prevalence
c) moves on to telling outrageous whoppers about the pandemic itself, 18 months into it
d) plays the politics card
e) moves on to list all those "studies", many if not all of which have already been dealt with in earlier installments of this shit-show.
Unless you're Rumplestiltskin, resubmitting the same documented bullshit does not spin it into gold.
Another amalgamation of bullshit masquerading as scholarly effort. 279 possible choices were whittled down to only 12 possibly applicable studies, many or all of which we've already eviscerated in earlier installments.
This is all diarrhea from the same bad burrito. There's nothing new to see here.
46) American Journal Of Infection Control study from 1992
"METHODOLOGY: The flow rates through the masks ranged from a constant value of 5 to a constant value of 100 L/min, thus simulating the different physiologic workloads that result in a wide range of instantaneous flow rates during respiration."
Point Of Order, Slick: 100 L/min??? The human lungs hold, on average, 6L of volume, but the volumetric tidal volume amount of the average human breath is only about 500mL (half a liter). Any respiratory therapist can tell you that. The average respiratory rate is 12 to 20/minute. Meaning the upper end of normal respiration is around 10L/minute. NOT 100L/min.
100-yard sprinters aren't even sucking and blowing 100L/minute at the finish line, FFS! They'd have to be breathing full breaths at 200 times/minute to achieve that, which is physiologically impossible.
So, in short, the study designers tested masks designed for normal human respiration at an air movement rate that's approximately the same as strapping it to a hole in the car windshield, and driving at 100mph.
I cannot imagine how anything could fail to penetrate the mask filter with that level of stupidity running the testing, up to and including songbirds and large insects.
Color me shocked, at the 10L (i.e. actual human level) end of the scale, penetration was minimal.
Second Point Of Order: They were measuring penetration at the surface of the filter. Unless someone's doing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation right up against the mask, they could be expected to be two to several feet away, even in surgery. By which time all those theoretical penetrating particles fall to earth.
Third Point Of Order: If you're testing mask penetration in surgery, as claimed, then to be accurate according to real-world conditions, the testing of aerosols or particles should be done from the other side of a second mask, several feet away (at least two), to simulate the person on the other side of the OR table you're worried isn't being protected by mask worn by the first person, shouldn't you? Oopsie, they weren't doing that at any point in the testing process.
The engineering technical term for doing this sort of jackassically incorrect test is "screwing the pooch".
This sort of pure horseshit is virtually every test we've seen or heard of in regard to mask testing, since ever, and it only got worse during Covidiocy.
Team Claire: 0 for 46. Max possible score still available: about 10%. Which, as we mentioned in the last post, is far lower than a moron score on the SATs if you just left the damned thing blank and walked out.
In aeronautical terms, this is what it looks like when you invent a helicopter that screws itself into the ground when you attempt takeoff.
2 comments:
Have you called Hercules yet? By now your Augean stables must be pretty full.
I am Hercules in this play.
It's the Clairean Stables that were overflowing.
I'm merely redirecting a river or two to sort them out.
Post a Comment