Another Day In The $#!^ Mine

22) The Effectiveness Of Adding A Mask Recommendation etc.

Abstract:

To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.

Aesop Summary: Pure bullshit. They tell you why right on the front page:

"Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others." 

So, knowing you were spewing pure bullshit, WTF? Why even bother in the first place?

Because some dipshit foundation was footing the bill. Subsidize stupid shit, and you get more of it.

Information contained within that explains how well (or not) simple masks do to stop aerosolized virus infections: non-existent.

Team Claire's max possibloe grade is now an "F".

23) SARS Transmission Among Marine Recruits

Abstract:

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of public health measures to control the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has not been well studied in young adults.

METHODS

We investigated SARS-CoV-2 infections among U.S. Marine Corps recruits who underwent a 2-week quarantine at home followed by a second supervised 2-week quarantine at a closed college campus that involved mask wearing, social distancing, and daily temperature and symptom monitoring. Study volunteers were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by means of quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction (qPCR) assay of nares swab specimens obtained between the time of arrival and the second day of supervised quarantine and on days 7 and 14. Recruits who did not volunteer for the study underwent qPCR testing only on day 14, at the end of the quarantine period. We performed phylogenetic analysis of viral genomes obtained from infected study volunteers to identify clusters and to assess the epidemiologic features of infections.

Aesop summary: How to fuck up a crowbar in a sandpile. If this was the actual test regimen, unless COVID spontaneously generated out of people's asses, no one in the study could have ever come down with COVID.

Think about it: you've screened everyone for 2 weeks. Suddenly, within two days of the study, people start coming down with COVID right away. Where did it come from then? Pixies? Virulent butterflies??

"After potential recruits had completed the 14-day home quarantine, they presented to a local Military Entrance Processing Station, where a medical history was taken and a physical examination was performed. If potential recruits were deemed to be physically and mentally fit for enlistment, they were instructed to wear masks at all times and maintain social distancing of at least 6 feet during travel to the quarantine campus."

They were processed at a MEPS, with hundreds of other people and untested staff members packed in like sardines, no testing, no masking and distancing protocols, no nothing. So you took certified uninfected recruits, subjected them to one day's processing by unmasked unknown personnel, and lo and behold within the first two days 10% popped positive on a COVID test.

This is like saying "We took a case of live hand grenades, put it into a monkey cage, and within two days, all the monkeys had blown themselves up. Obviously, the hand grenades are faulty."

This is so blisteringly obvious that to miss the gaping mental retardation behind the planning of this "study" requires a lobotomy.

Zero applicability to mask effectiveness; 100% utility for how ignorant survey designers are.

24) Survey Of Physical Interventions etc.

Abstract:

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID‐19 pandemic.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

Search methods

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies.

Aesop summary: Another survey of other people's work, this time stacked in convenient carry-out tray of pre-digested crapola. 

Which even the reviewers note was all horsecrap:

"The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID‐19 pandemic."

The results from this pantload of "studies" is bull-squirt in all directions, which even the authors have to acknowledge.

We're now nearly half-way through the studies, and have yet to find one that shouldn't have been printed on rolls of perforated 4"x4" tissue paper. Because they're all b.s.

0 For 24.

But wait! There's more!