Comments by "ARK CON" (@arkcon714) on "COVID-19: What we know so far about Omicron's BA.2 subvariant" video.

@lahlah3922 Vaccine effectiveness against (redacted) infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster A Danish cohort study Study very clearly shows that after 91 days the vaxxed are MORE likely to catch and get sick from omicron then the unvaxxed Read the actual study, not articles about it, look at the table in the study where it shows after 91 days the bar goes into the negative Time to start following the science
3
@lahlah3922 The ‘Danmask-19 trial’ was conducted in the spring with over 6,000 participants, when the public were not being told to wear masks but other public health measures were in place. Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence. Around half of those in the trial received 50 disposable surgical face masks, which they were told to change after eight hours of use. After one month, the trial participants were tested using both PCR, antibody and lateral flow tests and compared with the trial participants who did not wear a mask. In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19.
2
@lahlah3922 run back to your safe space
2
@lahlah3922 literally every single RCT in existence outside of China shows masks do absolutely nothing to slow or stop the spread of viruses. The only mess is you anti science maskers that are forgetting it was established science up to 3 years ago that masks did not stop viruses
1
@lahlah3922 Background Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission. Because COVID-19 can spread via respired droplets, many states have mandated mask use in public settings. Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against respiratory viruses, and observational studies conflict on whether mask use predicts lower infection rates. We hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use are associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates in the United States. Methods We calculated total COVID-19 case growth and mask use for the continental United States with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. We estimated post-mask mandate case growth in non-mandate states using median issuance dates of neighboring states with mandates. Results Case growth was not significantly different between mandate and non-mandate states at low or high transmission rates, and surges were equivocal. Mask use predicted lower case growth at low, but not high transmission rates. Growth rates were comparable between states in the first and last mask use quintiles adjusted for normalized total cases early in the pandemic and unadjusted after peak Fall-Winter infections. Mask use did not predict Summer 2020 case growth for non-Northeast states or Fall-Winter 2020 growth for all continental states. Conclusions Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges. Containment requires future research and implementation of existing efficacious strategies.
1
@lahlah3922 Abstract Background: Health care workers outside surgical suites in Asia use surgical-type face masks commonly. Prevention of upper respiratory infection is one reason given, although evidence of effectiveness is lacking. Methods: Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not. They provided information about demographics, health habits, and quality of life. Participants recorded symptoms daily for 77 consecutive days, starting in January 2008. Presence of a cold was determined based on a previously validated measure of self-reported symptoms. The number of colds between groups was compared, as were risk factors for experiencing cold symptoms. Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study. Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
1
Vaccine effectiveness against (redacted) infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster A Danish cohort study Study very clearly shows that after 91 days the vaxxed are MORE likely to catch and get sick from omicron then the unvaxxed Read the actual study, not articles about it, look at the table in the study where it shows after 91 days the bar goes into the negative Time to start following the science
1
@saaikou193 so much nonsense! I couldn't care less about the opinions of the authors and them stating without any evidence that behavior led to the protection going into the negative is nonsense especially when multiple other studies gave shown the same thing. This also goes against the narrative that it's the "antivaxxers" that are flouting all the health rules so you need to stop following opinions and follow the data. Even if you take the authors opinions as fact it still shows that the vax is completely ineffective after 91 days so maybe you should stop being a sheep and start thinking for yourself
1
@saaikou193 who cares about the opinions of the authors of the study? Science doesn't go on opinion it goes on data. You say it "claimed the complete opposite" when it on absolutely on no way does that and again who cares about the claims? What matters is the data, the data very clearly shows that after 91 days the vaxxed are more likely to catch omicron then the unvaxxed, their assertion with absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE is that people stopped following social distancing guidelines and stopped wearing masks so that lead to them having a higher infection rate. There is absolutely zero evidence for this and even if there was it is completely irrelevant for if the vax worked then they wouldn't need to wear masks (that do absolutely nothing anyways as dozens of decades from multiple countries spanning decades shows) and the social distancing guidelines are not based on science they are based on practicality, look it up bud. Just the fact that you called an actual effective medicine "horse paste" shows that it is you that is the conspiracy theorist, you are just triggered knowing that you submitted to a procedure that very clearly doesn't work and are grasping at straws trying to explain why it isn't working. The author saying it is behavior that caused the negative correlation of infection compared to the control group is an unfounded assertion. They have no data to base that on, no follow up study stating that, no sworn testimonials or surveillance showing that. Just their opinion and sheep like you parroting it. We do have dozens of studies showing iver mectin is safe and effective against the coof and ots sheep like younthat are actively getting people killed by trying to deny life saving treatments that are proven to work
1
@saaikou193 hahahahahahahahahahahaha lobe how you tried to throw in the qualifier "that hasn't been shown to be flawed" because you know there has been dozens showing ivermectin is very effective, far more studies then what ones showing the vax is effective as a matter of fact and again it is you that is just following sensationalized headlines. You can't even engage with what I'm saying so you are just making up nonsense. Did the authors do surveillance or anything along those lines to be able to determine whether it was behavior that caused the case rate to go into the negative? YES OR NO? The answer is no, they absolutely did not, that was just an assertion of their opinion to explain away the results. If it showed a very strong effect in fighting omicron well after boosting would they have said well the behavior of the control group that caused the higher case count in them? No they wouldn't. You are clearly the only one getting angry calling a noble prize winning medicine horse paste because you can't explain away why the vax is so ridiculously ineffective. You say I'm ignoring scientific data when I'm the only one following the data while you follow opinions and assertions and have taken all your information from the "opinion checkers" at rueters and don't pretend that's not where you got all this nonsense from. Show me the data on either surveillance or the follow up RCT that showed ot was behavior that caused the negative correlation bud. You can stop with the nonsense that the dozens of ivermectin studies were "flawed" because they absolutely were not, all you are doing is proving your ideological leanings mean more to you then science and data
1