RT @Mi_Chudzik: Lobby anty-Covid powoduje, że musimy udowadniać okrągłość Ziemi. Kanony epidemiologii zakażeń znane od wielu lat - higiena,…
😆
Tylko w Polsce od masek ludzie nagle chorują na "grzybice płuc"...biedni chirurdzy, anestezjolodzy, instrumentariuszki i pielęgniarki z bloków operacyjnych już od tylu lat narażają w ten sposób swój układ oddechowy na zachorowanie...🙈
RT @a_niedzielski: Zarówno dystans jak i maski mają istotne znaczenie w ograniczeniu transmisji #koronawirus To wnioski ze 172 badań podsum…
Lobby anty-Covid powoduje, że musimy udowadniać okrągłość Ziemi. Kanony epidemiologii zakażeń znane od wielu lat - higiena, izolacja i ochrona. COVID to choroba zakaźna, więc schemat działania jest ustalony.
Warto znać fakty
@rsadlermsc @Brixton_Ben26 @CraigSpillard @mr_njl84 Studies showing masks reduce the risk of tranmission of a virus: metaanalysis of 72 studies: https://t.co/4qboeRcLUy https://t.co/GL4g3s06Ix https://t.co/11Yv6iT930
@rsadlermsc @CraigSpillard @mr_njl84 @Brixton_Ben26 Do you even know what Begging the question means? And ok: https://t.co/CL1YgDhIRF
@NorrettBrendan @CWat777 @deesnider Oh, I did. For example, here's a metastudy from one of the most distinguished journals in medicine summarizing over 200 studies performed by medical institutions from around the world showing that the best science we hav
@anboware @Stephen22147670 @ClarkeMicah It’s not quicker for me, actually, particularly when they are all in Peter’s thread. https://t.co/Pkzj5XpMJA https://t.co/BLF0F2uELO https://t.co/wr9NuiCRc7
RT @EugeniaStonecr1: 🦠🤓A review of studies of coronavirus transmission found that the use of eye protection (face shields, visors or goggle…
🦠🤓A review of studies of coronavirus transmission found that the use of eye protection (face shields, visors or goggles) was associated with 78% less infection than with no eye protection (Chu, Lancet 2020). https://t.co/64GBBS31Wg
@ClarkeMicah @Stephen22147670 And here’s even more https://t.co/Pkzj5XpMJA https://t.co/Sa7q1upioU
@Velociman Bullshit. Where did you read that? Breitbart? Lancet says distance and masks prevent the spread. https://t.co/t2vwiUktmD
https://t.co/Olp3YjwO9I www-osoite sivulle 1984 https://t.co/bRrD90xsJ3
@LuckyHeronSay @TheLancet https://t.co/uZT8S8J6fx This is from the Lancet in June
How can you make such a statement when you have no evidence of it being true. Evidence shows masks are harmful.
@mlalanda @TheLancet La protección ocular es una cosa demostrada (pantallas que se ajustan a tu cara, sin bordes) y llevar gafas pir miopía durante 8 horas al día otra. Mucho me temo que el estudio que analiza con acierto @boticariors no es mucho más que
@CHasenkrug @SvOstrow @tomdabassman Das ist einfach nur bewusstes missinterpretieren von Aussagen. Die wissenschaftlichen Beweise sind eindeutig! https://t.co/UQXEKxtXe6
@timjames16 @StopNewNormal A ridiculous article so easily disproved . For starters 172 proper scientific studies in 16 countries . Mind you don’t step off the earth https://t.co/FRZLO2Zz84
@TimHowe73500437 @treenahasthaal @PishPishCat Haven't they? https://t.co/QiBeoiGUv5
@old_tory @JamieKay22 Search term: "covid mask transmission" Result 1 https://t.co/WIN8UFzbkM Result 2 https://t.co/aTIhqB5i4O Result 3 https://t.co/G3JmdIyqux
@WillMonk18 @ByrneLuc @Tone7x20 @PishPishCat There's plenty of peer-reviewed clinical studies and science which demonstrate the benefits of masking up. https://t.co/CbyGRCTCvO, https://t.co/GEBoLNT6oR, et al.
@jamezoomer @rlmassio @ElphabaLondon @deb_cohen When you've read the meta study, you MIGHT be able to conclude that its findings are incorrect. Until then, would you not agree that the best course of action would be to err on the side of caution? The cons
@PoliticsAired @Bomopu @milleniumlady @DouglasCarswell 1. https://t.co/mNhUAxBLsk https://t.co/UtZwfRBEEX They’re literally the first 2 hits mate 2,3,4 lockdown reduced the spread, less infections, less deaths. The graph you keep posting of weekly or da
Before 2020 there were about 170 observational studies on the efficacy of social distancing and 0 randomized double-blind control studies. https://t.co/HJmTW2bOxt
@jamezoomer @rlmassio @ElphabaLondon @deb_cohen So what are your thoughts on the Lancet's meta analysis? Were you aware it existed? If not, how can you be sure you've studied all the evidence? https://t.co/ybQi2WQj49
@MsAnuJohanna @NeilClark66 They do - look for the case of the hairdressers https://t.co/5oAhreXVLq & other scientific papers https://t.co/QRqFunMsa7 https://t.co/YDUqFzpQiW https://t.co/Zx850NvyRb
Just retweeting this study from June this yr. Physical distancing, #facemasks, & eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of #SARSCoV2 & #COVID19: a systematic review and meta-analysis @TheLancet https://t.co/kkDSMgAzcN
@rob_miller12345 @SRE_NCFC @Belle54056984 @kondekturbus_ @EHijacked Here's a systematic review of peer reviewed studies. https://t.co/0tS7EWKLH2
@TheKanehB @AssyMcJew @DelaLyre1 @ShivversLaw "Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection" That's one. Feel free to let me know if you want others. https://t.co/Kzu7E5eE2V
RT @StevenLShafer: A systematic review in @TheLancet identified the person-to-person risk reduction for distancing, face masks, and eye pro…
@jmarino726 @dotlongchamp @ryanobles @DJJudd I posted that one because it is easy to read and I realize that an be hard for a lot of people. How about this, Joe? Meta-analysis of 172 studies that prove masks work from the oldest most respected medical jour
RT @juniordrblog: 35:06 Ivor labels this study https://t.co/ihD5zzma6w an 'associational' study. That isn't a term for study design. Data…
@RGrauwacke @zaferflocken @ProfRasen "This article is a pre-print and has not been peer reviewed" Mehr brauch man über diese Studie noch nicht Wissen. Versuchs mal mit sowas. https://t.co/Cd5K30v3ys
@RalfSchumache17 @reno_Kid @Karl_Lauterbach Negativ. Einfach nein. Ohne Masken fällt eine der wenigen Schutzmaßnahmen und R fliegt uns um die Ohren. Anstatt mal so rauszuhauen "wirkt nicht" obwohl Menschen ab Februar freiwillig Masken trugen... https://t.c
RT @juniordrblog: 16:37 Ah. Masks. Ivor claims there is no evidence they prevent infection, quoting analysis of randomized controlled tria…
@committee_big @Davepiepkornfan @RichardKnurowsk @JoeIfWeMust @MelaKatie @leelaurie22 @coldlawgic The almost 200 year old PEER REVIEWED medical journal The Lancet’s findings. https://t.co/JhwHksGH01
Nothing screams conservative privilege like public protests against lockdown and public masking requirements that are clearly delivering results and are supported by good science. Police, medics don’t need this shit. #COVID19Vic #elwood #COVIDIDIOTS
RT @MJA_Editor: “Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −1…
RT @MJA_Editor: “Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −1…
@Paul_1_9_7_4 I'm afraid that's all incorrect. https://t.co/F2DEn5NMOO
@MattBlackhawk @saintamourmi @CNN Here is a study on mask wearing. https://t.co/3cTeVpPF5f
35:06 Ivor labels this study https://t.co/ihD5zzma6w an 'associational' study. That isn't a term for study design. Data can be observational or interventional. It's an observational meta-analysis, literally 'decades of science' (since 2003), in the Lance
RT @profshanecrotty: 13/ One excellent new summary of the scientific and medical literature is: https://t.co/DssXRinlRD . Or if you prefer…
@Whreq @Gielah @JackMarsman Vertel mij wat, haha! https://t.co/Qvb5cFftNl
Dialogue avec le pharmacien: - pourquoi ne portez vous pas de masque? -ça ne sert à rien -?!!!, C'est utile ( https://t.co/cFrjb4gm9r) et c'est obligatoire (https://t.co/XKWax0A8Tf) - c'est mon opinion - Lisez l'étude du Lancet - L'expert qui conseille Mac
@ZubyMusic Ignore politics, follow science.. https://t.co/wSzgz9Zmqp
@Bogus_Sting @joel_alex_ @excessnearfalls @CNN Why do you present me with such investigations for the cold and the flu when the same investigations exist for the disease we are talking about, COVID? https://t.co/r4PhjS65LN
@IrishguardShaw @DrAdrianHeald https://t.co/ZBbZ6cTukV Glen see if this article comes up for you.
RT @jasonhaw_: Fact check: this is epidemiological bullshit. Nowhere in the Lancet study did (1) the authors used that specific combinatio…
@dunmorej @page_eco @CiaranMcNulty Most scientific articles show that masks do work. Here's an example of a meta analysis of 172 studies https://t.co/UKTv2aqa6k
RT @juniordrblog: 16:37 Ah. Masks. Ivor claims there is no evidence they prevent infection, quoting analysis of randomized controlled tria…
@zagozdzon @bfialek Poczytaj sobie tez inne metaanalizy randomizowane ,których jest sporo np https://t.co/62679ijWpg
RT @_emmanuel___: @saraart4 @decodeurs @lemondefr oui pas bête tiens https://t.co/HJyOLvYjRc
@Readingbeauty3 @iammix24 Face masks are effective against SARS-CoV- 2 respiratory droplet transmission. Judy is a charlatan with no public health background. See the evidence. "Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection" https://
@metricalsystem @CarlvKeirsbilck @LievenAnnemans Mogelijks deze: https://t.co/25wIDsVPM5
RT @jasonhaw_: Fact check: this is epidemiological bullshit. Nowhere in the Lancet study did (1) the authors used that specific combinatio…
Note the study was funded by WHO and the study admits "The primary limitation of our study is that all studies were non-randomised, not always fully adjusted, and might suffer from recall and measurement bias."
@BamaCrazy1 @MarkChangizi @carlheneghan Here is a proper published research article. https://t.co/ECwPohTaiC https://t.co/g5wLgy7RMR
@MarkChangizi @BamaCrazy1 @carlheneghan And there are many contrary ones from multiple respected authors -- instead of one outlier. https://t.co/pbV6oqlObP
RT @StaceyFitzgibb1: @WayzataMom2 @WhimsicalAf @ConservBlue2020 Here is a large systematic analysis published by Lancet. This IS the scien…
RT @StevenLShafer: A systematic review in @TheLancet identified the person-to-person risk reduction for distancing, face masks, and eye pro…
@GeraldKutney @WBrettWilson Back to the Dark Side, young Padawan? Executive dysfunction raising it's ugly head again Brett? Here's the science, in case you ever actually give a damn: https://t.co/rbYBC9JEX7
RT @jasonhaw_: Fact check: this is epidemiological bullshit. Nowhere in the Lancet study did (1) the authors used that specific combinatio…
RT @jasonhaw_: Fact check: this is epidemiological bullshit. Nowhere in the Lancet study did (1) the authors used that specific combinatio…
@missustruth @SVNewsAlerts Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection, with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar https://t.co/C9VIOUmuEA
RT @StevenLShafer: A systematic review in @TheLancet identified the person-to-person risk reduction for distancing, face masks, and eye pro…
@WhimsicalAf @CJDeR53 @ConservBlue2020 Here is the science: a study of all the peer reviewed studies on masks, social distancing etc. published in Lancet. https://t.co/4P2VjsAMsB. Masks work!
@BruceWStanley And here is a metaanalysis from Lancet https://t.co/8fSzeQiOdU "Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection [..], with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or
@RSewell1980 @lilydawn526 @WhimsicalAf @ConservBlue2020 The point here is that without the mask, everything else is for naught. Masks, social distancing, hand washing, testing, contact tracing and quarantining work together, and only together. Here’s the
@noblesseobleezy @Alex_Reynard @vaiyt @findingvinay @atrupar @mlipsitch Its from your study. The one you just tweeted. Distancing (~1-2 meters), masks and eye protection are approximately equal mitigation measures, at about -7.7% to -14.3% reduction, wit
@WayzataMom2 @WhimsicalAf @ConservBlue2020 Here is a large systematic analysis published by Lancet. This IS the science: https://t.co/4P2VjsAMsB. Please read and commit to wearing a mask so this will end.
RT @StevenLShafer: A systematic review in @TheLancet identified the person-to-person risk reduction for distancing, face masks, and eye pro…
@saraart4 @decodeurs @lemondefr oui pas bête tiens https://t.co/HJyOLvYjRc
RT @jasonhaw_: Fact check: this is epidemiological bullshit. Nowhere in the Lancet study did (1) the authors used that specific combinatio…
@stuart0415 @cryptokeeper198 @RMaltese3 @LikeTheMountain Aww damn, thats on me. Tried to copy the links from my other post and Twitter cuts them off. Apologies https://t.co/D944hOTMEB https://t.co/euTCuF4Jp2 https://t.co/sHcMFImpMP https://t.co/9ohht
A systematic review in @TheLancet identified the person-to-person risk reduction for distancing, face masks, and eye protection (e.g., face shields). Each reduces the risk of transmission by about 2/3rds. https://t.co/NASXkjTSb9