# Study shows Covid fatalities higher in areas using masks



## Amity Island (Sep 29, 2022)

This study applied secondary data on case updates, mask mandates, and demographic status related to Kansas State, USA. A parallelization analysis based on county-level data was conducted on these data. Results were controlled by performing multiple sensitivity analyses and a negative control.

A parallelization analysis based on county-level data showed that in Kansas, counties with mask mandate had significantly higher case fatality rates than counties without mask mandate, with a risk ratio of 1.85 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.51–2.10) for COVID-19-related deaths. Even after adjusting for the number of “protected persons,” that is, the number of persons who were not infected in the mask-mandated group compared to the no-mask group, the risk ratio remained significantly high at 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24–1.72). By analyzing the excess mortality in Kansas, this study determines that over 95% of this effect can solely be attributed to COVID-19.

*These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them*, making mask mandates a debatable epidemiologic intervention.










						The Foegen effect: A mechanism by which facemasks... : Medicine
					

med to determine whether mandatory mask use influenced the case fatality rate in Kansas, USA between August 1st and October 15th 2020. This study applied secondary data on case updates, mask mandates, and demographic status related to Kansas State, USA. A parallelization analysis based on...




					journals.lww.com


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Sep 29, 2022)

The Fögen Effect Masks a Big Methodological Issue
					

Have you heard of the Fögen effect, alternatively spelled “Foegen?” It is the idea, or so goes the claim, that wearing a mask could make COVID-19 more severe. And you might be tempted to take it seriously because it has a very scientific-sounding name. Surely, if this mechanism of action has...



					www.mcgill.ca


----------



## Rob Oldfield (Sep 29, 2022)

Bruce Stephens said:


> The Fögen Effect Masks a Big Methodological Issue
> 
> 
> Have you heard of the Fögen effect, alternatively spelled “Foegen?” It is the idea, or so goes the claim, that wearing a mask could make COVID-19 more severe. And you might be tempted to take it seriously because it has a very scientific-sounding name. Surely, if this mechanism of action has...
> ...


You beat me to it!


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 29, 2022)

Bruce Stephens said:


> The Fögen Effect Masks a Big Methodological Issue
> 
> 
> Have you heard of the Fögen effect, alternatively spelled “Foegen?” It is the idea, or so goes the claim, that wearing a mask could make COVID-19 more severe. And you might be tempted to take it seriously because it has a very scientific-sounding name. Surely, if this mechanism of action has...
> ...


I agree, I've not heard of it (foegen effect) either, but whatever the action/reason, it does make clear in the conclusion "*These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them". *Whatever the reason, the study does provide valid evidence regardless of the term used.

I've got to say, to me, the general public wearing spatter masks which according to the W.H.O have no evidence of any benefit in preventing transmission in respiratory viruses, were always advised against wearing them from the outset and many doctors said wearing these masks can cause more problems than they solve.

And where were the bio hazard bins for them?


----------



## Rob Oldfield (Sep 29, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> I agree, I've not heard of it (foegen effect) either, but whatever the action/reason, it does make clear in the conclusion "*These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them". *Whatever the reason, the study does provide valid evidence regardless of the term used.
> 
> I've got to say, to me, the general public wearing spatter masks which according to the W.H.O have no evidence of any benefit in preventing transmission in respiratory viruses, were always advised against wearing them from the outset and many doctors said wearing these masks can cause more problems than they solve.
> 
> And where were the bio hazard bins for them?



Just to clarify what the link from @Bruce Stephens says, it completely shreds the credibility of the original paper.

Re the WHO and masks, they're in favour.  
	

	







						When and how to use masks
					

WHO's guidance and advice on the use of masks to protect against and limit the spread of COVID-19.




					www.who.int


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 29, 2022)

Rob Oldfield said:


> Just to clarify what the link from @Bruce Stephens says, it completely shreds the credibility of the original paper.
> 
> Re the WHO and masks, they're in favour.
> 
> ...


The study shows Covid fatalities higher in areas using masks. That's what the data shows. As I said, i've not heard of Foegen effect either, but I can certainly work out how the non medically trained public wearing masks could actually make their health worse by wearing them. 

Regarding WHO.

According to the WHO report (see section 2 page 13 of the report attached by WHO for pandemic preparedness for respiratory viruses like flu (covid is a respiratory virus too)). In this they state quite clearly that there was no evidence for masks etc being of any benefit).

*Face Masks*: there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission
*Respiratory Etiquette*: there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing influenza transmission
*Surface and object cleaning*: there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission
*Contact tracing*: Active contact tracing is not recommended in general because there is no obvious rationale for it in most Member States
*Quarantine of exposed individuals*: Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Sep 29, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> That's what the data shows.


As presented by a single author, based on his (and only his) work. To quote part of the Body of Evidence credo, "Studies are like movies; some are just bad."


----------



## rebrascora (Sep 29, 2022)

I will continue to make decisions based on what seems right and logical to me. I am one of the few who still wear a mask to go shopping etc and in my N=1 study it is working  .... I am still healthy and successfully dodging the virus with no negative impact to me apart from my reading glasses fogging up when I try to read nutritional info labels on packaging. It would take a lot for me to be convinced by a study of the actions and behaviour of a group of people in America particularly


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 29, 2022)

Like the


Bruce Stephens said:


> As presented by a single author, based on his (and only his) work. To quote part of the Body of Evidence credo, "Studies are like movies; some are just bad."


Like those studies that will never pass peer review and be published.

@Bruce Stephens I honestly can't think of a single reason why wearing a mask would be good for ones health.


----------



## Rob Oldfield (Sep 29, 2022)

@Amity Island 

Re WHO, your link is from 2019.  Mine is from 2021.  Yours is about influenza, mine is about Covid.  

It's 100% clear what the WHO's current attitude to masks and Covid is.  They work.


----------



## nonethewiser (Sep 29, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> I honestly can't think of a single reason why wearing a mask would be good for ones health.



Tell that to surgeons nurses dentists to name few.


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 29, 2022)

nonethewiser said:


> Tell that to surgeons nurses dentists to name few.
> 
> You don't give up easily on the anti covid/vaccine issue do you AI.


I don't give up on common sense. I never refered to medical settings. We are talking about the public. Surgeons wear masks to protect the open wounds of their patients during surgery.

@nonethewiser   Please share with us all, why wearing a mask is good for your health.


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 29, 2022)

Rob Oldfield said:


> @Amity Island
> 
> Re WHO, your link is from 2019.  Mine is from 2021.  Yours is about influenza, mine is about Covid.
> 
> It's 100% clear what the WHO's current attitude to masks and Covid is.  They work.


Rob, watch this. This is the w.h.o advice, see at 26mins onwards about wearing masks for covid19.









						Who @WHO
					

Media briefing on #COVID19 with @DrTedros. #coronavirus




					www.pscp.tv


----------



## Rob Oldfield (Sep 29, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Rob, watch this. This is the w.h.o advice, see at 26mins onwards about wearing masks for covid19.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The key part is where that says "Ended 2 years ago".  The video is before their latest statement.  The latest statement is their current position (after they got it wrong earlier in the pandemic).  I don't really know how else to say that.

You might as well post a statement from the Catholic Church discounting Galileo's theories in the 17th century, and claiming that has any form of current validity.


----------



## Deleted member 33898 (Sep 29, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> This study applied secondary data on case updates, mask mandates, and demographic status related to Kansas State, USA. A parallelization analysis based on county-level data was conducted on these data. Results were controlled by performing multiple sensitivity analyses and a negative control.
> 
> A parallelization analysis based on county-level data showed that in Kansas, counties with mask mandate had significantly higher case fatality rates than counties without mask mandate, with a risk ratio of 1.85 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.51–2.10) for COVID-19-related deaths. Even after adjusting for the number of “protected persons,” that is, the number of persons who were not infected in the mask-mandated group compared to the no-mask group, the risk ratio remained significantly high at 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24–1.72). By analyzing the excess mortality in Kansas, this study determines that over 95% of this effect can solely be attributed to COVID-19.
> 
> ...


How about concentrating on helping others with diabetes instead of sharing this nonsense


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 29, 2022)

Rob Oldfield said:


> The latest statement is their current position (after they got it wrong earlier in the pandemic).


Ah, so had we been having this conversation back then, you'd be agreeing with me?


----------



## Rob Oldfield (Sep 29, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Ah, so had we been having this conversation back then, you'd be agreeing with me?


Probably not.  The WHO were hideously slow in catching up on the airborne nature of Covid.


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 29, 2022)

Rob Oldfield said:


> Probably not.  The WHO were hideously slow in catching up on the airborne nature of Covid.


Well, in that case I can't win. You'd have said I was wrong on both occasions. If I'd of said they (WHO) were right, that masks don't help the general public (which I still beleive is true), you would of said I and the WHO are wrong, when I say now they are wrong, you say they are right.


----------



## Rob Oldfield (Sep 29, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Well, in that case I can't win. You'd have said I was wrong on both occasions. If I'd of said they (WHO) were right, that masks don't help the general public (which I still beleive is true), you would of said I and the WHO are wrong, when I say now they are wrong, you say they are right.



You can believe whatever you want to believe re masks.  It's just you don't have any current scientific consensus to back your belief up.  I'd suggest you really think about what made you post the original link given that it's dead easy to show it is nonsense.  Whatever environment you're picking that stuff up from is lying to you.  Think about it.


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 29, 2022)

Rob Oldfield said:


> You can believe whatever you want to believe re masks.  It's just you don't have any current scientific consensus to back your belief up.  I'd suggest you really think about what made you post the original link given that it's dead easy to show it is nonsense.  Whatever environment you're picking that stuff up from is lying to you.  Think about it.


Hi Rob,

With all respect, I am and always do refer only to official and peer reviewed sources in all my posts. _You_ said you didn't believe what the WHO were saying, not me. It's not picking up anything from any environment. I am speaking plain common sense backed up by official sources and statements.

It's obvious that wearing a mask is no good for your own health, how could it be? It's also obvious what the WHO have offically said in the past, which I provided links to. This is not a tin hat theory, just basic common sense. The report I posted identified some data suggesting that more people died from covid in areas under mask mandates. Given the germs and bacteria masks can harbour, the data in the study does not surprise me at all.

Can you not see what has happened over past 3 years? They keep changing their facts/advice/definitons to suit themselves not the science. It's all politically driven, not science or good health driven. It's like @everydayupsanddowns once pointed out. They mandated masks for everyone, then rang the dinner bell with their free meal tokens to get people back out into the restaurants, which helped spread the virus. Is this not politically driven?


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 29, 2022)

This is what happened to covid cases after masks were introduced on 24th July 2020.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Sep 29, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Surgeons wear masks to protect the open wounds of their patients during surgery.
> 
> Please share with us all, why wearing a mask is good for your health.



They never were intended to protect the wearer.

It was made very clear during the pandemic, by the government, by scientific advisers, by BBC items with fancy 3D graphics of spatter clouds, even by memes about people urinating, that the purpose of mandating mask wearing was to limit transmission BY people who were asymptomatic and potentially spreading the virus without knowing it.



There was a very minor protection for the wearer, but the majority of the effect was to limit transmission.

I’m not sure it is very helpful to share a study which seems to go against the scientific consensus, by a lone author with no other academic research papers to his name, and which has been criticised for severe limitations, and is likely to upset (or at least irritate) forum members, so I am going to lock the thread.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 12, 2022)

For information we have asked the Diabetes UK Information Team for their reaction to this study, and while they have not been able to fully review the study, or dissect it in detail, they did make the following observations:
​On a brief read of the study, it uses data from a relatively short period – August to October 2020 before any vaccines were available. So even if correct, the conclusions may not still be applicable.​​It is difficult to assess the extent to which the author has adequately taken account of potential confounding variables - such as mask wearing being more prevalent in areas where disease incidence is higher, and amongst people who are already more vulnerable to severe outcomes.​​The hypothesis for why this counterintuitive result may appear to have occurred  – the Foegen effect – has been demonstrated in 6 hamsters (with 4 additional as controls) assessed within very limited timeframes.  But not in primates or humans. So there doesn’t appear to be a proven mechanism to explain his observations.​​Government and health bodies such as the NHS and WHO make decisions based on *all* of the available evidence, not one individual paper. Importantly, they will grade the quality of the evidence and base their decisions on the highest quality evidence. There’s a large body of evidence overwhelmingly in favour of mask wearing. The study shared is not designed in a way to be able to test whether mask mandates resulted in increased deaths – it is just a correlational study and there are many possible explanations for the findings.​​The conclusions drawn in the paper are very questionable.​​


----------

