又搵多一單

教蝗：Lyu and Wehby話0.9-2%

事實：佢所謂既0.9-2%又係扭曲左人地研究 Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage points in 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, and 21 or more days after state face mask orders were signed, respectively.

亦有人fc左：
But as we already explained, the study is not showing a decrease in the number of cases and deaths but a decrease in the growth rate of the daily cases and deaths.

“Because the growth rate is exponential,” the impact compounds, José Luis Jiménez, an analytical and atmospheric chemist at the University of Colorado Boulder who was not involved in the study, told us. “So, it’s kind of like your mortgage — you change your interest a little bit, and then you save a ton of money. Because the cases compound.”

Hi Auntie科學食屎真係讀食屎學位

黎黎黎 答

唔可能同意你果兩句, 過萬宗一定唔可能叫冇爆, delta果度, 你自己話佢地唔洗手仲賴咩野口罩, 係你話可以唔戴罩咋, 我冇話可以唔洗手架

咁即係你依家承認洗手先至可能係最主要原因？

戴唔戴口罩冇分別？

我一直都話全部有影, 口罩有, 洗手有, 封關都有
點會話洗手有影響就conclude到其他野冇關 ?

我唔再嘥時間重新再貼過都研究嘅原因係因為你從來都唔會接受任何真正證據

之前貼咗你嘅回應係：香港以外數據全部唔計數

之後我專登搵有關香港嘅研究分析你嘅回應係：外國人唔識嘢唔識睇香港數據

之後我同你講入面係有香港大學香港學者研究分析你嘅回應係：香港學者因為政治原因唔敢講真話唔計數

咁我再問你一次點解無啦啦要再貼多次？貼多次你係咪又會有上面嘅回應？

貼咗證據畀你你就話：唔敢接證據冇砌過證據冇證據

搵咗例子不利於你嘅立場你就話：好多variables唔計數

搵咗例子你冇得賴你就話：唔敢再搵其他例子

我嘅要求好簡單你有乜嘢立論你係需要交證據點解冇？

你既然成日唔肯接受我交畀你咁多證據我就叫你清楚定義返你要乜嘢證據, 然後你又話你唔會定義

根本你就係知道自己已經係辯論輸咗, 你嘅立場毫無證據支持, 如果唔係點解你仲要係咁樣糾纏落去？自己證據唔教我問你你要乜嘢證據定義好等你冇得賴你又死都唔肯講

你唔係重新再貼, 你係冇貼過, 淨係得堆%根本唔知你邊個研究係代表緊你個全民口罩冇用claim

我係絕對有貼過

依家個現實係我貼咗你繼續堅持話冇接過睇唔到, 呢個就係點解我唔再entertain你嘅原因

你啱啱講咗過萬中就一定有爆, 咁點解Omicron 喺香港爆之前一年香港已經過萬宗

？

香港梗係有爆, omicron前爆左4波

點解唔直接講有罩每100,000人日減0.08病例,
同無罩每100,000人日加0.11 病例,
反而要講你果個唔知點計既-6% ,+100% 呀Hi Auntie

香港累積個案：1,757,112
香港第一日有個案至今：978日
香港人口：7,291,600

即係每日減少5.83328個案, 截至今日減少5704.94784

即係口罩減少到嘅個案佔總數0.323626786%

有冇計錯？

口罩果然係好有用

你計漏左+0.11
如果計omicron前(total約14000 case, 750日)
有罩 =14000
冇罩 =+0.19 x 70(700萬人) x 750日=+9975=23975
即係有罩會少40%個案

搵到個summary大大把車勁條學棍教蝗



Hi Auntie人哋研究結果講decline in growth rate，你就想誤導人理解為 decline in infection risk 兩樣野根本唔同解讀方法你仲扮向左走向右走哂野撈埋黎講

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33762440/
Among pedestrians, the masking rate was 94.8%; 83.7% wore disposable surgical masks. However, 13.0% wore surgical masks incorrectly with 42.5% worn too low, exposing the nostrils or mouth; 35.5% worn 'inside-out' or 'upside-down'. Most online respondents believed in the efficacy of wearing face mask for protection (94.6%) and prevention of community spread (96.6%). Surprisingly, 78.9% reused their mask; more respondents obtained information from social media (65.9%) than from government websites (23.2%).

In Hong Kong, members of the population are motivated to wear masks and believe in the effectiveness of face masks against disease spread. However, a high mask reuse rate and errors in masking techniques were observed.Information on government websites should be enhanced and their accessibility should be improved.

係咪9戴呀, Hi Auntie宮久保

你呢個研究係去到2020 2月, 即係最初期唔夠罩所以答網上問卷話有重用都唔奇

搵到個summary大大把車勁條學棍教蝗



Hi Auntie人哋研究結果講decline in growth rate，你就想誤導人理解為 decline in infection risk 兩樣野根本唔同解讀方法你仲扮向左走向右走哂野撈埋黎講

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33762440/
Among pedestrians, the masking rate was 94.8%; 83.7% wore disposable surgical masks. However, 13.0% wore surgical masks incorrectly with 42.5% worn too low, exposing the nostrils or mouth; 35.5% worn 'inside-out' or 'upside-down'. Most online respondents believed in the efficacy of wearing face mask for protection (94.6%) and prevention of community spread (96.6%). Surprisingly, 78.9% reused their mask; more respondents obtained information from social media (65.9%) than from government websites (23.2%).

In Hong Kong, members of the population are motivated to wear masks and believe in the effectiveness of face masks against disease spread. However, a high mask reuse rate and errors in masking techniques were observed.Information on government websites should be enhanced and their accessibility should be improved.

係咪9戴呀, Hi Auntie宮久保

你呢個研究係去到2020 2月, 即係最初期唔夠罩所以答網上問卷話有重用都唔奇

冇關係，個口罩嘅效力已經發揮唔到

教蝗真係好向左走向右走古惑貼一大段數字搏人唔會fact check，聲稱貼左好多研究但一條link都唔比，自己一句說話簡化左人地研究成果就直接spin去自己想要既結論

教蝗：Van Duke et al話有冇強制戴口罩嘅分別係0.08同0.11

事實個研究係話：After the governor’s executive order, COVID-19 incidence (calculated as the 7-day rolling average number of new daily cases per 100,000 population) decreased (mean decrease of 0.08 cases per 100,000 per day; net decrease of 6%) among counties with a mask mandate (mandated counties) but continued to increase (mean increase of 0.11 cases per 100,000 per day; net increase of 100%) among counties without a mask mandate (nonmandated counties).

The decrease in cases among mandated counties and the continued increase in cases in nonmandated counties adds to the evidence supporting the importance of wearing masks and implementing policies requiring their use to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (1–6).

-6% 同 +100% 咁大差別都俾你唔知特登定係弱智咁曲解到0.08同0.11黎誤導人，其他個十幾個又唔知俾你扭曲成點呢？Hi Auntie科學食屎喎

又搵多一單

教蝗：Lyu and Wehby話0.9-2%

事實：佢所謂既0.9-2%又係扭曲左人地研究 Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage points in 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, and 21 or more days after state face mask orders were signed, respectively.

亦有人fc左：
But as we already explained, the study is not showing a decrease in the number of cases and deaths but a decrease in the growth rate of the daily cases and deaths.

“Because the growth rate is exponential,” the impact compounds, José Luis Jiménez, an analytical and atmospheric chemist at the University of Colorado Boulder who was not involved in the study, told us. “So, it’s kind of like your mortgage — you change your interest a little bit, and then you save a ton of money. Because the cases compound.”

Hi Auntie科學食屎真係讀食屎學位

又多一單

教蝗：Brooks et al話7.5%

事實：

* To an aerosol of 0.1–7 μm potassium chloride particles (with 95% confidence intervals indicated by error bars) measured at mouthpiece of receiver headform configured face to face 6 ft from a source headform, with no ventilation and replicated 3 times. Mean improvements in cumulative exposures compared with no mask/no mask (i.e., no mask wearing, or 100% exposure) were as follows: unknotted medical procedure mask: no mask/mask = 7.5%, mask/no mask = 41.3%, mask/mask = 84.3%; double mask: no mask/mask = 83.0%, mask/no mask = 82.2%, mask/mask = 96.4%; knotted/tucked medical procedure mask: no mask/mask = 64.5%, mask/no mask = 62.9%, mask/mask = 95.9%.

淨係抽最細個粒數有咩用意呢可

7.5%係講緊一個戴unknotted mask一個唔戴罩 vs 兩者唔戴罩，只係improve 7.5% 即係只係印證左勁戴口罩既效用唔高，並唔係話戴口罩效用唔高，最底條bar正正講緊兩者戴好口罩係可以improve到95.9%

有咩解釋呀又學棍科學食屎？

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33762440/
Among pedestrians, the masking rate was 94.8%; 83.7% wore disposable surgical masks. However, 13.0% wore surgical masks incorrectly with 42.5% worn too low, exposing the nostrils or mouth; 35.5% worn 'inside-out' or 'upside-down'. Most online respondents believed in the efficacy of wearing face mask for protection (94.6%) and prevention of community spread (96.6%). Surprisingly, 78.9% reused their mask; more respondents obtained information from social media (65.9%) than from government websites (23.2%).

In Hong Kong, members of the population are motivated to wear masks and believe in the effectiveness of face masks against disease spread. However, a high mask reuse rate and errors in masking techniques were observed.Information on government websites should be enhanced and their accessibility should be improved.

係咪9戴呀, Hi Auntie宮久保

你呢個研究係去到2020 2月, 即係最初期唔夠罩所以答網上問卷話有重用都唔奇

冇關係，個口罩嘅效力已經發揮唔到

同一班人之後再做研究

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.665708/ full

The low infection rate at the initial stage of outbreak may imply that the reuse of surgical masks in community settings is not as harmful as anticipated, and that the benefits of masking outweigh the risks of reusing masks.

搵人幫手quote俾教蝗睇 條友block左我睇唔到

佢咁鐘意搵錯處, 一定會解block睇, 最多睇完扮冇睇

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33762440/
Among pedestrians, the masking rate was 94.8%; 83.7% wore disposable surgical masks. However, 13.0% wore surgical masks incorrectly with 42.5% worn too low, exposing the nostrils or mouth; 35.5% worn 'inside-out' or 'upside-down'. Most online respondents believed in the efficacy of wearing face mask for protection (94.6%) and prevention of community spread (96.6%). Surprisingly, 78.9% reused their mask; more respondents obtained information from social media (65.9%) than from government websites (23.2%).

In Hong Kong, members of the population are motivated to wear masks and believe in the effectiveness of face masks against disease spread. However, a high mask reuse rate and errors in masking techniques were observed.Information on government websites should be enhanced and their accessibility should be improved.

係咪9戴呀, Hi Auntie宮久保

你呢個研究係去到2020 2月, 即係最初期唔夠罩所以答網上問卷話有重用都唔奇

冇關係，個口罩嘅效力已經發揮唔到

同一班人之後再做研究

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.665708/ full

The low infection rate at the initial stage of outbreak may imply that the reuse of surgical masks in community settings is not as harmful as anticipated, and that the benefits of masking outweigh the risks of reusing masks.

即係原來9戴口罩係冇問題, 同正確佩戴無分別？

又多一單

教蝗：Brooks et al話7.5%

事實：

* To an aerosol of 0.1–7 μm potassium chloride particles (with 95% confidence intervals indicated by error bars) measured at mouthpiece of receiver headform configured face to face 6 ft from a source headform, with no ventilation and replicated 3 times. Mean improvements in cumulative exposures compared with no mask/no mask (i.e., no mask wearing, or 100% exposure) were as follows: unknotted medical procedure mask: no mask/mask = 7.5%, mask/no mask = 41.3%, mask/mask = 84.3%; double mask: no mask/mask = 83.0%, mask/no mask = 82.2%, mask/mask = 96.4%; knotted/tucked medical procedure mask: no mask/mask = 64.5%, mask/no mask = 62.9%, mask/mask = 95.9%.

淨係抽最細個粒數有咩用意呢可

7.5%係講緊一個戴unknotted mask一個唔戴罩 vs 兩者唔戴罩，只係improve 7.5% 即係只係印證左勁戴口罩既效用唔高，並唔係話戴口罩效用唔高，最底條bar正正講緊兩者戴好口罩係可以improve到95.9%

有咩解釋呀又學棍科學食屎？

呢個就係我睇到嘅版面

畀我block得嘅都係睇留言浪費腦細胞, 你以為我好似你呢啲人咁block完人永遠下睇返？

更何況你嘅論調完全唔合邏輯：“好鍾意搵人錯處一定解封睇“ - 咁睇完搵完之後唔出聲？

都話咗你每次出post都只好embarrassing

呢個就係我睇到嘅版面

畀我block得嘅都係睇留言浪費腦細胞, 你以為我好似你呢啲人咁block完人永遠下睇返？

更何況你嘅論調完全唔合邏輯：“好鍾意搵人錯處一定解封睇“ - 咁睇完搵完之後唔出聲？

都話咗你每次出post都只好embarrassing

quote左畀你睇, 你可以去找錯處

呢個就係我睇到嘅版面

畀我block得嘅都係睇留言浪費腦細胞, 你以為我好似你呢啲人咁block完人永遠下睇返？

更何況你嘅論調完全唔合邏輯：“好鍾意搵人錯處一定解封睇“ - 咁睇完搵完之後唔出聲？

都話咗你每次出post都只好embarrassing

quote左畀你睇, 你可以去找錯處

7.5%我係引用其他醫學專家寫嘅systematic review對於呢篇研究嘅理解

我信專家分析, 點解要信宮久保斷章取義？

不過就咁睇你見唔到發生咩事咩？去到96%都只係實驗室數據, 同喺社區上面全民戴口罩實際上可以減少幾多傳播有咩關係？

已經講咗好多次實驗上有用, 但係對於減低社區傳播冇乜用. 我係前者後者都畀曬證據, 係得你成日話我冇畀

點解唔直接講有罩每100,000人日減0.08病例,
同無罩每100,000人日加0.11 病例,
反而要講你果個唔知點計既-6% ,+100% 呀Hi Auntie

香港累積個案：1,757,112
香港第一日有個案至今：978日
香港人口：7,291,600

即係每日減少5.83328個案, 截至今日減少5704.94784

即係口罩減少到嘅個案佔總數0.323626786%

有冇計錯？

口罩果然係好有用

你計漏左+0.11
如果計omicron前(total約14000 case, 750日)
有罩 =14000
冇罩 =+0.19 x 70(700萬人) x 750日=+9975=23975
即係有罩會少40%個案

你亂咁計

1. 個研究邊度講唔適用於Omicron? 同你講咗好多次全世界專家都唔同意你呢隻講法. 人哋個平均數係計曬所有變種

2. 社區冇可能完全冇人戴口罩, 本身搵完全冇戴口罩呢個極端嚟做推算已經係錯誤

再一次證明你永遠唔會面對現實, 畀出數據你都只係會夾硬計到符合自己嘅睇法

呢個就係我睇到嘅版面

畀我block得嘅都係睇留言浪費腦細胞, 你以為我好似你呢啲人咁block完人永遠下睇返？

更何況你嘅論調完全唔合邏輯：“好鍾意搵人錯處一定解封睇“ - 咁睇完搵完之後唔出聲？

都話咗你每次出post都只好embarrassing

quote左畀你睇, 你可以去找錯處

7.5%我係引用其他醫學專家寫嘅systematic review對於呢篇研究嘅理解

我信專家分析, 點解要信宮久保斷章取義？

不過就咁睇你見唔到發生咩事咩？去到96%都只係實驗室數據, 同喺社區上面全民戴口罩實際上可以減少幾多傳播有咩關係？

已經講咗好多次實驗上有用, 但係對於減低社區傳播冇乜用. 我係前者後者都畀曬證據, 係得你成日話我冇畀

咁其他醫學專家寫嘅systematic review對於呢篇研究嘅理解有冇link?

點解唔直接講有罩每100,000人日減0.08病例,
同無罩每100,000人日加0.11 病例,
反而要講你果個唔知點計既-6% ,+100% 呀Hi Auntie

香港累積個案：1,757,112
香港第一日有個案至今：978日
香港人口：7,291,600

即係每日減少5.83328個案, 截至今日減少5704.94784

即係口罩減少到嘅個案佔總數0.323626786%

有冇計錯？

口罩果然係好有用

你計漏左+0.11
如果計omicron前(total約14000 case, 750日)
有罩 =14000
冇罩 =+0.19 x 70(700萬人) x 750日=+9975=23975
即係有罩會少40%個案

你亂咁計

1. 個研究邊度講唔適用於Omicron? 同你講咗好多次全世界專家都唔同意你呢隻講法. 人哋個平均數係計曬所有變種

2. 社區冇可能完全冇人戴口罩, 本身搵完全冇戴口罩呢個極端嚟做推算已經係錯誤

再一次證明你永遠唔會面對現實, 畀出數據你都只係會夾硬計到符合自己嘅睇法

1. 我計omicron前口罩效用, 同佢數字適唔適用於omicron冇關係, 除非你話個數唔適用於omicron前既病毒
2. 咁你提出果份研究講既+0.11 per 100k per day係錯誤?

呢個就係我睇到嘅版面

畀我block得嘅都係睇留言浪費腦細胞, 你以為我好似你呢啲人咁block完人永遠下睇返？

更何況你嘅論調完全唔合邏輯：“好鍾意搵人錯處一定解封睇“ - 咁睇完搵完之後唔出聲？

都話咗你每次出post都只好embarrassing

quote左畀你睇, 你可以去找錯處

7.5%我係引用其他醫學專家寫嘅systematic review對於呢篇研究嘅理解

我信專家分析, 點解要信宮久保斷章取義？

不過就咁睇你見唔到發生咩事咩？去到96%都只係實驗室數據, 同喺社區上面全民戴口罩實際上可以減少幾多傳播有咩關係？

已經講咗好多次實驗上有用, 但係對於減低社區傳播冇乜用. 我係前者後者都畀曬證據, 係得你成日話我冇畀

咁其他醫學專家寫嘅systematic review對於呢篇研究嘅理解有冇link?

幾十個post之前睇過嘅嘢唔記得邊個打邊個, 不過畀過第二個你：
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-022-01814-3
Facemasks are recommended for the prevention of infectious diseases transmitted through droplets and respirators for respiratory aerosols [97]. However, most of the RCTs included in this meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant effect of facemask use for preventing infection in community settings.

之後佢引用咗一個研究話喺社區上面戴口罩有用

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32355904/

但係呢個研究淨係講死亡人數唔係講傳播, 佢有分析嘅研究就係口罩對於減低社區傳播冇用

先唔講點解你呢篇冇講Brooks et al既研究
你做乜cut左人地後面果句
Facemasks are recommended for the prevention of infectious diseases transmitted through droplets and respirators for respiratory aerosols [97]. However, most of the RCTs included in this meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant effect of facemask use for preventing infection in community settings. This might be due to the relatively small sample size and low infection rate in community settings. After the pooled analysis with a much larger sample size, the prevention effect of facemask on infections could be more significant.