"Briefing"

On the other hand, I've specifically mentioned how each logical fallacy applies to the argument.

You just, without proof, asserted that I'm guilty of the fallacy fallacy without applying it to my arguments.

For example, in this discussion someone accused me of taking a position I did not take. I calmly explained that I did not take the position they claimed, and therefore their teardown of this false position was a classic strawman logical fallacy

It is again absurd to make wild accusations (fallacy fallacy?) by posting a wikipedia copy/paste of that definition - but skipping the part where you apply it to any of my uses of calling out logical fallacies.

It's extremely rigorous.

There is a maskless comparison - see citations 8, 9. Your maskless control group idea is intriguing, but it's a moving goalpost. It's not the "gold standard" you'd like it to be.

Ok, how about the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons? They have several dozen citations to papers (including the one I cited) and reach the same conclusion.

Final Thoughts
Surgical masks – loose fitting. They are designed to protect the patient from the doctors’ respiratory droplets. The wearer is not protected from others airborne particles

Did you read references 8 and 9 in the paper? They are noted in the thread you just replied to. Let me repost, and trim it down this time:

To assist in interpreting the data, we compared rates of infection in the medical mask arm with rates observed in medical mask arms from two previous RCTs,[8] ,[9] in which no efficacy of medical masks could be demonstrated when compared with control or N95 respirators... This analysis was possible because the trial designs were similar and the same outcomes were measured in all three trials. The analysis was carried out to determine if the observed results were explained by a detrimental effect of cloth masks or a protective effect of medical masks.

This is referring to the other RCTs that had been performed.

At the end of the day, we're left with many RCTs providing statistically significant data that

(medical mask == surgical mask == N95 mask) > (control) >> cloth/cotton mask

That has nothing to do with using a cloth mask

Ridiculous. There's no data to back up this conjecture. I've been fending off logical fallacies left and right in this thread! In this case, you've simply used a more complex logical fallacy: Faulty generalization / hasty generalization and fallacy of illicit transference. Copying a few out-of-context snippets, and adding some bold tags does not make a robust argument. Disregarding the statistically significant results because of a few implementation details is likewise not persuasive.

There is no evidence that cloth/cotton masks provide any benefit.

There is substantial "gold standard" evidence that cloth masks cause substantial harm.

Classic strawman logical fallacy. I never asserted that proper clinical masks offer no benefit.

This isn't my study and it isn't about general respiratory illness. Rather it's a study of three measures:

Clinical respiratory illness (CRI)
influenza-like illness (ILI)
and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection

(futher, I asserted that this "gold standard" cluster randomized trial shows that cloth masks are statistically significantly detrimental to your health, as compared to various controls)

As the qualified medical researchers in this study concluded, and as I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread:

To assist in interpreting the data, we compared rates of infection in the medical mask arm with rates observed in medical mask arms from two previous RCTs,[8] ,[9] in which no efficacy of medical masks could be demonstrated when compared with control or N95 respirators... This analysis was possible because the trial designs were similar and the same outcomes were measured in all three trials. The analysis was carried out to determine if the observed results were explained by a detrimental effect of cloth masks or a protective effect of medical masks.

The physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk for HCWs. The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks,[29] and modelling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks.[30] Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. For example, a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer.

3M did pay for the filtration effectiveness testing units, but this was not declared a conflict of interest since no tested masks were manufactured by 3M, and 3M did not have any financial stake in the outcome of this study. The authors tested two 3M N95 masks for comparison and found they exceeded their N95 specification with available analysis equipment, but again, they were not part of the experiment.

For that, you need to compare cloth masks to no masks.

Citation? Says who? You? You're stating this as if its a fact. It's certainly not.

I'm not sure how specifying the country of origin (twice!) has any impact on this discussion. Are you implying something about Vietnam, Vietnamese people, or Vietnamese Hosptals? If so, please elaborate!

I have never seen a cloth mask with a metal nose-piece to improve air seal; But at 56% (medical) and 3% (cloth) filtration effectiveness, fitment is a moot point.

As the qualified medical researchers in this study concluded, and as I have repeated several times in this thread:

To assist in interpreting the data, we compared rates of infection in the medical mask arm with rates observed in medical mask arms from two previous RCTs,[8] ,[9] in which no efficacy of medical masks could be demonstrated when compared with control or N95 respirators... This analysis was possible because the trial designs were similar and the same outcomes were measured in all three trials. The analysis was carried out to determine if the observed results were explained by a detrimental effect of cloth masks or a protective effect of medical masks.

The physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk for HCWs. The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks,[29] and modelling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks.[30] Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. For example, a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer.

You may have found a cotton material with greater filtration capacity, but as you can see, filtration capacity of the cotton does not appear to be a statistically significant factor in mask effectiveness. Rather, the more important factor is the choice of material & design: cotton washable (poor) vs a low absorption loose fitting polypropylene blend (good)

While I appreciate you taking the time to offer conjecture, it appears that the medical researchers authoring this study have ruled out those ideas.

Gotcha - I had assumed you read the paper as well!

Participants in the cloth mask group laundered their mask at least daily.
Participants in the medical mask arm were supplied with two masks daily for each 8h shift (4 hours per mask).
Participants in the control group changed their medical mask after each patient (no statistically significant change from the medical mask group)

It's easy to give the common CDC/media interpretation the benefit of the doubt and assume the medical mask group had some sort of "hidden" advantage like regularly changing masks. (or perhaps I inadvertently implied that earlier by conflating the control group (medical mask) with the medical mask group).

In any case, I hope I cleared that up now - don't wear a cloth mask to protect from viruses! (just like the CDC, the US Surgeon General, Dr. Birx, and Dr. Fauci all told us prior to politics overwhelming the medical research community in ~March 2020)

I summarized above by taking quotes from the study; Let me take a shorter snipped:

The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm.
Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm.

As mentioned above, this is very significant since both loose-fitting medical masks and cloth masks offer very poor filtration effectiveness (56% for medical masks, 3% for cloth masks), yet the relative risk of wearing a cloth mask is substantial!

More conclusions from this study on possible reasons for poor performance of cloth masks in my other comment here.

I read your entire reply thoroughly; Many of your points don't require follow-up, so if I don't address a point, the reason is I agree with you (not that I'm cherry picking your reply).

To use an automotive analogy, your conclusion is a bit like reading a study that shows that lap belts are ineffective in 200 MPH collisions on race tracks, and concluding that seat belt laws cannot possibly save lives. By trying to apply the results of a study performed in one environment to a completely different environment, you reach conclusions that are laughably wrong.

You've misunderstood the point of this paper entirely; Both tight-fitting cloth masks, laundered to hospital standards every 4 or 8 hours, with 3% filtering effectiveness are substantially and very statistically significantly less effective than a loose-fitting medical mask that is changed regularly and has a 56% filtering effectiveness. Both of these masks have very poor filtering capacity compared to an N95 or N100 mask (with 95% or 100% filtering effectiveness). The paper considers several reasons for the poor results of the cloth mask: persistent warm/moist environment or more fiddling/handling a cloth mask. In any case, because both types of masks have very poor filtering effectiveness, your "viral load" conjecture is not a strong argument. (the medical researchers who wrote this article also did not consider such a hypothesis) I've spent substantial time reading 2019-ncov / covid-19 research, and I'm familiar with the "initial viral load" hypothesis that you proposed; There's a lot of anecdotal evidence supporting this (anecdotes of otherwise healthy ER doctors quickly becoming very ill / death). However, follow-up papers have proposed alternate hypotheses for this cohort: vitamin D deficiency; inadequate sleep hygiene; poor nutrition. I have not yet read a paper with significantly significant evidence that high initial viral load will lead to increased COVID-19 mortality.

But using them in an area that is mostly uncontaminated, (e.g. the grocery store) can actually be highly effective.

This appears to be pure conjecture; I have not read any evidence that supports this assertion. In fact, I've read rigorous scientific studies showing that wearing a reusable cloth mask will lead to higher infection rates than a basic low-effectiveness, loose-fitting, disposable medical mask.

Lysol? No way... I'd go with the nitric oxide to disinfect my lungs!

Inhalation of nitric oxide (NO) gas is currently being investigated as a preventive measure and treatment against COVID-19 (e.g., clinical trials NCT04306393, NCT04312243, NCT04338828, NCT04305457).

The rationale for using inhaled NO against SARS-CoV-2 infection stems from the fact that this molecule plays a major role in pulmonary and cardiovascular physiology. NO is a reactive oxygen species (ROS) that is continually produced by epithelial cells of the paranasal sinuses and nasopharynx via NO synthase (NOS) enzymes [8]. Produced at 10 parts per million (ppm) in the human sinuses, NO can diffuse to the bronchi and lungs, where it induces vasodilatory and bronchodilatory effects [[8], [9], [10]]. NO also activates ciliary movement [11] and mucus secretion [12], which can increase removal of dust and viral particles from the respiratory tract.

Notably, NO produces antimicrobial effects against a broad range of microbes including bacteria, fungi, helminths, protozoa and viruses, which may help prevent pulmonary infections [13,14]. NO inactivates viruses by modifying proteins and nucleic acids that are essential for viral replication [14]

Who suggested injecting lungs with lysol anyway? A CNN anchor? Who doesn't believe this research is reality? CNN's audience? Who believes half a dozen clinical trials constitutes "wacko posts in this thread, for example" Slashdot posters? Perhaps my memory is hazy, but weren't more of us able to think critically just a few years ago?

As should you! A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with [loose-fitting] medical masks in healthcare workers using the "gold standard" analytic methods measured "Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection" to test the effectiveness of cloth masks.

Methods: Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.

Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

The "Ministy of Truth" has deemed that we are no longer at war with Maskasia; We have always loved Maskasia. Now we're at war with FreeBreathalia. We've always been at war with free Breathalia. Nobody dares to suggest otherwise. Masks and face shields are even good to wear when you're in your own home.

Only 1 million of the removed posts contained WrongThink® wholly provided by US board certified physicians.

You are stating that Flynn lied as if it's a fact; Is there any proof that he did? In fact, according to documents declassified yesterday, Flynn's previous counsel had an illegal side-deal with the DOJ Prosecutors not to prosecute his son if he'd agree to falsely plead guilty. His previous counsel specifically noted that he wanted to limit Giglio disclosures by keeping this illegal side-deal off-the-record. (See last page of above attachment).

His previous counsel had "lost" this documentation until yesterday, when they suddenly found 6,800 pages of Flynn case notes they forgot to pass along to his new counsel. No word as to whether today's release by U.S. Attorney Shea had anything to do with their sudden and unexpected disclosure.

Also, the source (Washington Times) is not important, since the underlying data is simple enough for a layperson to read and understand. That said, NBC/CBS/ABC are not officially talking about this. However, some CBS reporters are opining via twitter.

Here's my favorite deletion from the last 24 hours: List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

The result was delete.

Regardless of your stance on the underlying topic, given the controversial nature, the list of scientists who have taken a public stance (as reported by reliable, neutral third party sources) certainly seems notable!

Here was my favorite argument in favor of keep:

KEEP!KEEP!KEEP! Those listed are not noteworthy? “Any utility it ever had is long past?” It’s a list of cranks? Absolute rubbish. There are 4 explicit criteria for inclusion.
1) the individual must have published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences;
2) he or she must have made a clear statement disagreeing with one or more of the IPCC Third Report’s three main conclusions, and
3) the scientists has to have been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions.
Additionally, to ensure notability, only individuals with a wikipedia article can be included. Someone advocating for deletion, if the article is a mishmash of miscreants . . . I DARE YOU TO STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY LAZY! Stop throwing up buzz words like “denialist” and “consensus” which provide you with an unjustified view from your perceived moral high ground. Pick a person or persons you don’t think should be included, actually apply the four criteria and make an argument that they do or do not belong on the list! As for me, I’ve been an editor of this page for a little over a year.
By my count, I’ve successfully added seven scientists to the list (I’ll soon be recommending an 8th). . . and I’ve shown my work every time, and those seven met the criteria.
And as to relevance . . . the last IPCC report, IPCC 5, seems to have cut its projected warming over the next two decades in half (see IPCC 5 Figure 11.25). And actual observed warming is in the bottom 2.5 percent of the IPCC 3 models’ range.
My god, this page is more relevant than ever.