Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
The discussions feature numerous references to the article, with some participants pointing out that the study highlighted an 85% reduction in transmission risk with proper mask use. The tone is generally supportive, using phrases like 'important research' and 'great evidence' which fosters a sense of validation for those advocating for preventative measures. Participants combine this acknowledgment of the study's findings with lively debates about methodologies and implications for policy, indicating a strong connection to the subject matter.
The majority of discussions support the publication's emphasis on the effectiveness of physical distancing, masks, and eye protection, reflecting a general consensus among participants.
Participants exhibit high levels of curiosity about the findings, often engaging with detailed aspects of the research, including citing specific statistics.
The conversations display deep engagement, referencing various studies and their implications extensively, suggesting effort to understand the nuances of the publication.
Many participants perceive the publication as having significant influence on public health policies, especially regarding mask mandates and preventive measures against COVID-19.
منابع: https://t.co/URErtGsk90 https://t.co/m7zXdXvT88 https://t.co/mmEzrNY65c https://t.co/ZUFD77MZj8 https://t.co/vpG8sGL5XY ✍ دکتر احسان شجاعی فر، پژوهشگر طب پیشگیری و ایمنی
CDC guidance on masks: https://t.co/p4MyzBGeg4 Some studies on their effectiveness: https://t.co/bIZbmjpu0g https://t.co/tzcLmlcI8x https://t.co/ZErnYqh5xo https://t.co/n7CNsmW6CG https://t.co/aHurwK4VQJ https://t.co/aNvvBOombv https://t.co/3V0ZrJHkgB
Lancetに掲載されたものにケチつけていたら、医学系に関する根拠とか、どこから持ってくるの？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/njlKtCByUk
Clarification: Hindi pala paper ang Dans, Herrera, et al. Series of slides pala siya. And they got their info from: Chu et al. (2020). The Lancet, 395(10242), 1973–1987. https://t.co/gINEJlkz8B https://t.co/TBFgFJl8S6
@DerBuddler @SHomburg Jetzt mal Spaß beiseite. Der von Homburg zitiere Artikel wurde manipuliert, indem nicht alle Papers berücksichtigt wurden. Das nennt man "cherry picking". Hier ein systematisches Meta-Review über 216 (!) Studien. Das belegt den Nutzen von Masken: https://t.co/5WgJ5RKjqw
@ojimakohei マスクの効果は英医学誌ランセットに「マスクにより85%感染リスクが減少」の論文がありますね。科学的見地から有効です。「Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis」
This video aims to clarify the effectiveness of face masks during COVID-19 by debunking prevalent myths. Based on a systematic review of 21 studies, it emphasizes that wearing masks, alongside physical distancing…
Today, the WHO recommended the use of masks for the entire population, especially where physical distancing is difficult. Wearing masks is beneficial as part of a comprehensive approach in the fight against COVID-19…
@jdelta1adams @TroliusMaximus @Joe756577222337 @RandPaul Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@godsfavoriteant @jdelta1adams @Joe756577222337 @RandPaul Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@RandPaul Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@LuisFer03947362 @anti_LGTVHD @fodasse1893 @goxi7234 @RuiLima85 1. Título: Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
@minamiyoro @PO1tClkrnTlznsi @alto502251 ちなみに感染予防と言えばマスクですが、 こちらの論文では効果は85% https://t.co/ZCA5A4TlM9
@canalCCore2 Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., Schünemann, H. J. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. https://t.co/GwD19RC8XN
@B0lshevikBill @freezepeaxh @khrachvik https://t.co/lbGNl4D3CL
2020年Lancetのシステマティックレビューとメタアナリシスhttps://t.co/pWJ10Ro8IL では96％減少（aOR 0.04、95% CI 0.004～0.30）
SARS-CoV-2およびCOVID-19の人から人への感染を防ぐためのフィジカルディスタンスの確保、フェイスマスク、および目の保護：システマティックレビューとメタアナリシス（The Lancet, 2020） https://t.co/pWJ10RoGyj によると、
@apds1309 Chu, D.K., et al. (2020) Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. +
@louisfouch3 @DrJeromeMarty @yannickneuder @Sante_Gouv @CaVautrin Fouché (CSI n°113) nie l'efficacité des masques et évoque leur toxicité. Faux : une méta-analyse (Lancet, 2020) confirme leur rôle dans la réduction de la transmission virale. Pas de preuve de toxicité significative. Source : https://t.co/beTm1ix3Wc[](https://t.co/EFUnLIgJV1)
@grok @MichMash20 @DrNeilStone @MichMash @Grok, this was the 2020 Lancet study: Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
@harunokizashi55 @megalodondon1 実証データの例 マスク着用によるウイルス粒子の排出低下 Leung et al. (2020), Nature Medicine https://t.co/w0f1PTxrFX 現実の感染リスク低下との相関 Chu et al. (2020), The Lancet https://t.co/ujjJIQTiz0
@SeanLulofs @Unsubstantive @DrNeilStone Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
RT @Woodynist: @sudokuvariante @wagneregger Et @wagneregger doit savoir que le virus peut AUSSI nous infecter par les yeux. Or...
@AnthonyGuihur @sudokuvariante Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis - The Lancet https://t.co/Y9xGYRlnVw
RT @Woodynist: @sudokuvariante @wagneregger Et @wagneregger doit savoir que le virus peut AUSSI nous infecter par les yeux. Or...
RT @Woodynist: @sudokuvariante @wagneregger Et @wagneregger doit savoir que le virus peut AUSSI nous infecter par les yeux. Or...
@sudokuvariante @wagneregger Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis (juin 2020) https://t.co/zM3nFF6wN6 https://t.co/FtRndud43m
@sudokuvariante @wagneregger Et @wagneregger doit savoir que le virus peut AUSSI nous infecter par les yeux. Or...
@Kristi3King @Mrbandot1 @acnewsitics Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@monkey449 @silver41398 @DrNeilStone Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@Cyandeceres @rodriseiandrea @mlalanda @Farmaenfurecida @SchrodingerGata @laSextaTV @boticariagarcia @Nopanaden Estimado juntaletras: Evidencia científica hay, y si quieres te pongo un lancet que es de las revistas mas importantes que puedes encontrar en el campo. Pero te podría poner 15 artículos más, todos en revistas de alto impacto. https://t.co/DCeBmeONxa
@WaltTkaczuk @HilaryWollis @MaryLTrump Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@WaltTkaczuk @HilaryWollis @MaryLTrump Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973
@OhsakiOh @bluebeetle421 計算解いたか？ 解いてないではないか僕ちゃん。 evidenceを読んでから来いよ。 英医学誌ランセット(the Lancet)のオンライン版に「Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19:a systematic review and meta-analysis
@Brianosogrande @florida_free56 @EndallWarship @steveAKAslick @Timothy_Bellman @atrupar https://t.co/EsA4v8zPCd But here's a start
@DuncanGoughnuts @_APWK_ Physical distancing & scale has been in research for years (doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9). Also regarding droplet sizes in relation to position in respiratory tract (https://t.co/ztRpB80nHx) compared to likelihood of droplets transmitting COVID (https://t.co/77XYPHhkPw)
@MTnutz @WaitingForPerot @MissHot @dr_kkjetelina Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@Babula314 @robinmonotti Chu, D. K., et al. (2020). "Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis." The Lancet, 395(10242), 1973-1987. Howard, J., et al. (2021). "An evidence review of face
@ritsie01 @PatTheSocialist Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@Ryouma_Koji なんかおすすめ出てきたので 1個目 URL見えん 2個目 https://t.co/fdKy3QS9cw マスク着用しない集団(デンマーク)で着用に差はなかった 3個目 https://t.co/qo2r3HN9Be 病院でマスクはめちゃくちゃ効果あったよ 引用みたらこんな感じなのでマスクは適切につけたら効果があるってことで！ てか引用古っ
@CBoomermann @polenz_r - 3 - - Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schünemann et al. The Lancet, Juni 2020 und: https://t.co/CuHk0Org0R https://t.co/xNQFCnjxdF
@shifanahmed20 1. Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., & Schünemann, H. J. (2020). Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
@bromtula_ https://t.co/r7GFSfNjHs Вот тебе научная статья, которая легко гуглится, если задаться целью.
@inversebrah so many papers about this, no mf dont even google it https://t.co/uYNw1vlgs3 https://t.co/4eZnv9wivL https://t.co/cdc85jR9pQ https://t.co/hx04QlvyUQ
@FiveTimesAugust Donate your brain to science after it is all over so we can prevent you from happening again. Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@MarkKlugmann82 @HaHaGentherapie @DirkvanLinth @TonLit @djengis87 @Paul88139390 @DSteelpan @KraatsHenk @DrDavidNL Toch wel hoor. Maar ik heb soms nog andere bezigheden dan op jouw domme vragen te antwoorden
@emit151 Well that’s quite the bullshit to be honest. A systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet in June 2020 examined the effectiveness of physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses.
@ChrPeterson90 Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S, Schünemann HJ; COVID-19(SURGE) study authors. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020 Jun 27;395(10242
@GovtZombie @HilldurG @MarkWar16520311 Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@Moehrenmann @getSyntax @Drakarys_now https://t.co/JKZqXIRirC In seinem Link findet man das, von der WHO finanziert und die Studie aus Dänemark 2020, während des Sommers. Und da wurde nicht mal kontrolliert, ob die getragen wurde oder nicht. Fehlt nur noch die Studie mit der zugekleisterten Maske im Labor. Link=Müll
@Patrici29740516 @GetSchwifyinere @DiedSuddenly_ Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@sheen1776 @allangmiller1 @rubrogram Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@warp_12 @Fiona_M_Russell @nick_coatsworth Unfortunately you accidentally tried to prove your point by posting a fake study (#6 on your list): https://t.co/R8BtoMfUuF
@dull_moscow @think_not_think Не хуйня, все говорит о полезности масок. Вот вам для доказательства 4 метаисследования, которые суммарно охватили несколько сотен исследований по данном вопросу https://t.co/Ey0sEwZskH https://t.co/Uq3P8OfgGQ https://t.co/ZCWEO6NM1K https://t.co/sRXF3uZ4Po
@Tertianship @DanielKotzin @DrJBhattacharya How many articles do you need? PubMed is free. Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
@Tertianship @DanielKotzin @DrJBhattacharya Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395:1973.
RT @nuanceORDEATH: 6/70 META: "Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 a…
@etelorrain @Chamchamat @AlineNotAlice @VictorSinclair3 @BOROWSKIMIKE https://t.co/RFDQBRVF8a
@CattinHelene @SaiyanBio https://t.co/ttmEaGMPm3
最新？ https://t.co/e4LDfk0VpE レーザー可視化 https://t.co/D4a65tjE5p ゴールデンハムスター https://t.co/Yuv77q1UDu ランセットメタアナ（RCTなし） https://t.co/U71hVJAhMj C-19、感染経路判明（空気感染） https://t.co/rrH29AfX20 リプに詳細を https://t.co/qp72ah9t1u
マスク着用は、他の有効な感染予防策である 1m 以上の距離を保つことや眼の防護具より予防効果においてより優れるとの情報もある(THE LANCET)。これらの情報を見ても、NPI の中で中心的な位置付けを占めるマスクの着用を如何に公衆衛生施策として進めるかは極めて重要である。 https://t.co/JZC0kgDFuj
@noxygen • Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis • The Lancet June 1, 2020 https://t.co/TWP3OGFpoI
@WakrimZakaria @CartlandDavid https://t.co/cGIgKStbmx https://t.co/8DwCPGwvO3
@A_Fine_Rosey @Sapper_Sailor @amandajplatell Incidentally, there's a reason you couldn't find anything better to make your point than a 40-year-old study of one OR about wound infection, not respiratory disease. Here's a 2020 metastudy of 172 separate studies that say masks also work in healthcare: https://t.co/GSLNbQi8PE
ちょっと英語の勉強しようかな。 Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/AOpNc79kDi
Chu, D.K. et al. (2020) - "Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis" - この論文は、感染症の拡大を防ぐための対策としてのマスクの有効性についてのメタ分析
@FrontMoresch https://t.co/XjkaTPzgfk otro metaanalisis
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」は間違い。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを85%に低減させると証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文である。…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」は間違い。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを85%に低減させると証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文である。…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」は間違い。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを85%に低減させると証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文である。…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」は間違い。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを85%に低減させると証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文である。…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」は間違い。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを85%に低減させると証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文である。…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」は間違い。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを85%に低減させると証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文である。…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」は間違い。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを85%に低減させると証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文である。…
マスクが感染を防ぐ の論文 の 基はこれ https://t.co/WcQugvJJIo
@l3Wjr4ayteXpA4X @HalucoJK1 https://t.co/uL7IJzzGaw
@tedros prevention is possible & necessary I will never understand the controversy of infection control recommendations with regards to the use of adequate PPE especially N95 between institutions which duty still is containment of airborne biohazards https://t.co/6moGG0qaBi
@tedros source https://t.co/6moGG0qIqQ #CovidIsNotOver and we know now #SARSCoV2 linger in finest droplets aerosolized for hours
@tedros Page 12 2020 source https://t.co/6moGG0qIqQ https://t.co/kq2skOzp5j
knowing what we know until now about WHO historic U turn about @Tedros scientific humiliation #COVIDisAirborne its very interesting to reread this publication funded from WHO 2020
"Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis" (Chu, D. K. et al., 2020) demuestra que el uso de mascarillas reduce el riesgo de infección. #Ciencia #COVID19
@hubble_b @mestaprolidi https://t.co/M7D3IaVIxX
@Phoenics76 @SHomburg Es gibt alle möglichen Studien, die das belegen. Hier ist beispielsweise eine, die nicht im Labor entstanden ist: https://t.co/rE9lucyhB8
[2] Chu, D. K., et al. (2020). Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 395(10242), 1973-1987. 20/25
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
@nom817 @chidaisan ●16か国2万6000人のデータ 論文は、英医学誌ランセット(the Lancet)のオンライン版に「Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis」のタイトルで2000年6月1日に掲載
@ShigeranaiOmi また、2020年にマスクの防止効果に関する研究が急速に進展し、マスクがCOVID-19の感染リスクを軽減することが示されています "Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
@ojimakohei マスクの効果は英医学誌ランセットに「マスクにより85%感染リスクが減少」の論文がありますね。科学的見地から有効です。「Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis」
@AiAG1FGcPh9Nvgh @sakuranomomotan @hero4sonm2t2 @k1976k1976 尚コロナは自然免疫をすり抜けてくる模様 観察研究172件、参加者26,000人をメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明】 https://t.co/LFf6slmXYY
@GayerGus https://t.co/VaGJe701fK vc deve ser analfabeto em inglês, mas pede para alguém traduzir.
@theoc2ps @NathanJRobinson @nytimes Fine, fine. That was just the first one I found. How about https://t.co/VOvqWE4wXk in Lancet.
RT @sarekore: 感染からの保護だけに着目し、着用した感染者からの感染拡大防止効果を考慮していない。高リスクと低リスクの環境での結果を一緒に再分析している。マスク着用者が実際にマスクを着用していたのかが不明確。今回再分析の対象とならなかった、非ランダム化比較試験も含め…
RT @sarekore: 感染からの保護だけに着目し、着用した感染者からの感染拡大防止効果を考慮していない。高リスクと低リスクの環境での結果を一緒に再分析している。マスク着用者が実際にマスクを着用していたのかが不明確。今回再分析の対象とならなかった、非ランダム化比較試験も含め…
RT @sarekore: 感染からの保護だけに着目し、着用した感染者からの感染拡大防止効果を考慮していない。高リスクと低リスクの環境での結果を一緒に再分析している。マスク着用者が実際にマスクを着用していたのかが不明確。今回再分析の対象とならなかった、非ランダム化比較試験も含め…
RT @sarekore: 感染からの保護だけに着目し、着用した感染者からの感染拡大防止効果を考慮していない。高リスクと低リスクの環境での結果を一緒に再分析している。マスク着用者が実際にマスクを着用していたのかが不明確。今回再分析の対象とならなかった、非ランダム化比較試験も含め…
感染からの保護だけに着目し、着用した感染者からの感染拡大防止効果を考慮していない。高リスクと低リスクの環境での結果を一緒に再分析している。マスク着用者が実際にマスクを着用していたのかが不明確。今回再分析の対象とならなかった、非ランダム化比較試験も含めた以前https://t.co/iy4b9gByQj
@DaliessioVince @KristenMeghan @DanishScience @PeterSweden7 @pettypodcast1 Droplet transmission being a major route of transmission was shown in early studies establishing greater infectiveness with proximity. https://t.co/72E4YY2AxG
@cp8643a @washingtonpost Since there were virtually no consequences for ignoring the guidelines, what outcome are they fighting for? And there were multiple studies explaining why the 1 meter distance was adjusted (COVID-19 can travel on smaller droplets) https://t.co/YaioO2V65C https://t.co/cHK3MDVYSu
@Yukiromsen えっと、、想像すれば普通にわかると思ったんだ、あなたに合わせられなくてごめんね
20年の英医学誌ランセット(the Lancet)のオンライン版に「Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis」で16か国2万6000人のデータ論文のメタ分析でマスクの効果ありとある。
@diablo_delfin 16か国2万6000人のデータに関する論文が英医学誌ランセット(the Lancet)のオンライン版「Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis」
@kasyua11111 @zOjzQ8sS9mqZ5yQ もっと新しいレビューの論文が出てますね。 https://t.co/btKhvErztr こちらだとFaceMaskの有効性は否定されてません。
@RonMortimer3 @AlboMP @nitagreenqld lol You had to go back to 2008 April to find this>? here is a more updated pub med publication for YOU to read https://t.co/0J2vkLRX88
@MosioJordan Derek K Chu, Elie A Akl, Stephanie Duda et Karla Solo, « Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis », The Lancet, juin 2020 https://t.co/7f3BYSeo3W
@domefford @PleasedPep @epicyclism @JuliaHB1 ?? The pandemic would have been worse without them, yes. Read "Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis" among other papers.
@kenny_1620 @skelly1178 @CTVNews See Figure 5 - aOR=0.33 for Surgical face mask or similar vs No Facemask "Derek K Chu, Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis" https://t.co/USJfVLD2TU
@dont_wurry @SofronitskyV @VPrasadMDMPH Yes, lots! Feb 2022 review found 8 RCTs reporting reduction in contagion: https://t.co/nbO81FBUux As early as June 2020, this other review found large relative reduction (85%) of infection by similar viruses (>40 studies). https://t.co/ndw6VYJoMW Just 2 ex.out of hundreds
@goosefighter @tsmbuck @tygertyger18 @jordanbpeterson If your only response is to tell me what I did then I guess you have nothing https://t.co/3ipDkXb77X
@Normmron77 @VPrasadMDMPH Here’s a paper. There are many many more https://t.co/qjsvpCuAZh.
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」は間違い。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを85%に低減させると証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文である。…
@1776Carolina3 This meta-analysis says they help. https://t.co/wnZlAbWsje Other studies do too. https://t.co/sgu0PKKbXD https://t.co/IcN4ccykyt
@mtruesdell2 @TimRunsHisMouth No problem. https://t.co/vFc1uAxIle
@ToeufDe @fakemedecine Rassurez-moi, c'est sarcastique ? :D https://t.co/GKl6FaTTW8 https://t.co/2LuRJ8GoSH https://t.co/Jvb3DxsfJH https://t.co/ts9Aj2SzPb J'ai pris les 4 premières en suivant votre manip, les 4 indiquent l'inverse de ce que vous avancez.
@HulkHogic @hubspe @Mindsucker71 @yooHannes @JSchmitzLeipzig Metastudie der WHO: Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis (The Lancet, 2020) https://t.co/0xaDU3E9Vy
https://t.co/I45BeaNX75 https://t.co/H4Pal0nvL5 https://t.co/ibft3MrjVmマスクの常識を覆す172の研究総まとめ
私はマスクの適切使用でおそらく防げると思っていますが、マスクで防げないという意見も完全には否定しません。ただどこかのメディアの情報や誰かが書いたブログ程度のものは信用しません。 https://t.co/HjtTu5OuAQ https://t.co/gzVcuYYxpG https://t.co/QlrfkQ4GRR
@omneco @kellyportalati2 @Minsa_Peru @INS_Peru https://t.co/iCqXZ1GN0h
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
@HKIunvkAuTBvBic @himawarigumi19 影響を与えたと言われてるのは複数あるが Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis whoがマスクってのはこれ https://t.co/DrptrkvHqr https://t.co/JaKdfUJFGg
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @osamu_iga: 「マスクの効果を証明する論文は世界のどこにもない」はデマ。カナダの大学が観察研究172件、参加者26,000人という膨大なデータをメタ解析し、マスクは感染リスクを15%にする(85%低減)と証明した。これはWHOをマスク推奨に方針転換させた論文であ…
RT @2u3v4w: @TM_Quencher @ykfrs1217 @6CLW77Y102 @radionouka 集団でのマスクの効果の検証は難しいようですね（前向き・後ろ向き研究ともに）。以前、調べたので、リンクを張っておきます。有効性を示す論文のほうが多い。 htt…
@steveaxentios Voici deux études scientifiques sérieuses qui disent le contraire. Une personne aussi critique que vous saura sûrement reconnaître leur pertinence et justesse et ainsi changer d’avis. https://t.co/wIcBSVbhsa / https://t.co/yqH1b42ZSQ
RT @5rHxIhQGQnnRSOe: 画像引用元 https://t.co/yTcEysYtCW ランセットの引用論文リストーRCT4つ https://t.co/f2IEoT3V20 各RCT論文リンク https://t.co/ekXR0y61nl https://t.…
RT @5rHxIhQGQnnRSOe: 画像引用元 https://t.co/yTcEysYtCW ランセットの引用論文リストーRCT4つ https://t.co/f2IEoT3V20 各RCT論文リンク https://t.co/ekXR0y61nl https://t.…
RT @5rHxIhQGQnnRSOe: 画像引用元 https://t.co/yTcEysYtCW ランセットの引用論文リストーRCT4つ https://t.co/f2IEoT3V20 各RCT論文リンク https://t.co/ekXR0y61nl https://t.…
画像引用元 https://t.co/yTcEysYtCW ランセットの引用論文リストーRCT4つ https://t.co/f2IEoT3V20 各RCT論文リンク https://t.co/ekXR0y61nl https://t.co/GlYU1jiJCl https://t.co/Fb5XtTf9pH https://t.co/eJ3topQmWV
Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis こういうのが出てるのに有意差なしとか言っちゃうあたり偏った考えしか持ってないのわかる。 https://t.co/QGcv9LYcbT
RT @2u3v4w: @TM_Quencher @ykfrs1217 @6CLW77Y102 @radionouka 集団でのマスクの効果の検証は難しいようですね（前向き・後ろ向き研究ともに）。以前、調べたので、リンクを張っておきます。有効性を示す論文のほうが多い。 htt…
RT @2u3v4w: @TM_Quencher @ykfrs1217 @6CLW77Y102 @radionouka 集団でのマスクの効果の検証は難しいようですね（前向き・後ろ向き研究ともに）。以前、調べたので、リンクを張っておきます。有効性を示す論文のほうが多い。 htt…
RT @carpe_diem0820: 少なくとも1mの物理的な距離はCOVID-19蔓延リスクを低減(AOR 0.18) 2mの距離はより効果的である可能性 Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to pre…
@Mitch___Lowe @SheaONeil977 @friendlycovid19 MMWR is extensively internally reviewed and that issue is supported in the references by multiple peer-reviewed articles in JAMA and Lancet and high-impact factor Health Affairs For example, this meta-study of 216 studies in Lancet https://t.co/krhys06X5p
@Daniel10060075 @maithi_nk Hier sind drei: doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4221; doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9; doi:10.1073/pnas.211011711 . Und das sind nur ein paar aus einer Vielzahl an Studien. Jetzt bitte die Belege zu deinen „Zahlen aus aller Welt“ oder besser Studien die mich widerlegen.
@got_cake @OpDracula @TrevorG77739761 @justin_hart Cake Lady lectures epidemiologist on infectious disease transmission. Masking reduces airborne transmission of viruses. Social distancing reduces airborne transmission of viruses. How is this hard? https://t.co/2LoL7grk4l. https://t.co/ytlMwq8lgv
@NShimohata @syunsuke_takei この論文では駄目ですか？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/OK8ZdK8Dhh
@Ryuji_04_05 エビデンスあるでｗ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: ... https://t.co/ETYrI2qPkR
@vivifranmiyu @takenot6 @sakosako3_5 Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
@kuro3L @Fw190D14 @abetokyo >> 科学的根拠が明確でないにも関わらず 既に多くの科学的研究成果が出ています． ・Lancetのオンライン版の「Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis」（続く）
@easatya_enki @horachaud @EntretienSG @MonChatRonfle Nope. C'est 85% d'efficacité. https://t.co/JNAgJySNcl
@horachaud @EntretienSG @MonChatRonfle Dans les faits, on est à 85% https://t.co/JNAgJySNcl
@EntretienSG @MonChatRonfle Dans les faits pas sua sauce, on est à 85% https://t.co/JNAgJySNcl
RT @YannBECKER4: @DouteuxOrg @MonChatRonfle @zazou240 @jf_boily Cher @MonChatRonfle ; En Janvier 2021, le Lancet publiait une meta-analyse…
@DouteuxOrg @MonChatRonfle @zazou240 @jf_boily Cher @MonChatRonfle ; En Janvier 2021, le Lancet publiait une meta-analyse sur l'efficacité des mesures préventives. Parmi les sous études, 2647 ont permis de montrer que le masque diminuait de 85% le risque d'infection (aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34) https://t.co/OHtAvnmGdq
RT @miakiza20100906: @yooY58449658 マスクの重要論文。80%前後の効果： Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person trans…
RT @miakiza20100906: @yooY58449658 マスクの重要論文。80%前後の効果： Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person trans…
@axel130457 Wie wärs hiermit: https://t.co/9NeP7XlOr3 Ist sogar eine Metastudie.Mehr Evidenz geht kaum. "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"
@ivaningrad @noaylucky @Carlis02Jc @bastadementirya @scipio91 @luisete @Reisdeg @jmanuel_santos @ituerahipster @RubenDa789655 @Edgarcialonso @nachor81 @CarlosRMA94 @Broderil @javichu73 Meta-análisis, como el que os he pasado o este otro https://t.co/r92NJCrmjG
RT @miakiza20100906: @yooY58449658 マスクの重要論文。80%前後の効果： Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person trans…
@zOjzQ8sS9mqZ5yQ この論文とかですかねー？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
「COVID-19に対するマスクの効果」に特化（一部先代のSARS、MERS等を含むが）したメタアナリシスでは有効性を示すものも多い。 https://t.co/ncOzCc7KC5 https://t.co/OJ8BSvoi5O https://t.co/vhkQHOGbww
RT @miakiza20100906: @yooY58449658 マスクの重要論文。80%前後の効果： Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person trans…
@yooY58449658 マスクの重要論文。80%前後の効果： Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/rGzm0mWYZS 2020年、Chu ら。Lancet 誌。
RT @miakiza20100906: @a_higashisakura @QuickToshi @revenge22323898 マスクの効果についての論文だと、これもかなり良いですよ： Physical distancing, face masks, and eye p…
RT @miakiza20100906: @a_higashisakura @QuickToshi @revenge22323898 マスクの効果についての論文だと、これもかなり良いですよ： Physical distancing, face masks, and eye p…
RT @miakiza20100906: @a_higashisakura @QuickToshi @revenge22323898 マスクの効果についての論文だと、これもかなり良いですよ： Physical distancing, face masks, and eye p…
@DSSKniff https://t.co/t8HYOyr6z1
RT @miakiza20100906: @a_higashisakura @QuickToshi @revenge22323898 マスクの効果についての論文だと、これもかなり良いですよ： Physical distancing, face masks, and eye p…
RT @miakiza20100906: @a_higashisakura @QuickToshi @revenge22323898 マスクの効果についての論文だと、これもかなり良いですよ： Physical distancing, face masks, and eye p…
@a_higashisakura @QuickToshi @revenge22323898 マスクの効果についての論文だと、これもかなり良いですよ： Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/rGzm0mWYZS
@y_yrittaja @rjl888sjr @LindapauliinaQ @SalunenJussi @MatiasHakala @JaniTalvensaari @Mikkolssen @paulie880 @JonneKorhonen1 Yritäpä alkuun kertoa, mikä tämän yli 170 tutkimusta kattavan, Lancetissa julkaistun meta-anyllisin metodologiassa on pielessä. https://t.co/9ewcMMDFxS
@y_yrittaja @LindapauliinaQ @rjl888sjr @SalunenJussi @MatiasHakala @JaniTalvensaari @Mikkolssen @paulie880 @JonneKorhonen1 Alkuun voit vaikka kertoa, mikä tässä yli 170 tutkimusta kattavassa meta-analyysissä on pielessä. Kuvien sijaan. https://t.co/9ewcMMDFxS
@RJEdwardsTweets @Renmarkable1 @Daffodi08166614 @MarcTennant https://t.co/mGjYQXErLX https://t.co/roF0K1k3cd https://t.co/eTuQJsgNby https://t.co/ZksAcDwZB1 Clincher: A meta-analysis of over 170 studies: https://t.co/X6160HBjCC Go do some research that isn't on YouTube or cracked Facebook accounts.
@CGCooke @realCarrickRyan Yeah 85% reduction if you always wear a mask while going out. They are REALLY freaking good. And that is infections per generation. The more people wear them, the more there is a multiplier effect. https://t.co/R7skCLxIDC
@Lui__et__Moi Lisez plutôt cela, publiée dans The Lancet (la référence). https://t.co/JxSXUvv8JM… Figure 4 attachée en biblio : synthèse des résultats de 29 études dans le monde. Taux de contamination avec masque 4,4% (163/3686), sans masque 8,4% (546/6484), soit efficacité supérieure à 50%. https://t.co/lsHr6jM1Tj
@MEUNIERPatric11 @NicolasPichot6 https://t.co/BbqyNG0biD Figure 4 attachée en biblio : synthèse des résultats de 29 études dans le monde. Taux de contamination avec masque 4,4% (163/3686), sans masque 8,4% (546/6484), soit efficacité supérieure à 50%. Vous êtes un scientifique en carton ... https://t.co/knBHUfMKRg
@MEUNIERPatric11 @NicolasPichot6 Non rien. Juste une publication dans le Lancet, la référence scientifique incontestée. Meta analyse à partir de 172 études observationnelles dans 16 pays, 25 697 patients. Conclusion très claire ! Je ne peux pas grand chose d’autre pour vous… https://t.co/rDKNOpN3wx https://t.co/ogkTessmQ9
@MEUNIERPatric11 @NicolasPichot6 Bon Patrick. Publication dans le Lancet, la référence scientifique incontestée. Meta analyse à partir de 172 études observationnelles dans 16 pays, 25 697 patients. Conclusion très claire ! ne bossez pas trop, cela ne sert à rien... https://t.co/7Go6wydVye https://t.co/Ia84lbMz1J
@Jul_Deschateaux @divanchy275 Coucou. Oui . Plusieurs études. https://t.co/KJJv4KsZAw
@BrunetteMajilpa @afpfr C'est pas ce qui manque, on attends toujours les études (publiées) qui prouvent que ça ne fonctionne pas par contre. 1/ https://t.co/yXad7SZY0H 2/ https://t.co/UPLTQMSmTJ 3/ https://t.co/p903HxCD68
@Mission_IMF @2opHmazhbjjHvho マスクが感染リスクを下げると主張する論文もあります。 Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Derek K Chu, et al. https://t.co/m3f7OPSLAL
@Djenr8 @richdatasci 6/70META: "Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis," June 1 2020, Lancet: https://t.co/fbdrKMwAyd …
RT @rPSHBICmzHESsUy: Lancetに掲載されたものにケチつけていたら、医学系に関する根拠とか、どこから持ってくるの？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person…
RT @rPSHBICmzHESsUy: Lancetに掲載されたものにケチつけていたら、医学系に関する根拠とか、どこから持ってくるの？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person…
RT @rPSHBICmzHESsUy: Lancetに掲載されたものにケチつけていたら、医学系に関する根拠とか、どこから持ってくるの？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person…
RT @rPSHBICmzHESsUy: Lancetに掲載されたものにケチつけていたら、医学系に関する根拠とか、どこから持ってくるの？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person…
RT @rPSHBICmzHESsUy: Lancetに掲載されたものにケチつけていたら、医学系に関する根拠とか、どこから持ってくるの？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person…
RT @rPSHBICmzHESsUy: Lancetに掲載されたものにケチつけていたら、医学系に関する根拠とか、どこから持ってくるの？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person…
RT @rPSHBICmzHESsUy: Lancetに掲載されたものにケチつけていたら、医学系に関する根拠とか、どこから持ってくるの？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person…
RT @rPSHBICmzHESsUy: Lancetに掲載されたものにケチつけていたら、医学系に関する根拠とか、どこから持ってくるの？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person…
Lancetに掲載されたものにケチつけていたら、医学系に関する根拠とか、どこから持ってくるの？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/njlKtCByUk
@SprichWahrheit @kirmeskopp @Schwarzirules @ErbenKongs Machen Sie sich doch bitte selbst die Mühe, nach Quellen zu suchen, ehe Sie hier einen derartigen Unsinn twittern. Omg
@oyanes_to Que guerra tienes con las mascarillas... https://t.co/eOgZeu0ihL
@oyanes_to Jejeje, ya lo discutimos hace tiempo pero veo que no sirvió de mucho, simplemente como apunte, no tienen ni por asomo la misma R0 y eso, es por algo. Por cierto, mira este https://t.co/eOgZeu0ihL
@LoganM_4201 @AutisticWooly @ArtyMaus Mask being "practically pointless"... oh wait https://t.co/PO5QvKa5zl (Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647...), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks)
@AdelchiDaim @matejhanc @kajki_ Tak ja nejsem vas servis, ale posilam link na srovnani 172 observacnich studii a 44 komparativnich studii - z clanku si pak muzete rozklikat jednotlive studie zvlast nebo se podivat na jasny zaver z nich;-) https://t.co/XLXK6mEx67 1/2
RT @vieil_garde_ph: Bsr Distanciation physique, masques faciaux et protection oculaire https://t.co/tDWN6UjkyV Comment dire ? y en a qu…
RT @vieil_garde_ph: Bsr Distanciation physique, masques faciaux et protection oculaire https://t.co/tDWN6UjkyV Comment dire ? y en a qu…
RT @vieil_garde_ph: Bsr Distanciation physique, masques faciaux et protection oculaire https://t.co/tDWN6UjkyV Comment dire ? y en a qu…
RT @vieil_garde_ph: Bsr Distanciation physique, masques faciaux et protection oculaire https://t.co/tDWN6UjkyV Comment dire ? y en a qu…
RT @vieil_garde_ph: Bsr Distanciation physique, masques faciaux et protection oculaire https://t.co/tDWN6UjkyV Comment dire ? y en a qu…
RT @vieil_garde_ph: Bsr Distanciation physique, masques faciaux et protection oculaire https://t.co/tDWN6UjkyV Comment dire ? y en a qu…
Bsr Distanciation physique, masques faciaux et protection oculaire https://t.co/tDWN6UjkyV Comment dire ? y en a qui cherche, ... mais bofff ! Pourquoi les courbes de mortalité et de contamination sont différentes (ou similaires) alors qu'aucun des pays n'a fait idem ? Crlt https://t.co/N5EBDFO70a
@saywhatpmo @assliken “Looked at physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” In other words, they lump these things together. It also could end up that these people did other things because they were afraid such as vitamins.
@dette_iu_san 以前は屋外で効果があるっていうデータがあんまりなかったのは本当ぽいですね。変わり始めたのはメタ解析で効果があるとの論文がでた2020年6月以降 https://t.co/g4vA4GV5S4 、大きく変わったのは2021年12月にCDCが屋外でのマスク義務化発表したあたりですね。
RT @MindFit4Sport: https://t.co/hlPIYvTg5B
https://t.co/hlPIYvTg5B
@CJFG39711118 @anitambyrne @CMOIreland Time for a new computer. https://t.co/3o6qgXMShJ https://t.co/gYsyyW5d0j https://t.co/9Geo0jUerR This is a nice case study: https://t.co/8kELf8xTgG
@bobko81 @apmalong @jkenney @VPrasadMDMPH I don't see any. I see a grifter hawking pop-pseudosci books and repeating the same debunked claims over and over. Community masking has been very effective at preventing COVID. Omicron is a new beast, but it warrants better masks, not an end to masking. https://t.co/NFlxsHtgGp
RT @zet_mood: @NiusMarco @FLAHAULT Encore a balancer des fakes news ! C'est intentionnel ou c'est pathologique ? Méta-analyse sur l'effica…
RT @zet_mood: @NiusMarco @FLAHAULT Encore a balancer des fakes news ! C'est intentionnel ou c'est pathologique ? Méta-analyse sur l'effica…
@davemac00 @carlheneghan Nothing new https://t.co/k76p4Fu0vi
@Elizabe47072353 @MarcusPun @KevinKileyCA Yeah, same garbage https://t.co/k76p4Fu0vi
@NiusMarco @FLAHAULT Encore a balancer des fakes news ! C'est intentionnel ou c'est pathologique ? Méta-analyse sur l'efficacité du confinement: https://t.co/BSYXXArBne Méta-analyse sur le masque: https://t.co/pEYwKp1JHz Méta-analyse sur distanciation et masque: https://t.co/hEr51Gv94g Bisous
@MarekJarczynski @JacekSmieja @meg_ravenwolf @JKowalski_posel https://t.co/mvOP1x4IAr
@Akihiko_Saito @vNi233vrU7FUp2c @23timestakeshi @azumakohtaro @shedwhitelines 題です。マスクの効果に有効性が無いという論文です。どうぞ。 https://t.co/TMHIrQHb5j
@oyanes_to Però si no t'agrada aquest estudi aquí en tens un altre. D. K. Chu et al., “Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Lancet, vol. 6736, no. 20, pp. 1–15, 2020
@blanc0981 眼の保護が有効と言うようなメタ解析もあるんですが、眼からの感染はどう思われますか？ Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/FEGbIWaanE
@HannibalML @nyx200 @DGlewell Sure there is, you just didn't look https://t.co/5guOTRzqs9 https://t.co/vF6tCo7rU3
@RowTheBoatPJ1 Also cited. Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, Solo SK, Yaacoub S, Schunemann HJ, et al., Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis, The Lancet, 395 (2020), 1973-1987.
@StephanKesting https://t.co/M20n8GdgF8
RT @TavakoliParis: Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19:…
Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis - The Lancet https://t.co/ikon978pVp
RT @lanmanu327: #SARS_CoV_2 #Covid_19 #PreventionMesures not a new publication, but ... Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protectio…
RT @lanmanu327: #SARS_CoV_2 #Covid_19 #PreventionMesures not a new publication, but ... Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protectio…
RT @2u3v4w: @TM_Quencher @ykfrs1217 @6CLW77Y102 @radionouka 集団でのマスクの効果の検証は難しいようですね（前向き・後ろ向き研究ともに）。以前、調べたので、リンクを張っておきます。有効性を示す論文のほうが多い。 htt…
@TM_Quencher @ykfrs1217 @6CLW77Y102 @radionouka 集団でのマスクの効果の検証は難しいようですね（前向き・後ろ向き研究ともに）。以前、調べたので、リンクを張っておきます。有効性を示す論文のほうが多い。 https://t.co/0lWeBDmS29 ご紹介のものに加え、有効性を示す論文をいくつか。（続 https://t.co/m5pASkl45n https://t.co/K4yGShYmCj
@krzysztof_robak @OloCzarny 10 dni temu zmarła ci teściowa, tak? Z powodu szczepienia, czy mimo zaszczepienia? Ale na pewno teściowa, a nie kuzynka? Jeśli faktycznie teściowa, to kuzynka z pewnością od 10 dni zapłakana. Tu masz dowody. https://t.co/8zv34MGCDU O ile oczywiście poważasz "The Lancet".
@save__alejandro https://t.co/Ipm2NMjfAe https://t.co/MlZTz7EX0P https://t.co/egASbMYTzB https://t.co/eLQZOCpo6F Si estás familiarizado con la literatura científica, sabrás que el meta-análisis está en el tope del nivel de evidencia
@mirish25m @itsunclelou @StefanMychajliw https://t.co/I3dHZn4azA Brooks JT, Butler JC. Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2. JAMA.2021;325(10):998–999. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.1505 https://t.co/Nwreg7P5yp https://t.co/NqzMvpBsZV
@KHCSL1 @LBC @mrjamesob There is so many evidence for this. Otherwise the whole world will not be agreeing in unison that this is one of the best intervention. Since you have asked, I'll give you an example here:https://t.co/JjjHrWxPS2
@Bradmx07 @literlcatperson @tropicaltroy68 @neiltyson The report is peer reviewed. You just saw the word “lancet” and you remember hearing something about a retraction. But you didn’t follow the link. https://t.co/pCmYgQPe69
@Bradmx07 @literlcatperson @tropicaltroy68 @neiltyson This study was not retracted. On what grounds do you challenge it? https://t.co/pCmYgQPe69
@Ecoloko1 @ElenaGarzaM @Adrian_Guerra @Ckantu @elnortelocal Tercera: Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-to-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis. Lancet 2020;Jun 1. DOI: https://t.co/uBLA8SARea.
#Sabiasque de acuerdo a un estudio publicado en The Lancet https://t.co/EUa0DPo8sK, concluyó que el uso de lentes para cubrir nuestros ojos es un medio eficaz para evitar los contagios por COVID 19! https://t.co/KNNXTBDOmp
マスクの防御効果 ・東京大学医科学研究所(https://t.co/icVfxDMyFt) ・WHOの提言の元になっただろうLancet論文・2020.06(https://t.co/W93fzde8Dd) ・マスク着用による感染抑制効果・2020.06(https://t.co/8PCHyjtvBy)
@WJHWhitbread @JuliaHB1 @SadiqKhan Try this: https://t.co/0jYNKgC3mM
@CarolyneJackson @JuliaHB1 @SadiqKhan https://t.co/0jYNKgC3mM
@OLDSCHOOLHAPPY @JuliaHB1 @SadiqKhan https://t.co/0jYNKgC3mM
@IlkestonLiz @JuliaHB1 @SadiqKhan https://t.co/0jYNKgC3mM
@NickMargerrison @JuliaHB1 @SadiqKhan https://t.co/0jYNKgC3mM
@PoundsSenseBlog @JuliaHB1 @SadiqKhan https://t.co/0jYNKgC3mM
@hairymarx1 @JuliaHB1 @SadiqKhan https://t.co/0jYNKgC3mM
@JuliaHB1 @SadiqKhan https://t.co/0jYNKgC3mM
@StevenG85056287 @JuliaHB1 @SadiqKhan https://t.co/0jYNKgC3mM
@Atheist_Right @macrox1956 @Chortling_Man @atheist_bad @hesanaughtyboy https://t.co/bw93bBInuB here's one from the Lancet (fantastic journal, one of the top three in the world)
@NoMoreEds @bingaddick @IsabelOakeshott https://t.co/dWF5xBoYL6
Clarification: Hindi pala paper ang Dans, Herrera, et al. Series of slides pala siya. And they got their info from: Chu et al. (2020). The Lancet, 395(10242), 1973–1987. https://t.co/gINEJlkz8B https://t.co/TBFgFJl8S6
@otraraiz Sobre la transmisión de covid https://t.co/HdtpVFVeif https://t.co/G9vr11gpV8 https://t.co/oWxHjjnlTk https://t.co/acpUd4SeUt Aquí más debunk https://t.co/NRvO1hp4dQ https://t.co/WtdZRma11x https://t.co/WB1p0g5jBZ https://t.co/2ChSQIEBwh Y con esto me dejo de vídeos
@JuvenalRiosLeal @saludconlupa @EpistemonikosEs Temón! El white paper del AHRQ y la guía 30 de GRADE ponen a conversar esos dos mundos. https://t.co/WEmGJby8ZT https://t.co/9b9kKIoV3u La revisión de Chu et al es una de las mejores aplicaciones de estos marcos conceptuales https://t.co/q8fvoY4s7q
@jasonhaw_ They are relying upon this, I think. I took this from Dr. Leachon’s post. I don’t know whether there have been any other studies regarding face shields. https://t.co/vpd76X5lSF
RT @M1tchRosenthal: Beware anti-mask misinfo from @gamesblazer06. Actual studies on covid-19 show masks reduce transmission&infection risk.…
@heijtink_jesse @Lennert_vd_Boom @mvwoensel @Carla_vd_Broek @wappiehoekje @DebunkerDutch @PvanHouwelingen Maar ook hier weer, schrijven zonder enige vorm van kennis op dit gebied. Net zoals hoe men werkelijk CO2 meet. Maar ik ben de kwaadste niet hoor. https://t.co/17lgckijqE
Beware anti-mask misinfo from @gamesblazer06. Actual studies on covid-19 show masks reduce transmission&infection risk. A country's casetrend != good evidence. Too many confounding vars. US had mask reqmt but allowed indoor dining https://t.co/S3SNxZJxeO https://t.co/ipNoVLAJdM https://t.co/FdsjHCIVtS
@thinkeroid Distancingの効果については https://t.co/dums6S9xVa 等で最初期から見積もられている。
@HelloDictadura @SergiCastanye Cert, fer estudis RCT és antiètic i inviable ara. De tota manera, això teu és per l’influenzavirus. En estudis observacionals molt citats (abaix) es confirma amb una meta-anàlisi (el millor que podem obtenir per ara) que les màscares sí que funcionen. https://t.co/W3xVFT2Bp6
@DionysusElegu @apnoeaboy It’s very easy when you don’t understand science very well to pick individual papers that suit your narrative. https://t.co/xux9LSww65 https://t.co/phjIJ6poF3 https://t.co/jvRIQKuUeO 3 major systematic reviews showing benefit of face masks. Hardly “cherry picked”.
https://t.co/ZbenWCLJd5
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
@mikeburggraaf 4. It's complex and a simple correlation graph is incomplete to give full picture. Masks, physical distancing, and eye protection(if done properly) could help. https://t.co/LPlRObKcxa. Even with mask mandate many people do not follow guidelines. Need test and trace also.
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
Item 7 asks if authors provided a list of excluded studies. They did not. See appendix: https://t.co/UVciv3ppVx Admittedly a table of 432 excluded studies would be massive. But size isn’t an issue online. Would have been nice to check if the mask RCTs ended up in this pile. 19/26
@martintetaz @ETagliazucchi @rquiroga777 Si, un montón (): https://t.co/ck80uLKjNT (ejemplo de paper en Lancet). La acumulación de evidencia, insisto, en este caso como meta-analisis es clave. https://t.co/v0QEBBV56a
@DavidMartini85 @faberskj @FavalliIvan In quest'altro Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet S0140673620311429. (https://t.co/c5k17CnAh8
@itsAaron77 @Winter James Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020;0(0). https://t.co/qXHRHR5LhP
@mamasaurusMeg @JeffSpartyjeff @SkiersRight @ALittleTweet @MarioLavoie13 @govkristinoem This is not modeling. This is a meta-analysis that looks at experiments both in the lab and in “real life.” You can start reading the studies listed on page 34 and see for yourself. https://t.co/aWCxNt4GrD
@ChrisOlin @P1_W_Michigan @SageMccallister @SeanTrende @varadmehta https://t.co/egJrKdlLXD
@tmsbtc @metalheadmosh @novogratz Wearing a mask properly hasn't been proven effective? I suppose you never even bothered to do a basic google search. Just exemplary: PMID:32371934, PMID:32663246, https://t.co/7G4YtEtGsr and https://t.co/EVG2shKiT5
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
@Sunsets4ever @rewegreatyet @PressSec https://t.co/ZRBfDlaix5
RT @SEMERGENap:
RT @SEMERGENap:
For the 856,3467th time, face mask and physical distancing do work!
@Angle_Lomax @rizzles114 @TheHStirling @jpaul1981 @missmcollins And here is another study about how masks are part of an effective way to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus: https://t.co/acWXCrpUIW
@TheFootyExp3rt @ScarlettSHoward If you are curious, here is some of the evidence in favor of mask wearing: https://t.co/mUXMyFlNXF https://t.co/hEG8xs6iKc https://t.co/zGDP9u0xQh
@HMayoayes @FThorson2 @TheTweetOfGod https://t.co/VKvzJoMaez
@DrBitcoinMD I suppose you never even bothered to do a basic google search. Just exemplary for a): PMID:32371934, PMID:32663246, https://t.co/7G4YtEtGsr and https://t.co/EVG2shKiT5 For c): none of these claims have any evidence supporting them: https://t.co/2MKH3nFOta. Urban myths, pathetic.
Ostatnia metaanaliza z Lancet:
@monica_perry @ERLSoto @JorgeMoV10 @doctormacias @OPSOMSMexico Le aclaro que cualquier metaanalisis es superior a una opinión de expertos (ponencia), y en este que le vuelvo a postear puede encontrar los enlaces a todos los artículos que hablan al respecto. Le dejo nuevamente la pirámide de evidencia científica. https://t.co/LwpHo6wyaq https://t.co/aHEP6Icms9
@monica_perry @ERLSoto @JorgeMoV10 @doctormacias @OPSOMSMexico Aquí está nuevamente el DOI https://t.co/LwpHo6wyaq Y no se lo envío por privado por que esto es de dominio público pero con gusto se lo posteo las veces que sea necesario. https://t.co/l4OUshtrSB
@monica_perry @doctormacias Claro, y aclarando que no es la medida más efectiva sino una que ha mostrado efectividad demostrado bajo un metaanalisis. https://t.co/LwpHo6wyaq https://t.co/MWLBCYq7VH
@WernerKandas @SHomburg https://t.co/QHoFHMoOq8 https://t.co/hj9PAfcSaM https://t.co/9mktcv97xx https://t.co/B3oMPHKS0x https://t.co/PK8MMBkMOi https://t.co/wHN5f8LoaI https://t.co/mWr3d0raUp ... noch mehr? Wo ist ihre Evidenz, dass Masken nix bringen???
@halil_Cv @mehmetcilingiro Buyurun 1 tanesi. Onlarca var. https://t.co/kO7iB1IHgh Eğer Google scholar adresine girip the protection of mask from covid-19 yazarsanız daha fazlasına ulaşabilirsiniz. İyi akşamlar.
Men zou het zelfde kunnen afvragen mbt de afweging tussen inbreuk op levenssfeer (bijv verplicht maken van het dragen v mondkapjes) en volksgezondheid. Aanbevelen is onvoldoende als er nu genoeg bewijs is dat het de kans op virusverspreiding verminderd https://t.co/W8m9s52RIf https://t.co/geFv9MQ55B
@ich_bins_jetzt @AnnieMuc @StadtMuenchen Studien gibt es wie Sand am Meer.. "....der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) in Auftrag gegebenen Meta-Analyse effektiv, wobei Respiratoren wie N95 laut der Publikation im Lancet (2020; DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9) einen besseren Schutz bieten als einfache Masken.."
@herr_mey @provoziert https://t.co/KjwWUF45Ru Es hilft daneben aber auch Empathie, Rücksichtnahme und gesunder Menschenverstand.
@Mehdizerouali10 @mau_adrien @DETLEFSENPatri1 @LacombeKarine1 @guigui_riri73 http://10.0.3.233/jama.2020.12458 http://org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9 Entre autres.
@BarryMcCock6_9 @fulton503 @PGeaux I think your research on mask effectiveness is out of date. The Lancet meta-analysis in June found otherwise. https://t.co/466Pw6tFcr
@facepalm2000 @robbogunovic @theJagmeetSingh Social distancing and mask wearing conclusively reduces risk of infection, especially successful when combined with better handwashing/personal hygiene practices. https://t.co/weiWdnGpH0 https://t.co/AJYkuDVeyk https://t.co/901dkhcTFu
@QQHaseena https://t.co/rPQpApWSZ1
@LBonneux https://t.co/Gb31zLFnNu Hoe kijk je hier tegenaan, Luc?
@IrishguardShaw @DrAdrianHeald https://t.co/ZBbZ6cTukV Glen see if this article comes up for you.
@AMDSmash1 @kaozity @YikesByKanye @OrdinaryGamers Multiple researches show masks do work. https://t.co/JfiHXOFjZi for example. Distancing, masks and eye protection can all help greatly with an not additive but multiplicative effect. Also, Covid-19 is currently 4.7 times more deadly than influenza and could reach 7-14x by 2021.
منابع: https://t.co/URErtGsk90 https://t.co/m7zXdXvT88 https://t.co/mmEzrNY65c https://t.co/ZUFD77MZj8 https://t.co/vpG8sGL5XY ✍ دکتر احسان شجاعی فر، پژوهشگر طب پیشگیری و ایمنی
@Guuumby_ @ArronBrett @FreethinkerInCA @AV8intheblue @ScottGottliebMD https://t.co/F3edxqsTiY
@maquis46 @MarcBuergi 1:https://t.co/a80kvvOO4C 2:https://t.co/CtARlDi3ls 3:https://t.co/nwWZPVGI2J 4:https://t.co/NbwSl7dmWq 5:https://t.co/lw45xSiZ9r
@kte06kte @aragon_jb https://t.co/idCFxe488g Bah oui. C'est pour cela que les infirmiers les docteurs n'en portent jamais dans la salle d'opération. Ah en fait si ils en portent. Vous devriez aller leur dire c'est inutile.
@TartinoVerdi @alainkrakovitch Il y a beaucoup de recherche sur les masques, nous en faisons référence sur la page. C'est de 'The Lancet' - https://t.co/A0YqWfekUt
RT @jhan2qt: @DerBuddler @SHomburg Jetzt mal Spaß beiseite. Der von Homburg zitiere Artikel wurde manipuliert, indem nicht alle Papers berü…
RT @jhan2qt: @DerBuddler @SHomburg Jetzt mal Spaß beiseite. Der von Homburg zitiere Artikel wurde manipuliert, indem nicht alle Papers berü…
@DerBuddler @SHomburg Jetzt mal Spaß beiseite. Der von Homburg zitiere Artikel wurde manipuliert, indem nicht alle Papers berücksichtigt wurden. Das nennt man "cherry picking". Hier ein systematisches Meta-Review über 216 (!) Studien. Das belegt den Nutzen von Masken: https://t.co/5WgJ5RKjqw
@cafeweltschmerz @FlavioPasquino Dit moet dan het bewijs zijn voor de 1 a 2 meter afstand houden: https://t.co/yizq6d0wJr Kunnen jullie er naar kijken en proberen de zwakke punten eruit te halen of zelfs te debunken ? Kan weer een leuke nieuwe uitzending worden.
@april_harding @DrEsmee @mgtmccartney @rwjdingwall @carlheneghan A further systematic review was published after we submitted our paper - it's mentioned in the Jefferson & Heneghan piece. It's more optimistic about face masks but only includes non-experimental studies - I think because of narrower inclusion criteria. https://t.co/BCDRwTEBUj
@sonoraquakesfan @GavinNewsom https://t.co/de9m3gojf2 You don’t know shit
@arneelof There are several nice meta-analyses (including by Carrerro at KI), but here is a good one that is pretty comprehensive and studies transmissibility (and also reports source studies): https://t.co/QFFheyoi8G adjusted odds ratio for surgical/cloth mask vs none 0.17-0.61 95% CI
@gudrun_rm @AmRadDrehen Chu, D.K., Akl, E.A., Duda, S. et al Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. In: the Lancet (395), P. 1973-1987. Doi: https://t.co/XEN00CznxK
AN ESSENTIAL ADD: Do *not* fall into the @Folkhalsomynd trap in acting as if a "Swedish study" is key. The Swedish study reviewed other data, as the Lancet did better in June, concluding, "wearing face masks protects people" including the general public. https://t.co/gZ1zfQyC8f
@jonnyRevv https://t.co/ssVCpiMyL6
@ElObser17730288 @alitos_6289 @DSI_Tco @HLGatell La evidencia demuestra (Lancet, Mayo 2020) que el cubrebocas es tan efectivo como la distancia social (3.1% vs 2.6-%). Y concluye que lo mejor es usar todas las medidas juntas. Te dejo el estudio https://t.co/RXC0pw02fM. https://t.co/sffO9CqqQR
@joseluislimar @taniaorbe @dorita_barba @PeriodismoUSFQ https://t.co/IUk5hcMvPI
RT @theklaneh: ¿Cuál es la efectividad de una máscara? Pues no tan grande como la de un condón. Por eso se recomienda combinarla con otras…
¿Cuál es la efectividad de una máscara? Pues no tan grande como la de un condón. Por eso se recomienda combinarla con otras medidas (lavarse las manos, no acercarse demasiado, no comer mocos ajenos...). Existe un meta-análisis sobre esto: https://t.co/xjFsmfH4F5
@bruxsellois https://t.co/5Zpqtc86j8 https://t.co/nGd6rIr2Ww https://t.co/s2mt70gcHi https://t.co/8OGQd3xQCM Etc.
@Jimcorrsays Hi Jim wearing a mask has a small benefit for you but a relatively large protection to others near you were you to be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. https://t.co/YPjq10Y4cy
@LaraCrabb Hi Lara wearing a mask has a small benefit for you but a relatively large protection to others near you were you to be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. https://t.co/YPjq10Y4cy
@Qanontsearcher @Pieface_5 @AshMorris512 @PedgeO @Coonsy27 @DHSCgovuk https://t.co/rnlEugvK3x, Moreover if the transmission method is as yet unestablished but there is potential that wearing mask helps, why not err on the aid of caution. When doing so has so little consequences. Just a little discomfort.
Distance https://t.co/7HQtwv0ZhA Contact frequency as surrogate for duration https://t.co/vFZe5rDHhD Infectious period: https://t.co/kNeeAAGIeV
Chu, D.K. et al., 2020. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 395(10242), pp.1973–1987.Available at: https://t.co/wCiXEfHXo9 https://t.co/2a9TirDfnL
@Tpdiggs1 @Intermountain Thank you, as you can see: social distancing and face mask use was consistently shown to reduce risk of viral transmission in both healthcare and community settings. Link to that paper: https://t.co/cxyvzumiu2 https://t.co/O3nWp1LI1e
Summary: Do masks partly protect HCWs when they wear them? Yes, lots of evidence for that (e.g. https://t.co/7HQtwv0ZhA). Do patients wearing masks help protects HCWs? Likely, but evidence for that is harder to come by. Does this paper provide robust evidence for masks? NO.
@owldom @rolandmcs @grahamfindlay Here's a Lancet article: https://t.co/MtDs5ZbUPF And here's some stuff on the UC San Francisco website: https://t.co/Fo016RYN9Y
Prof @DrLuisO: ¿Cubrebocas o no cubrebocas? -Hay evidencia contundente que el uso de cubrebocas ayudan a disminuir la incidencia de infección en la comunidad, a la par del distanciamiento social y protección ocular/facial.
Heads up for folks that remember the old mask advocacy graphic & are currently suspicious of the 65% being thrown around: it's credible, but low-confidence & focused on surgical/medical masks or N95s. High confidence that masks do -something- though. https://t.co/21RfEgoYB0
@Zorknogg @pedsscrub https://t.co/UefbeFaos2
@t3tragrammat0n @BeckyJohnson222 @NYGovCuomo Also, no idea what is questionable with that grouo, but here's another analysis with similar results: https://t.co/d1u0hJTgW0 Explanation here: https://t.co/sUeSvMNRox
@jacobandrewlong @MikeOtsuka @apoorva_nyc @BillHanage Authors dichotomized risk. I would have treated distance continuously and included window effect which they hypothesized. N=67 provides decent power to pick up moderate effect, but not small one. Other paper suggests pretty big effect - note log axis. https://t.co/7HQtwv0ZhA https://t.co/cPCA7tkkJg
#SARSCoV2 is much more likely to be transmitted at close range than farther away (Fig, paper) which supports droplets as key mode of transmission. But CAN virus also be transmitted by aerosols (at distances >6')? https://t.co/rsohzkOAAl https://t.co/P1DbGSId9f
@eliowa @jbarro @dr_dmorgan Data from questionable antibody studies. Still, it’s what you might expect; for most of the pandemic so far, PPE though often limited has at least been available to healthcare workers. General public has no such access. https://t.co/puIfOj20LJ
2 most important things are distance & mask https://t.co/7HQtwv0ZhA "Crowds" is attempt to convey distance but not helpful. Going to empty bar unmasked w/ 1 friend outside my household will be much more dangerous than going to crowded beach where I can always keep 10' space. https://t.co/0zzI3BHwwI
@comicmatters @thecliffadams @TexasTribune https://t.co/CzbndHK9Eq https://t.co/DcYwepTggY https://t.co/ljT5PSSWo3
RT @inquisitiveGyn: @K_Sheldrick @DrDayaSharma @ketaminh @drvyom @ama_media @trishgreenhalgh @arty_ot What Protects against COVID-19 Infect…
@K_Sheldrick @DrDayaSharma @ketaminh @drvyom @ama_media @trishgreenhalgh @arty_ot What Protects against COVID-19 Infection or Transmission? Infographic from @TheLancet showing #PhysicalDistancing #WearAMask and #eyeprotection Original article from 1 June 2020 #FOAMed https://t.co/1QqY31hvvF https://t.co/WPV6Qc6BXK
Posting this link to the Lancet article showing the effectiveness of mask wearing. For no reason at all https://t.co/jDCWgmDyzP
@GlennSternDDS @FishCampTAMU https://t.co/jnav9Jq7i7
It’s really simple. #WearAMaskSaveALife #WearAMask #SocialDistancing #WashYourHands #ProtectOthers #ProtectYourself #COVID19 The data supports this! Lancet 2020; 395: 1973–1987. PublishedOnline June 1, 2020 https://t.co/VqJqw0agKO
RT @IowaPHA: We strongly encourage school administrators to adopt these public health standards to best protect kids and staff.
We strongly encourage school administrators to adopt these public health standards to best protect kids and staff.
RT @JoeBrunoWSOC9: CDC guidance on masks: https://t.co/p4MyzBGeg4 Some studies on their effectiveness: https://t.co/bIZbmjpu0g https:/…
RT @JoeBrunoWSOC9: CDC guidance on masks: https://t.co/p4MyzBGeg4 Some studies on their effectiveness: https://t.co/bIZbmjpu0g https:/…
RT @JoeBrunoWSOC9: CDC guidance on masks: https://t.co/p4MyzBGeg4 Some studies on their effectiveness: https://t.co/bIZbmjpu0g https:/…
RT @JoeBrunoWSOC9: CDC guidance on masks: https://t.co/p4MyzBGeg4 Some studies on their effectiveness: https://t.co/bIZbmjpu0g https:/…
RT @JoeBrunoWSOC9: CDC guidance on masks: https://t.co/p4MyzBGeg4 Some studies on their effectiveness: https://t.co/bIZbmjpu0g https:/…
CDC guidance on masks: https://t.co/p4MyzBGeg4 Some studies on their effectiveness: https://t.co/bIZbmjpu0g https://t.co/tzcLmlcI8x https://t.co/ZErnYqh5xo https://t.co/n7CNsmW6CG https://t.co/aHurwK4VQJ https://t.co/aNvvBOombv https://t.co/3V0ZrJHkgB
How effective are the guidelines of #PhysicalDistancing and the use face masks, in preventing the transmission of #COVID19? Find out more from the study summarized below. #MedTwitter #كورونا https://t.co/j1EPhsgG1m https://t.co/JaBn2Xap1h
@tcjentzsch @CantLetItbe @GinnaRoeKUTV @KUTV2News @GovHerbert Okay, here you go: ———————————— https://t.co/cxyvzumiu2 https://t.co/WWgM3oBLQD https://t.co/NY6JPiRnNI https://t.co/mpg6koOvTl ————————————
In other very good article (June 01, 2020DOI:https://t.co/5xXrQrmPDG) Dr. Denis G Rancourt, PhD who is a research scientist has examined all the scientific literature on wearing surgical and other facemasks as a means of preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and thus
or five evidence which is what an opinion is. We need level one evidence and there isn't any. The Lancet (June 01, 2020DOI:https://t.co/5xXrQrmPDG) has just published a very good systematic review online of all the good evidence and not a single RCT was found (unsurprisingly).
@revmedsuisse Le lien vers la meta-analyse est erroné sur le site, voici le lien correct https://t.co/uPB8pJArJn
@RicksFreeSpeech @Clever_pig @27CansOfTuna @Somethi75740529 @Lyndslemn @rockcover1 @StateHealthIN @CovidActNow @GovHolcomb Two articles in medical journals show face masks reduce transmission from the wearer to others. 1. Meta-analysis by Derek K. Chu et al. in The Lancet https://t.co/2TCJcrnXwx 2. Study of surgical masks by Nancy H. L. Leung et al. in Nature Medicine https://t.co/i4w1xN3SWd
yok balik ke tulisan di awal utas (monggo yang tertarik bisa dibaca di sini https://t.co/drS0WlzHI0). Jadi mereka mengidentifikasi 172 studi pengamatan dari 16 negara dan 6 benua dengan total 25.697 pasien.
Lanset掲載のフィジカルディスタンス、フェイスマスク、アイガードについてのメタアナ。 結果として、 ・フィジカルディスタンス： 1m以上で感染伝播が少なかった ・フェイスマスク： 感染リスクの減少に寄与した ・アイガード： 感染の少なさと関連した https://t.co/MlZqasKgml
@Steely927 Hi David, here is a good systematic review and meta-study on whether masks and protection help you https://t.co/Hi6Lc9rKtJ
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: We can use recent results on distance vs risk of transmission to assess the crude impact of the effect on risk (fig - I…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
RT @DiseaseEcology: Evidence clearly shows there are 2 ways to reduce local transmission, neither of which require lockdown: 1) test-conta…
We can use recent results on distance vs risk of transmission to assess the crude impact of the effect on risk (fig - I added red/orange lines). It is tiny. https://t.co/7HQtwv0ZhA (Note: some have criticized use of continuous distance analysis in Chu et al) https://t.co/d9ttSvw3fI