The abstract of that Nature article says "Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals."
Which is pretty much the opposite of what you claim it says.
That's right! The abstract of the article is in direct contradiction of their own data, and contradicts their own interpretation of the data in their Results section -- e.g., "no significant reduction in detection in aerosols.
Anyone who reads just the abstract would be led to believe that the study findings were the OPPOSITE of what their own data shows.
You're confusing their results for influenza virus and coronavirus, which are DIFFERENT.
"No significant reduction in detection in aerosols" applies to influenza virus, NOT coronavirus. See Figure 1a (coronavirus), and compare it to Figure 1b (influenza virus).
The authors write in the concluding section: "We also demonstrated the efficacy of surgical masks to reduce coronavirus detection and viral copies in large respiratory droplets and in aerosols (Table 1b). This has important implications for control of COVID-19, suggesting that surgical face masks could be used by ill people to reduce onward transmission."
You're correct. The data in Table 1b (Fig 1) shows that 4 of the 10 unmasked subjects produced aerosols that tested positive for coronavirus, and 0 of the 11 aerosol samples produced by masked individuals tested positive for coronavirus.
For rhinovirus, and influenza, 6 of 27 and 12 of 32 masked subjects produced aerosols that tested positive for those viruses (respectively).
And that mechanistic explanation for this data discrepancy is... absent.
Immediately after "The only benefit to surgical masks the study discovered was a reduction in the dispersion of ordinary coronavirus droplets, suggesting that universal surgical mask mandates might reduce the risk of being spit on in public."
add
EDIT (date of edit): This last sentence was not correct. The data showed that 4 of the 10 unmasked subjects produced aerosols that tested positive for coronavirus, and 0 of the 11 aerosol samples produced by masked individuals tested positive for coronavirus.
Holy shit, this is still pushing the "IFR is around 0.1%" line. Currently in the US the excess deaths are ~0.4% of the whole population. And this is after most f us have gotten protection from vaccines, antivirals, and monoclonal antibodies. If the GBD let-it-rip had followed those protected cases would have occurred before the protections were available, with much higher IFR.
The rest of the article is at about the same level of ignorance and gullibility.
The abstract of that Nature article says "Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals."
Which is pretty much the opposite of what you claim it says.
That's right! The abstract of the article is in direct contradiction of their own data, and contradicts their own interpretation of the data in their Results section -- e.g., "no significant reduction in detection in aerosols.
Anyone who reads just the abstract would be led to believe that the study findings were the OPPOSITE of what their own data shows.
No! This is wrong!
You're confusing their results for influenza virus and coronavirus, which are DIFFERENT.
"No significant reduction in detection in aerosols" applies to influenza virus, NOT coronavirus. See Figure 1a (coronavirus), and compare it to Figure 1b (influenza virus).
The authors write in the concluding section: "We also demonstrated the efficacy of surgical masks to reduce coronavirus detection and viral copies in large respiratory droplets and in aerosols (Table 1b). This has important implications for control of COVID-19, suggesting that surgical face masks could be used by ill people to reduce onward transmission."
You're correct. The data in Table 1b (Fig 1) shows that 4 of the 10 unmasked subjects produced aerosols that tested positive for coronavirus, and 0 of the 11 aerosol samples produced by masked individuals tested positive for coronavirus.
For rhinovirus, and influenza, 6 of 27 and 12 of 32 masked subjects produced aerosols that tested positive for those viruses (respectively).
And that mechanistic explanation for this data discrepancy is... absent.
I hope you will now correct your original post, both here and on Medium. This is an ethical requirement for any true scientist.
Also, as I'm sure you know, a mechanistic explanation is not needed for the data to be correct.
Nevertheless, the different viruses have quite different morphologies, and that would be the starting point for understanding the data difference.
What correction do you suggest?
Immediately after "The only benefit to surgical masks the study discovered was a reduction in the dispersion of ordinary coronavirus droplets, suggesting that universal surgical mask mandates might reduce the risk of being spit on in public."
add
EDIT (date of edit): This last sentence was not correct. The data showed that 4 of the 10 unmasked subjects produced aerosols that tested positive for coronavirus, and 0 of the 11 aerosol samples produced by masked individuals tested positive for coronavirus.
Holy shit, this is still pushing the "IFR is around 0.1%" line. Currently in the US the excess deaths are ~0.4% of the whole population. And this is after most f us have gotten protection from vaccines, antivirals, and monoclonal antibodies. If the GBD let-it-rip had followed those protected cases would have occurred before the protections were available, with much higher IFR.
The rest of the article is at about the same level of ignorance and gullibility.
I say this as somebody who has gone out on a limb to criticize fake wokish science. (https://econjwatch.org/articles/invalid-methods-and-false-answers-physics-education-research-and-the-use-of-gres) But this article is horrifying.
You have a point. IFR around 0.1% is far too high. We now know the real IFR is even lower.
Excellent quote and title!