W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Pixel42 summarized the report accurately.Based on the article the authors seem to be using the same faulty reasoning as you, i.e. thinking conclusions can be reached based on absolute numbers of reports. I'll wait for actual evidence before accepting such dubiously derived estimates.
Did you actually read the report? It was an extensive inquiry into the VAERS reports. Maybe you can voice your specific objections.
You do realize that in Jan 2022, even CNN admits that cloth masks fail to prevent viral infection, right? I’m assuming you live in the US like I do.
Tippit continues to make that claim. As stated in the study Tippit has been citing in support of his claim:
In other words, the subjects who did not wear masks were infected at a slightly higher rate than subjects who wore masks. It should not be necessary to explain that only an idiot would interpret that result as evidence that masks offer no protection at all, but here we are.Bundgaard et al. said:Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).
As stated explicitly by the report Tippit has been citing, there was
Every competent individual who has been following the mask debates is aware that the primary purpose of wearing a mask is to avoid infecting others. Wearing a mask probably offers some protection for the wearer as well, but that is generally believed to be less important.Bundgaard et al. said:...no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.
The study does support the idea that the masks worn by those who participated in that study probably provided only a small amount of protection to those who wore the masks, but the study was just too small to conclude that the small protective effect of masks seen in the study is statistically significant.
The study was large enough to conclude, with 95% confidence, that the added protection afforded to the wearer of a mask, "in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use", was not large enough to reduce the risk of infection among wearers by more than 50%. "The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection."
Tippit continues to misrepresent those results. It may be unclear whether Tippit is lying about the report he continues to cite, or is simply unable to understand the plain English of that report, but he is clearly misrepresenting the conclusions of that report.