Not methodologically optimal but good enough shows masks are useless; kids < 5 to kids > 6 in Catalonia, Spain A Quasi-Experimental Study Nested in a Population-Based Cohort
Not methodologically optimal but good enough shows masks are useless; kids < 5 to kids > 6 in Catalonia, Spain A Quasi-Experimental Study Nested in a Population-Based Cohort
Bottom line again, masks are useless for COVID; mask mandates in schools were not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 incidence or transmission, suggesting that this intervention was not effective. I
'When it became obvious that the countries that were wearing masks were faring better than the ones that weren’t,” she says, “the WHO might have said that even though we don’t have all of the data, we should apply the precautionary principle,” and recommend masks.' That's part of the recommendation of the WHO's forensic analysis of what went wrong with our pandemic response, this part of the analysis being used to structure the new global framework for the WHO's power in declaring and managing future pandemics, one which would include getting vaccines more thoroughly spread to less prosperous nations. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01284-5 This is an early 2021 article but referenced by Nature in December (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03596-y) for ongoing treaty negotiations occurring now at the WHO.
Like you in your previous post, I'm still hoping the US Constitution and Bill of Rights will protect us from any overreach by international treaties, especially those under proposal with the WHO currently. The article goes on, "Global-health experts have long worried that the WHO faces severe limitations in triggering action. It has no legal power to "enforce recommendations". Well I should hope not! Seeing Australia's UN Ambassador at the WHO responding positively to moving forward with a framework for coordinated global response in preparation for future pandemics, based on 'lessons we've learned' (9 minutes into video - https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2021/11/29/default-calendar/second-special-session-of-the-world-health-assembly) strikes me as particularly alarming if Australia's response will be in any way used for future global responses.
That format for the data is very hard to read, if not impossible and there is no glossary for the acronyms. When I see something written like that I suspect fraud.
'When it became obvious that the countries that were wearing masks were faring better than the ones that weren’t,” she says, “the WHO might have said that even though we don’t have all of the data, we should apply the precautionary principle,” and recommend masks.' That's part of the recommendation of the WHO's forensic analysis of what went wrong with our pandemic response, this part of the analysis being used to structure the new global framework for the WHO's power in declaring and managing future pandemics, one which would include getting vaccines more thoroughly spread to less prosperous nations. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01284-5 This is an early 2021 article but referenced by Nature in December (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03596-y) for ongoing treaty negotiations occurring now at the WHO.
Like you in your previous post, I'm still hoping the US Constitution and Bill of Rights will protect us from any overreach by international treaties, especially those under proposal with the WHO currently. The article goes on, "Global-health experts have long worried that the WHO faces severe limitations in triggering action. It has no legal power to "enforce recommendations". Well I should hope not! Seeing Australia's UN Ambassador at the WHO responding positively to moving forward with a framework for coordinated global response in preparation for future pandemics, based on 'lessons we've learned' (9 minutes into video - https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2021/11/29/default-calendar/second-special-session-of-the-world-health-assembly) strikes me as particularly alarming if Australia's response will be in any way used for future global responses.
That format for the data is very hard to read, if not impossible and there is no glossary for the acronyms. When I see something written like that I suspect fraud.
Why not a clear, properly labelled data table?
Maybe this will help! lol!!! :) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/a-7-foot-tall-robot-at-dallas-love-field-is-watching-for-unmasked-travelers-and-curbside-loiterers/ar-AAW0cdz