Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ron on October 05, 2020, 08:33:17 AM
-
The data doesn't look so good. I suspect the mask thing won't make it all the way through 2021.
In the meantime I wear the mask because I still have a mortgage and live in a blue state.
https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons
Ron, so you can give appropriate weight to the opinions of AAPS, be sure to read the Wiki. In a nutshell, they are not taken seriously by the majority of the medical community.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons
Ron, so you can give appropriate weight to the opinions of AAPS, be sure to read the Wiki. In a nutshell, they are not taken seriously by the majority of the medical community.
But are they not taken seriously by other organizations for their actual medical philosophy, or for stuff like this:
The AAPS opposes gun control and does not recognize handgun violence as a public health problem. Instead, the AAPS insists that handguns save lives, and that gun research sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is politically motivated "junk science"
I would submit that any physician who asks me if I have a gun in the house as part of a routine medical workup is a physician I won't trust with my health. The wiki sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't like them politically, vs for their medical expertise or lack thereof.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons
Ron, so you can give appropriate weight to the opinions of AAPS, be sure to read the Wiki. In a nutshell, they are not taken seriously by the majority of the medical community.
The studies they site aren't their studies.
All they've done is collate them into one article.
You know as well as I do there never has been a good study that makes a slam dunk case for masks.
It's a "best practices" thing that probably doesn't hurt if done properly.
I've been hanging my hat on the potential for reducing the viral load spread from infected to uninfected. That seems to be about the best we can hope for with the whole mask wearing mandate. Hope is the right word also because the studies just aren't that conclusive.
-
One of the most amazing things to me about 2020 is that more than 150 years after Joseph Lister, otherwise literate adults are claiming that surgical masks have no effect on spreading infection.
-
One of the most amazing things to me about 2020 is that more than 150 years after Joseph Lister, otherwise literate adults are claiming that surgical masks have no effect on spreading infection.
Did you look at the linked webpage?
-
One of the most amazing things to me about 2020 is that more than 150 years after Joseph Lister, otherwise literate adults are claiming that surgical masks have no effect on spreading infection.
Surgical masks in surgery are to prevent large droplets from entering open wounds aren't they? I'm assuming they have studied that and found masks to have better outcomes than not wearing them. I haven't looked into that application truth be told.
Concerning aerosolized droplets containing a respiratory virus, the studies just aren't very comforting.
The best that can be said is it might be better than nothing.
I wear a mask and gloves for around eight hours a day at work. I was only off of work for four weeks, so it's been a pretty long haul wearing PPE for a non healthcare worker.
Since I've been following that protocol I've had a minor cold and a minor sore throat. That doesn't boost my confidence that I'm protected from the corona. (maybe I've already been exposed?)
-
But are they not taken seriously by other organizations for their actual medical philosophy, or for stuff like this:
I would submit that any physician who asks me if I have a gun in the house as part of a routine medical workup is a physician I won't trust with my health. The wiki sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't like them politically, vs for their medical expertise or lack thereof.
I suspect the skepticism about the organization is more based on this (from the wiki):
The association has promoted a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism. It is opposed to the Affordable Care Act and other forms of universal health insurance.
But certainly, if they are in congruence with your views on gun control, embrace the organization.
-
I suspect the skepticism about the organization is more based on this (from the wiki):
The association has promoted a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism. It is opposed to the Affordable Care Act and other forms of universal health insurance.
But certainly, if they are in congruence with your views on gun control, embrace the organization.
The studies quoted at length have no connection to the organization.
Any thoughts on the content or are we just going to stick with character assassination?
We can probably have a lot of fun looking at some of the folks promoting the mask mandates. Not sure how much information that would convey, or maybe I'm wrong, maybe that would be enlightening.
Just to be clear, I'm ok with folks wearing masks. Everyone does risk analysis for themselves and loved ones all the time.
As mentioned, I wear a mask over 40 hours a week so telling somebody not to wear a mask would be an odd stance for me to take to say the least.
I'm just trying to suss out what is true and what is theater to calm the herd, or scare the herd for that matter.
-
In a nutshell, many of the studies are cherry-picked to support the contention of the author or have been supplanted by the results of other studies. This is a very dynamic area of clinical research, and conclusions and protocols that were in place months ago, for example, have changed as a result of additional research, supply chain issues, or political considerations. I encourage people to conduct their own research at PubMed, the best medical literature search engine in the world, and draw your own conclusions: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
PS: If I could get access to them, every time I leave the house, in order to comply with Washington state law, I would be wearing a properly-fitted N95 mask (I used to do the fit tests). Unfortunately, however, I cannot lay my hands on a supply of legitimate N95 masks. Even my multi-state healthcare system has to ration them out only for certain clinical scenarios, since we don't have enough, and will not have enough for months, to issue them widely.
-
But certainly, if they are in congruence with your views on gun control, embrace the organization.
I'm not embracing them. I'm suggesting the people who object to them may be doing so for their own political, not scientific biases. Like the notion that guns are a health issue. Or that being against the ACA loses you scientific credibility.
-
Did you look at the linked webpage?
I did. It was self contradictory enough to make me wonder if Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D. fits in the previously mentioned "otherwise literate adult" group.
But since you asked:
Droplets
Virus is transmitted through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.
Larger respiratory droplets (>5 μm) remain in the air for only a short time and travel only short distances, generally <1 meter. They fall to the ground quickly.https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30245-9/fulltext
This idea guides the CDC’s advice to maintain at least a 6-foot distance.
Small (<5 μm) aerosolized droplets can remain in the air for at least 3 hours and travel long distances (up to 27 ft.).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2004973?articleTools=true;
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/special-ep-masks;
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25769/rapid-expert-consultation-on-the-possibility-of-bioaerosol-spread-of-sars-cov-2-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-april-1-2020
Study measuring filter efficiency (2010)
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744; https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data; https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
Filter efficiency was measured across a wide range of small particle sizes (0.02 to 1 µm) at 33 and 99 L/min.
All the cloth masks and materials had near zero efficiency at 0.3 µm, a particle size that easily penetrates into the lung (SARS-CoV-2 is 0.125 µm)
Efficiency for the entire range of particles
T-shirts — 10%
Scarves — 10% to 20%
Cloth masks — 10% to 30%
Sweatshirts — 20% to 40%
Towels — 40%
Study measuring filter efficiency (2014, Korea)
https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201
Evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm)
N95 FFR filter — >95% efficiency
Medical masks — 55% efficiency
General (cloth) masks — 38% efficiency
Handkerchiefs — 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers) efficiency.
So from that page it would seem that cloth masks have 25 (ish)% (at least) efficacy at filtering out the droplets of saliva that carry SARS-COV-2, especially the larger ones. So it would seem that wearing one when you are inside and can't maintain the 6 ft of distance would provide a measurable increase in safety, without depleting the stocks of surgical masks and N95 respirators that high risk workers might need.
Assuming of course that you are not outsmarted by said cloth mask, either in the wearing, donning and doffing, and cleaning.
Again, after more than 150 years of germ theory in hospitals otherwise literate adults are arguing that surgical masks provide no benefit. No one said they were 100%. Feel free to go MOPP 4 if that's what you want. They just help a little, in addition to distance and hygiene. FFS.
-
But do masks stop THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN?? ?? ?? [tinfoil] [popcorn] :old: ....... ;/
-
Assuming of course that you are not outsmarted by said cloth mask, either in the wearing, donning and doffing, and cleaning.
Which from my observations, conservatively 50% of mask wearers are. Not to mention touching gas pumps, shopping carts, vegetables in the produce section, etc. then running your hands all over your face and everything around you.
Hand washing and sanitizing - just as important as mask wearing - have completely fallen into the background, and people with masks worn below their noses are screaming at people 20 feet away from them for not wearing a mask. Though they have no problem sitting six feet from them while eating in a restaurant with no one wearing masks.
-
^^^I agree with Ben in that masking is just part of good infection control practice, and there is not enough emphasis on social distancing and handwashing, in my view.
-
Which from my observations, conservatively 50% of mask wearers are. Not to mention touching gas pumps, shopping carts, vegetables in the produce section, etc. then running your hands all over your face and everything around you.
Hand washing and sanitizing - just as important as mask wearing - have completely fallen into the background, and people with masks worn below their noses are screaming at people 20 feet away from them for not wearing a mask. Though they have no problem sitting six feet from them while eating in a restaurant with no one wearing masks.
I've yet to find a mask with a piehole. :lol: [popcorn]
-
^^^I agree with Ben in that masking is just part of good infection control practice, and there is not enough emphasis on social distancing and handwashing, in my view.
Definately.
-
But do masks stop THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN?? ?? ?? [tinfoil] [popcorn] :old: ....... ;/
Never kind about the Andromeda strain. What about the Pax?
-
Never kind about the Andromeda strain. What about the Pax?
You're not supposed to talk about the g-23 paxilon hydrochlorate.
-
I've yet to find a mask with a piehole. :lol: [popcorn]
https://youtu.be/cKLaomvBUc0
May effect filtering efficacy.
-
https://youtu.be/cKLaomvBUc0
May effect filtering efficacy.
:O Well, I sure learn a LOT I did not previously know on this website. Some of the other videos there are even .... :facepalm: .... worse, if that's possible .... :rofl:
-
I'm operating on the chicken soup theory. Might do some good, can't do any harm. (Except for the inconvenience.)
My suspicion about the variable results revolves around (A) investigator bias and (B) the sealing of the mask factor --some do, some don't. We'll see later if we can get unbiased studies from unbiased investigators and masks that seal pretty positively most of the time. Oh, and Ns greater than one.
I did mention here on APS a while ago that a possible real benefit, fake studies and sealing aside, is that it discourages face-touching when out and about.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=61772.msg1240312#msg1240312
I'm also thinking that, like salt air droplets from the ocean, after the airborne fluid evaporates, the remaining solid matter (germs or microscopic salt particles) can still drift around.
Terry, 230RN
-
I don't know why there's so much interest in whether masks work, but so little interest in whether requiring masks for people who don't want them actually works. Given so many people wear them under their nose or chin, or constantly move them up and down, I'm very skeptical there's any public health benefit to a mask mandate, instead of just encouraging or normalizing masks.
-
just encouraging or normalizing masks.
It doesn't matter as much to me since I don't work anymore and try to live like a hermit, but if anything good comes out of all this, it would be normalizing masks for when people have a cold, flu, etc but insist on going into work and everywhere else while contagious.
Someone who insists on walking around contagious oughta wear a mask, and people shouldn't look askance at them. Conversely, if I want to mitigate catching an inconsiderate jackass's cold at work, wearing a mask should be looked at no different than wearing a raincoat when it rains. It's not perfect protection, but risk mitigation.
-
One major plus of masks that doesn't get much airtime, they pretty effectively defeat facial recognition.
-
One major plus of masks that doesn't get much airtime, they pretty effectively defeat facial recognition.
Facial recognition software seems to be getting better. My work PC has Windows Hello with facial recognition. Used to be, if I was wearing a mask it didn't recognize me and I had to sign in using a PIN. Now a couple of months later (and I haven't recalibrated anything) it logs me in just fine with the mask. Although perhaps they just turned down the sensitivity.
-
One major plus of masks that doesn't get much airtime, they pretty effectively defeat facial recognition.
Well, otoh, I've noted I can make snide faces at annoying people and not be noticed. >:D :lol: ..... [tinfoil]
-
https://twitter.com/MaybeAmes/status/1277967977510404096
-
https://twitter.com/MaybeAmes/status/1277967977510404096
"not providing perfect pertection"
Yep, we already covered that. see previous page on filtration effectivness percentages for dual layer cloth masks.
"People touch their faces....can get schmutz inside"
Yep, we covered not being outsmarted by the mask. Honestly, I'm at the point where if someone wears a mask wrong, doesn't wash it, or rubs their face with unwashed hands, get *expletive deleted*ed; Stay *expletive deleted*ed. that person sucks at adulting.
"right now people in the US shouldn't walk around with masks"
hmmm..[googles "fauci 60 minutes interview] that was March 8th, 2020. I wonder if anything at all in the US has changed in the last 7 months? Perhaps Dr. Fauci has updated his thoughts?
Ah Here it is, on April 3rd:
So, even though the perfect solution to this is if everyone at all times could stay six feet separated from another person, but, as you correctly mentioned, this is not always feasible. There are times when you have to do necessary functions.
You have to get food. You have to get drugs from the pharmacy. And you might inadvertently be in a situation where you're close enough where that kind of transmission can take place.
And, importantly, I think what people don't fully appreciate is that putting a mask on yourself is more to prevent you from infecting someone else. And if everybody does that, we're each protecting each other, because the data is, it's more efficient to prevent transmitting to others than it is to prevent transmission to yourself.
But you can completely cover that ballpark if, essentially, universally, when people go out and are in a situation where they might come into closer contact, that they wear that mask.
So what point were you trying to make by sharing that twitter post, Ron?
-
I don't know why there's so much interest in whether masks work, but so little interest in whether requiring masks for people who don't want them actually works. Given so many people wear them under their nose or chin, or constantly move them up and down, I'm very skeptical there's any public health benefit to a mask mandate, instead of just encouraging or normalizing masks.
That is similar to what I recently heard discussed. Masks work in hospitals because they have the right masks with the right materials and they are trained in their use. Requiring masks for everyone means people are encouraged to wear anything, they wear dirty masks, and they end up touching their face even more than if they wore no mask.
It is funny that the mask nazis start arguments with people for not wearing masks are putting themselves at more risk.
-
"not providing perfect pertection"
Yep, we already covered that. see previous page on filtration effectivness percentages for dual layer cloth masks.
"People touch their faces....can get schmutz inside"
Yep, we covered not being outsmarted by the mask. Honestly, I'm at the point where if someone wears a mask wrong, doesn't wash it, or rubs their face with unwashed hands, get *expletive deleted*ed; Stay *expletive deleted*ed. that person sucks at adulting.
"right now people in the US shouldn't walk around with masks"
hmmm..[googles "fauci 60 minutes interview] that was March 8th, 2020. I wonder if anything at all in the US has changed in the last 7 months? Perhaps Dr. Fauci has updated his thoughts?
Ah Here it is, on April 3rd:
So what point were you trying to make by sharing that twitter post, Ron?
Dr. Fauci also said people should not wear masks. From what I heard, it was because he knew people wouldn't follow all the rules for masks and it might be worse than not using one.
-
I will freely admit I wear the mask wrong. Because it's stupid and a tyrannical exercise of power that I must bow to because I'd like to buy food AND I'd rather not hassle the poor workers who have been forced to be enforcers for the state's edicts.
This disease isn't that bad. This isn't the Andromeda strain like so many of my wife's millennial friends believe.1
FURTHER, I haven't seen any information about asymptomatic transmission in some time. IF you are supposed to stay home when you are sick, then the masks are only there for asymptomatic transmission. What is the likelihood of an asymptomatic carrier passing the disease? (Not the virus (SARS-CoV-2), as we seem to be measuring, but actually passing the disease (COVID-19)). That's rather important, but no one is reporting what the chances of passing it asymptomatically are.2
IF, instead, this is about people going out while sick and we're just making EVERYONE wear masks because we don't want the sick people to feel like they are singled out, then that is exactly the kind of stupid philosophy the liberals have taught in schools RATHER THAN something actually beneficial.
HOW ABOUT we insist people with any symptoms wear masks and let the rest of the people go about their business normally? Also stop making children wear masks when it has been known worldwide and shown REPEATEDLY even in this country that they are neither at risk for the disease nor vectors for it.
But, nope. Even children are forced to wear masks under the orders of our arbitrary and capricious leaders.
1: Seriously, one told his roommates that they have "HIS BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS" if they go out. He's in his 30s and otherwise healthy, but is certain the Wuhan coronavirus is going to kill him.
2: Maybe I'm just missing it, but this was something greatly discussed at the beginning of the pandemic that, like death rate, seems to just have been dropped from the reporting...
-
1 - The mask is not going to protect you from getting Covid-19.
2 - The mask isn't going to keep you from spreading Covid-19.
3 - During this "pandemic" masks have had nearly an unidentifiable impact on the spread of the virus.
As Dr. Fauci alludes to, there is the possibility that a mask may lower the viral load exhaled or inhaled if all the folks in the room are wearing their masks properly.
Don't get me started on the foolishness of wearing masks outside in the fresh air and sunshine.
Has there been any conformation of infection from surfaces anywhere? I'm sort of burnt out on the subject so I haven't kept entirely up to date.
Mostly I'll read an article if it has a unique take or offers something more than the party line boilerplate.
I posted the video because what he says was the accepted wisdom up until the politicization of the whole Covid 19 panic and mass delusion.
-
Dr. Fauci also said people should not wear masks. From what I heard, it was because he knew people wouldn't follow all the rules for masks and it might be worse than not using one.
It was because there was a shortage of masks and they didn't want the unwashed masses to hoard them all and make medical professionals fall short.
In other words it was a LIE.
Understandable, perhaps, but I remain unimpressed.
-
1 - The mask is not going to protect you from getting Covid-19.
2 - The mask isn't going to keep you from spreading Covid-19.
3 - During this "pandemic" masks have had nearly an unidentifiable impact on the spread of the virus.
As Dr. Fauci alludes to, there is the possibility that a mask may lower the viral load exhaled or inhaled if all the folks in the room are wearing their masks properly.
Don't get me started on the foolishness of wearing masks outside in the fresh air and sunshine.
Has there been any conformation of infection from surfaces anywhere? I'm sort of burnt out on the subject so I haven't kept entirely up to date.
Mostly I'll read an article if it has a unique take or offers something more than the party line boilerplate.
I posted the video because what he says was the accepted wisdom up until the politicization of the whole Covid 19 panic and mass delusion.
Item 1 and 2 are untrue, and refuted by the web page YOU posted in the OP. A mask may do either of those things not 100%, but not 0% either.
Item 3 harder to isolate because countries and localities that succeeded in enforcing mask mandates also did other things to slow the spread, but at minimum they are measurably correlated.
I agree with you on masks outside. They are PPE for when you need to be in proximity to other people.
If you have a problem with the social engineering part of mask mandates, that's a reasonable discussion. If you think executive branches exceeded their authority all over the country in mandating masks (and other things) without legislative input, I agree with you. If you think most people don't wear masks correctly and that limits their widespread usefulness, I also agree with you.
But to argue that correctly worn masks are ineffective PPE against spread of droplet borne diseases is just ignorant. There's no other word for it. Stupefyingly ignorant.
-
But to argue that correctly worn masks are ineffective PPE against spread of droplet borne diseases is just ignorant. There's no other word for it. Stupefyingly ignorant.
I'll argue that it is ineffective in fighting the disease, IF asymptomatic people don't spread the disease. These masks are more effective at preventing the wearer from spreading the disease than from preventing the wearer from acquiring the disease.
As such, it's arbitrary and capricious to force asymptomatic people to wear the masks if they aren't spreading the disease.
FURTHER, it's prolonging the spread to prevent healthy people from catching this disease and building herd immunity.
(See e.g. Sweden vs France right now.)
(And all this is ignoring the other stupid, harmful, counterproductive, and deadly consequences of this and other government ham-handedness.)
-
FURTHER, it's prolonging the spread to prevent healthy people from catching this disease and building herd immunity.
(See e.g. Sweden vs France right now.)
I'm not sure what you're seeing, but the Johns Hopkins graphs are showing 2nd wave case rates in both those countries starting around 1 Sep. Raw numbers of Sweden's are lower, of course, but it is both a much smaller population, and much less dense.
France looks to be getting hit worse, but there's just from case rates in Sweden there's no evidence of any herd immunity. If anything the case rates are climbing faster than they did for the first bout.
ETA: While reading several articles about Sweden and it's strategy I find several versions of this quote:
"Our strategy has been consistent and sustainable. We probably have a lower risk of spread here compared to other countries," said Jonas Ludvigsson, professor of epidemiology at Karolinska Institutet, adding that Sweden likely had a higher level of immunity in the population than most countries.
"I think we benefit a lot from that now," he said.
Straying from the approach taken by the rest of Europe, and perhaps the world, Sweden avoided a lockdown and instead emphasized personal responsibility, social distancing and good hygiene in a bid to slow rather than eradicate a disease deemed here to stay.
This is more a sociology statement then one strictly COVID related, but that seems a strategy you can really only do in a mostly heterogenous society with high social trust. I think it's also worth remembering that the appropriate pandemic strategy needs to be tailored to the population it's aimed at. I said all summer that national, and even state mandates in the US were stupid, as what is good and needed for public health in NYC, might be stupidly smothering in Bumfuck, Upstate. I really think the biggest issue with the US response to COVID has been trying to have static, blanket responses for huge populations, instead of letting the local government do what their town needed, and have the states and feds back them up with resources. In that, Mak is spot on with his "arbitrary and capricious" comment.
-
I'm not sure what you're seeing, but the Johns Hopkins graphs are showing 2nd wave case rates in both those countries starting around 1 Sep. Raw numbers of Sweden's are lower, of course, but it is both a much smaller population, and much less dense.
France looks to be getting hit worse, but there's just from case rates in Sweden there's no evidence of any herd immunity. If anything the case rates are climbing faster than they did for the first bout.
Sweden has had 60 deaths in the past month from Covid.
France, 1587.
Sweden popolation ~ 10M
France population ~ 65M
I think 1500 is a little more than 6 times 60.
-
.....Right....which is why I said that France looked to be getting hit worse...
If you look at Sweden's case count for May-Jul (first wave-ish) and the case trend for Sep (start of second wave ish) they are pretty similar, except the case count is climbing faster now than it did last Spring, which is not indicative of a large immune population.
Also I added stuff to my last post, and we cross posted.
-
Anyone know where I can get an N95 mask similar to this. I want to wear what the professionals wear.
(https://media.wzzm13.com/assets/WZZM/images/eb4e70ae-fdf6-47c1-9a9e-fd02c4fb4e8c/eb4e70ae-fdf6-47c1-9a9e-fd02c4fb4e8c_750x422.jpg)
-
Anyone know where I can get an N95 mask similar to this. I want to wear what the professionals wear.
(https://media.wzzm13.com/assets/WZZM/images/eb4e70ae-fdf6-47c1-9a9e-fd02c4fb4e8c/eb4e70ae-fdf6-47c1-9a9e-fd02c4fb4e8c_750x422.jpg)
That one only works when the cameras are on.
-
I am sick of it.
Just another excuse for some *expletive deleted*ck wad to get in your face over something. Claiming that that some else's failure to wear a mask puts them at risk is utter bullshit. So they are OK with the half ass bandanna's and nose free surgical masks and all the other BS, and OK with wearing the same damn one for days, at the end of a freaking virus that amounts to a piss in the wind? *expletive deleted*ck that. The all cause death rate now is dropping below the norm.
It's BS start to finish for the purposes of enabling one person to get off on telling another person what to do.
I think this entire thing was basically a political tool for the marxists. Just like climate change , or any other emergency of the week- a tool, designed to leverage submission. It was all propaganda. The great con.
Safety sucks. It has been the mantra to steal our freedoms for years, and they finally figured out people are so indoctrinated to safety first they will happily toss their rights in the dumpster for an illusion.
-
Item 1 and 2 are untrue, and refuted by the web page YOU posted in the OP. A mask may do either of those things not 100%, but not 0% either.
Item 3 harder to isolate because countries and localities that succeeded in enforcing mask mandates also did other things to slow the spread, but at minimum they are measurably correlated.
I agree with you on masks outside. They are PPE for when you need to be in proximity to other people.
If you have a problem with the social engineering part of mask mandates, that's a reasonable discussion. If you think executive branches exceeded their authority all over the country in mandating masks (and other things) without legislative input, I agree with you. If you think most people don't wear masks correctly and that limits their widespread usefulness, I also agree with you.
But to argue that correctly worn masks are ineffective PPE against spread of droplet borne diseases is just ignorant. There's no other word for it. Stupefyingly ignorant.
Read the linked article in Ron's post #1. The article (I am not endorsing it) leads me to believe masks have highly questionable utility. It seems authoritative .... to me .....
I am not claiming, for MY part, masks are useless. I tend to think their effectiveness may be more "macro" level than individual level.
Other information I've heard regarding Sweden indicates a @200 infection rate per day. They may be into wave #2 but they're doing much better than European countries and haven't trashed their economy like those countries .... and the U. S. A.
We didn't shut down during the Spanish Flu like we did for covid19. I think it was a horrible mistake .... but we're stuck with it and the consequences ..... and hopefully learn from it (though I fear we will not.).
-
There is plenty of research out there that the mask mandators can cherry pick to support their demands.
Everyone can go to PubMed and find something to support their position ;)
-
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
"The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?"
-
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
"The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?"
Did you read the article? It's an opinion piece by it's very construction. So many qualifiers and appeals to (some) authorities that it really isn't a scientific article.
It certainly didn't make the case as definitively as the lead states. In fact the article admits the data is messy and confusing as it falls back on the argument that some authorities think masks should help. The worst case scenario is these authorities think masks should lower the viral load you're exposed to if you are around someone who is shedding the virus.
I'm actually beginning to think the mask debate is a distraction to keep other facets of this whole debacle from being discussed.
Every aspect of this has been politicized and like so many of the other big events, particularly in the USA, there is so much conflicting information and cognitive dissonance being propagated that I don't blame folks for being skeptical.
It boils down to folks listening to the authorities who are saying "seriously, we're not lying this time, we're really not full of *expletive deleted*it on this one".
The precautionary principle and fear is all that is keeping the mask mania going.
-
Did you read the article? It's an opinion piece by it's very construction. So many qualifiers and appeals to (some) authorities that it really isn't a scientific article.
Of course it isn't. It is a news feature rather than a peer-reviewed paper. Nature publishes both, but this is a news article. It says that at the very top of the page.
-
It doesn't really matter how effective the masks are1, what they are is UNNECESSARY for the vast majority of people.
I will note the opinion article2 makes no note of asymptomatic transmission.
It also doesn't talk about the fact that this disease is less deadly than the flu for people under the age of 40. (Probably 50-55, even, but I'll be conservative.)
If we aren't forcing people to walk around in masks for the flu season3 then we need to tell the vast majority of people- the young, healthy people- to stop living in fear and go back to normal. Not the "new normal", just normal.
If you're at risk, THEN adjust your life. We need to stop killing more people with the cure than the disease.
1: Going about my business I'm going to say "not very effective" given the how that vast majority of them are worn.
2: AND it's from NATURE which has made it's ideological stance well known. It's a "BELIEVE IN SCIENCE!!1!!!1" publication, not a science publication.
3: and forcing children to learn from home during the flu season since the flu killed 188 under age 17 last year and the Wuhan disease has killed 77 under age 15. (The CDC is lumping all ages 15-24 together, and I'm betting there's a reason they aren't using the same methodology as for the flu.)
-
Masks:
Effective? Yeah, OK, sure, if worn correctly.
Reasonable for people to wear in public, indoor spaces? Perhaps.
Is it reasonable to require them? No. Go pound sand.
-
I've had a revelation while talking to my wife about the Speaker of the House continually touching and readjusting her mask.
The masks are all theatre, and most people are aware of it.
IF this was an actually deadly disease, people would make a point of using the masks correctly. Masks would then be effective against diseases that pose an actual danger.
BECAUSE this disease isn't all that deadly and BECAUSE people can tell it's not a big deal1, they follow the rules, but they don't actually keep the mask on right.
Watch the crazy mask nazis who are always touching and pulling and rearranging their masks. It's for SHOW not protection. Our "elites" prove this every day.
This is, of course, not only pointless and tyrannical, it makes it less likely people will take proper precautions if an actually dangerous disease comes along. They'll have been trained that haphazard, useless masks are what will work. It's counterproductive.
1: Most people, that is. I've mentioned before about the crazy millennials who think this is going to kill them.
-
Something I found interesting is Germany. They were doing "better" than most other countries, and during the big panic, my relatives told me they were pretty strictly locked down with strong restrictions. They started opening back up, and now there is a resurgence in cases. Which kinda makes sense from the "you can't hide forever" side. Eventually people start interacting again, and then things spread again.
I watch German news a few times a week, and yesterday I saw a clip from parliament where there was little social distancing and almost no one was wearing masks. Same with "man on the street" segments. In most of the shots, hardly anyone is wearing a mask, even in crowds.
-
Something I found interesting is Germany. They were doing "better" than most other countries, and during the big panic, my relatives told me they were pretty strictly locked down with strong restrictions. They started opening back up, and now there is a resurgence in cases. Which kinda makes sense from the "you can't hide forever" side. Eventually people start interacting again, and then things spread again.
I watch German news a few times a week, and yesterday I saw a clip from parliament where there was little social distancing and almost no one was wearing masks. Same with "man on the street" segments. In most of the shots, hardly anyone is wearing a mask, even in crowds.
How did the Munich Oktoberfest go this year, any idea?
-
How did the Munich Oktoberfest go this year, any idea?
I haven't looked. When I talk to a cousin in the next couple of days, I'll check.
-
So the no masks in Germany makes me think there must be no legal requirements to do so. If there were, I would expect to see much higher numbers of people wearing masks.
-
(https://www.glamisdunes.com/invision/uploads/monthly_2020_10/121187066_10217956464451788_3049508252300425989_n.jpg.e4421a853179b479ab0696c235912ca6.jpg)
-
That was funny ! Tragifunny, but funny nonetheless.
-
If your mask is covered with the virus, doesn't that mean that your face, hair, and clothing are also covered? So even if you properly use the mask, remove it properly, and disinfect your hands, your hands will then pick up virus from other parts of your person. I guess a person could strip down and decontaminate before entering the house.
-
If your mask is covered with the virus, doesn't that mean that your face, hair, and clothing are also covered? So even if you properly use the mask, remove it properly, and disinfect your hands, your hands will then pick up virus from other parts of your person. I guess a person could strip down and decontaminate before entering the house.
I did that when i was visiting my parents in March and was trapped there for much of April. I didn't strip outside (I could, they are in the country) just took my shoes off, but I went straight to the bathroom and showered with clean clothes waiting. Then carefully carried the old clothes to the washing machine, then washed my hand and forearms again. I only left the property about once a week to goto Walmart during the 6:00AM senior hour and then to the post office.
I'm not being near that careful now that I'm back home and just have to worry about myself and Wife.