Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by fisheromen, Jul 16, 2020.
Still afraid? The science:
Until Trump is out of office, Covid will be known as The Greatest Shyt Show On Earth. Did you get your local Covid update yesterday? Funny how yesterday morning Trump was speaking nationally about adding pressure to the states to open up schools to the kids.. then all of a sudden, yesterdays' county Covid update came out with this as its header.. I'll quote..
"Younger San Diegans are getting infected with COVID 19 - and more of them are landing in the hospital."
Coincidence? Uh, no.
First things first, our kid Covid numbers are NOT on the rise and I'm saying this because I'm right in the thick of it.. the headcount for kids with exposure to the virus has gone up DUE TO INSANELY HIGH NUMBERS OF PEOPLE NOW BEING TESTED - over 700K nationwide daily. Kids are not "LANDING" in the hospital.
If people want to remain scared out of their minds, I'm all for them wearing masks, body armor, body condoms, saran wrap, whatever for the rest of their simple lifes. But for me, its just not going to happen so I hope the state wont take my refusal personally.
hookemdano Excuse me, sir. You aren't allowed to be posting anything when it comes to any kind of actual facts when they get in the way of my political agenda, sir. Stop repressing my revolution with science.
ok sorry...but but but...those screen shots came right out of that video
No!! No facts!! Only emotion!! Viva la revolution!!
Well that’s some science anyway.
How about a little truth? From the front line: https://youtu.be/N-XVqbEe3ns. Hope you’ve got a strong stomach. BTW, better hurry before they take it down.
Here's what its like .. so everyone knows..
911 whats your emergency.. Ya hi. I was just in a car accident. (next question should be, "Is anyone hurt?") Instead, the next question (since April) is, "Have you had a fever, cough or muscle aches?" "Well, ya I was out in my float tube yesterday and I'm pretty sore in the legs and knees." And BINGO... You've now had your tutorial into how the wonderful world of Covid19 number-padding works.
Well, the real way the padding is working is that they are testing the same (+) people everyday, and counting it as a (+) case, every day they test them. So they are not actually new cases of the virus. That’s how they can squeeze 4-10 cases out of one person.
Not surprising. Alot of governors F'd up big time scaring the daylights out of their states by coming up with HUGE imaginary affected numbers (CA was projected by its loser governor to see 56% of the state affected). Their careers are on the line, so I can see why they're in full panic mode.
Look at that video if you want to know the depths of the depravity they are sinking to. Caution: could make some people mad! Had some liberal friends actually refuse to watch it.
The Nature study referenced as science that indicates masks are ineffective states the following in the abstract summary at the very front of the paper: “ Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals”
For her talking points they picked elements of the paper and ignored others, including the conclusion. Also the study was conducted 2013-2016 and only included symptomatic patients. Therefore the study can’t be used to come to any conclusion regarding asymptomatic transmission.
The snapshots from the WHO website were from earlier in the same day they changed their guidance and updated their website. (June 5)
Don’t know what day this LI commentary aired.
The paper of the Vietnamese study available on BMJ they picked pieces from without context. The study was of health care workers under long period close contact nor was there a no mask control. I have read the paper. Interesting commentary here including some follow up from the authors of that original paper
This post is not a commentary on the mask topic per se - but rather about manipulation of snippets from papers to make a point that is not the conclusion of the sources. Doesn’t matter whether they lean left, right, up, down, or don’t give a ...
If I had constructed and submitted a paper in one of my science classes the same way the LI commentary is presented I would have got an F.
I prefer to read the actual source material than listen to a talking head. But even the original sources may be affected by bias and influence, hence the peer review system.
Whoever actually put that commentary together could have found better references that actually backed up the conclusion
Everybody is cherry-picking studies and information right now to support their narrative/agenda.
I appreciate you investigating the sources of the report to shed light on this.
Are you aware of any legitimate research that supports the use of the type of face coverings most are using to limit the spread of respiratory viruses? I am not aware of any, and as far as I know, neither are top epidemiologists in the country. Just asking because I like to be informed.
You guys are such badasses for not wearing masks! Don't worry about all those people that will die, they are not badasses like you guys! Maybe for once, have some common courtesy and help protect everyone!
Here is one - but most people aren’t using damp washcloths
And another that addresses stuff similar to what the public wears
And one that associates mask usage with lower mortality in a population. This one also discusses comorbidities
Another preprint that suggests a benefit , but not proof
One interesting bit of empirical evidence is the slowdown of infection of the crew of the USS Theodore Roosevelt. There is a Navy paper on that somewhere.
Also the case of the two hairdressers in MO who were sick. They wore masks as did all of their clients (140). None of the clients got sick. I’m not sure what to make of that
Here is a short read about a mask effectiveness study that had some problems (the study attributed slowdown of cases in NY to masks among other measures.
All interesting reading if you are into that sort of thing.
Note I am not claiming that these papers prove anything. They are a very small set that lead in one direction. There are others that may indicate otherwise.
Maybe someday there will be more definitive answers.
Know where that red/white barber pole came from? “Surgeons” or “Barbers” used to let blood to “cure” people of sickness. Took awhile, like maybe a couple thousand years, to figure out that wasn’t an optimal solution. Science doesn’t move quickly. Well, maybe more quickly than during the Middle Ages.
Here is the main figure to the Nature paper Craig cited. I like these type of direct, experimental-driven studies, rather than correlative epidemiology ones. In this study, researchers had infected participants breathe with or without a surgical mask into a bioaerosol collection device for 30 minutes. Participants were instructed to breath normally, and only cough if they had to. Their data suggests surgical masks are effective in reducing aerosol transmission of coronavirus, and trends to help in reducing droplet transmission, as seen in figure 1a.
The paper has its flaws though. For one, patients were recruited between 2013-2016, and so they tested SARS-COV-1 patients, not SARS-COV-2, however they are about the same size. They also did not test each subject with and without a mask due to time constraints, so it's not a true direct comparison. Perhaps the masked group had lighter breathers? I don't know. They also did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus detected in exhaled breath, but again, wrong corona virus. One interesting finding, however, is that they "identified virus RNA in a small number of participants who did not cough at all during the 30-min exhaled breath collection, which would suggest droplet and aerosol routes of transmission are possible from individuals with no obvious signs or symptoms."
A recent JAMA article came out which I posted in another thread. This paper studied 9850 health care workers at Mass General Brigham from March to April and tracked positivity rates over time, and how they changed with the implementation of surgical mask interventions. "a preintervention period before implementation of universal masking of HCWs (March 1-24, 2020); a transition period until implementation of universal masking of patients (March 25–April 5, 2020) plus an additional lag period to allow for manifestations of symptoms (April 6-10, 2020), as previously defined; and an intervention period (April 11-30, 2020)." Their data suggests that mask wearing is associated with a significantly lower positivity rate.
I'm not the biggest fan of these type of studies because they are associations, not direct cause and effect. The authors note this as well. "The decrease in HCW infections could be confounded by other interventions inside and outside of the health care system, such as restrictions on elective procedures, social distancing measures, and increased masking in public spaces, which are limitations of this study."
Then there's the common sense factor. We wear surgical masks everyday when working in a sterile lab and operating rooms so we don't contaminate our research animals or patients. It's kind of a no brainer.
Cloth masks are a different matter. It appears most of the literature is dated, and compared to N95s and surgicals, not sans cloth mask. However this paper just came out. Filtration Efficiencies of Nanoscale Aerosol by Cloth Mask Materials Used to Slow the Spread of SARS-CoV-2. It's a bunch of physics over my head so maybe someone else can try and explain the intricacies. They did conclude that "Three of the top five best performing samples were woven 100% cotton with high to moderate yarn counts, and the other two were woven synthetics of moderate yarn counts....The results indicate that there is a complex interplay between fabric type, weave, and yarn count and the filtration of nanometer-sized aerosol particles. The best performing cloth materials had moderate yarn counts with visible raised fibers."
Thank you for debunking this fake news