Mask vs Corona virus. Wear or Not.

[AccessBlaster]

It is harder to prevent heart disease and cancer, since they are not infectious. I've yet to hear of heart disease transmission!

I heard an argument on the radio yesterday saying that there is tons of pneumonia but we don't shut things down because of that. But they don't realise that pneumonia is not infectious.

Even with covid-19 high infection rates it's still no match for cancer or heart disease. Everyday we get closer to a vaccine for covid yet the high numbers for other deaths are virtually ignored.

 

[Jon]

I'm unclear on where you are going with this one. Do you mean Covid gets too much attention because more people are dying of cancer and heart disease? And that you think there shouldn't be a lock down because more are dying of cancer and heart disease?

 

[AccessBlaster]

I'm unclear on where you are going with this one. Do you mean Covid gets too much attention because more people are dying of cancer and heart disease? And that you think there shouldn't be a lock down because more are dying of cancer and heart disease?

Threat assessment what's more likely to take you out? The numbers say heart disease and cancer. Most people will not get covid, and if they do there is a very good chance you will survive. For me it about balance in your life, I don't take unnecessary risks with covid but I am not huddled in my house fearing every encounter with humans.

 

[Jon]

Aren't you comparing avoidable with unavoidable things? You don't have a great deal of say in cancer, for example. It is luck of the draw. Yet you can take concrete steps to reduce your risk of catching Covid. But that is only one half of the equation.

You don't risk spreading your heart disease and cancer to other people. You do if you catch Covid. You become part of the domino effect, potentially leading to the death of thousands of people. If you infect a person, they may infect 2, those 2 infect 4 and so on.

In essence, you become a danger to other members of society.

 

[Steve R.]

Alex Berenson: Media doesn't want to 'cover anything that says masks may not be God's gift to all of us'​

Tucker Carlson: The cult of mask-wearing grows, with no evidence they work​

Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns: Part 1: Introduction and Death Counts and Estimates​

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

This BBC article:-

BBC News - Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection'

Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection'

This is likely to mean immunity levels decline and raises the risk of reinfection, researchers say.

www.bbc.co.uk

states that the level of antibodies in health workers remains at a high level indicating that constant exposure to the virus has a beneficial effect.

 

[Jon]

@Steve R. Let explain why I think the references that Tucker Carlson provides argue FOR mask usage, not AGAINST. I generally like Tucker but this article is just nonsense.

The Tucker Carlson link above uses this evidence in-part that masks are pointless:

But this is precisely what I have been going on about earlier in this thread. Look at the date of that tweet. If masks don't work, then why say the healthcare workers are at risk if they can't get these things that don't work? It was said just to stop a shortage for them, because they do believe they work. They just lied to us.

The article also says:

A year later, a study found that compulsory mask use likely had no effect on curbing the Spanish flu.

This was a study back in the early 1900's, where scientific knowledge was very limited. We didn't even have Penicillin back then! But anyway, I think I found the study he is referring to. It states this:

In 1919, Wilfred Kellogg’s study for the California State Board of Health concluded that mask ordinances “applied forcibly to entire communities” did not decrease cases and deaths, as confirmed by comparisons of cities with widely divergent policies on masking. Masks were used most frequently out in public, where they were least effective, whereas masks were removed when people went inside to work or socialize, where they were most likely to be infected. Kellogg found the evidence persuasive: “The case against the mask as a measure of compulsory application for the control of epidemics appears to be complete.”

So, the argument was that masks weren't effective because they weren't used indoors, which is why it is recommended, or in the UK a legal requirement, to wear a mask if going into a shop. Tucker wants to say it is because the masks don't work. But the study clearly states that it is because they were not used where you needed them the most, indoors.

I also found this from the original study:

Source: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&view=1up&seq=17

So the majority of masks were a coarse-mesh gauze. Now those would be like a chain link fence!

Lets look at another study quote used in Tucker's article:

A new study conducted by 11 medical institutions analyzed a group of people who tested positive for COVID during the month of July. Here's the interesting part: Among those who were infected, more than 70% reported they had "always" worn a mask for the preceding 14 days. Another 14.4% said they had "often" worn a mask.

So I had a look at the article. This article also said this:

Adults with confirmed COVID-19 (case-patients) were approximately twice as likely as were control-participants to have reported dining at a restaurant in the 14 days before becoming ill.

They go on to explain that when eating in a restaurant, you cannot maintain mask use. Here is one quote from the article:

Exposures and activities where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, including going to places that offer on-site eating or drinking, might be important risk factors for acquiring COVID-19.

So in fact the article is stating that there is a high correlation between being in a situation where you cannot use a mask effectively, vs not being in that situation. They are specifically arguing that if you cannot maintain mask use, it might be an important risk factor for getting Covid.

Now for the other article quote:

According to a letter signed by several researchers earlier this month in Science magazine, the biggest threat from the coronavirus by far is what is contained in small particles that can easily bypass facemasks in aerosol form. Droplets quickly fall to the ground, but aerosol lingers.

But the article says this:

Thus, one is far more likely to inhale aerosols than be sprayed by a droplet (7), and so the balance of attention must be shifted to protecting against airborne transmission. In addition to existing mandates of mask-wearing, social distancing, and hygiene efforts, we urge public health officials to add clear guidance about the importance of moving activities outdoors, improving indoor air using ventilation and filtration, and improving protection for high-risk workers (8).

I bolded the part which says "In addition to existing mandates of mask-wearing." So they are not suggesting you don't wear a mask, but that you maintain mask usage. The opposite of what Tucker's article is trying to imply. They say the balance of attention must be shifted to protecting against airborne transmission. i.e. masks!

Some may say want to quote the part where Tucker says it can "easily bypass facemasks in aerosol form", but all I can see from there is:

Viruses in aerosols (smaller than 100 µm) can remain suspended in the air for many seconds to hours, like smoke, and be inhaled. They are highly concentrated near an infected person, so they can infect people most easily in close proximity.

There is no mention of them wearing a mask in that close proximity.

That is the danger when you backward rationalise stuff. You don't want to wear a mask, so you try to find evidence that supports your view. Then you blind yourself to the misrepresentation of the facts given forth by the media.

Most of the articles used to bolster the viewpoint that mask wearing is futile, are actually arguing the opposite. Just go read them.

 

[Steve R.]

There is a mask "intersection" between how the Biden campaign proposes to restrain the virus in the US and what is happening in Europe. According to Laura Ingraham in the article/video below, Europe has already "adopted" the Biden proposals of forced mask wearing, contact tracing, etc. Yet Europe is now seeing a spike in cases. An indirect conclusion from Ingraham's monologue is that mask wearing may not be as effective as the experts claim. Of course, the case can still be made that wearing a mask still provides some benefit. So it is better than nothing. But we also must not fall into the trap of taking extreme one sided draconian measures to fight one problem that creates other problems (unemployment, deferred medical treatment of other diseases, etc.) There is no such thing as 100% safety.

Ingraham: 'COVID is Biden's true running mate' as Democrats push 'the virus panic button'​

As for Biden's coronavirus proposals, the host said "the notion that a national mandate will make any difference on COVID is a ludicrous distraction from reality.

"They have taken all the measures in Europe that Biden's experts are pushing, like extended lockdown. Guess what's happening now in the EU? France mandated masks ... [has] widespread contact tracing, and now? Record number of new cases in France."

 

[Jon]

Europe is seeing a spike in cases not because of mask usage, but because the conditions for spread are now in the "flu season." It happens every year. Masks aren't the cause, flu season is. I would also add that the fatigue people have in keeping to the rules lead to more people breaking rules and so more viral spread.

The experts are not claiming masks are 100% effective. Rather, that mask usage will reduce the coefficient of spread and is therefore likely to save potentially millions of lives. Its just simple maths.

Take a viral coefficient of 2.8, which is an approximation for Covid, where 1 person will infect 2.8 other people. Now compound that number up 20 times. Then take 2.5 compounded 20 times. The two numbers will be very different. A small reduction in the viral coefficient from 2.8 to 2.5, for example, can save many lives.

Example:

2.8 to power of 20 = 877,325,246

2.5 to power of 20 = 90,949,470

A difference of nearly 800 million fewer deaths, with a slight reduction in the transmission rate.

 

[kevlray]

I normally wear a mask out in public and use the hand sanitizers at work. I try to remember to wash my hands often (especially after shopping). No COVID yet. Also did not get the flu this past year.

 

[Vassago]

The point is to lessen exposure to prevent the healthcare industry from being overwhelmed. This is to prevent a higher death percentage not just from this virus, but from all the other health conditions mentioned here including heart disease and cancer. When hospitals have to start rationing healthcare, more people die all around. Unfortunately, this is where things are heading for many cities in the US as we are seeing record infections and hospitalizations because people are stupid and selfish here.

Constant exposure doesn't help keep immunity up. That's just ignorant on how infections work. Why don't they just go ahead and keep some on hand to breathe in every day, let's see how that works out for them. Immune systems can easily be overwhelmed, especially now that we are entering flu season across the Northern Hemisphere. Secondary infections are going to wreak havoc for those already at risk with Covid.

 

[NauticalGent]

I like Trump, even with all his faults he has something which I cannot define.

I have the same "affliction". I think it is because his existence pisses off ALL the right people (Congress, both parties)!

His presidency is very similar to, IMHO, the last great POTUS: Andrew Jackson

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I am told that this year's "senior" flu shot includes a component of a prior corona-based flu, though I don't recall which one. I got that during my most recent doctor visit a couple of weeks ago. Left my shoulder sore as heck because it was a strong dose, but at least I have some limited protection. (At least, I've read something to that effect.) It won't stop me from wearing a mask, but it is a source of some relief.

 

[AccessBlaster]

am told that this year's "senior" flu shot includes a component of a prior corona-based flu,

@The_Doc_Man did they say you can take a vaccine if one becomes available? I heard you shouldn't take both.

 

[pbaldy]

My wife got the senior shot the other day, I got the regular shot (don't quite qualify yet ). The pharmacist said they had the same "viral load", but the senior shot had synthetic antibodies added because some seniors didn't produce enough on their own. He said if you were in generally good health there was probably no advantage to the senior shot.

 

[Steve R.]

Well, today's posts did remind me to schedule my second (and final) vaccination shot for shingles.

 

[Vassago]

We've all been exposed to coronaviruses, just not THE coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

The best way to avoid that classic arm soreness is to completely relax the muscle and not flinch when she jobs it into your shoulder without warning at 200 mph. Good luck!

Really though, I feel your pain. I get the shots annually for two reasons. 1. I had the flu bad enough to catch pneumonia and was such for two months about 15 years ago. Haven't caught it since. 2. The aforementioned family member who is high risk. Kidney transplants and asthma are not a good combo. This is why I'm so fearful of Covid-19. If she is exposed, it's guaranteed to be a hard fight. We don't go anywhere except appointments and for food, unfortunately it's impossible to never leave. I just wish others were as understanding of that. We can't just stay home when she had doctor appointments and we need food to survive.

I think someone talked about masks being dangerous because of CO2 or some BS like that... If a transplant recipient with severe asthma can wear one for 4 hours without issue, you can too. She didn't even need her inhaler the entire time. Mascots west their masks that completely fill with CO2 without issue. CO2 and oxygen molecules can certainly fit through a basic surgical or cloth mask and you breathe in a mix of both with or without a mask. Just stop with that tired argument. It's foolish.

I do want to thank all of you that do care about the health and safety of those around you enough to wear your mask. The butterfly effect that transpires from one person who refuses and is exposed is why we are still stuck in this mess in the US.

 

[pbaldy]

Well, today's posts did remind me to schedule my second (and final) vaccination shot for shingles.

Yeah, I did that one too. My mom got shingles a while back, and it was no fun at all. That was all the motivation I needed to get the shots.

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac, perhaps that is why you and I believe you should not put all your trust in what experts say. If you look to science, Einstein was in disagreement with many of his fellow physicists, and he did not believe in Quantum Mechanics. "God does not play dice with nature." Or something similar.

Experts can disagree on many fundamentals. Just consider the origins of the universe. You cannot get more fundamental than that! Do we have a bubble-verse? Was it always there? Did God create it? Are we all in a simulation instead? Does it expand and then contract, like a pulsing heart (but with a very slow heart-beat!)?

Throw in a bit of fake news and none of us know what to do anymore!

Yes, and my main point to clarify is.....Sure, listen to the experts, BUT don't make a multi-faceted decision based only on the advice of ONE expert...an expert who can only speak to a single facet, just makes no sense. For example, in my screenshot, you would need at least TWO experts to help avoid making an uninformed decision: Covid expert, Addictions expert. (and of course, that's just two ramifications of a decision that really has probably 50)

 

[Isaac]

The problem with people like @Isaac (if I have not misunderstood his logic) who say if 5% goes through then it's not safe,

To remind, this is what I said: (emphasis added now):

If the mask prevents 95% of them, that will have a certain net effect with a billion particles near it trying to get in, and a different net effect if there are 100 particles near it trying to get in.

From what I have read, the consensus among scientists is pretty strong that masks reduce the likelihood of getting infected or it being so severe.

If a mask prevents infection any percent of the time, it means one less person infected at that point in time, which slows the overall spread.

I was actually agreeing that, I personally believe, if fewer particles get to us, then it will probably slow the spread. Good thing.