980 replies to this topic

[Hip]

The thing you're not getting here is that yes - people had different attitudes and different actions 60 years ago.
 
But to the extent people acted for "the greater good" they did so because they wanted to. They were not compelled to do so by one of these authoritarian (or authoritarian "lite") governments you're so fond of.

 
I am not sure I buy the view that people in the 1950s acted in a patriotic, more communitarian way for the greater good purely because they wanted to.
 
Rather, I think people back then acted in the way they did because of the culture and the values they were brought up with.
 
I believe it was not an act of spontaneous freewill that created the cooperative behaviour of society in the 1950s; rather this behaviour was created by the values instilled into them by all of the institutions of society — institutions which include the government, but also religions, the law and legal profession, journalism, education at schools and universities, Hollywood, etc. 

 

The backbone and authority of society in the 1950s was strong and strict because all sections of society and all institutions cooperated to deliver a uniform message. In other words, you found Christian moral values reflected in all aspects of society: in government, law, journalism, education and in Hollywood. So this uniform approach inculcated a strong authoritative effect in the minds of the people brought up in that era.

 

This is what I mean when I say that back in the 1950s, society had a strong backbone of authority.

 

By contrast, nowadays the different institutions of society are often at loggerheads, thus creating a weakened message to the people.
 
 

 

This has not been the case in the West for generations now. In fact, the exact opposite has been taught. Commonly in the West, certainly in the US, kids in school are taught that Western civilization is particularly evil. Unusually evil. More evil than the norm in the world.
 
So who on earth would want to act "for the greater good" of a society and a culture that they have been taught since kindergarten is horrible and evil? Is it any surprise that few are interested in being civic minded in a society that they believe to be thoroughly corrupt?

 

I completely agree with you there. The way the left has created a culture of self-hatred for Western people is not good. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 05 October 2023 - 03:56 PM.

[Mind]

More and more people are trying to "change their tune" on the COVID policies they once supported. Some of those who spewed utter hatred at everyone who questioned the COVID policies, who caused people to be fired, who advocated for quarantine and re-education camps, who wished death upon people who didn't want to take the COVID injections, are now asking for forgiveness....lol. 

 

These people should never be allowed any decision-making power over public health policy again. They are clearly not able to function rationally during times of stress.

 

Remember this hate-filled screed. Now that same fellow is asking for "grace". Maybe he is a psychopath. Does anyone believe he won't devolve into tyrannical hatred again in the future?

 

NewYorker Magazine (2.5 years too late) now says the COVID policies were a giant experiment and a failure. This has been obvious for a long time!! Not one of the COVID policies put even the slightest dent in the spread of COVID around the world, and it really wasn't an (innocent) experiment. It was a classic example of power corrupting authority. US health bureaucrats from national down to local levels got drunk on power and could not be stopped from threatening and terrorizing the population with useless pandemic policies. The CDC and various organizations around the world had studied pandemic prevention for decades and found that masks, contact tracing, lockdowns, etc... would not be effective policies, yet during the COVID panic, all of the solid science went out the window.

 

 

Edited by Mind, 01 November 2023 - 09:35 PM.

[Florin]

Somehow, you know that a pandemic with a 50% death rate (for all age groups) will start one year from today. What's your policy going to be?

[Daniel Cooper]

Somehow, you know that a pandemic with a 50% death rate (for all age groups) will start one year from today. What's your policy going to be?

 

Well respirators of course!

 

But ...

 

You do realize that a pandemic with a 50% death rate would pretty much cause a global civilizational collapse, right?

 

Half the farmers are dead. Grocery stores are empty. Half the people that keep the electrical grid, water and natural gas infrastructure running are dead and all of that either goes down completely over time or becomes extremely intermittent.

 

The people maintaining the oil wells and refineries are also half gone. Don't plan on visiting a gas station and finding anything for sale there. 

 

In other words, in addition to your respirators you'll want:

 

Access to a supply of natural water (springs, rivers, etc.) and a way to filter and sanitize it.

 

You'll want to have some sort of garden and some way to preserve food for the winter. So depending on the size of your family maybe a half to a full acre of land for a large family. For a single person maybe a quarter acre.

 

Some way to keep your dwelling above freezing during the winter.

 

And you'll probably need some form of personal self defense and the knowledge and willingness to use it since there will be roving gangs of people that are looking to take those above items away from anyone that has them.

 

Living in a major city would definitely become problematic.

 

A 50% death rate pandemic will completely upend society for the 50% that didn't succumb to the virus. So plan on a decent percentage of those people that are left also dying from dehydration, starvation, exposure, and predation.

 

Surviving a pandemic that kills on the scale you're talking about goes way beyond just not getting taken out by the virus.

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 31 October 2023 - 09:06 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Somehow, you know that a pandemic with a 50% death rate (for all age groups) will start one year from today. What's your policy going to be?

 

I'd take hydroxychloroquine, which would either protect me, or (if you believe the narrative) cause instant death from torsades de pointes.  

[joesixpack]

I'd take hydroxychloroquine, which would either protect me, or (if you believe the narrative) cause instant death from torsades de pointes.  

 

Well that was the reason the EUA to use it for Covid was revoked. 

 

Here is an August, 2023 study that gives it a pretty good report, will being politically correct on Covid use. The heart issue seems to be minor. I would take it with Ivermectin, at a lower dose for protection.

Edited by joesixpack, 01 November 2023 - 12:24 AM.

[Florin]

Well respirators of course!

 

But ...

 

You do realize that a pandemic with a 50% death rate would pretty much cause a global civilizational collapse, right?

 

I meant a 50% death rate if nothing was done about it. So, what's your policy to prevent that amount of death going to be? Respirators for everyone? China-style lockdowns (with a lottery for forced essential work) until effective therapeutics are developed and distributed? If the respirator solution is ignored, the only alternative will be strict lockdowns with draconian enforcement.

[joesixpack]

I meant a 50% death rate if nothing was done about it. So, what's your policy to prevent that amount of death going to be? Respirators for everyone? China-style lockdowns (with a lottery for forced essential work) until effective therapeutics are developed and distributed? If the respirator solution is ignored, the only alternative will be strict lockdowns with draconian enforcement.

 

I thought masks were helpful in buildings. I don't think they are necessary outdoors. I don't think respirators are necessary, unless you include N 95 masks as respirators. I wore those for short periods of time in public buildings.

[Florin]

I thought masks were helpful in buildings. I don't think they are necessary outdoors. I don't think respirators are necessary, unless you include N 95 masks as respirators. I wore those for short periods of time in public buildings.

 

Respirators would be necessary only indoors to allow anyone (not just essential workers) to engage in normal activity without time limits or social distancing. Disposable N95s are certainly respirators but other kinds of respirators would be a lot better.

 

The problem is that there isn't any significant advocacy (AFAIK) for having everyone prepped with these things.

[Daniel Cooper]

I meant a 50% death rate if nothing was done about it. So, what's your policy to prevent that amount of death going to be? Respirators for everyone? China-style lockdowns (with a lottery for forced essential work) until effective therapeutics are developed and distributed? If the respirator solution is ignored, the only alternative will be strict lockdowns with draconian enforcement.

 

I'm still sticking with my original answer.

 

Because here's the reality - the chances that you're going to have enough of your elaborate respirators pre-placed ready and waiting for the day when your 50% death rate pandemic shows up is nil. It's not going to happen.

 

You're talking about a pandemic with a death rate approaching that of the bubonic plague.

 

So aside from preparing for the apocalypse, you might want to start working on some really good broad spectrum  anti-virals. Because if you think about it, there's a reason we don't worry much about the bubonic plague anymore - antibiotics. We've had since the middle of the last century effective drugs that stop bacterial infections.

 

Now, I'm sure you're about to say - "But my respirators will work at least as good as any antiviral if used properly". And you're probably right about that.

 

But here's the thing - your respirators are going to sit unused doing nothing waiting for the day when this speculative pandemic might show up. There was about 100 years between the last two major pandemics - covid-19 which arrived in 2019 of course, and the Spanish Flu of 1917.

 

Is it really a good idea to put all this sunk cost into something that might sit around for 100 years waiting to be used. And will they even be functional after laying around for a century? Half a century? Very probably not.

 

Because here's the thing - any way you slice it your respirators are a bit of a pain in the ass to use. So, no one's going to break these things out and use them unless it's a pretty serious pandemic. Let's say at least a covid-19 level pandemic which appears to be roughly a once in a century event.

 

But, good broad spectrum antivirals - that's something that would have widespread and continual use just as antibiotics do today. So it's not sunk cost just sitting there waiting for the day it might be used.

 

No, the only thing I see that makes your respirators viable is if the Chinese keep doing gain of function research on viruses and maybe what is naturally a once in a century event becomes a once in 5 year event.

 

Fingers crossed eh?

[Florin]

Because here's the reality - the chances that you're going to have enough of your elaborate respirators pre-placed ready and waiting for the day when your 50% death rate pandemic shows up is nil. It's not going to happen.

I'm not so sure. Some govs are probably already stockpiling them for at least health care workers, and it wouldn't be a stretch to have the stockpiles cover everyone. Another solution might be to encourage or require everyone to have a personal stockpile of respirators in order to avoid distribution issues at the start of pandemics.
 

So aside from preparing for the apocalypse, you might want to start working on some really good broad spectrum  anti-virals. Because if you think about it, there's a reason we don't worry much about the bubonic plague anymore - antibiotics. We've had since the middle of the last century effective drugs that stop bacterial infections.
 
Now, I'm sure you're about to say - "But my respirators will work at least as good as any antiviral if used properly". And you're probably right about that.
 
But here's the thing - your respirators are going to sit unused doing nothing waiting for the day when this speculative pandemic might show up. There was about 100 years between the last two major pandemics - covid-19 which arrived in 2019 of course, and the Spanish Flu of 1917.
 
Is it really a good idea to put all this sunk cost into something that might sit around for 100 years waiting to be used. And will they even be functional after laying around for a century? Half a century? Very probably not.

Because here's the thing - any way you slice it your respirators are a bit of a pain in the ass to use. So, no one's going to break these things out and use them unless it's a pretty serious pandemic. Let's say at least a covid-19 level pandemic which appears to be roughly a once in a century event.
 
But, good broad spectrum antivirals - that's something that would have widespread and continual use just as antibiotics do today. So it's not sunk cost just sitting there waiting for the day it might be used.
 
No, the only thing I see that makes your respirators viable is if the Chinese keep doing gain of function research on viruses and maybe what is naturally a once in a century event becomes a once in 5 year event.

 

Even if gain of function research at government or industrial research labs became illegal tomorrow, any private group or individual will eventually be able to start a pandemic. This will probably happen fairly soon.
 
There's no guarantee broad-spectrum antivirals or any or kind of biotech solution will work against all civilization-ending pandemics, and that's why I'd like an insurance policy (respirators or whatever) that's guaranteed to work. I don't want the same mistake (over-reliance on therapeutics) to be repeated.
 
I don't think there's any big comfort issues with PAPRs, and if there was, I'm sure PAPRs (and other kinds of respirators) could be redesigned to make them comfortable enough.
 
Another approach (which I also mentioned before) is automation and VR (which would make social distancing tolerable), but I'm not sure if this strategy will be ready before engineered pandemics become common.

Edited by Florin, 02 November 2023 - 02:26 AM.

[Mind]

I'm not so sure. Some govs are probably already stockpiling them for at least health care workers, and it wouldn't be a stretch to have the stockpiles cover everyone. Another solution might be to encourage or require everyone to have a personal stockpile of respirators in order to avoid distribution issues at the start of pandemics.
 

 

Even if gain of function research at government or industrial research labs became illegal tomorrow, any private group or individual will eventually be able to start a pandemic. This will probably happen fairly soon.
 
There's no guarantee broad-spectrum antivirals or any or kind of biotech solution will work against all civilization-ending pandemics, and that's why I'd like an insurance policy (respirators or whatever) that's guaranteed to work. I don't want the same mistake (over-reliance on therapeutics) to be repeated.
 
I don't think there's any big comfort issues with PAPRs, and if there was, I'm sure PAPRs (and other kinds of respirators) could be redesigned to make them comfortable enough.
 
Another approach (which I also mentioned before) is automation and VR (which would make social distancing tolerable), but I'm not sure if this strategy will be ready before engineered pandemics become common.

 

The scenario you are talking about is NOT even remotely similar to the irrational COVID panic. The response to the COVID was destructive. It was not helpful. There was plenty of data an expert opinion available very early on that this was not a super deadly pandemic. Fear and tyranny swept over the world and led to the death of millions of people that would have otherwise easily survived - as documented in this discussion and others.

 

The US government is probably developing all kinds of awful viruses and trying to aerosolize them. Research labs are trying to use mosquitoes and plants to deliver "vaccines" - which could obviously be used to deliver deadly agents as well. People should be prepping for such an eventuality - including hardcore respirators, hazmat suits, food, water, what-not.

 

In a 50% mortality situation - it is the end of our current age. You won't even leave your house - insert your favorite apocalypse movie. This is NOT what we just went through. The COVID panic was a government led disaster, not a deadly pandemic. Time and energy was wasted (as is still being wasted) trying to implement NPIs. Resources should be redirected to more sophisticated therapeutics and defense mechanisms. 

[Daniel Cooper]

Yeah, a highly infection airborne virus with a 50% mortality rate is a massive global catastrophe. Something close to if not in fact a civilizational "reset".

 

If you think about it - what's being proposed is a virus that is as or more lethal than smallpox (which requires close quite contact to transmit), but as infectious and and transmissible as influenza or covid.

 

In recorded human history I do not believe that such a virus has ever existed. Highly lethal viruses tend not to be highly transmissible, and high transmissible viruses tend not to be highly lethal. There's probably some underlying principle for why that is so, but I couldn't tell you what that is aside from the fact that if viruses like that existed we probably would not be here.

 

Of course, once you start doing gain of function research and viruses appear that did not evolve naturally - all bets are off.

 

 

 

 

[adamh]

There are over a dozen known diseases right now with a mortality rate higher than ebola, higher than 50% and some with close to 100% mortality. The world is not in great danger from them because its also a matter of transmissibility and latency. If it kills the victims right away, people realize and stay away from the area where it broke out, much as was done with ebola which has a short latency. It must be easily transmitted, have a long enough latency period, and a high rate of fatality to be a danger to humanity

 

In the millions of years of evolution that has taken place, many diseases came along and we simply adapted to them and now they are a small problem only. Bubonic plague for example, it was highly transmissible because it relied upon vectors like rats and fleas and had a very high mortality rate and a latency period so it was a nearly perfect disease. Yet today the world population is exploding so I guess it didn't wipe us out. 

 

What I would recommend if a new disease came along which showed itself to be very dangerous, which covid was not, I would say work feverishly on a treatment or cure and have people avoid crowds. Masks have been proven over and over to be nearly useless for stopping air born disease. Then wait for the cure and in the mean time, as it spreads it becomes less and less dangerous. This has always been the case. There is no magic fix

[Daniel Cooper]

A worst case virus would be something like airborne rabies.

 

100% lethal. 20 - 90 day latency (though can be up to several years latency) and highly transmissible through the air.

 

Something like that would probably not occur naturally. But, since we're starting to have the capability to take viruses apart and reassemble them like tinkertoys who's to say what might come out of a lab.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 02 November 2023 - 08:08 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Hey, here's an idea - maybe instead of trying to stockpile 7-8 billion respirators let's have a discussion about an immediate moratorium on gain of function research until we can determine if and how it might be conducted with a reasonable level of safety. Because I'm pretty sure that Florin's proposed pandemic is coming out of a lab and not coming from nature.

 

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re post 735

 

Daniel Cooper,

Rabies isn't always 100% lethal. Perhaps you heard/read that somewhere without verifying the claim? Even though everyone knows that "fact" to be true, it is nevertheless wrong. What you might have done in the first place, before passing on the misinformation, was to google the veracity of your claim. Sure, there are references that can be found that claim 100% fatality, but perhaps they too were just passing on "known facts" without troubling to verify?

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

Re post 735

 

Daniel Cooper,

Rabies isn't always 100% lethal. Perhaps you heard/read that somewhere without verifying the claim? Even though everyone knows that "fact" to be true, it is nevertheless wrong. What you might have done in the first place, before passing on the misinformation, was to google the veracity of your claim. Sure, there are references that can be found that claim 100% fatality, but perhaps they too were just passing on "known facts" without troubling to verify?

 

We're splitting hairs here aren't we?

 

To my knowledge, only 1 person has ever survived rabies without treatment, which your linked article seems to confirm. And of course, a speculative "airborne rabies" wouldn't be rabies but a virus with that sort of lethality and latency but airborne. So there isn't going to be a treatment a priori. 

 

Now, I don't know how many repeating "9s" that would be as a percentage (99.99999%?) but lets agree it's a lot. So to many digits of precision it rounds to 100%.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 02 November 2023 - 09:18 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Daniel Cooper, I don't want to make any possibly unfounded inferences from what you wrote in post #738, so I'll ask you point blank:

 

Is rabies 100% lethal?

 

If you answer "yes" then you are wrong. "Rounding" and "split hair" rationalizations notwithstanding.

 

If you answer "no", because you claim to have known that: "To my knowledge, only 1 person has ever survived rabies..." then it begs the question as to why you wrote "100% lethal" in post #735 instead of "nearly 100% lethal" or something similar.

 

It seems that split hairs can occur when someone wants to extricate themselves out of having to admit that their claim was  erroneous.

 

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

Alas you've got me AD.

 

Rabies is in fact ever so slightly less than 100% lethal. 

 

Thank goodness you've corrected this most egregious error.  It completely changes the character of my post. I shall hang my head in shame and don my traditional sackcloth and ashes. Or perhaps the hairshirt would be more appropriate?

 

 

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

A split-hair shirt would be best any way you cilice (pronounced as "slice" for purposes herein) it.

 

A dunces cap(tious) might be in order too (not to be confused with a capirote which might make people believe you belong to the wrong klan). 

[Daniel Cooper]

All good suggestions.

 

You seem to be quite the expert on these sorts of things. Do you know if there's any sort of special clothing or uniform for the pedantic?

 

[Dorian Grey]

All good suggestions.

 

You seem to be quite the expert on these sorts of things. Do you know if there's any sort of special clothing or uniform for the pedantic?

 

Dr Fauci seemed to think everyone should be wearing a mask at all times!  

[Advocatus Diaboli]

adamh wrote in post 734:

 

"There are over a dozen known diseases right now with a mortality rate higher than ebola, higher than 50% and some with close to 100% mortality."

 

I wonder why Wikipedia put COVID-19 where it did in the case fatality rates (CFR) table. I would have placed it under smallpox, Variola minor.

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 03 November 2023 - 01:00 AM.

[Florin]

Hey, here's an idea - maybe instead of trying to stockpile 7-8 billion respirators let's have a discussion about an immediate moratorium on gain of function research until we can determine if and how it might be conducted with a reasonable level of safety. Because I'm pretty sure that Florin's proposed pandemic is coming out of a lab and not coming from nature.

 

It's conceivable that a moratorium might buy enough time to develop antiviral tech capable of defeating any virus, but on the other hand, there's no guarantee that this tech can be developed or that it can be developed before it's needed.

 

I'd still prefer something that's guaranteed to work.

[Florin]

The scenario you are talking about is NOT even remotely similar to the irrational COVID panic. The response to the COVID was destructive. It was not helpful. There was plenty of data an expert opinion available very early on that this was not a super deadly pandemic. Fear and tyranny swept over the world and led to the death of millions of people that would have otherwise easily survived - as documented in this discussion and others.

 

The US government is probably developing all kinds of awful viruses and trying to aerosolize them. Research labs are trying to use mosquitoes and plants to deliver "vaccines" - which could obviously be used to deliver deadly agents as well. People should be prepping for such an eventuality - including hardcore respirators, hazmat suits, food, water, what-not.

 

In a 50% mortality situation - it is the end of our current age. You won't even leave your house - insert your favorite apocalypse movie. This is NOT what we just went through. The COVID panic was a government led disaster, not a deadly pandemic. Time and energy was wasted (as is still being wasted) trying to implement NPIs. Resources should be redirected to more sophisticated therapeutics and defense mechanisms. 

 

If better policies aren't proposed, some of the wrong-headed covid responses are going to be repeated for something as deadly as the Spanish Flu or worse.

 

Your proposal seems to be to develop "more sophisticated therapeutics and defense mechanisms," but there's no guarantee that any therapeutic will work or be developed in time. I don't know what other defense mechanisms you're referring to.

 

Again, I'd prefer something that's guaranteed to work in any pandemic.

Edited by Florin, 03 November 2023 - 04:27 AM.

[joesixpack]

Re post 735

 

Daniel Cooper,

Rabies isn't always 100% lethal. Perhaps you heard/read that somewhere without verifying the claim? Even though everyone knows that "fact" to be true, it is nevertheless wrong. What you might have done in the first place, before passing on the misinformation, was to google the veracity of your claim. Sure, there are references that can be found that claim 100% fatality, but perhaps they too were just passing on "known facts" without troubling to verify?

 

One person in history has survived Rabies without the vaccine, according to, Scientific American. It would be a terrible virus to work gain of function on.

 

https://www.scientif...abies-survivor/

 

Link provided for those who missed your link above.

Edited by joesixpack, 03 November 2023 - 09:27 PM.

[albedo]

Masks During Pandemics Caused by Respiratory Pathogens—Evidence and Implications for Action

 

Importance  As demonstrated by the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2, viruses spread by the respiratory route can cause deadly pandemics, and face masks can reduce the spread of these pathogens. The effectiveness of responses to future epidemics and pandemics will depend at least in part on whether evidence on masks, including from the COVID-19 pandemic, is utilized.

 

Observations  Well-designed observational studies have demonstrated the association of mask use with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in community settings, and rigorous evaluations of mask mandates have found substantial protection. Disagreement about whether face masks reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has been exacerbated by a focus on randomized trials, which are limited in number, scope, and statistical power. Many effective public health policies have never been assessed in randomized clinical trials; such trials are not the gold standard of evidence for the efficacy of all interventions. Masking in the community to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is supported by robust evidence from diverse settings and populations. Data on the epidemiologic, environmental, and mask design parameters that influence the effectiveness of masking provide insights on when and how masks should be used to prevent transmission.

 

Conclusions and Relevance  During the next epidemic or pandemic caused by a respiratory pathogen, decision-makers will need to rely on existing evidence as they implement interventions. High-quality studies have shown that use of face masks in the community is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and is likely to be an important component of an effective response to a future respiratory threat.

 

Cash-Goldwasser S, Reingold AL, Luby SP, Jackson LA, Frieden TR. Masks during pandemics caused by respiratory pathogens—evidence and implications for action. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(10):e2339443-e2339443.
 Screenshot 2023-11-07 101542.png   235.79KB   0 downloads
 

 

[Dorian Grey]

Masks During Pandemics Caused by Respiratory Pathogens—Evidence and Implications for Action

 

Importance  As demonstrated by the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2, viruses spread by the respiratory route can cause deadly pandemics, and face masks can reduce the spread of these pathogens. The effectiveness of responses to future epidemics and pandemics will depend at least in part on whether evidence on masks, including from the COVID-19 pandemic, is utilized.

 

Observations  Well-designed observational studies have demonstrated the association of mask use with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in community settings, and rigorous evaluations of mask mandates have found substantial protection. Disagreement about whether face masks reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has been exacerbated by a focus on randomized trials, which are limited in number, scope, and statistical power. Many effective public health policies have never been assessed in randomized clinical trials; such trials are not the gold standard of evidence for the efficacy of all interventions. Masking in the community to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is supported by robust evidence from diverse settings and populations. Data on the epidemiologic, environmental, and mask design parameters that influence the effectiveness of masking provide insights on when and how masks should be used to prevent transmission.

 

Conclusions and Relevance  During the next epidemic or pandemic caused by a respiratory pathogen, decision-makers will need to rely on existing evidence as they implement interventions. High-quality studies have shown that use of face masks in the community is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and is likely to be an important component of an effective response to a future respiratory threat.

 

Cash-Goldwasser S, Reingold AL, Luby SP, Jackson LA, Frieden TR. Masks during pandemics caused by respiratory pathogens—evidence and implications for action. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(10):e2339443-e2339443.
Screenshot 2023-11-07 101542.png
 

 

I was a surgical tech for 35 years, so I've spent more time masked than anyone here.  My opinion?  Wear them where they might possibly help if you like, which is when you will be engaging in brief conversation in close quarters indoors.  With any extended or extensive conversations, masks would likely be futile, as they do leak; and the false sense of security they give (my magic shield will protect me) will likely result in more transmission, not less.  

 

The mask fanatics simply got carried away, & figured if masks ever help at all anywhere, why not just mandate them everywhere.  

 

Vocalization is the primary generator of aerosol & transmission:

 

https://www.longecit...l-transmission/

 

And indoors is the only place where air is stagnant enough for aerosols to linger in any concentration.  The guy sitting at a table, reading the paper & sipping on coffee without a mask has far less potential to generate aerosols than the gaggle of masked girls chattering away at the next table.  

 

Masking outdoors, in your car, or even walking silently through an indoor mall isn't going to protect you or anyone else.  If I can do my shopping and use the self checkout without speaking to anyone, masking is overkill.  

 

If we can't get the science right, we probably should avoid mandates of any kind, rather than having the ignorant ones publicly demeaning the wise ones over rubbish pandemic policies.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 07 November 2023 - 04:06 PM.

[Mind]

Masks During Pandemics Caused by Respiratory Pathogens—Evidence and Implications for Action

 

Importance  As demonstrated by the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2, viruses spread by the respiratory route can cause deadly pandemics, and face masks can reduce the spread of these pathogens. The effectiveness of responses to future epidemics and pandemics will depend at least in part on whether evidence on masks, including from the COVID-19 pandemic, is utilized.

 

Observations  Well-designed observational studies have demonstrated the association of mask use with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in community settings, and rigorous evaluations of mask mandates have found substantial protection. Disagreement about whether face masks reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has been exacerbated by a focus on randomized trials, which are limited in number, scope, and statistical power. Many effective public health policies have never been assessed in randomized clinical trials; such trials are not the gold standard of evidence for the efficacy of all interventions. Masking in the community to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is supported by robust evidence from diverse settings and populations. Data on the epidemiologic, environmental, and mask design parameters that influence the effectiveness of masking provide insights on when and how masks should be used to prevent transmission.

 

Conclusions and Relevance  During the next epidemic or pandemic caused by a respiratory pathogen, decision-makers will need to rely on existing evidence as they implement interventions. High-quality studies have shown that use of face masks in the community is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and is likely to be an important component of an effective response to a future respiratory threat.

 

Cash-Goldwasser S, Reingold AL, Luby SP, Jackson LA, Frieden TR. Masks during pandemics caused by respiratory pathogens—evidence and implications for action. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(10):e2339443-e2339443.
Screenshot 2023-11-07 101542.png
 

 

This review has 1 RCT study (not controlled for most conditions related to hospitalization and death) which showed only modest effects in stopping COVID transmission 

 

The rest is all low-powered, uncontrolled, observational studies.

 

Up until 2020, we had a century of RCT and observational studies which showed conclusively that masking would be ineffective as a pandemic response. In addition, we all saw with our own eyes that masking did not stop transmission of COVID anywhere in the world. Everyone I know got COVID, no matter if they wore a mask religiously or not. The virus is smaller than the pores in all of the surgical masks that most people were wearing!!!! Yet, some people have an unscientific devotion to the idea. Physics and reality be damned I guess.