1042 replies to this topic

[Florin]

It's very easy to mandate costs on other people that you yourself will not bear, and I'm not talking primarily about financial costs here. 
 
"It's easy to write checks that others will have to cash".

 
If masks no longer work that well and mask mandates should be lifted as a result, don't you think it would be a good idea to at least try to wear respirators? A recommendation to wear them isn't a mandate or shifting costs to others.
 

They are infinitely tolerable if you aren't the one wearing it.

 

Why do you prefer to philosophize about wearing one and take pot shots instead of actually wearing one? Did a respirator jump on your face and bite it or something?

 

I have earloop phobia because earloops start to nibble on my ears after maybe more than a hour of use, and if I suggested that its impractical for anyone else to wear them for that reason, you'd think I'm nuts. But this is the same sort of thing you're implying regarding respirators.

[Daniel Cooper]

If masks no longer work that well and mask mandates should be lifted as a result, don't you think it would be a good idea to at least try to wear respirators? A recommendation to wear them isn't a mandate or shifting costs to others.

Why would we start pushing respirators on people now that we have by my last count 5 effective vaccines, even against the new variants?
 

Why do you prefer to philosophize about wearing one and take pot shots instead of actually wearing one? Did a respirator jump on your face and bite it or something?

They didn't jump up and bite my face, but I'm now sporting a really nice case of mask induced acne/rash on my nose and both checks due to wearing a face mask for 50 ~ 60 hours a week for a year now. That is *not* going to get better with a respirator with a rubber seal. And I speak from experience there as well having worn a such a respirator on occasion while doing some painting.

Look, I'm certain that you could build a respirator with a very good rubber seal that fits sufficiently tightly on the face with a submicron filter (coronavirus is about 0.12 micron). And it would be effective protection. I just don't think it would be that practical to wear day in/day out for extended periods of time, and you just can't ignore practicality.

 

[Hip]

It is extraordinary that not a single case of influenza was detected in England this winter.

 

Usually the hospitals are full of influenza patients in the winter season.

 

 

So for all those here who claimed that the controlling measures were doing nothing to prevent viral transmission, it's egg on your face time — unless you are wearing a mask, that is, which will prevent even egg on your face.

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 17 March 2021 - 03:14 PM.

[Hebbeh]

effective vaccines, even against the new variants?

Are you sure about that?

[geo12the]

People are over-complicating the mask issue. It's pretty simple: COVID is spread through respiratory droplets. The mask is mesh barrier. When some of these particles contact the mask they will be absorbed by the material and prevented from being inhaled.  Will all particles be absorbed? Probably not. But enough will be absorbed that they may prevent infection. I don't understand why people are doing mental gymnastics to argue they can't possibly work. In terms of wearing them it's common sense: I don't wear them when going outside for a run. I didn't wear them yesterday walking my dog. I do wear them when I go to the market or hardware store or work. If I am alone at work I pull my mask down. It's not a big deal. 

[Mind]

It is extraordinary that not a single case of influenza was detected in England this winter.

 

Usually the hospitals are full of influenza patients in the winter season.

 

 

So for all those here who claimed that the controlling measures were doing nothing to prevent viral transmission, it's egg on your face time — unless you are wearing a mask, that is, which will prevent even egg on your face.

 

It is trivial to find evidence of flu and colds.

 

TV Dr gets sick - not COVID.

 

People seem to forget that innumerable people were ill and tested negative for COVID. There were an enormous number of news articles telling people to stay home when sick, even if they had a negative COVID test (or even multiple negative tests): https://www.buzzfeed...antine-exposure

 

Even if there was a false negative test for 30% to 40% of tests (as some people suggested), you still have a whole bunch of people all over the world who got sick, went to the hospital, and got a negative test.

 

Every night on the evening news in the U.S. you get reporting on "how many tests came back positive". People are getting ill, going to get tested, but testing negative. For all of those who tested negative - what were they getting ill from?

 

I personally know several work-mates, family and friends who had cold and flus this past season.

 

What is shocking is that national health agencies know that lots of people got ill but tested negative. Yet they are not listing these as influenza-like illnesses as they would during a normal flu/cold season.

[Daniel Cooper]

Are you sure about that?

 

If you've got contrary evidence please post it.

[geo12the]

 

 

What is shocking is that national health agencies know that lots of people got ill but tested negative. Yet they are not listing these as influenza-like illnesses as they would during a normal flu/cold season.

 

In some cases there were false negatives. The tests are not perfect and early in the infection there may not be enough virus to be picked up by PCR. 

 

https://www.fda.gov/...y-communication

[Daniel Cooper]

It is extraordinary that not a single case of influenza was detected in England this winter.
 
Usually the hospitals are full of influenza patients in the winter season.
 
 
So for all those here who claimed that the controlling measures were doing nothing to prevent viral transmission, it's egg on your face time — unless you are wearing a mask, that is, which will prevent even egg on your face.

 
I don't think a single person has claimed that the "controlling measures" have done nothing to prevent viral transmission.
 
But the mask advocates have this tendency to attribute things like the above entirely to masks.
 
But a significant number of people are working from home. Restaurants, bars, and retail outlets have been closed or put on tight capacity restrictions. We've had numerous lockdowns. Children have been sent home to do remote learning (or not learning as the case may be).  No mass congregation events like concerts, football games, etc. etc.  And masks.
 
Now, there's not a doubt in my mind that keeping people physically separated or completely shut in at home will block virtually all viral transmission.  Masks on the other had have a mixed bag of results in studies that have been done over decades.  A number of mask studies have specifically found no effect of mask wearing on flu before the covid-19 pandemic.
 
Here's a survey of studies on the subject from 2010: Face Mask to Prevent Influenza Transmission - A Systemic Review. This shows a mixed bag of results but I think there is evidence for a small positive benefit.

 
So, is it all the physical separation or is it the masks that have so reduced influenza? 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 17 March 2021 - 06:42 PM.

[geo12the]

 

 
So, is it all the physical separation or is it the masks that have so reduced influenza? 

 

What is being lost on people here is that it's both. There is not a carefully controlled scientific study that can pinpoint the precise contribution social distancing vs. masks has made. But when I look at available data on mask use and COVID rates I do find significant correlations which I have pointed out in past responses. But even disregarding that, the larger point is that the measures taken have slowed the virus and that effect is likely due to a combination of safety measures. It's beyond my comprehension why some people are so quick to dismiss the idea that masks have contributed to the safety measures that have saved countless lives. 

[Daniel Cooper]

What is being lost on people here is that it's both. There is not a carefully controlled scientific study that can pinpoint the precise contribution social distancing vs. masks has made. But when I look at available data on mask use and COVID rates I do find significant correlations which I have pointed out in past responses. But even disregarding that, the larger point is that the measures taken have slowed the virus and that effect is likely due to a combination of safety measures. It's beyond my comprehension why some people are so quick to dismiss the idea that masks have contributed to the safety measures that have saved countless lives. 

 

Pardon me but that's being lost on no one.  Clearly all these mitigation methods are in the mix.  But if it's 90% physical separation and 10% masks, or vice versa, then we ought to try to find that out. 

 

Every single mitigation method has a cost associated with it. We can't do everything on the basis of "it might work" or "maybe it's helping". This is a world of finite resources and it behooves you to understand the costs and benefits for all of these mitigation methods as best as you can. 

 

Prior to covid-19, the studies on the effectiveness of masks showed very mixed results with respect to stopping viral respiratory infections. As I've said before - things that really work don't tend to show mixed results. When antibiotics hit the scene, there were no mixed results as to whether they were effective in resolving bacterial infections.

 

You read the studies and my take away is a small positive benefit for wearing the sorts of masks being worn today.  If that's the case we need to understand that as best we can. For one thing, people may have a false sense of security when out in public with the idea that they're wearing some impenetrable viral shield when they had ought to be practicing more physical distancing and hygiene.

 

 

[Hebbeh]

If you've got contrary evidence please post it.

https://www.cell.com...8674(21)00298-1

Do you have contrary evidence that the current vaccines are equally effective against all current variant strains?

[geo12the]

Pardon me but that's being lost on no one.  Clearly all these mitigation methods are in the mix.  But if it's 90% physical separation and 10% masks, or vice versa, then we ought to try to find that out. 

 

Every single mitigation method has a cost associated with it. We can't do everything on the basis of "it might work" or "maybe it's helping". This is a world of finite resources and it behooves you to understand the costs and benefits for all of these mitigation methods as best as you can. 

 

Prior to covid-19, the studies on the effectiveness of masks showed very mixed results with respect to stopping viral respiratory infections. As I've said before - things that really work don't tend to show mixed results. When antibiotics hit the scene, there were no mixed results as to whether they were effective in resolving bacterial infections.

 

You read the studies and my take away is a small positive benefit for wearing the sorts of masks being worn today.  If that's the case we need to understand that as best we can. For one thing, people may have a false sense of security when out in public with the idea that they're wearing some impenetrable viral shield when they had ought to be practicing more physical distancing and hygiene.

 

What would be needed is a randomized control trial where people adhere to strict mask use or strict no mask use requirements. I don't think that can ever become a reality. The problem with many studies is that they run into issues of uniformity of masks and compliance and other things and results are difficult to extrapolate to the current situation. But my reading of the literature and additionally thinking about the problem: aerosolized droplets of virus as the main means of transmission, is enough to convince me that it's a good idea to wear a mask when I am in Target or Safeway and similar situations. Nothing you say takes away from the fact that the virus is spread by droplets in the air and that a mask will prevent some (Maybe not all) of those droplets from reaching my respiratory system. If you visualize what is actually going on in your mind it's common sense. I guess your concern is that most virus particles get past the mask? I will take any protection I can get. 

[Daniel Cooper]

https://www.cell.com...8674(21)00298-1

Do you have contrary evidence that the current vaccines are equally effective against all current variant strains?

 
Well, you're the one making the assertion that they are ineffective so the burden falls to you.
 
BBC Article On The Effectiveness Of Vaccines Against New Variants

The South African variant is currently the most worrying as it has the most mutations in the section that produces spike. I was reading the other day that the Moderna vaccine was around 66% effective against the SA variant. That's around the same effectiveness that they were hoping for against the original variant before these vaccines had been tested. It turned out the the vaccines surpassed original expectations by quite a bit.

It almost seems as if you're hoping these vaccines are not effective against the new variants. Surely you aren't so devoted to masking for that to be the case?
 

[Daniel Cooper]

I guess your concern is that most virus particles get past the mask? I will take any protection I can get. 

 

Clearly some particles will get through the mask, others will leak about the sides. But these are just details. 

 

My quarrel with the pro-mask brigade is that the claim has been made that masks have been the difference between most of the West and the handful of countries that have done exceptionally well against the virus - case in point China and South Korea.

 

Now, leaving aside the fact that we don't know what has gone on in China, we have little in the way of evidence that masks have made the difference in South Korea and given other Western countries that have instituted mask requirements and have not seen their infection rates precipitously fall, we've got some indication to the contrary.

 

What appears to have worked in South Korea is shutting their borders almost immediately and instituting early and widespread testing and aggressive contact tracing.  That strategy will work very well provided you institute it very early before the virus is able to establish a beachhead in your population. South Korea was absolutely the first to do mass testing, months before our CDC was able to go out and create their own unique covid test (a case of "not invented here" syndrome apparently).

[Hebbeh]

 
Well, you're the one making the assertion that they are ineffective so the burden falls to you.
 
BBC Article On The Effectiveness Of Vaccines Against New Variants

The South African variant is currently the most worrying as it has the most mutations in the section that produces spike. I was reading the other day that the Moderna vaccine was around 66% effective against the SA variant. That's around the same effectiveness that they were hoping for against the original variant before these vaccines had been tested. It turned out the the vaccines surpassed original expectations by quite a bit.

It almost seems as if you're hoping these vaccines are not effective against the new variants. Surely you aren't so devoted to masking for that to be the case?
 

 

Nice try but no, you were the one making the assertion with no evidence here:

 

Why would we start pushing respirators on people now that we have by my last count 5 effective vaccines, even against the new variants?

 

You asked for contrary evidence where I provided a study showing 6.7 times less efficacy against the P1 Brazilian variant and a disturbing 34-42 times less efficacy against the B1351 South African variant.  It's expected to be similar to the California variant with obviously more variants on the way.

 

Your news commentary didn't deal with facts but used the terms "may" and "should" but I believe we know better now.

 

And then, once again when you don't like the truth, you resort to ad hominem attack with:

 

It almost seems as if you're hoping these vaccines are not effective against the new variants. Surely you aren't so devoted to masking for that to be the case?

 

BTW, here is another efficacy study:

 

https://www.cidrap.u...vid-early-trial

 

Two doses of the AstraZeneca-Oxford University COVID-19 vaccine were ineffective against mild-to-moderate infections with the B1351 variant first identified in South Africa, according to a phase 1b-2 clinical trial published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

[Daniel Cooper]

Nice try but no, you were the one making the assertion with no evidence here:

You might not recall the post below from some days back, but I do.
 

The vaccine is likely going to be a false sense of security as it appears that they have little efficacy against the more contagious strains that are quickly emerging and becoming dominant. It would be foolhardy to drop your guard and become complacent now.

And yes, the AZ vaccine doesn't work against the SA variant, but Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J seems reasonably effective.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 17 March 2021 - 10:34 PM.

[Hebbeh]

And yes, the AZ vaccine doesn't work against the SA variant, but Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J seems reasonably effective.

 

As the study I posted above showed, Pfizer and Moderna were 34-42 times less effective towards the various SA variants. 

 

That should  be concerning as a false sense of security and true, I assumed somebody as yourself would be aware of the developing science.

 

BTW, for what it's worth, I had my first Moderna dose last Friday.

[Daniel Cooper]

As the study I posted above showed, Pfizer and Moderna were 34-42 times less effective towards the various SA variants. 

 

That should  be concerning as a false sense of security and true, I assumed somebody as yourself would be aware of the developing science.

 

BTW, for what it's worth, I had my first Moderna dose last Friday.

 

To which study are you referring?

[Hebbeh]

 

To which study are you referring?

 

 

https://www.cell.com...8674(21)00298-1
 

[Daniel Cooper]

Vaccine efficacy probable against COVID-19 variants

[Florin]

Why would we start pushing respirators on people now that we have by my last count 5 effective vaccines, even against the new variants?

Because herd immunity won't develop overnight.

 

Also, millions of people have died due to this obsession with vaccines and contact tracing rather than doing the obvious thing and recommending that everyone wear a respirator. Counting on vaccines to always be one step ahead of any new variants is just playing Russian roulette again.
 

They didn't jump up and bite my face, but I'm now sporting a really nice case of mask induced acne/rash on my nose and both checks due to wearing a face mask for 50 ~ 60 hours a week for a year now. That is *not* going to get better with a respirator with a rubber seal. And I speak from experience there as well having worn a such a respirator on occasion while doing some painting.

Look, I'm certain that you could build a respirator with a very good rubber seal that fits sufficiently tightly on the face with a submicron filter (coronavirus is about 0.12 micron). And it would be effective protection. I just don't think it would be that practical to wear day in/day out for extended periods of time, and you just can't ignore practicality.

 

Okay, but it seems that your mask caused the rash, not your respirator. So, I'm still not sure why you haven't tried to wear your respirator instead of your mask. Also, some respirators have seals made out of hypoallergenic silicone rather than filter media or rubber. This is one of the reasons why a respirator might be more comfortable to wear than a mask for certain people. You have nothing to lose but your rash-inducing mask.

 

Anyway, wouldn't you agree that making public policy about masks should be based on more than the experience of a single individual? We already know that many people wear respirators for many hours every day without too much trouble. We also know that many people don't need to wear respirators for 60 hours per week, because they're retired or work from home. So, the most logical thing to do is to recommend the use of respirators to whoever wants to wear them.

Edited by Florin, 18 March 2021 - 02:52 AM.

[Hebbeh]

Vaccine efficacy probable against COVID-19 variants

 

Again, your (meta) study isn't favorable...

 

An in vitro petri dish experiment showing 10 fold reduction of immunity against not covid but pseudovirus.

 

However, recent outbreaks of more transmissible variant SARS-CoV-2 strains that harbor mutations in the spike protein—the critical viral target of immune responses produced by the vaccines (1–3)—has invited a dour outlook on the vaccines' continued efficacy (4). The trepidation is based on the prompt compilation of in vitro data that demonstrate as much as 10-fold reduction in neutralization antibody (NAb) activity in vaccinated samples against mutant spike protein pseudovirus (5, 6), which is thought to be an important metric of acquired immunity (7).

 

and this referring to another petri dish study using not covid virus but pseudoviral again with the key word "suggesting"

 

Importantly, vaccinated samples have been tested using pseudoviral particles that express each of the SARS-CoV-2 variant spike proteins, and in each case, the samples appear to exhibit NAb titers greater than 300 in vitro (12), suggesting that vaccines will be effective against mutant strains.

 

As variant strains emerge, we will need to reevaluate vaccine efficacy by testing the inhibition of viral infection in vivo rather than by quantifying the antibodies produced after in vitro exposure.

[Florin]

I don't think a single person has claimed that the "controlling measures" have done nothing to prevent viral transmission.

Almost nothing. This is what Mind has claimed.
 

But the mask advocates have this tendency to attribute things like the above entirely to masks.
 
But a significant number of people are working from home. Restaurants, bars, and retail outlets have been closed or put on tight capacity restrictions. We've had numerous lockdowns. Children have been sent home to do remote learning (or not learning as the case may be).  No mass congregation events like concerts, football games, etc. etc.  And masks.
 
Now, there's not a doubt in my mind that keeping people physically separated or completely shut in at home will block virtually all viral transmission.  Masks on the other had have a mixed bag of results in studies that have been done over decades.  A number of mask studies have specifically found no effect of mask wearing on flu before the covid-19 pandemic.
 
Here's a survey of studies on the subject from 2010: Face Mask to Prevent Influenza Transmission - A Systemic Review. This shows a mixed bag of results but I think there is evidence for a small positive benefit.
 
So, is it all the physical separation or is it the masks that have so reduced influenza?

As I've pointed out before, the problem with this reasoning is that while the flu has disappeared, covid hasn't. That means that social distancing (the 6-feet rule) and/or masking have played a much bigger role in eliminating the flu than staying home. And social distancing probably won't work (or at least work a lot less well) without masks.

 

A major (maybe fatal) problem with the mask/influenza studies is that (probably) all of them occurred in the context of other people mostly not wearing masks. Whereas, this is the only time in history when most people have been masked. This might be a major reason for some of the mixed results of those studies.

[geo12the]

Clearly some particles will get through the mask, others will leak about the sides. But these are just details. 

 

My quarrel with the pro-mask brigade is that the claim has been made that masks have been the difference between most of the West and the handful of countries that have done exceptionally well against the virus - case in point China and South Korea.

 

Now, leaving aside the fact that we don't know what has gone on in China, we have little in the way of evidence that masks have made the difference in South Korea and given other Western countries that have instituted mask requirements and have not seen their infection rates precipitously fall, we've got some indication to the contrary.

 

What appears to have worked in South Korea is shutting their borders almost immediately and instituting early and widespread testing and aggressive contact tracing.  That strategy will work very well provided you institute it very early before the virus is able to establish a beachhead in your population. South Korea was absolutely the first to do mass testing, months before our CDC was able to go out and create their own unique covid test (a case of "not invented here" syndrome apparently).

 

First I fully agree about the importance of testing and its disappointing it is not more widespread in the US. The city of Davis in CA has a very good free and fast testing program in place and it has resulted in their being able to control the virus better than other places in CA. It should serve as a model for other cities. I am surprised this is not in the news at all. 

 

I believe skepticism and questioning authority are good things. But my quarrel with the anti-mask people is that by constantly repeating the mantra "masks don't work", they are encouraging people to not wear masks and put their lives, and the lives of others, at risk.

 

Regarding Asia, pre-pandemic I visited several Asian counties and was always perplexed to see significant numbers of people on the street and in public transportation wearing masks. Especially in China and Hong Kong. This was pre-pandemic. It's not a big deal there.  Why is it a big deal here?  

[Florin]

What appears to have worked in South Korea is shutting their borders almost immediately and instituting early and widespread testing and aggressive contact tracing.  That strategy will work very well provided you institute it very early before the virus is able to establish a beachhead in your population. South Korea was absolutely the first to do mass testing, months before our CDC was able to go out and create their own unique covid test (a case of "not invented here" syndrome apparently).

 

This doesn't explain anything. All of Asia has basically done as good as South Korea with minimal testing and tracing, and mostly without tough and early travel restrictions. The most common features are masking, social distancing, and the less contagious variants.

[caliban]

moderation note:
This topic is about mask wearing.
I'm again looking at a bunch of recent posts in this thread (including by moderators) that are very off-topic.
If your point is not specific to masks, but about other measures (distancing, vaccines) please use or open another thread.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Comparison of mask efficiency to other measures seems reasonable. The  inter-comparison of other methodologies which don't mention masking is definitely a stretch. But, comparison of masking to distancing, e.g., seems reasonable.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 24 March 2021 - 06:39 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Another potential benefit to masks by potentially warming the upper respiratory tract a couple degrees could inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication.  This is ironic as many who refuse masks use have used the excuse they are too hot.

 

Why SARS-CoV-2 replicates better in the upper respiratory tract -- ScienceDaily

 

A team of researchers from the Institute for Infectious Diseases (IFIK) at the University of Bern and the Federal Institute of Virology and Immunology (IVI) have assessed virus growth and activation of the cellular defense mechanisms in the respiratory tract. They have shown that natural temperature differences that exist in the upper and lower respiratory tract have a profound influence on SARS-CoV-2 replication and subsequent innate immune activation in human cells.

 

 

In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in the upper airways (nasal cavity, pharynx, trachea) and can be efficiently transmitted from one individual to another before the appearance of disease symptoms.

 

 

Temperature is key

 

 

They found that temperature plays an important role as SARS-CoV-2 preferred to replicate at temperatures typically found in the upper airways (33°C). Colder incubation temperatures allowed the virus to replicate faster and to a higher extent than when infections were carried out at 37°C to mimic the lower lung environment. Unlike SARS-CoV-2, replication of SARS-CoV was not impacted by different incubation temperatures.

 

 

Temperature also influences the response from the epithelium

The team also analyzed which genes are turned on and off after infection with SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 to understand how cells from the human respiratory tract respond to infection and which innate immune programs are activated. The innate immune system is our body's "first line of defense" against invading pathogens and is crucial not only to contain the invader, but also to teach other branches of the immune system how to react appropriately.

When mimicking the conditions found in the upper airways (33°C), the team found that infection with SARS-CoV-2 did not stimulate the innate immune response within these cells as strongly as it did when they mimicked conditions found in the lower respiratory tract (37°C). "Since the strength of the innate immune response can directly influence the degree of viral replication, this may help explain why SARS-CoV-2 replicated more efficiently at lower temperatures," says Dijkman.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Hebbeh, re; your post #599, please provide a citation that asserts that masks might potentially warm up the upper respiratory tract by a couple of degrees--such a claim isn't in the article that you do cite.  Also, do you have a citation for your claim that: "...many who refuse masks use have used the excuse they are too hot.".  Thanks.