1042 replies to this topic

[pamojja]

Whomever marked a reference to a study covering 140,000 datapoints as "pointless, timewasting", without any discussion of why that would be the case, should be banned from this site.

I marked it pointless because it was just a statistic evaluation, not comparing it in anyway randomized with anything else, or adjusting for variables (like for example the large Danish study did). Additionally in a population only negligible affected from transmissions anyway. Not worthy any scientific discussions, or able to prove anything right away.

If on the other hand, you still consider this scientific proof, your understanding of science is seriously deranged. And have absolutely no right to ask for banning and censoring of members with a different understanding, many of whom after years of pointing out junk-science, get tired of doing so. Day after day, year after year.

Your are long enough here, you should have learned it meanwhile yourself. But instead still waste others time by letting them read again and again such junk-science, you're still unable to differentiate. And even ask for censorship of what you, after 15 years of membership here, were unable to comprehend - even the simplest basics of science.

Edited by pamojja, 08 August 2022 - 12:53 PM.

[smithx]

My point is that just marking something pointless is not conducive to scientific discussion. If you have issues with a study, as above, post them and then they can be discussed.

 

Just marking something as pointless is... pointless.

[pamojja]

You want to discuss junk science? Then show you can do better after 15 years of learning here on Lonycity yourself. Instead of complaining about lack of scientific discourse here, you still actually only contributing to it.

 

After such long time it's just tiring to pointing out junk science as junk science, especially to someone who didn't grasp it in 15 years here.

 

And on top is so arogant to think himself entiteld for sweeping prejudices of alledged detoriation in scientific discourse, or banning other members. Better abstain, you wont grasp it in an other 15 years of discussions. I don't waste anymore time to such unwillingness shown over such long time to learn anything basic.

 

 If you have issues with a study, as above, post them and then they can be discussed.

 

As icing of the cake, you just missed your opportunity to discuss the issues of this study just before raised by me. And prefered to make further pointless accusations.


 

 

Edited by pamojja, 09 August 2022 - 07:36 PM.

[Mind]

Japan has close to 100% mask compliance in public spaces, yet has another huge wave of cases.

 

No difference between Los Angeles and Orange counties - actually Los Angeles county, where there was more mask compliance, had more COVID cases.

 

Masks work reasonably well in lab tests with mannequins and in surgery centers where doctors and medical personnel have multiple layers of protection and sterilization techniques. In the real world, the COVID incident proved that general masking was an utter failure as a pandemic response.

[Mind]

Rich elites and politicians continue to flout mask rules, as has been the case throughout the "pandemic".

 

Masks are for you scum regular people.

[Daniel Cooper]

Rich elites and politicians continue to flout mask rules, as has been the case throughout the "pandemic".

 

Masks are for you scum regular people.

 

This has been well nigh a global phenomenon. And it seems that the more restrictive the mask policies a particular politician promotes, the more likely they are to be caught out without their mask. You can't help but to get the feeling that these sorts of rules are "for the little people".

 

We are really at the point where if any politician cares about public health and certainly economic health they should be out promoting a return to normalcy. Yes, covid-19 is still out there, yes it is still causing some deaths, but it appears that the worst is now well behind us.

 

There are costs to maintaining the current policies. A significant percentage of the population has suffered mental health consequences due to isolation and children have suffered measurable deficits in academics and socialization.  The policies implemented for covid-19 are not without costs. Now perhaps you could have made the argument at height of the pandemic the benefits were worth the costs. I don't see how that argument can be made today.

 

It's past time for people to get on with their lives.

[Mind]

Terrorizing the population, forcing them into isolation, and tracking their every move seems to work to minimize the spread of COVID - see China.

 

Every other pandemic response was an utter failure, Nothing the the health bureaucracies forced upon the world stopped the spread of COVID. NOTHING!

 

Everyone I know got COVID. It didn't matter if they wore a mask all the time or not. General masking was a total failure. Yet, there are people still arguing that everyone should wear masks again. "They" don't want you to ever be out in public again without a mask. 

[Mind]

Sweden shunned masks. Hong Kong was forced into near 100% compliance with mask wearing in public. Hong Kong has nearly the same number of cases per million as Sweden has.

 

I recall when the mask mandate was dropped for airplanes in the U.S. Health bureaucrats, some politicians, and national media outlets screeched in horror, claiming a disaster would occur - a massive wave of COVID. It didn't happen.

[geo12the]

Sweden shunned masks. Hong Kong was forced into near 100% compliance with mask wearing in public. Hong Kong has nearly the same number of cases per million as Sweden has.

 

 

 

Population density matters. Hong kong is very densely populated. I've been a few times and it reminded me of Manhattan in terms of the dense hoards of humans walking around. Close proximity of humans = greater chance for viruses to spread. Honk Kong has 7.4 million people spread over 430 square miles. Sweden has 10.4 million spread over 204,035 square miles. Of course there will be more spread in Hong Kong. The question is what would the numbers be if people in Hong Kong did not wear masks? If I had to bet 1 million $, I would say much higher. I and others always bring up the population density factor when these kinds of numbers are tossed around. I am curious why you discount population density as a confounding factor? 

Edited by geo12the, 03 November 2022 - 04:21 PM.

[kurdishfella]

I don't know why people take these half-assed measures like wearing an mask but not taking other important precautions. If you wanna be safe then do everything to stay safe from the virus and do the proper research. 

(edit) do post count not add up posting here?

Edited by kurdishfella, 03 November 2022 - 05:36 PM.

[Mind]

The Scottish government finally acknowledges that constant mask-wearing in care homes is not warranted.

[geo12the]

New study on masking suggests it helps protect from COVID:

 

https://www.nejm.org...6/NEJMoa2211029

 

 

[Mind]

New study on masking suggests it helps protect from COVID:

 

https://www.nejm.org...6/NEJMoa2211029

 

The schools that lifted their mask mandates had an additional 1 out of 20 students that caught COVID. 

 

According the mask advocates, the masks are the be all-end-all solution to COVID (and now suddenly pretty much every other virus known to man). This study shows that the difference between schools where masks were used and where they were not used is barely detectable, an additional caseload that didn't even reach 5%. According to mask advocates, the minute masks stopped being used, there would/should be absolute COVID carnage. It didn't happen in these schools.

 

I recall that mask advocates said that "if everyone just wore masks for a couple of weeks this thing would be over". 95% of the country wore masks in public and nothing changed - as this study also demonstrates.

 

The countries with highest mask compliance still got waves and waves of COVID (Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.)

 

Politicians, rich elites, and public health bureaucrats consistently flouted the mask rules throughout the pandemic. Trudeau in Canada is still doing the mask theatre.

Edited by Mind, 11 November 2022 - 06:13 PM.

[Mind]

Yet more "mask theatre" from the politicians that want to force you and your kids to wear them. They don't wear them. Throughout the pandemic they consistently flouted mask and lockdown rules.

[Mind]

Schools stayed open in Sweden and kids were not required to wear masks. The teachers and schools are still doing fine in Sweden. Real world results matter.

[Mind]

A recent study found what every other study before the media-created COVID panic found - that there is no difference in protection when using N95 masks versus surgical masks.

 

Everyone knows this, except Dr. Fauci - who probably lied under oath about what studies he replied upon to start promoting mask usage.

 

This is not news, didn't mean to bore you. Masking was an utter failure as a pandemic response.

 

The real nugget in this study is the authors statement of weaknesses in the study. They surmised that people wearing the different styles of masks probably got COVID in other environments (like at home) when they were not wearing the masks. Which is precisely why masking is such a poor response to a pandemic. People need to eat. People need to drink. People are SOCIAL beings that need to be in contact with each other. Parents need to hug their kids. People need to sleep. People need to exercise. Seeing people smile is good for health.

[Hip]

 

 Masking was an utter failure as a pandemic response.

 

Let's examine this statement with the help of this 2022 study which found that:

 

"Average COVID-19 mortality per million was 288.54 in countries without face mask policies and 48.40 in countries with face mask policies."

[joesixpack]

Let's examine this statement with the help of this 2022 study which found that:

 

"Average COVID-19 mortality per million was 288.54 in countries without face mask policies and 48.40 in countries with face mask policies."

 

 

The "study" only ran from February 15, 2020 to May 31, 2020. My recollection is that there were not many cases anywhere, except China, until summer of 2020. Also, I don't think there were mask mandates anywhere but China in February,  within the boundaries of the study. Also, there were no mask mandates that I know of established until the summer. At least in the US, I am providing a link to an LA Times story showing the mask mandate timelines.

 

So not many cases or deaths for the study period, and not many mandates to study, in the first 3.5 months of the pandemic. 

 

https://www.latimes....vid-19-pandemic

 

Here are a couple of excerpts from the article, which do not violate fair use standards.

 

 

Feb. 29, 2020 

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams tweets that wearing a face mask will not prevent the public from contracting the novel coronavirus.

“Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” he wrote in a tweet that was later deleted. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

 

March 24, 2020

Even as the coronavirus spreads across the United States — shutting down businesses, sporting events and schools — the CDC’s advice around masking remains unequivocal: Healthy people who do not work in the healthcare sector and are not taking care of an infected person at home do not need to wear masks.

“Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers,” the government agency says.

April 3, 2020 

After insisting for weeks that healthy people did not need to wear masks in most circumstances, federal health officials change their guidance in response to a growing body of evidence that people who do not appear to be sick are playing an outsize role in the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Edited by joesixpack, 08 December 2022 - 02:10 AM.

[Hip]

Here are a couple of excerpts from the article, which do not violate fair use standards.

 

At the beginning of the pandemic, when the UK government's scientists were saying "masks have no benefit for the general public, they only work when doctors wear them", I wrote to a UK newspaper suggesting that they call out this utter nonsense. If masks work for staff in a hospital, they will also work for an individual in a public place. Whether it was a coincidence or not, that newspaper started a pro-mask campaign just a few days after my email to them.

 

There may have been reasons to tell these white lies at the beginning, to protect the limited supply of masks for the medical staff in COVID wards, but it's not good form to distort science for political means.

 

 

 

It would great if we had an airborne virus detector gadget we could all carry. Then we could just put on a mask when the device alerts us to viruses in the air.

 

It should also be possible to develop effective air sterilisers in future: we know that ultraviolet light of 254 nm wavelength kills germs, and this germicidal wavelength is used in hospitals to disinfect rooms. Unfortunately though 254 nm is carcinogenic and damages eyes, so should not be used when humans are present.

 

However, it was recently discovered that the ultraviolet wavelength of 222 nm is just as good at killing microbes, but is harmless to humans. So the race is on to develop LED bulbs which can emit UV at 222 nm. These LED bulbs could then be placed on the ceiling of a room, and would sterilise the air. This could be used on public transport, in hospital wards, in doctor's waiting rooms, and even just in the office, to stop common colds from spreading. 

 

Some info on 222 nm germicidal light here.

[Mind]

Let's examine this statement with the help of this 2022 study which found that:

 

"Average COVID-19 mortality per million was 288.54 in countries without face mask policies and 48.40 in countries with face mask policies."

 

The study cut-off in May of 2020. There were hardly any mask mandates at that point! The virus was not very widespread. Real world data since then  - ALMOST 2 YEARS LATER - has shown that the virus spread like wildfire in Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Germany, Austria, and many other countries that had not only strict mask mandates but also required high quality respirators. The deaths per million in these countries is higher than much of the rest of the world.

 

In addition, the study used modelling of confounders in order to determine the deaths per million, because they couldn't get high quality individual case data for a billion people.

[Mind]

At the beginning of the pandemic, when the UK government's scientists were saying "masks have no benefit for the general public, they only work when doctors wear them", I wrote to a UK newspaper suggesting that they call out this utter nonsense. If masks work for staff in a hospital, they will also work for an individual in a public place. Whether it was a coincidence or not, that newspaper started a pro-mask campaign just a few days after my email to them.

 

There may have been reasons to tell these white lies at the beginning, to protect the limited supply of masks for the medical staff in COVID wards, but it's not good form to distort science for political means.

 

 

 

It would great if we had an airborne virus detector gadget we could all carry. Then we could just put on a mask when the device alerts us to viruses in the air.

 

It should also be possible to develop effective air sterilisers in future: we know that ultraviolet light of 254 nm wavelength kills germs, and this germicidal wavelength is used in hospitals to disinfect rooms. Unfortunately though 254 nm is carcinogenic and damages eyes, so should not be used when humans are present.

 

However, it was recently discovered that the ultraviolet wavelength of 222 nm is just as good at killing microbes, but is harmless to humans. So the race is on to develop LED bulbs which can emit UV at 222 nm. These LED bulbs could then be placed on the ceiling of a room, and would sterilise the air. This could be used on public transport, in hospital wards, in doctor's waiting rooms, and even just in the office, to stop common colds from spreading. 

 

Some info on 222 nm germicidal light here.

 

Sterilizing the entire world is not going to work. Viruses are not going away. Bacteria are part of our ecology. Microorganisms are an integral part of life on earth. It is better to cure the disease and improve general immune system health than destroy the environment.

[Daniel Cooper]

Let's examine this statement with the help of this 2022 study which found that:

 

"Average COVID-19 mortality per million was 288.54 in countries without face mask policies and 48.40 in countries with face mask policies."

 

You are assuming that the only differences between these two groups of countries were the mask mandates. But we know that countries with mask mandates also had extremely aggressive (some would say draconian - e.g. China) lock downs. And there is certainly no controversy that making everyone stay home will dramatically lower the rate of infection.

 

Additionally - in Asia in particular, some countries with mask mandates also locked down their boarders very early and they did extensive contract tracing (e.g. South Korea, Taiwan, etc.). Early border lock downs (before the genie escaped the bottle) and aggressive contract tracing also seemed to work very well for a time. They were just not sustainable.

 

So you see - in every case these mask mandates were part of a constellation of responses. A country with a mask mandate was pretty much guaranteed to have implemented many other containment measures. A country with no mask mandates just the opposite. So it is impossible to separate which of these measures were effective and which were not just by comparing essentially two classes of countries.

 

It is much better to look inside a country like the US were mask mandates varied from state to state and country to county - particularly in school systems. Even that is imperfect but much better than the comparison you propose.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 08 December 2022 - 07:49 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

However, it was recently discovered that the ultraviolet wavelength of 222 nm is just as good at killing microbes, but is harmless to humans. So the race is on to develop LED bulbs which can emit UV at 222 nm. These LED bulbs could then be placed on the ceiling of a room, and would sterilise the air. This could be used on public transport, in hospital wards, in doctor's waiting rooms, and even just in the office, to stop common colds from spreading.
 
Some info on 222 nm germicidal light here.

 

That is a webpage of a company with a product to sell. There may be research that shows that 222nm is effective at killing microorganisms but not harmful to humans, but I did not see any citations presented. So a little skepticism it probably in order.

 

They claim that wavelength kills bacteria and viruses but doesn't harm humans because it is also absorbed by proteins. Well, one thing in a human that is pretty much pure protein is the crystalline lens of the eye. So would that wavelength promote cataracts? Very possible. We know that other UV wavelengths promote cataracts and a wavelength that is specifically absorbed by proteins certainly sounds like something that might create an issue. After all, there is some concern right now that white LEDs used for room lighting which emit more UV than incandescent lamps may currently be promoting cataracts and photodamage to skin.  Personally I'd want to see some long term animal studies before I put these lamps in my home or office.

 

 

 

[Hip]

 

That is a webpage of a company with a product to sell. There may be research that shows that 222nm is effective at killing microorganisms but not harmful to humans, but I did not see any citations presented. So a little skepticism it probably in order.

 

They claim that wavelength kills bacteria and viruses but doesn't harm humans because it is also absorbed by proteins. Well, one thing in a human that is pretty much pure protein is the crystalline lens of the eye. So would that wavelength promote cataracts? Very possible. We know that other UV wavelengths promote cataracts and a wavelength that is specifically absorbed by proteins certainly sounds like something that might create an issue. After all, there is some concern right now that white LEDs used for room lighting which emit more UV than incandescent lamps may currently be promoting cataracts and photodamage to skin.  Personally I'd want to see some long term animal studies before I put these lamps in my home or office.

 

There are quite a few papers on PubMed about 222 nm germicidal light. 

 

This paper is on the safety for eyes. So is this paper. 

 

No doubt safety tests would have to be fully satisfied before these bulbs are employed. 

Edited by Hip, 08 December 2022 - 08:22 PM.

[Hip]

Sterilizing the entire world is not going to work. Viruses are not going away. Bacteria are part of our ecology. Microorganisms are an integral part of life on earth. It is better to cure the disease and improve general immune system health than destroy the environment.

 

Sounds like some quaint pre-scientific notions of health that one's great-grandmother might espouse, rather than any advanced forward thinking.

 

I'd suggest those interested in health and longevity might like to spend some time reading about how infectious microbes that live in your body can hack into your immune system, and switch it off, or render your immune system dysfunctional, leaving you open to disease and cancer. That "hacking" process is called immune evasion. Microbes don't fight fair: they like to destroy the immune system, so that they can remain in your body.

 

Then once you have read about this, let me know if you are still happy to have these "hackers" living in your various organs. 

 

If you paint a children's tale of happy microbes co-existing with humans, in a cartoon with smily faces on these micro-organisms, then you may convince yourself that microbes are all benign. But if you actually read the science, it tells another story.

 

 

 

The fact is, most chronic illnesses, whether physical illness or mental illnesses, still have an unknown aetiology. We know most diseases are not caused by genetics, due to concordance rates studies and genetic testing studies. Therefore, if the cause of disease is not within, diseases must be triggered by external environmental factors.

 

Chemical toxins are one such environmental factor. But chronic diseases were about long before the industrial revolution, when we started making chemicals en masse. The only other major environmental factor is infectious pathogens. 

 

 

The natural condition of human beings is longevity. All of us would likely naturally live to over 100, barring any accidents, if our bodies remained pure, as they were at the time of birth. But the longer we live, the more viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites we acquire, which start using our organs as their home. The worst types of microbe tends to be the ones that actually live inside our cells: these are much more connected to chronic disease. Such infections are known as intracellular infections.

Edited by Hip, 08 December 2022 - 09:28 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

There are quite a few papers on PubMed about 222 nm germicidal light. 

 

This paper is on the safety for eyes. So is this paper. 

 

No doubt safety tests would have to be fully satisfied before these bulbs are employed. 

 

Those papers are on acute corneal damage - not long term induction of cataracts.

 

You're potentially talking about people being under those lights for 5 days a week 8 hours a day (or more). I personally would worry about cataracts in those conditions.

[Hip]

Those papers are on acute corneal damage - not long term induction of cataracts.

 

You're potentially talking about people being under those lights for 5 days a week 8 hours a day (or more). I personally would worry about cataracts in those conditions.

 

 

 

It was already confirmed that 222‐nm UVC irradiation did not induce acute corneal damage nor reactions in Sprague Dawley rats (25).

 

In this study, we assayed for several chronic ophthalmic effects of 222‐nm UVC exposure, by macroscopic observations and histopathological evaluations (Fig. 5), which was compared with those of broad‐band UVB exposure.

 

In analyses of eyelids and cornea, neovascularization and corneal haze were observed in Xpa‐knockout mice irradiated with broad‐band UVB. Histologically, a number of vessels invading and reaching the center of the cornea and abnormal increment cells in the corneal stroma were present. Ulcers with scarring were observed in the corneal epithelium, in the corneal opacification in Xpa‐knockout mice irradiated with broad‐band UVB.

 

Cataracts were clearly observed in Xpa‐knockout mice irradiated with broad‐band UVB, showing that lens epithelial cells were proliferating and stratified, with disorganization of the lens cortex. Retinal pigmented epithelium and the outer nuclear layer were most sensitive to the UV‐induced damage (26, 27). Thinned inner nuclear layers and moderately damaged outer nuclear layers were also observed in Xpa‐knockout mice irradiated with broad‐band UVB.

 

On the other hand, all 222‐nm UVC irradiated mice, irrespective of Xpa‐genotype, showed no significant changes on retinal tissue throughout these examinations (Fig. 5), suggesting that 222‐nm UVC was absorbed on the ocular surface (28) and did not reach the lens and retina.

 

[Daniel Cooper]

Yes. Short term exposure did not induce cataracts.

 

They said they exposed these rats under "deep anesthesia". How long do you reckon that exposure lasted? Tens of minutes? Hours? Very unlikely any more than that. I can't find the full paper on Sci-Hub but perhaps you can find it and tell us exactly how long the exposure was.

 

The max energy delivered was 600mJ/cm^2.  That's not a lot of energy. A Joule is 1 Watt of power over 1 second. This is 0.6 Joules over an area quite a bit bigger than a rat's cornea.

 

How relevant do you think that would be to a human getting 40+ hours per week exposure for years?

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 08 December 2022 - 09:15 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The natural condition of human beings is longevity. All of us would likely naturally live to over 100, barring any accidents, if our bodies remained pure, as they were at the time of birth. But the longer we live, the more viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites we acquire, which start using our organs as their home. The worst types of microbe tends to be the ones that actually live inside our cells: these are much more connected to chronic disease. Such infections are known as intracellular infections.

 

There is certainly no evidence of that whatsoever.

 

You ascribe aging to accumulated damage. That is likely part of the equation. But it seems more likely that aging is part of our genetic program. We age to make way for younger generations so that adaptation and evolution can occur. We age because we are in a sense designed to age.

 

Otherwise given the untold billions of people that have existed you'd occasionally find the extremely long lived person (think many hundreds of years rather than a hundred or so years) simply due to the fact that because of the random nature of the process you'd now and then run across a person that through luck of the draw had managed to avoid taking a lot of damage. But we don't see that. We see an abrupt cutoff in age at just over slightly more than 120 years. That is not the distribution you'd expect if aging were the result of random accumulated damage. That is what you'd expect if we have an aging mechanism as a built in program.

[Hip]

 

How relevant do you think that would be to a human getting 40+ hours per week exposure for years?

 

I don't really want to divert my energy into an in-depth discussion about the nuances of 222 nm safety testing. That's the job of the scientists doing the testing. If it proves safe at the levels used for killing germs in the air, then great. If not, it's back to the drawing board.

 

If 222 nm is proven safe, it would be a great boon to hospitals, since Google tells me there are 100,000 hospital-acquired infection per year in the UK, which costs the National Health Service £1 billion to deal with.

 

222 nm could also be a powerful tool when we next get hit by a pandemic, assuming the next one is also airborne.