1042 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

BTW - let's talk about what caused this year long relative lull in covid infections and deaths. First what didn't cause it:

 

1.) It was likely not caused by vaccinations. Most people that have been vaccinated received the 2 shot sequence sometime in 2021. The uptake rate on boosters has been exceedingly low. The data tells us that the effectiveness of the vaccines wanes pretty quickly. A vaccine taken in 2021 is providing very little immunity today in 2023.

 

2.) It certainly has not been caused by masks. Masks really stared coming off in a wide scale fashion as this minima started in early 2022. Most of the country has not been wearing masks significantly for at least 9 months. In most places even longer.  Where I live - it has been a very low percentage of the population routinely wearing a mask for at least the last year. Both mask usage rates and infection/death rates have been simultaneously low for approaching a year now.

 

So what likely had caused it?

 

1.) Natural ongoing exposure and immunity. We've reached the point were a significant percentage of the population has had covid (and a large percentage of those that have had it don't know it). Probably more significantly, people are likely seeing some ongoing exposure where they are getting exposed to the virus with enough intact immunity in place so they aren't getting very ill such that it is boosting their immunity without causing significant sickness. This is a known phenomena with other viral infections like polio (which is why children were at risk but adults typically were not prior to the polio vaccine).

 

2.) Probably most significantly, the virus continues to adapt to it's new host and in doing so becomes less and less lethal. This is the biggest contributor to the end of most viral pandemics.

 

Now, I'm sure that someone will ding me with a "Needs references" tag and you're right. So consider this an Op-Ed piece based on a long term interest in the history of viral pandemics. But let me suggest this is not an uninformed opinion.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 15 March 2023 - 09:12 PM.

[geo12the]

BTW - let's talk about what caused this year long relative lull in covid infections and deaths. First what didn't cause it:

 

1.) It was likely not caused by vaccinations. Most people that have been vaccinated received the 2 shot sequence sometime in 2021. The uptake rate on boosters has been exceedingly low. The data tells us that the effectiveness of the vaccines wanes pretty quickly. A vaccine taken in 2021 is providing very little immunity today in 2023.

 

2.) It certainly has not been caused by masks. Masks really stared coming off in a wide scale fashion as this minima started in early 2022. Most of the country has not been wearing masks significantly for at least 9 months. In most places even longer.  Where I live - it has been a very low percentage of the population routinely wearing a mask for at least the last year. Both mask usage rates and infection/death rates have been simultaneously low for approaching a year now.

 

So what likely had caused it?

 

1.) Natural ongoing exposure and immunity. We've reached the point were a significant percentage of the population has had covid (and a large percentage of those that have had it don't know it). Probably more significantly, people are likely seeing some ongoing exposure where they are getting exposed to the virus with enough intact immunity in place so they aren't getting very ill such that it is boosting their immunity without causing significant sickness. This is a known phenomena with other viral infections like polio (which is why children were at risk but adults typically were not prior to the polio vaccine).

 

2.) Probably most significantly, the virus continues to adapt to it's new host and in doing so becomes less and less lethal. This is the biggest contributor to the end of most viral pandemics.

 

Now, I'm sure that someone will ding me with a "Needs references" tag and you're right. So consider this an Op-Ed piece based on a long term interest in the history of viral pandemics. But let me suggest this is not an uninformed opinion.

 

I definitely believe the vaccinations and masks have played a role but they are not mutually exclusive from the points you say caused it. Maks are a barrier that decreases the number of viral particles one is exposed to, allowing ongoing lower level exposure that can strengthen immunity. Vaccines have kept people from catching it and the vaccinated that caught it were less sick.  They gave breathing room for ongoing exposure and immune strengthening to happen. As I said 1 million times in these threads the who point of the vaccines was to introduce the human immune system to the virus. They were successful at doing that and allowing ongoing exposure to happen without sickness. People these days need to split everything into stark black or white choices but the reality is that all of the things you list, the top 1 and 2 and the bottom 1 and 2 interact in real life and the end result is the lull you mention. As I have said 1 million times, it's not a contest about who is right or smarter or more virtues in their views. 

[smithx]

So at some point, covid-19 will become a relatively mild endemic virus that causes an unpleasant but almost never lethal experience for the overwhelming majority of people.

 

Sure, but what about the long COVID that still affects an estimated 10% of all cases, even asymptomatic ones? I've already posted the references above (recently).

 

People who keep saying "well, it isn't killing everybody" somehow keep ignoring that very concerning statistic.

[Daniel Cooper]

I definitely believe the vaccinations and masks have played a role but they are not mutually exclusive from the points you say caused it. Maks are a barrier that decreases the number of viral particles one is exposed to, allowing ongoing lower level exposure that can strengthen immunity. Vaccines have kept people from catching it and the vaccinated that caught it were less sick.  They gave breathing room for ongoing exposure and immune strengthening to happen. As I said 1 million times in these threads the who point of the vaccines was to introduce the human immune system to the virus. They were successful at doing that and allowing ongoing exposure to happen without sickness. People these days need to split everything into stark black or white choices but the reality is that all of the things you list, the top 1 and 2 and the bottom 1 and 2 interact in real life and the end result is the lull you mention. As I have said 1 million times, it's not a contest about who is right or smarter or more virtues in their views. 

 

I think it is undeniable that masks played no role in the greatly reduced rates of covid infections and deaths we've seen over the last year.

 

This is obvious on it face - covid infections and deaths have dramatically improved simultaneously with far lower rates of mask usage by the general public.
 

I just don't see how you can say that the covid situation improving was in any way due to masks that people are no longer wearing.

 

But, if you've got a counter argument as to how not wearing masks and covid improving are due to the positive effects of masks I'd love to hear it.

 

One might be tempted to make the reverse argument - that covid is improving because people are no longer wearing masks. At least the correlations between those two things are positive. However, I think that argument is also wrong. Most likely, there is little correlation between masking and covid infection/death rates simply because the former has little impact on the latter.

[geo12the]

I think it is undeniable that masks played no role in the greatly reduced rates of covid infections and deaths we've seen over the last year.

 

This is obvious on it face - covid infections and deaths have dramatically improved simultaneously with far lower rates of mask usage by the general public.
 

I just don't see how you can say that the covid situation improving was in any way due to masks that people are no longer wearing.

 

But, if you've got a counter argument as to how not wearing masks and covid improving are due to the positive effects of masks I'd love to hear it.

 

One might be tempted to make the reverse argument - that covid is improving because people are no longer wearing masks. At least the correlations between those two things are positive. However, I think that argument is also wrong. Most likely, there is little correlation between masking and covid infection/death rates simply because the former has little impact on the latter.

 

We can agree to disagree, but I absolutely believe masks (and vaccines) helped get us to the place where the human immune system can more reliably stand up to COVID. Now that we are there, are they needed as much? Probably not as much as before, but I still wear them  when I am in an environment with a high density of humans like Target or the supermarket.  One thing that is lost in the mask argument is viral load. Masks may not completely prevent all virus from entering your lungs but they are a barrier that will prevent some virus (that exact number is debatable and depends on the kind of mask and if it is worn correctly). A small number of virus particles you might encounter a mask might keep you under the threshold of getting sick while stimulating your immune system . You may not agree, some will no doubt mark this as "ill-informed" but I believe it 100%.

Edited by geo12the, 16 March 2023 - 10:15 PM.

[Mind]

The other side of the argument "We're all gonna get it anyway, so why bother trying to not get it?" is similar to the argument "We're all gonna die so why fight it? Aging is natural!"

 

 

I don't think this is a good analogy. Using a mask to battle aerosolized respiratory viruses is like blood-letting with leaches to battle aging. It doesn't work as a general health policy for the public. We should be looking for better solutions that actually work.

 

Masking was a total failure everywhere in the world. If you look at the real world data, COVID cases exploded in most countries AFTER mask mandates went into effect. It is a terrible pandemic response, as has been proven by RCT studies over the course of many decades, and most recently by the COVID panic.

[Daniel Cooper]

I don't think this is a good analogy. Using a mask to battle aerosolized respiratory viruses is like blood-letting with leaches to battle aging. It doesn't work as a general health policy for the public. We should be looking for better solutions that actually work.

 

Masking was a total failure everywhere in the world. If you look at the real world data, COVID cases exploded in most countries AFTER mask mandates went into effect. It is a terrible pandemic response, as has been proven by RCT studies over the course of many decades, and most recently by the COVID panic.

 

There were plenty of studies pre-covid about mask's ability to stop the of spread of influenza viruses and the vast majority showed that they were ineffective. This has been pretty well known for quite a while now.

 

The R0 for influenza tends to be in the range of 1 - 2. The R0 for covid has been estimated to be between 2-3 but I've seen some estimates on the low end that put it around 1.4. In other words, the low end estimates for covid are right in the middle of the range for influenza.

 

If masks have been shown to be ineffective against influenza, it's hard to see how they were going to be more effective against covid.

 

Again, this was all known prior to the start of the coivd pandemic.

 

 

[Mind]

Masks made no difference in hospitals in the UK during the omicron wave of COVID. Considering all of the peer-reviewed evidence over the last few decades, this should come as no surprise.

 

Masking was a terrible pandemic response. It didn't work at all.

 

Yet, the mask advocates (mainly US/UK media outlets) are so desperate to cling to the unscientific masking policy, that they are now trying to destroy quality scientific institutions like the Cohcrane Review.

 

 

[Mind]

More and more media outlets (mostly outside the US) are asking why masks are still being promoted given the fact there is virtually no evidence they work as a general pandemic policy. Hopefully more competent health officials outside the US/UK will get to work on pandemic measures that actually work.

[zorba990]

Symptoms from long term mask wearing right be misinterpreted as long covid:
https://www.frontier...23.1125150/full

"Methods: A systematic review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects yielded 54 publications for synthesis and 37 studies for meta-analysis (on n = 8,641, m = 2,482, f = 6,159, age = 34.8 ± 12.5). The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes.

Results: We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second. These effects included decreased SpO2 (overall Standard Mean Difference, SMD = −0.24, 95% CI = −0.38 to −0.11, p < 0.001) and minute ventilation (SMD = −0.72, 95% CI = −0.99 to −0.46, p < 0.001), simultaneous increased in blood-CO2 (SMD = +0.64, 95% CI = 0.31–0.96, p < 0.001), heart rate (N95: SMD = +0.22, 95% CI = 0.03–0.41, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (surgical: SMD = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.03–0.39, p = 0.02), skin temperature (overall SMD = +0.80 95% CI = 0.23–1.38, p = 0.006) and humidity (SMD +2.24, 95% CI = 1.32–3.17, p < 0.001). Effects on exertion (overall SMD = +0.9, surgical = +0.63, N95 = +1.19), discomfort (SMD = +1.16), dyspnoea (SMD = +1.46), heat (SMD = +0.70), and humidity (SMD = +0.9) were significant in n = 373 with a robust relationship to mask wearing (p < 0.006 to p < 0.001). Pooled symptom prevalence (n = 8,128) was significant for: headache (62%, p < 0.001), acne (38%, p < 0.001), skin irritation (36%, p < 0.001), dyspnoea (33%, p < 0.001), heat (26%, p < 0.001), itching (26%, p < 0.001), voice disorder (23%, p < 0.03), and dizziness (5%, p = 0.01).
Discussion: Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation. Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups. So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health.

Conclusion: Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law."

[Mind]

Symptoms from long term mask wearing right be misinterpreted as long covid:
https://www.frontier...23.1125150/full

"Methods: A systematic review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects yielded 54 publications for synthesis and 37 studies for meta-analysis (on n = 8,641, m = 2,482, f = 6,159, age = 34.8 ± 12.5). The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes.

Results: We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second. These effects included decreased SpO2 (overall Standard Mean Difference, SMD = −0.24, 95% CI = −0.38 to −0.11, p < 0.001) and minute ventilation (SMD = −0.72, 95% CI = −0.99 to −0.46, p < 0.001), simultaneous increased in blood-CO2 (SMD = +0.64, 95% CI = 0.31–0.96, p < 0.001), heart rate (N95: SMD = +0.22, 95% CI = 0.03–0.41, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (surgical: SMD = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.03–0.39, p = 0.02), skin temperature (overall SMD = +0.80 95% CI = 0.23–1.38, p = 0.006) and humidity (SMD +2.24, 95% CI = 1.32–3.17, p < 0.001). Effects on exertion (overall SMD = +0.9, surgical = +0.63, N95 = +1.19), discomfort (SMD = +1.16), dyspnoea (SMD = +1.46), heat (SMD = +0.70), and humidity (SMD = +0.9) were significant in n = 373 with a robust relationship to mask wearing (p < 0.006 to p < 0.001). Pooled symptom prevalence (n = 8,128) was significant for: headache (62%, p < 0.001), acne (38%, p < 0.001), skin irritation (36%, p < 0.001), dyspnoea (33%, p < 0.001), heat (26%, p < 0.001), itching (26%, p < 0.001), voice disorder (23%, p < 0.03), and dizziness (5%, p = 0.01).
Discussion: Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation. Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups. So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health.

Conclusion: Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law."

 

There were a lot of people and researchers suggesting that prolonged mask use would lead to various health problems. This is common sense. Sadly, all of those warnings went unheeded. Instead, there were a lot of vicious attacks. People were arrested, mocked, and doxxed, for accurately predicting various potential long-term masking problems.

[Mind]

I am still amazed at all the people rejecting actual science in favor of....something else.

 

The science is as clear as it can get - masking the general population as a pandemic response is futile an NOT backed by research including high quality RCT studies.

 

Yet another observational study here showing that kids who wore masks had HIGHER rates of COVID infection than those who did not wear masks.

 

In addition, masking likely causes declines in general health, as had been speculated previously.

Edited by Mind, 26 April 2023 - 06:23 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

That last paper you posted - Possible toxicity of chronic carbon dioxide exposure associated with face mask use, particularly in pregnant women, children and adolescents – A scoping review is very interesting and surprising.

 

I would never have thought that wearing a mask would raise the chronic exposure of inhaled CO2 to the region of 1.4% to 3.2% from the atmospheric concentration of ~400ppm (0.04%).  I find that result to be remarkable.

 

That there would be consequences to that level of CO2 exposure is not surprising. Some industries limit chronic CO2 exposure to levels significantly lower than that. In fact, once you get up to 5-7% CO2 you begin to induce an autonomic panic response that is used in human test subjects as a model to evaluate the effectiveness of anxiolytic drugs.

 

I would assume that more effective masks (e.g. N95 and above) would generate inhaled CO2 levels on the upper end of that range.

 

That result is not to be taken lightly. Chronically inhaling that level of CO2 is very likely not going to be good for you.

 

 

 

 

[Florin]

 

No country has mandated respirator use.
 
Real world data is besides the point. If everyone was being gassed to death, don't you think it would be a good idea if they wore gas masks even though there's no real world data on civilian use of gas masks?

But people weren't being gassed to death. They were being potentially exposed to a virus with a very variable risk of serious illness and lethality. 
 
In older persons or those that were overweight or diabetic or had a few other comorbidities the risk was significant but nothing like "being gassed to death".  In younger healthier populations, the risk was quite a bit less.
 
This one size fits all of mandating mask or respirators makes no sense. A 12 year old kid has almost no risk from this virus. A healthy 30 year old has a very small risk. You act as if walking around all day wearing a full on respirator is a zero cost proposition. I'll make a suggestion that I've made before - get your respirator, wear it around for 8 hours a day, interact with people, attempt to have conversations, go about your daily business, etc. Do this for a few weeks then come back and tell me if you feel that this is a burden that should be forced on people regardless of their likely risk.

The analogy is good enough, and I'm sure you're smart enough to have known that.

 

Anyway, what would the fatality rate during a poison gas attack have to be for you accept that wearing a gas mask would be a good idea?

Edited by Florin, 29 April 2023 - 02:25 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Are you really comparing undergoing a poison gas attack to walking about in public with a now endemic respiratory virus?

[Florin]

Are you really comparing undergoing a poison gas attack to walking about in public with a now endemic respiratory virus?

 

I'm mostly referring to the past, but the future should also be considered.

 

What would the threshold be of "risk of serious illness and lethality" that would have made (or make in a future poison gas attack) gas mask use appropriate? 1%, 10%, 20%, 50%, 100%?

[Daniel Cooper]

Anyway, what would the fatality rate during a poison gas attack have to be for you accept that wearing a gas mask would be a good idea?

 

For me, it would have to reach at least the 1% level before I would even consider it. And that would be my best estimate of what my personal chance of death would be given my age and health status. If I'm being honest, probably a couple of percent.

 

And that's the way it should be. A personal decision. Not something dictated to me by government officials which are going to turn right around and ignore their own rules - which is exactly what happened in every Western country that I'm aware of.

 

Even our sainted Dr. Faucci was caught out at a party sans mask.

 

If we're talking about these respirators of yours which can be made nearly 100% effective after all, then what is the argument for forcing people to wear them? You can wear yours and be protected. You don't need me to wear one to protect you.

[Florin]

You seem to agreed that wearing a respirator is warranted if the risk is significant. Good.

 

And of course, I agree that if respirators were available, then (with some exceptions) mandates shouldn't be necessary. The exceptions would be in places were respirators couldn't be worn by patients such as in nursing homes, hospitals, and dental offices; in those kinds of situations, staff and visitors should be mandated to wear them, until the risk was reduced. Another possible exception would be if, for whatever reason, most at-risk people wouldn't use respirators and started clogging up the ER. For instance, this might happen when the risk is unclear or slightly over 1%.

[Mind]

When asked, the German health minister could NOT cite any evidence that the mask mandates affected the course of the COVID panic.....because there is none.

 

There is no level of masking with any quality of mask that will "work" as a general pandemic response. As society is currently constructed there are multiple points of failure with this approach, highlighted ad nauseum throughout this discussion.

 

The obsession with masking is taking energy and ideas away from developing better approaches - approaches that have a chance of working.

[Florin]

Mask won't work for covid but they seem to have worked for the flu.

 

Of course, masks shouldn't be assumed to work for future pandemics, and that's why respirators are important. The problem with other approaches is that they're not guaranteed to work (therapeutics) or are too impractical (UV lighting).

 

The problem with any solution (including respirators or a 100% effective therapeutic) is that during a mild pandemic, a lot of people will be less motivated to protect themselves and you're going to get problems such as ER-clogging.

[Daniel Cooper]

There is certainly no doubt in my mind that if you work hard enough you can make a respirator that seals well enough on the face and filters out fine enough particles that you can make them practically 100% effective.

 

But ....

 

I do really suggest you get something like that and wear it for an extended period of time day in and day out so that you understand what sort of burden that is.

 

The rubber seal will tend to chafe, sweat will tend to build up inside - particularly if the environment is even slightly warm or there is almost any physical exertion going on.

 

Our lungs are really not designed to work against that sort of resistance on inhalation for long periods of time and that can cause a number of issues. And as noted earlier, rebreathing CO2 can be a problem.

 

Some of that might be overcome. As a friend of mine used to say - "Time and money put man on the moon". In other words, given the money and commitment you can overcome almost any engineering challenge. One can image a powered respirator running off a rechargeable battery - that would overcome the inhalation resistance, the potential to rebreath C02, and maybe the buildup of moisture inside the mask. But, you're carrying extra weight, cost, and have created a battery life issue.

 

The chafing issue and the weight - that's a tough one. I don't really see making something like this comfortable for most people. Not to wear for an extended period.

 

Making a few billion of these and many billion more replaceable filters is also no small challenge.

 

I just don't see this as the panacea that we would like it to be. Keep in mind, half the population ended up wearing cloth masks on their chin and those were much less burdensome that the sort of respirator you're describing.  

 

Like I said - go get yourself the best 3M mask you can find and make the commitment to wear it 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for a month or two. That's what you are expecting people to do that don't basically have the ability to become shut-ins during some future pandemic.

[Florin]

Didn't we go over this before? If someone feels that an elastomeric respirator is too uncomfortable for extended use, they'd just take frequent breaks or wear a PAPR-type respirator and use the elastomeric as a backup. Commercial PAPRs are expensive but other versions can be manufactured extremely cheaply, filters can last practically forever, and PAPRs don't need to fit or seal well and they can be made to be extremely light (the battery can fit in a pocket or on a belt). Exhalation valves make humidity and CO2 non-issues. I highly doubt that most people won't wearing these things correctly; they're much less prone to user error, and during a dangerous pandemic, most will be motivated to wear them appropriately. I know of no other solution that has a better chance of working no-matter-what.

Edited by Florin, 05 May 2023 - 12:59 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

I worked as a Surgical Technologist for 35 years, so I've spent a good part of my life masked.  This said, I can tell you that nothing feels better after a 4-5 hour case than reaching up and ripping that mask off and feeling the cool air on your face.  

 

Full time respirators?  Forever???  Oh jeeze no!  Give me liberty, or give me death!  

[Daniel Cooper]

Didn't we go over this before? If someone feels that an elastomeric respirator is too uncomfortable for extended use, they'd just take frequent breaks or wear a PAPR-type respirator and use the elastomeric as a backup. Commercial PAPRs are expensive but other versions can be manufactured extremely cheaply, filters can last practically forever, and PAPRs don't need to fit or seal well and they can be made to be extremely light (the battery can fit in a pocket or on a belt). Exhalation valves make humidity and CO2 non-issues. I highly doubt that most people won't wearing these things correctly; they're much less prone to user error, and during a dangerous pandemic, most will be motivated to wear them appropriately. I know of no other solution that has a better chance of working no-matter-what.

 

Yeah, I think we covered it.

 

Have you run the experiment of wearing one of these things for 40 hours a week for a month or two in the interim?

[Mind]

In addition to the unrealistic and unscientific assumption that general masking or respirator use is an effective pandemic response (high quality respirators were a complete failure in Austria, Germany and east Asia), there is the problem of negative side effects (mentioned above). Plus, we saw that people suffered great mental and emotional harm from masking and isolation. Depression is up. Drug use is up. Suicides are up. These things hit children the worst. Not everyone is an introverted programmer who feels just fine isolated and wearing a mask most of the time. Most people need real/physical social interaction to stay healthy.

 

Masking, sterilizing with UV, social distancing, isolation, etc...all failed in spectaculars ways during the COVID panic.

 

If we don't work on better solutions, we are doomed the next time a deadly communicable disease is spreading.

[Florin]

I worked as a Surgical Technologist for 35 years, so I've spent a good part of my life masked.  This said, I can tell you that nothing feels better after a 4-5 hour case than reaching up and ripping that mask off and feeling the cool air on your face.  

 

Full time respirators?  Forever???  Oh jeeze no!  Give me liberty, or give me death!  

 

I agree; N95s suck. So, wear a PAPR instead.

 

Yeah, I think we covered it.

 

Have you run the experiment of wearing one of these things for 40 hours a week for a month or two in the interim?

 

Others have. Again, we already discussed this.

 

In addition to the unrealistic and unscientific assumption that general masking or respirator use is an effective pandemic response (high quality respirators were a complete failure in Austria, Germany and east Asia), there is the problem of negative side effects (mentioned above). Plus, we saw that people suffered great mental and emotional harm from masking and isolation. Depression is up. Drug use is up. Suicides are up. These things hit children the worst. Not everyone is an introverted programmer who feels just fine isolated and wearing a mask most of the time. Most people need real/physical social interaction to stay healthy.

 

Masking, sterilizing with UV, social distancing, isolation, etc...all failed in spectaculars ways during the COVID panic.

 

If we don't work on better solutions, we are doomed the next time a deadly communicable disease is spreading.

 

Almost no one used respirators. Some claim that certain masks are respirators, but they're not. Those sorts of masks use earloops, and earloops can never provide a tight seal around the face. Even true respirators like disposable N95s are a poor choice, because they often don't provide a good seal, and as they're worn, even good seals start to become leaky due to several factors. That's why I've focused on elastomerics and PAPRs instead.

[Daniel Cooper]

Yes Florin, we have discussed.

 

But you are advocating that these respirators are less uncomfortable/less burdensome than surgical or cloth masks. That has been by far not my experience when I have used them for painting or when dealing with hazardous chemicals. You may say that "others" tout their comfort, but unless you've worn one of these things for an extended time you're not speaking from experience. I'm certain that 3M touts the comfort of their respirators, but having worn a number of them I would not.

 

I guess I don't understand your enthusiasm for these things when apparently you aren't wearing one, or at least not wearing one for any significant period of time.

 

If they are so wonderful are you not wearing them when out in public? Or have you been avoiding public places entirely?

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 05 May 2023 - 09:12 PM.

[Florin]

If you hate wearing elastomerics so much, then take more frequent breaks or use a PAPR. For those that won't wear anything, they'll just have to isolate themselves until therapeutics are developed or risk death. Again, we're just repeating what was already said.

[pamojja]

If they are so wonderful are you not wearing them when out in public? Or have you been avoiding public places entirely?

 

For those that won't wear anything, they'll just have to isolate themselves until therapeutics are developed or risk death.

 

Thanks for answering Daniel's question at least indirectly. Since risk of death was so much slighter from covid than many everyday risks - as already seen with isolated Diamont cruiser in the beginning - we have to asume now you just carried on without mask or self-isolation.
 

Edited by pamojja, 06 May 2023 - 09:12 AM.

[Mind]

N95 respirators were required in Germany. They did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Masking was a total, complete, utter failure in Germany. It had been known for over a century that masking was an ineffective pandemic response. The CDC's own pandemic response guidance prior to the COVID panic stated plainly that masking was not recommended as a pandemic response!!!!

 

Yet, masking was still forced upon the public and some people still think it is an effective pandemic response. Belief that masking is an effective pandemic response is truly anti-science.

 

For crying out loud. We were told that a person was just as likely to get infected through the eyes as through the nose and mouth - so why would masking make any bit of difference? It didn't.