1042 replies to this topic

[Florin]

Anything with earloops won't seal properly and be no more protective than a surgical mask. No country required real respirators to be used.

 

The old CDC guidance that ignored mask-wearing made no sense because masks would block all droplet transmission (and hand washing would eliminate fomite transmission). But the droplet/fomite transmission theory was wrong because the real method of transmission is via airborne aerosols which masks can't fully block.

 

The CDC clung to the droplet/fomite transmission theory for too long, and even after mentioning only crappy disposable respirators (only on their mask webpage), it never encouraged people to switch from masks to respirators.

 

AFAIK, it was never claimed that transmission via the eyes was a large risk and certainly not equal to nose/mouth transmission.

[Florin]

There are serious problems with both masker and anti-masker logic.

• Both ignore the fact that masks seem to have almost completely eliminated at least some respiratory illnesses such as certain strains of the cold and flu, while failing to contain covid.
• Maskers claim that wearing a water-soaked rag (mask) rather than a gas mask (reusable respirator) during a chemical weapon attack (covid pandemic) which has killed millions "works."
• Anti-maskers claim that you can't wear masks (or respirators) forever but ignore the fact that they would be (or should be) worn only until good-enough medicine becomes available or during higher-risk time periods such as the cold/flu season.
• Anti-maskers say we only need treatments, while ignoring the fact that treatments have come too late for millions in this pandemic and might come too late for billions, if future pandemics will be severe enough.

[Mind]

As stated many times previously, masking during the COVID panic did nothing to prevent the spread of COVID. Nothing at all. It didn't matter if a country had strict rules and nearly 100% compliance, or lax rules and low compliance.

 

Over 100 years of mask studies including multiple RCT studies, have shown the masking is an ineffective pandemic response. There are multiple reasons for this which have been stated throughout this discussion.

 

Some recent masking studies that seemed to show masking was effective are being withdrawn/retracted. A systematic review of 77 recent masking studies found that they were low quality, none were RCT, often had methodological flaws, and some didn't even track mask usage but were somehow given as proof that masks worked. Another issue with the masking policies is that they were highly correlated with political affiliation (not science-based).

 

It is very tempting to see how hazmat suits, N100 respirators, and other hardcore particle-blocking technologies work and extrapolate that to "working" as a pandemic policy for society as a whole. They don't work. It is not scientific. Thinking that masks work as a pandemic policy is more akin to religious belief. Sadly, policy makers in the US/UK are likely to "follow their religion" and recommend masks the next time there is a respiratory disease outbreak.

[Hip]

As stated many times previously, masking during the COVID panic did nothing to prevent the spread of COVID. Nothing at all. 

 

Where is your evidence? Do you have any review papers, based on high quality studies, that proves this assertion? 

 

If you are going to criticise the low quality of the studies which found evidence of a positive effect from masking, where are the high quality studies which demonstrate your assertion about the lack of efficacy of masks?

Edited by Hip, 15 July 2023 - 06:25 PM.

[gamesguru]

I think this kind of study is better conducted through a "mechanism of effect" perspective, rather than longitudinal observation (which are subject to many of the biases pointed out by Mind).

 

It depends what degree of proof you're willing to count here. For me a video like this, and some basic experiments I performed at home, were enough to convince me that a physical barrier only decreases spread. Now you can argue how much does it decrease it, what if people are lazy and don't wear it at social gatherings only at the "grocery store", if not everyone is wearing a mask, if they are thin homemade cloth masks. All that could contribute to a less significant result.

 

Perhaps—as used—masks were not the most helpful, but I disagree that they are in theory totally useless. When hospital capacity had been reached, any mitigation measure, however effective, was welcome.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #904

 

Mind's assertion:

 

"As stated many times previously, masking during the COVID panic did nothing to prevent the spread of COVID. Nothing at all."

 

 

Hip writes in post #904, referencing Mind's assertion:

 

"Where is your evidence? Do you have any review papers, based on high quality studies, that proves this assertion?"

 

 

This opinion piece in The New York Times, asserts:

 

"The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is its lead author, were unambiguous. “There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference,” he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. “Full stop.”"

 

"But, wait, hold on. What about N-95 masks, as opposed to lower-quality surgical or cloth masks?

“Makes no difference — none of it,” said Jefferson. What about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates?

“They were convinced by nonrandomized studies, flawed observational studies.”

 

"What about the utility of masks in conjunction with other preventive measures, such as hand hygiene, physical distancing or air filtration?

“There’s no evidence that many of these things make any difference.”"

 

 

The opinion piece provides a link to the scientific study in question.

 

Mind's assertion appears to be substantiated.

 

 

 

 

 

[Hip]

Mind's assertion appears to be substantiated.

 

The Cochrane Review study on mask efficacy you referred to has been debunked. 

 

The Cochrane Review has apologised for misleading people with their study. 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #907

 

Hip, you need to carefully reread the content of your links.

Cochrane:

"The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: 'The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.' Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm."

Read carefully. What that statement is saying is that the authors of the study are pointing out that the studies that they examined were flawed because of the factors which the Cochrane apologia notes in the above. In other words, studies that showed benefits for mask wearing were flawed (as above) and hence the effectiveness-of-mask-wearing conclusions of those studies are invalid.

You, et al., seem to be thinking that 'The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.' is somehow referring to the Jefferson study not being able to draw "firm conclusions". It is not. It is a reference to the studies that Jefferson examined which drew "firm conclusions" from flawed reasoning and/or study design. And, hence, those studies should not have concluded that there were benefits of mask wearing.

 

So, I'm wondering who got to Cochrane forcing the tergiversation.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 16 July 2023 - 03:16 AM.

[Florin]

The mask debate is dumb. It's like arguing whether water-soaked rags work in a poison gas attack. Sure, you might want to wear water-soaked rags if don't have access to a gas mask, but if you do have access to a gas mask, it would be stupid to continue wearing water-soaked rags.

[Mind]

The Cochrane Review study on mask efficacy you referred to has been debunked. 

 

The Cochrane Review has apologised for misleading people with their study. 

 

The study was not debunked and the authors of the study did not apologize. These are utterly false statements.

 

Some scientists pointed out limitations of the study, such as mixing studies of partial mask wearing with more stringent mask wearing. It wasn't "debunked". It has not been retracted. Limitations in studies are pointed out all the time - even by the authors themselves. This is a good thing to see in more papers nowadays.

 

One editor a Cochrane (not the authors) said some media outlets were making to strong of statements about how "masks were useless", and that was inaccurate. It wasn't an apology for a bad study. The statement that masks are ineffective as a pandemic response still stands and is robustly proven by over a century of studies. In addition, everyone could see with their own eyes from 2020 to 2022 that masking was a complete, utter, total failure in stopping the spread of COVID.

[Hip]

The study was not debunked and the authors of the study did not apologize. These are utterly false statements.

 

My first link says, amongst other things:

 

"A number of scientists and public health experts have already emphasized various key flaws in the systematic review conducted by Jefferson and his team".

 

"If apples work and oranges don’t, but your analysis mixes them together, you may come to the false conclusion that apples don’t work".

 

"Out of the 78 papers analyzed in the review, only two actually studied masking during the Covid-19 pandemic. And both of those found that masks did protect wearers from Covid-19".

 

"A classic example of cherry-picking, where biased groups highlight a subset of data that support their position, while ignoring the larger pool of evidence that disagrees with them".

 

That to me looks pretty debunked!

 

 

 

My second link says: "The Cochrane Review has apologized for an evidence review that led many to conclude, inaccurately, that masks don’t work".

Edited by Hip, 18 July 2023 - 09:39 PM.

[Mind]

Yet another mask study that fails under scrutiny. If the Boston mask study is expanded to include all of Massachusetts schools, districts that held onto mask mandates actually did worse with COVID cases. Small sample sizes are often misleading.

 

"Masks don't work".

 

People continue to confuse this statement with "masking is an ineffective pandemic response". It is like talking to a brick wall. This has been discussed innumerable times in this discussion. A person could wear a hazmat suit for the rest of their life and prevent any viruses from entering their lungs. This does not mean hazmat suits for everyone for the rest of their lives is an effective pandemic response.

[Mind]

Just some history on the Cochrane Review of mask studies and the ensuing drama. The review was not "debunked". It was just the editor that threw the study researchers under the bus in order to appease politically oriented mask zealots and US media. Not scientific at all.

 

Even I reviewed most of the past mask studies going back 100 years (didn't need the Cochrane review) and found no evidence that masking works as a population level pandemic response. Even the CDC and Dr. Fauci reviewed the past data and advised against masking....until 2020.

 

Now we have even more evidence that masks are a failure as a pandemic response. Why do people still ignore the evidence? It is irrational and unscientific.

 

We used to have high quality dependable research groups and individual experts to sift through vast data. Now these groups and individuals are being destroyed when they say things like "mask are an ineffective response", "the COVID injection does not prevent transmission", "natural immunity is better", etc... All of these things are true according to vast peer-reviewed evidence, yet our public "health" bureaucrats (not top-flight scientists to say the least) are deceiving the public. And for what? For political reasons, for money. Maybe they are just totally incompetent.

 

There is also the psychological aspect of masks. Mask zealots feel superior. They view dissenters as dumb and sub-human. Therefore, they feel justified in beating people in the streets when others don't want to wear a masks. We know from the Stanford Prison experiment (and Milgram) that people can be easily manipulated into torturing fellow humans.

 

Thankfully, some rational people are fighting back against proven useless pandemic responses like masking.

Edited by Mind, 29 August 2023 - 05:04 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The mask debate is dumb. It's like arguing whether water-soaked rags work in a poison gas attack. Sure, you might want to wear water-soaked rags if don't have access to a gas mask, but if you do have access to a gas mask, it would be stupid to continue wearing water-soaked rags.

 

Once again, I reject the analogy of a "poison gas attack" to going about one's life in the presence of an endemic virus.

 

A poison gas attack might be well nigh 100% fatal depending on what poison gas we're talking about.

 

What was the infection fatality rate of covid at it's worse? 0.1%? 0.05%?

 

What's the infection fatality rate of the evolved covid that is endemic today? Much less for sure. 0.025%? Do we even have this data?

 

I guess my question for you Florin is at what fatality rate would you chose to wear a respirator in public as a matter of course? After all, influenza has an infection fatality rate, and it's not zero.  In a bad year 60k people in the US might die from the flu. So, anytime you catch the flu, you might conceivably die from it. Yet, I suspect that you did not contemplate wearing a respirator for influenza prior to 2020. So obviously you were ok with that level of risk. 

 

So where's your pain point? At what infection fatality rate do you feel like you're in the middle of a poison gas attack and don the respirator?

[Florin]

Just some history on the Cochrane Review of mask studies and the ensuing drama. The review was not "debunked". It was just the editor that threw the study researchers under the bus in order to appease politically oriented mask zealots and US media. Not scientific at all.
 
Even I reviewed most of the past mask studies going back 100 years (didn't need the Cochrane review) and found no evidence that masking works as a population level pandemic response. Even the CDC and Dr. Fauci reviewed the past data and advised against masking....until 2020.
 
Now we have even more evidence that masks are a failure as a pandemic response. Why do people still ignore the evidence? It is irrational and unscientific.

Just a reminder: masks don't seem to work well for covid but it's seems more likely that they work well for other respiratory infections such as the strains of flu which circulated during the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 flu season. The mixed results of the older studies might be due to a number of factors such as small sample sizes (versus billions) and much lower compliance (no mask mandates, for instance).

Even if some people are skeptical of the efficacy of masks, they may still be motivated to wear them to get even a few percentage points of protection, especially if they (incorrectly) think that droplets and fomites are a significant vectors of transmission.

[Florin]

Once again, I reject the analogy of a "poison gas attack" to going about one's life in the presence of an endemic virus.

 

A poison gas attack might be well nigh 100% fatal depending on what poison gas we're talking about.

 

What was the infection fatality rate of covid at it's worse? 0.1%? 0.05%?

 

What's the infection fatality rate of the evolved covid that is endemic today? Much less for sure. 0.025%? Do we even have this data?

 

I guess my question for you Florin is at what fatality rate would you chose to wear a respirator in public as a matter of course? After all, influenza has an infection fatality rate, and it's not zero.  In a bad year 60k people in the US might die from the flu. So, anytime you catch the flu, you might conceivably die from it. Yet, I suspect that you did not contemplate wearing a respirator for influenza prior to 2020. So obviously you were ok with that level of risk. 

 

So where's your pain point? At what infection fatality rate do you feel like you're in the middle of a poison gas attack and don the respirator?

 

Most people did act like the pandemic was similar to a poison gas attack, and I was pointing out that it makes no sense to not use gas masks during a poison gas attack. It wasn't just about fatality (wasn't the IFR 15% for some age group?), but also about hospitalization (and later, disability) after people are exposed to a poison gas attack.

 

For me, it's about avoiding feeling horrible and being disabled for at least a week (perhaps multiple times per year) and avoiding dealing with an increase in senescent cell load (which may conceivably increase dementia risk, even if long covid isn't something to worry about). The small death reduction risk is a bonus.

 

Actually, I did wear surgical masks during flu seasons before 2020, and if I knew what I know now, I'd probably would have upgraded to KN95/KF94 masks or a disposable N95 (if I could have found something more comfortable, even if the fit would have been worse).

 

If you thought you had a decent chance of living forever, what would be your pain point?

[Daniel Cooper]

 

If you thought you had a decent chance of living forever, what would be your pain point?

 

So, I'm going to say something potentially heretical, but I don't think I have a decent chance of living forever. In fact, I think I have no chance of living forever. As in a 0.0% chance.

 

I'm here to try to figure out how to live longer, and healthier, but I don't see living forever as being in the cards. Not at my age (59). Maybe if you're a lot younger (maybe in your 20s) you'll be around to see the sort of innovation that might give you a really long lifespan. But even then, I'm not sure "forever" is in the cards. My suspicion is that entropy will always win in the end.

 

I suppose if you think you're potentially going to live forever that gives you and I a different outlook that would explain our positions. Given that I think my stay here is finite, there are some compromises in quality of life that I'm just not prepared to make. If I thought I might live forever I suppose I might put up with a great deal of diminished quality for a time to try to make it across the gap.

 

At some point a decade or more ago I thought that I might just make it under the wire to see some of the really significant innovations that might substantially increase my lifespan. But, after paying careful attention to the pace at which innovation is being allowed to progress (essentially by our governments) I just don't see the three or four break throughs that you'd need happening in the next 20 - 30 years. Not because our governments are trying to slow things down exactly, but because all the financial interests are heavily biased against rapid innovation. The pharmaceutical industry is basically predicated on a slow roll out of new products as older products age out of their patent protection and these companies do not like disruptions in their development chains.

 

If someone really wanted to try to get to the singularity, the problem of how development is being throttled is the issue they'd go after, not any particular technical development.

[Daniel Cooper]

Decent interview a few days ago of Dr. Fauci on CNN. Pay careful attention to about the 4:30 mark. Can someone explain to me Dr. Fauci's argument that masks may not work at the population level (as indeed the best quality Cochran study shows) but they do work at the individual level?

BTW - good on CNN for actually asking Fauci a hard question with source material to back it up.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 05 September 2023 - 06:53 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Study being discussed in the interview above (discussed previously in this thread):
 
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

 

Cochran says this study doesn't necessarily prove that masks don't work, the lead author (quoted in above interview) says that it absolutely does.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 05 September 2023 - 07:52 PM.

[Mind]

Study being discussed in the interview above (discussed previously in this thread):
 
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

 

Cochran says this study doesn't necessarily prove that masks don't work, the lead author (quoted in above interview) says that it absolutely does.

 

Also a reminder, it was the editor of Cochrane that threw the researchers under the bus (under political pressure to do so). The study was not "debunked" and the authors did not "apologize" for their analysis/data.

 

For those just joining the conversation:

 

Like Florin has pointed out, various high tech masks have been developed for acute dangerous situations where the particle size and lethality is known. Example: hazmat suits work for short periods of time for people who need to be in a dangerous situation.

 

At the same time, voluminous rigorous research over the past century clearly shows that population-level masking is a total failure when trying to contain a respiratory disease. There are many many obvious and logical reasons for this failure which have been mentioned multiple times in this discussion.

[Daniel Cooper]

Also a reminder, it was the editor of Cochrane that threw the researchers under the bus (under political pressure to do so). The study was not "debunked" and the authors did not "apologize" for their analysis/data.

 

For those just joining the conversation:

 

Like Florin has pointed out, various high tech masks have been developed for acute dangerous situations where the particle size and lethality is known. Example: hazmat suits work for short periods of time for people who need to be in a dangerous situation.

 

At the same time, voluminous rigorous research over the past century clearly shows that population-level masking is a total failure when trying to contain a respiratory disease. There are many many obvious and logical reasons for this failure which have been mentioned multiple times in this discussion.

 

Yes, acknowledge the part in bold. It seemed like the statement by Cochran's editor was motivated by a desire not to be associated with a conclusion that was politically unpopular.

 

If Cochran thought that the clearly stated conclusion of the paper was incorrect, they should have never published it. The fact that they did publish it tells me that based purely on the scientific merits they thought it was sound at that time.

[Florin]

Decent interview a few days ago of Dr. Fauci on CNN. Pay careful attention to about the 4:30 mark. Can someone explain to me Dr. Fauci's argument that masks may not work at the population level (as indeed the best quality Cochran study shows) but they do work at the individual level?

BTW - good on CNN for actually asking Fauci a hard question with source material to back it up.

 

I have no idea about what "individual protection" studies he's referring to, but he does sound like he's trying to say what I've been saying for a long time (better late than never): if you're high risk, you might want to increase your protection. That might mean using N95s (which the CDC now recommends) instead of earloop-type masks, but it's not clear what he's talking about. Anyway, Fauci's muddled monologue on masks shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

Study being discussed in the interview above (discussed previously in this thread):
 
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

 

Cochran says this study doesn't necessarily prove that masks don't work, the lead author (quoted in above interview) says that it absolutely does.

 

Cochran is irrelevant. It didn't take into account the best evidence for and against masks which is that masks were worn by everyone during 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 flu season and colds and flus disappeared, while covid didn't. The obvious conclusion is that masks seem to work for less contagious respiratory infections, but after a certain infectiousness threshold is reached (by newer covid strains, for instance), they don't.

[Daniel Cooper]

I have no idea about what "individual protection" studies he's referring to, but he does sound like he's trying to say what I've been saying for a long time (better late than never): if you're high risk, you might want to increase your protection. That might mean using N95s (which the CDC now recommends) instead of earloop-type masks, but it's not clear what he's talking about. Anyway, Fauci's muddled monologue on masks shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

 

Cochran is irrelevant. It didn't take into account the best evidence for and against masks which is that masks were worn by everyone during 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 flu season and colds and flus disappeared, while covid didn't. The obvious conclusion is that masks seem to work for less contagious respiratory infections, but after a certain infectiousness threshold is reached (by newer covid strains, for instance), they don't.

 

With all due respect the best evidence is RCTs, which the Cochran study restricted itself to. Looking at non-randomized observational studies is not the best evidence. The fact that seasonal colds and flu decreased during those periods does not mean that the masks were responsible since they were only one of a constellation of non-pharmaceutical interventions in play - massive shifts to working from home, cancellations of almost all public gatherings, lockdowns, increased use of hand sanitizers, etc. etc. There is no way to isolate the effects of those interventions. 

 

And I really would love an explanation of how masks work in some way at the individual level, but they don't show any strong effect for the population as a whole. That is to say the least, counterintuitive. To say the most it is completely illogical. But that is what Fauci clearly asserted in that interview. He certainly was not merely asserting that those at high risk might want to take the extra precaution, no matter how small the effect might be.

[smithx]

That video is only showing airflow speed, not particles.

 

Other studies show that good masks prevent the release of or significantly decrease the release of particles / droplets from breathing, talking, coughing, etc.

 

 

I think this kind of study is better conducted through a "mechanism of effect" perspective, rather than longitudinal observation (which are subject to many of the biases pointed out by Mind).

 

It depends what degree of proof you're willing to count here. For me a video like this, and some basic experiments I performed at home, were enough to convince me that a physical barrier only decreases spread. Now you can argue how much does it decrease it, what if people are lazy and don't wear it at social gatherings only at the "grocery store", if not everyone is wearing a mask, if they are thin homemade cloth masks. All that could contribute to a less significant result.

 

Perhaps—as used—masks were not the most helpful, but I disagree that they are in theory totally useless. When hospital capacity had been reached, any mitigation measure, however effective, was welcome.

 

 

 

[Dorian Grey]

Sorry, but I gotta say it again.  Sometimes you just have to believe your eyes.

 

Here in San Diego, we were masked to the MAX in Jan 2022.  We even had an all inclusive outdoor mask mandate.  You couldn't go out to get the mail without a mask, & I noticed a lot of folks with a surgical mask over and holding an N-95 firmly to a lot of faces.  We also had very good vaccine & booster compliance.  

 

Omicron swept through here like a Canadian forest fire.  It seemed like everyone got it by March, & everyone we knew had gotten it too.  

 

Very difficult watching folks still talking up the value of masks, when we've all seen with our own eyes they do not work.  

[Florin]

With all due respect the best evidence is RCTs, which the Cochran study restricted itself to. Looking at non-randomized observational studies is not the best evidence. The fact that seasonal colds and flu decreased during those periods does not mean that the masks were responsible since they were only one of a constellation of non-pharmaceutical interventions in play - massive shifts to working from home, cancellations of almost all public gatherings, lockdowns, increased use of hand sanitizers, etc. etc. There is no way to isolate the effects of those interventions. 

 

And I really would love an explanation of how masks work in some way at the individual level, but they don't show any strong effect for the population as a whole. That is to say the least, counterintuitive. To say the most it is completely illogical. But that is what Fauci clearly asserted in that interview. He certainly was not merely asserting that those at high risk might want to take the extra precaution, no matter how small the effect might be.

 

This is what kills the relevance of these RCTs:

• Subjects were masked but those around them weren't
• Contagiousness of the flu strains was not taken into account
• Subjects probably didn't mask outside of the study setting (healthcare or household)

If the cold and flu disappeared due to all of the other NPIs, why didn't covid disappear?

 

He might have been referring to studies that he assumed exist but don't (AFAIK). I can image such studies: subjects wear respirators, while the general population wears low-quality masks.

Edited by Florin, 06 September 2023 - 04:01 AM.

[Florin]

Sorry, but I gotta say it again.  Sometimes you just have to believe your eyes.

 

Here in San Diego, we were masked to the MAX in Jan 2022.  We even had an all inclusive outdoor mask mandate.  You couldn't go out to get the mail without a mask, & I noticed a lot of folks with a surgical mask over and holding an N-95 firmly to a lot of faces.  We also had very good vaccine & booster compliance.  

 

Omicron swept through here like a Canadian forest fire.  It seemed like everyone got it by March, & everyone we knew had gotten it too.  

 

Very difficult watching folks still talking up the value of masks, when we've all seen with our own eyes they do not work.  

 

Don't you mean KN95s/KF94s, the poor-sealing, N95 wannabes?

[Dorian Grey]

Don't you mean KN95s/KF94s, the poor-sealing, N95 wannabes?

 

Probably...  What was obvious was, nothing seemed to help.  We all got omicron with astonishing swiftness, no matter what measures we were taking.  

 

I had some hydoxychloroquine + zinc on hand, and had boosted my Vitamin-D levels over the preceding months.  My omicron adventure was a walk in the park.  I literally spend several hours each day of my isolation walking in a park.  

 

I emerged from the experience with a new, solid natural immunity, and a deep respect for the front line docs who developed the protocol that served me so well.  

 

Dread-nought the omicron...  Simply prepare & treat early.  There is no escape.  Only survival.  

[Daniel Cooper]

The simple fact is we're going to need effective anti-virals for covid going forward and that is where energy should be expended. Masks aren't a solution. Vaccines aren't a solution. I supposed you could encase yourself in a "bubble boy" outfit and be perfectly safe, but the practicality just doesn't seem to be there.
 
I'm fine with HCQ + Zinc if it works and the evidence is there (I'm still lazy and haven't really delved into it in detail). Otherwise, some other anti-viral treatment needs to be developed.

[Daniel Cooper]

A DC area elementary school institutes N95 mask requirements after three students test positive for covid.
 
Montgomery County Maryland School Reinstates N95 Mask Requirement After Three Students Test Positive