1042 replies to this topic

[Mind]

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.

 

 

The theory that masks prevented the cold and flu when COVID was around or that COVID out-competed the other viruses has zero research behind it, as far as I have searched.

 

SARS-CoV2 is a coronavirus. Just like all other coronaviruses which cause some of the respiratory illnesses that occur every year. I am unaware of any research that shows masks selectively block all other viruses (coronaviruses, rhinoviruses, RSV, influenza viruses, etc...) and only allow 1 virus to spread. It makes no sense.

 

Coronaviruses are in the exact same size range as influenza A. Why would masks block every other virus of every size EXCEPT SARS-CoV2?

 

In the entire history of respiratory illness research, I am unaware of any "cold season" when only one virus spread and no others did. Research shows the opposite - that multiple viruses/strains spread every year. One flu may be "dominant" but all other viruses still circulate.

 

I saw it with my own eyes. During the COVID panic, people were urged to go to a testing center if they had a respiratory illness. In my area alone, thousands of people with symptoms went to testing centers, tested negative, and went home. They all had some sort-of respiratory illness - thousands in my area - yet the CDC maintains there were hardly any flu cases in the entire US. 

[Dorian Grey]

Masks for thee, but not for me!  

 

https://www.yahoo.co...-195737398.html

 

'Don't tell them I didn't have it on': Biden flaunts not wearing mask after COVID exposure

 

WASHINGTON − President Joe Biden flaunted not wearing a mask Wednesday following this week's positive COVID-19 test of his wife, first lady Jill Biden, sending mixed signals as White House officials insist the president is following CDC guidelines.

Biden walked into the White House State Dining Room holding − not wearing − a face mask before delivering remarks to a room of reporters and White House aides on a new contract between unions and shipping companies in West Coast ports.

"Let me explain to the press: I've been tested again today. I'm clear across the board," Biden said as he got underway, holding up a black face mask. "But they keep telling me, because this has to be 10 days or something, I've got to keep wearing it. But don't tell them I didn't have it on when I walked in."

After Biden spoke for about 10 minutes, the president left the room with his mask still in his hand, not over his face.

[Florin]

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.

 

Therapeutics and vaccines take too long to develop and distribute. So, the only practical solutions would be a "bubble boy" scenario or "lockdown boy" scenario.

 

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

 

I doubt N95s can fit adolescents. They're probably talking about KN95s/KF94s.

[Dorian Grey]

Masks for thee, but not for me!  

 

https://www.yahoo.co...-090000072.html

 

Biden takes off Covid mask to present award to 81-year-old Vietnam pilot

 

Joe Biden ignored White House Covid rules and removed his mask as he honoured a Vietnam veteran after being in close contact with Jill Biden, who has tested positive.

The White House said Mr Biden would adhere to CDC guidelines and wear a mask indoors and when in close proximity to other people following the first lady’s positive result.

[Florin]

The theory that masks prevented the cold and flu when COVID was around or that COVID out-competed the other viruses has zero research behind it, as far as I have searched.

 

SARS-CoV2 is a coronavirus. Just like all other coronaviruses which cause some of the respiratory illnesses that occur every year. I am unaware of any research that shows masks selectively block all other viruses (coronaviruses, rhinoviruses, RSV, influenza viruses, etc...) and only allow 1 virus to spread. It makes no sense.

 

Coronaviruses are in the exact same size range as influenza A. Why would masks block every other virus of every size EXCEPT SARS-CoV2?

 

In the entire history of respiratory illness research, I am unaware of any "cold season" when only one virus spread and no others did. Research shows the opposite - that multiple viruses/strains spread every year. One flu may be "dominant" but all other viruses still circulate.

 

I saw it with my own eyes. During the COVID panic, people were urged to go to a testing center if they had a respiratory illness. In my area alone, thousands of people with symptoms went to testing centers, tested negative, and went home. They all had some sort-of respiratory illness - thousands in my area - yet the CDC maintains there were hardly any flu cases in the entire US. 

 

The reasoning is simple:

• Covid is more contagious than the flu or cold. Covid takes a smaller dose to infect someone (covid generates more virus particles per aerosol particle) and/or the same dose is more infectious (by being better able to infect cells, for instance).
• Masks can block the same fixed amount of aerosols (30% for instance) from all viruses.
• Masks just happen to be able to block enough aerosols to prevent the transmission of flu and cold strains but can't block enough aerosols to prevent transmission of covid. In other words, you need to block more covid aerosols (due to covid being more contagious) to prevent covid from spreading compared to cold and flu aerosols.

I'm going to assume that the stats are roughly correct. The flu's disappearance was a worldwide phenomena. You can claim that the stats are incorrect, but you can claim that about any stats.

 

Correction: I previously claimed that the flu disappeared during the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 flu seasons, but the flu disappeared only during the 2020/2021 flu season.

Edited by Florin, 07 September 2023 - 04:22 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The reasoning is simple:

• Covid is more contagious than the flu or cold. Covid takes a smaller dose to infect someone (covid generates more virus particles per aerosol particle) and/or the same dose is more infectious (by being better able to infect cells, for instance).
• Masks can block the same fixed amount of aerosols (30% for instance) from all viruses.
• Masks just happen to be able to block enough aerosols to prevent the transmission of flu and cold strains but can't block enough aerosols to prevent transmission of covid. In other words, you need to block more covid aerosols (due to covid being more contagious) to prevent covid from spreading compared to cold and flu aerosols.

I'm going to assume that the stats are roughly correct. The flu's disappearance was a worldwide phenomena. You can claim that the stats are incorrect, but you can claim that about any stats.

 

Correction: I previously claimed that the flu disappeared during the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 flu seasons, but the flu disappeared only during the 2020/2021 flu season.

 

At the end of the day, I don't see how you can separate the effects of masking from all the other things that were done to mitigate viral transmissions and say "Ah ha! See, masks prevented the flu!" 

 

Once again, in addition to masks, a huge portion of the workforce moved to work at home. Schools went to online teaching.  Restaurants were closed. Many retail businesses were closed. Some churches were shut down.  All public gatherings were banned. Halloween was canceled. Many people spent Thanksgiving and Christmas by themselves. Indeed, some states/municipalities banned gatherings in homes more that a few people. Hand sanitizer use went through the roof to the point you couldn't buy the stuff for love or money. Many people became virtual hermits and rarely ventured out. And yes, people wore and were forced to wear masks.

 

Yet you look at that entire list and say "See, the masks stopped the flu", in spite being unable to separate these interventions and the fact that many previous studies on masking and the flu came to the conclusion that they did not help.

 

This is just not a logical conclusion.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 07 September 2023 - 06:16 PM.

[Florin]

At the end of the day, I don't see how you can separate the effects of masking from all the other things that were done to mitigate viral transmissions and say "Ah ha! See, masks prevented the flu!" 

 

Once again, in addition to masks, a huge portion of the workforce moved to work at home. Schools went to online teaching.  Restaurants were closed. Many retail businesses were closed. Some churches were shut down.  All public gatherings were banned. Halloween was canceled. Many people spent Thanksgiving and Christmas by themselves. Indeed, some states/municipalities banned gatherings in homes more that a few people. Hand sanitizer use went through the roof to the point you couldn't buy the stuff for love or money. Many people became virtual hermits and rarely ventured out. And yes, people wore and were forced to wear masks.

 

Yet you look at that entire list and say "See, the masks stopped the flu", in spite being unable to separate these interventions and the fact that many previous studies on masking and the flu came to the conclusion that they did not help.

 

This is just not a logical conclusion.

 

How exactly did those things stop the flu but not covid? If you can catch covid shopping for groceries, you can also catch the flu. I outlined my argument, but you just repeated your claim that it must be other NPIs that stopped the flu without mentioning any mechanism that picks covid over the flu. What's the mechanism?

 

I've already explained why the previous studies were fatally flawed.

 

Another report used a bunch of (low quality) studies from the pandemic to claim that masks worked. I haven't heard any of the usual suspects talking about it, though. If someone is ideologically committed to a certain position (either pro or anti masking), they're just going to use whichever bundle of garbage studies confirms their previous ideological commitments.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Another report used a bunch of (low quality) studies from the pandemic to claim that masks worked. I haven't heard any of the usual suspects talking about it, though. If someone is ideologically committed to a certain position (either pro or anti masking), they're just going to use whichever bundle of garbage studies confirms their previous ideological commitments.

 

 

Florin, in the "Policy measures to solve the coronavirus pandemic" thread, which you post in, Hip links, in his post #686, to an article which cites the study found in "Another report" that you link to in your post. I responded to Hip's post in posts #687, #689, and #691. The study mentioned in Hip's link, and yours, is, indeed, garbage.  

 

"How exactly did those things stop the flu but not covid?"

 

Deus ex machina?

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 08 September 2023 - 05:27 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

How exactly did those things stop the flu but not covid? If you can catch covid shopping for groceries, you can also catch the flu. I outlined my argument, but you just repeated your claim that it must be other NPIs that stopped the flu without mentioning any mechanism that picks covid over the flu. What's the mechanism?

 

I've already explained why the previous studies were fatally flawed.

 

Another report used a bunch of (low quality) studies from the pandemic to claim that masks worked. I haven't heard any of the usual suspects talking about it, though. If someone is ideologically committed to a certain position (either pro or anti masking), they're just going to use whichever bundle of garbage studies confirms their previous ideological commitments.

 

You didn't didn't answer my question of how you separate out all the other non-pharmaceutical interventions and solely attribute the reductions in the flu to the masks.

 

Your argument that the reason the masks stopped the flu but not covid because covid is significantly more contagious would of course apply to all the other non-pharmaceutical interventions as well. You simply can not make the argument that people worse masks and flu rates were down while they were wearing the mask, therefore the masks were the difference, when there were four or five other interventions in play that could also explain the difference. 

 

The technical name for what you're doing here is the "post hoc fallacy".

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 08 September 2023 - 07:55 PM.

[Mind]

The reasoning is simple:

• Covid is more contagious than the flu or cold. Covid takes a smaller dose to infect someone (covid generates more virus particles per aerosol particle) and/or the same dose is more infectious (by being better able to infect cells, for instance).
• Masks can block the same fixed amount of aerosols (30% for instance) from all viruses.
• Masks just happen to be able to block enough aerosols to prevent the transmission of flu and cold strains but can't block enough aerosols to prevent transmission of covid. In other words, you need to block more covid aerosols (due to covid being more contagious) to prevent covid from spreading compared to cold and flu aerosols.

I'm going to assume that the stats are roughly correct. The flu's disappearance was a worldwide phenomena. You can claim that the stats are incorrect, but you can claim that about any stats.

 

Correction: I previously claimed that the flu disappeared during the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 flu seasons, but the flu disappeared only during the 2020/2021 flu season.

 

I know the reasoning, but I cannot find any published studies to back up the reasoning, which is - NPI (and masks especially) stopped every virus in the world from spreading in 2020/21, except 1 (SARS-CoV2). It makes no logical, physical, or scientific sense.

[joesixpack]

I reviewed some research on masks when this began. The best thinking at that time was that masks are not the ultimate solution, but surgical masks may be 90% effective and N95 masks are about 95% effective. None are totally effective, but they help.

 

I used them during the pandemic, and did not get Covid. I was the one in the family out doing things in public, going to the grocery store, and doing all the other things necessary to provide for the family. Nobody else got it either. So, I have to conclude, that they can help prevent contagion.

 

Since the pandemic ended, I stopped using them.

 

I caught covid once, and the flu twice since then. I used the FLCCC protocol, Ivermectin, HCQ, and other ingredients each time. Each time symptoms ended by the the end of the third day. Totally gone by day 5.

[Florin]

You didn't didn't answer my question of how you separate out all the other non-pharmaceutical interventions and solely attribute the reductions in the flu to the masks.

 

Your argument that the reason the masks stopped the flu but not covid because covid is significantly more contagious would of course apply to all the other non-pharmaceutical interventions as well. You simply can not make the argument that people worse masks and flu rates were down while they were wearing the mask, therefore the masks were the difference, when there were four or five other interventions in play that could also explain the difference. 

 

The technical name for what you're doing here is the "post hoc fallacy".

 

I doubt that any of the other NPIs could have slowed the transmission of the flu enough to eliminate it, because there was still plenty of human contact. Lockdowns didn't last long and weren't comprehensive. Most people didn't work from home. Schools closed but kids could have gotten infected from their parents. Public gatherings were limited, but private gatherings weren't. Handwashing doesn't work. There was plenty of opportunities for the flu to spread, but it didn't. The only omnipresent barrier to transmission was masking.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

The only omnipresent barrier to transmission was masking.

 

 

My conspiracy handbook, page 42 (hats off to Douglas Adams) suggests that, perhaps, in certain countries and areas, there existed a strong financial incentive to diagnose COVID19 rather than a less-lucrative flu diagnosis (BCTK). And, for a non sequitur (maybe), there is the old Twain adage: “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”. 

 

(before covid test kits)

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 09 September 2023 - 07:10 AM.

[Florin]

I know the reasoning, but I cannot find any published studies to back up the reasoning, which is - NPI (and masks especially) stopped every virus in the world from spreading in 2020/21, except 1 (SARS-CoV2). It makes no logical, physical, or scientific sense.

 

Masks blocked enough aerosols to prevent flu infection. What exactly doesn't make logical sense? 

 

Do you need a study to tell you what's obvious? The flu disappeared during the 2020/2021 flu season and that's almost certainly due to masks and maybe helped by other NPIs. Assuming that the stats are correct, there's no other possible explanation.

[Florin]

Florin, in the "Policy measures to solve the coronavirus pandemic" thread, which you post in, Hip links, in his post #686, to an article which cites the study found in "Another report" that you link to in your post. I responded to Hip's post in posts #687, #689, and #691. The study mentioned in Hip's link, and yours, is, indeed, garbage.  

 

"How exactly did those things stop the flu but not covid?"

 

Deus ex machina?

 

I don't see any mention of that report in those posts.

 

My conspiracy handbook, page 42 (hats off to Douglas Adams) suggests that, perhaps, in certain countries and areas, there existed a strong financial incentive to diagnose COVID19 rather than a less-lucrative flu diagnosis. And, for a non sequitur (maybe), there is the old Twain adage: “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”. 

 

I'm assuming that the stats are more or less correct, until proven otherwise.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Florin, you wrote in post #945:

 

"I don't see any mention of that report in those posts."

 

Hip wrote (post #686) in the "Policy measures to solve the coronavirus pandemic" thread:

 

"In fact a new review study from the Royal Society concludes that non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as lockdowns and social distancing work, especially when deployed in combination (rather than singularly), though tend to work better for less transmissible variants of the virus (such as the original strain of COVID)." 

 

And, he provides a link to a "Guardian article ". That Guardian link includes the following sentence:

 

"The Royal Society report, called Covid-19: examining the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions, reviewed the evidence gathered during the pandemic for six groups of NPIs and their effectiveness in reducing transmission."

 

Clicking the link in the above sentence will get you an executive summary.

 

In your post #937 in this thread, you link:

 

"Another report"

 

Click that link and on the right hand side of that page under the virus photo you will see 2 download options: "Executive summary" and "Full report". If you click "Executive summary" you can see that it is the same page as the link within the link that Hip posted. I read both the executive summary and the full report.

 

The study was something that I knew had been discussed (because it was discussed by me in the "Policy measures to solve the coronavirus pandemic" thread posts #687, #689, and #691. A thread which you post in, and read.)-- contrary to your statement that: " I haven't heard any of the usual suspects talking about it, though." in your post #937, this thread. 

 

Now, if it is assumed that your claim was referring only to this thread, then technically you're correct. However, you read and post in a thread in which the matter was discussed, and you could have noted that fact here in this thread.

 

But, then again, maybe I'm not to be considered as a "usual suspect" and therefore have no "standing" to comment?  

 

Also, Guy Williams can attest that certain types of masks will not be protective against most viruses.

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 09 September 2023 - 10:38 AM.

[Mind]

Masks blocked enough aerosols to prevent flu infection. What exactly doesn't make logical sense? 

 

Do you need a study to tell you what's obvious? The flu disappeared during the 2020/2021 flu season and that's almost certainly due to masks and maybe helped by other NPIs. Assuming that the stats are correct, there's no other possible explanation.

 

The masks stopped EVERY variant of flu

 

The masks stopped EVERY rhinovirus in the world?

 

The masks stopped every other coronavirus in existence?

 

The masks stopped RSV dead in its tracks?

 

The masks allowed just one virus in the entire world to spread in 2020/2021?

 

Makes no sense. No studies back this theory up - as far as I am aware. There are no comparative studies showing varying rates of infectiousness between viral particles in 2020/2021.

 

We know from CDC guidance, doctors reports, coroner evidence, etc... that everything under the sun was being labeled as COVID in 2020/2021. Huge financial incentives were in place to diagnose everything as COVID.

 

Sadly, this focus on NPI's including masking (a total complete failure), other more powerful interventions (like this) are not being funded , discussed, and developed like they should be.

[Florin]

The study was something that I knew had been discussed (because it was discussed by me in the "Policy measures to solve the coronavirus pandemic" thread posts #687, #689, and #691. A thread which you post in, and read.)-- contrary to your statement that: " I haven't heard any of the usual suspects talking about it, though." in your post #937, this thread. 
 
Now, if it is assumed that your claim was referring only to this thread, then technically you're correct. However, you read and post in a thread in which the matter was discussed, and you could have noted that fact here in this thread.
 
But, then again, maybe I'm not to be considered as a "usual suspect" and therefore have no "standing" to comment?  
 
Also, Guy Williams can attest that certain types of masks will not be protective against most viruses.

 
Thanks. Yeah, my mistake; I thought that you were referring to the masks thread rather than the policy thread. And in the policy thread, I didn't realize that you guys were talking about the same report, because I didn't click on the links.
 
The usual suspects are people (and not just on this forum) that says stuff like this:
 

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.

 
I pointed out that those studies and the more recent pandemic studies offer poor evidence. Yet, the usual suspects claim that this poor evidence proves that masks don't work, and I was wondering how they'd react to (just as poor) evidence which points to masks working.
 
Yes, I agree that eye masks aren't protective.

[Florin]

The masks stopped EVERY variant of flu
 
The masks stopped EVERY rhinovirus in the world?
 
The masks stopped every other coronavirus in existence?
 
The masks stopped RSV dead in its tracks?
 
The masks allowed just one virus in the entire world to spread in 2020/2021?
 
Makes no sense. No studies back this theory up - as far as I am aware. There are no comparative studies showing varying rates of infectiousness between viral particles in 2020/2021.
 
We know from CDC guidance, doctors reports, coroner evidence, etc... that everything under the sun was being labeled as COVID in 2020/2021. Huge financial incentives were in place to diagnose everything as COVID.
 
Sadly, this focus on NPI's including masking (a total complete failure), other more powerful interventions (like this) are not being funded , discussed, and developed like they should be.

 
I've only looked at worldwide stats for the flu.

Here's a comparative study:

The airborne contagiousness of respiratory viruses: A comparative analysis and implications for mitigation
https://doi.org/10.1...gsf.2021.101285

 

Since the flu is among the least contagious of respiratory infections, it's no wonder that masks can be effective.

 

If there was worldwide fraud, we'd know by now.

 

Theoretical silver bullets are fine, but I'd prefer something that's guaranteed to work no matter what and actually available today. Like respirators.

Edited by Florin, 13 September 2023 - 05:51 AM.

[Mind]

 
I've only looked at worldwide stats for the flu.

Here's a comparative study:

The airborne contagiousness of respiratory viruses: A comparative analysis and implications for mitigation
https://doi.org/10.1...gsf.2021.101285

 

Since the flu is among the least contagious of respiratory infections, it's no wonder that masks can be effective.

 

If there was worldwide fraud, we'd know by now.

 

Theoretical silver bullets are fine, but I'd prefer something that's guaranteed to work no matter what and actually available today. Like respirators.

 

That is great. You are free to wear a respirator. The problem during the COVID panic is that these ineffective NPIs were forced upon everyone.

[Mind]

It is unbelievable and disturbing how far "Science" has fallen in the US/UK. Nature has published political viewpoints. Lancet has published completely fake studies. Now Scientific American says the Cochrane review was "too rigorous" in their study of masks. 

[Daniel Cooper]

It is unbelievable and disturbing how far "Science" has fallen in the US/UK. Nature has published political viewpoints. Lancet has published completely fake studies. Now Scientific American says the Cochrane review was "too rigorous" in their study of masks. 

 

They prioritized rigor over reality?

 

We generally believe that scientific rigor reveals reality. But apparently not when it gives you a politically incorrect result.

[Mind]

A new study out of Norway shows mask-wearing was associated with significantly increased rates of COVID infection.

 

If they all wore hazmat suits and isolated for a few weeks - masks would have worked!

 

This study probably just reveals what has been mentioned before. People wearing masks thought they were protected so they interacted more with other people. Most masks don't actually block particles as small as SARS-CoV2. People take off their masks to sleep, eat, drink, kiss, etc... Most masks are not professionally fitted. Plus a litany of other reasons. This study just reveals why masking is an ineffective pandemic response - again - like a century of previous peer-reviewed RCT research.

[Hip]

Most masks don't actually block particles as small as SARS-CoV2.

 

It was discussed right at the beginning of the pandemic that viruses do not travel through the air as single particles, but as much larger water droplets containing many viral particles. The water droplets usually large enough to be stopped by N95 masks.

Edited by Hip, 28 November 2023 - 05:41 AM.

[Hip]

A new study out of Norway shows mask-wearing was associated with significantly increased rates of COVID infection.

 

If they all wore hazmat suits and isolated for a few weeks - masks would have worked!

 

This study probably just reveals what has been mentioned before. People wearing masks thought they were protected so they interacted more with other people. Most masks don't actually block particles as small as SARS-CoV2. People take off their masks to sleep, eat, drink, kiss, etc... Most masks are not professionally fitted. Plus a litany of other reasons. This study just reveals why masking is an ineffective pandemic response - again - like a century of previous peer-reviewed RCT research.

 

Haven't you contradicted yourself here?

 

You suggest people wearing masks think they are protected, so they interact more with other people, therefore invalidating the study results, because as the authors themselves state, these differences in behaviour cannot be accounted for in the study. 

 

Then after pointing out that the study results are invalid, you go on to say that the study proves masking is an ineffective pandemic response.

 

Cannot have it both ways. If the study is invalid (which I agree it is), then it proves nothing. So it does not prove that masking is an ineffective pandemic response.

Edited by Hip, 28 November 2023 - 05:57 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

"It was discussed right at the beginning of the pandemic that viruses do not travel through the air as single particles, but as much larger water droplets containing many viral particles. The water droplets usually large enough to be stopped by N95 masks."

 

Hip, have you ever seen the residue that results from the evaporation of tap water, for example? You know, when dissolved solids and/or suspended particulates are manifested on a surface as the carrying water droplets have transitioned from a liquid into a gaseous state (water vapor). Think about what happens when virus-laden water droplets are evaporated from a mask. (Hint, the viral particles don't exit with the evaporated water.). 

[Mind]

Haven't you contradicted yourself here?

 

You suggest people wearing masks think they are protected, so they interact more with other people, therefore invalidating the study results, because as the authors themselves state, these differences in behaviour cannot be accounted for in the study. 

 

Then after pointing out that the study results are invalid, you go on to say that the study proves masking is an ineffective pandemic response.

 

Cannot have it both ways. If the study is invalid (which I agree it is), then it proves nothing. So it does not prove that masking is an ineffective pandemic response.

 

I have no clue the point you are making here. Sorry, it makes no logical sense.

 

1. Many "experts" claim that masking works.

 

2. A multitude of studies posted here show that masking was a very ineffective during the COVID panic.

 

3. I give reasons as to why masking was ineffective (generally) - the same reasons as to why (contrary to "expert" opinion) that masking was ineffective in the Norwegian study.

 

4. I am unsure why giving reasons as to why masking failed in Norway, makes the study invalid. The masking failed. Shouldn't people discuss why masking failed?

[Hip]

Hip, have you ever seen the residue that results from the evaporation of tap water, for example? You know, when dissolved solids and/or suspended particulates are manifested on a surface as the carrying water droplets have transitioned from a liquid into a gaseous state (water vapor). Think about what happens when virus-laden water droplets are evaporated from a mask. (Hint, the viral particles don't exit with the evaporated water.). 

 

Yes, that's right, droplets can evaporate, which will leave single viral particles floating in the air.

 

But there is also a concept of the minimum infective dose. This is the number of viruses or bacteria that are needed to create an infection.

 

One viral particle or one bacterium on their own generally will not produce an infection. This is because mucosal defences (the epithelial immune system) can generally handle a small number of pathogens and kill them. So for an infection to seed itself, you generally need a whole bunch of viral particles arriving together. A floating globule of spittle or nasal mucous may contain sufficient viral particles to trigger an infection.

 

This study estimates that you need 300 to 2000 SARS-CoV-2 particles to seed an infection. 

 

 

In any case, we know that properly fitted FFP2 / N95 masks are highly effective at blocking COVID infection, because these masks are routinely used in COVID wards, where the air is laden with SARS-CoV-2. The fact that these masks can let through single viral particles does not seem to put a dent in their efficacy. 

 

There was some discussion of these very issues of single viral particles getting through masks in British newspapers at the beginning of the pandemic.

Edited by Hip, 28 November 2023 - 08:32 PM.

[Hip]

I have no clue the point you are making here.

 

What I am saying is that the mask study you posted has an invalid methodology, for the very reasons you explained yourself.

 

But the study is a good example to discuss, because it shows how difficult it is to reliably test the efficacy of masks in real world conditions.

 

As you pointed out, people who wear masks feel more protected from the pathogen, so they then may take higher risks in terms of pathogen exposure. In other words, feeling protected creates a behavioural change in masks wearers, but not in those not wearing masks. This means that in spite of wearing a mask which reduces infection risk, the behavioural change increases infection risk, so you may be back to square one.

 

The only way to test a mask in real world conditions is if both the wearers and non-wearers are behaving the same. 

Edited by Hip, 28 November 2023 - 08:34 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The only way to test a mask in real world conditions is if both the wearers and non-wearers are behaving the same. 

 

This raises the question - Do you want to test the mask, or do you want to test the "system"? That is, are we interested in testing the mask as a stand alone device or are we testing the mask as people wear them and as they function in the real world with whatever behaviors people present while wearing them?

 

I'm going to suggest that your statement above - "The only way to test a mask in real world conditions is if both the wearers and non-wearers are behaving the same" is sort of the opposite of the real world and you're actually testing in idealized conditions in that case.

 

That's probably important information. It might tell us how effective how effective masks might potentially be. But I think what we really care about is how effective they actually are as utilized by real people in the real world.

 

The thing about any idealized mask performance is that it may take a real effort to modify patient behavior to get there. And as any doctor will tell you, modifying patient behavior is one of the hardest things to do. Some doctors even suggest it's virtually impossible which is why so many give up on preaching diet and exercise to overweight patients and end up just throwing statins and blood pressure medications at them.