1042 replies to this topic

[Hip]

My opinion is that what we really care about is the net effect of masking. Do more or less people become sick and die wearing or not wearing masks.

 

You are only looking at half the story.

 

In a pandemic, there are two main objectives we want to achieve: (1) to reduce pathogen transmission and the death or illness that it causes; (2) to try to allow people to live as normal a life as is possible, which is important to keep the economy going, as well as important for people's mental health. 

 

If people feel more protected due to mask wearing, so that they then venture out of self-imposed lockdown towards more normal life, this riskier behaviour may negate the benefits of masks, and so prevent masks from achieving objective (1). Thus it is quite possible that you find mask wearing does not reduce pathogen transmission in a study, due to this change towards riskier behaviour. 

 

But nevertheless masking will still have been a success, because it results in achieving objective (2): allowing people to live more normally, which is equally important.

 

 

This is why in real world masking studies, you cannot just look at whether objective (1) was achieved; you also have to look at whether objective (2) was achieved. Achieving either shows that masks are a success.

 

 

And exactly the same is true for real world studies on the efficacy of COVID vaccines (at least for vaccine studies which do not have a double-blind placebo controled group).

 

As we know, once you are vaccinated, you feel more protected from the ill effects of COVID such as death. Therefore you are happier to leave any self-imposed lockdown, and return to a more normal life. That behavioural change towards living a more normal life again results in higher risk of exposure to COVID, and thus a higher risk of death. So that may partially negate vaccination achieving objective (1). But nevertheless, the vaccine allows you to achieve the equally important objective (2). 

 

So with vaccination, just like with masks, success is measured either by achieving objective (1), or achieving objective (2), or a bit of both. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 11 December 2023 - 08:54 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Unless you're wearing a new N-95 taped to your face full time, forever, you're just delaying the inevitable.  We were all masked indoors & out in San Diego when omicron swept the city.  If you wish to opine masks work at all, they would have to keep entire masked populations from ever catching each other's bugs.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Even in places with good mask compliance, EVENTUALLY...  Everyone still got COVID, so why all the fuss?  The secret is to learn how to properly deal with it.  

 

I'm steering towards early treatment myself.  Really early treatment!  Day 1 or 2 at the latest.  You've got to have your meds on hand in order to facilitate this, & I do.  Started treating my COVID in September on day 2, & by day 5, I was ready to party again.  Hardest part of the whole thing was isolating on day 6 & 7.  Day 8, I went out!  

 

Saw an article on Paxlovid that said, though it didn't reduce hospitalization as well as with the old variants, it still reduced symptomatic days from 14 to 9 on average.  FOURTEEN DAYS!?!? Who the heck is sick with omicron for 14 days?  What if you get that pesky Paxlovid rebound?  That's a whole month out of your year?  Not my cup of tea!  

[Daniel Cooper]

Unless you're wearing a new N-95 taped to your face full time, forever, you're just delaying the inevitable.  

 

And that's the thing. We're all getting covid. Some of you will get it and not even show symptoms. But unless you're living on a desert island or in some remote village in the mountains of Borneo you're going to catch this bug if you haven't already.

 

The smart move was to try to avoid getting covid in the early stages of the pandemic, when the virus was most lethal. But, eventually you will get this virus. But, that's ok. Because you've also gotten every virus that is the descendant of prior pandemic viruses and you survived. No one slapped a mask on your face when you were born because the offsping of the 1890 pandemic is still circulating. Yet ... here you are.

[Mind]

And that's the thing. We're all getting covid. Some of you will get it and not even show symptoms. But unless you're living on a desert island or in some remote village in the mountains of Borneo you're going to catch this bug if you haven't already.

 

The smart move was to try to avoid getting covid in the early stages of the pandemic, when the virus was most lethal. But, eventually you will get this virus. But, that's ok. Because you've also gotten every virus that is the descendant of prior pandemic viruses and you survived. No one slapped a mask on your face when you were born because the offsping of the 1890 pandemic is still circulating. Yet ... here you are.

 

It is a myth that COVID was more lethal early in the pandemic, there is plenty of evidence to show that it was not much more deadly than it is now.

 

-Early ship data clearly showed it was not that deadly.

-The average age of COVID deaths around the world is around 80. In many countries it is over 80 years of age. (not deadly for younger people)

-Recent peer-reviewed analysis shows an IFR of less than one tenth of 1 percent - like a regular flu/cold season for people under 70.

-Early COVID deaths were wildly over counted. There was little distinction between those who died OF COVID vs those who died (from something else) WITH COVID (positive test)

-The evidence for iatrogenic deaths is substantial. Ventilators and Remdesivir were deadly treatments for many elderly. Hospitals mostly stopped normal pneumonia treatment protocols.

-Doctors, hospitals, and even funeral homes were heavily financially incentivized (well-documented) to label everything as a COVID death.

-The pandemic measures were futile and destructive. Loneliness, depression, and non-stop fear porn from US media, likely led to repressed immune function in a lot of the population.

-Early treatments  (even exercise and supplements) were discouraged. This likely led to A LOT more deaths than would have occurred otherwise.

[Hip]

-The evidence for iatrogenic deaths is substantial. Ventilators and Remdesivir were deadly treatments for many elderly. Hospitals mostly stopped normal pneumonia treatment protocols.

 

Here is a simple test of your memory and understanding, Mind: do you remember the explanation I gave for why ventilators are actually used?

 

You don't remember? I thought not. 

[Hip]

Do any other people here actually know why ventilators are used for COVID patients? I bet nobody knows.

 

This is really basic knowledge, and the fact that everyone on these threads are ignorant of this shows how the discussion here is of a very low standard.

[Dorian Grey]

Do any other people here actually know why ventilators are used for COVID patients? I bet nobody knows.

 

This is really basic knowledge, and the fact that everyone on these threads are ignorant of this shows how the discussion here is of a very low standard.

 

Ventilators are used for COVID patients because according to Dr Fauci, hydroxychloroquine is far too dangerous for outpatient use!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 14 December 2023 - 11:55 PM.

[Hip]

Ventilators are used for COVID patients because according to Dr Fauci, hydroxychloroquine is far too dangerous for outpatient use!  

 

I really suspect nobody here knows why ventilators are actually used.

 

 

In fact, I bet most people here are clueless of the rationale behind most of the major decisions made by governments during the pandemic. This is why people here are so fearful and suspicious, because they don't understand why things are happening, and why certain policies are adopted by governments and health agencies. 

[joesixpack]

I really suspect nobody here knows why ventilators are actually used.

 

 

In fact, I bet most people here are clueless of the rationale behind most of the major decisions made by governments during the pandemic. This is why people here are so fearful and suspicious, because they don't understand why things are happening, and why certain policies are adopted by governments and health agencies. 

This article from April 2020 should tell you all you need to know  about ventilators, their drawbacks and why the tendency is now toward high flow oxygen unless a patient will die without ventilation.

 

https://time.com/582...ators-covid-19/

[Hip]

This article from April 2020 should tell you all you need to know  about ventilators, their drawbacks and why the tendency is now toward high flow oxygen unless a patient will die without ventilation.

 

https://time.com/582...ators-covid-19/

 

Not even warm. 

[Hip]

Keep trying to guess why ventilators are used, joesixpack, because so far you are wide off the mark. Nobody here will be able to tell you, because people here just aren't on the ball. But if you do your research, you will find out. I actually mentioned the main reason ventilators are used in a previous post, but you know the saying: pearls before swine. 

[joesixpack]

"The most classic adage regarding trolling is, "Don't feed the trolls." Trolls seek out emotional responses and find provocation amusing, so replying to them or attempting to debate them will only make them troll more. By ignoring a troll completely, they will likely become frustrated and go somewhere else on the internet.

You should try your best not to take anything trolls say seriously. No matter how poorly they behave, remember these people spend countless unproductive hours trying to make people mad. They're not worth your time of day."

Source: https://www.howtogee...-handle-trolls/

[Hip]

Still waiting to see if you can correctly answer my question about the real reason ventilators are used, joesixpack. If you do not know, then just admit that. 

 

Nobody else here knows, because people here are clueless regarding the reasons decisions were taken in the pandemic. 

[Mind]

Here we have testimony that proves the sudden mask guidance was not based upon solid evidence. In senate testimony, the medical director of the CDC plainly stated they did not have any evidence that cloth masks worked but they were still drafting mask guidance. Then they released their cloth mask guidance ("everyone should wear them all the time") once they had "iron clad' evidence. There was no iron clad evidence (in March of 2020) that cloth masks do anything to stop the spread of respiratory disease. There never was evidence for the use of cloth masks. This is just another revelation about how weird and unscientific the whole COVID panic was (and still is in places like New York and California).

[Florin]

Here we have testimony that proves the sudden mask guidance was not based upon solid evidence. In senate testimony, the medical director of the CDC plainly stated they did not have any evidence that cloth masks worked but they were still drafting mask guidance. Then they released their cloth mask guidance ("everyone should wear them all the time") once they had "iron clad' evidence. There was no iron clad evidence (in March of 2020) that cloth masks do anything to stop the spread of respiratory disease. There never was evidence for the use of cloth masks. This is just another revelation about how weird and unscientific the whole COVID panic was (and still is in places like New York and California).

 

What probably happened was that the CDC used a mix of indirect empirical evidence (masking in Asia) and mechanistic reasoning (droplets are blocked by masks, even the cloth kind). Maybe that's not ironclad, but you gotta work with what you've got.

[Mind]

Just more evidence that masks did not work as hoped - didn't protect vulnerable populations.

 

It bears repeating that "masks work" in theory, in the lab, especially in combination with a hazmat suit, in controlled environments.

 

As the COVID panic proved in spades, and could have been easily deduced from multiple high-quality RCT studies from over the past century, general masking/face-covering is completely ineffective as a pandemic response.

[Florin]

Just more evidence that masks did not work as hoped - didn't protect vulnerable populations.

 

It bears repeating that "masks work" in theory, in the lab, especially in combination with a hazmat suit, in controlled environments.

 

As the COVID panic proved in spades, and could have been easily deduced from multiple high-quality RCT studies from over the past century, general masking/face-covering is completely ineffective as a pandemic response.

 

No, the article stated that there is no empirical evidence whether or not masks work, because there are no high-quality RCT studies.

 

There are also no high-quality RCT studies of gas masks or parachutes or air bags. If you're being gassed, the dumbest thing you can do is to refuse to wear a gas mask because there are no high-quality RCT studies.

Edited by Florin, 02 February 2024 - 11:13 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

No, the article stated that there is no empirical evidence whether or not masks work, because there are no high-quality RCT studies.

 

There are also no high-quality RCT studies of gas masks or parachutes or air bags. If you're being gassed, the dumbest thing you can do is to refuse to wear a gas mask because there are no high-quality RCT studies.

 

You are correct, there are no RCTs for gas masks or parachutes.

 

But, when things are highly correlated RCTs are less necessary. Which is good because you could never run an ethical RCT on those items, at least not in humans.

 

People did occasionally fall out of airplanes without parachutes. And the results were pretty plain to see. People also got exposed to poison gas in war with equally plain results.

 

When you take something like falling out of an airplane which has a very nearly 100% fatality rate without a parachute, and a very nearly 0% fatality rate with one - it's pretty easy to make the case for parachutes.

 

Same thing goes for gas masks.

 

But masks for respiratory viral infections?

 

The effect size is much smaller. It is a classic signal to noise ration problem. A RCT is very useful in discerning whether there is a real effect and estimating it's magnitude.

[Florin]

You are correct, there are no RCTs for gas masks or parachutes.

 

But, when things are highly correlated RCTs are less necessary. Which is good because you could never run an ethical RCT on those items, at least not in humans.

 

People did occasionally fall out of airplanes without parachutes. And the results were pretty plain to see. People also got exposed to poison gas in war with equally plain results.

 

When you take something like falling out of an airplane which has a very nearly 100% fatality rate without a parachute, and a very nearly 0% fatality rate with one - it's pretty easy to make the case for parachutes.

 

Same thing goes for gas masks.

 

But masks for respiratory viral infections?

 

The effect size is much smaller. It is a classic signal to noise ration problem. A RCT is very useful in discerning whether there is a real effect and estimating it's magnitude.

 

Before gas masks were used, there was no correlation between gas mask use and survival, but you'd still be dumb if you refused to wear one. Even after gas masks were found to work for the handful of toxic gases that were used in war, there are many other gases that haven't been empirically "tested" to the same extent, yet gas masks are still mandated for worker protection. That's where we are today; water-soaked rags (non-respirator masks) don't work that well, and that's why you need to wear a gas mask (respirator) even though there's no good empirical evidence that they work for a specific set of gases (the covid virus versus other kinds of particulate matter).

 

Sames goes for parachutes.

 

Cases that aren't so clear cut as gas masks or parachutes are seat belts and motorcycle helmets. But they're still mandated, and I've heard complaints about helmet mandates.

 

Bicycle helmets have even less empirical evidence for effectiveness.

Edited by Florin, 03 February 2024 - 07:57 PM.

[Mind]

The parachute analogy is interesting because it illuminates the failures of the "general masking" of the public.

 

When would you carry a parachute? When you were in an emergency situation (or a fighter pilot) and the only option was an airplane that was notably unsafe or risky to fly in.

 

When would you wear a hazmat suit? When you are in a known dangerous situation because you are around some poison or super deadly virus.

 

Why don't we require everyone carry a parachute all the time? After all, you never know when you might drive over a cliff or fall off of a building.

 

Why don't we require everyone who flies on a commercial airliner to have a parachute? Because the cost is extraordinarily high, the risk is extremely low, and it would be difficult to implement the requirement in an efficient and effective manner.

 

Same for "general masking" of the entire population. Not only are there no high quality RCT studies to back up general masking, it is difficult to effectively implement the policy for numerous reasons listed throughout this discussion. In addition, even in Asian countries that had strict masking requirements, and near 100% compliance, they still ended up with multiple huge waves of COVID infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. If "general masking" worked, there would be obvious evidence.

Edited by Mind, 14 February 2024 - 10:49 PM.

[Mind]

Here is a good review of the CDC evolution on mask guidance including their 2020 guidance which clearly stated there was "no substantial effect" in the prevention of the spread of respiratory viruses. The incompetent CDC bureaucrats eventually threw their own scientists under that bus stating that their conclusions on the effectiveness of different mask types were "not scientifically correct".

 

Fauci reversed himself on mask guidance, the WHO reversed their guidance, the CDC reversed their guidance, all based upon short term poorly controlled observational studies (some of which have been retracted). They rejected decades of high quality RCT and observational studies. They also rejected the common sense practical problems with trying to mask everyone all the time - like poor fitting and overuse - a problem even in clinical settings.

Edited by Mind, 14 February 2024 - 11:12 PM.

[Florin]

General masking was a justifiable NPI at the start of the pandemic, but once when it seemed that masking was no longer working that well and respirators became more available, it should have been dropped.

 

And, again, there's no high-quality, empirical evidence about masking. The stuff you linked to is the same kind of flawed evidence that was discussed before. The best evidence indicates that cloth and surgical masks don't work, because they failed to stop the covid waves that appeared after mid-2020. Good evidence about N95s doesn't exist, because there's no study that followed N95 wearers to see if they wore N95s outside of a healthcare setting (where they could also become infected). N95s would have the best chance of offering adequate protection if everyone wore them (even without a perfect fit) instead of regular masks, but that never happened. Elastomeric respirators or PAPRs would be even better, but almost no one wore them.

 

As for the Asian countries, masks seemed to work until they lifted their NPIs. Once that happened, ear-loop masks were worn too loosely to offer much protection from the more contagious variants.

 

This is a similar situation to WW1 when soldiers literally used water-soak rags before switching to gas masks. In this pandemic, everyone continued to use water-soak rags even when they should have switched to gas masks. So, it should be obvious why there's no obvious evidence that masking works (although it may have worked earlier in the pandemic or with respirators).

[joesixpack]

General masking was a justifiable NPI at the start of the pandemic, but once when it seemed that masking was no longer working that well and respirators became more available, it should have been dropped.

 

And, again, there's no high-quality, empirical evidence about masking. The stuff you linked to is the same kind of flawed evidence that was discussed before. The best evidence indicates that cloth and surgical masks don't work, because they failed to stop the covid waves that appeared after mid-2020. Good evidence about N95s doesn't exist, because there's no study that followed N95 wearers to see if they wore N95s outside of a healthcare setting (where they could also become infected). N95s would have the best chance of offering adequate protection if everyone wore them (even without a perfect fit) instead of regular masks, but that never happened. Elastomeric respirators or PAPRs would be even better, but almost no one wore them.

 

As for the Asian countries, masks seemed to work until they lifted their NPIs. Once that happened, ear-loop masks were worn too loosely to offer much protection from the more contagious variants.

 

This is a similar situation to WW1 when soldiers literally used water-soak rags before switching to gas masks. In this pandemic, everyone continued to use water-soak rags even when they should have switched to gas masks. So, it should be obvious why there's no obvious evidence that masking works (although it may have worked earlier in the pandemic or with respirators).

 

I have no problem with masking. I researched. N95 should work for most things. Japan has used them for years all around the world.  I used them during the Covid pandemic and I think they helped when I went into crowded venues for brief periods of time. Like grocery stores, or other buildings. I did not get Covid until  fall of 2023.  No problem, took the FLCCC protocol, gone in 2 days. If anyone wants me to mask I do it, not everyone is comfortable without it, I don't mind.

[Mind]

There many things that did not make sense during the COVID panic, including masking as the be-all-end-all solution. Masking failed in every country, even in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and other countries that had extremely high compliance with high quality masks. They still had multiple huge waves of COVID cases. Everyone ended up getting COVID anyway.

 

There were several videos where you could see with your own eyes how aerosols much bigger than SARS-CoV2 viral particles would escape masks. People did not believe their own eyes.

[Hip]

There were several videos where you could see with your own eyes how aerosols much bigger than SARS-CoV2 viral particles would escape masks. People did not believe their own eyes.

 

Those videos were created by idiots for idiots.

 

As has been explained on these threads more than once: the size of the virus-containing water droplets emitted by virally infected people is around 0.1 μm to 10 μm. N95 masks block nearly all particles down to a size of 0.3 μm, and also block a lot of smaller particles down to 0.1 μm. So these N95 masks will trap nearly all viral aerosols. 

 

As for that twit in the Twitter video blowing e-cig smoke through an N95 mask, well e-cigarette smoke particles can be as small as 24–36 nm to 250–450 nm, so can easily pass through an N95. It does not prove these masks don't block viruses. 

 

 

As for that complete moron on the Twitter video, exhaling through a mask on a cold day to create dew, doesn't this halfwit realise that water vapour in the air is a gas, and a gas can easily pass through a mask. The water vapour then turns in visible dew when cooled by the cold weather to below the dew point.

Edited by Hip, 27 March 2024 - 06:48 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

For sure N95 masks are better at filtering out those size particles vs. the cloth and paper masks the vast majority that most people actually wore. 

 

So theoretically masks might have had more effect if most people actually worse N95s.

 

But they didn't. So you really can't argue that the masks as used had a major impact on the course of the pandemic and simultaneously acknowledge that the masks that 90% of the people actually wore were virtually useless. That's contradictory.

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 27 March 2024 - 02:49 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Those videos were created by idiots for idiots.

 

As has been explained on these threads more than once: the size of the virus-containing water droplets emitted by virally infected people is around 0.1 μm to 10 μm. N95 masks block nearly all particles down to a size of 0.3 μm, and also block a lot of smaller particles down to 0.1 μm. So these N95 masks will trap nearly all viral aerosols. 

 

As for that twit in the Twitter video blowing e-cig smoke through an N95 mask, well e-cigarette smoke particles can be as small as 24–36 nm to 250–450 nm, so can easily pass through an N95. It does not prove these masks don't block viruses. 

 

 

As for that complete moron on the Twitter video, exhaling through a mask on a cold day to create dew, doesn't this halfwit realise that water vapour in the air is a gas, and a gas can easily pass through a mask. The water vapour then turns in visible dew when cooled by the cold weather to below the dew point.

 

Agree, water vapor passing through a mask and condensing in the air is not a good model for droplet containment, but if you look carefully (or even not so carefully), it is easy to see vapor hemorrhaging from gaps around the nose & cheeks, and this IS a good model for droplet containment.  

 

The overwhelming majority of masks I saw during the pandemic were well-worn and hanging loosely from the face.  Hardly a magic shield!  We would have needed a massive "mask police" force to enforce proper use. 

 

I wonder just how many took unwise risks back in the pre-omicron bad old days, thinking their magic shield would protect them, and wound up catching plague, and giving it to their entire family?  A poorly run masking program may well be worse than no masking program at all.  

[Hip]

For sure N95 masks are better at filtering out those size particles vs. the cloth and paper masks the vast majority that most people actually wore. 

 

So theoretically masks might have had more effect if most people actually worse N95s.

 

But they didn't. So you really can't argue that the masks as used had a major impact on the course of the pandemic and simultaneously acknowledge that the masks that 90% of the people actually wore were virtually useless. That's contradictory.

 

I am glad you acknowledge that N95 masks are effective in filtering out airborne viral aerosols. 

 

 

As for the efficacy of the more flimsy surgical masks at reducing viral spread, real-world studies themselves are not conclusive either way.

 

As has been discussed before, there are inherent issues with most real-world mask studies that make their results somewhat unreliable.

 

So until such time as someone devises a reliable real world study on surgical masks, we can only discuss theoretical reasons why surgical masks may or may not reduce viral spread.

 

 

 

Here is one theoretical consideration about the efficacy of surgical masks and cloth coverings in reducing viral spread:

 

When you use a surgical mask or cloth covering, much of the air you breathe out does not pass through the filter material, but escapes unfiltered through the edges of the mask. 

 

So any aerosol water droplet particles which move with that escaping air flowing out of the edges will not have been stopped, and so could potentially infect others, if they contain sufficient virus. 

 

But consider the fact that the larger-sized water droplet particles (which are the ones that contain the most virus), because of their higher weight, will tend to have a more direct ballistic trajectory. A ballistic trajectory means one where the particle shoots forward in a straight line. 

 

This means these larger water droplet particles may shoot straight into the mask material covering the opening of the mouth and nose, where they will be absorbed like a sponge absorbs water. 

 

So this theoretical consideration suggests that if you are infected, even surgical masks or cloth coverings may help protect other people around you, by stopping the larger water droplet particles from escaping your mouth.

 

This is only a theoretical argument; but it should be enough to make you realise that we should not immediately discount surgical masks or cloth coverings just because air escapes at the edges.

 

 

 

This paper discusses the physics of how water droplets and aerosols are generated in the mouth and respiratory tract, if anyone is interested.. 

Edited by Hip, 27 March 2024 - 04:14 PM.

[Hip]

Agree, water vapor passing through a mask and condensing in the air is not a good model for droplet containment, but if you look carefully (or even not so carefully), it is easy to see vapor hemorrhaging from gaps around the nose & cheeks, and this IS a good model for droplet containment.  

 

Please see my post just above, which considers the fact that even though air escapes via the edges of surgical masks and cloth coverings, these masks may still prevent the larger water droplets from being ejected into the air, because of the straight line trajectory of these larger drops.

[Dorian Grey]

Please see my post just above, which considers the fact that even though air escapes via the edges of surgical masks and cloth coverings, these masks may still prevent the larger water droplets from being ejected into the air, because of the straight line trajectory of these larger drops.

 

Agree, the larger droplets shoot straight out and hit the mask and only the smaller droplets & aerosols escape, yet despite indoor and outdoor mask mandates here in San Diego, omicron swept through our city like a Canadian wildfire.  

 

Methinks the droplet size issue is a non-issue.  Masked or unmasked, we all still got COVID!  Those small droplets and aerosols must have been just as contagious as the big spit balls.