1042 replies to this topic

[Hip]

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.

 

Yes, this is part of the problem with testing masks, and indeed any protective measures such as vaccination, in real world conditions. If people feel more protected from the virus, it will change their behaviour, usually towards more risky behaviour, so the measured protective effect in a real world study may be lower than the actual protection afforded. 

[Mind]

Prior to the COVID panic, the CDC's own internal guidance recommended AGAINST masking as a pandemic response. This was based upon over a century of observational and RCT studies. 

 

Based upon the scientific evidence, Dr. Fauci also recommended against masking at the beginning of the COVID panic.

 

Yet we still got masking as a pandemic response, and it failed miserably. Not only did we get an intervention unsupported by scientific evidence - it was forced upon the population. People were literally beaten in the streets and arrested for not wearing a mask.

 

Now we have a UK health minister admitting that they instituted the masking policy based upon no scientific evidence what-so-ever and that it made the COVID spread worse.

 

We should all be afraid that no one is being fired or reprimanded for this anti-science incompetence. Instead, they are being rewarded for brutalizing the population.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

Based upon the scientific evidence, Dr. Fauci also recommended against masking at the beginning of the COVID panic.

 

 

Fauci was literally all over the place on masks. At first he's telling people they don't work. Then he changes his position with the excuse that his prior position was born out of a desire to save the masks for health care workers. But all though that early period were he's got friends and colleagues asking about masks he's telling them don't bother because they don't work as attested to by his emails which were gotten via a FOIA request. Of course, that position was actually in keeping with the majority of research on masks prior to Covid-19.

 

You have to believe that what he was telling his friends almost certainly reflect his true beliefs on the subject.

 

Dr. Fauci is only loosely acquainted with the truth it seems.

 

I think that the elites like Dr. Fauci have such a low opinion of "the unwashed masses" that they felt they needed to lie to them to give them something to do to calm them down, lest we have some sort of wide scale panic. Or to quote Dr. Peter Venkman - "Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!".

 

I think these guys have watched too many bad sci-fi shows. And they think so very poorly of us.

[Dorian Grey]

"I think that the elites like Dr. Fauci have such a low opinion of "the unwashed masses" that they felt they needed to lie to them to give them something to do to calm them down, lest we have some sort of wide scale panic."

 

--------------------------------  BINGO!  We Have A Winner!  

 

The Fauch had to know from the start we were going to suppress all attempts at treatment to preserve the EUAs for the coming Billion Dollar Babies from Big Pharma, but you couldn't say we're not going to try anything, so they had to create Bread & Circuses to placate the masses.  

 

Wear a mask!  Social Distancing!  Remain at  Home!  I honestly believe they never thought a million Americans would die before they cooked up their Pharma-Brews, but once they got started there was no turning back.  

 

This also created a strong impetus for the vaccine launch...  "We have no treatment outside of hospitalization, where you'll get nothing more than remdesivir & a vent, so everyone must get vaccinated immediately!"  

 

I've been arguing with a couple of doctors on MedScape about the HCQ trials.  It seems they were just killing time playing rope-a-dope with the trials.  The only large, first world RCTs were on hospitalized patients, & when I eventually challenged the docs to "show me an HCQ trial that Paxlovid might have passed" and I'll admit defeat.  The forums went dead silent on me, as there simply weren't any.  

 

----------------------------

 

I often wonder, if the Fauch is stricken with cancer & dying, whether he might confess for the good of mankind, and perhaps save his sorry soul.  Just think of the kerfuffle that might cause!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 03 December 2023 - 02:07 AM.

[Florin]

I suspect people like Fauci simply didn't think things through all that well. Masks work for healthcare workers but don't for anyone else? And why weren't cloth masks recommended for the public from the start? Sure, healthcare workers would be exposed to airborne covid (this wasn't believed to happen outside a hospital setting), but they'd also be exposed to droplets and fomites which masks would also protect against. Even cloth masks would protect against droplets and fomites which were the only means of transmission that was thought to occur outside hospitals.

[Daniel Cooper]

If you go by Fauci's emails I don't think he ever believed masks worked, because that's what he was telling his friends and colleagues.

 

But, he probably didn't fancy the idea of a bunch of doctors and nurses refusing to go to work because masks were unavailable so he probably saw a need to keep them supplied.

 

 

[Dorian Grey]

I suspect people like Fauci simply didn't think things through all that well. Masks work for healthcare workers but don't for anyone else? And why weren't cloth masks recommended for the public from the start? Sure, healthcare workers would be exposed to airborne covid (this wasn't believed to happen outside a hospital setting), but they'd also be exposed to droplets and fomites which masks would also protect against. Even cloth masks would protect against droplets and fomites which were the only means of transmission that was thought to occur outside hospitals.

 

I was a Surgical Technologist for 35 years, & have spent many tens of thousands of hour masked in surgery.  

 

The mouth has an enormous variety of bacteria...  Doctors often joke the mouth is dirtier than the anus.  When you've got an open surgical wound, what you want to avoid is BACTERIAL contamination, and any talking among the surgical team will produce droplets of saliva right over the wound that will rain down & cause bacterial infection.  

 

You may have noticed, many members of the surgical teams in Europe / UK used to wear their masks under their nose, as simply exhaling through the nose doesn't produce the rain of bacterial droplets talking does.  Don't know if they've all followed the US lead and mask over the nose now, but covering the nose in surgery is mostly just for show.  

 

Fun Fact: My wife got COVID in January '22 at work in an operating room.  Everyone wearing properly fitted, brand new masks the whole time.  Surgical Tech was working sick with what he thought was a cold.  Wife was notified 2 days later the tech had COVID, & she & the surgeon both became symptomatic a couple days later.  

[Florin]

If you go by Fauci's emails I don't think he ever believed masks worked, because that's what he was telling his friends and colleagues.

 

But, he probably didn't fancy the idea of a bunch of doctors and nurses refusing to go to work because masks were unavailable so he probably saw a need to keep them supplied.

 

But where did those doctors and nurses get the idea to wear masks? The answer is that masks protect against aerosolizing procedures such as intubation (this is standard practical, AFAIK) which would aerosolize the virus and make it airborne, and it's almost certain that Fauci would agree. Masks would also protect against droplets and fomites which would also be vectors of transmission in hospitals. I also doubt that Fauci and co would dispute this. The problem was that Fauci didn't follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion: if masks protect health care workers, they should protect the public as well. N95s and surgical masks are in short supply? Tell the public to wear cloth masks, and explain that N95s are unnecessary, because the virus isn't airborne outside hospitals.

[Dorian Grey]

But where did those doctors and nurses get the idea to wear masks? The answer is that masks protect against aerosolizing procedures such as intubation (this is standard practical, AFAIK) which would aerosolize the virus and make it airborne, and it's almost certain that Fauci would agree. Masks would also protect against droplets and fomites which would also be vectors of transmission in hospitals. I also doubt that Fauci and co would dispute this. The problem was that Fauci didn't follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion: if masks protect health care workers, they should protect the public as well. N95s and surgical masks are in short supply? Tell the public to wear cloth masks, and explain that N95s are unnecessary, because the virus isn't airborne outside hospitals.

 

My wife worked in hospital right through the COVID years, & she said no anesthesiologist in his right mind would rely on a simple surgical mask when intubating patients.  They devised plexiglass shields they would place between the patient mouth and anesthesiologist's face, the nurse would hold a suction wand in the side of the patient's mouth, and the anesthesiologist would be wearing an N-95.  No one relied on simple surgical masks for high risk procedures.  

 

The fomite & droplet transmission fell by the wayside very early in the COVID pandemic.  We started out learning how to wash our canned goods and vegetables, but it didn't take long before someone realized, you don't get the virus deep into your lung by touching a dirty door knob.  I know there was some talk of GI infection (particularly in kids), but strangely enough, you don't hear much about this (fomite / GI infection) now days.  

 

I'll throw you a bone, & admit theoretically any barrier, even a porous one might provide some sort of minimal protection.  Whether this is less than 1%, 2 or 3% or even 5%, if you go out and about among infected people, you're going to get this bug sooner or later.  I suppose back in the bad old days, when people were dying and getting scarred lungs, even a couple of percentage points protection might have been wise.  Problem now is...  I can't think of anyone in their right mind who would seriously say they wanted everyone on the planet masked at all times when out of the house FOREVERMORE!  

 

It's just not a doable thing...  There would be freedom fighters bustin' mask bullies heads all over the world & I'd bet the freedom fighters would eventually win. I live in Southern California, and next to no one is wearing masks now.  When you do see someone all masked up, it's almost humorous.  Oh dear, poor fellow. Living in the past. 

https://youtu.be/Tn9...Vi_85TZ7BgZvBng

Edited by Dorian Grey, 03 December 2023 - 06:44 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

But where did those doctors and nurses get the idea to wear masks? The answer is that masks protect against aerosolizing procedures such as intubation (this is standard practical, AFAIK) which would aerosolize the virus and make it airborne, and it's almost certain that Fauci would agree. Masks would also protect against droplets and fomites which would also be vectors of transmission in hospitals. I also doubt that Fauci and co would dispute this. The problem was that Fauci didn't follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion: if masks protect health care workers, they should protect the public as well. N95s and surgical masks are in short supply? Tell the public to wear cloth masks, and explain that N95s are unnecessary, because the virus isn't airborne outside hospitals.

 

I'm not going to beat the very dead horse of whether these masks work or not. Honestly I've had about as much of that discussion as I can take and I image that many on both sides feel the same way.

 

And it isn't germane to my point. My point is if you look at those emails of Tony Fauci he's clearly telling friends and associates privately that masks don't work so don't bother with them. This is presumably what he actually believes.

 

But eventually publicly he takes a very different position and advocates strongly for wearing masks - indeed wearing multiple masks at the same time.
 

So aside from the completely separate issue of whether masks actually do work you have Fauci telling people they do while it's pretty clear he doesn't believe that.

 

This raises the question of why he's telling people this (which I put forth my belief above) and the morality of a public official telling the public one thing, while telling his close friends and associates something completely different.

 

Of course, there were a lot of consequences that flowed from Fauci's public position on masks. He likes to say that he didn't push mask mandates. But his position was used as a rationale when these mandates were created and he knows that.

 

Maybe I'm weird. I don't like being lied to by government bureaucrats.

[Mind]

 

 

So aside from the completely separate issue of whether masks actually do work 

 

...and this is one point that gets lost in the discussion (over and over).

 

Various masks (and other air filtering particle blocking technology) "work" to block particles of various sizes.

 

This is a separate from whether masking is an effective pandemic response. According to a century of high quality RCT evidence - masking is ineffective.

 

The COVID panic again proved that masking is a useless population-wide pandemic response.

 

The scientific and common-sense reasons for the failure of masking are numerous. I won't go over them again, but here is an analogy.

 

When it comes to viruses and microorganisms, we (humans) are like fish swimming in an ocean. We are in constant contact with bacteria, viruses, fungi, germs, etc. They are constantly  in us and on us from birth to death. It is our natural environment. Putting on a mask is like snorkeling in this ocean. Putting on a hazmat suit is like going scuba diving in full gear.

[Florin]

My wife worked in hospital right through the COVID years, & she said no anesthesiologist in his right mind would rely on a simple surgical mask when intubating patients.  They devised plexiglass shields they would place between the patient mouth and anesthesiologist's face, the nurse would hold a suction wand in the side of the patient's mouth, and the anesthesiologist would be wearing an N-95.  No one relied on simple surgical masks for high risk procedures.  

 

The fomite & droplet transmission fell by the wayside very early in the COVID pandemic.  We started out learning how to wash our canned goods and vegetables, but it didn't take long before someone realized, you don't get the virus deep into your lung by touching a dirty door knob.  I know there was some talk of GI infection (particularly in kids), but strangely enough, you don't hear much about this (fomite / GI infection) now days.

 

When I referred to "masks," I lumped N95s with surgical masks to keep things simple.

 

Anyway, surgical masks were also needed for protection that didn't involve aerosols or covid.

 

Early in the pandemic, airborne aerosol transmission was denied to be a significant vector by most experts.

[Florin]

And it isn't germane to my point. My point is if you look at those emails of Tony Fauci he's clearly telling friends and associates privately that masks don't work so don't bother with them. This is presumably what he actually believes.

 

But eventually publicly he takes a very different position and advocates strongly for wearing masks - indeed wearing multiple masks at the same time.
 

So aside from the completely separate issue of whether masks actually do work you have Fauci telling people they do while it's pretty clear he doesn't believe that.

 

This raises the question of why he's telling people this (which I put forth my belief above) and the morality of a public official telling the public one thing, while telling his close friends and associates something completely different.

 

Did Fauci actually say privately that masks don't work and at the same time publicly advocated for mask wearing? Since you said "eventually," that's probably a "no."

 

Sure, Fauci changed his position, but that's understandable. He probably figured out that ordinary people can apparently wear masks well enough (like they did in HK, SK, Taiwan, and Japan), and so, the general public might not be the idiots that people like him thought they were. Maybe he also began to realize that the mixed evidence from the older mask studies were trumped by the mass masking experiments in those same countries. He'd say he just followed the evidence like any responsible scientist would.

[Dorian Grey]

When I referred to "masks," I lumped N95s with surgical masks to keep things simple.

 

Anyway, surgical masks were also needed for protection that didn't involve aerosols or covid.

 

Early in the pandemic, airborne aerosol transmission was denied to be a significant vector by most experts.

 

You must be joking?  Everyone on the planet wearing a fresh N-95 all day every day FOREVER?  

 

Are we going to ship boatloads of N-95s to Africa and the rain forests of Central & South America to protect the primitives living there? 

 

Should the astronauts on the space station be wearing these too for continuity?  

[Florin]

You must be joking?  Everyone on the planet wearing a fresh N-95 all day every day FOREVER?  

 

Are we going to ship boatloads of N-95s to Africa and the rain forests of Central & South America to protect the primitives living there? 

 

Should the astronauts on the space station be wearing these too for continuity?  

 

I was referring to the early pandemic, not to the present day.

[Daniel Cooper]

The people that want to routinely mask every day perpetually into the future really puzzle me.
 
You do understand that covid-19 wasn't the first pandemic in history. There were significant pandemics before most of us were born if not in our lifetime. The Russian Flu of 1889 was likely a coronavirus that jumped from cattle to man - not influenza as previously thought. Relative to the population of the day it killed about as many people as covid-19.
 
Some people were wearing masks even back then. People were isolating and took other preventative measures. But, eventually it petered out though the virus still circulates in human and cattle populations to this day - Human Coronavirus OC43.

 

But you will notice that when you were born nobody was wearing a face mask due to the fact that OC43 was still running around.

 

So how come there are people today that plan on routinely masking either ad infinitum or at least for the next several years?

 

Is it that people back then viewed death as inevitable and were therefore less afraid of it while we think that we might somehow evade death if we're lucky and it therefore more frightens us?

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 December 2023 - 02:10 AM.

[Hip]

According to a century of high quality RCT evidence - masking is ineffective.

 

The COVID panic again proved that masking is a useless population-wide pandemic response.

 

That might be true in a make believe world, where people make up factoids to match their own philosophy.

 

However, if you test such factoids against the actual facts, as you can do with a Google search on review efficacy of face masks covid, you find all the systematic reviews and meta-analyses this search picks up conclude that masks do help prevent transmission.

 

 

 

What we need is more research and development on face masks that are more comfortable to wear. If air resistance of a mask is reduced, this can increase comfort.  

 

And we also need masks that fit better around the nose. Most masks have a metal insert which can be bent to fit the shape of your nose. However, you often find that these strips of metal are too weak, and so will unbend again once you are wearing the mask, such that the nasal fit is not as tight as it should be. You know the nasal fit is not tight enough when your glasses steam up from the expelled air that escapes through the gaps around the nose. So this nose gap is an area where unfiltered air can get in. 

 

In the N95 / FFP2 masks that I bought, I replaced the weak metal insert with a stiffer piece of metal from a thick paperclip, and I found this paperclip metal would not unbend again, so it created a tighter fit around the nose. 

 

I find it odd that most masks for sale have weak metal inserts, which don't do the job properly.

 

 

 

We also need to push the research and development on 222 nm germicidal wavelengths of light. Unlike the current 254 nm germicidal wavelengths which are a risk for skin cancer, 222 nm appears to be safe to expose on the skin. So we need to develop 222 nm LED bulbs which can be installed in public places to kill airborne viruses. This could make a huge difference during the next pandemic in reducing viral spread. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 04 December 2023 - 03:32 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

We also need to push the research and development on 222 nm germicidal wavelengths of light. Unlike the current 254 nm germicidal wavelengths which are a risk for skin cancer, 222 nm appears to be safe to expose on the skin. So we need to develop 222 nm LED bulbs which can be installed in public places to kill airborne viruses. This could make a huge difference during the next pandemic in reducing viral spread. 

 

Are you suggesting deploying 222nm lamps in public areas while they are occupied by people?

 

I'm skeptical that reducing the wavelength by 32nm makes that UV-C light completely benign. Are there published studies that support that?

 

Maybe 222nm is safer than 254nm, but I'm not sure I'd want to be walking around in it all day. It will not penetrate as deep, and maybe it doesn't get deep enough into the dermal layer to really effect living tissue (the outer surface of the skin being mostly dead), but I'd worry about what it would do to the surface of the eye. I've been exposed to arc flash and 254nm to the eyes and it generally doesn't do permanent damage (because it doesn't penetrate much) but it will certainly make your eyes feel like they're full of sand. Not fun at all. And that was from very brief exposures. Spending an extended period walking around in 222nm doesn't sound like something I'd want to do without a lot of proof that it's benign.

 

That wavelength will probably be energetic enough to convert some O2 to O3, which of course isn't great in a significant concentration.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 05 December 2023 - 02:00 AM.

[Hip]

Are you suggesting deploying 222nm lamps in public areas while they are occupied by people?
 
I'm skeptical that reducing the wavelength by 32nm makes that UV-C light completely benign. Are there published studies that support that?
 
Maybe 222nm is safer than 254nm, but I'm not sure I'd want to be walking around in it all day. It will not penetrate as deep, and maybe it doesn't get deep enough into the dermal layer to really effect living tissue (the outer surface of the skin being mostly dead), but I'd worry about what it would do to the surface of the eye. I've been exposed to arc flash and 254nm to the eyes and it generally doesn't do permanent damage (because it doesn't penetrate much) but it will certainly make your eyes feel like they're full of sand. Not fun at all. And that was from very brief exposures. Spending an extended period walking around in 222nm doesn't sound like something I'd want to do without a lot of proof that it's benign.
 
That wavelength will probably be energetic enough to convert some O2 to O3, which of course isn't great in a significant concentration.

 
 
Yes further research is needed, but here are some extracts from a recent Nov 2023 paper, which shows how this research is progressing: 
 

the 222-nm UV-C termed far-UV-C (207−222 nm) demonstrates a similar inactivation effect against infectious pathogens to that of 254-nm UV-C and is less harmful to the skin and eyes in experimental animals

 

Recently, several studies reported that the aerosolized H1N1 influenza virus and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), were inactivated by 222-nm UV-C

 

Our results confirmed that 222-nm UV-C at an energy of 25.1 mJ/cm2 efficiently inactivated SARS-CoV-2 (including recent VOC) in liquid and fabric environments. The virucidal activity of UV-C affects the viral genome and thus can occur regardless of which SARS-CoV-2 variant is present.

 

Therefore, 222-nm UV-C can be applied in public places such as airports, hospitals and medical facilities and is effective and safe. In conclusion, we investigated the disinfection efficacy of 222nm UV-C against both gram-negative and -positive bacteria and two potential pandemic viruses through two different methods. Our results suggest that 222-nm UV-C is a useful disinfection tool against various pathogens and should be further investigated in studies on safety and effectiveness for practical applications.

 
 
This July 2023 paper says: 
 

Recent reports have shown that far UV-C light (207–222 nm) can efficiently kill pathogens with potentially no harm to exposed human tissues. However, these methods still require additional filtering and/or further protective equipment. In this study, we demonstrate a filter-free, harmless, and single-wavelength far UV-C 207 nm germicidal light source that can be used to inactivate different respiratory viruses. It can be exploited as a safe and effective disinfection tool for various airborne viruses.
 
We successfully developed a single-wavelength far UV-C source that produces an exact wavelength of 207 nm. We examined its safety on human skin and corneal cell lines, as well as its effects on inactivating different airborne viruses, such as coronavirus, adenovirus, and vaccinia virus. We expect that our far UV-C lamps can be safely and conveniently used to reduce COVID-19 infections and protect both our living spaces and hospitals from the threat of contamination by possible new or mutant viruses.

 

In summary, our study suggests that far UV-C at 207 nm is an effective germicide while posing no harm to human cells. These results validate the viability of this technology as a safe strategy for decontamination in public places, enabling effective control of respiratory viruses and airborne infections.

 

So safe ultraviolet light at 207–222 nm could be a game changer in the next pandemic. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 05 December 2023 - 02:55 AM.

[Hip]

This paper shows how rapidly 222 nm UV can kill infectious pathogens:

 

Based on the beta-HCoV-OC43 results, continuous far-UVC exposure in occupied public locations at the current regulatory exposure limit (~3 mJ/cm2/hour) would result in ~90% viral inactivation in ~8 minutes, 95% in ~11 minutes, 99% in ~16 minutes and 99.9% inactivation in ~25 minutes.

[Daniel Cooper]

Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that that wavelength can kill pathogens.

 

The question is, can it do it without causing long term negative effects to humans.

 

I've just has such unpleasant experiences with 254nm light sources that I'm skeptical that 222nm or even 200nm is totally benign. After all, if you're going to deploy this in public spaces - hospitals, restaurants, shopping centers, sports centers, etc., it doesn't just have to be safe for the occasional patron, it has to be safe for the people working 8 hr shifts there day in and day out.

 

Also the unintentional generation of ozone from UV-C light might be a health issue was well.

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 05 December 2023 - 03:20 AM.

[Hip]

Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that that wavelength can kill pathogens.

 

The question is, can it do it without causing long term negative effects to humans.

 

I've just has such unpleasant experiences with 254nm light sources that I'm skeptical that 222nm or even 200nm is totally benign. After all, if you're going to deploy this in public spaces - hospitals, restaurants, shopping centers, sports centers, etc., it doesn't just have to be safe for the occasional patron, it has to be safe for the people working 8 hr shifts there day in and day out.

 

Well that's what the research needs to find out. It may not be entirely safe, but if it is no more dangerous than say sunlight, that may be acceptable. After all, many people have jobs where they are outside all day. 

 

As for ozone, this source says:

Ozone can only be produced at wavelengths below 240nm, with peak production occurring at 185nm.

 

So 222 nm might produce a little bit of ozone. Whether this is enough to cause issues, I don't know.

[Mind]

That might be true in a make believe world, where people make up factoids to match their own philosophy.

 

However, if you test such factoids against the actual facts, as you can do with a Google search on review efficacy of face masks covid, you find all the systematic reviews and meta-analyses this search picks up conclude that masks do help prevent transmission.

 

 

 

What we need is more research and development on face masks that are more comfortable to wear. If air resistance of a mask is reduced, this can increase comfort.  

 

And we also need masks that fit better around the nose. Most masks have a metal insert which can be bent to fit the shape of your nose. However, you often find that these strips of metal are too weak, and so will unbend again once you are wearing the mask, such that the nasal fit is not as tight as it should be. You know the nasal fit is not tight enough when your glasses steam up from the expelled air that escapes through the gaps around the nose. So this nose gap is an area where unfiltered air can get in. 

 

In the N95 / FFP2 masks that I bought, I replaced the weak metal insert with a stiffer piece of metal from a thick paperclip, and I found this paperclip metal would not unbend again, so it created a tighter fit around the nose. 

 

I find it odd that most masks for sale have weak metal inserts, which don't do the job properly.

 

 

 

We also need to push the research and development on 222 nm germicidal wavelengths of light. Unlike the current 254 nm germicidal wavelengths which are a risk for skin cancer, 222 nm appears to be safe to expose on the skin. So we need to develop 222 nm LED bulbs which can be installed in public places to kill airborne viruses. This could make a huge difference during the next pandemic in reducing viral spread. 

 

 

Almost all of the studies in the first page of Google's (filtered, biased, and censored) search results are uncontrolled low-powered observational studies. Some of the them have already been retracted.

 

A recent review (adjudicated by 3 different independent scientists) found no evidence that masking was effective in children. As mentioned above, the handful of studies in children that seemingly showed some small degree of efficacy has serious risks of bias.

[Hip]

A recent review (adjudicated by 3 different independent scientists) found no evidence that masking was effective in children. As mentioned above, the handful of studies in children that seemingly showed some small degree of efficacy has serious risks of bias.

 

As mentioned before, carrying out real world studies on the efficacy of masking is extremely difficult. This is due to the fact that people wearing masks tend to feel more protected, and thus will take higher risks regarding viral exposure, which is a factor very hard to control for in the study.

 

Therefore, most studies of masks in real word settings need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Florin]

Well that's what the research needs to find out. It may not be entirely safe, but if it is no more dangerous than say sunlight, that may be acceptable. After all, many people have jobs where they are outside all day. 

 

Sunlight can be dangerous; spending a large part of your day in the sun would significantly increase skin aging and the risk of developing skin cancer and cataracts.

 

Even if germicidal UV lighting would be completely safe, it can't offer any guarantee that it would actually work well in a severe pandemic. How would you verify that any indoor space replaced all of their lighting with UV lighting? How would you know if it had a high enough density of UV light coverage? How would you determine if defective UV lights were replaced?

 

You'd be better off just using a respirator. There's even a PAPR-like helmet (Uvisor) that uses germicidal UV light instead of a filter.

 

Germicidal UV lighting might be better suited for fighting against seasonal respiratory infections, but I doubt there's enough motivation for rapid, widespread adoption.

[Daniel Cooper]

As mentioned before, carrying out real world studies on the efficacy of masking is extremely difficult. This is due to the fact that people wearing masks tend to feel more protected, and thus will take higher risks regarding viral exposure, which is a factor very hard to control for in the study.

 

Therefore, most studies of masks in real word settings need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

This statement makes me chuckle a bit. The real world outcomes need to be taken with a pinch of salt but the laboratory results are really what matters?

 

I think you've got that backwards.
 

[Hip]

This statement makes me chuckle a bit. The real world outcomes need to be taken with a pinch of salt but the laboratory results are really what matters?

 

I think you've got that backwards.
 

 

You might like to think about what I said, and reply with an actual scientific comment. If you can think of a study methodology which could accurately gauge mask efficacy in a real world setting, without succumbing to the behavioural problems I mentioned, then I am all ears. 

 

If you cannot think of such a methodology, then maybe real world studies are not possible, as I suggested.

 

You don't want to stoop to the intellectual level of some people here (you know, those people who mark my posts in red). There are many here who are experts in complaining, moaning and bitching about government or science policy, but absolutely useless when it comes making scientifically constructive comments or ideas themselves. They complain, but don't have anything better to offer.  

Edited by Hip, 11 December 2023 - 06:08 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I think my comment was as scientific as yours - but we are talking about opinion here.

 

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 talk about "succumbing to the behavioral problems" I say "acknowledging the behavioral realities". If people are going to fuss and fidget with their masks, that's probably not going to change. If people are emboldened to go out in public more wearing a mask, that probably isn't going to change much either.

 

Human behavior is one of the hardest things to change in the world. Look at the admonishments of doctors to "eat right and exercise" and the actual end results. So we can preach at people "don't touch your mask or your face" and "don't think this mask makes you immune to catching covid" but I'm skeptical how much you're really going to change any of that behavior.

 

So yes, it would be academically interesting to know how much protection masks would offer if they were worn optimally - they are worn with the best possible fit, people don't fuss around touching them, and it doesn't impact how often people go out in public. But that is an academic interest.

 

But the practical interest is "Are we saving any lives given how people actually use these masks and if so how many?". That is the bottom line at the end of the day.

 

[Mind]

You might like to think about what I said, and reply with an actual scientific comment. If you can think of a study methodology which could accurately gauge mask efficacy in a real world setting, without succumbing to the behavioural problems I mentioned, then I am all ears. 

 

If you cannot think of such a methodology, then maybe real world studies are not possible, as I suggested.

 

You don't want to stoop to the intellectual level of some people here (you know, those people who mark my posts in red). There are many here who are experts in complaining, moaning and bitching about government or science policy, but absolutely useless when it comes making scientifically constructive comments or ideas themselves. They complain, but don't have anything better to offer.  

 

Ideas and theories are usually first tested in a lab or in well-designed RCT studies. The theory is then tested out in the real world (where "behavioral problems" exist, whether you like it or not).

 

Masking WAS tested for over a century, in multiple RCT studies. Even in those studies, masking failed in stopping the spread and diagnosis of respiratory illnesses. The CDC's own guidance before the COVID panic even stated that masking should not be relied upon. It should not be surprising that masking utterly failed during the COVID panic. Despite this failure, incompetent health bureaucrats in the US continue to advise masking - ignoring the science.

[Hip]

Masking WAS tested for over a century, in multiple RCT studies. Even in those studies, masking failed in stopping the spread and diagnosis of respiratory illnesses. 

 

You seem to have a selective memory. I recently posted some review papers which demonstrated the efficacy of masks during the COVID pandemic.

 

But you forgot about those when you made the above proclamation.