The curious case of the mask vs no mask

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Hey Denis, are Fauci’s own words good enough? Some of you guys really need to educate yourselves from more than one media source.

https://youtu.be/5gYAka7qSnM

2 different arguments at play Matt. One being the mask doesn't reduce the spread by an infected person. The other a mask doesn't offer the person wearing it protection. What Faucci said was the second one.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by G50

“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

Unfortunately, Fauci himself started the whole anti masking thing when he went on national TV and said that very early on.

I agree 100% that Faucci started the whole mask/no mask debate along with Surgeon General Adams saying roughly the same thing Faucci did. But neither man said said they don't work as Matt claims Faucci did. Both said they don't offer the person wearing the mask the protection they're thinking it does. That statement was a HUGE mistake.

[gregpark]

This is a paragraph from a May 2020 meta study by the US CDC

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by gregpark

This is a paragraph from a May 2020 meta study by the US CDC...

This whole thing has been a Monkey F'ing a Football since the WHO colluded with China...the preparation (why was there a shortage of PPE?) of the CDC for this type of breakout is inexcusable.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by cabmando

2 different arguments at play Matt. One being the mask doesn't reduce the spread by an infected person. The other a mask doesn't offer the person wearing it protection. What Faucci said was the second one.

There are a number of studies, primarily pre-CV (if you can find them), that put effectiveness at something like 8-12% for the typical blue surgical masks. The fabric masks were found to be negligible. Also there have been recent studies that found that fabric masks also tend to better disperse droplets, essentially dissipating them into smaller droplets that are easier to spread. What Fauci originally said was the truth, anything short of an N95 (worn properly and replaced regularly) is trying to keep out mosquitos with a chain link fence. Sorry but THAT is “trust the science”. A filter that doesn’t have the ability to filter small particles is not a very effective filter.

[wildthing]

If there is nothing to transmit, there is no need for masks.

Problem with the Bay Area is 1) how dense the population is and 2) how dense the population is.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

There are a number of studies, primarily pre-CV (if you can find them), that put effectiveness at something like 8-12% for the typical blue surgical masks. The fabric masks were found to be negligible. Also there have been recent studies that found that fabric masks also tend to better disperse droplets, essentially dissipating them into smaller droplets that are easier to spread. What Fauci originally said was the truth, anything short of an N95 (worn properly and replaced regularly) is trying to keep out mosquitos with a chain link fence. Sorry but THAT is “trust the science”. A filter that doesn’t have the ability to filter small particles is not a very effective filter.

Again... prevent infection of the person wearing it is not the same as reducing the spread by the person wearing it. You can find all sorts of studies that show varied levels of effectiveness at preventing but few that dispute the effectiveness at reducing the viral particles spread by an infected person. To say "they don't offer the wearer protection" is not the same as saying "they don't reduce the spread by an infected person.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by cabmando

Again... prevent infection of the person wearing it is not the same as reducing the spread by the person wearing it. You can find all sorts of studies that show varied levels of effectiveness at preventing but few that dispute the effectiveness at reducing the viral particles spread by an infected person. To say "they don't offer the wearer protection" is not the same as saying "they don't reduce the spread by an infected person.

So you’re claiming that the effectiveness of the mask is more effective in one direction than the other?

[Tervuren]

This is a difficul topic because:

1. Places that require them may have low compliance with lower face coverings.

2. Places that do not require them may have a high percentage of wears of lower face coverings

3. Wearing improperly doesn't help and may hurt.


I consider the effectiveness when related to the general public to be on par with a little star sticker put on your shirt. There are exceptional circumstances, proper equipment, proper fit, and prolonged face to face.

It is rare for me to see when I am out shopping someone without a low face covering despite it not being required. I do see lots of bad habits though.
I have to wonder at the emotional toll of not seeing a proper full face smile in public.

[vmax]

What happened to the flu? It is basically non existent.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03519-3

https://consumer.healthday.com/b-1-15-what-happened-to-the-flu-this-year-2649917471.html

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article248307290.html

From the last link:
“We are testing thousands of people in our emergency room settings and in our hospitals for a combination of COVID and flu, and we’re essentially seeing no flu,” Dr. Randy Bergen, a flu expert with health care company Kaiser Permanente, told ABC7. “Some weeks we’ll have no cases, others we’ll have maybe one or two.”
Health officials in the southern hemisphere — including Australia and South America, where the seasons are reversed — said their flu season was virtually nonexistent while coronavirus cases were spreading like wildfire.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says national flu activity “remains lower than usual,” including flu-related hospitalizations, but there’s still time for it to increase in the coming months.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by ckissick

Meanwhile, in the Bay Area ..............people have been dropping like flies.

In the worldmeter stats SF county has 293 deaths.

Forgive my ignorance but what counties are considered the Bay Area?

Santa Clara, surely. 1,234 there.

Just asking. Not planning to wrestle.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by vmax

What happened to the flu?

This is something I was wondering early last year.

Flu deaths although estimated rather than actual are quite high.
It didn't get attention because most Flu deaths were people on the way out or with other issues that compounded.

There is an entirey seperate aspect here - if what we're doing is inneffective against CV19 are face coverings and careful choice of socializing ridding us of flu?

It also raises the question, how does CV19 get around under circumstances FLU doesn't?

[ckissick]

Originally Posted by Bob Kontak

In the worldmeter stats SF county has 293 deaths.

Forgive my ignorance but what counties are considered the Bay Area?

Santa Clara, surely. 1,234 there.

Just asking. Not planning to wrestle.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/

I was just being hyperbolic and making a point about the comparison. I don't think people really where masks in showers either. But compared to the very low rate of cases and deaths in Calaveras County to most of the Bay Area, the death rate in the Bay Area is considerably higher. Calaveras County has had 2 deaths since late October / early November.

SF County has a surprisingly low death rate for an area that's so densely populated. Incidentally, they've had about 900 deaths from drug overdoses since covid started.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by speeder

Do you have any idea how many conservative, anti-mask people have died of Covid? It’s a huge number.

Did you know we have a subforum for you to act like this?

[gregpark]

From the Mercury News 12/20/20

SAN FRANCISCO — A record 621 people died of drug overdoses in San Francisco so far this year, a staggering number that far outpaces the 173 deaths from COVID-19 the city has seen thus far.

[Tervuren]

Death counts are not fair for argument.
Who is counting and the protocols they follow introduce variance.
Objectively Frustrating.

George Floyd died with CV19 according to the protocol of having a positive test and the time frame from that positive test in which he died.

There may be some causes of death where objectivity applies well, but CV19 has not been one of them.

[gregpark]

Originally Posted by gregpark

From the Mercury News 12/20/20

SAN FRANCISCO — A record 621 people died of drug overdoses in San Francisco so far this year, a staggering number that far outpaces the 173 deaths from COVID-19 the city has seen thus far.

There's no doubt in my mind that the 173 is a grossly Inflated number and the 621 is accurate

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

So you’re claiming that the effectiveness of the mask is more effective in one direction than the other?

A mask worn by an infected person can reduce "large" droplets that are considered the greatest path of transmission. Where it gets sketchy is how much it reduces particles containing the virus that can remain suspended in the air for longer periods of time. But in an instance where large particles are present, the mask can both reduce the spread of viral particles and reduce what the person wearing it might come in contact with.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

[Superman]

Viruses are smaller than the length of a light wave and therefore cannot be seen without an electron microscope, so it just stands to reason that masks would be ineffective. But wait! Geniuses regularly admit that masks would stop droplets. Well....exhaled viruses are all in droplets. Every one of them. Some droplets are filtered by masks but not all. Many are, however. The research suggests masks are somewhat effective in slowing transmission. Unless your "research" comes from certain sources.

The Western third of Washington State is fairly densely populated and also, predictably, more educated and wealthier and more liberal. The Eastern two thirds is rural. Despite being more sparsely populated, the Eastern two thirds of the state have been the sites of the most ferocious of Covid outbreaks. They don't wear masks much.

Refusal to wear masks is pure, unadulterated selfishness. and/or ignorance.

I do not leave my property, and we receive no guests. Now is not the time to let one's guard down. Think about this: If everyone were to stay home for 2-4 weeks, the rate of infection would virtually go to zero. If they then practiced mask-wearing and social distancing and avoiding unnecessary exposure, then 4000 Americans would not die each day. If course, it is not practical for everyone to stay home for 2-4 weeks but it is possible for many, and I think we could drive the infection rate way down if we copped some discipline and responsibility.

[gregpark]

Originally Posted by Superman

The research suggests masks are somewhat effective in slowing transmission. Unless your "research" comes from certain sources.

This is sourced from the US CDC research study done in 2020

"Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza"