The truth about wearing a mask -finally

Long a Holdout From Covid-19 Restrictions, Sweden Ends Its Pandemic Experiment
Government imposes mandatory measures after failing to contain new surge in infections
https://www.wsj.com/articles/long-a...mail&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_daily202
"After a late autumn surge in infections led to rising hospitalizations and deaths, the government has abandoned its attempt—unique among Western nations—to combat the pandemic through voluntary measures."
 
Screenshot_20201207-004143_Facebook.jpg
 
Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
I ran across this article this morning and found it profoundly interesting. This is a long thread and there may be similar articles posted that draw similar conclusions but this one has yet to be referenced. I wear a mask but really only to comply with the rules imposed by my employer and establishments that I frequent. I just marvel at the citizens that I see wearing masks outside while enjoying the wide open fresh air. It's like they have no ability to think for themselves and are willing to follow the rest of the lemmings off a cliff! I am not making light of the fact and not diminishing the scope of the pandemic and not denying that there are countless people suffering unimaginable loss but the country and its leaders should be using the same science based evidence to drive policy to mitigate the population's exposure as is used by the pharma industry that developed the vaccines. It's like there is a huge disconnect somewhere. We need to get back to the basics of what makes and what has made the USA a beacon of liberty and freedom that the world has been beating a path to for 200 plus years.
Carpe Deim
 
Carpediem44DB said:
Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
I ran across this article this morning and found it profoundly interesting. This is a long thread and there may be similar articles posted that draw similar conclusions but this one has yet to be referenced. I wear a mask but really only to comply with the rules imposed by my employer and establishments that I frequent. I just marvel at the citizens that I see wearing masks outside while enjoying the wide open fresh air. It's like they have no ability to think for themselves and are willing to follow the rest of the lemmings off a cliff! I am not making light of the fact and not diminishing the scope of the pandemic and not denying that there are countless people suffering unimaginable loss but the country and its leaders should be using the same science based evidence to drive policy to mitigate the population's exposure as is used by the pharma industry that developed the vaccines. It's like there is a huge disconnect somewhere. We need to get back to the basics of what makes and what has made the USA a beacon of liberty and freedom that the world has been beating a path to for 200 plus years.
Carpe Deim
Click to expand...
All I know is that here in IL we have been mandated to wear face masks since the spring. We have high compliance -- 90+ pct. And yet we are being pumelled by the second wave.

One thing I have noticed, especially with people on TV wearing masks, it people touching their face a lot more, farting around with their masks. That's kind of a problem.
 
Take a look at the IHME model, which appears to be the favorite of the White House. It has proven more and more accurate over time. Some may remember a post of mine a few months ago citing this model as predicting pretty much exactly what is happening now. https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/illinois?view=mask-use&tab=compare
One of the components of the model is mask use. There is a display of historic data along with projections. For example, according to IHME data, Illinois has been hovering around 70% mask use for months. New York, on the other hand, has been at around 80% and has experienced less impact, at least recently. It's possible to compare states and countries as well.
With respect to the death rate, the IHME model projects daily deaths equal to or greater than the current high level but beginning to reduce due to vaccinations around the end of January.
 
alnav said:
Take a look at the IHME model, which appears to be the favorite of the White House. It has proven more and more accurate over time. Some may remember a post of mine a few months ago citing this model as predicting pretty much exactly what is happening now. https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/illinois?view=mask-use&tab=compare
One of the components of the model is mask use. There is a display of historic data along with projections. For example, according to IHME data, Illinois has been hovering around 70% mask use for months. New York, on the other hand, has been at around 80% and has experienced less impact, at least recently. It's possible to compare states and countries as well.
With respect to the death rate, the IHME model projects daily deaths equal to or greater than the current high level but beginning to reduce due to vaccinations around the end of January.
Click to expand...
New York as been "closed" compared to IL. And IL mask use is closer to 90% according to CMU
https://delphi.cmu.edu/covidcast/?s...lue&encoding=color&mode=overview&region=42003
 
Golfman25 said:
New York as been "closed" compared to IL. And IL mask use is closer to 90% according to CMU
https://delphi.cmu.edu/covidcast/?s...lue&encoding=color&mode=overview&region=42003
Click to expand...
The CMU data on masking you cite is from a single source (Facebook survey) while IHME is using multiple sources for its masking modeling parameter. The important point is that IHME has shown in its modeling that masking has a significant contribution towards limiting spread, infection, hospitalization and death. Most other studies of the issue have shown the same, especially the most recent.
 
alnav said:
The CMU data on masking you cite is from a single source (Facebook survey) while IHME is using multiple sources for its masking modeling parameter. The important point is that IHME has shown in its modeling that masking has a significant contribution towards limiting spread, infection, hospitalization and death. Most other studies of the issue have shown the same, especially the most recent.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is correct. What the studies are showing is the type of mask matters. The underwear most are wearing doesn't cut it. And if masks work, why are we shutting down all over?
 
Golfman25 said:
I don't think that is correct. What the studies are showing is the type of mask matters. The underwear most are wearing doesn't cut it. And if masks work, why are we shutting down all over?
Click to expand...
The statements of public health officials seem to be indicating the problem is spread from locations where masks are typically either partially worn or not worn at all such as indoor bars, restaurants and in private homes. I certainly agree the type of mask worn matters. There is now pretty good guidance available on that which ought to be more widely emphasized.
 
If masks are supposed to work, why does the CDC itself not incorporate mask wearing into it's definition of close contact? Here's what they say:

"Because the general public has not received training on proper selection and use of respiratory PPE, such as an N95, the determination of close contact should generally be made irrespective of whether the contact was wearing respiratory PPE. At this time, differential determination of close contact for those using fabric face coverings is not recommended."

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...ng/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact
 
Golfman25 said:
If masks are supposed to work, why does the CDC itself not incorporate mask wearing into it's definition of close contact? Here's what they say:

"Because the general public has not received training on proper selection and use of respiratory PPE, such as an N95, the determination of close contact should generally be made irrespective of whether the contact was wearing respiratory PPE. At this time, differential determination of close contact for those using fabric face coverings is not recommended."

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...ng/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact
Click to expand...
Common sense. This guidance is in the context of how a contact tracer should determine whether an individual was in close contact with a confirmed covid case. The guidance is telling the tracer not to try and determine if the contact may have been safe because he/she was wearing a mask (or even a respirator). The contact may have been a dick-noser or been wearing underwear; too hard for a tracer to determine during what is usually a short phone interview. Even if well-masked, the CDC has never claimed that a face covering is a perfect shield, and sustained contact with a known infected person whether masked or not should be concerning. So, it's safer to assume close contact with the chance of infection and have the person get tested.
 
alnav said:
Common sense. This guidance is in the context of how a contact tracer should determine whether an individual was in close contact with a confirmed covid case. The guidance is telling the tracer not to try and determine if the contact may have been safe because he/she was wearing a mask (or even a respirator). The contact may have been a dick-noser or been wearing underwear; too hard for a tracer to determine during what is usually a short phone interview. Even if well-masked, the CDC has never claimed that a face covering is a perfect shield, and sustained contact with a known infected person whether masked or not should be concerning. So, it's safer to assume close contact with the chance of infection and have the person get tested.
Click to expand...
In other words — masks don’t work. Thanks.
 
Golfman25 said:
In other words — masks don’t work. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Rather than obsessing over this rather obscure facet of the response to covid with a convoluted logic, I would recommend looking around the rest of the CDC site, which has numerous references and evidence of the usefulness of face coverings.
 
alnav said:
Rather than obsessing over this rather obscure facet of the response to covid with a convoluted logic, I would recommend looking around the rest of the CDC site, which has numerous references and evidence of the usefulness of face coverings.
Click to expand...
Right, but actions speak a whole lot louder than words. If in fact masks worked as advertised, then when it came to identifying those at risk for exposure, the question of mask wearing should arise. So if I have two guys working together for an hour, both wearing masks, and one happens to come down with Covid two days later, is the other at risk? And what is that risk? The CDC says "ignore" the mask. Well if that's the case, wtf good is the darn thing.
 
Golfman25 said:
Right, but actions speak a whole lot louder than words. If in fact masks worked as advertised, then when it came to identifying those at risk for exposure, the question of mask wearing should arise. So if I have two guys working together for an hour, both wearing masks, and one happens to come down with Covid two days later, is the other at risk? And what is that risk? The CDC says "ignore" the mask. Well if that's the case, wtf good is the darn thing.
Click to expand...

The point isn’t about whether masks work, it’s about whether contact tracers can trust the answer to the question about having worn a mask during a telephone interview.

Why?
Because people lie,
Because people don’t wear masks correctly, i.e. exposed nose, loose fitting etc,
Because some wishing to make a social comment wear masks made of screen, or lace, or with holes in it,

“Ignoring” the mask for contact tracing purposes is the safest course of action when the condition of the mask can not be determined by the interview process.
 
Finally they figured it out...sort of

Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical adviser on COVID-19, said two face masks are likely more effective than one against the novel coronavirus, despite significant uncertainty on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,122
Messages
1,426,615
Members
61,037
Latest member
wojozobl
Back
Top