CDC Study: 85% of Coronavirus Patients Reported Wearing Masks ‘Always’ or ‘Often’

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The possibility of what?

Why do you misrepresent what I say? I did not say mitigation is pointless. I opined that it is pointless as a strategy to eradicate Covid because we’re not going to eradicate the disease. I said it’s pointless OTHER than as a way to prevent spikes and overuse of resources.

Fauci did not say that either. Why do you missrepresent what Fauci said?

@RidgeRunner stating corona virus will now be endemic (RidgeRunner is correct).

LeafByNiggle’s response?

There are no public health officials spouting that line.

Speaking of misrepresentation, here we see Cathoholic attributing my response to the wrong remark. Readers, just go back and look and you will see.

Both Ridgerunner and Cathoholic are concluding things from the word “endemic” that are not scientifically justifiable, and indeed are not claimed by any responsible public health official.

 

[Cathoholic]

RidgeRunner (right here for more context) . . .

Plenty of medical people think it (coronavirus) will become or is already, endemic. . . . No public health officials of which I am aware say Covid will completely disappear.

LeafByNiggle’s response to RidgeRunner (right here for more context which Leaf himself linked to in the response) . . .

You have a mistaken idea of what “endemic” means. It does not mean mitigation is pointless. . . .
. . . Which also does not mean that mitigation is pointless. That is your personal groundless anti-scientific opinion, and certainly not the message from public health experts, who are the best guides we have in this pandemic.

To the readers here.

Coronavirus will become endemic. We will have to live with it. Just like we live with the flu.

And as people get exposed to it when they are young, and have little or no sequelae usually, society will get stronger and stronger against corona virus.

We can either just admit the obvious, and change policy accordingly, or in Democrat states PERMANENTLY continue . . .

• Masking-up (even when alone even in your car(!) in some places)
• Quarantining HEALTHY individuals
• Social distancing
• Cancelling the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (in some places)
• And ignoring any of this for riots (and have your Democrat campaign staff in some cases bail rioters out of jail).
• Contributing to world hunger (again see here) via Democrat policies

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle regarding @RidgeRunner and Cathoholic (that’d be me) . . .

Both Ridgerunner and Cathoholic are concluding things from the word “endemic” that are not scientifically justifiable, and indeed are not claimed by any responsible public health official.

Bold mine.

To the readers here.

RidgeRunner (here) . . .

Plenty of medical people think it will become or is already, endemic. You know that. WHO has expressed the concern that it may become recognized as endemic. “Endemic” just means it never quite goes away and people become aware of that fact.

No public health officials of which I am aware say Covid will completely disappear.

Cathoholic . . .

Remember. We now will have to live with corona virus. It will be endemic.

U.K.'s chief scientific advisor (Hint. He is a responsible public health official.) . . .

LONDON — Covid-19 is likely to become as “endemic” as the annual flu virus, according to the U.K.'s chief scientific advisor.

Google’s first definition of “endemic” . . .

(of a disease or condition) regularly found among particular people or in a certain area.

The Cathoholic definition of endemic.

A situation where a virus and/or pathogen is present that you must contend with as a society in an ongoing manner, because that virus and/or pathogen is not going to go completely away.

.

Covid likely to become as 'endemic' as flu

 

[Cathoholic]

And pretending that they are all benefit and no risk,…

LeafByNiggle . . .

…is something nobody does.

Why not begin by linking all of your posts where you talk about the RISKS of masking-up then.

The truth is a lot of people talk about benefits of masking-up like that is all there is. It is only upside you would come away with after reading their (name removed by moderator)ut.

I stand by my posts.

Addendum. From a prior post of mine here on this thread . . .

There are clearly risks with masking-up (mask mouth and other infections, re-used masks with nasal mucus sprayed, dried, and serving as an infection auger and spread, masks that catapult virions out further, re-used masks where people are undoubtedly breathing up “micro-fibers” into their lung, scarring their lung for life at least microscopically - foreign bodies in lungs do that. That is what farmers lung is with grain. That is what coal miners lung is with breathing up coal dust. Silicosis of the lung with micro silicone or sand particles. Asbestosis the same. - Many of the “experts” are ignoring these issues.) There are clearly benefits too. . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

For mitigating factors just think about what you did last year regarding the flu.

Men’s Catholic Bible study night at your house?

“Guys. If you are sick, please stay home.”

That is mitigation without Government. And although not perfect, it probably works better than Government IMPOSITIONS, executive orders, and laws.

Especially when the laws/rules are selectively enforced like

• The OKing of leftist rioters even referring to them and their antics as a “summer of love”.
• Felons and other prisoners being let-go by leftist politicians.
• Democrat operatives bailing out of jail, rioters that may not gave been “mitigating” while rioting.
• Democrat-funerals where social distancing is ignored without legal issues.
• Or Democrat politicians finger-wagging AGAINST YOU, then when they think they are off-camera, ignoring their own rules.

Pelosi used shuttered San Francisco hair salon for blow-out, owner calls it 'slap in the face' World News

How It’s Done: CBS Reporter Goes Against Grain, Torches Pelosi’s ‘Set-Up’ Claim in HaircutGate September 3, 2020 by Sister Toldjah While many in the mainstream media have predictably rushed to defend House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hypocritical Monday trip to a shuttered San Francisco hair salon for a haircut and highlights, at least one journalist has dared to go against the grain with critical comments condemning her actions and her excuse-making and blame games. San Francisco salon owner Eric…

And the leftists don’t just exempt themselves from corona mania rules and regs do they?

This selective enforcement paradigm is tantamount to bullying your political opponents.

It is a PRINCIPLE that has hurt our country.

(And selective enforcement of corona rules, then running around berating others as killers or potential kilkers is hurting the common good in my opinion.)

David Gregory Violates DC Gun Law On National TV —– Update: CNN’s Don Lemon Admits To Breaking Gun Laws, Too? | The Patriot Perspective

David Gregory broke D.C.'s gun law, but got away with it​

David Gregory broke D.C.'s gun law, but got away with it

NBC’s David Gregory Won’t Be Charged For Showing Ammo Magazine​

January 11, 2013

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/11/169188028/nbcs-david-gregory-wont-be-charged-for-showing-ammo-magazine

The headline SHOULD have read . . .

NBC’s David Gregory Won’t Be Charged For Showing ILLEGAL Ammo Magazine​

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle’s response to RidgeRunner (right here for more context which Leaf himself linked to in the response) . . .

You have a mistaken idea of what “endemic” means. It does not mean mitigation is pointless. . . .
. . . Which also does not mean that mitigation is pointless. That is your personal groundless anti-scientific opinion, and certainly not the message from public health experts, who are the best guides we have in this pandemic.

To those same readers, this statement right here might be correct, but the implication that mitigation is pointless for saving lives is not. No public health official says that.

And as people get exposed to it when they are young, and have little or no sequelae usually, society will get stronger and stronger against corona virus.

If we rely solely on this mechanism without continuing our mitigation efforts, many more will die. That much is clear from public health officials.

Masking-up (even when alone even in your car(!) in some places)

No place is enforcing masking up while alone in your car.

Quarantining HEALTHY individuals

Since one cannot be sure who is healthy, this is sometimes a sound strategy, such as when someone has been exposed to an active infection.

Social distancing

Also a sound policy at times. And the implication that any of these measures would have to continue permanently is just wrong.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

We can either just admit the obvious, and change policy accordingly, or in Democrat states PERMANENTLY continue . . .

• Masking-up (even when alone even in your car(!) in some places)
• Quarantining HEALTHY individuals
• Social distancing
• Cancelling the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (in some places)
• And ignoring any of this for riots (and have your * Democrat campaign staff in some cases bail rioters out of jail).
• Contributing to world hunger (again see here) via Democrat policies

Agree. IMHO, we need to get back to living or the consequences of all these measures are going to be so much graver than the virus.

The scientists who are giving us all this lockdown, mask up, stay away from each other advice …are experts only in this area.

They will give advice on what to do to stop the virus only. Unfortunately this advice will not include what to do to help the people who are out of work, depressed and suicidal because of the virus, or what to do for people who have other diseases but because of the virus are afraid to go to their heart doctor or cancer doctor, or what to do to keep food supplies available for all, or what to do to stop the domestic violence happening because so many people are locked in their homes or how to get your child an education while the schools are closed or partially closed and lastly they won’t advise anyone on what to do about the elderly people in nursing homes suffering from loneliness.

Nor will they care about your eternal soul and consider the importance of getting to Mass or to the Sacrament of Penance.

Think of these scientists who specialize in infection and virus control as teachers in high school or college where each one feels the subject they specialize in is the most important one without concern for the other subjects one needs to conquer.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

To those same readers, this statement right here might be correct, but the implication that mitigation is pointless for saving lives is not.

The problem with that is twofold.

I never made the assertion that mitigation is pointless.

I carry out mitigation efforts myself.

I just gave a personal example: “Guys. If you are sick, please don’t fome to men’s Catholic Bible study later this week” or whatever it was,

But let it be clear in point two.

There is no hard evidence that some of these mandates are in fact mitigating.
Especially when risks AND benefits are taken into consideration.

We don’t even have a uniform definition of a “mask” do we?

Selective enforcement by the incessant finger-waggers has got to stop. Either they hold themselves accountable or NOBODY gets held accountable.

I think the mandates are inappropriate and should be changed down to public-health recomendations.
They can have PR campaigns if they want.

But fining and arresting worshippers or threatening to is way out of line for no or scant evidence.

Viruses don’t care how elite you are.
But elitists do.

LeafByNiggle . . .

The scientists who are giving us all this lockdown, mask up, stay away from each other advice …are experts only in this area.

Great point Leaf!

Nor will they care about your eternal soul and consider the importance of getting to Mass or to the Sacrament of Penance.

Another excellent point.

 

[Caldera]

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci said Friday that it might be time for a nationwide mandate ordering Americans to wear masks in public, in an apparent reversal after he has repeatedly voiced opposition to such a move by the federal government.

Fauci joined CNN’s Erin Burnett for an interview, where she played a clip from earlier in the day of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden explaining how he would “make mask-wearing mandatory” across the U.S.

“First, I’ll go to every governor and urge them to mandate mask-wearing in their states, and if they refuse, I’ll go to the mayors and county executives and get local masking requirements in place nationwide,” Biden said.

Burnett noted that Biden also wants masks to be worn in all federal buildings and during interstate travel, before asking Fauci if he thinks “this is a good idea.”

“Well, you know, one of the issues that people that talk about mandating not being a good idea because then they’ll say they have to enforce it, and there’s going to be a difficulty enforcing it,” Fauci replied. “But, if everyone agrees that this is something that’s important, and they mandate it and everybody pulls together and say, ‘Ya know, we’re gonna mandate it, but let’s just do it,’ I think that would be a great idea to have everybody do it uniformly.”

He reiterated, “One of the issues, though, I get the argument saying ‘Well, if you mandate a mask, then you’re going to have to enforce it and that’ll create more of a problem.’ Well, if people are not wearing masks, then maybe we should be mandating it.”

You can view the entire interview below. The portion on mask mandates begins at the 3:50 mark:

…

Dr. Fauci: 'Maybe we should be mandating' masks nationwide | Blaze Media

 

[Theo520]

To put this in perspective, I’d make a large wager research would also show:

85% of Coronavirus Patients Reported Washing Their Hands After A Bathroom Visit ‘Always’ or ‘Often’.​

Washing your hands regularly and wearing a mask in proximity of others reduces the risk of infection, but they don’t prevent you from getting sick.

 

[Cathoholic]

Another fine post Theo520.

I’m glad we as a society
have not yet fallen to having proverbial Government
hand washer monitors-inspectors mandated.

 

[Caldera]

Multiple journals reject major mask study amid hints that it shows masks don't stop COVID | Just The News

A major study out of Denmark that sought to examine the efficacy of face masks at limiting the spread of COVID-19 has reportedly been rejected by multiple academic journals amid hints that the study found face coverings are not effective in protecting individuals from the coronavirus.

 

[Theo520]

A major study out of Denmark that sought to examine the efficacy of face masks at limiting the spread of COVID-19 has reportedly been rejected

When I think about it, the probable design of their study was faulty.

If you agree masks reduce the spread, that they protect the people around you. Then randomly selecting and observing individuals who do/don’t mask can’t yield relevant results.

Instead you would need to compare communities and rate their mask wearing. The impact of mask wearing is on the surrounding community, not the individual wearing a mask.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Let’s get back to the original topic of this thread: masks. I posted above about how useless store bought surgical masks are as well as the cloth home-made ones. Here’s a paper worth reading:

Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities | Scientific Reports

Read this from the extract (emphasis mine):

Both surgical masks and unvented KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask, corroborating their effectiveness at reducing outward emission. These masks similarly decreased the outward particle emission of a coughing superemitter, who for unclear reasons emitted up to two orders of magnitude more expiratory particles via coughing than average. In contrast, shedding of non-expiratory micron-scale particulates from friable cellulosic fibers in homemade cotton-fabric masks confounded explicit determination of their efficacy at reducing expiratory particle emission.

This is cited as evidence for masking. Uh … no, need to read this closely as the bolded ought to make your hair stand up. Why? Because all masking orders include cloth masks as an option. However micron-scale and sub-micron-scale particles are exactly what viruses are. Then we get into the body of the paper:

Much research has indicated that masks can provide significant protection to the wearer, although proper mask fitting is critical to realizing such benefits.

Which too few in the general public either understand or will comply with. Therefore the “benefits” will not be realized!

Results from epidemiological and clinical studies assessing the effectiveness of masks in reducing disease transmission suggest that mask wearing can provide some benefits, especially with early interventions, but often the results lack statistical significance.

If there is no statistical significance then the results can be due to random chance. In other words there is no scientific evidence! Now note this:

They did, however, find that masks reduced shedding of seasonal coronavirus from breathing for both coarse and fine particles, although viral RNA was observed in less than half of the samples even with no mask, complicating the assessment.

How do you measure a “reduction” in something that is statistically insignificant in the first place? This is why you have to read entire studies and not just abstracts.

Those papers were talking about surgical masks and N95s. We know that a properly-fit N95, used within recommendations (meaning no re-use and no more than 2-4 hours of wearing) is effective in materially reducing both shed (outward) and acquired (inward) particulate material down to the sub-micron level. That includes viruses.

Continued next post …

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

But N95s are impractical to require; they’re relatively expensive and the no re-use, limited lifetime requirement means nobody in the general public will use them and attempting to compel same requires you to pay for them, never mind the limited supply and disposal problems generated by mass use of these things. Thus the “use a bandana or cloth mask” deal. Oh, and note that the other comparison was actual surgical masks, not the mass-packaged, all claims disclaimed Chinese paper garbage sold at WalMart, which has not been tested and is likely no better than a bandana and might be worse. Worse? Yes, worse.

To date, however, none have investigated the effectiveness of masks across a range of expiratory activities, and limited consideration has been given to different mask types. Furthermore, no studies to date have considered the masks themselves as potential sources of aerosol particles. It is well established that fibrous cellulosic materials, like cotton and paper, can release large quantities of micron-scale particles (i.e., dust) into the air. Traditionally, these particles have not been considered a potential concern for respiratory viral diseases like influenza or now COVID-19, since these diseases have been thought to be transmitted via expiratory particles emitted directly from the respiratory tract of infected individuals. Early work in the 1940s indicated, however, that infectious influenza virus could be collected from the air after vigorously shaking a contaminated blanket.

Remember how many times masks were touted to stop respiratory droplets? I’m sure you do. But the inescapable problem is that droplets are just water. But the water evaporates and it is not the water that is infectious but what is floating around in it. Once the water is gone, the virus remains and can now be expelled straight through the mask because it, as a sub-micron size particle, is smaller than the pores in the material by a lot. Remember that analogy of trying to stop two way transit by mosquitoes with chain link fences?

There is a lot more in this paper. Read the whole thing. It is not at all complimentary toward the crap we buy from Walmart or make at home. They’re actually worse than useless. If you’re going to insist on masking up anyway, it needs to be N95 or better, nothing less will actually do any mitigation and may even spread it instead.

How else to explain what is happening in Italy now?

Italy Did Everything Right to Stop a Second Wave of the Coronavirus. So What Went Wrong?

What’s particularly troubling about the return of COVID in Italy is that the country has done everything experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci have been advising. Face masks in public places have been compulsory for months, social distancing is strongly enforced, nightclubs have never reopened, and sporting arenas are at less than a third of capacity. Children who are back at school are regularly tested and strictly social-distanced, and yet, the second wave seems completely unstoppable.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let’s get back to the original topic of this thread: masks. I posted above about how useless store bought surgical masks are as well as the cloth home-made ones. Here’s a paper worth reading:

Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities | Scientific Reports

Read this from the extract (emphasis mine):

Both surgical masks and unvented KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask, corroborating their effectiveness at reducing outward emission. These masks similarly decreased the outward particle emission of a coughing superemitter, who for unclear reasons emitted up to two orders of magnitude more expiratory particles via coughing than average. In contrast, shedding of non-expiratory micron-scale particulates from friable cellulosic fibers in homemade cotton-fabric masks confounded explicit determination of their efficacy at reducing expiratory particle emission.

Sorry, but this does not prove homemade masks are ineffective.

Much research has indicated that masks can provide significant protection to the wearer, although proper mask fitting is critical to realizing such benefits.

Which too few in the general public either understand or will comply with. Therefore the “benefits” will not be realized!

Wrong. Even without precise fitting, masks provide some benefit.

Results from epidemiological and clinical studies assessing the effectiveness of masks in reducing disease transmission suggest that mask wearing can provide some benefits, especially with early interventions, but often the results lack statistical significance.

…which is not surprising because it is very difficult to conduct a real-world experiment of that sort.

If there is no statistical significance then the results can be due to random chance. In other words there is no scientific evidence!

Wrong. There may not be epidemiological evidence, but there is laboratory evidence.

They did, however, find that masks reduced shedding of seasonal coronavirus from breathing for both coarse and fine particles, although viral RNA was observed in less than half of the samples even with no mask, complicating the assessment.

How do you measure a “reduction” in something that is statistically insignificant in the first place? This is why you have to read entire studies and not just abstracts.

You are fooling yourself if you think you can interpret technical studies better than our public health officials and scientists - unless you happen to be one of those public health officials or scientists.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I see people at Mass and in the stores with masks on but pulled down below their noses.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I see people at Mass and in the stores with masks on but pulled down below their noses.

There are obviously various degrees of “improper fitting” masks.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

You are fooling yourself if you think you can interpret technical studies better than our public health officials and scientists - unless you happen to be one of those public health officials or scientists.

I see you didn’t bother to read the article. Only my comments that you hammered on. If you don’t want to spare the time for the whole thing, at least skip to the Discussion section and read that. Among other things, they indirectly admit to the laboratory setting as opposed to the real world.

You’ll find these gems (emphasis mine):

This finding corroborates the interpretation that some proportion of the particulates observed during expiration were particulates aerosolized from the masks themselves.

A particularly important observation was the existence of a coughing superemitter, who for unknown reasons emitted two orders of magnitude more particles during coughing than average. This huge difference persisted regardless of mask type, with even the most effective mask, the surgical mask, only reducing the rate to a value twice the median value for no mask at all. Although the underlying mechanism leading to such enhanced particle emission is unclear, these observations nonetheless confirm that some people act as superemitters during coughing, similar to “speech superemitters”, and “breathing high producers”. This observation raises the possibility that coughing superemitters could serve as superspreaders who are disproportionately responsible for outbreaks of airborne infectious disease. Notably, the coughing superemitter was not a breathing superemitter or speaking superemitter, indicating that testing only one type of expiratory activity might not necessarily identify superemitters for other expiratory activities.

As a final comment, we emphasize that here we only measured the physical dynamics of outward aerosol particle emission for different expiratory activities and mask types. Redirected expiratory airflow, involving exhaled air moving up past the nose or out the side of the mask, were not measured here but should be considered in future work. Likewise, more sophisticated biological techniques are necessary to gauge mask efficacy at blocking emission of viable pathogens. Our work does raise the possibility, however, that virus-contaminated masks could release aerosolized fomites into the air by shedding fiber particulates from the mask fabric.

This was a lab, not the real world. In the real world, people do breath in and out the sides of the masks or around either side of the nose. They did NOT measure that. Leaf, even you have to recognize that’s falling a tad short.

Further, how about response to the Italy article I posted? They did everything Dr. Fauci said to do, but …

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You are fooling yourself if you think you can interpret technical studies better than our public health officials and scientists - unless you happen to be one of those public health officials or scientists.

I see you didn’t bother to read the article.

That’s right. I know how these things go because I have seen it so many times. Someone who wants to disprove the conventional wisdom on some issue will find some technical paper and draw some conclusion from it that is not explicitly stated, appealing to the “common sense” of the reader, all the while ignoring the common sense that the experts in this field have access to that same paper and if that paper truly did upset the conventional wisdom they would recognize it themselves. The only way to deny that common sense is to assume some gross incompetence, or, worse yet, corruption of the experts who are still stating the conventional wisdom. I used to be more willing to read the technical papers that such people cited in support of their alternative views, and after spending a considerable amount of time researching the paper, the result was always one of the following:

1. The paper did not imply what the poster claimed it implied, or
2. The paper was too technical for me to challenge the details.

In either case, I spent a lot of time, and the poster was never convinced. So I have cut back on the time I spend fact-checking technical articles.