A
Annie
Guest
The problem is that we can’t know how it would be had we not done this or that.
In Spain things seem very bad, but in Sweden, not so bad. What should we make of that?
CDC Study: 85% of Coronavirus Patients Reported Wearing Masks ‘Always’ or ‘Often’
- Status
In Spain things seem very bad, but in Sweden, not so bad. What should we make of that?
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Do you ever consider the political implications of speaking about this vector? Once the public health authorities open that door, everyone is fair game for their toilet practices. It’s bad enough we don’t have a good hand washing culture to begin with, so now we’re going to have very politically incorrect conversations about immigrants who add to the problem by bringing in third world toilet practices with them? Or the poor who can’t sanitize as much due to crowded living conditions? Really talk about that? Really? I didn’t think so.
That Covid-19 can spread by this means is proven. This is how Covid-19 spreads in the summer while influenza which is a respiratory illness does not. Influenza has distinct seasons; there’s a reason we say “flu” season, but we now know there isn’t a “coronavirus” season because it’s endemic and year round. Therefore its transmission has to be substantially different from that of influenza and anyone who says differently is choosing politics over science.
It is infectious because it is not just spreading via respiratory means, it is also spreading by oral-fecal means and masking has zero effect against that vector. We’d do a lot more if we started public messaging about toilet hygiene rather than rail on about masks. We need to shame people to do better with their toilet hygiene and that includes both the poor and the immigrants. I don’t care about masks, I’d prefer people didn’t wear masks around me because who knows what they’re pushing into the air from the surface of their masks, but I’m diligent with hand washing and I go nuts if I have to use a public restroom somewhere.
How about a comment on that paper from Medscape that I just cited?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Listen to public health officials. Masks reduce the spread.LeafByNiggle:
The problem is that we can’t know how it would be had we not done this or that.
Cherry picking countries is not a valid way to evaluate the effectiveness of masks. There are too many other variables.
No, I only consider the scientific implications. Covid-19 can be spread by touch, but the primary vector is respiration.
No one is saying that. But respiratory means is still the most common means.
I am not a professional virologist, so I will just listen to what our public health officials tell us. I’m not going to start playing virologist myself.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle changing my premise . . .
I am just going to let Leaf argue against himself here and
trust you can see how LeafByNiggle changed a premise of my syllogism.
When you have to change a premise of someone you are debating a point with, it suggests that the person changing the premise has a weak argument and cannot defend against your REAL argument.
To the readers here.
I am just going to let Leaf argue against himself here and
trust you can see how LeafByNiggle changed a premise of my syllogism.
When you have to change a premise of someone you are debating a point with, it suggests that the person changing the premise has a weak argument and cannot defend against your REAL argument.
H
humilityseeker
Guest
That is mis-information. Masks help to limit the spread, plenty of studies show the mechanism whereby masks work on Covid droplets. We are also told to wash our hands regularily, and practice good hygiene. This also limits the Oral-Fecal route. There is also a study out of China confirming the spread of Covid 19 on frozen food packaging. That makes about 4 studies related to frozen packaging and Covid 19.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Cathoholic . . .
It is just the wrong "opin"ion.
But if you think that, please explain HOW corona virus,
a virus that made its way into the indigenous Amazonians,
is going to go away short of a miracle?
I’ll be waiting for your explanation.
LeafByNiggle . . .
Well the world getting rid of corona virus is an “opined” point too!
It is just the wrong "opin"ion.
But if you think that, please explain HOW corona virus,
a virus that made its way into the indigenous Amazonians,
is going to go away short of a miracle?
I’ll be waiting for your explanation.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Knowing that there is NO study that shows masks can stop the transmission of corona virus, and masks were never billed as a method to “stop” the transmission of corona virus.
And knowing also that masks were parts of a multi-pronged plan of MITIGATION, not abolishment,
I asked for ONE study that shows “masks” (whatever “masks” are defined as, because there is a LOT of things that pass for “masks”), are effective at STOPPING the spread of corona virus in society.
I have been asking that question for months and nobody has even attempted to answer that question. . . . including you Leaf.
And knowing also that masks were parts of a multi-pronged plan of MITIGATION, not abolishment,
I asked for ONE study that shows “masks” (whatever “masks” are defined as, because there is a LOT of things that pass for “masks”), are effective at STOPPING the spread of corona virus in society.
I have been asking that question for months and nobody has even attempted to answer that question. . . . including you Leaf.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
reposting this from another thread
Though I think any mandating should be done by local businesses, not the Feds.
Though I think any mandating should be done by local businesses, not the Feds.
I
IanM
Guest
“I saw this recently and thought of this thread”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Notice how Cathoholic is subtly implying that advice of public health officials cannot be taken seriously if there isn’t a study that confirms everything they say is effective. Why would anyone ever assume that?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle . . . .
And not pretend there are no risks to those benefits without a risk-benefit ratio analysis.
And you cannot urge masks on a societal level without defining terms (you have no definition of a “mask” Leaf. Because there isn’t one).
And no explanation of WHY there are more US cases despite MORE masking-up (a funny way to show the effectiveness of masks) while non-mandatory masking of say, Sweden, continues to have a death rate that approaches zero.
The other problem Leaf is your (once again) changing my premise.
I not only did not “imply” these recomendations be blown off . . . But I have said MANY times here that they SHOULD be applied. To the correct groups. The elderly, sick, etc. when they desire it.
And you keep saying they will put everyone else at risk (so you KNOW I have urged masks for certain individuals. WHY you are now accusing me that “advice of public health officials cannot be taken seriously” is a mystery to me.).
But if they are at that terrible of a risk,
choose to stay home.
There is risk to a society avoiding making antibody too.
There is risk to a society with Government imposition of lonliness too.
There is risk to a society with Government destruction of the economy too.
All these destructions and more you just ignore.
You have never put them in, in the equations of masking up.
Pretending this is all upside and a preventative (instead of a mitigation vehicle) is unscientific.
There is nothing on this other than emotion. Nothing.
Because I take them at face value and affirm mitigation effects (which is always what societal masking was for)?
And not pretend there are no risks to those benefits without a risk-benefit ratio analysis.
And you cannot urge masks on a societal level without defining terms (you have no definition of a “mask” Leaf. Because there isn’t one).
And no explanation of WHY there are more US cases despite MORE masking-up (a funny way to show the effectiveness of masks) while non-mandatory masking of say, Sweden, continues to have a death rate that approaches zero.
The other problem Leaf is your (once again) changing my premise.
I not only did not “imply” these recomendations be blown off . . . But I have said MANY times here that they SHOULD be applied. To the correct groups. The elderly, sick, etc. when they desire it.
And you keep saying they will put everyone else at risk (so you KNOW I have urged masks for certain individuals. WHY you are now accusing me that “advice of public health officials cannot be taken seriously” is a mystery to me.).
But if they are at that terrible of a risk,
choose to stay home.
There is risk to a society avoiding making antibody too.
There is risk to a society with Government imposition of lonliness too.
There is risk to a society with Government destruction of the economy too.
All these destructions and more you just ignore.
You have never put them in, in the equations of masking up.
Pretending this is all upside and a preventative (instead of a mitigation vehicle) is unscientific.
There is nothing on this other than emotion. Nothing.
Last edited:
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
The CDC finally admitted last month that the virus can and does spread in aerosolized form, not just in respiratory droplets. Allow me to give a link from sources even you can follow:
Standard masks will only filter down to 3 microns with any efficiency, but the coronavirus particle is only about 0.1 to 0.5 microns in size. So once the droplet it is encased in evaporates away, it’s free to be breathed in or out of a surgical mask. Remember wildfire smoke gives particles that are 0.4 to 0.7 microns in size and surgical or cloth masks are definitely not blocking those.
A common source of aerosolized coronavirus comes from feces exposed to the air. If you can smell a fart in a public restroom even with a mask on, consider the possibility that you could breathe in an aerosol from it. Or more commonly, most of those particles settle on surfaces in restrooms ready to be touched.
I’ve already examined the politically incorrect reasons why public health officials won’t go there. Because they won’t go there, you won’t go there hence you dare not question them. Politics over science by a landslide here.
So you refuse to read papers because they might contradict what the public health officials tell us.
I rather suspect that masks are giving people too much confidence that is no substitute for exercising hygienic practices in toilet use.
We’ve had mask mandates for months in many locales and countries yet we’re still experiencing spread. But more masking is the only answer given us.
How about telling the truth about toilet hygiene? I’m not the only one in this thread who suspects toilets and toilet hygiene being a vector of spread in many environments like hospitals, long term care facilities, meat packing plants, construction port-a-potties, restaurants, etc.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is the old “not enough specificity” argument. We know well enough what it means.
Illogical evaluation of effectiveness of masks. The pandemic is spreading. That’s why there are more cases.
Now Cathoholic is changing the premise. The recommendations he is dismissing are for everyone to wear masks. Actually, masks on people circulating in the population do much more good than masks on vulnerable people shut up in their homes. They are to keep infected people from spreading the virus, much more than they are for keeping uninfected people from catching it.
Because the advice that Cathoholic does not want to take seriously is the everyone wear masks.
Don’t know what you would do to avoid that risk.
A recent study showed that loneliness is about the same as it was before the pandemic. People are finding alternate ways to make contact.
All risks need to be weighed. The public health officials do that.
Big time changing my premise.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That does not mean that standard masks are ineffective. It just means they aren’t 100% effective. But we already knew that months ago.
Those are hypotheses of incompetence in our public health officials. I choose not to indulge in such speculation.
I used to spend hours reading those papers, and I know exactly how that sort of argument goes. It usually comes down to a personal interpretation of a technical result (like the above cited result about aerosolized coronavirus.) The technical result is not in question, but the personal interpretation of it is. But once the debate turns to personal interpretation of technical result it goes nowhere after that. So I have decided my time is worth more than that, and rather than taking on the job of Snopes or some other fact-checker, I am just going to trust our public institutions, despite the fact that Trump has been sowing distrust in them forever.
I don’t think anyone is consciously cutting back on hand-washing just because they are wearing a mask. The recommendations from public health officials contain both.
No argument there, because you said “a” vector and not “the primary vector.”
Last edited:
H
humilityseeker
Guest
That is old news, we did not need the CDC to admit that, we already knew, and we knew months ago. This does not negate the usefulness of a mask, is that your argument? Is your argument that because now the CDC has admitted (your words not mine) that Covid is airborne, masks wont help.
All the more reason to wear a mask when out of the house. What is a
to you?
We have masks to help with not breathing in smoke.
What is the problem with washing your hands after touching those surfaces? CDC and every public health authority tell us constantly, ‘wash hands’
is not really an informed answer, it is an opinion.
Who is telling us not to wash our hands and not to worry about it?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle on not having a definition of a “mask” . . .
LeafByNiggle . . . .
The pandemic is spreading despite masking-up. That’s why there are more cases.
LeafByNiggle . . . .
These are “mandates”. And they are unsupported scientifically.
And unless you are willing and able to show me the studies that say this, the mandates will still be unsupported.
Studies that define masks, apply it to society, and take into consideration the risks too.
I’ll be waiting.
LeafByNiggle . . . .
LeafByNiggle on postponement of antibody formation in a society…
You cannot get to herd immunity with no immunity Leaf. And there is no evidence a (phantom) vaccine is going to be the answer.
Quit attempting to close schools is another (the young have much more risk from influenza virus. The same influenza virus the left ignored last year in this regard.)
The young people can get coronavirus & get over it relatively easy. Your solution is to keep postponing their antibody formation until they are older (and have more risk).
I suppose one leftist “success” in obtaining antibody was your guys letting criminals out of jail.
Some that weren’t released were coughing on each other on PURPOSE (!) to GET infected.
And many criminals WERE continued to be let out (I have posted it already).
And once they were let out they went right back to murder and mayhem in many cases that I have already posted
(but I bet they wore a mask right Leaf
).
Yet you have defended Andrew Cuomo sending INFECTED patients INTO LTCFs right here on CAF.
Cathoholic (me) pointed out that LeafByNiggle has only presented the upside to mask wearing…
I could have missed or forgotten something.
Go ahead and show me where you have talked about the risks of societal mask wearing.
Leaf cannot give us a definition (because there is no definition of “masks” here). I knew Leaf could not give us that definition in advance (because in this sense, such a definition of a “mask” does not exist.)
LeafByNiggle . . . .
Your forgot to mention “despite masking-up”.
The pandemic is spreading despite masking-up. That’s why there are more cases.
LeafByNiggle . . . .
No Leaf. If it were mere “recommendations” I wouldn’t say a thing.
These are “mandates”. And they are unsupported scientifically.
And unless you are willing and able to show me the studies that say this, the mandates will still be unsupported.
Studies that define masks, apply it to society, and take into consideration the risks too.
I’ll be waiting.
LeafByNiggle . . . .
I’ll take it seriously. When there is some support for this beyond emotion.
LeafByNiggle on postponement of antibody formation in a society…
Well you could begin by looking at what the WHO says is a model country for that (Sweden).
You cannot get to herd immunity with no immunity Leaf. And there is no evidence a (phantom) vaccine is going to be the answer.
Quit attempting to close schools is another (the young have much more risk from influenza virus. The same influenza virus the left ignored last year in this regard.)
The young people can get coronavirus & get over it relatively easy. Your solution is to keep postponing their antibody formation until they are older (and have more risk).
I suppose one leftist “success” in obtaining antibody was your guys letting criminals out of jail.
Some that weren’t released were coughing on each other on PURPOSE (!) to GET infected.
And many criminals WERE continued to be let out (I have posted it already).
And once they were let out they went right back to murder and mayhem in many cases that I have already posted
(but I bet they wore a mask right Leaf
).How could it be? With our own loved ones not being able to have visitors in the nursing homes (when before they could) and our own loved ones not being able to have visitors in the hospital (whereas before they could).
Yet you have defended Andrew Cuomo sending INFECTED patients INTO LTCFs right here on CAF.
Cathoholic (me) pointed out that LeafByNiggle has only presented the upside to mask wearing…
Fine. Show me where you have outlined the PROBLEMS with mask wearing and I will modify my statement. I am OK with being wrong. I’ll just admit it.
I could have missed or forgotten something.
Go ahead and show me where you have talked about the risks of societal mask wearing.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
humilityseeker . . .
What I am not OK with is the Government mandates.
They in the Government are not running around arresting people by FORCE for lazily or not washing their hands.
But this IS occurring with the mask-fiasco because people are CHANGING the definition of masking-up efficacy from “mitigation” to “prevention”.
And THAT is false.
That’s what the aerosol vrs. droplet thing is about.
Even with an N95 mask, the mask HOLES are 30 times bigger than the virus.
This is NOT preventative.
It is a mitigating factor. It SLOWS DOWN the spread.
Not STOPS it.
Mitigation flattens the curve.
But flattening the curve does not change the amount of people that will get corona virus per se.
You need something else.
I agree a safe effective vaccine could be that “something else”.
But if one just looks at the physiology (it is common on the internet, and frequently seen in scientific articles too. Some of which I have posted), anyone would understand WHY an effective corona virus vaccine almost cannot occur.
And that is WHY Dr. Fauci himself has even expressed doubt over an effective vaccine. (I have posted that story already too.)
And I would be OK if they constantly told us to wear masks.
What I am not OK with is the Government mandates.
They in the Government are not running around arresting people by FORCE for lazily or not washing their hands.
But this IS occurring with the mask-fiasco because people are CHANGING the definition of masking-up efficacy from “mitigation” to “prevention”.
And THAT is false.
That’s what the aerosol vrs. droplet thing is about.
Even with an N95 mask, the mask HOLES are 30 times bigger than the virus.
This is NOT preventative.
It is a mitigating factor. It SLOWS DOWN the spread.
Not STOPS it.
Mitigation flattens the curve.
But flattening the curve does not change the amount of people that will get corona virus per se.
You need something else.
I agree a safe effective vaccine could be that “something else”.
But if one just looks at the physiology (it is common on the internet, and frequently seen in scientific articles too. Some of which I have posted), anyone would understand WHY an effective corona virus vaccine almost cannot occur.
And that is WHY Dr. Fauci himself has even expressed doubt over an effective vaccine. (I have posted that story already too.)
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
graciew . . . .
That type of spread just takes more time.
Look. I have no problem with people choosing to mask-up. I recommend it in high-risk situations.
But we are making masking-up something it was never billed as. And with no evidence. And ignoring the downsides.
That is a heck of a lot of Government FORCE, for being stylish.
Oh. And Happy Mother’s Day!
OK. But other people HAVE used them and infection still has occurred. (That’s what this thread is all about).
That type of spread just takes more time.
Look. I have no problem with people choosing to mask-up. I recommend it in high-risk situations.
But we are making masking-up something it was never billed as. And with no evidence. And ignoring the downsides.
That is a heck of a lot of Government FORCE, for being stylish.
Oh. And Happy Mother’s Day!
Last edited:
G
graciew
Guest
Thank you!
!
I agree it takes more time…time we borrow perhaps until something better is discovered( and in general we all doing better at dealing with it).
It catches us off guard and it is very tough…
Sending you all the best of wishes, all the best of circumstances and hoping wholeheatedly that we will all be safe and well :hugs:
!I agree it takes more time…time we borrow perhaps until something better is discovered( and in general we all doing better at dealing with it).
It catches us off guard and it is very tough…
Sending you all the best of wishes, all the best of circumstances and hoping wholeheatedly that we will all be safe and well :hugs:
Last edited:
H
humilityseeker
Guest
Please show me one official document stating masks stop the spread. I have not read one, I have not read this claim on any of these threads.
There is not much discussion about curve flattening anymore as it is a false fallacy. This virus does not have a curve to be flattened because one incident can set it off again. Flattening the curve is not a useful tactic with this virus. It is proven not to work.
I agree here, a useful vaccine, if it is devised, would be much like a flu vaccine and maybe needs to be given several times over the course of a year.
It is about how the virus is transferred from person to person, there are several mechanisms. Droplet and airborne transmission. This virus can stay in a little cloud for quite some time. Research is now also showing the alarming length of time it can survive on frozen packaging.
- Status