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

[Cathoholic]

humilityseeker . . .

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.

That’s the point!

But people think masks stop infection spread.

And masks DON’T stop infection spread.

The media feeds into that idea as well.

And finally, the Government has not done a good job on public information in this sphere. Especially the Governments running around, threatening churches like California and New York Governments are.

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.

Corona virus doesn’t need to be set “off again” as it has never left.

We were asked to cooperate with these infringements on our freedom based on an emergency so hospitals and the US healthcare system would not get overwhelmed.

We did cooperate.

The system was not even close to being overwhelmed.

And I feel like a patsy for believing them. (Some of the conspiracy theorists that I blew off, were right and I was wrong to believe Government people who said this was a very temporary measure. Well here it is months later and no sign of Government mandates slowing down in some leftist areas)

humilityseeker on a corona virus vaccine . . .

would be much like a flu vaccine and maybe needs to be given several times over the course of a year.

That won’t do it either.

Why not?

Because the vaccine will stimulate IgG. Those are blood antibodies.

Much of the infectivity of corona virus lies in mucosal suface attacking. Not blood borne.

To battle this, we would need to stimulate secretory IgA.

Something our current vaccine technology is ignorant of.

That is WHY more shots will increase risk to the recipient,
but not help with at least the respiratory component of this illness.

You get IgG. That helps for blood. But not IgA (which helps on bodily wet surfaces [mucosal surfaces] like the airway).

 

[humilityseeker]

That’s the point!

But people think masks stop infection spread.

And masks DON’T stop infection spread.

The media feeds into that idea as well.

I have never met or heard of one person who believes that. I have never seen a media report that states that either. Have you ever seen a media report that states that?

Corona virus doesn’t need to be set “off again” as it has never left.

Heard the term ‘second wave’?

 

[Cathoholic]

Yeah. I have heard people think masks (whatever they are) stop the spread of corona virus. Many times.

.

Heard the term ‘second wave’?

Why would you think I haven’t?

Why do you think a “second wave” will destroy the healthcare system
when 1, the first wave did not come close,
2, now we have at least some antibody as a society,
and 3, we have reasonable treatment options whereas before we did not have the knowledge we do now.
4. The most susceptible can still choose to “hole-up”.

Why do you think this “second wave” will be so catastrophic?

And do you think masks, will be a difference maker here? Why or why not?

 

[humilityseeker]

Why do you think a “second wave” will destroy the healthcare system

This is not what I was discussing. I was answering your question

Corona virus doesn’t need to be set “off again” as it has never left.

Look at the example of different localities where the virus has had a huge impact, and then all but quieted down. Then all of a sudden it has taken off again. That is a second wave.

To answer your question, it wont destroy the health system of a nation, but as with the first wave, it has the potential for crushing the local health system during its progression.

And do you think masks, will be a difference maker here? Why or why not?

Could you re word that please, I am not sure what you are getting at.

Yeah. I have heard people think masks (whatever they are) stop the spread of corona virus. Many times.

Then that is poor education and needs to be addressed. I have not looked at your clip yet.

 

[humilityseeker]

I just watched the youtube, and actually went to the article it linked

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

There is no mention of face masks stopping the spread of Coronavirus in that article anywhere. Or infact, slowing the spread of the virus. In fact there is no mention of face masks in the article except to link to a video clip not accessible to us.
In the article itself the mask described was “through a slightly damp washcloth over the speaker’s mouth”

The youtube clip in its content also has no mention of mask wearing except to say mask or no mask. It does not say 'face mask". If you read the article the only barrier that was used was “through a slightly damp washcloth over the speaker’s mouth”. It is a good visual of the difference between a barrier and no barrier in respect to droplet spread from someone talking.

The clip demonstrates the difference between the two and makes no claim at all that wearing a mask stops the complete spread of the virus. The title on the youtube should be taken in conjunction with the contents of the youtube so that there is no extrapolation that wearing a face mask will stop the spread of the virus completely.

If I were concerned I would email the authors of that study, they published a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine, and point out the discrepancy to them. That is , they used a through a slightly damp washcloth over the speaker’s mouth, in their report and now some joker has posted it up on youtube with the title 'see how Masks (not face masks, again no mention of face masks) stop the spread of the virus. Then explain that you have taken it to mean that wearing a face mask will completely stop the spread of Covid 19 from that title.

My first point of call though is to look at what is reported in the testing itself , by that I mean, what they used as a mask, a barrier, during that experiment.

For the reasons I have listed, that is a really poor example of what you are trying to prove to me. Have you got anything that leaves no doubt that a media article,(not some joker posting up a youtube,) a media article claiming wearing a face mask will completely stop the spread of covid.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is a misrepresentation of what Fauci said. He never said that resources ought to be shifted from vaccines to treatments.

I never said he did. But he did express doubts about the long-term benefits of a vaccine. I was the one who hypothesized that we ought to spend more resources on treatment. Why do you oppose that? Of interest, he also recently said “lockdowns” do more harm than good.

I can cite many public health officials who say that.

Opinions are like nose hairs. Everybody has them. No. Show me an actual study.

 

[BT3241]

I know people and they have a tendency to lie when caught not doing something they were supposed to be doing. I don’t believe the number is accurate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

This is a misrepresentation of what Fauci said. He never said that resources ought to be shifted from vaccines to treatments.

I never said he did. But he did express doubts about the long-term benefits of a vaccine.

How much doubt? A lot? A little? Degree matters.

I was the one who hypothesized that we ought to spend more resources on treatment. Why do you oppose that?

I don’t. I just don’t think those extra resources should come at the expense of vaccine development or testing, tracing, and isolation. And neither do public health officials. How about, instead, taking resources from…oh, I don’t know…building a southern border wall?

Of interest, he also recently said “lockdowns” do more harm than good.

I’m going to use a technique I learned from @Cathoholic. What is your definition of “lockdowns”? More importantly, what did Fauci mean when he said lockdowns? Did he mean wearing masks and social distancing at restaurants? Or did he mean a total closing of all businesses? If it was closer to the latter, then his comment has no bearing on the current thread.

I can cite many public health officials who say that.

Opinions are like nose hairs. Everybody has them.

But in this case the “nose hairs” of public health officials are more trustworthy than the nose hairs of any Internet blogger.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You cannot get to herd immunity with no immunity Leaf. And there is no evidence a (phantom) vaccine is going to be the answer.

Resigning ourselves to getting herd immunity through active infections will likely mean an additional 500,000+ dead. We are already on track to add another 200,000 dead by the end of this year, even with the precautions we have been taking. On the other hand, China, which used intensive isolation measures in hot spots is now generally open for business - so much so that while all the major economies of the world on on track to decline, China’s economy grew at 4.9% in the 3rd quarter. While the rest of the developed world is struggling to cope with coronavirus, China is grabbing market share as a preferred supplier to the world. So the “economy vs lockdowns” argument just doesn’t work. You can have both a growing economy and and intensive coronavirus mitigation. But the US, with 4% of the world’s population has 20% of the covid cases. That’s what comes of having no national strategy.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . . .

Resigning ourselves to getting herd immunity through active infections will likely mean an additional 500,000+ dead.

Really? In what time frame? 20 years? 1 year? What are you referring to?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle . . . .

Resigning ourselves to getting herd immunity through active infections will likely mean an additional 500,000+ dead.

Well, I suppose we can estimate from the fact that currently fewer than 10% of Americans have antibodies for coronavirus, and herd immunity requires about 70%, we won’t be “rounding the corner” for at least another year (without a vaccine). Since we lost over 200,000 in 7 months, another 500,000 before herd immunity is probably an underestimate.

 

[Cathoholic]

humilityseeker . . .

Look at the example of different localities where the virus has had a huge impact, and then all but quieted down. Then all of a sudden it has taken off again. That is a second wave.

And NONE of them have destroyed our health system right humilityseeker?

Which brings me right back to my original point about the futility of masking-up
to stop spread (doesn’t occur)
or to flatten the curve (which we now know, does not matter because we know the health system can survive).

Corona virus is endemic.
The mandated masking up FORCE is going to have to be permanent,
or something has to change with regards to leftists like Newsom who are making rules up about re-masking between bites of food.

This is non-sense.

It is attempting to fight a virus with psychological feel-good mechanisms,
or it is someone drunk on power,
or both.

But it is not science.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

Well, I suppose we can estimate from the fact that currently fewer than 10% of Americans have antibodies for coronavirus, and herd immunity requires about 70%, we won’t be “rounding the corner” for at least another year (without a vaccine).

I don’t think you understand the physiology here.

The “antibody” you are referring to, is IgG (which gets induced from the body from vaccine challenges).

That’s not good enough. (Which is part of why the flu vaccine is so marginal).

Admitedly, this may be helpful for distant morbidity curtailing.

The antibody that will be native formed
will be IgG and IgA.

Do you understand that the vaccine technology right now does not even claim to induce IgA?

Do you realize all “antibody” is not equal?

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle ignoring that the Wuhan Corona Virus came out of China . . .

. . . China, which used intensive isolation measures in hot spots . . .

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Masks are being sold as “mitigation”. What’s mitigating about all those rising numbers of cases all over the place in locales in which masking has been mandatory for months? There’s something rotten here, but no one wants to peel the carpet back?

Herd immunity for coronavirus doesn’t require 70% to have actually caught it. There is already some degree of immunity in a substantial part of the population that scientists think is related to t-cells. This is why there was never any closed environment in which even half the people got infected. Most closed environments did not result in more than 20% to 30% infection rates. But people still refuse to ask why that is and insist on burying their heads in the sand. And make economy-ruining policies for the rest of us.

I have posted in the past about knowing leukemia victims who go through chemotherapy. The treatment essentially strips the immune reaction in patients to the point where everyone in close proximity has to exercise great care around the patient. For the patient to be able to leave the house for a normal outing, the family would have to demand everyone else in public close themselves down just so that patient could get out of the house. How selfish is that? By the same token, we’re seeing constant demands for the young to hold themselves back so the vulnerable minority can go anywhere they want and force everyone else to hold themselves in check. Well that only works for so long and then the taxes drop precipitously enough to get the states and the localities in trouble. Including the health care system everyone depends on. My generation and younger need to be allowed to get back to making a living so that Leaf’s generation can continue to have access to the Medicare and the healthcare system that they depend on for their sustenance.

 

[Cathoholic]

Zzyzx_Road . . .

Herd immunity for coronavirus doesn’t require 70% to have actually caught it. There is already some degree of immunity in a substantial part of the population that scientists think is related to t-cells.

That’s an excellent point Zzyzx_Road.

For the readers here. Regarding expounding on the physiology of what Zzyzx_Road just said . . .

The T-cells do NOT produce “antibodies” (antibodies come from B-Cell immunity).

T-Cell immunity is another limb of immunity though.

And there is probably some cross-reaction between older corona virus virions
(like a frequent common-cold corona virus
which has been around “forever”)
. . . And the new or “novel” corona virus
which is the Wuhan corona virus,
or the COVID-19 virus,
or the more microbiologist used
SARS-CoV-2 name.

If that cross-reactivity is true (and it almost certainly is), then the question becomes . . .
. . . What extent is this T-cell immunity cross-reactivity ALREADY existent
in society against other corona viruses?

(The more immunity we already have with T-cell immunity, [inversely] the less antibody producing people [B-cell immunity] we will need to obtain herd immunity.)

And also if this it true,
it pushes the antibody frequency threshhold
for herd immunity DOWN.

Down from 65-75%, to less than 65-75%.

How much less than 65% to get herd immunity?

We don’t know yet.

How much less, depends upon how much T-cell immunity already exists out there.

We don’t know,
but if any T-Cell immunity exists in society (and almost without a doubt some cross-reacting T-cell immunity does already exist), the number required for herd immunity will be less than 65%.

Some have speculated around 20% of the people having antibody, will give us herd immunity.

Others have given different numbers.

.

The other thing, is if someone already has some active T-cell immunity,
and get infected despite this,
the COVID19 virus infections that DO occur will be attenuated (tapered in severeity),
thus giving the victim a good chance of ADDING his own B-Cell immunity (antibodies) to his defense for future protection too!

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t. I just don’t think those extra resources should come at the expense of vaccine development or testing, tracing, and isolation. And neither do public health officials. How about, instead, taking resources from…oh, I don’t know…building a southern border wall?

Oh, I see. Nobody south of the border has Covid. But hey, even if they do, so what? They only take the jobs of the uh “colored” don’t they? Well, and a few white hillbillies who probably believe in God.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t. I just don’t think those extra resources should come at the expense of vaccine development or testing, tracing, and isolation.

I think it has already been established that most people won’t take the vaccine. Nor, according to Fauci will vaccines likely give long-lasting protection. I did not suggest “taking resources” from vaccine development. That’s open-ended. But it does seem to me improved treatment is more likely to save lives than a vaccine that most people won’t take.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I don’t. I just don’t think those extra resources should come at the expense of vaccine development or testing, tracing, and isolation. And neither do public health officials. How about, instead, taking resources from…oh, I don’t know…building a southern border wall?

Oh, I see. Nobody south of the border has Covid.

Actually the infection rate in Mexico is no worse than the US. You should be more afraid of visitors to your state from North Dakota or Wisconsin than from Mexico. I would not be surprised if Mexico started building a wall to keep us out.

I think it has already been established that most people won’t take the vaccine…

That is the far-right talking point, but it has not been established. When another 500,000 have died, I think many minds will change.

Nor, according to Fauci will vaccines likely give long-lasting protection.

False exaggeration.

I did not suggest “taking resources” from vaccine development.

Then I have no problem with adding resources to treatments.

But it does seem to me improved treatment is more likely to save lives than a vaccine that most people won’t take.

Ah, but there you go, suggesting exactly what you said you were not suggesting.

I don’t think you understand the physiology here…

Does any of my “lack of understanding” challenge my position that we are a long way from herd immunity and that another half a million to a million people will die before it is achieve, if there is no vaccine and we continue to flaunt public health guidelines?

LeafByNiggle ignoring that the Wuhan Corona Virus came out of China . . .

. . . China, which used intensive isolation measures in hot spots . . .

The fact that SARS-Cov/2 originated in Wuhan does not refute the fact that the Chinese economy is growing and no longer is broad-based lock-downs and that they have been more successful in containing it presently than the US.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Masks are being sold as “mitigation”. What’s mitigating about all those rising numbers of cases all over the place in locales in which masking has been mandatory for months?

What is mitigating is that the numbers are lower than they would have been if no mitigation was in place.

Herd immunity for coronavirus doesn’t require 70% to have actually caught it. There is already some degree of immunity in a substantial part of the population that scientists think is related to t-cells.

The amount of inherent immunity of that sort is pure speculation at this point. Public health officials are still saying that we are a long way from herd immunity currently, and that such immunity achieved by allowing the virus to “run its course” will cost any lives.