Horowitz: E-MASK-ulation: How we have been lied to so dramatically about masks

[Cathoholic]

SEPTEMBER 10, 2020

Horowitz: E-MASK-ulation: How we have been lied to so dramatically about masks​

What did the scientific literature say before the issue became political?

DANIEL HOROWITZ

If you are looking for the scientific rationale behind universal mask-wearing, you certainly won’t find it now that the issue has become as political as guns, abortion, and taxes. We are now at a point where Canada’s chief public health officer is calling on people to wear masks when engaging in sexual activities and 19-month-old babies are being forced to wear them on airplanes. There is no rational thought in a political cult. But what did the governmental and scientific literature say on the issue before it became political?

On April 3, already several weeks into the unprecedented lockdown over coronavirus, but before the big media push for universal masking, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued guidance for respiratory protection for workers exposed to people with the virus. It stated clearly what governments had said all along about other forms of airborne contamination, such as smoke inhalation — “Surgical masks and eye protection (e.g., face shields, goggles) were provided as an interim measure to protect against splashes and large droplets (note: surgical masks are not respirators and do not provide protection against aerosol-generating procedures).”

In other words, they knew that because the virions of coronavirus are roughly 100 nanometers, 1/1000 the width of a hair and 1/30 the size of surgical mask filtrations (about 3.0 microns or 3,000 nanometers), surgical masks (not to mention cloth ones) do not help. This would explain why experience has shown that all of the places with universal mask orders in place for months, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, [
France, Peru, Philippines, Hawaii, California, and Miami failed to stave off the spread of the infection. Surgical masks could possibly stop large droplets from those coughing with very evident symptoms, but would not stop the flow of aerosolized airborne particles, certainly not from asymptomatic individuals.

This is why the CDC, as late as May, was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford also summarized six international studies which “showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.” . . .

Horowitz: E-MASK-ulation: How we have been lied to so dramatically about masks | Blaze Media

 

[meltzerboy2]

Wasn’t it Dr. Birx, a member of the President’s Coronavirus Task Force, who said that masks together with social distancing and handwashing are an effective way to stave off COVID-19? Not foolproof, mind you, for nothing in life is foolproof, but effective. Is Horowitz suggesting that the President’s Task Force itself was not being truthful? Why then have both masks and social distancing been abandoned by many people, or never conformed to in the first place?

Why is the medical community lying to us? To give us a false sense of security? To make Trump look bad? To bring down the world as we know it? What exactly is their motivation?

 

[F_Marturana]

E-mask-ulation?

That Y chromosome offers some protection?

No one would say to their dentist, “it’s ok skip the mask!”

Or their surgeon.

 

[tomarin]

It’s all crazy talk. But more analytically, Ross Douthat calls this resistance to being told what to do by the government ‘folk libertarianism.’

 

[meltzerboy2]

Indeed it sounds like a typical conspiracy theory, another “mischigas.”

 

[Dovekin]

The Lancet, a medical journal since 1823, assessed masks for covid 19 in August:

the current best evidence includes the possibility of important relative and absolute benefits of wearing a facemask. Depending on the pandemic situation in a given geographical setting, the desirable consequences of wearing a facemask may or may not outweigh the undesirable consequences. These considerations should influence policy makers’ recommendations starting with the involvement of the relevant stakeholders. In highly populated areas that have high infection rates—eg, USA, India, Brazil, or South Africa—the use of masks will probably outweigh any potential downsides.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Does Horowitz believe what the CDC says or not? Here he does, apparently when the CDC supports his ideas. But the CDC also states that children can spread the virus. Does Horowitz believe that as well? Which is it for those who support or oppose the CDC: are they being selective according to whether or not the CDC confirms their own thinking? I think many are.

 

[Cathoholic]

F_Marturana . . .

No one would say to their dentist, “it’s ok skip the mask!”

Or their surgeon.

Unfortunately F_Marturana, you are conflating two different premesis.

If you would have followed out the linkson my OP you would be able to answer your own questions.

Masks in a clinical setting are frequently changed. Sometimes more than once on a case.

The medical staff is trained, using proper masks, not wering them as chinstraps, etc.

Even then, the benefit is limited.

“. . . We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.” . . .​

See this . . .

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp2006372

 

[Cathoholic]

Melterboy2 . . .

stave off COVID-19

“Staving off” in this context is SLOWING DOWN the spread. Flattening the curve.

It DOES masking “stave off” infection in that sense.

From here . . .

As Dr. Lisa Maragakis, Senior Director of Infection Prevention at Johns Hopkins Medical School explained, flattening the curve means that “ the same large number of patients arrived at the hospital at a slower rate. [emphasis mine]”

 

[Cathoholic]

tomarin on a thread explaining that masks just do not afford the protection some people think they do . . . .

It’s all crazy talk. But more analytically, Ross Douthat calls this resistance to being told what to do by the government ‘folk libertarianism.’

From the OP article . . . .

" . . . and 1/30 the size of surgical mask filtrations. . ."​

.

the virions of coronavirus are roughly 100 nanometers,
1/1000 the width of a hair
and 1/30 the size of surgical mask filtrations (about 3.0 microns or 3,000 nanometers),
surgical masks (not to mention cloth ones) do not help.
This would explain why experience has shown that all of the places with universal mask orders in place for months, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, France, Peru, Philippines, Hawaii, California, and Miami, failed to stave off the spread of the infection.

.

“Stave off” used here of course, was contextually overall prevention. Not “flattening the curve” in this case.

You cannot permanently block out anything that is 1/30th the size of a “block” except by luck and even then only temporarily.​

Add to the fact that masks in society are not medical grade (they have even BIGGER HOLES).

Perhaps tomarin, you would like to explain to me, how something 1/30th of the size of the holes “blocking” the virus, works to “stop” this?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I can explain how it will be slowed down. No problem there.

But I want a non-“crazy-talk” and a non-“folk-liberterianism” explanation from you of how you think that works.

 

[Dovekin]

The authors of the linked article, Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era sent a letter that NEJM published in July.

We understand that some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org) as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less.

Last week NEJM.org published Facial Masking for Covid-19 which discusses the possibility that universal masking decreases severity of infection along with preventing some infections.

 

[Motherwit]

So basically Daniel Horowitz of the Conservative Review, interpreted data to support a political agenda.

These people are amusing but I’m also incredulous that they think we are just going to accept that they are the non biased interpreters of scientific data.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Last week NEJM.org published Facial Masking for Covid-19 which discusses the possibility that universal masking decreases severity of infection along with preventing some infections.

I can understand this. Large particles, like those we spray out in an uncovered sneeze, may well be blocked by most masks. And such a droplet would have a lot bigger “viral load” than a particle so small as to be invisible. I think we’re told those big particles drop the ground quickly.

But I don’t see how masks could be very effective except in the extremes. Picture this. You’re in one end of a gymnasium of ordinary size; let’s say a junior high gym. A person lights up a cigarette at the other end of the gym. Do you think you’re not going to eventually smell the cigarette? You know you will. The “cigarette smell” is particles too small to see with the unaided eye. Yes, you might miss inhaling the big, visible smoke particles, but the smell itself consists in particles.

A mask is no better than that. If you’re wearing a mask in the gym, you’ll still smell the cigarette, because some of the particles go right through the mask.

 

[ProVobis]

The “cigarette smell” is particles too small to see with the unaided eye.

Quantum physics suggests otherwise, namely waves, but that’s another subject.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Could be, but that’s not the general opinion.

 

[Dovekin]

Quantum physics suggests otherwise, namely waves, but that’s another subject.

Generally, something can be described as both a wave and a particle. Usually it only matters with subatomic particles, not the complex compound that could be smelled. Thinking of it as a wave is pretty pointless.

But there is still a lot we don’t know about the coronavirus.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Or quantum physics. Both are interesting, but pretty inscrutable to me.

 

[Cathoholic]

Dovekin. I have no problem with masking either.

But that does not change the fact that these things only slow the spread.

Not stop it.

They were never meant to stop it.

I have encouraged masks here too. But keep in mind their proper role in all of this.

But there is still a lot we don’t know about the coronavirus.

But we DO KNOW, they are 1/30th the size of spacings on medical grade masks.

This is part of the reasons WHY actively infected surgeons, even if they have minor symptoms,
are not allowed to operate in a hospital even if they wear a mask. (they must finish their self-quarantine).

It does not protect others in the manner necessary.

 

[Cathoholic]

Motherwit . . .

So basically Daniel Horowitz of the Conservative Review, interpreted data to support a political agenda.

Instead of putting forth an ipse dixit fallacy (“it is so, because I say it is so!”), why not discuss what you think is wrong with the article so we can have the discussion?

I cannot argue against a fallacy (in this case ipse dixit).

 

[ProVobis]

Thinking of it as a wave is pretty pointless.

You may be right. Until we see interference patterns (such as those produced from a double-slit experiment) we can conclude the virus is too big for quantum mechanics to consider.