BuckSutherland
5 year old buck +
^^^
Coronavirus
- Thread starter BuckSutherland
- Start date
- Status
Booner21
5 year old buck +
I 100% understand the purpose of the mask however have you ever or have you ever seen anyone sneeze into their mask yet? Just curious because I am in a hospital every day and have yet to see it in 10 months of working. Everyone pulls it down no way you could wear it all day after sneezing into it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I totally understand the purpose of masks. But my aunt caught covid after not going near anyone who wasn't wearing a mask. So one of those masked people passed it on to her.
Most states have had a mask mandate for months, yet the infection numbers keep rising. The masks are useless.
Protect the vulnerable, let the rest of us make our own choices!
SD51555
5 year old buck +
Not at all. If you're the least bit objective, it was easy to become frustrated from the beginning.
President banned travel from China. Pelosi responds by telling us to go hug asain people, totally not racist by the way. Deblasio tells us to go out and dine, shop, take in a movie, concert. Faucci tells us we'll breeze right through this.
Faucci tells us masks don't do any good, don't wear them.
Faucci tells us he was lying to save PPE for healthcare workers, chaos ensues as everyone thinks they'll protect themselves by wearing one.
Faucci tells us masks don't protect us, all the pop up black markets in chinese KN-95 masks were a giant waste of time and money
Why was there such an effort to censor and destroy any physicians or scientists that deviated from the state narrative on the virus?
15 days to flatten the curve has no exit strategy. What metric are we trying to hit?
Nobody can answer the question: When will it be safe to take off the masks?
We still don't have a reliable test for covid, yet we were absolutely certain all those people that were going to die anyway, died from covid in april, and we've been dragging that bullsh*t number forward ever since as if the data had even a shred of quality to it.
There have been way more people harmed and killed by the response than the virus.
The testing is still a joke. Remember the Vikings test batch? Or the 100% labs in Florida? Or the 1 positive gets 16 "probable" positives added to the tally?
You'd be a fool to not be skeptical, if for no other reason than the idea that perhaps the people running this, if well intentioned, are then complete morons.
SD51555
5 year old buck +
I know a guy that sneezes into his, and it makes me want to barf. Otherwise no.
swat1018
5 year old buck +
So, an N95 will filter incoming aerosol better than a regular mask, but any old mask filters outgoing aerosol? Interesting...
jsasker007
5 year old buck +
I think maybe china had bigger plans with the virus they released onto the REST of the world. It sounds like a wacko conspiracy theory but at this point in time WHO KNOWS?
Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
Here is a study that was just published yesterday in an excellent journal that found masks are very effective at reducing the spread:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117.
Just like any tool, they are only going to be as effective as the people correctly using them, and even in that case, they may not work 100%. It sounds like reinfections are definitely happening, so herd immunity may not be a viable strategy just yet. Hopefully your aunt has a speedy recovery.
TreeDaddy
5 year old buck +
Most academicians cant find their ass in the clinical arena for the reasons stated above
bill
Knehrke
5 year old buck +
Hey Bill, academicarians might be smarter than you give them credit for...of course, punting to the b-team during a crisis always works so well lol. Do you have a better solution than listening to folks who have trained their whole careers for this? It’s easy to cast shade when the sh$t hits the fan. How about proposing a viable alternative
TreeDaddy
5 year old buck +
Hey,Knehrke
perhaps a bit strident, but that is my personal observation based on 31 years of clinical practice
All too often, Ive seen the chief of such and such dept from House of God university ride into town with fanfare only to crawl away whimpering as a failed clinician because their poor results cant survive the scrutiny of open market with free choice
I am more circumspect about those who have" devoted their careers " to this in an ivory tower rather than the rough and tumble arena of ideas in the clinical arena
I respect recommendations/guidelines as such to be considered and debated but refuse to genuflect to the shrine of academia in determining public policy
bill
hesseu
5 year old buck +
This is purely anecdotal with my theory...But, it does seem like in our area around 2-4 weeks after a mask mandate it issued, there is a spike in cases. I have no way to prove anything here, but I do have some thoughts...
Hands = dirty
90% of people fondle their masks with hands that haven't been washed in who knows how long, after touching who knows what.
@Knehrke How confident are you with the tests? Since I am not an expert, is there any possibility other sicknesses can be mis-diagnosed under the testing?
Hands = dirty
90% of people fondle their masks with hands that haven't been washed in who knows how long, after touching who knows what.
@Knehrke How confident are you with the tests? Since I am not an expert, is there any possibility other sicknesses can be mis-diagnosed under the testing?
jsasker007
5 year old buck +
When the "experts" keep flip flopping back and forth with advice to us pee-ons, they lose ALL credibility in my mind. We could have reached herd immunity a long time ago(several months). Who has what to gain by destroying our country and it's working class citizens?
Troubles Trees
5 year old buck +
Have you researched anything on mask efficacy my friend? There are many many many many studies globally that all agree to the general consensus that the (non-specific) masks (hankerchiefs) we are mandated to wear (nothing short of a respirator helps) do nothing to stop the spread of a virus. Masks only stop "large droplets" from leaving your mouth, think people spitting when they talk kind of large droplets. I would gladly post a few here but feel it is always better to understand when people look things up for themselves.
Here is a newer one that is a collaboration of many studies for a start on your research bud. I mean, if you are going to make a factual statement it should be something you have researched and know as fact, not just what NBC told you friend.
"Meta‐analysis with fixed‐effects model revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in preventing respiratory viral infections using N95 respirators and surgical masks"
Knehrke
5 year old buck +
Bill, I don't disagree that there is a disconnect between academic medicine and practice. But if we didn't listen to the folks doing research, we'd likely still be treating with leeches (which actually wasn't the worst idea lol). But anybody who rides in as the great white savior deserves a kick in the seat of the pants. Always learning or never learning is how I approach research. We've just recruited a new Chief of Medicine for the largest employer in the county. She's very accessible and I respect her work greatly. You can find all types in any job.
As for the flip-flop that jsacker referenced...that's the nature of science, unfortunately. You operate on the best evidence available, but the answer is often dependent, not binary, and requires context. I appreciate that the average American wants a yes or no answer, and they scream ineptitude or conspiracy when they don't get it. But Science is a process, not a magic mirror, and it is difficult when the media is constantly overinterpreting results and misinforming the public regarding new findings. The advent of pre-publication servers like BioRxiv don't help. That stuff is not yet peer-reviewed, but it's often treated identically as stuff that's published in high impact journals. And with COVID, there are many scientists who are jumping the gun, IMHO, without due diligence. That is creating a climate of mistrust., and making it harder for those of us who are proceeding carefully and rigorously.
Which again is a great reason to doubt yourself and to try to challenge your assumptions. That's how we learn, collectively. It doesn't mean the process is bad, so long as it self corrects. Better than simply throwing darts or trusting our gut. Unless it's my gut, of course lol...
As for the flip-flop that jsacker referenced...that's the nature of science, unfortunately. You operate on the best evidence available, but the answer is often dependent, not binary, and requires context. I appreciate that the average American wants a yes or no answer, and they scream ineptitude or conspiracy when they don't get it. But Science is a process, not a magic mirror, and it is difficult when the media is constantly overinterpreting results and misinforming the public regarding new findings. The advent of pre-publication servers like BioRxiv don't help. That stuff is not yet peer-reviewed, but it's often treated identically as stuff that's published in high impact journals. And with COVID, there are many scientists who are jumping the gun, IMHO, without due diligence. That is creating a climate of mistrust., and making it harder for those of us who are proceeding carefully and rigorously.
Which again is a great reason to doubt yourself and to try to challenge your assumptions. That's how we learn, collectively. It doesn't mean the process is bad, so long as it self corrects. Better than simply throwing darts or trusting our gut. Unless it's my gut, of course lol...
TreeDaddy
5 year old buck +
Appreciate the thoughtful response
you seem like a pretty good fellow unless you prefer tubes over cages.......
bill
PS And just what do you have against leeches?
Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
The conclusions you make based on that study you linked are wrong. The purpose of that study was as you said, looking at infection. Masks are not purported to prevent infection, but to slow the spread using source control. Also, that meta-analysis was sampling mostly healthcare workers, people exposed to higher viral loads than an individual walking into a grocery store, which would certainly have an effect on how likely someone is to be exposed to a virus. Here is a write-up that goes into more detail on this source and others (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/video-misrepresents-the-science-behind-face-masks/).
Did you read the link to the study that I cited above your post (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117)? Because in that paper published in PNAS (an excellent journal) for a study conducted in Germany found that masks are very effective at slowing the spread of covid-19, which is ultimately what the stated purpose of the recommended masks is. There are literally dozens of other studies that show that they are effective at slowing the spread of the virus. I can create a list of them below if you would like, but it still will require the basic acknowledgement that masks are not intended to explicitly prevent infection, but are designed to slow the spread of the virus from someone who is infected.
- Status