New posts

COVID-19

June 19, 2021, 11:31 a.m.
Posts: 3556
Joined: May 23, 2006

Posted by: syncro

Masks have limited effectiveness for preventing spread/transmission from an infected individual. And unless you're wearing a respirator rated at n95 or higher, masks are basically useless at protecting you from getting covid.

sweeping statement is misleading


 Last edited by: tungsten on June 19, 2021, noon, edited 2 times in total.
June 19, 2021, noon
Posts: 26
Joined: July 24, 2013

Posted by: tungsten

sweeping statement is horseshit

SSIH https://www.ssih.org/

toungue - is this a secret message?

trust no one

June 19, 2021, 12:20 p.m.
Posts: 1745
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: tungsten

Posted by: syncro

Masks have limited effectiveness for preventing spread/transmission from an infected individual. And unless you're wearing a respirator rated at n95 or higher, masks are basically useless at protecting you from getting covid.

sweeping statement is misleading

There isn't any reliable or sufficient data to say that the masks most people are wearing (single layer cloth masks or procedure masks) are fairly effective in either sense. They are good for reducing droplet spread, but we now know that covid is aerosol spread. If you have something that suggests the masks most people use are effective against covid please share.

June 19, 2021, 6:23 p.m.
Posts: 3556
Joined: May 23, 2006

I just quoted the chair of UCSF School of Medicine stating covid was an aerosol and that he would be wearing a mask when in a room with anti-vaxxers.

Ergo, in his opinion, a mask must provide some measure of protection against covid as aerosol.

Anyone who's been paying any attention to the pandemic as it's unfolded will understand instantly that protection provided will depend on many factors. Fit and type of mask, size of room, how well the room is ventilated, # of people in the room, # of un-vaccinated people in the room, time spent in said room etc etc. 

By your logic since we can't possibly know whom might be carring the virus, vaxed or not, we should in future avoid ever being in a room with another human being.

June 19, 2021, 7:18 p.m.
Posts: 1745
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: tungsten

I just quoted the chair of UCSF School of Medicine stating covid was an aerosol and that he would be wearing a mask when in a room with anti-vaxxers.

Ergo, in his opinion, a mask must provide some measure of protection against covid as aerosol.

Anyone who's been paying any attention to the pandemic as it's unfolded will understand instantly that protection provided will depend on many factors. Fit and type of mask, size of room, how well the room is ventilated, # of people in the room, # of un-vaccinated people in the room, time spent in said room etc etc. 

By your logic since we can't possibly know whom might be carring the virus, vaxed or not, we should in future avoid ever being in a room with another human being.

Ok, so in that quote of yours there is nothing where Dr. Wachter says it's an aerosol. Be that as it may, I will assume he knows this. However, part of my posts were about the delay in the general medical/scientific community of coming around to the idea that covid was an aerosol. To be fair, this may be more a fault with media reporting, but health officials have continually supported the wearing of masks without any strong support that they are effective.

As per your words in the above quote, "protection provided (by a mask) will depend on many factors", which goes back to my statements about the type of masks one wears and why they are wearing them. It also goes back to my statement about physical distancing and avoiding contact. That is contextual though. For example, prolonged contact in a crowded room with poor ventilation is going to present greater risk than walking past someone on the street where you're a few feet apart. So don't twist my words to fit your narrative. If you want to talk about sweeping and misleading statements, you should probably direct your attention to the way you interpreted my thoughts.

At the end of the day, the masks the vast majority of people are wearing are not very effective at blocking aerosols due to leakage from poor fit and permeability to aerosol particles. That's why I said unless you're wearing an n95 rated respirator or higher, the masks most people are wearing are not doing anything, especially in the context where you may be most at risk for getting infected - prolonged close contact in smaller spaces with ineffective ventilation. So places like pubs and restaurants (where people will have their masks off anyway) and are talking loudly and therefore potentially expelling more virus are going to continue to be potential hot spots.

And again, there is still no reliable data that shows that the masks the vast majority of people on the street are wearing offer any sort of measurable protection. If you go back to the early days, a lot of people getting sick were in places where they were in close contact with infected people and wearing masks that offer limited protection, surgical type masks or procedure masks, and not respirators. Respirators work, masks not so much.

I have faith in established science, until the story I'm being told starts to have flaws appear. With covid I thought hey, this is new so we have to go with best guess until we know better. There's been enough time that we now know better; that fomites present basically zero risk with covid, that covid primarily does not spread via droplets, that respirators can cause more damage than harm. There are other legitimate questions that are now time to answer or investigate more thoroughly as well. At the end of the day Covid is not probably going to just go away, it's here for good and we have to learn to deal with it. The actions of the past couple of years do not strike me as a means for humanity to live out the rest of it's days. It's time to realistically weigh the harms from covid against the cost to society from the measures we've taken to try and prevent it.

If you have some sort of evidence (research/testing/data) that shows cloth masks are effective in the prevention of the spread of covid or preventing people from catching covid please share. The words of Dr. Wachter are not that.

June 19, 2021, 8:48 p.m.
Posts: 2067
Joined: April 25, 2003

Here is a recent meta analysis. Notable is the section on particles vs aerosols.

Overall, yes, masks reduce but don’t eliminate the transmission of COVID.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118


 Last edited by: tashi on June 19, 2021, 8:49 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
June 19, 2021, 10:55 p.m.
Posts: 1745
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Just curious how much of that you've read and how you interpreted the percentage reduction numbers from mask wearing?

June 20, 2021, midnight
Posts: 26
Joined: July 24, 2013

I got lotsa time on my hands so I skimmed it and looked at some of the citations.  The studies done are on such a small scale, it's weird.  Even Bonnie H constantly said masks don't work (and may make things worse)  and then flipped one day to "it's the last line of protection" which means what?  I believe since we have these muzzles on we should have some serious "science" from Canada showing they are effective.

Through my own playing with ecig vapor and various masks they do little.  I can still fill up a room with vapor just as fast as I can without the mask.  The mask catches a small amount of vapor depositing wet material in front of my mouth on the mask...yum.   However if I layer up with 8 masks then I can't fill up the room with vapor, but I also can't breath.

Disregarding the mask debate, that link from tashi provided some addition interesting information near the end titled "Sociological Considerations" which had some interesting points I hadn't considered but confirmed others.

June 20, 2021, 9:15 a.m.
Posts: 2067
Joined: April 25, 2003

Posted by: syncro

Just curious how much of that you've read and how you interpreted the percentage reduction numbers from mask wearing?

I’ve skimmed some parts, read the bit about particle side (droplet vs. aerosol issue)

I found it for you as you requested studies on mask efficacy.  This is particularly useful because it’s a meta analysis so it addresses many of the limitations and uncertainty of the available research while teasing out the information that is robust.

The percentage numbers vary widely from what I’ve gathered, but it seems pretty consistent that they aren’t perfect but do something.


 Last edited by: tashi on June 20, 2021, 9:21 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
June 20, 2021, 9:48 a.m.
Posts: 1745
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: tashi

I’ve skimmed some parts, read the bit about particle side (droplet vs. aerosol issue)

I found it for you as you requested studies on mask efficacy.  This is particularly useful because it’s a meta analysis so it addresses many of the limitations and uncertainty of the available research while teasing out the information that is robust.

The percentage numbers vary widely from what I’ve gathered, but it seems pretty consistent that they aren’t perfect but do something.

I did a quick read of most of it and unfortunately the article is contradictory in some spots, does not really address the issue of cloth/single layer masks and doesn't detail covid particle size. I'm surpised the authors came to the conclusion they did when the info they reviewed doesn't support it imho. So I would disagree that this analysis supports mask efficiency. Further, I have seen research that found that procedure/surgical style masks have negligible effect in stopping the transmission of viruses in a hospital setting. This supports why hospitals that dealt with high intake of covid moved to  respirators for their staff and anecdotally (I say this because I have not seen any hard research, just news/media reports from hospital staff) the respirators stopped spread among hospital staff.

For now I'll stick to testing, contact tracing, quarantining, physical distancing and vaccines as the most effective methods to curtail covid. At best I'm neutral on masks, but don't feel they are the panacea some make them out to be. Vaccines ultimately will be the most important factor. I still think it's time to start considering how we're going to live with this new virus in our society. This includes considering who is most likely to be seriously affected by covid and how those people (ostensibly including me, you and tungsten someday) can be protected while allowing society to function in a manner where it doesn't feel like we're living in a lab experiment.

June 20, 2021, 2:53 p.m.
Posts: 14407
Joined: Feb. 19, 2003

Posted by: syncro

I still think it's time to start considering how we're going to live with this new virus in our society.

We could start with vaccine passports for travel, entrance for stadium events, even office buildings.  We won’t do that of course, but it would be a good start.

June 26, 2021, 12:28 p.m.
Posts: 15460
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Guess I'm back at it?

June 26, 2021, 12:30 p.m.
Posts: 15460
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Can aerosol viruses enter through the eyes? /rhetorical

June 26, 2021, 12:34 p.m.
Posts: 15460
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Posted by: Couch_Surfer

Posted by: syncro

I still think it's time to start considering how we're going to live with this new virus in our society.

We could start with vaccine passports for travel, entrance for stadium events, even office buildings.  We won’t do that of course, but it would be a good start.

As long as 30% of seating is saved for the non vaccinated bc of nbr's stated logic relating to herd immunity.

And if a vaccine is a shield so to speak, why should you care if someone isn't? You are safe. Unless this vaccine doesn't stop or prevent transmission.

June 26, 2021, 7:01 p.m.
Posts: 3740
Joined: Aug. 22, 2005

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Guess I'm back at it?

I didn't see exhaling (producing aerosols and droplets) on your chart. Because that's the whole point, they aren't air filters (well.. some are).

Forum jump: