Masks have been widely tested and used in practice for hundred of years. Ignoring that research and experience, as if masks were invented in 2020 is strange. So far, about twenty levels of protection of the respiratory system have been developed, against dust, organic and inorganic gases, liquids, oil aerosols, high temperature gases and so on. Viruses are nothing special, they are small solid matter, particles, dust. The approach in practice is simple - if protection level x does not filter good enough, try x+1.
Cloth and surgical masks are not designed to filter aerosols and they are not adequate. If they were used, it is because "better something than nothing" reasoning.
The lowest level of mask designed to filter particles is the rarely used FFP1, and it filters out 80%. The second level is FFP2/N95. Filters at least 94/95% of 0.3 micron particles and MORE virus size (~99%). They were often used in medical practice, although they were often not used consistently. Then there are two levels of disposable respirators above that - FFP3/N99 and N100. They filter 99% and 99.97% of particles. Then there are levels of protection above that - elastomeric half masks, elastomeric full masks, PAPR, with various HEPA filters, hazmat suits level B and level A.
Anyone who believes that protection level x doesn't work, but instead of saying "OK, let's start using protection level x+1" says "let's drop masks", has a serious problem with logic, or more likely he is intellectually dishonest.
A little late to the party, but people are really hanging their hats on Cochrane and their mask review. Curious what you think about this - "All-cause mortality and fatal and non-fatal CVD events were reduced with the use of statins as was the need for revascularisation (the restoration of an adequate blood supply to the heart) by means of surgery (coronary artery bypass graft ) or by angioplasty (PTCA). Of 1000 people treated with a statin for five years, 18 would avoid a major CVD event which compares well with other treatments used for preventing cardiovascular disease. Taking statins did not increase the risk of serious adverse effects such as cancer. Statins are likely to be cost-effective in primary prevention." I'm guessing most of you don't agree with Cochrane on this, but they are the gospel on masking???
" If you think there are adequate data to prove that statement false, please cite the high-quality evidence." Usually yoiu have to prove that something works, not that it does not work. Proving a negative is an endless task with no end, as one can always raise some kind of objection .
I can see cancelling colonoscopy because anesthesia, but in my office we would just change it to a “sick visit”, check u out and if it was something easy like a wart freeze or shave biopsy just do the procedure if u felt up to it
But I work in direct primary care, we have more leeway
Been a nurse 3 decades. Saw the AIDS patients for the first time on our unit...which treated cancer patients with chemtherapies. What worked was love and kindness. Still does for many different cases, even with the psych patients are cruel and evil to their cores. Much of it is a spiritual war. Most have ignored it but it is very real. Now have been thru Covid treatments and dont agree with the CDC protocols and Remdesivir or anything that puts my patients in danger. Not here to follow orders. Lord Jesus Christ is my true Boss and King.
I truly hope that neither I nor anyone I care about encounter you professionally. It is 2024 and you ignore evidence based medicine, still treat evil spirits, and are arrogant in your beliefs.
In what regard are you referring? Do I believe in evidence-based medicine? Yes. Do I believe in evil spirits? No. Do my beliefs rise to the level of arrogance demonstrated in the OP's statement, "don't agree with the CDC protocols and Remdesivir or anything that puts my patients in danger. Not here to follow orders."? No.
You are not obligated to answer the question that was asked, but I think it would be fun to watch you try. Even better: it is also fun to watch you not try!
Humans are endlessly fascinating....so much potential, but an insistence on folly....what is the driving force behind this paradox? 🤔
Humans have been described as "An ape which cooks it's food and tells stories." To that I would add "and has unprecedented pattern seeking capabilities." It's a survival strategy and mechanism deep in our psyche, honed over millenia. Our visual cortex maps patterns, but is exquisitely sensitive to any disruption of that pattern. It why camouflage works, but the slightest motion and the camouflaged object is instantly visible. The downside is pareidolia, seeing patterns in random events and apophenia, attaching meaning and meaningful connections between unrelated events. Lacking better explanations, we create stories based on these perceived patterns and attribute them to higher powers, then defend our stories with all means at our disposal when presented new data. Galileo's final words on leaving his audience with the Pope, after having to deny the earth circles the sun, "Yet it still moves." Folly and paradox, indeed.
Are you answering my "Are you without flaw in this regard?" question above in an implicit manner so as to avoid the uncomfortable action of explicitly acknowledging you are not flawless?
If not:
a) What are you doing?
b) Are you willing to answer that question explicitly, Yes or No?
This thread reminded me of a chorale concert at a nearby university. The concert took place in fall 2020. Every chorister wore a mask.
Then at a private school attended by my nieces, as late as 2022, the students in the orchestral ensemble had to be masked. This went for wind and brass players too. So little holes were cut in the masks for mouthpieces. It made it look more like a circus.
It's stupid, you're right, but it is not important. What is important is how many people have died (and are still dying) from COVID and how many could have been saved with proper and consistent use of adequate masks.
Again: there is NO evidence , NO data that support the direct impact on masks saving lives. You are making a (quite loose) ASSOCIATION of two events , but proof of causality does not exist. There is also little data on HARMS caused by masks , that are real and plenty. When we do a risk /benefit analysis of this practice ( masking ) it does not support VALUE for this intervention. You are simply trapped in a hubris , a belief , a myth , but this practice does NOT stand the scrutiny of an evidence-based analysis. Not in vain the vast majority of people ( collective wisdom ) and most public health organizations around the world have already discarded the use of masks. You are welcome to use them if you feel that it protects you. It is your belief that must be respected. But promoting and teaching the use of masks at this point is preposterous.
Again: masks are nothing new, they have been used for hundred of years for various purposes, from diving to astronauts, nuclear reactors, painting, with cement and iron dust, asbestos, chemical and biological laboratories, the military against poisonous gases, chemical and biological poisons, etc. The whole industry lives from the production of masks. The idea that all these people don't know what they are doing and that masks do not work is insane.
Where is the data proving that masking 'saves lives' ? ...
Pre-pandemic recommendations for pandemic preparedness/ response, after extensive review of evidence by experts did not include masking to prevent transmissions of Respiratory Viruses. These recommendations were based mostly on data from Influenza: a virus that is even less transmissible than SARS-CoV2 ! . Why we suddenly made a U-turn during COVID and placed our faith on the facial covering ANYTIME, with ANYTHING, EVERYWHERE even in open spaces? The only explanation is a premonition, cult-based decision, somehow valid for reassurance and comfort in response to fear to an unknown pathogen .That's understandable...But wearing masks in 2024 ? : the only explanation is the perpetuation of a superstition, myths, cult-like behavior. It should be respected among lay people, but science and data- driven healthcare professionals should refrain from covering their faces or promoting this non-proven intervention. Where is the data proving that masking 'saves lives' ? Indeed, the RCTs conducted prior and the few after COVID have consistently shown minimal or no impact on transmission. In addition, the downsides are important and evident. As a result, from the vast majority of the 'common - sensed' , lay population to the latests CDC recs have understood all these factors and massively discard the use of masks as a cost-effective Public Health intervention ( back to the future ! ) . It's important that healthcare professionals have our statements, teaching and own behaviors supported by DATA, not on our feelings / intuition on soothing, conspicous, not proven interventions.
Masks are nothing new, they have been used for hundred of years in various occasions, from diving to astronauts, nuclear reactors, painting, with cement and iron dust, asbestos, chemical and biological laboratories, the military against poisonous gases, chemical and biological poisons, etc. The whole industry lives from the production of masks. The idea that all these people don't know what they are doing is insane.
You don't think we should be A LOT MORE concerned with what is killing significantly more people each year THAT IS NOT COVID, since that's where the lion's share of excess mortality is happening.
"NOTE: All death rate data after 2019 are United Nations projections and therefore DO NOT include any impacts from COVID-19." Kinda makes the data 5 years out of date and pointless, doesn't ir?
No, it does not. If you look up individual papers that have analyzed this, you'll see that numbers are still pretty close to peer-reviewed estimates. (They are ALL estimates)
"We estimate that the mean global per capita excess mortality rate was 0.06% in 2020"
When compared to the variance demonstrated in past years, this is only slightly higher than the Macrotrends estimate. A deviation of .06% either from year to year or from the 5 year average is really quite low as shown by the historical data from that chart and any others that can be found on the topic.
I used the Macrotrends site because its the cleanest presentation on the subject. While NOBODY's estimates are exact, worldwide mortality has varied much more significantly in other years that passed than in 2020, yet without much notice or fearmongering.
Only conclusion that can be made with available data: COVID19 was unable even to make a perceivable dent in worldwide mortality.
CDC EUA Surgical Masks, page 3, II : “Therefore, a surgical mask may not provide the user with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection. For this reason, surgical masks are not recommended for use in aerosol generating procedures and any clinical conditions where there is significant risk of infection through inhalation exposure.” https://www.fda.gov/media/140894/download?attachment
I first investigated masking in relation to wildfire smoke protection pre-Covid. It is hard to accept that the shifting and contradictory recommendations occurring in the few short months around Covid could be scientifically based.
there is a vast difference between a surgical mask (those thin, blue ones) and an N95. I had extra N95s lying around at the beginning of Covid precisely because of wildfire smoke. they work well and made it much easier to breathe in a smokey environment.
Exactly, anyone who has not used an N95 in a professional setting with a formal fit and seal test has no idea how critical it is for strict adherence to application requirements to be effective. Or how strenuous extended use is when applied properly. This is why there has been so much push back from industrial hygienist to the mask rules.
"Most people will find it difficult to wear the masks correctly." "Anyone with lung or heart disease should check with their health care provider before using any mask." "Masks are not approved for children."
I do agree with the statement that if you are masking for every patient encounter without exception, then that is a truly zero prejudice position to take.
Likewise, if you masked for no one.
I would add though, that only an N95 would effectively protect you from the patient, and them from you. A cloth mask is just silly signalling. And even a surgical mask isn’t going to do much, based on the evidence I’ve seen.
There are ~20 levels of respiratory protection. In the best hazmats, one can dive in Olympic pool full of viruses instead of water, and not get infected. It is important that one choses adequate level of protection and use it properly.
First paragraph : states his own absolute about something he couldn’t possibly know and contradicted by evidence both before and after.
Third paragraph: criticizes the same behavior he endorses in paragraph 1. He doesn’t talk about the timing, but in fact AIDS was very different at the beginning because it was a completely new type of virus. Unlike with COVID where you had many other coronaviruses and data about their transmission there was nothing known about AIDS, not even that the cause was viral. It also had a near 100% mortality rate regardless of age or health. Some precautionary measures were certainly continued well after evidence showed they were not useful (sound familiar?) but a needle stick could still be fatal. That was very wrong, but I would think the lesson learned would be to think about what was already known, not exacerbate a panic mentality in the public.
I made the fwg commnet to Catherine Sarkisian's piece, and interestingly enough it would apply to HIV as well. Just stating what I've known for several decades since the 1st SARS, and no offence intended: "Holistic medicine practitioners’ understanding of health/disease/immunity enables them to go maskless due to a lack of fear of viral disease. Reading that some conventional medical practitioners have this unreasonable (that is to holistic thinking) fear makes it quite astonishing that conventional medicine dominates, yet unsurprising that many people don’t trust doctors post-covid. "
I can see the argument in the short term for wearing a mask if a patient is. You're probably going to cause emotional distress in people who are still wearing masks. Which might affect any readings you might need to get from them for medical diagnosis. However, I think the main end goal should be to encourage the patient to feel comfortable being in a room with people while not wearing a mask. To get them slowly back to feeling okay with not wearing one again.
"I suspect that masking patients and providers remains at least somewhat effective in reducing transmission of SARS-COV2." Amazing that this above opinion has caused such bitterly harsh and dogmatic judgement toward many individuals and their professions. Especially when the editor-in-chief at Cochrane has said things like this - “Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation,” and this - “It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive,” she continued. “Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.” Here is the link, I encourage you to read the whole thing. https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-what-the-cochrane-review-says-about-masks-for-covid-19-and-what-it-doesnt/
You're right, Steve Cox. The Cochrane report has the fundamental flaw of doing a meta-investigation of the quality of human design in development. Averages are not important here, the best results are important. If Cochrane had done a meta-study of airplanes in 1903, he would have concluded that balloons were better. And that would be wrong, because that one plane that actually flew was more important information than the hundreds that didn't work before. That's just one problem, there are many others. A good article is also in Scientific American.
1. The backstory here is that several weeks after the article was published Cochrane obviously buckled to pressure from mainstream media and to its institutional 'funders and partners'.
Its very biggest funders are the UK govt, the USA govt, and the German govt. But other govts are also in the mix.
They all give Cochrane money via their national health departments. And all staunchly advocated the wearing of masks during the pandemic.. Take a peek:
2. The feeble assuaging ‘context’ belatedly offered by Cochrane’s editor-in-chief was by no means a retraction of the mask study. The study’s main author Tom Jefferson stands by its modest conclusions, and has written about thestrangely aggressive reactions the study received.
Pro memoria, here’s the direct quote from the study’s summary:
'Key messages:
We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.'
Hardly inflammatory.
But as Jeffrey Anderson points out in City Journal, there may be no cure for maskaholics.
Anderson’s piece is thoughtful and well-written, and examines the puzzling psychology of the masking phenomenon.
"Evidence suggesting masks’ ineffectiveness has remained relatively constant over time. In addition to the individual RCTs conducted across the years, which I discussed in detail in a 2021 City Journal essay reviewing the evidence, Cochrane published a review on November 20, 2020, that closely resembles its January 2023 review. Cochrane’s earlier review found that wearing a mask “probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza . . . compared to not wearing” a mask, and that using an N95 “compared to” a surgical mask “probably makes little or no difference for the . . . outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection.” In fact, the 2023 review repeats all of this language verbatim."
I keep coming back to the cost -benefit ratio of masking. Within a few minutes, levels of CO2 inside the mask mount to levels that OSHA wouldn't accept. And this holds for every type except possibly the silly cloth masks. The other masks shed micro plastics. To wear these all day is a health hazard. But the advocates don't want to discuss this. They focus entirely on the debatable "protection" from viruses.
It is because masks are not invented three years ago, there are more than 100 years of experience and research, use in many occupations, resulting in 20 or so different levels of protection, for different needs. After 100 years of engineering, use and research in many occupations, there is no known major health problem caused by masks.
Of course they protect against viruses, good respirators protect against poison or radioactive gases, viruses as particles (relatively large) are easy game. Just one has to chose adequate type of mask and wear it correctly. Cloth mask and surgical masks are not adequate. FFP2 is the entry level. But there are much higher levels of protection. Masks also protect against various alergen and carcinogenic particles in the air.
Masks have been widely tested and used in practice for hundred of years. Ignoring that research and experience, as if masks were invented in 2020 is strange. So far, about twenty levels of protection of the respiratory system have been developed, against dust, organic and inorganic gases, liquids, oil aerosols, high temperature gases and so on. Viruses are nothing special, they are small solid matter, particles, dust. The approach in practice is simple - if protection level x does not filter good enough, try x+1.
Cloth and surgical masks are not designed to filter aerosols and they are not adequate. If they were used, it is because "better something than nothing" reasoning.
The lowest level of mask designed to filter particles is the rarely used FFP1, and it filters out 80%. The second level is FFP2/N95. Filters at least 94/95% of 0.3 micron particles and MORE virus size (~99%). They were often used in medical practice, although they were often not used consistently. Then there are two levels of disposable respirators above that - FFP3/N99 and N100. They filter 99% and 99.97% of particles. Then there are levels of protection above that - elastomeric half masks, elastomeric full masks, PAPR, with various HEPA filters, hazmat suits level B and level A.
Anyone who believes that protection level x doesn't work, but instead of saying "OK, let's start using protection level x+1" says "let's drop masks", has a serious problem with logic, or more likely he is intellectually dishonest.
A little late to the party, but people are really hanging their hats on Cochrane and their mask review. Curious what you think about this - "All-cause mortality and fatal and non-fatal CVD events were reduced with the use of statins as was the need for revascularisation (the restoration of an adequate blood supply to the heart) by means of surgery (coronary artery bypass graft ) or by angioplasty (PTCA). Of 1000 people treated with a statin for five years, 18 would avoid a major CVD event which compares well with other treatments used for preventing cardiovascular disease. Taking statins did not increase the risk of serious adverse effects such as cancer. Statins are likely to be cost-effective in primary prevention." I'm guessing most of you don't agree with Cochrane on this, but they are the gospel on masking???
" If you think there are adequate data to prove that statement false, please cite the high-quality evidence." Usually yoiu have to prove that something works, not that it does not work. Proving a negative is an endless task with no end, as one can always raise some kind of objection .
As a geophysicist, I gave up on SA a long time ago.
I can see cancelling colonoscopy because anesthesia, but in my office we would just change it to a “sick visit”, check u out and if it was something easy like a wart freeze or shave biopsy just do the procedure if u felt up to it
But I work in direct primary care, we have more leeway
Been a nurse 3 decades. Saw the AIDS patients for the first time on our unit...which treated cancer patients with chemtherapies. What worked was love and kindness. Still does for many different cases, even with the psych patients are cruel and evil to their cores. Much of it is a spiritual war. Most have ignored it but it is very real. Now have been thru Covid treatments and dont agree with the CDC protocols and Remdesivir or anything that puts my patients in danger. Not here to follow orders. Lord Jesus Christ is my true Boss and King.
I truly hope that neither I nor anyone I care about encounter you professionally. It is 2024 and you ignore evidence based medicine, still treat evil spirits, and are arrogant in your beliefs.
Are you without flaw in this regard?
In what regard are you referring? Do I believe in evidence-based medicine? Yes. Do I believe in evil spirits? No. Do my beliefs rise to the level of arrogance demonstrated in the OP's statement, "don't agree with the CDC protocols and Remdesivir or anything that puts my patients in danger. Not here to follow orders."? No.
You are not obligated to answer the question that was asked, but I think it would be fun to watch you try. Even better: it is also fun to watch you not try!
Humans are endlessly fascinating....so much potential, but an insistence on folly....what is the driving force behind this paradox? 🤔
Humans have been described as "An ape which cooks it's food and tells stories." To that I would add "and has unprecedented pattern seeking capabilities." It's a survival strategy and mechanism deep in our psyche, honed over millenia. Our visual cortex maps patterns, but is exquisitely sensitive to any disruption of that pattern. It why camouflage works, but the slightest motion and the camouflaged object is instantly visible. The downside is pareidolia, seeing patterns in random events and apophenia, attaching meaning and meaningful connections between unrelated events. Lacking better explanations, we create stories based on these perceived patterns and attribute them to higher powers, then defend our stories with all means at our disposal when presented new data. Galileo's final words on leaving his audience with the Pope, after having to deny the earth circles the sun, "Yet it still moves." Folly and paradox, indeed.
Are you answering my "Are you without flaw in this regard?" question above in an implicit manner so as to avoid the uncomfortable action of explicitly acknowledging you are not flawless?
If not:
a) What are you doing?
b) Are you willing to answer that question explicitly, Yes or No?
co-sign.
This article makes much more sense. Thank you.
This thread reminded me of a chorale concert at a nearby university. The concert took place in fall 2020. Every chorister wore a mask.
Then at a private school attended by my nieces, as late as 2022, the students in the orchestral ensemble had to be masked. This went for wind and brass players too. So little holes were cut in the masks for mouthpieces. It made it look more like a circus.
It's stupid, you're right, but it is not important. What is important is how many people have died (and are still dying) from COVID and how many could have been saved with proper and consistent use of adequate masks.
Again: there is NO evidence , NO data that support the direct impact on masks saving lives. You are making a (quite loose) ASSOCIATION of two events , but proof of causality does not exist. There is also little data on HARMS caused by masks , that are real and plenty. When we do a risk /benefit analysis of this practice ( masking ) it does not support VALUE for this intervention. You are simply trapped in a hubris , a belief , a myth , but this practice does NOT stand the scrutiny of an evidence-based analysis. Not in vain the vast majority of people ( collective wisdom ) and most public health organizations around the world have already discarded the use of masks. You are welcome to use them if you feel that it protects you. It is your belief that must be respected. But promoting and teaching the use of masks at this point is preposterous.
Again: masks are nothing new, they have been used for hundred of years for various purposes, from diving to astronauts, nuclear reactors, painting, with cement and iron dust, asbestos, chemical and biological laboratories, the military against poisonous gases, chemical and biological poisons, etc. The whole industry lives from the production of masks. The idea that all these people don't know what they are doing and that masks do not work is insane.
Where is the data proving that masking 'saves lives' ? ...
Pre-pandemic recommendations for pandemic preparedness/ response, after extensive review of evidence by experts did not include masking to prevent transmissions of Respiratory Viruses. These recommendations were based mostly on data from Influenza: a virus that is even less transmissible than SARS-CoV2 ! . Why we suddenly made a U-turn during COVID and placed our faith on the facial covering ANYTIME, with ANYTHING, EVERYWHERE even in open spaces? The only explanation is a premonition, cult-based decision, somehow valid for reassurance and comfort in response to fear to an unknown pathogen .That's understandable...But wearing masks in 2024 ? : the only explanation is the perpetuation of a superstition, myths, cult-like behavior. It should be respected among lay people, but science and data- driven healthcare professionals should refrain from covering their faces or promoting this non-proven intervention. Where is the data proving that masking 'saves lives' ? Indeed, the RCTs conducted prior and the few after COVID have consistently shown minimal or no impact on transmission. In addition, the downsides are important and evident. As a result, from the vast majority of the 'common - sensed' , lay population to the latests CDC recs have understood all these factors and massively discard the use of masks as a cost-effective Public Health intervention ( back to the future ! ) . It's important that healthcare professionals have our statements, teaching and own behaviors supported by DATA, not on our feelings / intuition on soothing, conspicous, not proven interventions.
Masks are nothing new, they have been used for hundred of years in various occasions, from diving to astronauts, nuclear reactors, painting, with cement and iron dust, asbestos, chemical and biological laboratories, the military against poisonous gases, chemical and biological poisons, etc. The whole industry lives from the production of masks. The idea that all these people don't know what they are doing is insane.
> It's stupid, you're right, but it is not important.
Causality is very complicated, and one aspect of its complexity is that it looks easy.
You don't think we should be A LOT MORE concerned with what is killing significantly more people each year THAT IS NOT COVID, since that's where the lion's share of excess mortality is happening.
Year Death Rate Growth Rate
2024 7.756 0.580%
2023 7.711 0.430%
2022 7.678 0.430%
2021 7.645 0.430%
2020 7.612 0.440%
2019 7.579 0.440%
2018 7.546 -0.320%
2017 7.570 -0.320%
2016 7.594 -0.330%
2015 7.619 -0.310%
2014 7.643 -0.310%
2013 7.667 -0.980%
2012 7.743 -0.960%
2011 7.818 -0.960%
2010 7.894 -0.940%
Source: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/WLD/world/death-rate
"NOTE: All death rate data after 2019 are United Nations projections and therefore DO NOT include any impacts from COVID-19." Kinda makes the data 5 years out of date and pointless, doesn't ir?
Sorry, just now seeing this.
No, it does not. If you look up individual papers that have analyzed this, you'll see that numbers are still pretty close to peer-reviewed estimates. (They are ALL estimates)
See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05522-2
"We estimate that the mean global per capita excess mortality rate was 0.06% in 2020"
When compared to the variance demonstrated in past years, this is only slightly higher than the Macrotrends estimate. A deviation of .06% either from year to year or from the 5 year average is really quite low as shown by the historical data from that chart and any others that can be found on the topic.
I used the Macrotrends site because its the cleanest presentation on the subject. While NOBODY's estimates are exact, worldwide mortality has varied much more significantly in other years that passed than in 2020, yet without much notice or fearmongering.
Only conclusion that can be made with available data: COVID19 was unable even to make a perceivable dent in worldwide mortality.
Whoever told you COVID is not the cause for increased mortality is Hitlerite who tried to disinform you.
You must be trolling. Lol.
What, you don't believe the vaccine protects against death from COVID?
I think this guy has to be a troll. Hitlerite conspiracy theory! Does he mean Nazi when he says Hitlerite? Or is this something new?
He's just trolling. His comments are everywhere in this post. They're unrealistic and ridiculous.
You are victim of Hitlerite conspiracy theory.
Lazy intellectualism at its finest.
"No, YOU do the work. I'm busy doing more important things than having to back up my wildly baseless assumptions and equally useless conclusions."
CDC EUA Surgical Masks, page 3, II : “Therefore, a surgical mask may not provide the user with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection. For this reason, surgical masks are not recommended for use in aerosol generating procedures and any clinical conditions where there is significant risk of infection through inhalation exposure.” https://www.fda.gov/media/140894/download?attachment
I first investigated masking in relation to wildfire smoke protection pre-Covid. It is hard to accept that the shifting and contradictory recommendations occurring in the few short months around Covid could be scientifically based.
How could masks that are not effective protecting against wildfire smoke, work on Covid? My take: https://open.substack.com/pub/karlkanthak/p/is-public-health-creating-and-fostering?r=1n5j8w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
there is a vast difference between a surgical mask (those thin, blue ones) and an N95. I had extra N95s lying around at the beginning of Covid precisely because of wildfire smoke. they work well and made it much easier to breathe in a smokey environment.
Exactly, anyone who has not used an N95 in a professional setting with a formal fit and seal test has no idea how critical it is for strict adherence to application requirements to be effective. Or how strenuous extended use is when applied properly. This is why there has been so much push back from industrial hygienist to the mask rules.
WA DOH smoke guidance: https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Documents/Pubs/334-353.pdf?
"Most people will find it difficult to wear the masks correctly." "Anyone with lung or heart disease should check with their health care provider before using any mask." "Masks are not approved for children."
Fit and seal test video. https://youtu.be/pGXiUyAoEd8?si=U76Zkys-ctY_ZbgO
Isn’t he from the place that brought us the Salem trials? Seems the Dogma runs deep in Beantown.
I do agree with the statement that if you are masking for every patient encounter without exception, then that is a truly zero prejudice position to take.
Likewise, if you masked for no one.
I would add though, that only an N95 would effectively protect you from the patient, and them from you. A cloth mask is just silly signalling. And even a surgical mask isn’t going to do much, based on the evidence I’ve seen.
There are ~20 levels of respiratory protection. In the best hazmats, one can dive in Olympic pool full of viruses instead of water, and not get infected. It is important that one choses adequate level of protection and use it properly.
First paragraph : states his own absolute about something he couldn’t possibly know and contradicted by evidence both before and after.
Third paragraph: criticizes the same behavior he endorses in paragraph 1. He doesn’t talk about the timing, but in fact AIDS was very different at the beginning because it was a completely new type of virus. Unlike with COVID where you had many other coronaviruses and data about their transmission there was nothing known about AIDS, not even that the cause was viral. It also had a near 100% mortality rate regardless of age or health. Some precautionary measures were certainly continued well after evidence showed they were not useful (sound familiar?) but a needle stick could still be fatal. That was very wrong, but I would think the lesson learned would be to think about what was already known, not exacerbate a panic mentality in the public.
I made the fwg commnet to Catherine Sarkisian's piece, and interestingly enough it would apply to HIV as well. Just stating what I've known for several decades since the 1st SARS, and no offence intended: "Holistic medicine practitioners’ understanding of health/disease/immunity enables them to go maskless due to a lack of fear of viral disease. Reading that some conventional medical practitioners have this unreasonable (that is to holistic thinking) fear makes it quite astonishing that conventional medicine dominates, yet unsurprising that many people don’t trust doctors post-covid. "
I can see the argument in the short term for wearing a mask if a patient is. You're probably going to cause emotional distress in people who are still wearing masks. Which might affect any readings you might need to get from them for medical diagnosis. However, I think the main end goal should be to encourage the patient to feel comfortable being in a room with people while not wearing a mask. To get them slowly back to feeling okay with not wearing one again.
"I suspect that masking patients and providers remains at least somewhat effective in reducing transmission of SARS-COV2." Amazing that this above opinion has caused such bitterly harsh and dogmatic judgement toward many individuals and their professions. Especially when the editor-in-chief at Cochrane has said things like this - “Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation,” and this - “It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive,” she continued. “Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.” Here is the link, I encourage you to read the whole thing. https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-what-the-cochrane-review-says-about-masks-for-covid-19-and-what-it-doesnt/
Other analyses include (with plenty references in the first and third): https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/commentary-wear-respirator-not-cloth-or-surgical-mask-protect-against-respiratory-viruses
https://theconversation.com/yes-masks-reduce-the-risk-of-spreading-covid-despite-a-review-saying-they-dont-198992
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311429
You're right, Steve Cox. The Cochrane report has the fundamental flaw of doing a meta-investigation of the quality of human design in development. Averages are not important here, the best results are important. If Cochrane had done a meta-study of airplanes in 1903, he would have concluded that balloons were better. And that would be wrong, because that one plane that actually flew was more important information than the hundreds that didn't work before. That's just one problem, there are many others. A good article is also in Scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/masks-work-distorting-science-to-dispute-the-evidence-doesnt/
(alternative https://t.ly/zgy1L )
Nope. Just two points.
1. The backstory here is that several weeks after the article was published Cochrane obviously buckled to pressure from mainstream media and to its institutional 'funders and partners'.
Its very biggest funders are the UK govt, the USA govt, and the German govt. But other govts are also in the mix.
They all give Cochrane money via their national health departments. And all staunchly advocated the wearing of masks during the pandemic.. Take a peek:
https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/our-funders-and-partners
2. The feeble assuaging ‘context’ belatedly offered by Cochrane’s editor-in-chief was by no means a retraction of the mask study. The study’s main author Tom Jefferson stands by its modest conclusions, and has written about thestrangely aggressive reactions the study received.
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-latest-in-the-war-on-science/
Pro memoria, here’s the direct quote from the study’s summary:
'Key messages:
We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.'
Hardly inflammatory.
But as Jeffrey Anderson points out in City Journal, there may be no cure for maskaholics.
Anderson’s piece is thoughtful and well-written, and examines the puzzling psychology of the masking phenomenon.
"Evidence suggesting masks’ ineffectiveness has remained relatively constant over time. In addition to the individual RCTs conducted across the years, which I discussed in detail in a 2021 City Journal essay reviewing the evidence, Cochrane published a review on November 20, 2020, that closely resembles its January 2023 review. Cochrane’s earlier review found that wearing a mask “probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza . . . compared to not wearing” a mask, and that using an N95 “compared to” a surgical mask “probably makes little or no difference for the . . . outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection.” In fact, the 2023 review repeats all of this language verbatim."
The whole piece is well worth a read:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-mask-of-ignorance
I keep coming back to the cost -benefit ratio of masking. Within a few minutes, levels of CO2 inside the mask mount to levels that OSHA wouldn't accept. And this holds for every type except possibly the silly cloth masks. The other masks shed micro plastics. To wear these all day is a health hazard. But the advocates don't want to discuss this. They focus entirely on the debatable "protection" from viruses.
It is because masks are not invented three years ago, there are more than 100 years of experience and research, use in many occupations, resulting in 20 or so different levels of protection, for different needs. After 100 years of engineering, use and research in many occupations, there is no known major health problem caused by masks.
Of course they protect against viruses, good respirators protect against poison or radioactive gases, viruses as particles (relatively large) are easy game. Just one has to chose adequate type of mask and wear it correctly. Cloth mask and surgical masks are not adequate. FFP2 is the entry level. But there are much higher levels of protection. Masks also protect against various alergen and carcinogenic particles in the air.