2020 Aug 10, 10:03pm
1,300 views 96 comments
At this writing, there is a recent surge in widespread use by the public of facemasks when in public places, including for extended periods of time, in the United States as well as in other countries. The public has been instructed by media and their governments that one’s use of masks, even if not sick, may prevent others from being infected with SARS-CoV-2, the infectious agent of COVID-19.A review of the peer-reviewed medical literature examines impacts on human health, both immunological, as well as physiological. The purpose of this paper is to examine data regarding the effectiveness of facemasks, as well as safety data. The reason that both are examined in one paper is that for the general public as a whole, as well as for every individual, a risk-benefit analysis is necessary to guide decisions on if and when to wear a mask.Are masks effective at preventing transmission of respiratory pathogens?In this meta-analysis, face masks were found to have no detectable effect against transmission of viral infections. (1) It found: “Compared to no masks, there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”This 2020 meta-analysis found that evidence from randomized controlled trials of face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility. (2)Another recent review found that masks had no effect specifically against Covid-19, although facemask use seemed linked to, in 3 of 31 studies, “very slightly reduced” odds of developing influenza-like illness. (3)This 2019 study of 2862 participants showed that both N95 respirators and surgical masks “resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza.” (4)This 2016 meta-analysis found that both randomized controlled trials and observational studies of N95 respirators and surgical masks used by healthcare workers did not show benefit against transmission of acute respiratory infections. It was also found that acute respiratory infection transmission “may have occurred via contamination of provided respiratory protective equipment during storage and reuse of masks and respirators throughout the workday.” (5) ...
« First « Previous Comments 57 - 96 of 96 Last »
mell saysThat has nothing to do with testing. So, you think that the US has a high positivity rate, because people keep retesting positive people? FL has a positivity rate of 17%. The woman who used to run their data analytic program quit, because she was being asked to fake the data to make it look better. FL gov is definitely not trying to make itself or Trump look bad. I'm sure we get false positives, but Germany, France, and UK also get false positives, and their positivity rates are less than 1%.I do agree that our case numbers / actual infected numbers are much higher now than back in April. You can see this by the case / death rate. That means we are testing much better than in the beginning. OTOH, deaths are hovering at around 1K per day, which is within a factor of 2 from where they were at the peak in NY. Mell, what do you make of the high death rate in the US?
That has nothing to do with testing.
feedback panic porn loop
We are currently at 52 deaths per 100K. There are only 3 countries that are worse than that: Peru, Italy, and Chile. We will pass Italy soon despite Italy getting hit hard early on before realizing how bad things were and despite their aging population. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality Confirmed flu deaths each year are around 7-15K. Imputed flu deaths are around 50K in US. Imputed Coronavirus deaths so far have been 210K. Confirmed are 167K and counting. That's with major lockdowns and social distancing. Some people make comments based on the assumption that social distancing doesn't reduce deaths. If people went about life as normal, the death count would be much higher.
WookieMan saysYou don't have an answer for that Some people get coronavirus while being very careful, and some don't get it despite being reckless. Same can be said for driving or lung cancer or anything else for that matter. That's how stochastic processes work. Most people don't understand this, but if you regularly do research and work with numbers, these things become 'common sense,' because you see it so frequently.
You don't have an answer for that
Some people get coronavirus while being very careful, and some don't get it despite being reckless. Same can be said for driving or lung cancer or anything else for that matter. That's how stochastic processes work. Most people don't understand this, but if you regularly do research and work with numbers, these things become 'common sense,' because you see it so frequently.
It's not about doing the right thing. It's about having the appearance of doing the right thing, which right now is masks.
The only cure for COVID is RALLY! and nuking the Post Office.
The coronavirus is much deadlier than the flu
You keep lying. Surgical masks reduce aerosolized coronavirus from positive people. P=0.02, which means 2% probability it was by chance. This link was in post #60.
You're projecting your motivations onto other people, and it reveals who you are. The economy is in the shitter and people are dying. Some people ask what they can do to help fix the problem. Wearing the mask is likely to help and is pretty easy. Some people refuse to be helpful, because FREEDOM!I'm not particularly worried about myself as a health individual under 50. But wearing a mask is an easy way to help, and I'm not a selfish douche bucket.
WookieMan saysAnd this is where you are wrong. A bad flu year can kill 80k people WITH a "vaccine"Look up infection fatality rate for flu and coronavirus. Coronavirus IFR estimates are much higher than for the flu, so if the average person gets Corona, they are much more likely to die than if they get the flu. Therefore, it is much more deadly.A vaccine is available for the flu and if more healthy people took it, it would slow the spread and save lives. Most healthy people don't bother with the flu vaccine, because the risk to them personally is small. However, if everybody took the flu vaccine, the flu would spread more slowly, and less people would die. It's pretty simple, but most people don't bother thinking about that. Every year, loads of healthy young people get the flu and pass it on to some geezer in line at the grocery store. The healthy young person recovers just fine and...
And this is where you are wrong. A bad flu year can kill 80k people WITH a "vaccine"
WookieMan saysYou just keep ignoring the fact we have more cases with mask mandates and most everything shut down That's a single correlation with no control and obvious flaws. It is only convincing to someone who is desperately hoping to find a cause and who is willing to ignore all of the more compelling evidence pointing in the other direction. WookieMan saysAll you have to say is we're testing more, but that checks a positive box for Trump and you don't want to.Jesus Christ, I already wrote that. That's one of the obvious flaws that I referenced in your single correlation. You are correlating measured cases instead of actual cases, and the measured cases are now a higher percentage of actual cases. This can be inferred from the positivity and death rates. But that's not the only reason. Other reasons that ...
You just keep ignoring the fact we have more cases with mask mandates and most everything shut down
All you have to say is we're testing more, but that checks a positive box for Trump and you don't want to.
mell saysBy your logic everybody not interesting in driving a car or without drivers license should be able to mandate that all people stop driving cars to reduce their risk of killing them. That's the height of selfishness. I'm not suggesting that flu vaccine should be compulsory, and frankly hadn't considered the benefit of a real flu once in a while versus yearly vaccine. But, getting a vaccine that has very minimal risk (if that is the case) is a very minor imposition. That is not like not driving, which is a huge imposition. I would say it's more like not driving drunk, which does seem like a huge imposition to a subset of the population. I've seen people arguing that the infection rates of 20-25% or so may be enough for herd immunity. I believe it's enough for to lower Ro below 1 when most people are social distancing. I don't think many epidemiologists think it's enough for peo...
By your logic everybody not interesting in driving a car or without drivers license should be able to mandate that all people stop driving cars to reduce their risk of killing them. That's the height of selfishness.
enough hospital beds
I do miss reading AF's unhinged comments in real time.
If he would promise to stop talking about sodomizing Trump with barbed wire, OK.
Please write firstname.lastname@example.org if you would like to register to comment