3rd study in last week+ shows masks work

[Darth Omar]

How's about looking at instances where masks were utilized and worked? Hong Kong? NY? The 2 hairdressers in MO?

It's so weird how you guys are bending over backwards to prove masks "don't work," when every bit of anecdotal evidence we have disagrees w/ that, and every major healthcare organization is recommending them.

Correlation is not causation.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Masks are a good idea because most of the faces that we see in public are better hid anyway.
I include my own, by the way.

 

[BartenderElite]

Correlation is not causation.

Eventually, it hits critical mass. And there is a growing # of actual studies backing up the anecdotal evidence.

My own take is that we should look at countries that have had success keeping #'s low and basically copy what they do. Hong Kong had near 100% compliance on masks.

Once again, I don't understand the resistance. I wear a mask when I go out, and don't even notice it anymore. It might actually work, you know - I know you probably know more than the CDC & basically everyone in the healthcare and scientific communities - but it might actually work.

You should support the idea.

 

[Nordberg]

The concept that human life is sacred and should be protected stops at when protecting costs money. Profits are a lot more precious than life to the ownership class. Open up the economy, I am losing money. Fuck the lives of workers and customers. Trump is looking bad. Send them back to work.

 

[Darth Omar]

Eventually, it hits critical mass. And there is a growing # of actual studies backing up the anecdotal evidence.

My own take is that we should look at countries that have had success keeping #'s low and basically copy what they do. Hong Kong had near 100% compliance on masks.

Once again, I don't understand the resistance. I wear a mask when I go out, and don't even notice it anymore. It might actually work, you know - I know you probably know more than the CDC & basically everyone in the healthcare and scientific communities - but it might actually work.

You should support the idea.

I’m pretty sure not ‘basically everyone’ in the medical community wears masks and/or thinks they budge the needle significantly lol.

What’s up with the mask obsession anyway?

 

[BartenderElite]

I’m pretty sure not ‘basically everyone’ in the medical community wears masks and/or thinks they budge the needle significantly lol.

What’s up with the mask obsession anyway?

It's becoming a fairly universal recommendation - not just from organizations you would discredit, like WHO. It's hard to find someone serious not recommending them today. Because they've been working.

On the 2nd question, I'm very interesting in ending this pandemic, and avoiding a 2nd wave, and seeing a V-shaped recovery. So, yeah - I guess I'm a little obsessed with something that could potentially do that, but which Fox viewers still inexplicably resist.

 

[Hawkeye10]

For the Thread:

June 17

Reassessing the Guidance on Face Masks

The efficacy of face masks for limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 remains uncertain and hotly contested. Recommendations vary between countries as do the reasons given. In Norway, where I live, masks are not considered necessary because very few people are infected, and efforts to contain the spread of the virus have been quite successful without mandating their use by the general public. But the debate about whether or not masks “work” is complicated and requires attention to numerous variables and contingencies. Even if we can agree that masks do help limit the spread of the virus to some degree, the conditions under which they are most effective can differ enormously, and recommendations to wear masks “in public” can actually mislead more than they illuminate and even cause some harm.

We now know more than we did even a few weeks ago about how the virus spreads. In a blog post inspired by a Quillette essay analysing superspreader events, immunologist Erin Bromage delineates the salient principle as “Successful Infection = Exposure to Virus x Time.” Exposure time is important because infection requires a minimum number of virus particles (the exact threshold remains unknown, but Bromage estimates 1,000). So, repeated or continued exposure for many minutes or hours progressively increases the risk. Oddly, the discussions I read online, even in forums dedicated to SARS-CoV-2, often ignore exposure duration entirely, and some experts have neglected this important variable too.

https://quillette.com/2020/06/17/reassessing-the-guidance-on-face-masks/

 

[Darth Omar]

For the Thread:

June 17

https://quillette.com/2020/06/17/reassessing-the-guidance-on-face-masks/

Masks...it’s complicated lol.

I’ve read where the exposure time for COVID infection is fairly significant; which comports with what we’ve seen in the sense that being in close proximity for extended periods with infectious individuals poses the highest risk.

Think: NYC subway system. Nursing homes. An ICU with sick COVID patients.

Conversely, short random contacts with people in the public would be low risk. Would I wear a mask on a NYC subway? Yes. Will I put one on when I go shopping or whatever?

No. I don’t see the sense in it.

Btw, I learned absolutely none of that on FOX.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Masks...it’s complicated lol.

I’ve read where the exposure time for COVID infection is fairly significant; which comports with what we’ve seen in the sense that being in close proximity for extended periods with infectious individuals poses the highest risk.

Think: NYC subway system. Nursing homes. An ICU with sick COVID patients.

Conversely, short random contacts with people in the public would be low risk. Would I wear a mask on a NYC subway? Yes. Will I put one on when I go shopping or whatever?

No. I don’t see the sense in it.

Btw, I learned absolutely none of that on FOX.

If you read the link you read it at the link.

Bret Weinstein has been saying the same thing for months.

 

[Darth Omar]

If you read the link you read it at the link.

Bret Weinstein has been saying the same thing for months.

Nah, I’ve read it before.

One could easily deduce it from simple observation: the worst outbreaks correlate almost perfectly with high population density. Lots of people crammed together in a small area.

Or lots of people in high rise apartments sharing a common elevator. Common subway. Nursing home residents commonly share a room. Sharing a house with an infected individual is high risk.

All of that suggests it takes prolonged or at least repeated exposure. When people hear ‘highly infectious’ they think that means they can catch the COVID by walking outside in the park. In reality, it means highly contagious *under certain circumstances*.