1036 replies to this topic

[Hebbeh]

https://www.chron.co...ne-15794050.php

Military-grade camera shows risks of airborne coronavirus spread

The virus spreads most commonly through close contact, scientists say. But under certain conditions, people farther than six feet apart can become infected by exposure to tiny droplets and particles exhaled by an infected person, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in October. Those droplets and particles can linger in the air for minutes to hours.

To visually illustrate the risk of airborne transmission in real time, The Washington Post used a military-grade infrared camera capable of detecting exhaled breath. Numerous experts - epidemiologists, virologists and engineers - supported the notion of using exhalation as a conservative proxy to show potential transmission risk in various settings.

According to experts, the footage underrepresents the potential risk of exposure from airborne particles. Those particles may spread farther or linger longer than the visible exhalation plume, which dissipates quickly to a level of concentration the camera can no longer detect.

Rest of story at link

Moral of story is wear your mask.

Also, trying to attributive the increase in infection rates to mask wearing with charts is simply ridiculous.

[Daniel Cooper]

Also, trying to attributive the increase in infection rates to mask wearing with charts is simply ridiculous.

 

Has anyone here been trying to attribute the increase in infection rates to mask wearing? If so I've missed it.

 

What we're saying is that we see pretty good compliance with mask wearing (which the data that Mind linked to bears out) but we haven't seen a substantial decrease in infection rates. If masks work very well, and you have 80 ~ 90% compliance with wearing masks in public, you should see some significant decrease. That does not appear to be the case. So it is logical to wonder how well these masks work. 

 

This seems like a reasonable question to raise. But perhaps you disagree.

[geo12the]

The data is in. I can't deny what I see. Other people have kept track of it as well.

 

https://mailchi.mp/t...ts?e=a4b5ac53bd

 

https://twitter.com/yinonw

 

I am unsure where people are getting their mask compliance data, but CMU tracks mask compliance in the US and most of the country is well over 80% and most urban areas are way over 90%. https://delphi.cmu.e...3&compare=42007 For those saying no one is wearing masks, or it is only 50% or 60%, where are you getting your data?

 

I would be more in favor of mask mandates if they worked. We were sold on the fact that if everyone wears masks, the pandemic would be over quickly. That hasn't happened. Just the opposite has happened. Continuing to push a policy that doesn't work and is just getting people sick and killed, is not compassionate, IMO. Time to shift strategies. Testing, protect the vulnerable, use proven treatments, etc...

 

 

" where are you getting your data?"

 

From the same place you are! If you look at mid-September Mask compliance in North Dakota is  62%, South Dakota is 58.7%. Two weeks later the number of per-capita COVID cases surpasses NY and CA where mask wearing rates at the time were 92%.  You can hand wave and find other ways of explaining that data but one explanation is less mask wearing in ND and SD = more COVID

Edited by geo12the, 11 December 2020 - 04:32 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

But look at NY's mask compliance rate and their recent rates of infection.  Looks like they are in the 95% compliance range and yet infections are almost as bad as they were back in the March - May time frame.

 

The retort to that has been "Well, masks may not be keeping people from getting infected, but they are lowering the initial viral load so they aren't getting as sick". But that's a mighty fine needle to thread don't you think? They don't work well enough to keep you from getting infected, but they work just well enough to make the infection mild.

 

There are so many alternate explanations.  As I said earlier, it might be that a lot of their most vulnerable population got infected in the first wave and either died or survived and achieved some level of immunity.

 

Also, we know there are a lot of asymptomatic cases out there.  We're not sure exactly how many. You read estimates from anywhere from 2x to 7x the diagnosed cases may be asymptomatic.  NY has had 783k cases so far.  That means  from maybe from 2.35 to 6.26 million people in NY may have had the virus on a population of 20 million. There's a good chance that these people would have some lingering immunity. Maybe not enough to keep them from getting sick, but maybe enough to keep most of them from dying.  Combine a culling of the most vulnerable with a lingering immunity for a substantial part of the rest and you may have some explanation for the lower death rate in this second wave.

 

I don't think it is deniable that NY has good mask compliance and yet they've seen a dramatic uptick in infections as we've gone into fall.

 

[geo12the]

But look at NY's mask compliance rate and their recent rates of infection.  Looks like they are in the 95% compliance range and yet infections are almost as bad as they were back in the March - May time frame.

 

The retort to that has been "Well, masks may not be keeping people from getting infected, but they are lowering the initial viral load so they aren't getting as sick". But that's a mighty fine needle to thread don't you think? They don't work well enough to keep you from getting infected, but they work just well enough to make the infection mild.

 

There are so many alternate explanations.  As I said earlier, it might be that a lot of their most vulnerable population got infected in the first wave and either died or survived and achieved some level of immunity.

 

Also, we know there are a lot of asymptomatic cases out there.  We're not sure exactly how many. You read estimates from anywhere from 2x to 7x the diagnosed cases may be asymptomatic.  NY has had 783k cases so far.  That means  from maybe from 2.35 to 6.26 million people in NY may have had the virus on a population of 20 million. There's a good chance that these people would have some lingering immunity. Maybe not enough to keep them from getting sick, but maybe enough to keep most of them from dying.  Combine a culling of the most vulnerable with a lingering immunity for a substantial part of the rest and you may have some explanation for the lower death rate in this second wave.

 

I don't think it is deniable that NY has good mask compliance and yet they've seen a dramatic uptick in infections as we've gone into fall.

 

We have no way of knowing how bad NY might be WITHOUT the mask compliance. That's why I don't buy your argument. And if you compare NY and CA to states with lower mask compliance, the per capita rates are higher in states with lower mask compliance. And those differences are consistent regardless of the season. You try and hand wave those differences with various explanations: seasonality, the most vulnerable in NY are already dead, the numbers are not really real etc. But I believe the simplest explanation: States with lower mask compliance have higher rates of COVID because the masks have an effect. I think you are trying to play devil's advocate since you have said that you think masks might work.  

[Daniel Cooper]

We have no way of knowing how bad NY might be WITHOUT the mask compliance. That's why I don't buy your argument. And if you compare NY and CA to states with lower mask compliance, the per capita rates are higher in states with lower mask compliance. And those differences are consistent regardless of the season. You try and hand wave those differences with various explanations: seasonality, the most vulnerable in NY are already dead, the numbers are not really real etc. But I believe the simplest explanation: States with lower mask compliance have higher rates of COVID because the masks have an effect. I think you are trying to play devil's advocate since you have said that you think masks might work.  

 

This is a specious argument.  It could be made for any mitigation that did not work. "What, you say the eye of newt didn't cure your warts? Well, imagine how bad they'd have been if you didn't use it!".

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 11 December 2020 - 10:00 PM.

[Florin]

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Back during NY's first wave, tests were in short supply. They were essentially being rationed. It is therefore likely that they were being reserved for a sicker patient population. It would stand to reason that now that tests are readily available that they are being more broadly used. I for instance get tested once per week and I've never had a single symptom of covid the entire time. Therefore, you're likely catching a lot of either asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic people that would not have been caught before.  These patients will have a better outcome and will be less likely to die. Thus the difference in the death rate between then an now.

I'm really not sure what connection you're trying to make between cases and deaths. Proportional stats (per 100k/million/whatever) like mortality and ICU utilization would be unaffected, regardless of how cases are counted.
 

Ditto on access to new treatments that were not available during the initial wave, but not ditto on having first hand experience seeing a lot of covid cases. ND is only now in the meat of their initial covid wave. That is not deniable looking at the graph.  I promise you that NY doctors had far more actual patient experience when ND's initial wave started this September.

 
How much experience does a doc need to be effective? Correctly configuring some ventilator settings and proning someone don't seem all that hard to do; we're not talking brain surgery here. If NY could figure it out in a few weeks (from start to peak), why can't ND figure it out (with far better knowledge) in 3 months (and counting)?
 
And is there even good evidence that ICU treatments lead to a decrease in death large enough to can explain the stats or are you speculating?
 

There has been a change in the virus's ability to spread - we just saw a few weeks ago a paper that stated that the virus's R0 has increased. It is normal for these types of viruses to both increase their ability to spread while decreasing their lethality.  But, I'll freely admit that the latter being the case with this virus is speculation on my part.

 
Right, more speculation; we only know that the virus is more contagious but has the same lethality. This is completely consistent with the idea that masks reduce mortality (by dose dilution) even if they might not be so effective at reducing cases.
 

Of course ND has learned something from NY. But, no matter what they've learned they had an almost entirely virgin population with respect to covid infection when their initial wave started this September. No amount of learning will change that fact.

But what has ND really learned? Is it protecting its nursing homes? If it is, then what's the source of this large amount of mortality? The virgin population of old people living outside of nursing homes? But if that's the case, why don't we see the same increase in death in NY?
 

Have NY run out of old uninfected people? In their nursing homes (which were half their deaths) - yes that is a possibility. Old people living in a close communal setting like a nursing home is a recipe for rapid and complete spreading of this virus. So if half the source for covid deaths have now been exposed and either survived or died that will make a substantial dent in the fatality rate.

 
So, NY has run out of old, uninfected people in nursing homes? Yeah, maybe, but I'd like to see some stats rather than just speculation. Also, why aren't the older people that don't live in nursing homes dying in droves?
 

Your counter position is that mask haven't slowed the infection rate very much, but they have decreased the death rate due to lower initial viral load. That's every bit as speculative as anything I've said.

Well, no, my position isn't quite as speculative as yours. According to studies of hamsters and humans, we know that masks can reduce infection severity, mortality, and even spread. So, when someone claims that the spread would be worse without masks, it doesn't necessarily mean that their hamster ate their homework.
 
https://www.longecit...ndpost&p=900407
https://www.cdc.gov/...-sars-cov2.html
 
My position on seasonality (environmental factors such as temperature and humidity) is that it probably has a minimal effect (on mortality at the very least) when compliance is high and can instead be used as more of a proxy for travel and gatherings triggered by the holidays. Let's take a look at mortality and mask use in Arizona, Florida, and Texas. Notice anything? And what happens after compliance increases?
 
https://covidactnow....=/explore/13542
https://covid19.heal...use&tab=compare

Edited by Florin, 12 December 2020 - 06:21 AM.

[Florin]

The data is in. I can't deny what I see. Other people have kept track of it as well.
 
https://mailchi.mp/t...ts?e=a4b5ac53bd
 
https://twitter.com/yinonw

Lower compliance in Florida and South Dakota is associated with higher mortality compared to Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California. Cases are discussed in other posts.

 

https://covid19.heal...use&tab=compare

https://covidactnow....=/explore/13548

 

I am unsure where people are getting their mask compliance data, but CMU tracks mask compliance in the US and most of the country is well over 80% and most urban areas are way over 90%. https://delphi.cmu.e...3&compare=42007 For those saying no one is wearing masks, or it is only 50% or 60%, where are you getting your data?

 

Clearly, someone's (or everyone's) compliance data is wildly wrong. CMU's Delphi reports over 90% compliance for most states while the remaining handful are at least at 80% and with very little variation since the start of their chart. The national total probably (I haven't done the math) comes at about 90% compliance. UW's IHME reports 73% total national compliance and with lots of variation at both the state and national level. Delphi uses Facebook surveys for its compliance data, while UW's IHME uses a bunch of other data sources including Facebook. Since there's seems to be a lot of anti-makers in the US, Delphi's stats seem too good to be true. It also lack natural variation and relies on a single data source. So, IHME is probably a lot closer to reality than Delphi.

 

https://covid19.heal...k-use&tab=trend

[geo12the]

If you look more broadly at the data-not just NY CA and ND SD there is correlation between mask wearing and COVID. I am trying to download data from COVIDcast but having trouble. But I am still crunching the numbers. In the meantime here is a relevant article from October:

 

https://www.nature.c...586-020-02801-8

[Florin]

We hold out certain Asian countries as the gold standard of mask wearing, notably South Korea, since they've been so successful at suppressing covid. But when we wear masks and our infection rates don't plummet, the fall back is "well, we aren't wearing the masks as good as South Korea.  But, South Koreans aren't magical perfect people. Look around. You'll see people there wearing masks with their nose exposed, less than perfect masks (almost no one is wearing an N95 on the street in SK). 
 
You can not assume that there are perfect masks and perfect mask wearing and perfect social distancing in South Korea and that the only reason we still have covid is that we have yet to realize their level of perfection.

 
Almost everyone in SK is wearing either surgical masks or real KF-94s (N95 equivalent with ear loops). In the US and Europe, everyone is wearing a mishmash of cloth and fake or real surgical and more rarely KN-95s. Apples and oranges.

[geo12the]

https://www.healthaf...haff.2020.00818

[geo12the]

I would like to download all the data from COVIDcast and do a deep dive. When I try I get error messages. I am quite busy these days and am about to get sent a big project but will look at the data in my spare time if I can manage to download it. But in the meantime I looked at the states with higher and lower mask compliance and compared the numbers to new per capita COVID cases. Caveat: The mask compliance is based on Facebook so the data are not perfect. But they show correlations between mask use and COVID that cannot be handwaved away. The states used were  

ND SD Idaho Iowa Oklahoma Utah California  Washington New Mexico New York New Jersey Massachusetts

 

 

I looked at two week time points starting in mid-September because that is when mask number became available. I staggered mask wearing and per capita new COVID cases by two weeks. but even if you don't the data is similar. The data show a clear trend to increased COVID with lower mask compliance. This data needs to be considered when mask deniers say "people are wearing masks and it's not helping slow the spread". In places where people don't mask up as much, the spread is faster regardless of seasonality or the pandemic curves and peaks. Yes the pandemic is still spreading due to various factors including school/college openings and pandemic fatigue leading to les careful behavior. But data suggest that masks help.  You can't hand wave or dismiss this data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attached Files

•  cumulative pic.jpg   71.1KB   0 downloads

Edited by geo12the, 12 December 2020 - 07:39 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Er....

I am considered to live in Europe. And I wear a "mishmash of cloth", but inside the cloth I wear a qualitive multiple usage filter, that gets sterilized by ironing.

I am healthy, not having any symptoms of COVID19 and I am negative in all of the results, that I made.

I have made myself the cloth and I have payesd oly once for the filters. From the start of the pandemy to now.

 

[geo12the]

But look at NY's mask compliance rate and their recent rates of infection.  Looks like they are in the 95% compliance range and yet infections are almost as bad as they were back in the March - May time frame.

 

 

 

The per capita rates are still not as high as places like ND and SD. If they were a huge number of people would die.

[Florin]

There's almost no sign of the flu anywhere. This is more evidence that masks work and should used during every flu season rather than just for this pandemic. Some of the most likely reasons for why COVID infections haven't been completely suppressed is that COVID is more contagious than the flu and coronavirus strains prevalent in Asia and almost everyone is wearing cloth masks rather than respirators.

 

What If Covid-19 Measures Killed Flu Season?

https://www.bloomber...lled-flu-season

Edited by Florin, 16 December 2020 - 02:40 AM.

[gamesguru]

If masks work very well, and you have 80 ~ 90% compliance with wearing masks in public

 

Perhaps wearing them in public spaces isn't sufficient.

 

If you include private gatherings in the data, I suspect the "compliance" would drop to around 30-40%.  Even If you only exclude the people wearing single-ply bandanas over their mouth, it could easily drop into the 65-70% range.

 

So in that sense, yes masks—used only in public, and not always by the 3-ply specification—aren't terribly effective.

 

That doesn't automatically mean masks—as they COULD potentially properly be used—aren't effective. It could mean we just haven't tried hard enough.

[Hip]

The real cost of the public's lackluster compliance with masks and other coronavirus control measures is ultimately going to be paid for by the very same public:

 

In the UK, the government is considering placing a one-off 5% tax on everyone's wealth above £500,000, which will raise £260 billion. This tax is to help pay for all the financial support the government have had to give to companies and individuals during the pandemic.

 

Edited by Hip, 17 December 2020 - 06:10 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The real cost of the public's lackluster compliance with masks and other coronavirus control measures is ultimately going to be paid for by the very same public:

 

In the UK, the government is considering placing a one-off 5% tax on everyone's wealth above £500,000, which will raise £260 billion. This tax is to help pay for all the financial support the government have had to give to companies and individuals during the pandemic.

 

I'll admit that this is perhaps a bit off topic, but I'll make a prediction if it is actually implemented -  It won't raise as much as they think it will. Politicians tend to assume a static world where their tax policy doesn't impact how money is made, invested, and spent. The real world does not work like that. The very wealthy have a lot more options and at the upper tiers it will be cheaper for them to establish residency somewhere else as opposed to seeing 5% of their wealth vanish.

 

So, if it is implemented revisit it in a year and see if it raised £260 billion.  But of course no one ever revisits these sorts of things.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 17 December 2020 - 07:56 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

There's almost no sign of the flu anywhere. This is more evidence that masks work and should used during every flu season rather than just for this pandemic. Some of the most likely reasons for why COVID infections haven't been completely suppressed is that COVID is more contagious than the flu and coronavirus strains prevalent in Asia and almost everyone is wearing cloth masks rather than respirators.

 

What If Covid-19 Measures Killed Flu Season?

https://www.bloomber...lled-flu-season

 

Would it not be odd if masks were used often enough and were of sufficient quality to kill the flu season, but not covid?  The R0 estimates for R0 are all over the map from 1.4 ~ 5.7.  Flu tends to be right in the middle of that range from 2.5 ~ 3.0. 

 

So why would masks be stopping influenza but not covid?

[Florin]

Would it not be odd if masks were used often enough and were of sufficient quality to kill the flu season, but not covid?  The R0 estimates for R0 are all over the map from 1.4 ~ 5.7.  Flu tends to be right in the middle of that range from 2.5 ~ 3.0. 

 

So why would masks be stopping influenza but not covid?

 

Because covid is supposedly more contagious than the flu. Perhaps coronavirus particles in aerosols can remain viable for longer periods of time and it takes less coronavirus particles to infect cells.

 

But is there any indication that excess deaths during past flu seasons are lower in places where mask wearing is common? I'd really like to see those stats.

Edited by Florin, 17 December 2020 - 08:58 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Because covid is supposedly more contagious than the flu. Perhaps coronavirus particles in aerosols can remain viable for longer periods of time and it takes less coronavirus particles to infect cells.

 

But is there any indication that excess deaths during past flu seasons are lower in places where mask wearing is common? I'd really like to see those stats.

 

It may be more contagious than the flu. Or it may be similar.  R0 has been all over the map as far as estimates. But the R0 for flu is right in the middle of the range of covid R0.

 

But lets simply grant you that the covid R0 is somewhat greater than the influenza R0.

 

Does it not follow that if you "killed the flu season" by wearing masks that we would at least expect to see a dramatic decrease in covid infection rates?  One would think that mask wearing would have something like a dose response curve. Because what you're saying is that mask wearing makes a dramatic impact on the influenza transmission rates, but because it isn't "quite good enough" it's making far far less of an impact on covid.  That would imply some sort of step function in the dose (i.e. mask wearing) response curve.  

 

It seems like trying to thread a very narrow needle - masks are working very well for flu, but because Americans and Europeans are so ill informed they aren't wearing them enough, or are wearing them incorrectly, or are wearing the wrong masks therefore they aren't working well for covid.

[Florin]

Does it not follow that if you "killed the flu season" by wearing masks that we would at least expect to see a dramatic decrease in covid infection rates?

As I've mentioned before, it's quite possible that infection rates would be a lot higher than they'd be without mask wearing.
 

It seems like trying to thread a very narrow needle - masks are working very well for flu, but because Americans and Europeans are so ill informed they aren't wearing them enough, or are wearing them incorrectly, or are wearing the wrong masks therefore they aren't working well for covid.

Yeah, I didn't expect that the flu season would completely disappear, but on the other hand, perhaps the needle isn't that narrow. One way to try to gauge the needle's real width is to look at excess deaths during the flu season in mask wearing countries. I tried once or twice to find these stats but wasn't able to easily locate them.

[geo12the]

It may be more contagious than the flu. Or it may be similar.  R0 has been all over the map as far as estimates. But the R0 for flu is right in the middle of the range of covid R0.

 

 

 

The R0 numbers I've seen for COVID are all 2 to 3 times higher than flu. But R0 is only part of the story. My hypothesis, and it's just that, is that there is heterogeneity in it's spread and that you can have situations where some infected people, at specific times of infection, turn into "COVID factories" and produce and churn out tons of the virus. If you are near them at that time you have a high likelihood of being infected. But that is just my hypothesis based on everything my brain has absorbed about how the virus spreads.

Edited by geo12the, 18 December 2020 - 05:39 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The R0 numbers I've seen for COVID are all 2 to 3 times higher than flu. But R0 is only part of the story. My hypothesis, and it's just that, is that there is heterogeneity in it's spread and that you can have situations where some infected people, at specific times of infection, turn into "COVID factories" and produce and churn out tons of the virus. If you are near them at that time you have a high likelihood of being infected. But that is just my hypothesis based on everything my brain has absorbed about how the virus spreads.

 

If you'll do a broad sweep of the literature I think you'll find a variation of R0 over time and geography.  In fact, in my non-exhaustive perusal it appeared to me that there probably is a trend for lower (in many cases significantly so) R0s at lower latitudes (which is not surprising).  

 

And you're certainly right that a person's effective reproduction figure will vary with time as the infection progresses, and will vary from person to person (certainly some people will infect a lot of people and some will infect no one). But, for a population the aggregate reproduction figure should be all that matters if you're projection how an infection will spread in a population over time. 

 

We got a lot of press when we got a one or two studies that estimated R0 above 5. But, if you keep reading more recent literature you'll see studies still estimating R0 in the 2 ~ 3 range coming out.  Of course the higher numbers got the most press and the CDC emphasized them since they were trying to convince people to improve mitigation.

 

At this point finding the native (i.e. the reproduction figure without mitigation) R0 is very difficult.  What you can sort of measure (actually estimate) is the effective reproduction figure - i.e. Rt which has the effect of mitigation (masking, distancing, etc.) and whatever immunity is being built up in the population that have been exposed. You then have to try to back out the effects of mitigation and immunity which lower Rt below R0 which is another estimate.  So you're looking at an estimate twice removed.  

 

All that's sort of a diversion though.  At the end of the day, it sounds like trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth when you say "You stupid people suck, you're not mitigation worth a damn, that's why we've got covid all over the place" on the one hand, while on the other hand you say "Look at how well masks have worked, they've almost killed flu season".  I suppose you could find values of R0 where that would be an expected outcome. But whether those values look realistic I have not a clue. Someone would need to model that up.

[geo12the]

 it sounds like trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth when you say "You stupid people suck, you're not mitigation worth a damn, that's why we've got covid all over the place" on the one hand, while on the other hand you say "Look at how well masks have worked, they've almost killed flu season".  I suppose you could find values of R0 where that would be an expected outcome. But whether those values look realistic I have not a clue. Someone would need to model that up.

 

I'm just trying to look at the science and use common sense and fight the pandemic of misinformation and conspiracy theories floating around these days. I don't have all the answers. No one does.   

[Daniel Cooper]

I'm just trying to look at the science and use common sense and fight the pandemic of misinformation and conspiracy theories floating around these days. I don't have all the answers. No one does.   

 

And I'm trying to do exactly the same thing.

 

Common sense tells me that it's not very likely that we've done masking and social distancing just well enough to really tamp down flu, but not well enough at all to really do a good job against covid. That's my common sense gut feel. But, sometimes common sense lies to you so you'd really have to try to model that up with reasonable R0 values for flu and covid and see what you came up with.

 

If really get down to it, we're relying on the results from just a hand full of countries to tell us that masking and social distancing done right works exceptionally well. The really notable one being South Korea. We used to include Germany in that elite few but they have recently seen their infection and death rates climb so we don't talk about them anymore.  They are now at a third of the US numbers and rising.

 

My issue is that if "South Korean level masking" practically eliminates covid transmission completely, that the US going from no masking in the early spring to vastly better masking (though admittedly not SK masking) seems to have given less that stellar results. That violates my common sense. But, I will admit again that common sense can be wrong. I just wish you guys on the "masks are the answer" end of the spectrum would give us on the "skeptical of masks" side credit for good faith, which I don't see happening.  You yourself brought up "conspiracy theories" in your reply just now. 

 

My fear is that by ascribing the results in South Korea wholly to masks, we may be missing something. For instance, we had another study released just a few weeks ago showing good correlation between the level of mumps anti-bodies and the severity of covid symptoms. It wasn't as large of a study as I'd like to see (n=80) but there have been other studies linking the use of MMR vaccine with superior covid outcomes.

 

And it just so happens, mumps and measles were still endemic in South Korea as late as 2001 when that country went on a major push for MMR vaccinations including vaccinating teens and adults that could not prove childhood vaccination. So, it's possible that this has a hand in South Korea's fantastic performance. But, since the conventional wisdom is "it's the masks" I think it is likely that it isn't being investigated as much as it should be. 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 18 December 2020 - 06:47 PM.

[geo12the]

And I'm trying to do exactly the same thing.

 

Common sense tells me that it's not very likely that we've done masking and social distancing just well enough to really tamp down flu, but not well enough at all to really do a good job against covid. That's my common sense gut feel. But, sometimes common sense lies to you so you'd really have to try to model that up with reasonable R0 values for flu and covid and see what you came up with.

 

If really get down to it, we're relying on the results from just a hand full of countries to tell us that masking and social distancing done right works exceptionally well. The really notable one being South Korea. We used to include Germany in that elite few but they have recently seen their infection and death rates climb so we don't talk about them anymore.  They are now at a third of the US numbers and rising.

 

My issue is that if "South Korean level masking" practically eliminates covid transmission completely, that the US going from no masking in the early spring to vastly better masking (though admittedly not SK masking) seems to have given less that stellar results. That violates my common sense. But, I will admit again that common sense can be wrong. I just wish you guys on the "masks are the answer" end of the spectrum would give us on the "skeptical of masks" side credit for good faith, which I don't see happening.  You yourself brought up "conspiracy theories" in your reply just now. 

 

My fear is that by ascribing the results in South Korea wholly to masks, we may be missing something. For instance, we had another study released just a few weeks ago showing good correlation between the level of mumps anti-bodies and the severity of covid symptoms. It wasn't as large of a study as I'd like to see (n=80) but there have been other studies linking the use of MMR vaccine with superior covid outcomes.

 

And it just so happens, mumps and measles were still endemic in South Korea as late as 2001 when that country went on a major push for MMR vaccinations including vaccinating teens and adults that could not prove childhood vaccination. So, it's possible that this has a hand in South Korea's fantastic performance. But, since the conventional wisdom is "it's the masks" I think it is likely that it isn't being investigated as much as it should be. 

 

I don't agree with your interpretations on masking  but we can agree to disagree.

I think what you see as lack of good faith is just that, speaking for myself, I see it as a life or death issue and I see people pushing a narrative that masks don't work as encouraging behavior that will lead to more sickness and death so that is why feelings are strong.  I personally don't think "masks are the answer" but I believe strongly they are a tool (not 100% effective obviously) to help keep people from getting sick. The anti-mask sentiment has been politicized and not wearing one has become a badge of honor among some people on the right and people into conspiracy theories. Not saying you are one. I am alarmed at the level of misinformation, untruths and conspiracies people will swallow and for some it's a again a badge of honor to espouse nonsense and eschew mainstream ideas. There is even a Qanon follower among us. I have ignored the conspiracy nonsense,  but I am starting to confront it more head on because I think the situation is out of control and we are turning into the movie Idiocracy. 

[Florin]

Well this was Fauci on March 8th on 60 minutes.

 

https://www.youtube....eature=youtu.be

 

Right, but he was recommending mask wearing only if you were symptomatic. On April 1st, that advise changed to "everyone should wear a mask." So, the claim that the advise not to wear a mask was a lie to ensure that health care workers had enough was also a lie.

 

So what's really going on here? What probably happened was that experts like Fauci were too ignorant about masks to recommend them at the beginning of the pandemic, but when they were pressed about it by the media and other more knowledgeable experts, they revisited their prior assumptions by reviewing the literature and talking to their East Asian colleagues which had more first-hand experience with masks. Then they tried to covered up their initial ignorance by saying that they were just trying to protect the supplies of health care workers and hoping that no one would check the date.

Edited by Florin, 05 January 2021 - 09:58 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

This is Fauci mid-summer (source: Fauci: Mixed Messaging On Masks Set U.S. Public Health Response Back )

 

"We have to admit it, that that mixed message in the beginning, even though it was well meant to allow masks to be available for health workers, that was detrimental in getting the message across," Fauci said in an interview with Mary Louise Kelly of NPR's All Things Considered. "No doubt about it."

I'll let you be the judge - Is that Fauci admitting that he was shading the truth to make sure that health workers had access to masks? Seems like it to me but everyone will judge for themselves I suppose.
 

[Florin]

Excepting of course broad spectrum anti-virals like DRACO and others.
 
If someone is going to use high technology to engineer frightfully transmissible and deadly viruses then don't you think it makes sense to use equally high technology like DRACO and other broad spectrum anti-viral approaches as opposed to hiding in our homes and living the rest of our lives masked up?
 
I just don't believe that the only solution is reusable respirators. Even if I accept that they were the solution to this pandemic, they shouldn't be the only solution going forward. We can do better than this.

 
Reusable respirators are more of an insurance policy against any pandemic in case BSAs, nanobots, or whatever don't live up to the hype or arrive too late. You can hope for the best, but you've got to prepare for the worst. Otherwise, you're going to wind up repeating the same kind of mistakes that the experts made; they put their trust in high-tech testing, vaccines, and antivirals while ignoring lower-tech masks and respirators. The results were catastrophic. Think about it this way: if anyone could eventually gain the ability to turn people into poison gas spewing zombies, would you want to have a gas mask available at any time or just hope that a broad spectrum antidote would be developed?

 

No one seems to be recommending respirators for this pandemic and instead doubling down on lockdowns. I can't think of any good excuse for this.

 

I've worn this mask nearly every day for the last 10 months. Maybe some people enjoy it, but I don't. I also don't enjoy social isolation. I want to go to dinner, see a movie, take a trip, live my life. I suppose if you're a recluse that likes the feel of cloth on your face this whole thing has been a boon, but I don't want to live the rest of my life like this.

A real respirator like the 3M 7502 with 2291 filters should be lot more comfortable and effective than what you're probably wearing (a mask with earloops and without valves). Hoods and helmets like the BioVYZR and MicroClimate AIR might be even more comfortable (except in the Summer perhaps), but I don't know how effective they are.