LONGECITY

 

 

"When they talk about masks stopping viruses, it is clear that neither JD Rucker nor the paper's author Baruch Vainshelboim understand the difference between droplet size and virus size, which shows total ignorance of the subject.”

 

 

Please elucidate what it is in JD Rucker’s piece and/or in the article that compels you to come to that conclusion. Provide citation which backs up your claim.

 

 

 

In the paper this is what they say:

It is 100% wrong to say that because the size of the virus is smaller than the mask pore size, masks must be ineffective.  The virus particles no not float in air as single particles. They are carried in respiratory droplets.  The size of respiratory droplets is in the range of the mask pore size. According to  a recant paper in Nature (https://www.nature.c...598-020-78110-x):

I don't have the time to dissect every inaccuracy in this paper, but on this point they are dead wrong. 

Please provide proof that the paper was not peer reviewed, as you claim.

I said it was not a peer-review study. It is obvious that it is not a study: no experiments were conducted. It would be classed as a review, which provides an overview of studies that other researchers have conducted. 

The review paper is not peer-reviewed either, as Medical Hypotheses is not a peer-reviewed journal (part of the reason why it is dubious).

Sounds like opinion, if it is, no citation is needed. If it’s an assertion of fact, then provide a reliable citation which claims, and demonstrates, that the “journal itself is suspect”.

So you are not aware that Medical Hypotheses is a controversial journal with suspect editorial policies, no peer review, and is an embarrassment and a problem to its publisher Elsevier? Why don't you read this to put yourself in the picture. 

Please elucidate what it is in JD Rucker’s piece and/or in the article that compels you to come to that conclusion. 

I don't really have the patience. But to be brief: people who don't know any better have stated that N95 masks, which block particles down to 0.3 microns size, will not block coronavirus because these viruses are smaller at around 0.1 microns. But they do not realize that viruses travel in respiratory water droplets which are larger than 0.3 microns. I learnt these details right at the beginning of the pandemic.

Well, hopefully there is one thing we can all agree on: 

Has outdoor masking turned into 'meaningless political theater'?

https://www.yahoo.co...-153323439.html

At this point, Natalie Shure writes in The New Republic, the "ongoing ubiquity" of outdoor masking has turned into "meaningless political theater," even as the coronavirus pandemic continues.

The Atlantic's Derek Thompson seems to concur, writing that "mandating outdoor masks and closing public areas makes a show of 'taking the virus seriously,' while doing nothing to reduce indoor spread"

"The counterargument is that wearing masks outdoors reinforces the idea that people should wear them indoors" (what???)

"The purpose of mask wearing isn't to send a message"  

"The point of mask-wearing is to reduce infection, and there's simply no reason to believe that wearing a mask while walking to the grocery store accomplishes this."

We can go back and forth and argue but I will take the word of the consensus of experts in the field like the TWIV (this week in Virology) folks.

The consensus of experts in a soft science field is often wrong, and this pandemic emphasizes that fact. The higher the stakes and the softer the science, the more skeptical one must be of any expert opinion.

The sociologist Zeynep Tufekci got a lot right about the pandemic (including getting the know-nothing experts to change their dumb opinion about masks) for the right reasons. She is one of the few people worth following.

https://www.podchase...-tufek-83601032

https://www.theinsig...ting-of-science

https://www.theinsig...mic-anniversary

https://www.theatlan...r-masks/617656/

https://www.theinsig...rchive?sort=new

https://www.theatlan...zeynep-tufekci/

The thread has veered off topic with speculations of Russian disinformation campaigns and the like. Let's keep it on topic and lower the temperature. 

But masks' luck ran out after October in the West, and now, it seems that the same thing is starting to happen in Asia.

 

https://ourworldinda...e~South America

It has nothing to do with luck. As referenced/cited several times in this thread, population-wide face coverings and masking has never proven effective in stopping pandemics. The literature clearly shows that in controlled environments with professionals and good equipment, that there CAN be some benefit to wearing a mask, but out in the "real world", masks fail to provide substantial benefits. The largest uncontrolled observational study in the U.S. indicated barely over a 1% difference between mask-mandated areas and non mask-mandated areas.

Asian nations like Thailand are learning this once again as cases are spiking, Japan as well.

Fortunately, Asian nations will continue to do better in mortality statistics because on average they are younger and MUCH less obese than people in the "west" (two factors highly correlated with COVID mortality).

Why highlight the limited effectiveness of masks? Because COVID is an evolving situation. When certain interventions are proven to be not very effective, it would benefit society to focus on different, more successful interventions.

The other thing that Asian countries do (or at least South Korea which I have looked at in some detail) is extensive contact tracing.

In SK, citizens are required to have a government mandated contact tracing app on their smartphone which uses GPS and other locationing technology to determine who is in the vicinity of whom.  If someone comes up positive for covid, they have a algorithm that computes a risk assessment for your getting infected which depends on how long you were in the vicinity of an infected party and then calls you in for testing or quarantining based on that risk.

I think some other Asian countries have similar contact tracing requirements but I've got far less information on those. 

I think in the case of SK, this probably has far more to do with their success than any other single item.

Such a government mandated intrusion into peoples private lives would most likely never fly in the West (I personally would not favor it). How many of us are confident that giving the government that sort of detailed tracking of your daily life would never be misused? Before you answer that, those of you on each side of the political spectrum imagine that the worst member of the opposing party is currently in charge (because at some point they will be).

There has been significantly less covid cases in US states which had high adherence (I'm not sure how accurate this factor is but whatever) up to October. This was first mentioned by Hebbeh, but it went in one ear and out the other.
 
And as I mentioned before, masks seemed to have worked less well after October, but that doesn't change the fact that they worked well before the winter wave.
 
Mask adherence and rate of COVID-19 across the United States
https://doi.org/10.1...al.pone.0249891
 

In conclusion, we show that mask wearing adherence, regardless of mask wearing policy, may curb the spread of COVID-19 infections.

 

 

And as I mentioned before, masks seemed to have worked less well after October, but that doesn't change the fact that they worked well before the winter wave.

Clearly, masks exhibit pathetic fallacy in the sense that they are able to modify their protective characteristics in such a way as to accomodate preferential seasonal adjustment in effectiveness. Makes sense to me.

It has nothing to do with luck.

 
The locations where the more contagious variants first arose had everything to do with luck. There wasn't much spread in India because there weren't a lot infected people coming from China. The opposite was true of Europe and some of the East Asian countries. Europe didn't do NPIs early, and this caused the rapid spread and evolution of more contagious European strains. The East Asian countries did NPIs early, and that's how they cut off the ability of the virus to evolve into a more virulent form in Asia.
 

As referenced/cited several times in this thread, population-wide face coverings and masking has never proven effective in stopping pandemics. The literature clearly shows that in controlled environments with professionals and good equipment, that there CAN be some benefit to wearing a mask, but out in the "real world", masks fail to provide substantial benefits. The largest uncontrolled observational study in the U.S. indicated barely over a 1% difference between mask-mandated areas and non mask-mandated areas.

Masking stopped the flu and significantly slowed down covid transmission before the more contagious variants developed.

Most of the pre-pandemic studies about masks and respirators are of poor quality. Even the so-called RCTs didn't isolate groups, so they're not that useful.

The 1% study (which was actually 2% to 5% depending on what you look at) is misleading, because it mixed in low and high compliance states and the winter wave which was driven by holiday gatherings and the more contagious variants.

Valveless, disposable N95s would probably contain any pandemic but there might need to be higher compliance. Since they're more effective at containing droplets, leaks wouldn't matter as much. But on the other hand, compliance might suffer because they lack valves. So, elastomeric respirators would be a better solution.
 

Asian nations like Thailand are learning this once again as cases are spiking, Japan as well.
 
Fortunately, Asian nations will continue to do better in mortality statistics because on average they are younger and MUCH less obese than people in the "west" (two factors highly correlated with COVID mortality).

 
Cases track deaths. And this is also about long covid, not just death. So, the obesity argument is nonsense.

This has been discussed before.
 
https://www.longecit...ndpost&p=904540
https://www.longecit...ndpost&p=904478

Clearly, masks exhibit pathetic fallacy in the sense that they are able to modify their protective characteristics in such a way as to accomodate preferential seasonal adjustment in effectiveness. Makes sense to me.

Except in regions like Asia. Have you ever heard of the cherry-picking fallacy?

 

 

from Florin post 642

Except in regions like Asia. Have you ever heard of the cherry-picking fallacy?

Doesn't the fact that there are exceptions in "regions like Asia" suggest to you that there may be other factors operant in mask-effectiveness claims? And, that utilizing the fallacy of composition is definitely not the way to lend credence to an assertion. Also, that pareidolia can be habit forming as can be the use of non sequiturs?

The other thing that Asian countries do (or at least South Korea which I have looked at in some detail) is extensive contact tracing.

India and Mongolia does extensive tracing, but it (maybe) worked until it didn't. Vietnam doesn't do extensive tracing, but it has fared a lot better. Italy does extensive tracing, but the result is poor. Tracing like masks gets overwhelmed if a virus is contagious enough.

https://www.nytimes....vid-crisis.html

https://ourworldinda...contact-tracing

https://ourworldinda...VNM~JPN~TWN~ITA

https://ourworldinda...VNM~JPN~TWN~ITA

Florin claims in post #644:

"Tracing like masks gets overwhelmed if a virus is contagious enough."

What is the source reference that confirms that claim?

Here is one the latest papers (Feb 2021) on mask effectiveness, which details a number of situations where masks were show effective in reducing coronavirus transmission. 

One situation mentioned in the paper is a COVID-19 outbreak on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, where people who wore masks experienced a 70% lower risk of testing positive for coronavirus. This is very good example, because it provides an actual quantification of the efficacy of masks. A 70% lower risks means that you are 3.3 times less likely to catch coronavirus if you wear a mask.

In terms of mask quality: France has now banned cloth face coverings, because scientific advisors have made it clear that cloth face coverings are not as effective as surgical masks or FFP2 respirator masks. Ref: here.

 

 

One situation mentioned in the paper is a COVID-19 outbreak on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, where people who wore masks experienced a 70% lower risk of testing positive for coronavirus. 

I suggest you go to the Roosevelt study itself, rather than relying on your "Here is one of  the latest papers" link which draws a supposed conclusion from the Roosevelt study.

In the Roosevelt sudy you will find the following:

"The United States Navy and CDC investigated this ongoing outbreak during April 20–24; 382 service members voluntarily completed questionnaires and provided serum specimens (a convenience sample comprising 27% of 1,417 service members staying at the base on Guam or on the ship)."

Nota bene: "...382 service members voluntarily completed questionnaires..." (my emphasis).

In other words, the Roosevelt study is garbage because of  self-selection bias alone. I'm sure you'll be able to spot the additional problems with that study, as I did.

Nota bene: "...382 service members voluntarily completed questionnaires..." (my emphasis).

 

In other words, the Roosevelt study is garbage because of  self-selection bias alone. I'm sure you'll be able to spot the additional problems with that study, as I did.

Self selection is not ideal in a study, but it depends on the study circumstances, and in this case, I don't think it makes the study "garbage" as you claim. 

To skew the results to erroneously show a benefit for mask wearing where there were none, self selection in this study would have preferentially recruit mask-wearing servicemen who did not get coronavirus more than mask-wearing servicemen who did, as well as recruit non-mask-wearing servicemen who caught coronavirus more than non-mask-wearing servicemen who did not catch coronavirus. It seems unlikely that you would get that pattern of self selection.

If you look at other examples given in the Feb 2021 paper table, they also show that mask wearing results in around a 70% reduction in the risk of catching coronavirus: the study by Wang Y et al, on household viral spread found masks resulted in a 79% reduction in transmission; and the study by Doung-ngern et al, on contact with infected people found masks resulted in a 77% reduction in transmission. All these percentage figures appear to be quite consistent.

So if we take an average of those figures from the three different studies, showing masks reduce transmission by 70%, 79% and 77%, we get a final figure of around a 75% reduction in viral transmission from mask wearing.

That equates to masks reducing the risk of catching coronavirus by a factor of 4, which is a huge reduction.

 

 

Self selection is not ideal in a study, but it depends on the study circumstances, and in this case, I don't think it makes the study "garbage" as you claim. 

Ok, it's clear that you don't understand the concept of  self-selection bias in relation to study validity.

 

 

To skew the results to erroneously show a benefit for mask wearing where there were none, self selection in this study would have preferentially recruit mask-wearing servicemen who did not get coronavirus more than mask-wearing servicemen who did, as well as recruit non-mask-wearing servicemen who caught coronavirus more than non-mask-wearing servicemen who did not catch coronavirus. It seems unlikely that you would get that pattern of self selection.

Recruitment isn't self selection.

The study is garbage.

Incidentally, "Medical Hypotheses" is, indeed, peer-reviewed contrary to your claim otherwise in a previous post..

Articles in press are peer reviewed, accepted articles to be published in this publication."

If you don't believe their claim then provide proof, if you feel compelled to do so, that it is not a peer-reviewed journal (hint, some entity asserting it isn't doesn't constitute proof).

Hip writes in post #649:

 

 

So if we take an average of those figures from the three different studies, showing masks reduce transmission by 70%, 79% and 77%, we get a final figure of around a 75% reduction in viral transmission from mask wearing.

That equates to masks reducing the risk of catching coronavirus by a factor of 4, which is a huge reduction.

Yu Wang study: "The outcome of interest was secondary transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within the family"

Pawinee Doung-ngern study: "We included contact investigations of 3 large COVID-19 clusters in nightclubs, boxing stadiums, and a state enterprise office in Thailand."

USS Theodore Roosevelt study: In this convenience sample of young, healthy U.S. service members experiencing close contact aboard an aircraft carrier, those with previous or current SARS-CoV-2 infection experienced mild illness overall, and nearly 20% were asymptomatic. 

You appear to be trying to average particular results of studies which have dissimilar study designs. Would you like me to school you as to why that's a no-no?

Recruitment isn't self selection.

 
I did not say "recruitment", I said "self selection ... would have to ... recruit". In language, when you have a phrase, the meaning of a phrase depends on all the words within it. 
 

Incidentally, "Medical Hypotheses" is, indeed, peer-reviewed contrary to your claim otherwise in a previous post..

 
Glad to see you taking an interest in the Medical Hypotheses journal. Earlier you did not seem to know that Medical Hypotheses has somewhat suspect editorial policies. And even it's name Medical Hypotheses indicates that the journal is about medical speculation, not medical fact.

Regarding peer review, this 2007 paper published in Medical Hypotheses says:

Medical Hypotheses because the journal deploys a system of editorial review, rather than peer review, for evaluation and selection of papers.

It's possible that Medical Hypotheses may have recently implemented peer review: I just found this 2010 article about the pressure Elsevier is putting on the Medical Hypotheses journal to start performing peer reviews on its submission, rather than editorial reviews.

In which case, thank you for bringing to my attention the updated situation at the Medical Hypotheses journal.

You appear to be trying to average particular results of studies which have dissimilar study designs. Would you like me to school you as to why that's a no-no?

 
Yes please do. I spend hours here patiently explaining scientific concepts and scientific details, so I think it is only fair that other people make the same efforts.

Though I don't think anything you say will detract from the fact that this Feb 2021 paper provides multiple scenarios where wearing masks has led to a great reduction in viral transmission.

The consensus of experts in a soft science field is often wrong, and this pandemic emphasizes that fact. The higher the stakes and the softer the science, the more skeptical one must be of any expert opinion.

 

The sociologist Zeynep Tufekci got a lot right about the pandemic (including getting the know-nothing experts to change their dumb opinion about masks) for the right reasons. She is one of the few people worth following.

 

https://www.podchase...-tufek-83601032

https://www.theinsig...ting-of-science

https://www.theinsig...mic-anniversary

https://www.theatlan...r-masks/617656/

https://www.theinsig...rchive?sort=new

https://www.theatlan...zeynep-tufekci/

The attitude here about scientists seems to be: Scientists are evil and greedy, they don't care about people dying and have not magically solved the problem, let's put our trust in Alex Jones instead.   I am appreciative of the fast rollout of mRNA vaccines (by the experts) that will help us get back to normal.  I will listen to the experts, not armchair scientists, media personalities and politicians.

Zeynep Tufekci is a good writer and makes some good points but also exaggerates. 

 
The locations where the more contagious variants first arose had everything to do with luck. There wasn't much spread in India because there weren't a lot infected people coming from China. The opposite was true of Europe and some of the East Asian countries. Europe didn't do NPIs early, and this caused the rapid spread and evolution of more contagious European strains. The East Asian countries did NPIs early, and that's how they cut off the ability of the virus to evolve into a more virulent form in Asia.
 

 

Masking stopped the flu and significantly slowed down covid transmission before the more contagious variants developed.

 

Most of the pre-pandemic studies about masks and respirators are of poor quality. Even the so-called RCTs didn't isolate groups, so they're not that useful.

 

The 1% study (which was actually 2% to 5% depending on what you look at) is misleading, because it mixed in low and high compliance states and the winter wave which was driven by holiday gatherings and the more contagious variants.

 

Valveless, disposable N95s would probably contain any pandemic but there might need to be higher compliance. Since they're more effective at containing droplets, leaks wouldn't matter as much. But on the other hand, compliance might suffer because they lack valves. So, elastomeric respirators would be a better solution.
 

 
Cases track deaths. And this is also about long covid, not just death. So, the obesity argument is nonsense.

 

This has been discussed before.
 
https://www.longecit...ndpost&p=904540
https://www.longecit...ndpost&p=904478

"Not just death..."

You have repeatedly and emphatically said throughout this discussion that "all that matters is the deaths per million"

Are you changing your mind on this.

Also I am unsure where you are getting data/research that claims age and obesity have nothing to do with mortality rate. I cannot find any. Evidence for the age/obesity link is overwhelming and obvious: 

https://www.heart.or...lications-death

https://www.webmd.co...t-age-matters#1

https://www.cdc.gov/...wr/mm7010e4.htm

https://www.thehealt...res-how-795571/

https://www.acsh.org...x-and-age-15163

I could list 100 more resources that make the obesity and age link to COVID mortality. I can find none that claim there is no association with obesity and age, as you are suggesting.

Re: Hip’s post #652

“I did not say "recruitment", I said "self selection ... would have to ... recruit". In language, when you have a phrase, the meaning of a phrase depends on all the words within it.”

“Recruit” means to enlist someone for something. “Recruiting” is the participle form of the verb “recruit”. “Recruitment” is a noun meaning the act or process of recruiting--in other words if you “preferentially recruit“ It means you or someone has “enlisted”, or chosen, or made a selection to include someone for “something” in a manner that introduces preference. In this case, the “something” is a study.

Self-selection means that the person himself makes the determination to “enlist” for something. So, if you or someone “preferentially recruit” it means that self selection was not operant. Hence, I wrote (and be sure to pay close attention to the above definitions) “Recruitment isn’t self selection”. It applies to your statement because your hypothetical explanation of how the results might be skewed erroneously, explicitly relies on your proviso that one must “preferentially recruit mask-wearing servicemen”. Get it now?

The pertinent point about self-selection bias is that it does introduce bias into a study that relies on self selection as a means of gaining study participants. The USS Theodore Roosevelt study used self selection. And therefore is, wait for it, garbage.

“Glad to see you taking an interest in the Medical Hypotheses journal.”

Thanks.

It was you, in post #632 who makes an interrogative speculation which is totally lacking in basis:

“So you are not aware that Medical Hypotheses is a controversial journal with suspect editorial policies, no peer review, and is an embarrassment and a problem to its publisher Elsevier? Why don't you read this to put yourself in the picture.”.

And, then, you transmogrify your own words of post #632 into your current confabulation (post #652):

“Earlier you did not seem to know that Medical Hypotheses has somewhat suspect editorial policies.”

I, I ? did not seem to know...?

LOL

“It's possible that Medical Hypotheses may have recently implemented peer review: I just found this 2010 article about the pressure Elsevier is putting on the Medical Hypotheses journal to start performing peer reviews on its submission, rather than editorial reviews.”

You were presented with a fact found in a link (with a copyright of 2021) in which “Medical Hypotheses” asserts that they peer-review, and your response is to say “It's possible that Medical Hypotheses may have recently implemented peer review”. “It’s possible” Oh, is it really? The “when” of “Medical Hypotheses” implementing peer review is immaterial to your original false claim. A factual claim was made by Medical Hypotheses, and it turns out that you made a counterfactual claim in an earlier post without first checking on the current validity of that claim.

I would have thought that you would have had, at least, the presence of mind (well, not really, actually, considering what I have gleaned from your posts thus far) to have checked what turns out to be an erroneous claim before stating it. And then, when you were proven to be wrong, you cite a 14-year-old editorial which, incidentally, also asserts “Editorial review involves selection of a journal’s content primarily by an editor who has broad experience and competence in the field, assisted by a relatively small editorial advisory board.”, in addition to: “the journal deploys a system of editorial review, rather than peer review”. Too bad you aren’t paying attention to the current validity of your “facts” in lieu of spreading misinformation.

“Yes please do. I spend hours here patiently explaining scientific concepts and scientific details, so I think it is only fair that other people make the same efforts.”

Right, and that’s why when I asked earlier for you to enumerate the “corrections” you claimed you had for the author “who is getting paid” who cites Medical Hypotheses article in question as well as study author, there was crickets. To be fair “Daniel Cooper” deleted several posts, and it may be that you hadn’t seen it prior to deletion.

“Yes please do” in the above was In reference to my statement: “You appear to be trying to average particular results of studies which have dissimilar study designs. Would you like me to school you as to why that's a no-no?”

Ok, will do. Would you prefer your schooling to be public, or private? I would suggest you choose public so that interested readers can learn from your mistake, although I suspect most here will already know why what you did, isn’t done (intentionally, that is). Private would avoid you being made a fool of (again), but then, to the contrary, it would lack a general didactical moment that could be enjoyed by many.

Comments are veering towards ad hominem once again. Let's be civil.

"Not just death..."
 
You have repeatedly and emphatically said throughout this discussion that "all that matters is the deaths per million"
 
Are you changing your mind on this.

The "all that matters is the deaths per million" (deaths per capita) thing was meant to avoid using case counts which weren't as accurate as death counts at the start of the pandemic and to provide a proportional comparison between different pop sizes. This was also before long covid became a concern.

I'm not certain about how big of a problem long covid really is, but it has the potential of being very bad. Supposedly, even asymptomatics without risk factors can suffer long covid but how often this happens is controversial. So, even without more deaths and ignoring the potential of overloaded hospitals, increases in cases might not be so harmless.
 

Also I am unsure where you are getting data/research that claims age and obesity have nothing to do with mortality rate. I cannot find any. Evidence for the age/obesity link is overwhelming and obvious: 
 
https://www.heart.or...lications-death
https://www.webmd.co...t-age-matters#1
https://www.cdc.gov/...wr/mm7010e4.htm
https://www.thehealt...res-how-795571/
https://www.acsh.org...x-and-age-15163
 
I could list 100 more resources that make the obesity and age link to COVID mortality. I can find none that claim there is no association with obesity and age, as you are suggesting.

Look at India: it doesn't have the same rate of obesity as the US, but it does have the same rate of diabetes and more people (though not per capita) over 65 than the US. Yet, India has had a hell of a lot less cases and deaths per capita or even in absolute numbers compared to the US.
 
So, if masks don't work, there should have been a lot more cases (and deaths) many months ago in India, regardless of per capita obesity. That didn't happen, and the most likely explanation is that variants are to blame for the lastest surge, among other things like loosen restrictions on gatherings.

I noticed, that some of my posts miraculously dissapeard. Any idea what happened? Is it some bug in my computer?

 

 

Look at India: it doesn't have the same rate of obesity as the US, but it does have the same rate of diabetes and more people (though not per capita) over 65 than the US. Yet, India has had a hell of a lot less cases and deaths per capita or even in absolute numbers compared to the US.
 

The COVID situation in India is a disaster. I have a friend and colleague there and I spoke with him this morning and he was very scared and concerned about the situation. 

The death toll has also begun to climb precipitously.

On Thursday, the Indian government recorded 2,104 deaths, and an average of more than 1,600 people have died of the virus every day for the past week. That is less than the tolls at the worst points of the pandemic in the United States or Brazil, but it is a steep increase from just two months ago, when fewer than 100 people in India were dying daily.

There are signs that the country’s health system, patchy even before the pandemic, is collapsing under the strain.