4 ms·

Setting the injections aside for a moment, let's consider other pandemic-era government actions, like the non-pharmaceutical interventions. None of them worked

Setting the injections aside for a moment, let's consider other pandemic-era government actions, like the non-pharmaceutical interventions. None of them worked and it was clear from the beginning that they were not going to ameliorate covid's impact. Loose-fitting surgical masks do not meaningfully impede the spread of aerosol-borne viruses. Even N95s have been found to show no additional benefit compared to surgical masks in pre-covid research that compared influenza rates among procedure-mask-wearing healthcare workers and healthcare workers wearing N95s. People seem to forget that the uselessness of masks against covid was known early on, then experts were trotted out to hypothesize (incorrectly but authoritatively) that covid was actually droplet-borne so that the mask-orders being imposed would have some air of legitimacy. Many deluded people still believe that surgical masks are useful against covid. Then there were the capacity limits for businesses and forced closures of non-megacorp businesses. And the stickers on the floor at arbitrary, pointless intervals. Pointless because covid is, as we knew from the beginning, pretended to forget for a while when "experts" falsely asserted the droplet nonsense, and know once more... aerosol-borne. Replication-competent covid virions can linger in the air for literally hours. And the contact-tracing charade. And forced quarantine (not a thing in the USA but did happen in many other nations that were supposedly following "the science"), sometimes simply for alleged exposure to a PCR-positive "case". During the covid pandemic, most citizens of nations that actively tried to "fight" the pandemic were deceived and abused relentlessly and shamelessly by those in authority, abetted by many experts. Those who dissented were falsely labeled kooks, deplatformed, and targeted for destruction. I cannot read the minds of government officials in every country that imposed these sorts of unscientific and harmful alleged public health measures on their populations and tell you why they did it but I can tell you that it was obvious to many with relevant expertise or a rational mind and a willingness to look into what was being done and compare it to most nations' preexisting response plans for epidemics of viral respiratory illnesses and with the published literature with an open mind, even at the time when some were panicking, and know that they did not make sense and would not help.

ninjagoo 4y ago
Do you have any actual evidence for masks being ineffective? You keep saying they're ineffective, but you're not providing any evidence for that claim. Or for any of your other claims that non-pharmaceutical interventions are ineffective. Those are quite the extraordinary claims, in opposition to epidemiologists. You do know what extraordinary claims require, correct? In contrast, here is a report on the CDC's website on mask effectiveness for Covid: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm That report contradicts your claims of ineffectiveness ("uselessness of masks" etc.) as well as the relative effectiveness of various types of masks. On top of the lack of evidence for any of your claims, you accuse people of being deluded if they disagree. You call contact-tracing a charade, in opposition to epidemiologists. Those are just two examples among multiple others. So. Is there a reason for this incendiary rhetoric and gish-galloping in your posts?
- briandon 4y ago
  You've lived through the past several years and seen the complete failure of all of the NPIs. Are you just refusing to acknowledge it? Clinging to a covidian version of the "stabbed in the back" myth where if some people had just masked harder or gotten injected sooner, covid could have been extinguished? Did you even search for any peer-reviewed papers about surgical mask effectiveness against covid? Here's a model study that aligns closely with what we've all observed in real life (i.e. rooms full of masked people spreading and getting covid): "Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2" https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 "IMPORTANCE Airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks provide some protection from the transmission of infective SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols; however, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) could not completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when sealed." Here's the clinical study that found no difference between N95s and surgical masks: "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/ "Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza." Now, how many replication-competent virions need to make it around, through, etc. a face covering in order to initiate an infection? The answer is one. And you're aware that covid infections can be initiated via the exposed regions of mucous membrane around your eyes (ocular mucous membrane), right? Have you been wearing a full-facepiece respirator with N100 filters installed when you went outdoors? No, I know. You think that stopping some virions, 60% or even 30%, must be useful. And we'll all pretend that eyes aren't a significant route of infection because we can't get the rubes to all wear ski goggles everywhere all the time. As the saying goes, it's much easier to con someone than to get them to admit later that they've been conned.
  - ninjagoo 4y ago
    Thank you for the links. Let's examine them in order. 1. Paper [1] is a simulation from Oct 2020 - we have had better real-life data since that time, reflected in the CDC graph of relative effectiveness of mask types [2]. Also, further in that ASM paper [1], they state "Our airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks had a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by the virus spreader. Considerable viral loads have been detected in the nasal and throat swabs of asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic patients, as well as those of symptomatic patients, which suggests transmission potential (4). Accordingly, it is desirable for individuals to wear masks in public spaces. Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when fully sealed under the conditions that we tested. In this study, infectious SARS-CoV-2 was exhaled as droplets/aerosols and mask efficacy was examined. To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded. Although the efficiency of detecting infectious virus was reduced when the amount of exhaled virus was reduced, viral RNA was detected regardless of the type of mask used. These results indicate that it is difficult to completely block this virus even with a properly fitted N95 mask. However, it remains unknown whether the small amount of virus that was able to pass through the N95 masks would result in illness." So they conclude that (a) there is a protective effect (b) which is better if the spreader is wearing the mask (c) people should wear masks in public spaces (d) some virus does get through, but (e) it is unknown (circa Oct 2020) whether the amount getting through results in illness and (f) their process of forcing high doses of virions through is a lab situation and may have exceeded the capacity of the masks to prevent virions getting through. For the point (e), this study [3] estimates 300-2000 virions (not 1) are needed to cause an infection. For point (f) methinks that maybe masks are ineffective if someone coughs in your face 1 foot away; we'd have to compare viral loads there with those in the study. I didn't research it in that detail, maybe we depend on the scientists to do that and develop some guidance on the topic. 2. Let's look at your second link [4] This study is saying that "Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza." This is a 2019 pre-covid study. And that is not the same conclusion as that "medical masks and N95 masks are ineffective" or that "medical masks and N95 masks are ineffective in the general population" or that "medical masks and N95 masks are equally ineffective in the general population" or that "medical masks and N95 masks are ineffective for covid". Paper [1] examines this last point for covid. It simply says that for health care personnel, there's no difference in transmission rates for influenza for either type of mask, so we can extrapolate that these (trained) people will see equal effectiveness from either type of mask. To see if the masks are effective is a different study, though there is a clue in this study - 8.2% infections in an outpatient setting. To get a real understanding of effectiveness, one would have to compare that 8.2% infection rate to what the infection rate would be if those healthcare personnel were not wearing masks (I freely and unknowledgeably speculate that would be upwards of 80%-90% depending on their immune system). Yes, you are right that covid infections can occur through the eyes. For that glasses can cut down the infection rates. Goggles are probably better, but glasses work somewhat [5]. Also [6]. The mechanism appears to be unclear - whether it is by preventing touching the eyes, or by actually blocking virions landing on the eyes. Overall, neither of these links appears to imply that masks are completely ineffective, and I'm confused about how any reasonable tech/science-savvy person could read those papers and come to the conclusion that masks are completely ineffective. There is also [2]. Wearing glasses appears to convey additional protection. <rant on> All those surgeons and doctors and nurses wearing masks in hospitals and operating rooms before covid must have been idiots, eh? Semmelweis [7] must have been a moron to start the trend of hand washing in hospitals to reduce infections, yes? I mean, why even bother with medicine or science, we can just pray the virus away, right? We can eat dirt and uncooked and unwashed food and drink raw milk and suck on the pus from an infection without consequences!!! After all humanity has been around for thousands of years and science only for a few hundred! Why even bother with clean rooms in chip factories, it's not like viruses can infect chips!! <rant off/> [1] https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm [3] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0265816 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [4] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/ [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8193301/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8193301/ [6] https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13756-021-01025-3 https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1375... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

ninjagoo 4y ago

Do you have any actual evidence for masks being ineffective? You keep saying they're ineffective, but you're not providing any evidence for that claim. Or for any of your other claims that non-pharmaceutical interventions are ineffective. Those are quite the extraordinary claims, in opposition to epidemiologists. You do know what extraordinary claims require, correct? In contrast, here is a report on the CDC's website on mask effectiveness for Covid: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm That report contradicts your claims of ineffectiveness ("uselessness of masks" etc.) as well as the relative effectiveness of various types of masks. On top of the lack of evidence for any of your claims, you accuse people of being deluded if they disagree. You call contact-tracing a charade, in opposition to epidemiologists. Those are just two examples among multiple others. So. Is there a reason for this incendiary rhetoric and gish-galloping in your posts?

briandon 4y ago
You've lived through the past several years and seen the complete failure of all of the NPIs. Are you just refusing to acknowledge it? Clinging to a covidian version of the "stabbed in the back" myth where if some people had just masked harder or gotten injected sooner, covid could have been extinguished? Did you even search for any peer-reviewed papers about surgical mask effectiveness against covid? Here's a model study that aligns closely with what we've all observed in real life (i.e. rooms full of masked people spreading and getting covid): "Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2" https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 "IMPORTANCE Airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks provide some protection from the transmission of infective SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols; however, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) could not completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when sealed." Here's the clinical study that found no difference between N95s and surgical masks: "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/ "Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza." Now, how many replication-competent virions need to make it around, through, etc. a face covering in order to initiate an infection? The answer is one. And you're aware that covid infections can be initiated via the exposed regions of mucous membrane around your eyes (ocular mucous membrane), right? Have you been wearing a full-facepiece respirator with N100 filters installed when you went outdoors? No, I know. You think that stopping some virions, 60% or even 30%, must be useful. And we'll all pretend that eyes aren't a significant route of infection because we can't get the rubes to all wear ski goggles everywhere all the time. As the saying goes, it's much easier to con someone than to get them to admit later that they've been conned.
- ninjagoo 4y ago
  Thank you for the links. Let's examine them in order. 1. Paper [1] is a simulation from Oct 2020 - we have had better real-life data since that time, reflected in the CDC graph of relative effectiveness of mask types [2]. Also, further in that ASM paper [1], they state "Our airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks had a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by the virus spreader. Considerable viral loads have been detected in the nasal and throat swabs of asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic patients, as well as those of symptomatic patients, which suggests transmission potential (4). Accordingly, it is desirable for individuals to wear masks in public spaces. Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when fully sealed under the conditions that we tested. In this study, infectious SARS-CoV-2 was exhaled as droplets/aerosols and mask efficacy was examined. To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded. Although the efficiency of detecting infectious virus was reduced when the amount of exhaled virus was reduced, viral RNA was detected regardless of the type of mask used. These results indicate that it is difficult to completely block this virus even with a properly fitted N95 mask. However, it remains unknown whether the small amount of virus that was able to pass through the N95 masks would result in illness." So they conclude that (a) there is a protective effect (b) which is better if the spreader is wearing the mask (c) people should wear masks in public spaces (d) some virus does get through, but (e) it is unknown (circa Oct 2020) whether the amount getting through results in illness and (f) their process of forcing high doses of virions through is a lab situation and may have exceeded the capacity of the masks to prevent virions getting through. For the point (e), this study [3] estimates 300-2000 virions (not 1) are needed to cause an infection. For point (f) methinks that maybe masks are ineffective if someone coughs in your face 1 foot away; we'd have to compare viral loads there with those in the study. I didn't research it in that detail, maybe we depend on the scientists to do that and develop some guidance on the topic. 2. Let's look at your second link [4] This study is saying that "Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza." This is a 2019 pre-covid study. And that is not the same conclusion as that "medical masks and N95 masks are ineffective" or that "medical masks and N95 masks are ineffective in the general population" or that "medical masks and N95 masks are equally ineffective in the general population" or that "medical masks and N95 masks are ineffective for covid". Paper [1] examines this last point for covid. It simply says that for health care personnel, there's no difference in transmission rates for influenza for either type of mask, so we can extrapolate that these (trained) people will see equal effectiveness from either type of mask. To see if the masks are effective is a different study, though there is a clue in this study - 8.2% infections in an outpatient setting. To get a real understanding of effectiveness, one would have to compare that 8.2% infection rate to what the infection rate would be if those healthcare personnel were not wearing masks (I freely and unknowledgeably speculate that would be upwards of 80%-90% depending on their immune system). Yes, you are right that covid infections can occur through the eyes. For that glasses can cut down the infection rates. Goggles are probably better, but glasses work somewhat [5]. Also [6]. The mechanism appears to be unclear - whether it is by preventing touching the eyes, or by actually blocking virions landing on the eyes. Overall, neither of these links appears to imply that masks are completely ineffective, and I'm confused about how any reasonable tech/science-savvy person could read those papers and come to the conclusion that masks are completely ineffective. There is also [2]. Wearing glasses appears to convey additional protection. <rant on> All those surgeons and doctors and nurses wearing masks in hospitals and operating rooms before covid must have been idiots, eh? Semmelweis [7] must have been a moron to start the trend of hand washing in hospitals to reduce infections, yes? I mean, why even bother with medicine or science, we can just pray the virus away, right? We can eat dirt and uncooked and unwashed food and drink raw milk and suck on the pus from an infection without consequences!!! After all humanity has been around for thousands of years and science only for a few hundred! Why even bother with clean rooms in chip factories, it's not like viruses can infect chips!! <rant off/> [1] https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm [3] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0265816 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [4] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/ [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8193301/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8193301/ [6] https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13756-021-01025-3 https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1375... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis