Face Shields..

MonacoMike said:
I have been telling that to people since the beginning, the studies they want to site were all conducted in sterile environments. I know of no study that has been conducted outside of a sterile environment.
Click to expand...

As usual, the discussions revolve around undisclosed "apples to oranges" comparisons.
 
alnav said:
This article was quoted and debated a couple of threads ago. From the authors:
It is apparent that many people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are asymptomatic or presymptomatic yet highly contagious and that these people account for a substantial fraction of all transmissions.
Click to expand...

This has since been proved false also.
 
Third Edition said:
Yes, most often the initial item is right, the retraction is forced, and perhaps the data changed.
Click to expand...

Its not a "retraction". They are clarifying their article because it was being misinterpreted and quoted out of context. A retraction is withdrawing the whole article. They have not retracted one word of it. They have added to it. They are not adding new data. They are making it clear what their view is and was.
 
Creekwood said:
Its not a "retraction". They are clarifying their article because it was being misinterpreted and quoted out of context. A retraction is withdrawing the whole article. They have not retracted one word of it. They have added to it. They are not adding new data. They are making it clear what their view is and was.
Click to expand...

They have changed the intent of what they said after the mob went after them. It has happened so often in this. Please stop pretending this is not happening, it is. Science and medicine are now ruined by the left because they politicized them too.

Can you understand it goes beyond just this paper, they are scaring away other doctors and scientists from publishing anything that goes against the orthodoxy...
 
Follow-up study from July examining masking results in the same hospital system the original author works for:
Association Between Universal Masking in a Health Care System and SARS-CoV-2 Positivity Among Health Care Workers
"Universal masking at MGB was associated with a significantly lower rate of SARS-CoV-2 positivity among HCWs. This association may be related to a decrease in transmission between patients and HCWs and among HCWs. ...these results support universal masking as part of a multipronged infection reduction strategy in health care settings."
 
Third Edition said:
There are masks, and there are effective masks. Most often when the effectiveness of masks is discussed it's N95 surgical masks that are referenced.

Revisit the Masks Don't Work video posted by Monaco Mike (#465) & you'll see the example mask doing a poor job. That is exactly the kind of mask most everyone wears. That or bandanas, neck gaiters, and other ineffective coverings.

Madating that everyone wears masks to keep people healthy, yet ignoring the types of masks actually worn, is more magical, mythical thinking. So is diligently covering the nose & mouth and leaving the eyes uncovered.

There is too much feel-good virtue-signalling surrounding the entire mask issue, and not sufficient analysis of how the general public is actually adhering to mask mandates. It's like saying a stripper does not have bare breasts if she has pasties on.
Click to expand...
This article summarizes the results of a Duke University study of the effectiveness of a wide variety of masks. It emphasizes the importance of fit and found knotted masks, bandannas and neck gaiters to be the least effective. The study was not done in a sterile environment, and in fact can be duplicated widely.
Cotton mask or neck gaiter? Check out how effective different kinds of masks are
Researchers ranked more than a dozen masks on how well they might protect wearers and those around them from COVID-19.
"The body of evidence continues to grow: masks protect the person wearing them from COVID-19, in addition to those around them. But with so many choices, what's your best option?
...researchers from Duke University evaluated the effectiveness of 14 different types of masks by estimating how many droplets traveled through the mask during normal speech.
The researchers used a laser beam, a lens that turned a laser beam into a sheet of light, and a mirror that directed light into a dark box made of cardboard. People spoke the same phrase into the box with, and without a mask. The particles that hit the lens produced visible flashes recorded by a phone’s camera on the other end of the box. "The key point of this paper is that we are proposing a very simple, easily duplicated system, where community groups could actually test masks themselves," said one of the study’s co-authors, Warren S. Warren, a professor of physics, chemistry and radiology at Duke.""
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/n...tter-than-others-against-covid-19/5535737002/
Keep scrolling and there is another article about cleaning and reusing masks.
 
This new study makes the point that, even if masks are not 100% effective at preventing infection, wearers have been proven to suffer mild or asymptomatic instances of covid while presumably gaining immunity resulting in both slower spread and growing the "herd".

Masks Do More than Protect Others during COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2
"Although the benefit of population-level public facial masking to protect others during the COVID-19 pandemic has received a great deal of attention, we discuss for one of the first times the hypothesis – compiling virologic, epidemiologic and ecologic evidence- that universal masking reduces the “inoculum” or dose of the virus for the mask-wearer, leading to more mild and asymptomatic infection manifestations. Masks, depending on type, filter out the majority of viral particles, but not all. We first discuss the near-century old literature around the viral inoculum and severity of disease (conceptualized as the LD50 or lethal dose of the virus). We include examples of rising rates of asymptomatic infection with population-level masking, including in closed settings (e.g. cruise ships) with and without universal masking. Asymptomatic infections may be harmful for spread but could actually be beneficial if they lead to higher rates of exposure. Exposing society to SARS-CoV-2 without the unacceptable consequences of severe illness with public masking could lead to greater community-level immunity and slower spread as we await a vaccine. This theory of viral inoculum and mild or asymptomatic disease with SARS-CoV-2 in light of population-level masking shows the benefits of mask-wearing for the individual (as well as others) as a pillar of COVID-19 pandemic control."
https://ucsf.app.box.com/s/blvolkp5...13.214053676.1599089513-1053085966.1526168528
 
alnav said:
This new study makes the point that, even if masks are not 100% effective at preventing infection, wearers have been proven to suffer mild or asymptomatic instances of covid while presumably gaining immunity resulting in both slower spread and growing the "herd".

Masks Do More than Protect Others during COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2
"Although the benefit of population-level public facial masking to protect others during the COVID-19 pandemic has received a great deal of attention, we discuss for one of the first times the hypothesis – compiling virologic, epidemiologic and ecologic evidence- that universal masking reduces the “inoculum” or dose of the virus for the mask-wearer, leading to more mild and asymptomatic infection manifestations. Masks, depending on type, filter out the majority of viral particles, but not all. We first discuss the near-century old literature around the viral inoculum and severity of disease (conceptualized as the LD50 or lethal dose of the virus). We include examples of rising rates of asymptomatic infection with population-level masking, including in closed settings (e.g. cruise ships) with and without universal masking. Asymptomatic infections may be harmful for spread but could actually be beneficial if they lead to higher rates of exposure. Exposing society to SARS-CoV-2 without the unacceptable consequences of severe illness with public masking could lead to greater community-level immunity and slower spread as we await a vaccine. This theory of viral inoculum and mild or asymptomatic disease with SARS-CoV-2 in light of population-level masking shows the benefits of mask-wearing for the individual (as well as others) as a pillar of COVID-19 pandemic control."
https://ucsf.app.box.com/s/blvolkp5z0mydzd82rjks4wyleagt036?_
alnav said:
This new study makes the point that, even if masks are not 100% effective at preventing infection, wearers have been proven to suffer mild or asymptomatic instances of covid while presumably gaining immunity resulting in both slower spread and growing the "herd".

Masks Do More than Protect Others during COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2
"Although the benefit of population-level public facial masking to protect others during the COVID-19 pandemic has received a great deal of attention, we discuss for one of the first times the hypothesis – compiling virologic, epidemiologic and ecologic evidence- that universal masking reduces the “inoculum” or dose of the virus for the mask-wearer, leading to more mild and asymptomatic infection manifestations. Masks, depending on type, filter out the majority of viral particles, but not all. We first discuss the near-century old literature around the viral inoculum and severity of disease (conceptualized as the LD50 or lethal dose of the virus). We include examples of rising rates of asymptomatic infection with population-level masking, including in closed settings (e.g. cruise ships) with and without universal masking. Asymptomatic infections may be harmful for spread but could actually be beneficial if they lead to higher rates of exposure. Exposing society to SARS-CoV-2 without the unacceptable consequences of severe illness with public masking could lead to greater community-level immunity and slower spread as we await a vaccine. This theory of viral inoculum and mild or asymptomatic disease with SARS-CoV-2 in light of population-level masking shows the benefits of mask-wearing for the individual (as well as others) as a pillar of COVID-19 pandemic control."
[URL]https://ucsf.app.box.com/s/blvolkp5z0mydzd82rjks4wyleagt036?_ga=2.218064213.214053676.1599089513-1053085966.1526168528
Click to expand...

ga=2.218064213.214053676.1599089513-1053085966.1526168528[/URL]
Click to expand...


Absolutely the best research money can buy. I’m sure the payoff will be huge in grants since they gave the power hungry exactly what they want...


I will say it again: medicine and science have been corrupted and are no longer trustworthy.

Like research paid for by oil companies is tainted but research paid for by ideologues at EPA is pure as driven snow...
 
MonacoMike said:
Absolutely the best research money can buy. I’m sure the payoff will be huge in grants since they gave the power hungry exactly what they want...


I will say it again: medicine and science have been corrupted and are no longer trustworthy.

Like research paid for by oil companies is tainted but research paid for by ideologues at EPA is pure as driven snow...
Click to expand...
Real data to think about doesn’t fit with the narrative you have been told?
Which of the 50-odd references cited in the study and dating back to the second decade of the 20th century have been manipulated? Since almost all date back to either before or just after covid started, it's an amazing feat of planning to have seeded earlier research with the ammo needed to support this study's conclusions even before the opportunity to "seize power" was known.
The overwhelming majority of U.S. Research and Development (R&D) funding is either provided by business or the federal government, which is the case in this study. The majority of federal funding is spent by the Department of Defense and a large portion of that is spent on medical research. A great deal of DoD-funded medical science is being used to fight covid. Another large portion is being used to help Wounded Warriors. Is that medicine and science corrupt and untrustworthy?
It really is tough for the far left and far right to have to deal with counter opinions. That is why they are so virulent in attacking anything to stifle discussion.
 
alnav said:
Is that medicine and science corrupt and untrustworthy?
Click to expand...

Methinks you're not up to speed on what's called the crisis in peer review, aka 'pal review', and also the replication crisis: i.e., the inability to replicate a significant number of studies. There is also a site called retraction watch.

Simple web searches will yield much food for thought.
 
But you know guys ...

Uhhh ..

ah,

DA500F3C-76CC-4AB4-9F60-D679449B43A3.gif
 
alnav said:
Real data to think about doesn’t fit with the narrative you have been told?
Which of the 50-odd references cited in the study and dating back to the second decade of the 20th century have been manipulated? Since almost all date back to either before or just after covid started, it's an amazing feat of planning to have seeded earlier research with the ammo needed to support this study's conclusions even before the opportunity to "seize power" was known.
The overwhelming majority of U.S. Research and Development (R&D) funding is either provided by business or the federal government, which is the case in this study. The majority of federal funding is spent by the Department of Defense and a large portion of that is spent on medical research. A great deal of DoD-funded medical science is being used to fight covid. Another large portion is being used to help Wounded Warriors. Is that medicine and science corrupt and untrustworthy?
It really is tough for the far left and far right to have to deal with counter opinions. That is why they are so virulent in attacking anything to stifle discussion.
Click to expand...

“The narrative I have been told”?

Isn’t that statement a full 180° off course? I’m not the one spreading the narrative from the powers that be, I am countering it. I’m working to understand and make sense of a lot of conflicting information that is out there. Just asking the questions that I ask is enough to get your posts deleted on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, etc.

Much of what the powers that be are putting out does not pass simple logic tests and then, add to that, they flip-flop whenever it is convenient for their power.

just who is following the narrative they’ve been told?
 
MonacoMike said:
“The narrative I have been told”?

Isn’t that statement a full 180° off course? I’m not the one spreading the narrative from the powers that be, I am countering it. I’m working to understand and make sense of a lot of conflicting information that is out there. Just asking the questions that I ask is enough to get your posts deleted on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, etc.

Much of what the powers that be are putting out does not pass simple logic tests and then, add to that, they flip-flop whenever it is convenient for their power.

just who is following the narrative they’ve been told?
Click to expand...
Chalk it up to a failed attempt at sarcasm; I lifted the first sentence from a post of yours from a couple of months ago. It was a response to another member who countered something you posted. I believe there is a difference between questioning the substance of an argument buttressed by evidence and responding by declaring that entire fields of study are corrupt and untrustworthy, therefore all evidence is invalid, rather than countering the argument. That's the way I took it, if you didn't mean that, please elaborate.
 
Third Edition said:
Methinks you're not up to speed on what's called the crisis in peer review, aka 'pal review', and also the replication crisis: i.e., the inability to replicate a significant number of studies. There is also a site called retraction watch.

Simple web searches will yield much food for thought.
Click to expand...
I'm actually pretty familiar with defense R&D, which is what my question related to. I actually think it's healthy that the problem is recognized (actually for a number of years) and measures are being take to ameliorate it. But, I don't think it's useful to condemn everything to do with a field of endeavor because of whatever systemic problem of the day is found. Science and technology are probably our country's greatest remaining strength and it would be tragic to abandon that strength.
 
alnav said:
But, I don't think it's useful to condemn everything to do with a field of endeavor because of whatever systemic problem of the day is found. Science and technology are probably our country's greatest remaining strength and it would be tragic to abandon that strength.
Click to expand...

I will agree that science and technology are a great USA strength. So is innovation. I will agree that condemning everything, save perhaps for pontoon boats, is not useful. On second thought, even pontoon boats certainly must have some redeeming value.

Earlier you wrote "Is that medicine and science corrupt and untrustworthy?"

My response did not condemn "everything to do with a field". On the contrary, an expert much more versed in the topic than me, the Lancet editor in chief, put it around half, not all. "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf
 
Came across this comment while reading, is this a problem we're having in the USA?...or maybe on CSR?

If prevention is successful, people don't see the danger," "The irony is the less you can feel it, and more successful you are with pandemic measures, the more people say we should stop [those measures]."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,219
Messages
1,428,829
Members
61,115
Latest member
Gardnersf
Back
Top