Congratulations, Ron DeSantis. Great Job [rolling eyes]. Moron.

Thank you for the response, CenterField.

I've been a proponent of masks from day one. Not based on scientific data, but on simple logic.

As an engineer, I can hardly accept that the spreading of virus containing particles would not be reduced, if only partially, by any obstacle these particles may encounter.

Hence, when two persons wearing a mask are having a conversation, there are two masks, i.e. two obstacles, in play.

And I was very surprised when people in the Health community, in the US (Dr Fauci among others, who later admitted he was wrong at that time) and in Europe declared that masks were useless. We now know that the reason for that statement was that there were not enough masks in stock at that time, so that authorities wanted to avoid a rush on the available ones and keep them for the medical community.

Now, unless you answered it in the meantime, I would be very interested to read your opinion about Ddyad's post that came just after yours. Thanks in advance.

PS: I just read dagosa's reply to that post of Ddyad. Do you concur?

Oh, and one last thing: I have never read those studies ant meta-studies you mention; but even if I had, I wouldn't have been able to interpret them as they are obviously (and dutifully) written in the scientific jargon most lay people would not understand.

 

That’s a complete misrepresentation of what really happened. But keep carrying the water.

 

I' not carrying water for anyone and I generally respect your posts; enlighten me on what happened then.

 

Sure, Fauci never admitted he was wrong. He said it was based upon the evidence he had at the time, NO medical science should behave differently, . All second guessers use hindsight to discredit scientists who advise actions only based upon what is known at the time. Every statement he made was correct as all was based upon the known evidence. People who used to believe and use and advise the physics prior to quantum theory are not wrong now or then. Neither was Fauci. Every presentation was always couched on the evidence known at the time. It’s really pretty simple.

Just Google the FULL text of
OF Fauci and the CDC comments and advise. If they differed from the medical science in Europe at any time, it was always with respect to local conditions. It is even now, our state has completely different environment then Florida.

By the failed logic of the right , we’d have no science. Scientists are NEVER RIGHT OR WRONG. They just present evidence and what it presently suggests for PRESENT behavior. Conservatives woukd have us believe that hindsite is actually the truth….it isn’t.

 

Read this article for example…
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-masks-no-longer-needed/

 

Sorry, freedom8, I do not know about the replies you have mentioned. My Ignore list is extensive. What I can tell you is that the people I place on Ignore are often those who spout nonsense, fake news, and anti-vaxx/anti-mask garbage that is junk science and conspiracy theories. Even if such posters can show a study or two showing no benefit for masks (in this meta-analysis of 29 studies, like I said, ONE failed to find a benefit, so if someone only went by this ONE outlier, one would think that masks don't work), there are always outliers. In science, we don't go by ONE study. We go by the full set of data. There may be a number of intervening factors and methodological issues that will result in a fluke, that is, a study not showing mask benefit. But when you look at the vast majority of studies, then you do see a clear benefit. That's why meta-analyses of a large number of controlled studies provide the best evidence. There is such a think as hierarchy of evidence. One isolated study of course provides weaker evidence than a large number of studies pooled together.

So whatever these people I have on Ignore are telling you, chances are that they are wrong.

By the way, please do not tell me what they said. When I put someone on Ignore, I mean it. I do not want to read their nonsense, including, not by indirectly other people telling me about the crap that they post.

Yes, as an engineer, you know very well that physical barriers can stop particles. Even more, electrostatic charges and the issue of Brownian Motion can stop very small particles, even the ones with 0.1 micron like the coronavirus. So, yes, absolutely, if we can demonstrate in labs (done for example by the Department of Physics of Duke University) that the masks made of blown melt fabric (N95, N100, ASTM level 3) can indeed stop most particles with 0.1 micron in-vitro, it is logical to conclude that in-vivo, provided that the wearer takes care of achieving a good seal and covering both the nose and the mouth, these masks WILL reduce the number of particles an infected person releases to the air, and the number of particles a non-infected person will inhale.

N100 masks block 99.7% of particles measuring 0.3 micron. These are the MPP or "maximum penetrating particles" which is why they are the ones used for ratings. They penetrate more than 0.1 micron particles, paradoxically, because they are not subject to Brownian Motion and electrostatic charges like the smaller 0.1 micron particles are. So, consistently, the rating of the mask, which is rated for 0.3 micron, is actually smaller than the real rate for 0.1 micron.

So, an N95 mask, rated to stop 95% of 0.3 micron particles, actually has been shown to stop 98% of 0.1 micron particles. Given that N100 respirators block 99.7% of 0.3 micron particles, one can assume that they block almost 100% of the 0.1 micron ones like the coronavirus.

An N100 mask with perfect seal is a powerful device to avoid the SARS-CoV-2, and it's what I wear in highly contaminated procedures. When I face an even more dangerous situation, such as the intubation of a patient very sick with Covid-19, then I wear an even higher rated PAPR device (positive air pressure respirator), which looks like a hazmat suit with a hood.

To pretend that these advanced PPE devices are not effective is utterly ridiculous. If that's what these people are telling you, please don't believe in their junk science nonsense.

------------

About the scientific jargon: you actually don't need it to understand the meta-analysis I posted. It's pretty simple. If you expose someone to a pathogen and you know the relative frequency of a natural infection occurring there (by looking at how many people who did not wear the device got it), that risk is called 1.0. Any fraction of that represents a drop in risk. So, if only half the people who were supposed to get the pathogen, get it once they wear the device, or 50% of the expected relative risk, it means that the RR is now 0.5. When the meta-analysis I showed to you posts an overall RR of 0.18, it means that the likelihood of catching the virus dropped by 82%. Pretty simple concept to get, no? How it's calculated? Very simply, comparing the number of subjects who got the infection ("events") to the number who did not, both for the group wearing the device, and the control group not wearing the device.

Now, if your device is detrimental and wearing it actually makes you more likely to acquire the pathogen for whatever reason, then the RR will be bigger than one. In the case of one study, it was 1.03 so there was no benefit. But because 22 other studies showed a robust benefit, we know that overall, masks are protective.

 

Thank you CF. I fully understand your explanation of the table you included in your previous post, but I wouldn't have been able to "read" the table as it contains information not explicitly detailed for the vulgus pecum that I'm part of.

 

I can assure you I saw Dr Fauci, for whom I have a lot of respect btw, saying he was wrong when he said masks were not needed.

It was not on the CBS 90 minutes; it was on CNN, the only US station easily available in Europe (but possibly a quote from another news program of course).

Here's another link you might wish to have a look at.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/faucis-mistake-masks-was-driven-bad-economics-not-uncertain-science

 

And this one; the part on "Fauci's comments on masks", with an excerpt on light blue font :

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/scicheck-video-wrong-about-fauci-covid-19/

 

From your link

 

It's not, it's just an article which says that the science on masks in school in uncertain. If you had a science source regarding masks in schools, you would have already linked to it!

 

Why don't you tell us?

 

15 Miami-Dade Public School Staff Members Die Of COVID In Just 10 Days

https://www.yahoo.com/news/15-miami-dade-public-school-021517732.html

Thank you, Governor DeSantis.

 

It's very simple if you know what to look for. See, look at the vertical line. That's the line that represents a relative risk of 1.0. Look at the bottom of the line. To the left you see an arrow saying "favours face masks." To the right you see an arrow saying "favours no face masks." Look up. Each study has a dot that represents where the relative risk for that study fell. You can see that almost all studies have that dot to the left of the 1.0 line, showing a reduction in relative risk. The farther to the left, the bigger the risk reduction. Practically no studies sit on the right side. There is one that sits on the line (or to be more precise very slightly to the right of it), the only one that posted an RR of 1.03. All others posted a RR smaller than 1. The horizontal lines in each study represent the 95% confidence interval, so a study that had a RR of 0.4 in average, had it in a range from 0.19 to 0.84. So it's 95% certain that the correct number will fall betwen 0.19 and 0.84. All of this is biostatistics. What you really want to look for, is the number you see on the bottom right corner of the table, which says aRR (adjusted Relative Risk) of 0.18 with a confidence interval of 0.08 to 0.38.

This shows that masks in average help at a rate of 82%, although it could be as little as 62%, or as high as 92%.

By the way, sorry, I committed a typo in my previous post. 0.03 is not an efficacy of 99.7% but rather 97%. Similarly the other percentages in that phrase I misquoted too as 99.6% when I should have said 96% and 99.2% when I should have said 92%.

 

And there are studies which hint at masks doing more harm to kids than good.

"Rantings about my freedom" are a legitimate argument against something which science doesn't back. On the other hand, if there was science behind masks in school, then I would say that "rantings about my freedom" are far LESS of a legitimate argument against it.

There doesn't need to be anything scientific in order argue against something which isn't scientific.

 

There are NO medical research facilities and science organizations that DO recommend masking in public schools

 

If you knew of some sort of study into the long term affects that COVID can have on kids, you would have already linked to it!

 

Name ONE SINGLE regulation for flood mitigating construction which impacts people.

 

Okay, so kids are NOT in fact dying in Florida every single day from COVID.

 

So then what did you intend to say?

 

Thank you for your patience CF! I got it fully now.

And, btw, I too committed a typo: it's "vulgum pecus", not vulgus pecum"; my (little) Latin is slipping away!

 

And, if your device is hard to wear properly and maintain, it’s effectiveness is zero. Medical personal and first responders are trained and supported. Big difference.

 

That’s delusional. Literally everyone of the construction, maintenance and use of flood mitigation regulations impacts the residents. They can’t get bank loans and insurance without it and they save lives. To think an insurance company would touch a residence without proper safety equipment and design in place is insane Try selling or insuring a house without working fire alarms or in a flood plane without required design and equipment . People must live in tent or be homeless to think that way.

 

You're welcome. My Latin sucks too, LOL.

 

Read your own article. Fauci admitted to changing his recommendations, along with the CDC when more evidence became available. I hope you remember that before covid hit the United States, there were few mask recommendations. Thats how science works. Flip flopping is not being dishonest or lying. When the evidence changes. All you have to do is look at how the recommendations evolved when vaccinations came in line. They were relaxed for vaccinated, then changed again when a new variant made it more contagious even for those with vaccines. What’s so hard to understand.


Yes,we are “carrying the water for deniers” every-time we say science and scientist are wrong instead of explaining how it’s the evidence that changes recommendations.

Read his response…more accurately. Only non science people don’t understand how science works .
I can give you many examples from the Manhattan project fear of setting fire to our atmosphere to quantum theory on how we use math and physics we still don’t completely understand to make use of cell phones.


“Anthony Fauci has admitted to flip‐flopping on mask‐wearing guidance. Well, not exactly.

On Sunday, MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan replayed a 60 Minutes clip from March 8, 2020, in which the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director said, “Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.” Asked whether he was wrong back then, especially given the Chinese and South Koreans were already wearing masks, Fauci actually offered a spirited defense of his ultimate U‐turn, alluding to the famous dictum that “when the facts change, I change my mind.”