Anti-mask protests

Wow. Do you really want to live that way? I don't.

Sounds like a vaccine will be here soon (maybe even before the election)! Thankfully.

 

Why do you bother wearing one at work, below your nose? It has no value whatsoever if you breath through your unmasked nose. But anyway, please tell me, what are your reasons for refusing to wear one? Let's put politics aside if that's what your motivation is. Let's just talk about an analogy to explain the odds ratio part.

Say, you are strained in a mountain, a rather dangerous place; you are running out of water and there is no cell phone service; you didn't tell anybody you'd be there so nobody is coming to rescue you. To reach civilization and survive, you need to travel through some very treacherous mountain roads, but there is no other option since you can't just stay there and die of thirst.

Lucky you, you have a guidebook. It says, to get from this mountain back to civilization, there are two roads. To your left you have road A. To your right you have road B. Road A is somewhat dangerous. Of 100 people traveling through it, with avalanches and crumbling stretches and whatnot, about 15 out of those 100 will die. Road B on the other hand is much worse. Avalanches and crumbling stretches are so frequent there, that pretty much 100 out of 100 people traveling through it will die. So the odds ratio of you dying if you pick road A is 0.15 as compared to the the odds ratio of 1.0 for road B. Or in other words, the risk for you is 15% for road A and 100% for road B.

Both roads take the same time to travel through, and are about the same distance.

Pray tell, which road would you take? A or B?

No brainer, A, right? You'd have to be out of your freaking mind to pick road B.

Well, 29 scientific studies show that wearing (properly) a (good) mask dumps the odds ratio of getting infected with the SARS-CoV-2 to 0.15 as compared to a maskless person. It's the exact same odds that apply to the analogy above, proportionally.

Why in the hell would you rather pick the equivalent of road B???

By the way, I don't know if you're asthmatic or if you have COPD or something, but a decently healthy person will have no trouble whatsoever breathing through a mask.

Get one of those pulse ox sensors; they are cheap on Amazon. Place it on your finger, breath calmly, read it. Likely, 98% in room air. Now get your mask one for five minutes, keep breathing. Get the pulse ox sensor there again. I GUARANTEE the reading will remain 98%. Try it.

 

No, I wouldn't want to live like this for TOO long, but like you said, it sounds like a vaccine will be here soon, so, yeah, I'll be prudent for a bit longer. What I'm doing is absolutely reasonable, and epidemiologically correct. By the way, once you get used to this routine, it goes pretty fast and automatically.

 

My best friend is an optician. It's a special challenge, because babysitting the patients takes resources. The place is left empty for 30 seconds, or the receptionist is on the phone, and now three people have touched an unknown number of testers.

It's frustrating.

She's taken four COVID tests. Two of her co-workers were out for just over a month, with COVID. My worst pneumonia was 10 days, except coughing. 30+ days, before the coughing stage? Blech.

 

It's called mass Darwin Awards. It's OK, though - our collective gene pool needs a little chlorine, and stupidity is a great metric to weed by.

 

Produce a single prospective study demonstrating decreased incidence of disease from a respiratory virus as the primary endpoint.

The notion that wearing a stupid piece of cloth over our faces is going to deceease your chances of being innoculated by this virus is so inanely simplistic, a fourth grader could have thought it up.

 

A meta analysis of 120 studies, none of which are controlled with incidence of disease as the primary endpoint?
Really?
That's what youre hanging your hat on?

Produce a single prospective study demonstrating decreased incidence of disease from a respiratory virus as the primary endpoint.

Then say the word "Science" and "understand" in the same sentence.

 

Where can I get this waiver?

 

This thread is all the evidence you need that mask wearing needs to be made mandatory in some nations.
No matter how much evidence is shown that mask wearing and other mitigations reduce the spread and therefore save lives people will not only ignore it but actively attack the recommendations.
Act like children and you will be treated like children.
It's sad that people need to be forced by law to do something to protect their fellow citizens but there you are.
I mean, should speed limits in school districts be left up to the individual driver to decide whether they comply or should there be a penalty for those who refuse?

 

"Events" in this case are the number of people who got infected with or without the intervention being studied. I'm perfectly aware of the nature of these studies. This is what the researchers appropriately said: "Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance."
Of course if we HAD randomized controlled trials, large ones, we'd have Level of Evidence category One. As the current literature stands, we are seeing in this meta-analysis Level of Evidence category Four. But that's not to say that it isn't evidence.

That you believe that someone like me who has been doing science for 40 years doesn't understand science, is so laughable, that I thank you for a good laugh to start my Saturday.

 

See a good lawyer and draw an instrument called Living Will / Advance Directives For Medical Care. Make sure you state that you don't want any care whatsoever if you contract Covid-19. Your lawyer will attest that you are of sound mind while you draw your living will (although he/she might roll his/her eyes a little about the "sound" part but at least the lawyer will attest to the fact that legally speaking, you are capable of making your healthcare decisions). Then register an official copy of the document with your local hospital, and carry another copy with you (and/or your next of kin) to handle to the doctors in case you are taken to a hospital where you hadn't previously registered your living will.

There. Easy, right? Do it!

 

In the US, the founding document does not empower the government to tell the people what articles of clothing they must wear.

The government has no authority to require citizens to dress a certain way. It has no authority to restrict travel and liberty of citizens.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania just made that perfectly clear this past week.

 

Mr. Condescending, some of these PPE devices are not just a piece of cloth. Some have inner layers made of non-woven nanofibers manufactured with the melt blown technique, and in the case of this coronavirus that measures an average of 0.1 micron in diameter (therefore, smaller than the 0.3 micron pores) they surprisingly still catch 98% of them thanks to brownian motion, as verified for example in measurements done at the Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania (our freaking #3-ranked medical school). I'm sorry that I can't yet post a link to these results as they haven't been published yet but I know of them. Anyway, I'm sure you won't believe me without a link, but whatever.

Sure, masks are of very variable level of filtration, like it is shown in this study involving various departments at the excellent Duke University (including Physics, Bioengineering, etc.) with N95s and medical-grade surgical masks (unsurprisingly the ones that have the melt blown fabric) outperforming all the others, down to neck gaiters being actually detrimental (see table on page 9) - and yes, I'm aware that this particular study is addressing droplets rather than aerosol; I'm just quoting it because it is a neat demonstration of how variable the performance of different kinds of masks is):

https://advances.sciencemag.org/con...paign=collingwoodtoday.ca&utm_medium=referral

Yes, certain masks that people wear meet your definition of "a stupid piece of cloth" but this is not to say that all masks are useless, because others clearly do not meet this definition.

Of course, a lab test like the above doesn't capture the behaviors that defeat the mask, even the good ones, with people wearing them under their nose, touching them a lot with potentially contaminated fingers, removing them to talk or eat or drink, etc. Not to forget, people may get over-confident simply because they are wearing "a stupid piece of cloth" and be less likely to engage in social distancing.

But again, it's not to say that the correct type of mask, properly used and with appropriate seal, is useless.

I've been advocating here for simple solutions to enhance the seal. If you get an ASTM Level 3 surgical mask, FDA-Certified with PFE equal to or greater than 98 (and these are again back to the market; just recently I verified three Amazon.com sources selling them, all three with verifiable FDA certificates, with prices that now have dropped a bit given that they are again widely available therefore less subject to price gouging, ranging now between $37 and $46 for a box of 50) and you enhance the seal with three interlaced rubber bands (the central rubber band, size #32; the two year loops, size #33), or even better, if you get a neoprene rubber sheet and using a template you can download for free, you make a rubber brace like this...



... then yes, you'll be partially protected (of course, no protection is absolute, but you'll certainly beat not wearing anything, as per the drop in RR and aOR shown in my previous meta-analysis source). By the way, the group that put this brace together is the group involved with the testing at Perelman. Preliminary results look great, as the measurements done with particulates of 0.1 micron for the ASTM Level 3s plus the rubber brace, are actually outperforming even N95 respirators with a tight seal.

 

Typo. I meant "to hand to the doctors", obviously. I hate this 15-minute window to correct typos and such.

 

That's a lot of words, yet you somehow left out the prospective controlled study demonstrating decreased incidence of disease as the primary endpoint.

Dont just say "Science",.......show it

 

As a scientist of 40 years, you know better than to present what you presented, trying to hand it off as settled "science" on the topic.

 

You have yet to present that evidence.

 

Tell me, does it mention the speed limits imposed in school districts or is it a 240 year old document totally incapable of providing guidance for
all situations in the modern world?
Are speed limits unconstitutional?

 

"Masks used in the community may provide some protection"

Strong stuff

 

There isn't any. Like I said, I presented the current best evidence, category 4. Do you actually understand what categories of strength of evidence are? What do you want me to do, come up with a study that doesn't exist? You're welcome to start one.

A lot of words, huh? I'm sorry that you can't handle as many. Next time I'll be sure to post a shorter post that you may find more manageable. I don't want to cause any distress to those whose attention span is short. Sorry for that! Are you OK? (PS - actually there won't be a next time, see below)

It's the best current evidence, and the RR and OR drops are impressive. I can't produce evidence that doesn't yet exist. Gee! Still, like I said, category 4 evidence *is* evidence. You'd know that, if you were as knowledgeable regarding sciences as you pretend to be. A large meta-analysis with 172 observational studies and 44 comparative studies in healthcare and community settings, with respirators, surgical masks, eye protection, and social distancing published by The Lancet and duly peer-reviewed is as good as it gets at this stage. Your arrogant stance trying to ridicule my position because there aren't prospective randomized controlled trials is ridiculous because I can't produce something that hasn't been done. I'm sick and tired of your condescending and arrogant attitude. You have nothing to contribute to this discussion therefore I'm now moving you to my Ignore list. Have a nice life.

 

My friend, with certain kinds of posters, it doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence you produce and how reasonable your arguments are; he'll just stick with repeating his one point and won't ever consider anything else, so, it's rather useless and tiresome. Life is too short; this kind of person is best ignored. Like we've discussed among ourselves before, my "mission" here is to counter misinformation and I did that, so others reading this exchange will be able to reach their own conclusions, but continuing to engage with this poster won't add anything to the mix.

Regarding the type of masks worn by most people, here is an interesting table (this is part of the data coming from the Perelman testing I was talking about):



This comparison is interesting because it only looks at widely available commercial products, showing the vast superiority of the surgical masks over the cloth masks. Even the crap they sell at Walgreens performed better than the cloth masks!

At this point and with the availability of surgical masks being again widespread, I think people should dump their cloth masks and get surgical masks.

Again, nothing perfect (despite the high performance of one of the brands, this Zubrex) but way better than the cloth masks.

Some will prefer cloth masks as a cost-containment measure given that they are washable, while the surgical masks are meant to be discarded. But observe what happened to two of the cloth masks after 10 washing cycles: a steep drop in performance.

Sure, there are cloth masks with a pocket and you can insert a filter inside. The researchers who looked into the above found the breathability with those was a problem, so people tend to remove them a lot as they get a bit dizzy and headachy, defeating the advantage.

For the general public not equipped with professionally fit N95s, surgical masks are still the best bet, and enhancing the seal like I've been saying will make them perform even better, delivering rather decent protection for themselves and for the community.

 

You claimed proof existed.
Yes, you should present one that supports your claims.

Don't pull out some highly specious meta analysis that demonstrates nothing and try to pass youself off as someone with "science" expertise with valid support of your claims.

 

I had a good one today, a "Q" refusing to put on a mask.
I got the whole 9 yards, from I will sue you and your business ( please make sure my name is spelled right ), constitution, the Governor has no right, all a hoax, World Government, Blue Helmets. When he was done, I told him his rant was incomplete, he forgot Soros and Pizza Gate.
Which got him going again.
Meanwhile my employee had called the cops. They escorted him out. I pressed charges, trespassing.
Stupidity has to be expensive, can not be expensive enough.

The same clown came in April, with one of those fake cards, " I am exempt........, blabla. ".
He already got fined in Durango for refusing to wear a mask, $30.
This time it will be around $1000.