Wear a freaking mask already

Yes, that's an exaggeration, and I've never been for mask mandates anyway. I've always been for educational campaigns, and allowing people to decide based on sound data and sound advice. I see on international satellite TV those campaigns going on all the time in various countries, and we have had none that I know of, here.

 

Best post ever on COVID-19. I've been saying over and over that the issue is not only death but also the maimed and the economic impact of having so many people with chronic health conditions after they survive the virus. I was just quoting a 5% number although the German study about heart damage was so scarier (78%) but I had never seen the precise percentage of these sequelae, so maybe, putting it this way, the deniers will hopefully wake up.

Yes, the economy can't survive this many people maimed for life, as they will represent huge costs for treatment, rehabilitation, lost productive, and premature death.

Not controlling the outbreak (and going for the stupid herd immunity idea) is what will permanently doom our economy. Like the president of Argentina said, you can recover from an economic downturn, but you can't recover from death, to which I'd add, you can't recover from permanent organ damage.

People who minimize the risk are playing with fire.

 

Try looking at it this way: governments all over the world have spent billions on cameras and facial recognition software. That makes me chuckle every time I put one on.

 

Welcome to the club.

 

I have a Darth Vader mask. May as well have some fun with it, right?

 

That first sentence is the truest thing anyone has posted here in a long damn time. You are wise, little man!

 

Because even if you can't get sick from it, you could still be carrying the virus and could infect someone else.

 

Don't forget, George Soros and Bill Gates spy on you through the 5G network, so you need the mask to fool them.

 

I wear two masks, a surgical over an industrial. Mama said that if one primitive barrier does even a little bit of good, two primitive barriers will do two little bits of good, and something is better than nothing.

 

If they want to protect themselves they wear a shield as well.
Do you think the surgeon wears a mask in surgery to protect himself? No. Think man, think. Gee!

See, you even admit googles or face shields is needed to protect.
A mask does nothing to stop transmission if one has virus on hands and touches face.

It helps stop some of the particles that humans emit though coughing, sneezing, or talking. But the micron size particles still get thought most every mask.
And there was a study that said those flimsy bandanas may make the particles increase as the fabric will split droplets and create more smaller droplets.

 

I meant the old people on this forum who are supporters of tRUMP who 1 month ago abhored masks and thought they were totally useless.
Now the prez has worn one a few times and it's now ok. The marching orders changed.

I, myself, do only when in Rome. IE, where it's required. Which is most places today. Except in my office, car, and home. Or outdoors.

 

Bandanas, agreed. Everything else you are saying is wrong. Masks don't just filter one-way (at least not the ones without exhalation vents). Surgical masks protect the surgical field from contamination from the surgeon's breath, but ALSO protect the surgeon from inhaling pathogens, as long as they have a good seal. Contrary to what you are saying, surgical-grade ASTM level 3 masks have shown in tests, 98% filtration of viral particulates of 0.1 micron (which happens to be the size of the coronavirus). Sure, that's not 100% but in terms of viral load, 98% far beats 0% without a mask.

Goggles and face shields are needed not because the masks are ineffective, but because the masks don't protect the eyes, obviously, and the eyes are also an entry point for the virus.

This kind of protection FOR THE WEARER has been demonstrated in not one, not two, but freaking 29 studies I've posted here, all with coronaviruses of various kinds (SARS-1, MERS, SARS-CoV-2) and ALL 29 studies (with respirators, with surgical masks, in health settings, in the community) showed a reduction in relative risk for the wearer in terms of catching the virus. No exceptions. All 29. So the idea that masks don't protect the wearer because the virus is too small is just plain wrong.

"No. Think man, think. Gee!" Well, I'm thinking, and sorry, but I know A LOT about this topic. Precisely because I think and know what I'm saying, I know that I'm right and you are wrong.

There are two very efficient ways to protect the wearer (other options go downhill from that): N95 mask properly fit, with a good seal + medical grade goggles, or medical grade ASTM level 3 surgical mask with seal enhanced by a rubber brace + medical grade goggles. Daily, in my professional activities, I use one of these two methods depending on how contaminated is the situation I'll be facing. While I type this in a break, to my right I see my medical-grade goggles and my N95, and in a bag next to me I have the ASTM level 3s and the rubber braces.

How is that helpful to the general population who don't know how to do this and have little or no access to these advanced masks? Unfortunately, not that helpful. People wear flimsy non-medical grade facemasks, or cloth masks (or even worse, bandanas like you said and I confirmed), and they touch them all the time, let them hang below the nose, etc. And they don't know where to get legitimate (non-counterfeit) CDC/NIOSH certified N95s and medical grade FDA certified ASTM facemasks, and even if they knew where to find them (they actually are available now, to the lay public, retail, from a few certified makers) they wouldn't know how to fit and seal them.

But people would be able to learn if they wanted to. I've posted here tutorials on how to use them and seal them and methods to get to the right vendors. I even started a thread about it. But most people don't pay attention, say it's paranoia, say it's a political ploy, etc. So, people shoot themselves in foot. But can the right mask, properly worn, be protective? Absolutely. No doubt about it.

I mean, "think man, think" - how in the hell do you suppose that masks filter only one way? They stop the surgeon from contaminating the field, which you've admitted to... but they don't stop pathogens from the field to infect the surgeon? LOL. Yeah, the masks must have a little mind of their own, and capriciously they think "oh, just for fun, I'll filter and stop this virus coming from point A to point B, but I'll let in this other virus coming from point B to point A." Absurd.

Have you ever stopped to think why healthcare workers taking care of patients who are ALREADY heavily infected with SARS-CoV-2, tuberculosis, etc., don masks? Huh? Think, man, thing. Gee!

 

Entry though the eyes is the base point in masks don't protect the person but protects others.
And if the virus particles get on one's hands and they touch the mask, now the mask is contaminated.

 

Naw ... all you need to do it stick a spitwad over your camera lenses.

 

Really you and I aren't that far apart on social distancing and hygiene. It's just that I think it's far more important for those at high risk while those at low risk may be better off gaining natural immunity.
As for the vaccine will it be more effective than flu vaccines which are kind of a joke? Fauci says 50% effectiveness is probably what we will get. Then there's the fact that 50% of people say they would not take the vaccine which would further reduce its effectiveness.

 

Huh, what? You are making no sense whatsoever. Clearly masks can't protect the eyes, thus the goggles. Have I ever disputed that? But your idea that masks don't protect the person is just plain wrong and contradicted by 29 scientific articles and 120 years of medical practice.

Sure, that's why people need to be educated on how to properly wear them and why they should refrain from touching them with contaminated hands. I carry an 8oz bottle of hand sanitizer in my breast pocket and if I absolutely have to touch/readjust my mask, I sanitize my hands first.

 

You never know. There are traffic cameras, satellites... it's best to wear masks. This way Bill Gates and George Soros won't get you.

 

No. Nobody will be "better off" by contracting a nasty and dangerous disease that theoretically can harm the hearts of 78% of survivors, not to forget all the other organs. We don't know the long-term consequences of this illness, but there's already enough evidence to show that it is very dangerous, so the idea that anybody, healthy or not, young or not will be "better off" by catching it is preposterous. Better than what? Better than not catching it??? That's insane. I'm not calling YOU insane as a personal attack, I'm saying that the idea is insane. Sane people sometimes have insane ideas. It happens. No offense intended.

The idea that the flu vaccine is "a joke" is just as preposterous. The flu vaccine is made of 3 or 4 strains that are likely to be prevalent next season, because it takes time to cultivate it in eggs so we can't wait for the strains to show up otherwise it would be too late. So we look at emerging Asian strains and make an educated guess. The guess pays off sometimes, not so much other times. In good years it is 80% protective. In bad years, 40%. Average 60%. So, a lot of people, between 20% to 60% of vaccinated individuals, will still be susceptible to catching the flu. BUT EVEN WHEN THEY DO, THE DISEASE IS GENERALLY MILD AND NON-FATAL due to cross-immunity. So, the vaccine doesn't avoid the disease but avoids health complications. That's good enough and no joke whatsoever. The vast majority of deaths by flu in the United States are in non-vaccinated people. Exceptions exist but in general the flu vaccine provides excellent protection against flu complications and death, which is more than enough, in terms of public health.

Yes, the FDA has set the threshold for approval at 50% efficacy. But again, the expectation is that the vaccine will dampen the severity of the disease and turn it into asymptomatic or very mild cases without death and without sequelae (that is, without permanent organ damage), which will already be a fabulous job.

This number, 50%, is for infection, not disease. A vaccine can be 50% effective to stop infection (meaning that 1 in 2 vaccinated people will still be susceptible to getting infected) but can be, even in this 50% case, up to 100% effective in preventing disease (meaning, people may still catch the virus but be asymptomatic, without the respiratory and multi-organ syndrome caused by the virus, which is called Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19.

If the vaccine doesn't fully prevent infection by the agent SARS-CoV-2, but prevents the damaging and at times fatal disease COVID-19, then the vaccine will have fulfilled its job with flying colors.

Not to forget, for the SARS-CoV-2 there is no strain guessing, because mRNA vaccines can be produced very fast (no eggs for cultivation needed, they can be synthesized immediately in labs) and can therefore be tailored to emerging strains. If anything, we have better odds of getting an effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccine than an influenza vaccine, especially if the virus doesn't mutate a lot (this could still happen, though, so yes, it's still uncertain but I'm optimistic).

Sure, acceptance among the population will be a problem, which is not helped by the negative attitude of people like you. Acceptance would improve if people paid attention to educational campaigns, and misinformation such as the insane idea that "you'll be better off by catching it, for herd immunity" were not being diffused by people like you, so that people like me need to be writing paragraphs and paragraphs to try and counter it.

It's an uphill battle. Because of people like you, I'm not as optimistic for the status of our public health. But rest assured that my wife and I, my daughter, my son, and my daughter-in-law will all take the vaccine at the first opportunity, because all of us do realize that we'd not be "better off" by catching this dangerous illness with unpredictable consequences. But if you want to risk your own future health because you think you'll be contributing to "herd immunity" then it's your right. It's an incredibly boneheaded decision but you have the right to make boneheaded decisions.

Don't complain, though, if it backfires on you and/or your loved ones. It's the risk you want, by not believing in vaccines.

 

I admire your optimism and blind faith in vaccines but I'll put my money on the fact that this new virus is here and man will have to adapt to its presence.
I also reject your fear mongering of organ damage and long term consequences which are the exception not the rule. Once again you present worst case scenarios as the most likely scenarios.
I also reject your charge that people like me are responsible for the fact that 50% say they wouldn't take the vaccine. I've said nothing about vaccines being dangerous only that we may or may not get an effective one and need to operate on what we know not what we hope and wish for.
What we know is the virus is here and somehow we have to learn to live with it's presence and not succumb to panic. What we hope and wish for is a very effective vaccine in the very near future. Until that happens or doesn't happen we must keep on keepin on.
Also remember the title of this thread I started. "Wear a freaking mask already" . Obviously I'm not against taking precautions around people who may be high risk.

 

Anybody can post any numbers they want. Doesn't make it true.

 

These are the people who don't know what they don't know. They are convinced that their 10-minute google search is the equivalent of years of school, years as a research assistant, years of professional research, etc. I imagine it is scary to watch the scientific process unfold real time. New information is coming in so fast, because everything is new.

My husband, who reads scientific and psychological white papers for fun, like the nerd he is, thinks that it is underlying fear. Denial helps keep the fear in check. It's easier to claim expertise than to admit this thing is scary, and part of the reason is that there are still so many unknowns.

People have been claiming hoax since the Diamond Princess was not allowed to disembark in Japan in February. They haven't changed their minds. Facts are not going to convince them, until it hits them, personally.

The citizens of The United States no longer value educated people.

 

I was just talking to a guy working at Home Depot. He has six masks, alternates them each day, and never washes them. He said after five days any virus on them is dead and he wants to get the dead viruses from the mask into his system to get immunity.

idk, but it sounds as good as anything science has to offer so far.

 

So you think that 78 patients with heart damage among 100 studied are the exception rather than the rule. Gotcha.

I have always said, this is concerning if the small German study with 100 patients is confirmed by larger studies. 100 patients is preliminary, but I'd say it's darn scary, given that 67% of these patients had mild or moderate cases and most didn't even have pre-existing heart conditions. If that is not concerning and you think it's groundless fearmongering, I don't know what else to tell you. See, these people thought they had fully recovered. They didn't have heart symptoms. They thought they were fine. The researches decided to run cardiac MRIs and troponin tests and were surprised with the striking finding that more than 3 out of 4 had their hearts damaged (huh, no, 3 out of 4 is not the exception). They said these hearts behaved like the hearts of people who have had myocardial infarcts, and said the concern is that these people are asymptomatic now but may develop progressive heart failure. It is not paranoia or fearmongering when the danger is real. See if you learn the difference. Being concerned about a real danger is prudence, not paranoia or fearmongering.

Yes, I stand behind what I said. If you say people will be better off jumping on the herd immunity bandwagon rather than waiting for a vaccine that may or may not be effective, you are undermining the prudence+vaccine route. You are doing a disservice to public health with the idea that anybody who is young and healthy (which like I said is very relative - do you really believe in self-assessment of one's health? Many conditions like hypertension and mild diabetes are not known by the patient) is better off by catching this dangerous disease, and I'm not shy about denouncing what you are doing because it is detrimental. Some more gullible youngsters may read you, and say, "yeah, this guy is right; I'll just forget about it and go enjoy myself in bars and nightclubs because this guy is saying I have nothing to fear and I'll be better off catching it and becoming immune already instead of waiting for a vaccine." This position of yours WILL kill people, and it has. A young man thinking exactly like this was in the news one of these days, after attending a "Covid Party" to get infected and get done with it and get immune... but he died.

No. We need to have the full picture of the damage that this virus can cause, and stop saying "oh no big deal, let's just shelter the old and infirm and we'll be all fine and get herd immunity." Like I said, this position is insane. I'm not for panic (see my signature) but I'm not for ignoring the danger either.

Kudos for this part. I did compliment you on it in a previous post. On herd immunity and people being better off catching it you are 100% wrong and you are doing a disservice to public health.