rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

You are the one changing the subject and spreading misinformation.
The subject of this thread is the effectiveness of masks.
All the real experts recommend wearing them - and their recommendation is based on their being effective.

You are the one who keeps looking for excuses to ignore the real scientists, who universally recommend their use.

DarthMicrowave

How am I changing the subject by showing that your examples are flawed - on said topic?

Show your 'scientific data' on the topic instead of the 2 extremely flawed examples. I'm starting to think you don't actually know what science is.

If all you have is that we should heed the recommendations...fine, but leave it at that. I'll help you...
rehess says the CDC thinks masks are effective - the end

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Not really. It varies with those test who POSITIVE and those that die. I started posting ratios months ago on this forum, and the ratio has not changed significantly in months. I’ll post historical data if you wish.

As regards the veracity and accuracy of information posted, certainly it has changed with regards to the advisability of mask wearing as we’ve learned more about the vector(s) and transmission of this new virus, but now (which is what’s actually relevant), every major medical authority advocates them.

Regarding Dr. Faucii’s credibility, I cannot see how his advice or predictions or information have changed substantially from the beginning of the epidemic, and if you can demonstrate otherwise, please post the links. What has changed is the information coming from the White House. It has gone from “it’s going away when the weather warms up”, and “we have it in control” to where we are today, and of course, the attempt to discredit Dr. Fauci and Dr. Brix when the facts they reported did not fit the official WH narrative - THAT is what has changed. Sorry to bring some politics into this, but you started it with the comment about Dr. fauci, which does not square with the facts, but is perfectly aligned with the message from the WH.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Do you what science is???

I know that masks are effective.
Compare my county with the residents of Elkhart county who refuse to wear them.

If you won't follow the advice given by such people as Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx, that is your problem.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

At the present moment there are few "facts" about wearing masks there are mostly just feelings. When a proper study is done there may then be facts. There are likely many factors that contribute to the number of active infections in a given area. In a few years we may have a better understanding.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

I never depend on anecdotal studies for true science or even agenda related science. Example from Medicalexpress.com; Three crew members of a Seattle fishing boat who were found to have antibodies able to neutralize the new coronavirus remained uninfected in an outbreak that swept through the ship, sickening most people on board, researchers have reported.....The small real-world study, which has not been peer-reviewed, is among the first in humans to suggest a link between neutralizing antibodies—those that stop the virus latching onto host cells—and protection from infection......Good news but gospel, yet!

However, the speed at which private firms are aggressively pursuing antivirals and vaccines should be good news to the American public. Just another pandemic that America will survive and I will continue to wear my mask even if it only reduces my chances by 1%.

DarthMicrowave

Comment removed - as I originally crossed up a couple of different studies when I posted...one of which has been referenced above - the fishing boat.

cucharared Loc: Texas, Colorado

After reading this entire thread I’m left with the feeling that a few individuals have turned it into a pi$$ing contest, and each is at least outwardly convinced they are right. At least it’s a little more civil than over in the Attic.

I am a firm believer in science, but in the case of whether to mask or not I feel common sense wins out over everything. Certainly for me.

Picture yourself having a conversation with your buddy and things get a little animated. You/they begin to speak excitedly - ever experienced the little spit particles expelled when someone is excitedly talking (or angrily talking or hollering). Now, what if they were carrying some infection? Like being on the receiving end of those particles? Me either, whether they have an infection or not. What if they suddenly cough or sneeze? Now you get a face full. Wouldn’t it have been nice if they had covered their mouth before sneezing in your face?
Oh wait -a mask does that. Duh. Sure, it doesn’t catch everything but it’s a darn sight better than nothing. So, in effect they’d be protecting you, at least from the big particles. Now, you wear one and you’ll be protecting them.
Duh.

Ron

PH CIB

Wear a Mask....I could care less if anyone thinks I am a Coward or Fearful for wearing a Mask....Most of those who exhibit False Bravery by not wearing a mask have never done anything Really Brave in their Lives....So far Masks have been proven to be effective, even if Masks were not effective all I am out is the inconvenience of wearing a Mask,,,,But Masks have been proven Effective and by acting Macho and not wearing a Mask all You are out is possibly Killing Others or Yourself....

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Unfortunately, you misunderstand the numbers.

The mortality rate = 100*number of deaths/ number of cases.


The reported number of cases is much much smaller than the number of actual cases. Many individuals have no symptoms or only minor symptoms and thus do not come to the attention of the medical professionals. Studies were made on homeless populations in California and New York City. About 50% percent tested positive and yet none were sick. For flu it usually takes the CDC several years to estimate the mortality of flu as it must estimate the number of unreported cases.

For COVID the number of reported deaths is likely too large. There are financial incentives to report deaths as COVID deaths. Better figure to understand is the excess burden. Over a given period of time there is a statistical average for the number of expected deaths. In March and April, according to the CDC there appears to be a fairly small but significant excess burden in the US. Best present estimates indicate that COVID has a mortality rate similar to a bad flu (a few tenths of 1 percent).

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Most experts believe reported number of deaths is too small. In the early part of the year, people were tested only if doctor thought it would do some good. My wife attended virtually the funeral for the Mother of a friend - the friend was quite certain that her Mother had died of Covid but she wasn’t tested in time because the CDC had messed up their test. There were also those deaths in California where the tissue was tested after they died.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I do not misunderstand at all. Mortality can be reported in deaths per 100,000, deaths per million or percentages (as I have chosen to do). You can argue with the sources of the data all you want (I am sure you are more qualified to post data than the CDC or Johns Hopkins), and if you can find some better data sources, please post them.

Sorry, but I have extensive graduate level coursework in statistics, so you have nothing to teach me there. You certainly have a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts, and your contention that it is “similar to a bad flu” would be laughable if it were not so easily disproven as I have just done by the numbers and sources I have previously published. Statements like that show that you are either ignorant of the facts or are deliberately disingenuous. Either way, you have just squandered all credibility, and I won’t bother with replying to any of your comments in the future - they don’t deserve the effort, and anyone who believes them is either equally poorly informed, or has some very strange agenda indeed. I think you should conduct yourself with regards to masking and other precaution exactly as you see fit, just stay away from the rest of us if you choose not to mask, and for God’s sake, please stop spreading this absolute BS that it’s no worse than the flu (unless you’re referring to the 1918 H1N1 so called “Spanish Flu”).

SS319

When measuring the effectiveness of respirators, originally, a chemical called Dioctyl phthalate was used. the reason this chemical was used was that blowing an air jet across the surface - or through a nebulizer and allowing the airborne particles to age for 1-2 minutes would result in a very tight dispersal of particle sizes - very useful for scientific work. the mean particle size was measured to be 0.3 +/-0. 3 at 95%CL. Thus when challenging filters with DOP, you could measure the concentration on the upstream side and the down stream side of the filter and determine the effectiveness. Thus, a HEPA filter (P-100) was measured to stop 99.97% of all particles 0.3µ or larger. because of the DOP size profile, nothing could be said for particles of 0.2, 01 or smaller µ size. This is how the 0.3µ became the standard. Since then, in the 70s, it was discovered tha DOP is carcinogenic, and it is not nice to challenge people with a known carcinogen, so Corn oil and other materials are now used in place of the DOP. We have learned that the HEPA efficiency actually increases down to about 0.1µ particle size, however, the standard set in the weapons testing industry during the mid 50s has stuck with us.

Most industrial airborne particulates, other than smokes and fumes, are larger than the 0.3µ and particles in this size range and smaller ones are buoyant enough to be immediately exhausted, even from deep lung.

All that to say that a N95 respirator is sufficiently effective for particles down to about 0.1µ to be worth the effort to wear the mask, provided.....

The majority of exposure for respirator wearers comes during donning and doffing, so

Wear your mask
Wear your mask right
Don't be adjusting your mask continuously

Keep your hands off your Frigging face!

fetzler Loc: North West PA

I likely have as much or more training in statistics as you. The issue I point out has nothing to do with statistics but rather the validity of the collected data. I am am sure that you can perform simple arithmetic.

In a normal flu season it takes the CDC several years to come up with accurate mortality rates. It will be the same for COVID. When people die there are usually comorbidities. Assigning a cause of death is actually rather difficult particularly with the elderly. In the present case there are financial incentives to check off the COVID box particularly as hospitals in many areas have been rather empty. I have likely had the flu a number of times in my life sometimes with more than noticeable symptoms. I was not counted directly as a flu case as I did not seek medical attention.The same is true for COVID for a variety reasons. We will all have to wait for more accurate estimates in the future.

srt101fan

There are some good comments in this thread. I’ll throw my 2 cents worth into the mix in the hope that some might find my observations helpful. I'm only addressing masks, not the transfer hazard associated with touching contaminated surfaces. Full disclosure: I’m an old guy with some health issues. So I’m more concerned than the “invincibles” out there might be. Being retired and an introvert helps with avoidance!

Seems like the argument against mask wearing is generally based on the following: (1) the lack of epidemiological evidence supporting mask effectiveness; (2) perceived ineffectiveness of mask filtration; and (3) perception that some areas/countries that don’t enforce masking do as well as or better than those that do.

These are valid issues to raise and certainly worth discussing. But I don’t need to ruminate over them to conclude that my wearing a mask is good for me and folks around me. I base that on what I know, what I don’t know, and a measure of common sense.

1. What I Know/Believe:
(a) Coronavirus is a serious health concern, much more serious than the seasonal flu. I should be willing to give up some of my freedom and comfort to reduce the risk it poses to me and others.
(b) The viruses are most likely not spread in a cloud of individual virus particles.
(c) The viruses move in a cluster in an aerosol or attached to droplets expelled from an infected person via exhaled breaths, coughs or sneezes. The aerosols are not all the same, they can vary based on particle size.
(d) Given (b) and (c), the challenge to the mask filter (“threat scenario”) could be aerosols of different sizes and/or droplets.
(e) Cloth masks cannot filter out small aerosols; they may be able to filter out larger aerosols; they can filter out the larger droplets.
(f) Cloth mask filtration works in both directions: outgoing breath and air breathed in. The flow dynamics are different in each case but the air is filtered both ways. So we need to think of mask wearing not just in terms of protecting others from your germs but also protecting yourself.
(g) Proper mask fitting is important. But with cloth masks there will always be some leakage around the edge of both inhaled and exhaled air.

2. What I don’t know:
(a) What is the probability of occurrence of the various aerosol and droplet sizes (“threat scenarios”)?
(b) How significant is mask leakage around the edges in terms of degrading the beneficial aspects of mask wearing?
(c) Is there a relationship between the amount of viral contamination taken in and the severity of the illness, i.e., is there a benefit to reducing the contamination intake even if you can’t stop it completely?

3. Common Sense:
Common sense tells me that I want to block hazardous stuff from getting into my respiratory tract. Common sense also tells me that it’s not an “all or nothing” proposition. My mask will not protect me in all threat scenarios but it will in some (most?). And, if I'm infected, it will significantly reduce the probability of spreading my illness to someone else.

4. Conclusion:
Comparisons of “success”/”failures” of various areas/countries are too complex for me to base my masking decision on (Sweden, for example is cited by many as an example why masks are not needed. Yet a bunch of Swedish doctors and scientists published a letter saying “don’t do what we did”!). So I put these comparisons aside and look at it from my individual interaction with the outside world. When I walk into a grocery store, do I know what “threat scenario” I might face? No. Will my wearing a mask protect me in some scenarios? Yes. If I am infected and don’t know it, will my mask wearing protect other shoppers? Yes. Does the mask reduce the overall risk of my getting infected and infecting others while I'm shopping? Yes.

Seems like a no-brainer…..


[Thank you if you’ve read this far!]