Coronavirus

[gt2690b]

The definitive study for masks and effectiveness was actually performed about 1-2 years before COVID. I've posted it in this thread on several occasions, but it's a long thread and I don't have the link at hand.

Basically, yes they are effective, but marginally. Hand-made masks were the worst, but offered some protection, surgical masks were next, then N95 masks, and then full-bore N100 respirators were the best.


EDIT - and people continually think of masks as one-way, that's incorrect thinking. If you are sick, and wearing a mask, your spread of a viral pathogen is an order of magnitude lower than if you are unmasked, even with the crappiest hand-made masks.

The point of masking is not to STOP the spread of a respiratory pathogen, it's to slow it to buy you time for other, better, interventions.

EDIT 2 - this study is a controlled study back about 13 years ago comparing "tea cloth" masks to surgical masks and FFP2 masks. Their summary is about what one would expect:

(from results section)
All masks provided protection against transmission by reducing exposure during all types of activities, for both children and adults (Table 1). Within each category of masks, the degree of protection varied by age category and to a lesser extent by activity. We observed no difference between men and women. Surgical masks provided about twice as much protection as home made masks, the difference a bit more marked among adults. FFP2 masks provided adults with about 50 times as much protection as home made masks, and 25 times as much protection as surgical masks. The increase in protection for children was less marked, about 10 times as much protection by FFP2 versus home-made masks and 6 times as much protection as surgical masks.

(from abstract)
Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, in spite of imperfect fit and imperfect adherence, personal respirators providing most protection. Masks worn by patients may not offer as great a degree of protection against aerosol transmission.

Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population

Governments are preparing for a potential influenza pandemic. Therefore they need data to assess the possible impact of interventions. Face-masks worn by the general population could be an accessible and affordable intervention, if effective when worn ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

according to the healthaffairs linked above the mask mandate brought down the number of infections from .00015% to .0001% ... according to other links above 70% of the covid infections in households were brought in from schools... so youre counting on kids to wear their masks correctly for a statistically very small reduction in even a population study of adults with N95 masks... also according to the NIH website the mask mandate cut consumer spending by 50%... call me crazy but i just think kids should be free... IMO the mask mandate was causing more harm than good

i believe if you're sick you should not go out in public... and if for some reason you have to go out wear a mask sure.. but don't put the responsibility on elementary school kids to save grandmas life

i've seen so many kids deathly afraid of germs now they can't even be kids anymore.. they are lifelong scarred by the fear installed by the general public and the visual impact of a masked society...

 

[gt2690b]

Even procedure masks and homemade masks slowed progression. This has been shown.
No mandate "works" if people choose not to follow them. That, however, is sociopolitical and has nothing to do with to subject of the mandate. Further, because of the extremely variable situations in terms of compliance and viral transmission level variance, we are left with observational studies, which are (in my honest opinion) worth only the paper they are written on.

I firmly believe that all masks slow transmission, and have the personal (observational) experience where those of us in health care generally caught Covid at home from our kids, rather than at work where we used both procedure and N95 masks.

If you want evidence that masks work, the science is there.

If you want evidence that people don't follow mandates, the science is there as well.

Don't conflate the two.

I agree there appears to be evidence on all sides.. heres an article that summarizes many of the studies and basically comes up with no conclusion:

How did mask mandates affect COVID death rates? A state-by-state analysis

A dive into the data between the length of mask mandates per state and the number of people who died from COVID shows little connection between the two.

www.audacy.com

 

[bkp_duke]

according to the healthaffairs linked above the mask mandate brought down the number of infections from .00015% to .0001% ... according to other links above 70% of the covid infections in households were brought in from schools... so youre counting on kids to wear their masks correctly for a statistically very small reduction in even a population study of adults with N95 masks... also according to the NIH website the mask mandate cut consumer spending by 50%... call me crazy but i just think kids should be free... IMO the mask mandate was causing more harm than good

i believe if you're sick you should not go out in public... and if for some reason you have to go out wear a mask sure.. but don't put the responsibility on elementary school kids to save grandmas life

No. I'm not going down the political route here, which is what you are baiting us all to do. I don't care about that.

The FACTS are that masks reduce the spread of the virus, in ALL age groups, and BETWEEN age groups. The evidence for that is overwhelming, in hundreds of studies. Many of those studies published long before COVID, so with no possible trace of "agenda" bias.

What you are trying to do is select one sliver of data to support an emotional argument that you hold deer, because you think masking affects your civil liberties (newsflash, you are not the first to have this idea - google "Anti-Mask League" regarding the 1918 influenza pandemic). You are cherry picking, and trying to ignore the MOUNTAIN of evidence against you. That is your "right", but that doesn't make you correct.

 

[gt2690b]

No. I'm not going down the political route here, which is what you are baiting us all to do. I don't care about that.

The FACTS are that masks reduce the spread of the virus, in ALL age groups, and BETWEEN age groups. The evidence for that is overwhelming, in hundreds of studies. Many of those studies published long before COVID, so with no possible trace of "agenda" bias.

What you are trying to do is select one sliver of data to support an emotional argument that you hold deer, because you think masking affects your civil liberties (newsflash, you are not the first to have this idea - google "Anti-Mask League" regarding the 1918 influenza pandemic). You are cherry picking, and trying to ignore the MOUNTAIN of evidence against you. That is your "right", but that doesn't make you correct.

did you read this article?

How did mask mandates affect COVID death rates? A state-by-state analysis

A dive into the data between the length of mask mandates per state and the number of people who died from COVID shows little connection between the two.

www.audacy.com

i am not trying to have an US vs. THEM argument.. the numbers show the mask mandate had very little correlation with deaths.. i'm not trying to be political AT ALL although you appear to be

 

[bkp_duke]

did you read this article?

How did mask mandates affect COVID death rates? A state-by-state analysis

A dive into the data between the length of mask mandates per state and the number of people who died from COVID shows little connection between the two.

www.audacy.com

i am not trying to have an US vs. THEM argument.. the numbers show the mask mandate had very little correlation with deaths.. i'm not trying to be political AT ALL although you appear to be

I read the article, it's a poor comparison. It's trying to compare HUGE populations that are homegenous and draw conclusions from them. It's literally setup to fail in how it was designed.

A BETTER design would be to look at county by county, and try to see if mask mandates at certain population densities made any kind of difference. But state by state? That's something setup by a 5th grader that has no clue how to deconflict variables.

 

[gt2690b]

I read the article, it's a poor comparison. It's trying to compare HUGE populations that are homegenous and draw conclusions from them. It's literally setup to fail in how it was designed.

A BETTER design would be to look at county by county, and try to see if mask mandates at certain population densities made any kind of difference. But state by state? That's something setup by a 5th grader that has no clue how to deconflict variables.

i can give you an even smaller sample size.. im my house of 6 my 80 year old mom who smoked for 40 years lives with me.. 5 of us got COVID but my mom did not... had we counted on masks to save her she'd be dead now.. instead we used social distancing and common sense..

mask mandates give some people unreasonable assurance that they'll be ok and they take risks they shouldn't... other people dont wear the masks correctly because they find it hard to breather... other people breath harder and more forceful because the mask is cutting off more air than they are comfortable with.. other people likely ignore the mandate altogether... many of the states in those studies had no mandate at all so the county by county analysis is not even possible

in a controlled study, sure.. a mask can be shown to be effective... but the mask mandate just wasn't effective in this case

 

[JRP3]

i can give you an even smaller sample size.. im my house of 6 my 80 year old mom who smoked for 40 years lives with me.. 5 of us got COVID but my mom did not... had we counted on masks to save her she'd be dead now.. instead we used social distancing and common sense..

Anecdote with unsupported conclusion, i.e. irrelevant.

 

[gt2690b]

Anecdote with unsupported conclusion, i.e. irrelevant.

ironic

 

[bkp_duke]

i can give you an even smaller sample size.. im my house of 6 my 80 year old mom who smoked for 40 years lives with me.. 5 of us got COVID but my mom did not... had we counted on masks to save her she'd be dead now.. instead we used social distancing and common sense..

mask mandates give some people unreasonable assurance that they'll be ok and they take risks they shouldn't... other people dont wear the masks correctly because they find it hard to breather... other people breath harder and more forceful because the mask is cutting off more air than they are comfortable with.. other people likely ignore the mandate altogether... many of the states in those studies had no mandate at all so the county by county analysis is not even possible

in a controlled study, sure.. a mask can be shown to be effective... but the mask mandate just wasn't effective in this case

For reasons we are not sure of at this time, smoking was protective against COVID (no joke). It's usually a risk factor for other pathogens, but it wasn't for this.

Study shows lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in smokers

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) primarily infects the lungs, later spreading through the bloodstream. The worst prognoses are mostly seen in ‘at-risk’ groups, such as the immunocompromised, elderly, or those suffering from respiratory conditions.

www.news-medical.net

 

[gt2690b]

For a reasons we are not sure of at this time, smoking was protective against COVID (no joke). It's usually a risk factor for other pathogens, but it wasn't for this.

Study shows lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in smokers

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) primarily infects the lungs, later spreading through the bloodstream. The worst prognoses are mostly seen in ‘at-risk’ groups, such as the immunocompromised, elderly, or those suffering from respiratory conditions.

www.news-medical.net

yes i have read that before.. one thing is for sure.. it wasn't the mask(s) that saved her

also.. she was not smoking from 2020 to january of this year.. which may or may not have mattered

 

[bkp_duke]

yes i have read that before.. one thing is for sure.. it wasn't the mask(s) that saved her

also.. she was not smoking from 2020 to january of this year.. which may or may not have mattered

Having a Ph.D. in molecular biology, this is my 100% guess here as to what happened (and why she and even previous smokers would be protected).

Smoking damages the alveolar cells of the lungs, greatly so to the point where it can take them decades to properly regenerate (we normally tell smokers that if they smoked 20 years, it takes another 20 years for their lungs to repair and their risk to return to baseline). Something in that damage interferes with either SARS-CoV2 binding or uptake into respiratory cells in smokers. That's my theory, with little evidence at this point to support or refute it.


Also, we really should be talking about COVID as a grouping of at least 4 (or more) distinct viruses. The lay population refers to it as one entity, but that's really not doing it justice.

The original Wuhan strain was so deadly, compared to later strains, because it was a LOWER respiratory pathogen (think pneumonia). The subsequent strains/variants had mutated to the point where they were no longer LR pathogens, but upper respiratory pathogens (more cold-like than pneumonia). This is why even in unvaccinated, previously-uninfected populations the death rate started to decline. This is an expected progression during a pandemic - as people here know I've stated many times - the virus responsible for a pandemic will mutate to become MORE infectious, but LESS deadly. Evolutionarily, It wants to spread faster, but it doesn't do it any good if it kills those it infects.

 

[DrGriz]

One other reminder, or perhaps news to some:

Much of the effort behind masks as well as restrictions of public exposure was with the goal of "flattening the curve." This was something all of us in the trenches heard repeatedly. Don't overwhelm the health care system (it was overwhelmed at times anyway). Total cases and/or deaths can't tell us what the effects of those interventions are/were. But it kept health care relatively available for non-Covid medical issues. It would have been much worse if we hadn't used every tool in the toolbox. Sadly, that message was often lost in the noise.

Our system is built on "just in time", and we could not handle the excess all at once.

 

[madodel]

Changes to the ACIP 2023 Adult Immunization Schedule

 

[dhanson865]

7 weeks out April 12 2023 moving average changed again from 200 to 201. (It was 195 at the 5 week mark)
6 weeks out April 18 2023 moving average is 192 so even if it shifts again in a few days it's likely to stay below 200.

7, 8, 9 weeks out April 12 2023 moving average is still 201. (It was 195 at the 5 week mark)
6, 7, 8 weeks out April 18 2023 moving average is 192 (has not changed since the 6 week was observed)
7 weeks out April 26 moving average is 193 (first time I've included this date)
6 weeks out May 2nd moving average is 157 (first time I've included this date)

It drops drastically from the last week for April to the first week of May but I don't trust it not to change, for now that April zone of solid numbers looks like a plateau in the low 190s, which is the first time this chart has been solidly below 200 on the moving average since Mar 2020 over 3 years ago.

Since the new cases graph is in a steep decline either things have gotten better drastically or this source of information is no longer accurate.

Are we willing to say that cases are approaching zero? Or are cases common but not being tracked? Or are they being tracked better elsewhere and worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ isn't the best place to look?

 

[JRP3]

Are we willing to say that cases are approaching zero? Or are cases common but not being tracked? Or are they being tracked better elsewhere and worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ isn't the best place to look?

Case counts aren't reliable since most people probably aren't reporting unless it's a severe case, which seems less common now. Wastewater levels are the same as early April 22 and still slightly trending down with a recent uptick in the Northeast.

 

[DrGriz]

Case counts aren't reliable since most people probably aren't reporting unless it's a severe case, which seems less common now. Wastewater levels are the same as early April 22 and still slightly trending down with a recent uptick in the Northeast.

Agreed. Covid is endemic and won't be eliminated. And long covid will be more of a problem than acute covid in the long term.

 

[terranx]

Are we willing to say that cases are approaching zero? Or are cases common but not being tracked? Or are they being tracked better elsewhere and worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ isn't the best place to look?

It's still pretty common, but between the dominant strains tending to be less virulent these days and most people having some degree of immunity whether from vaccines, infection, or both - the severe cases do seem to be reduced. I do occasionally still admit a legit covid ARDS patient, but it's not like before where every bed in the ICU is filled with these patients and we're managing what would normally be ICU level patients on the floors. And even the ones who do progress to severe disease don't seem to be dying as much as before.

 

[JRP3]

Elon still boosting covid conspiracies

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670657528365998080

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670320668468994049

 

[gt2690b]

Elon still boosting covid conspiracies

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670657528365998080

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670320668468994049

What's the conspiracy?

 

[JRP3]

What's the conspiracy?

This covers it quite well.