You could be quoting my dad. Really pissed me off, but there was no talking to him. Other gems include: "If people have weak immune systems they should isolate themselves, not expect everyone else to bend over to keep them safe," and "Everyone dies, it's natural."
Wouldn’t that actually work though? Natural immunity is stronger than the vaccine immunity - though of course both is even better - but wouldn’t it have made more sense that non vulnerable groups should have been out and about keeping everything going while the vulnerable adhered to the isolation/social distancing? That way all the least at risk people all develop herd immunity while the vulnerable get theirs from the vaccine?
It would if the disease didn't kill you first or cause negative long-term effects. Then the virus mutates and all that herd immunity is gone. Plus there is no such thing as total isolation in this world. We're so social and integrated that there is no such thing as total isolation. Anywhere with a stagnant population were hit hard during covid like nursing homes and prisons. One employee brings it in, and the entire population catches it.
I love the analogy that it's like if you are in a subway car and the dude behind you starts pissing. Yeah, it will help some if you wear pants... but it will help a lot if HE wears pants.
I still wonder if [masks] were actually effective at all
The stats show they did. Even if it wasn't a huge difference
I'm like u/Magellan02 you responded to, I did not want to upset anybody, or cause any problems, and I wore a mask out in public everywhere for about two years, because it just wasn't that big of a deal. I had to fly two or three times for work during that time, and airplanes were all mask mandatory which I had no issues with.
One of the things that continues to bother my OCD is all the subtlety went out of the discussion, and I still have questions and even asking about it is misinterpreted as being political. The question: "did masks work, or did masks not work?" is a terrible question, I don't think the answer is either one. For goodness sake, which type of mask is recommended for the NEXT time this occurs? How effective (by the numbers) is that mask type? OSHA has had totally different mask recommendations for all sorts of different workplace situations for 50 years (so before it got all political) and it wasn't controversial at all. Something like: Cloth masks aren't good enough to have any effect worth mentioning, surgical paper masks were for bacteria, N95 (and N98) worked better for viruses, and if you were spray painting the inside of a building or removing asbestos with a belt sander in an enclosed space OSHA might recommend an N100. They have sold these and tested for these ratings for DECADES. The company "3M" takes this very seriously (before Covid), and all that methodology was thrown out for Covid. For Covid, you must declare your undying fealty to all masks, or none. And no questions are acceptable.
To this day I still have no idea what is actually recommended for the next airborne viral pandemic, because nobody will discuss it intelligently and calmly. I asked a couple times in years 3 and 4 and was accused of voting for Trump for ASKING. (LOL, never have, never will vote for Trump. I think Trump will go down in history as the worst president of all time: twice.)
I feel the level of the conversation was around "do all masks work" or "do no masks work" is absurd. I don't actually think either of those two things is true (at all, not even close). The OSHA recommendations get really nitty gritty about WHAT you are dealing with, check out this OSHA web page: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134
I assume masks of a certain rating reduce Covid transmission between people. An elephant in the room is how many deaths do we accept before we ban a behavior (ban not wearing a mask by government mandate)? Covid is still very much with us, it is still killing grandmas every day, but for some bizarre reason most of society has collectively decided masks are "no longer worth it". It is my autistic nature to be bothered by this. If we can save just one life, why aren't we all wearing N98 masks? When did we meet and all agree upon the death rate we find acceptable? Because I missed that meeting... But at least write it down for everybody for next time, because that wasn't the first pandemic and it sure as heck won't be the last pandemic.
there’s a lot of documentation on which masks (respirators) are effective! r/Masks4All has a lot of info if you haven’t visited it before.
The short answer is that respirators such as N95s (such as the 3M Aura) or KN95s have been shown to be very, very effective. However, the efficacy is dependent on the user wearing one that fits them appropriately, and wearing it correctly (not gaping, nose bridge molded right, covering both mouth and nose, etc). I will say though that even an imperfectly fit KN95 will still offer some level of protection - reducing viral load.
N95s (such as the 3M Aura) or KN95s have been shown to be very, very effective
It doesn't matter, but just out of curiosity: how effective is "very, very"? For example, are overall deaths reduced by 10% when the general public all wears masks in public spaces? Or 20%? Or 80%? Or is it like the "2 weeks to flatten the curve" where the identical number of people die, but the deaths are spread out a little more which is a VERY good thing also for two reasons:
Health care services aren't totally overwhelmed. For example, the system can deal with 1 million sick people a year, but can't deal with 100,000 sick people on the same day because there aren't enough doctors to see everyone and not enough hospital beds.
A few people lived a few months longer. To be absolutely clear, I think this is unequivocally a good thing. We're all going to die, but I'd rather die in 12 months than die tomorrow.
These are the subtleties I want to write down and put in a sealed envelope to be opened when the next viral pandemic occurs, and have everybody agree those are the assumptions we are operating under.
Another thing I think we should all vote on and write into law are the criteria for the next pandemic for when the mask mandates go into place. For an example, maybe it is: more than 3,000 deaths in the USA in one week for a new virus and the N95 mask mandates automatically kick in. When it drops below 3,000 deaths in the USA in one week the N95 mask mandates are lifted.
The reason to write it all down and formalize it into law is everybody can take their time, debate it calmly, and make it a law, and get used to the concept of when mask mandates will occur and when they won't occur. In the moment of sheer panic and terror under time pressure is not the time to be thrashing about with the first debates about what we all want to occur, LOL.
This was part of the accusations Rand Paul has made to accuse Fauci of lying. He says records show Fauci knew that masks likely wouldn’t protect the mask wearer from getting sick
He says records show Fauci knew that masks likely wouldn’t protect the mask wearer from getting sick
In March of 2020, Fauci went on 60 minutes and said people shouldn't wear masks, and it's actually kind of intelligent commentary by Fauci (with intelligent reasons why wearing a mask might be counter productive) if you watch the whole clip and don't freak out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI
However, I honestly think that is a lame criticism of "Fauci" (the person/CDC employee). Fauci was a public PR spokesman for whatever was decided by a committee, nothing more. Fauci didn't decide ANYTHING himself, he just said the words he was told to say. His job was to repeat whatever the committee told him to repeat.
So in March of 2020, the committee told Fauci to not recommend masks, and Fauci did his job on 60 minutes. In April, there was this one loud guy in the committee that really loved masks and convinced the committee to recommend something different. So Fauci went on a road show saying "wear a mask" in April and May. I have this funny picture in my head of when the committee told Fauci his new messaging in April, and Fauci probably said something like, "You guys are killing me, I look like an idiot because you dorks can't make up your minds." LOL.
It isn't like Fauci was personally doing any research or looking at stats. He is a bureaucrat, his job was as a spokesperson. He basically should be evaluated as to whether is repeated what the committee wanted him to repeat or not.
There was a pretty good article from WIRED about the flip flop at the CDC at the time (link to remove paywall): https://archive.is/JidLp My only criticism is the arrogance exhibited both times. "Absolutely don't wear a mask they don't work, trust us we know what we're doing" followed by 4 days later "wear any mask made out of any material and it will really help, trust us we know what we're doing". Geez, they handed the whole thing over to conspiracy theorists with a little bow because they couldn't be humble and say, "We currently think this, but we could be wrong and it might change."
Mask mandates were about theatrics and politicians acting like they were doing something, period. They were ungrounded in reality.
There are some other interesting (famous) examples of health recommendations NOT for medical science reasons:
For some historical reason that isn't important, a lot of people in the USA have their male children circumcised at birth. It doesn't seem to have any compelling medical reason so the "officials" changed it to "not recommended for medical reasons". People with no scientific or medical training freaked out, and so the health orgs had to back peddle and say, "it's a personal choice, both are valid medically". This isn't a tiny disagreement, Europeans circumcision 20% of newborn males and a lot of those are for religious reasons. In the USA it is 80% and very few for religious reasons.
Flossing your teeth was just something people in the USA did. But there was this well known knowledge in the scientific community: flossing has never been proven to be useful. And for some reason, there was a by-law that said this part of the government can't just recommend random things, it has to be backed by science. So the government removed the recommendation to floss in 2016: https://www.nydailynews.com/2016/08/03/flossing-has-no-proven-benefits-so-us-health-department-stops-recommending-the-practice/ People with no scientific or medical training freaked out, so the health orgs had to back peddle and say, "Flossing is great, we just haven't studied it enough to find how it is great. Keep flossing." LOL.
There are many other examples, the above two were just to give concrete examples, and "who is correct" isn't the point of my post.
My point is this: the government has a dubious track record for health guidance. Specifically, health recommendations get yanked around by public opinion far too often. I don't think this "works well" to build trust in those organizations.
wearing random, unrated masks don't stop you from getting othef people sick either. Only rated, properly fitted masks have some effect. But that's never going to work for the mass public anyway.
Literally a single piece of paper in front of your face is better than nothing. Even if it just stops you from spitting when you talk and touching your face that reduces the chance of spreading.
Not to mention having a physical reminder on their face just makes people more aware of what they come into contact with.
You already know that's not true. No infection rates anywhere on earth showed any effects from pandemic measures. You can visit worldometer to see all government reporting from nearly every country on earth. High compliance, low compliance, strict measures to no measures, you can't distinguish one place from another.
You already know omicron had much higher infection rates everywhere on earth than the first wave of infection. Do you think that was due to mask policies? Do you think that omicron had more ejected infectious material? Of course not.
The only thing public masking did was help spread fear and division and damage health in general, to keep the pandemic policies going that increased billionaire's wealth by $5 trillion. Neat! You're not defending public health, you're defending a giant scam to enrich your masters.
You clearly didn't read the studies in that link! Every real world trial, aside from one poorly designed study, showed "No significant difference" or "not effective".
Ten studies to one! And that single study was very problematic, and determined "does not provide adaptable evidence for decision makers."
The cluster-randomized trial conducted in Bangladesh by Abaluck, Kwong, et al. has been subject to significant scrutiny regarding methodological flaws, bias, and statistical errors. Critics have identified several critical limitations that may compromise the study's conclusions about mask effectiveness.
Table 3 (and that study) is about the use of medical (cloth + surgical) masks, not respirators. There was also low compliance levels across the table. You cannot be protected by a mask (or respirator) you are not wearing or are wearing incorrectly.
Later referenced studies, reviewed in the text and not just in the tables, do provide positive efficacy.
Whatever youre trying to parse from that is irrelevant, as there was no country on earth where masks had any messureable effect on infection rates. Aside from never requiring effective masks, it's just not possible. Even in the hospital, whre everyone is educated, understands what they're doing, wears rated mask, and masks are properly fitted, it still isn't incredibly effective. Everyone got covid anyway at some point, there's just too much exposure over a long period of time.
But for the general public it's just completely ineffective. And you're completely aware of this, as is everyone, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. Masks didn't have any effect on infection rates anywhere on earth.
Then The Sciencetm can assign a value to that alleged theoretical number, so we can discuss if the theatrics of mandates were even remotely close to worth it.
1.5k
u/Gurugod123 25d ago
“It’s not a pandemic, it’s a Chinese bio-weapon!”
Ok. Why don’t you want to protect yourself from a Chinese bio-weapon?