Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

ScarletRevival said:
That's pretty vague, do you have an actual name of this person?
Click to expand...


Not black and white. Not one person. 

Pretty much all available evidence from professionals with no axe to grind suggests mask wearing can reduce coronavirus infections by 75%.  That 25% will still kill people, but if the conversation is about opening the economy and moving things forward, it starts with mask wearing. Or more to the point, not treating masks like a badge of political resistance. 

Also, almost every spike in positive tests is linked to large gatherings of folks not wearing masks. 

So it's not black and white, but it's still pretty simple. 

 
ScarletRevival said:
That's pretty vague, do you have an actual name of this person?
Click to expand...


Guy Chamberlin said:
Not black and white. Not one person. 

Pretty much all available evidence from professionals with no axe to grind suggests mask wearing can reduce coronavirus infections by 75%.  That 25% will still kill people, but if the conversation is about opening the economy and moving things forward, it starts with mask wearing. Or more to the point, not treating masks like a badge of political resistance. 

Also, almost every spike in positive tests is linked to large gatherings of folks not wearing masks. 

So it's not black and white, but it's still pretty simple. 
Click to expand...


You satisfied, @ScarletRevival?

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Not black and white. Not one person. 

Pretty much all available evidence from professionals with no axe to grind suggests mask wearing can reduce coronavirus infections by 75%.  That 25% will still kill people, but if the conversation is about opening the economy and moving things forward, it starts with mask wearing. Or more to the point, not treating masks like a badge of political resistance. 

Also, almost every spike in positive tests is linked to large gatherings of folks not wearing masks. 

So it's not black and white, but it's still pretty simple. 
Click to expand...


I've heard and watched a number of interviews with medical professionals, some who want to effectively treat this virus and say that masks aren't at all effective, some with an axe to grind are in favor of mask mandates, lockdowns, etc.

A new study by the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf says that over 70% of Covid patients regularly or always wear masks.

We all have to listen to and follow the science.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tenor.gif


 
ScarletRevival said:
I've heard and watched a number of interviews with medical professionals, some who want to effectively treat this virus and say that masks aren't at all effective, some with an axe to grind are in favor of mask mandates, lockdowns, etc.

A new study by the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf says that over 70% of Covid patients regularly or always wear masks.

We all have to listen to and follow the science.
Click to expand...
This is a misleading interpretation of the study and that particular data point.

You have to take the context of the study into consideration; therefore, referencing the 'summary' is a far more accurate and sincere method of contributing to this conversation.

The study is not purporting what you are claiming.

What is already known about the topic?
Community and close contact exposures contribute to the
spread of COVID-19.
What is added by this report?
Findings from a case-control investigation of symptomatic
outpatients from 11 U.S. health care facilities found that close
contact with persons with known COVID-19 or going to
locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options were
associated with COVID-19 positivity. Adults with positive
SARS-CoV-2 test results were approximately twice as likely to
have reported dining at a restaurant than were those with
negative SARS-CoV-2 test results.
What are the implications for public health practice?
Eating and drinking on-site at locations that offer such options
might be important risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2
infection. Efforts to reduce possible exposures where mask use
and social distancing are difficult to maintain, such as when
eating and drinking, should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ScarletRevival said:
A new study by the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf says that over 70% of Covid patients regularly or always wear masks.
Click to expand...
70% of the 154 Covid + patients from the article self reported they always wear a mask. 74% of the 160 COVID - patients self reported they always wear a mask. Self reported data kinda sucks, and this isn't a big sample. Anyways their big takeaway from this study is "Eating and drinking on-site at locations that offer such options might be important risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Efforts to reduce possible exposures where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, such as when eating and drinking, should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities"

Do with that info what you wish.

 
ScarletRevival said:
I've heard and watched a number of interviews with medical professionals, some who want to effectively treat this virus and say that masks aren't at all effective, some with an axe to grind are in favor of mask mandates, lockdowns, etc.

A new study by the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf says that over 70% of Covid patients regularly or always wear masks.

We all have to listen to and follow the science.
Click to expand...


I have also seen the interviews with medical professionals claiming masks aren't effective, but there are very few of them and the "professionals" have typically been discredited by all available evidence.  Some, of course, are paid shills, with a paid axe to grind. I'm not sure you actually read the cdc link you provided. 

The medical community has always been pretty unanimous about this -- including their early mistake.  The only reason to insist masks aren't useful or needed is because you are balls deep in partisan conspiracy theory.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Not black and white. Not one person. 

Pretty much all available evidence from professionals with no axe to grind suggests mask wearing can reduce coronavirus infections by 75%.  That 25% will still kill people, but if the conversation is about opening the economy and moving things forward, it starts with mask wearing. Or more to the point, not treating masks like a badge of political resistance. 

Also, almost every spike in positive tests is linked to large gatherings of folks not wearing masks. 

So it's not black and white, but it's still pretty simple. 
Click to expand...
Yes, the evidence seems to be building up:

1. Anecdotally (increased number of non-masking politicians from one party suddenly testing positive - seemingly from a single event vs none/very few from other party with generally higher masking use)

2. Daily positive counts where we are now seeing a surge in states that have been more relaxed (or even antagonistic) about masking requirements (e.g.: South Dakota).  Several of these states are more rural than those that suffered the initial Mar/Apr/May outbreak. Many scientists said earlier this year those rural states would have a coronavirus increase later in the year, unless they were diligent about enforcing masking, no large events, etc.

At the end of the day, I chalk up mask resistance to a form of risk analysis failure.  Typically we see it the other way around - people that undervalue significant risks since they tend to view things only anecdotally.  If it hasn't happened to them (or someone they personally know) then it must not happen to anyone.

Mask use is even more difficult to convince doubters on, since the primary purpose is to protect others from your aerosols.  Its a mutual protection plan, where you as an individual actually need others to follow the rules to help reduce your risk.  It also requires large scale compliance consistency (see the White House Rose Garden event as a counter example, or the recent outbreak from a Sweet 16 party on Long Island).

I'd like to think use of the Swiss Cheese Model for accident causation (used heavily in things like aircraft safety design) applied to virus protection would help them understand, but I think they've decided to let emotion rule their thoughts - "politician I believe says masks are bad, so masks are bad".  No analysis, no evidence, just opinion.

Masks alone are not a 100% solution either, as we know.

However: Social Distancing as much as possible + Masks + short exposure when distancing not possible + outdoors where possible + hand washing + ...  will keep reducing the risks.  The idea is to have multiple weapons simultaneously deployed against the threat.  Masks are one of the important weapons in this fight. 

If people get complacent on one or more of these approaches then the result can be an increase in positivity rates (as we are seeing presently, for example, in several places in Nebraska, South Dakota, etc.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rochelobe said:
Yes, the evidence seems to be building up:

1. Anecdotally (increased number of non-masking politicians from one party suddenly testing positive - seemingly from a single event vs none/very few from other party with generally higher masking use)

2. Daily positive counts where we are now seeing a surge in states that have been more relaxed (or even antagonistic) about masking requirements (e.g.: South Dakota).  Several of these states are more rural than those that suffered the initial Mar/Apr/May outbreak. Many scientists said earlier this year those rural states would have a coronavirus increase later in the year, unless they were diligent about enforcing masking, no large events, etc.

At the end of the day, I chalk up mask resistance to a form of risk analysis failure.  Typically we see it the other way around - people that undervalue significant risks since they tend to view things only anecdotally.  If it hasn't happened to them (or someone they personally know) then it must not happen to anyone.

Mask use is even more difficult to convince doubters on, since the primary purpose is to protect others from your aerosols.  Its a mutual protection plan, where you as an individual actually need others to follow the rules to help reduce your risk.  It also requires large scale compliance consistency (see the White House Rose Garden event as a counter example, or the recent outbreak from a Sweet 16 party on Long Island).

I'd like to think use of the Swiss Cheese Model for accident causation (used heavily in things like aircraft safety design) applied to virus protection would help them understand, but I think they've decided to let emotion rule their thoughts - "politician I believe says masks are bad, so masks are bad".  No analysis, no evidence, just opinion.

Masks alone are not a 100% solution either, as we know.

However: Social Distancing as much as possible + Masks + short exposure when distancing not possible + outdoors where possible + hand washing + ...  will keep reducing the risks.  The idea is to have multiple weapons simultaneously deployed against the threat.  Masks are one of the important weapons in this fight. 

If people get complacent on one or more of these approaches then the result can be an increase in positivity rates (as we are seeing presently, for example, in several places in Nebraska, South Dakota, etc.)
Click to expand...
Seeing it with students, I think covid-fatigue is setting in, fast.  

 
Ulty said:
the "medical professionals" who say masks aren't effective are like the "scientists" who deny climate change. They are few and far between, they are utter quacks, and the right wing will cling to their nonsense because it fits their agenda.
Click to expand...


I can find "scientists" who believe the Earth is flat. That doesn't mean I should pay attention to what those scientists say.

 
Back
Top