-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
US CDC Says Wearing Double Mask Reduce COVID by 95%. Sam Leong very Angry, Red Faced
- Thread starter Kraken
- Start date
no problem, lots of official peer reviewed data vs your fake made for the cults puff piece
oh i've got 10000 of these reports so I can go on for years, just saying
Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities
Sima Asadi 1, Christopher D Cappa 2, Santiago Barreda 3, Anthony S Wexler 2 4 5 6, Nicole M Bouvier 7 8, William D Ristenpart 9
Affiliations expand
- PMID: 32973285
- PMCID: PMC7518250
- DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-72798-7
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a surge in demand for facemasks to protect against disease transmission. In response to shortages, many public health authorities have recommended homemade masks as acceptable alternatives to surgical masks and N95 respirators. Although mask wearing is intended, in part, to protect others from exhaled, virus-containing particles, few studies have examined particle emission by mask-wearers into the surrounding air. Here, we measured outward emissions of micron-scale aerosol particles by healthy humans performing various expiratory activities while wearing different types of medical-grade or homemade masks. Both surgical masks and unvented KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask, corroborating their effectiveness at reducing outward emission. These masks similarly decreased the outward particle emission of a coughing superemitter, who for unclear reasons emitted up to two orders of magnitude more expiratory particles via coughing than average. In contrast, shedding of non-expiratory micron-scale particulates from friable cellulosic fibers in homemade cotton-fabric masks confounded explicit determination of their efficacy at reducing expiratory particle emission. Audio analysis of the speech and coughing intensity confirmed that people speak more loudly, but do not cough more loudly, when wearing a mask. Further work is needed to establish the efficacy of cloth masks at blocking expiratory particles for speech and coughing at varied intensity and to assess whether virus-contaminated fabrics can generate aerosolized fomites, but the results strongly corroborate the efficacy of medical-grade masks and highlight the importance of regular washing of homemade masks.
Conflict of interest statement
Yeah, yeah there are thousands of these articles floating all over cyberspace but the problem is that it does not translate into lower infection numbers in the real world so while the theory may sound perfectly logical it is not effective when implemented in the general population.
All the data shows that masks either make no difference or make infections levels worse.
Do not let those nonbelievers deter you from your quest to kill. We are big fans of your work, you take our Q ANON official releases about our virus and you spin them around to say whatever you want. You repeat it again without fail on a daily basis, hoping very well this will eventually drive our lies home. Usually this never works but in your case, you may convince at least 1 other we can kill. This is talent, this rare ability to fool others. As long as you are doing it to depopulate the human race, we support you 100%. Of course its just a harmless virus. The deaths show how gullible the humans are.
Some of our group just wish to see dead bodies. Other Qs delight at seeing the blood flow. Which type of death is your favorite, brother? Or is all death just marvelous? There is no wrong answer, as long as everyone dies.
Yes, you are correct, the ADMIN thinks death is a good thing.
Our goal is to massacre the human race and start again. There are too many decent people, scientists, nobel prize winners, democrats in the world. Biden is a threat to darkness and death itself, trying to fix the economy by stimulus and a $3Trillion infrastructure plan. Disgusting. Since it is polluted the human race needs to be rebooted, so 7 Billion deaths would be ideal.
SamLEong is a champion of this crusade against humanity, as he constantly repeats our lies which in turn leads to more deaths.
why you say liddat? something wrong?
Texas' COVID numbers fall for the 17th consecutive day following Gov. Abbott's 100% reopening of the state and lifting of the mask mandate - a move that Biden infamously called 'Neanderthal thinking'
Published: 12:33 AEDT, 28 March 2021 | Updated: 16:29 AEDT, 28 March 2021
8.4k shares
View comments
Texas COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to see a downward trend more than two weeks after the state scrapped its mask mandate and allowed businesses to reopen at full capacity.
On Saturday, Texas' seven-day COVID positivity rate reached an all-time low of 5.27 per cent, while hospitalizations fell to their lowest level since October, according to the latest state data.
The state recorded 2,292 new coronavirus cases, about 500 fewer on average from last week, and 107 new deaths.
The number of people hospitalized with coronavirus, meanwhile, dipped to 3,308.
The latest figure marks a significant decline in hospitalizations in the state which had seen levels soar past 14,000 for a couple of days in January.
Texas COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to drop, 17 days after it scrapped its mask mandate and allowed businesses to reopen at full capacity. Pictured: A group of friends gather for drinks at a bar in Austin on March 10
TEXAS: Texas Tech students watch Texas Tech and TCU play an NCAA college basketball game without masks earlier this month
There were 2,292 new cases reported across the state, about 500 fewer on average from last week, and 107 new deaths
The drop comes 17 days after Republican Governor Greg Abbott ended the statewide mask mandate and other COVID-19 safety measures.
Abbott took to Twitter on Saturday to celebrate the state's progress, saying: 'Today Texas hit an all-time recorded low for the 7-day Covid positivity rate: 5.27%. It's been below 6% for 5 days & below 10% for an entire month.
'Covid hospitalizations declined again--now at the lowest level since October 3rd. Vaccinations continue to increase rapidly.'
It comes a day after Texas saw the largest daily number of vaccines administered to Texans, with 342,849 people being inoculated on Friday, Abbott said.
The state also announced it will begin making all adults eligible for coronavirus vaccinations on Monday.
- Texas COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to drop, 17 days after it scrapped its mask mandate and allowed businesses to reopen at full capacity
- On Saturday, seven-day positivity rate reached an all-time low of 5.27 per cent
- The state reported 2,292 new cases, about 500 fewer on average from last week
- Hospitalizations, meanwhile, dipped to 3,308, its lowest level since October
- Comes after Republican Governor Greg Abbott drew harsh criticism for brushing off warnings to not relax COVID-19 restrictions earlier this month
- President Joe Biden at the time slammed the move as a 'Neanderthal thinking' and warned it would be a 'big mistake'
Published: 12:33 AEDT, 28 March 2021 | Updated: 16:29 AEDT, 28 March 2021
8.4k shares
View comments
Texas COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to see a downward trend more than two weeks after the state scrapped its mask mandate and allowed businesses to reopen at full capacity.
On Saturday, Texas' seven-day COVID positivity rate reached an all-time low of 5.27 per cent, while hospitalizations fell to their lowest level since October, according to the latest state data.
The state recorded 2,292 new coronavirus cases, about 500 fewer on average from last week, and 107 new deaths.
The number of people hospitalized with coronavirus, meanwhile, dipped to 3,308.
The latest figure marks a significant decline in hospitalizations in the state which had seen levels soar past 14,000 for a couple of days in January.
Texas COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to drop, 17 days after it scrapped its mask mandate and allowed businesses to reopen at full capacity. Pictured: A group of friends gather for drinks at a bar in Austin on March 10
TEXAS: Texas Tech students watch Texas Tech and TCU play an NCAA college basketball game without masks earlier this month
There were 2,292 new cases reported across the state, about 500 fewer on average from last week, and 107 new deaths
The drop comes 17 days after Republican Governor Greg Abbott ended the statewide mask mandate and other COVID-19 safety measures.
Abbott took to Twitter on Saturday to celebrate the state's progress, saying: 'Today Texas hit an all-time recorded low for the 7-day Covid positivity rate: 5.27%. It's been below 6% for 5 days & below 10% for an entire month.
'Covid hospitalizations declined again--now at the lowest level since October 3rd. Vaccinations continue to increase rapidly.'
It comes a day after Texas saw the largest daily number of vaccines administered to Texans, with 342,849 people being inoculated on Friday, Abbott said.
The state also announced it will begin making all adults eligible for coronavirus vaccinations on Monday.
Why Is Everyone in Texas Not Dying?
Jeffrey A. Tucker
– March 26, 2021 Reading Time: 6 minutes
I’m sitting at a bar in Texas, surrounded by maskless people, looking at folks on the streets walking around like life is normal, talking with nice and friendly faces, feeling like things in the world are more-or-less normal. Cases and deaths attributed to Covid are, like everywhere else, falling dramatically.
If you pay attention only to the media fear campaigns, you would find this confusing. More than two weeks ago, the governor of Texas completely reversed his devastating lockdown policies and repealed all his emergency powers, along with the egregious attacks on rights and liberties.
There was something very un-Texan about those lockdowns. My hotel room is festooned with pictures of cowboys on horses waving guns in the air, along with other depictions of rugged individualism facing down the elements. It’s a caricature but Texans embrace it. Then a new virus came along – as if that had never happened before in Texas – and the new Zoom class took the opposite path, not freedom but imposition and control.
After nearly a year of nonsense, on March 2, 2021, the governor finally said enough is enough and repealed it all. Towns and cities can still engage in Covid-related mischief but at least they are no longer getting cover from the governor’s office.
At that moment, a friend remarked to me that this would be the test we have been waiting for. A complete repeal of restrictions would lead to mass death, they said. Would it? Did the lockdowns really control the virus? We would soon find out, he theorized.
I knew better. The “test” of whether and to what extent lockdowns control the virus or “suppress outbreaks” (in Anthony Fauci’s words) has been tried all over the world. Every serious empirical examination has shown that the answer is no.
The US has many examples of open states that have generally had better performance in managing the disease than those states that are closed. Georgia already opened on April 24, 2020. South Dakota never shut down. South Carolina opened in May. Florida ended all restrictions in September. In every case, the press howled about the coming slaughter that did not happen. Yes, each open state experienced a seasonality wave in winter but so did the lockdown states.
So it was in Texas. Thanks to this Twitter thread, and some of my own googling, we have a nice archive of predictions about what would happen if Texas opened.
Here are the data.
The CDC has a very helpful tool that allows anyone to compare open vs closed states. The results are devastating for those who believe that lockdowns are the way to control a virus. In this chart we compare closed states Massachusetts and California with open states Georgia, Florida, Texas, and South Carolina.
What can we conclude from such a visualization? It suggests that the lockdowns have had no statistically observable effect on the virus trajectory and resulting severe outcomes. The open states have generally performed better, perhaps not because they are open but simply for reasons of demographics and seasonality. The closed states seem not to have achieved anything in terms of mitigation.
On the other hand, the lockdowns destroyed industries, schools, churches, liberties and lives, demoralizing the population and robbing people of essential rights. All in the name of safety from a virus that did its work in any case.
As for Texas, the results so far are in.
I’m making no predictions about the future path of the virus in Texas. Indeed for a full year, AIER has been careful about not trying to outguess this virus, which has its own ways, some predictable and some mysterious. The experience has, or should have, humbled everyone. Political arrangements seem to have no power to control it, much less finally suppress it. The belief that it was possible to control people in order to control a virus produced a calamity unprecedented in modern times.
What’s striking about all the above predictions of infections and deaths is not just that they were all wrong. It’s the arrogance and confidence behind each of them. After a full year and directly observing the inability of “nonpharmaceutical interventions” to manage the pathogen, the experts are still wedded to their beloved lockdowns, unable or unwilling to look at the data and learn anything from them.
The concept of lockdowns stemmed from a faulty premise: that you can separate humans, like rats in cages, and therefore control and even eradicate the virus. After a year, we unequivocally know this not to be true, something that the best and wisest epidemiologists knew all along. Essential workers still must work; they must go home to their families, many in crowded living conditions. Lockdowns do not eliminate the virus, they merely shift the burden onto the working class.
Now we can see the failure in black, white, and full color, daily appearing on our screens courtesy of the CDC. Has that shaken the pro-lockdown pundit class? Not that much. What an amazing testament to the stubbornness of elite opinion and its bias against basic freedoms. They might all echo the words of Groucho Marx: “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?".
– March 26, 2021 Reading Time: 6 minutes
I’m sitting at a bar in Texas, surrounded by maskless people, looking at folks on the streets walking around like life is normal, talking with nice and friendly faces, feeling like things in the world are more-or-less normal. Cases and deaths attributed to Covid are, like everywhere else, falling dramatically.
If you pay attention only to the media fear campaigns, you would find this confusing. More than two weeks ago, the governor of Texas completely reversed his devastating lockdown policies and repealed all his emergency powers, along with the egregious attacks on rights and liberties.
There was something very un-Texan about those lockdowns. My hotel room is festooned with pictures of cowboys on horses waving guns in the air, along with other depictions of rugged individualism facing down the elements. It’s a caricature but Texans embrace it. Then a new virus came along – as if that had never happened before in Texas – and the new Zoom class took the opposite path, not freedom but imposition and control.
After nearly a year of nonsense, on March 2, 2021, the governor finally said enough is enough and repealed it all. Towns and cities can still engage in Covid-related mischief but at least they are no longer getting cover from the governor’s office.
At that moment, a friend remarked to me that this would be the test we have been waiting for. A complete repeal of restrictions would lead to mass death, they said. Would it? Did the lockdowns really control the virus? We would soon find out, he theorized.
I knew better. The “test” of whether and to what extent lockdowns control the virus or “suppress outbreaks” (in Anthony Fauci’s words) has been tried all over the world. Every serious empirical examination has shown that the answer is no.
The US has many examples of open states that have generally had better performance in managing the disease than those states that are closed. Georgia already opened on April 24, 2020. South Dakota never shut down. South Carolina opened in May. Florida ended all restrictions in September. In every case, the press howled about the coming slaughter that did not happen. Yes, each open state experienced a seasonality wave in winter but so did the lockdown states.
So it was in Texas. Thanks to this Twitter thread, and some of my own googling, we have a nice archive of predictions about what would happen if Texas opened.
- California Governor Gavin Newsom said that opening Texas was “absolutely reckless.”
- Gregg Popovich, head coach of the NBA San Antonio Spurs, said opening was “ridiculous” and “ignorant.”
- CNN quoted an ICU nurse saying “I’m scared of what this is going to look like.”
- Vanity Fair went over the top with this headline: “Republican Governors Celebrate COVID Anniversary With Bold Plan to Kill Another 500,000 Americans.”
- There was the inevitable Dr. Fauci: “It just is inexplicable why you would want to pull back now.”
- Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke of Texas revealed himself to be a full-blown lockdowner: It’s a “big mistake,” he said. “It’s hard to escape the conclusion that it’s also a cult of death.” He accused the governor of “sacrificing the lives of our fellow Texans … for political gain.”
- James Hamblin, a doctor and writer for the Atlantic, said in a Tweet liked by 20K people: “Ending precautions now is like entering the last miles of a marathon and taking off your shoes and eating several hot dogs.”
- Bestselling author Kurt Eichenwald flipped out: “Goddamn. Texas already has FIVE variants that have turned up: Britain, South Africa, Brazil, New York & CA. The NY and CA variants could weaken vaccine effectiveness. And now idiot @GregAbbott_TX throws open the state.” He further called the government “murderous.”
- Epidemiologist Whitney Robinson wrote: “I feel genuinely sad. There are people who are going to get sick and die bc of avoidable infections they get in the next few weeks. It’s demoralizing.”
- Pundit Bill Kristol (I had no idea that he was a lockdowner) wrote: “Gov. Abbott is going to be responsible for more avoidable COVID hospitalizations and deaths than all the undocumented immigrants coming across the Texas border put together.”
- Health pundit Bob Wachter said the decision to open was “unforgivable.”
- Virus guru Michael Osterholm told CNN: “We’re walking into the mouth of the monster. We simply are.”
- Joe Biden famously said that the Texas decision to open reflected “Neanderthal thinking.”
- Nutritionist Eric Feigl-Ding said that the decision makes him want to “vomit so bad.”
- The chairman of the state’s Democratic Party said: “What Abbott is doing is extraordinarily dangerous. This will kill Texans. Our country’s infectious-disease specialists have warned that we should not put our guard down, even as we make progress towards vaccinations. Abbott doesn’t care.”
- Other state Democrats said in a letter that the decision was “premature and harmful.”
- The CDC’s Rochelle Walensky didn’t mince words: “Please hear me clearly: At this level of cases with variants spreading, we stand to completely lose the hard-earned ground we have gained. I am really worried about reports that more states are rolling back the exact public health measures we have recommended to protect people from COVID-19.”
Here are the data.
The CDC has a very helpful tool that allows anyone to compare open vs closed states. The results are devastating for those who believe that lockdowns are the way to control a virus. In this chart we compare closed states Massachusetts and California with open states Georgia, Florida, Texas, and South Carolina.
What can we conclude from such a visualization? It suggests that the lockdowns have had no statistically observable effect on the virus trajectory and resulting severe outcomes. The open states have generally performed better, perhaps not because they are open but simply for reasons of demographics and seasonality. The closed states seem not to have achieved anything in terms of mitigation.
On the other hand, the lockdowns destroyed industries, schools, churches, liberties and lives, demoralizing the population and robbing people of essential rights. All in the name of safety from a virus that did its work in any case.
As for Texas, the results so far are in.
I’m making no predictions about the future path of the virus in Texas. Indeed for a full year, AIER has been careful about not trying to outguess this virus, which has its own ways, some predictable and some mysterious. The experience has, or should have, humbled everyone. Political arrangements seem to have no power to control it, much less finally suppress it. The belief that it was possible to control people in order to control a virus produced a calamity unprecedented in modern times.
What’s striking about all the above predictions of infections and deaths is not just that they were all wrong. It’s the arrogance and confidence behind each of them. After a full year and directly observing the inability of “nonpharmaceutical interventions” to manage the pathogen, the experts are still wedded to their beloved lockdowns, unable or unwilling to look at the data and learn anything from them.
The concept of lockdowns stemmed from a faulty premise: that you can separate humans, like rats in cages, and therefore control and even eradicate the virus. After a year, we unequivocally know this not to be true, something that the best and wisest epidemiologists knew all along. Essential workers still must work; they must go home to their families, many in crowded living conditions. Lockdowns do not eliminate the virus, they merely shift the burden onto the working class.
Now we can see the failure in black, white, and full color, daily appearing on our screens courtesy of the CDC. Has that shaken the pro-lockdown pundit class? Not that much. What an amazing testament to the stubbornness of elite opinion and its bias against basic freedoms. They might all echo the words of Groucho Marx: “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?".
the cathedral vs the bazaar
it was never a fair fight
"MIT researchers found that Covid-19 skeptics on Twitter and Facebook — far from being “data illiterate” — often use sophisticated data visualization techniques to argue...
they went so far as to use louvrain analysis to track us.
certain internet felines (albeit now in exile) were listed among the major nodes of this graph.
leaving aside the issue here about "covid skeptics" as a sort of dismissive smear and lazy ad hominem meant to skirt the meat of the issues, this MIT article seems to have noticed what so many of you have known for a year: that team reality is, in fact, well grounded in realty and science. this was never some gang of dimwits and conspiracists, it was a group with serious intellect and empiricism.
we came to our conclusions because we engaged with the data, and many of us are very good at engaging with data, FAR better than the public health “C team” of self serving scrubs playing at being ready for the big leagues. public health is not where top flight thinkers and analysts wind up. it's the scupper that catches the folks washing out of research and development and sucking them into bureaucracy and politics.
http://vis.mit.edu/covid-story/
it's embarrassing to watch even one time bastions of technology and rationality like MIT join in the gaslighting of "team reality" by trying to claim "well, they know how to use and visualize data well, but they are still wrong" and yet provide no data or refutation whatsoever. they tacitly accuse of us using some sneaky trick in representing data when it is, in fact, they that are using shabby rhetorical gambits to avoid addressing it.
this is the act of a clerisy, not a scientific body. the internet has become the world's greatest peer review. you cannot hide there. their fragile and dogmatic cathedral cannot possibly stand against our bazaar of ideas and refutation. the coddled grow weak, venal, and dishonest. the challenged grow strong and gain wisdom.
this was never a fair fight; it was folks honed and strengthened by a free market against the stunted little trees of bureaucratic fiefdoms and the academic/political weathervanes happy to sell out what they know to be facts for grant money and prominence. it was always talent and truth against gormless opportunists. you can win in the media for a time, but the real story will come out eventually.
they sought to vilify us, to discredit us, and to remove us from public debate. but the facts are and always have been the facts and the fact is this: NPI's do NOT work to stop a respiratory virus. we knew this before and we have proven it beyond any remote shadow of doubt again. the data is overwhelming and always has been. all the major pre 2020 standing guidelines for pandemics advised against these actions because the costs were monstrous and they were known not to work.
and as this has become manifestly clear, the desperate need to stifle such fact based criticism of polices rooted not in science and empiricism but rather in political expedience, superstition, and propaganda only intensifies. getting caught out as totally wrong after taking the lives and livelihoods of planet earth on such an insane and destructive joyride all while loudly bellowing “i am an expert! trust the experts!” and hectoring all others into silence with appeals to authority and empty sanctimony is not a thing you get to come back from. it’s how careers end. so, of course they will fight to the last bullet, play dirty, and try to keep the game going until they can claim it worked. of course they will disparage and seek to silence those who disagree. what else can they do?
but ask yourself this simple question: when was the last time you saw the side seeking to censor the other in a debate and be the side of right or of factual accuracy?
many of us stood up early on and called this out as pseudoscience and authoritarian political adventurism. many paid prices for it. this list is long and distinguished and i’ll not belabor it here. you know who you are and many others know it too. i remain glad to have played whatever small part in this i did.
and i'd do it again.
proud to have stood with so many of you: on rational ground.
it was never a fair fight
| el gato malo
|
"MIT researchers found that Covid-19 skeptics on Twitter and Facebook — far from being “data illiterate” — often use sophisticated data visualization techniques to argue...
they went so far as to use louvrain analysis to track us.
certain internet felines (albeit now in exile) were listed among the major nodes of this graph.
leaving aside the issue here about "covid skeptics" as a sort of dismissive smear and lazy ad hominem meant to skirt the meat of the issues, this MIT article seems to have noticed what so many of you have known for a year: that team reality is, in fact, well grounded in realty and science. this was never some gang of dimwits and conspiracists, it was a group with serious intellect and empiricism.
we came to our conclusions because we engaged with the data, and many of us are very good at engaging with data, FAR better than the public health “C team” of self serving scrubs playing at being ready for the big leagues. public health is not where top flight thinkers and analysts wind up. it's the scupper that catches the folks washing out of research and development and sucking them into bureaucracy and politics.
http://vis.mit.edu/covid-story/
it's embarrassing to watch even one time bastions of technology and rationality like MIT join in the gaslighting of "team reality" by trying to claim "well, they know how to use and visualize data well, but they are still wrong" and yet provide no data or refutation whatsoever. they tacitly accuse of us using some sneaky trick in representing data when it is, in fact, they that are using shabby rhetorical gambits to avoid addressing it.
this is the act of a clerisy, not a scientific body. the internet has become the world's greatest peer review. you cannot hide there. their fragile and dogmatic cathedral cannot possibly stand against our bazaar of ideas and refutation. the coddled grow weak, venal, and dishonest. the challenged grow strong and gain wisdom.
this was never a fair fight; it was folks honed and strengthened by a free market against the stunted little trees of bureaucratic fiefdoms and the academic/political weathervanes happy to sell out what they know to be facts for grant money and prominence. it was always talent and truth against gormless opportunists. you can win in the media for a time, but the real story will come out eventually.
they sought to vilify us, to discredit us, and to remove us from public debate. but the facts are and always have been the facts and the fact is this: NPI's do NOT work to stop a respiratory virus. we knew this before and we have proven it beyond any remote shadow of doubt again. the data is overwhelming and always has been. all the major pre 2020 standing guidelines for pandemics advised against these actions because the costs were monstrous and they were known not to work.
and as this has become manifestly clear, the desperate need to stifle such fact based criticism of polices rooted not in science and empiricism but rather in political expedience, superstition, and propaganda only intensifies. getting caught out as totally wrong after taking the lives and livelihoods of planet earth on such an insane and destructive joyride all while loudly bellowing “i am an expert! trust the experts!” and hectoring all others into silence with appeals to authority and empty sanctimony is not a thing you get to come back from. it’s how careers end. so, of course they will fight to the last bullet, play dirty, and try to keep the game going until they can claim it worked. of course they will disparage and seek to silence those who disagree. what else can they do?
but ask yourself this simple question: when was the last time you saw the side seeking to censor the other in a debate and be the side of right or of factual accuracy?
many of us stood up early on and called this out as pseudoscience and authoritarian political adventurism. many paid prices for it. this list is long and distinguished and i’ll not belabor it here. you know who you are and many others know it too. i remain glad to have played whatever small part in this i did.
and i'd do it again.
proud to have stood with so many of you: on rational ground.
Texas' COVID numbers fall for the 17th consecutive day following Gov. Abbott's 100% reopening of the state and lifting of the mask mandate - a move that Biden infamously called 'Neanderthal thinking'
By Karen Ruiz For Dailymail.com
- Texas COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to drop, 17 days after it scrapped its mask mandate and allowed businesses to reopen at full capacity
- On Saturday, seven-day positivity rate reached an all-time low of 5.27 per cent
- The state reported 2,292 new cases, about 500 fewer on average from last week
- Hospitalizations, meanwhile, dipped to 3,308, its lowest level since October
- Comes after Republican Governor Greg Abbott drew harsh criticism for brushing off warnings to not relax COVID-19 restrictions earlier this month
- President Joe Biden at the time slammed the move as a 'Neanderthal thinking' and warned it would be a 'big mistake'
Published: 12:33 AEDT, 28 March 2021 | Updated: 16:29 AEDT, 28 March 2021
8.4k shares
View comments
Texas COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to see a downward trend more than two weeks after the state scrapped its mask mandate and allowed businesses to reopen at full capacity.
On Saturday, Texas' seven-day COVID positivity rate reached an all-time low of 5.27 per cent, while hospitalizations fell to their lowest level since October, according to the latest state data.
The state recorded 2,292 new coronavirus cases, about 500 fewer on average from last week, and 107 new deaths.
The number of people hospitalized with coronavirus, meanwhile, dipped to 3,308.
The latest figure marks a significant decline in hospitalizations in the state which had seen levels soar past 14,000 for a couple of days in January.
Texas COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to drop, 17 days after it scrapped its mask mandate and allowed businesses to reopen at full capacity. Pictured: A group of friends gather for drinks at a bar in Austin on March 10
TEXAS: Texas Tech students watch Texas Tech and TCU play an NCAA college basketball game without masks earlier this month
There were 2,292 new cases reported across the state, about 500 fewer on average from last week, and 107 new deaths
The drop comes 17 days after Republican Governor Greg Abbott ended the statewide mask mandate and other COVID-19 safety measures.
Abbott took to Twitter on Saturday to celebrate the state's progress, saying: 'Today Texas hit an all-time recorded low for the 7-day Covid positivity rate: 5.27%. It's been below 6% for 5 days & below 10% for an entire month.
'Covid hospitalizations declined again--now at the lowest level since October 3rd. Vaccinations continue to increase rapidly.'
It comes a day after Texas saw the largest daily number of vaccines administered to Texans, with 342,849 people being inoculated on Friday, Abbott said.
The state also announced it will begin making all adults eligible for coronavirus vaccinations on Monday.
you r like the tiong ministry of propaganda say one thing we all know is other thing.
Why Is Everyone in Texas Not Dying?
Jeffrey A. Tucker
– March 26, 2021 Reading Time: 6 minutes
I’m sitting at a bar in Texas, surrounded by maskless people, looking at folks on the streets walking around like life is normal, talking with nice and friendly faces, feeling like things in the world are more-or-less normal. Cases and deaths attributed to Covid are, like everywhere else, falling dramatically.
If you pay attention only to the media fear campaigns, you would find this confusing. More than two weeks ago, the governor of Texas completely reversed his devastating lockdown policies and repealed all his emergency powers, along with the egregious attacks on rights and liberties.
There was something very un-Texan about those lockdowns. My hotel room is festooned with pictures of cowboys on horses waving guns in the air, along with other depictions of rugged individualism facing down the elements. It’s a caricature but Texans embrace it. Then a new virus came along – as if that had never happened before in Texas – and the new Zoom class took the opposite path, not freedom but imposition and control.
After nearly a year of nonsense, on March 2, 2021, the governor finally said enough is enough and repealed it all. Towns and cities can still engage in Covid-related mischief but at least they are no longer getting cover from the governor’s office.
At that moment, a friend remarked to me that this would be the test we have been waiting for. A complete repeal of restrictions would lead to mass death, they said. Would it? Did the lockdowns really control the virus? We would soon find out, he theorized.
I knew better. The “test” of whether and to what extent lockdowns control the virus or “suppress outbreaks” (in Anthony Fauci’s words) has been tried all over the world. Every serious empirical examination has shown that the answer is no.
The US has many examples of open states that have generally had better performance in managing the disease than those states that are closed. Georgia already opened on April 24, 2020. South Dakota never shut down. South Carolina opened in May. Florida ended all restrictions in September. In every case, the press howled about the coming slaughter that did not happen. Yes, each open state experienced a seasonality wave in winter but so did the lockdown states.
So it was in Texas. Thanks to this Twitter thread, and some of my own googling, we have a nice archive of predictions about what would happen if Texas opened.
There are probably hundreds more such warnings, predictions, and demands, all stated with absolute certainty that basic social and market functioning is a terrible idea. The lockdown lobby was out in full force. And yet what do we see now more than two weeks out (and arguably the lockdowns died on March 2, when the government announced the decision)?
- California Governor Gavin Newsom said that opening Texas was “absolutely reckless.”
- Gregg Popovich, head coach of the NBA San Antonio Spurs, said opening was “ridiculous” and “ignorant.”
- CNN quoted an ICU nurse saying “I’m scared of what this is going to look like.”
- Vanity Fair went over the top with this headline: “Republican Governors Celebrate COVID Anniversary With Bold Plan to Kill Another 500,000 Americans.”
- There was the inevitable Dr. Fauci: “It just is inexplicable why you would want to pull back now.”
- Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke of Texas revealed himself to be a full-blown lockdowner: It’s a “big mistake,” he said. “It’s hard to escape the conclusion that it’s also a cult of death.” He accused the governor of “sacrificing the lives of our fellow Texans … for political gain.”
- James Hamblin, a doctor and writer for the Atlantic, said in a Tweet liked by 20K people: “Ending precautions now is like entering the last miles of a marathon and taking off your shoes and eating several hot dogs.”
- Bestselling author Kurt Eichenwald flipped out: “Goddamn. Texas already has FIVE variants that have turned up: Britain, South Africa, Brazil, New York & CA. The NY and CA variants could weaken vaccine effectiveness. And now idiot @GregAbbott_TX throws open the state.” He further called the government “murderous.”
- Epidemiologist Whitney Robinson wrote: “I feel genuinely sad. There are people who are going to get sick and die bc of avoidable infections they get in the next few weeks. It’s demoralizing.”
- Pundit Bill Kristol (I had no idea that he was a lockdowner) wrote: “Gov. Abbott is going to be responsible for more avoidable COVID hospitalizations and deaths than all the undocumented immigrants coming across the Texas border put together.”
- Health pundit Bob Wachter said the decision to open was “unforgivable.”
- Virus guru Michael Osterholm told CNN: “We’re walking into the mouth of the monster. We simply are.”
- Joe Biden famously said that the Texas decision to open reflected “Neanderthal thinking.”
- Nutritionist Eric Feigl-Ding said that the decision makes him want to “vomit so bad.”
- The chairman of the state’s Democratic Party said: “What Abbott is doing is extraordinarily dangerous. This will kill Texans. Our country’s infectious-disease specialists have warned that we should not put our guard down, even as we make progress towards vaccinations. Abbott doesn’t care.”
- Other state Democrats said in a letter that the decision was “premature and harmful.”
- The CDC’s Rochelle Walensky didn’t mince words: “Please hear me clearly: At this level of cases with variants spreading, we stand to completely lose the hard-earned ground we have gained. I am really worried about reports that more states are rolling back the exact public health measures we have recommended to protect people from COVID-19.”
Here are the data.
The CDC has a very helpful tool that allows anyone to compare open vs closed states. The results are devastating for those who believe that lockdowns are the way to control a virus. In this chart we compare closed states Massachusetts and California with open states Georgia, Florida, Texas, and South Carolina.
What can we conclude from such a visualization? It suggests that the lockdowns have had no statistically observable effect on the virus trajectory and resulting severe outcomes. The open states have generally performed better, perhaps not because they are open but simply for reasons of demographics and seasonality. The closed states seem not to have achieved anything in terms of mitigation.
On the other hand, the lockdowns destroyed industries, schools, churches, liberties and lives, demoralizing the population and robbing people of essential rights. All in the name of safety from a virus that did its work in any case.
As for Texas, the results so far are in.
I’m making no predictions about the future path of the virus in Texas. Indeed for a full year, AIER has been careful about not trying to outguess this virus, which has its own ways, some predictable and some mysterious. The experience has, or should have, humbled everyone. Political arrangements seem to have no power to control it, much less finally suppress it. The belief that it was possible to control people in order to control a virus produced a calamity unprecedented in modern times.
What’s striking about all the above predictions of infections and deaths is not just that they were all wrong. It’s the arrogance and confidence behind each of them. After a full year and directly observing the inability of “nonpharmaceutical interventions” to manage the pathogen, the experts are still wedded to their beloved lockdowns, unable or unwilling to look at the data and learn anything from them.
The concept of lockdowns stemmed from a faulty premise: that you can separate humans, like rats in cages, and therefore control and even eradicate the virus. After a year, we unequivocally know this not to be true, something that the best and wisest epidemiologists knew all along. Essential workers still must work; they must go home to their families, many in crowded living conditions. Lockdowns do not eliminate the virus, they merely shift the burden onto the working class.
Now we can see the failure in black, white, and full color, daily appearing on our screens courtesy of the CDC. Has that shaken the pro-lockdown pundit class? Not that much. What an amazing testament to the stubbornness of elite opinion and its bias against basic freedoms. They might all echo the words of Groucho Marx: “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?".
Still not had enough? No Prob, got thousands of peer reviewed actual studies not your fake data
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32797067/#&gid=article-figures&pid=fig-1-uid-0
PLoS One
. 2020 Aug 14;15(8):e0237691.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237691. eCollection 2020.
Mask or no mask for COVID-19: A public health and market study
Tom Li 1, Yan Liu 2, Man Li 1, Xiaoning Qian 3, Susie Y Dai 1
Affiliations expand
- PMID: 32797067
- PMCID: PMC7428176
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237691
Abstract
Efficient strategies to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are peremptory to relieve the negatively impacted public health and global economy, with the full scope yet to unfold. In the absence of highly effective drugs, vaccines, and abundant medical resources, many measures are used to manage the infection rate and avoid exhausting limited hospital resources. Wearing masks is among the non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) measures that could be effectively implemented at a minimum cost and without dramatically disrupting social practices. The mask-wearing guidelines vary significantly across countries.
Regardless of the debates in the medical community and the global mask production shortage, more countries and regions are moving forward with recommendations or mandates to wear masks in public. Our study combines mathematical modeling and existing scientific evidence to evaluate the potential impact of the utilization of normal medical masks in public to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
We consider three key factors that contribute to the effectiveness of wearing a quality mask in reducing the transmission risk, including the mask aerosol reduction rate, mask population coverage, and mask availability. We first simulate the impact of these three factors on the virus reproduction number and infection attack rate in a general population. Using the intervened viral transmission route by wearing a mask, we further model the impact of mask-wearing on the epidemic curve with increasing mask awareness and availability.
Our study indicates that wearing a face mask can be effectively combined with social distancing to flatten the epidemic curve. Wearing a mask presents a rational way to implement as an NPI to combat COVID-19. We recognize our study provides a projection based only on currently available data and estimates potential probabilities. As such, our model warrants further validation studies.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
Anyone who wants to know about ADMIN's failed "Sweden Herd Immunity" should read this, where his "data" is proven to be untrue.
And to think he even went on about Florida - where the cases are rising as well. Oh dear some fake news peddlers cant make it stick
https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/21...y-soon-to-catch-up.295844/page-4#post-3275064
Florida, what a bunch of fucking morons like Sam Leong the shit for brains. Scaring the fuck out of people for no reason.
I'm not even going to bother reading whatever crap you post, I'll just reply with a real peer reviewed study. Got 9999 more.
https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-020-00430-5
Face masks: benefits and risks during the COVID-19 crisis
European Journal of Medical Research volume 25, Article number: 32 (2020) Cite this article
- 115k Accesses
- 11 Citations
- 402 Altmetric
- Metricsdetails
Background
The German government has made it mandatory to wear respiratory masks covering mouth and nose (MNC) as an effective strategy to fight SARS-CoV-2 infections. In many countries, this directive has been extended on shopping malls or public transportation. The aim of this paper is to critically analyze the statutory regulation to wear protective masks during the COVID-19 crisis from a medical standpoint.
Methods
We performed an extensive query of the most recent publications addressing the prevention of viral infections including the use of face masks in the community as a method to prevent the spread of the infection. We addressed the issues of practicability, professional use, and acceptability based on the community and the environment where the user resided.
Results
Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. However, the use of MNC seems to be linked to relevant protection during close contact scenarios by limiting pathogen-containing aerosol and liquid droplet dissemination. Importantly, we found evidence for significant respiratory compromise in patients with severe obstructive pulmonary disease, secondary to the development of hypercapnia. This could also happen in patients with lung infections, with or without SARS-CoV-2.
Conclusion
Epidemiologists currently emphasize that wearing MNC will effectively interrupt airborne infections in the community. The government and the politicians have followed these recommendations and used them to both advise and, in some cases, mandate the general population to wear MNC in public locations. Overall, the results seem to suggest that there are some clinically relevant scenarios where the use of MNC necessitates more defined recommendations. Our critical evaluation of the literature both highlights the protective effects of certain types of face masks in defined risk groups, and emphasizes their potential risks.
Introduction
The knowledge that the use of face masks delays the SARS-CoV-2 transmission is rapidly gaining popularity in the general population. Politicians need guidance on how masks should be used by the public to fight the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. In this review, we summarize the relevant literature on this topic.
On March 17th, 2020, this was the headline of an article in the New York Times on the role of face masks during the COVID-19 outbreak. Face masks have become a clothing accessory that is worn every day and everywhere. A variety of shapes, forms, and materials are being used and advertised to the point that in 2020 the business of producing and selling face masks was born.
In Germany, the government has ruled that wearing a face mask is obligatory to protect the population from any risks of airborne illness, according to the constitutional law [1] stating that “Protection must be easily provided to every citizen in the country.”
The aim of this paper is to analyze and critically discuss the regulations of some Federal States in Germany, which require protective masks in public to conform to similar regulations already in place in other countries.
Most masks covering the mouth are named mouth nose covering (MNC) according to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI; the German federal government agency and research institute responsible for disease control and prevention) and do not protect against respiratory and airborne infections. In the following review, the term “protective masks” will be used to describe any type of face mask.
Face masks protecting from infections
Respiratory masks (RM) are protective devices covering a part of the face. They are designed to protect both the person who wears them and the immediate environment from breathable pollutants (respiratory poisons or bacterial/viral pathogenic organisms). Different masks can be classified as I) full masks (normed following EN 136) and II) half and quarter masks (EN 140) (Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4). While a full mask covers the whole face, a half-mask fits from under the chin to above the nose, a quarter mask fits from the top of the nose to the top of the chin. The breathing resistance varies proportionally to the density of the mask material.
Fig. 1
FFP (filtering face piece) mask without valve
Full size image
Fig. 2
FFP (filtering face piece) mask with valve
Full size image
Fig. 3
Homemade face mask for everyday use
Full size image
Fig. 4
Surgical mask (MNP)
Full size image
FFP masks (filtering face piece) are classified as half masks. Their use is required to prevent the entry of pathogens through the airway and have the role of protecting both the wearer and the surrounding people. They are different from medical MNC, (often referred to as “surgical masks”), and from “self-made” masks for everyday use. MNCs and self-made masks are not “leak-proof” and do not provide complete respiratory protection since air can escape through them. FFP masks come without (Fig. 1) or with (Fig. 2) a valve. FFP (filtering face piece) masks with valves provide an air flow from the inside to the outside of the mask. FFP 1 masks are dust masks and mainly used for this purpose. They do not prevent COVID-19 infections. FFP1 masks are suitable for work environments in which only non-toxic dusts are found. FFP2 masks are suitable for work environments where there are pathogens and mutagens in the air composition.
In the context of SARS-CoV-2 the following types of masks are available (WHO, 2020):
- 1.
Masks for everyday use (temporary masks made from fabric, etc.; Fig. 3): These masks grant no protection for the user from being infected. However, it is safe to assume there is a small risk reduction for droplet transmission, especially during exhalation, resulting in a reduction of potential viral spread. These masks should not be used in the health care system, but are commonly recommended for the general population for walking, shopping, or using public transportation. - 2.
MNP (= medical mouth–nose protection; Fig. 4): often referred to as a “surgical mask”. The industrial production of MNP abides to strict rules to provide protections against infection. The filtering capability is like the one for everyday use masks and they are intended to protect patients. They are approved for medical staff use, warrantying only patient-protection, specifically aimed against aerosols. - 3.
FFP2-mask (= face filtering piece)/N95-mask: FFP2-masks fulfil a set of stricter protective norms. They protect the person wearing them, as > 95% of particles and droplets are held back when inhaling. FFP2-masks also effectively protect the environment as long as there is no exhaling valve. In contrast, masks with an exhaling valve let exhaled air pass out unfiltered, with contamination of the immediate environment. - 4.
FFP3-mask: FFP3-masks protect the user even more effectively than FFP2, as > 99% of droplets and particles are filtered when inhaling. FFP3-masks also protect the environment in the absence of an exhaling valve.
Fig. 5
Full face mask in a level-3 biosafety lab (source: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic)
Full size image
The WHO states that the declared protective effect of these masks recommended during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic can be severely reduced by their inappropriate use, such as improper donning or doffing, insufficient maintenance, long or repeated use of disposable masks, no dry cleaning of fabric masks, or using masks made of non-protective material [2].
During an epidemic/pandemic crisis every possible risk reduction strategy is useful. It is likely that the risk of infection and its severity depends on the viral load entering the body. This was the rationale for the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) to recommend the use of masks starting from March 2020. Specifically, they looked at the availability of the resources and tailored the supply to the risk of infection. Healthcare workers were considered essential workers at high risk of infection, therefore prioritized to the use of FFP2/3 masks, while MNC or masks for everyday use were to be made available for the general population.
Current decree on wearing a mouth and nose covering
Due to the German Federalism, the Federal Minister of Health can only make health recommendations, which are then reinforced by the Infection Protection Act of the different Federal States. In the current situation of a pandemic crisis, nearly all measures are taken to prevent an exponential increase of new SARS-CoV-2 infections.
As of June 1st, 2020, the Netherlands considers the public use of protective masks unnecessary. This is based on the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 is only transmitted as a droplet infection via the nasopharynx pathway, which mostly occurs during coughing or sneezing. These droplets do not stay in the air, but rather drop to the ground within a 1.5 m radius if larger than 5 µm [3]. It has been postulated that for SARS-CoV-2—in contrast to other respiratory-driven infections—the droplets in the aerosols are of little relevance for a COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, securing a 1.5-m social distance is assumed to be an essential and sufficient preventive measure. However, recent data published in 2020 using high-speed cameras show that small droplets of saliva and mucus can fly up to 8 m [4], requiring critical reconsideration of the above-mentioned assumption.
We conducted a Medline survey to scientifically justify this approach with the key words SARS-CoV-2, face masks, COVID-19, pandemic.
Leung and colleagues [5] screened more than 3000 individuals and identified 123 patients suffering from a viral respiratory infection. The viral load in the exhaled aerosol and droplets were different depending on the etiology of the infection, but was exponentially reduced by wearing surgical masks (cat. no. 62356, Kimberly-Clark). More viral particles were released through coughing. Generally, the authors reported a notably higher viral load in nose swabs compared to throat swabs. This data applied to influenza, corona, and rhino virus. No data are available for SARS-CoV-2 yet.
In general, droplets, and hence SARS-CoV-2, can be transferred via direct contact or smear transfection modality when the hands are contaminated from touching the nose or the face and then come in direct contact with others, e.g. by handshaking. For this reason, not only the “cough etiquette”, but regular and thorough handwashing are a significant and mandatory hygienic rule (6).
As a result of scientific data combined with daily routine, the RIVM (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, the Dutch equivalent of the RKI) has mandated to wear masks while using public transportation, due to the inability of maintaining enough protective distance, especially when riding during rush hour. This rule does not apply to other public spaces yet.
Summarizing the arguments in favour of wearing a mask
- Wearing a mask in areas where sufficient distance is not feasible, such as public transportation, most likely reduces the spread of virus-loaded droplets and therefore the risk of transferring SARS-CoV-2.
- It is indisputable that infected patients can transfer SARS-CoV-2 to other people, starting few days before manifesting clinical symptoms or during the incubation period. However, there is no reliable data concerning the amount of virus particles that can be spread by an asymptomatic person, when keeping a minimum safe distance.
- If there is a limited supply of protective masks, they should be reserved for health care workers in hospitals and care facilities. This applies for surgical masks and for FFP2 and FFP3 masks.
- Masks give a false sense of security. The main role of MNC is the protection of people standing nearby. MNC do not protect the wearer.
- It is essential to wear the mask correctly. It must fit airtight to the skin, otherwise its effect is lost. Doffing of the mask needs to be properly done as well. The outside of the mask should not be touched. When supply is not an issue, surgical masks should be used only once.
- The lack of nonverbal communication when wearing a mask may make people feel insecure, disheartened or even psychologically troubled. This may be particularly true for people suffering from mental illness or hearing impairment.
- Breathing dampens the mask. If there is excessive moisture, the masks become airtight. Therefore, air is inhaled and exhaled unfiltered around the edges, losing the protective effect for both the wearer and the environment.
- If masks are not exchanged regularly (or washed properly when made of cloth), pathogens can accumulate in the mask. When improperly used, the risk of spreading the pathogen—including SARS-CoV-2—might be critically increased.
In Germany, the COVID-19 pandemic has been more contained than in other European countries or even worldwide. However, we are not immune to this infection. It is imperative to implement any measure to control the spread of the infection, or at least the speed of diffusion to the population. It is important to make sure that the German health care system does not deplete its resources. Theoretically, we are affected by the scarcity of mask supply like other nations or countries. People who risk their health and even their lives need to be protected. There should be a fine balance when suggesting preventive measures, since reinforcing them indiscriminately may contribute to psychological discomfort, acts of violence, and financial strain.
Available data
The summarized studies examine different types of masks focussing on FFP/N-95 masks. As expected, there are no scientific studies on economic and social consequences of wearing masks (Table 1).
Table 1 Most important publications
Full size table
In the following, the most important results are summarized.
Study 1—PPE
Chia et al. (2005) [6] used a questionnaire to analyze the perception of doctors, nurses and other personnel on the role of PPE (= personal protective equipment) during the SARS-outbreak in Singapore over a period of 2 months in 2003. In summary, 32.5% of doctors, 48.7% of nurses and 77% of the administrative personnel thought that a simple MNP would be sufficient to prevent the SARS-infection. It was evident that even qualified staff did not have sufficient knowledge on the protective properties of face masks during a pandemic. This study highlights the importance of adequate communication, education and exchange of information in a timely fashion.
Study 2—MNP masks
Lipp et al. (2005) [7] investigated the pattern of use and the protective effects of masks on wound infections using a questionnaire in two randomized studies. While the use of MNP was statistically beneficial in a smaller study (n = 200), the same recommendations were not valid when a larger cohort (n = 1250) was studied.
Study 3—MNP vs. N95 valve masks
Li (2008) [8]: this study compared the protective effects of simple MNP with two different N95 masks with different valve systems. In contrast to the commonly available masks, this model had valves placed on the sides and was studied in an experimental setting with artificial droplets. All masks blocked the inside transmission of droplets from the front. The effectiveness of the regular MNP mask was only 95–97% when compared to the N95, which had a protective effect of 99%. Thus, N95 masks offer considerably better protection from influenza and SARS virus infections when compared to other mask types.
Study 4—masks for everyday use
Rengasamy (2010) [9]: the protective effect of masks for everyday use made from different materials was tested against 20–1.000 nm particles with different velocities and compared to N95 masks. This study found marginal protective effects against exhaled particles. Specifically, depending on the material and dampness, 40–90% of aerosols were able to penetrate through these masks.
Study 5—N95 vs. MNP
Smith et al. (2016) [10] analyzed all the available literature from 1990 to 2014, including 3 randomized controlled studies, one cohort study and 2 case–control studies comparing MNP vs N95 masks. Their meta-analyzis assessed: (a) the laboratory-proven infection rate, (b) influenza-related infections, and (c) work absence secondary to illness in employees. Their results indicated that the overall calculated risk assessment is not considerably improved using more sophisticated N95 masks.
Study 6—N95
Zhou and colleagues (2018) [11] examined the role of various features on N95 masks, including valves for a more comfortable breathing, on the rate of infection. The endpoint was the retention of small particles of around 2.5 µm. The results revealed that the protective effect was sufficient against the examined viruses including influenza and rhinovirus.
Study 7—masks for everyday use
Konda et al. (2020) [12] investigated the use of different materials on the effective filtration capabilities of masks for everyday use. They demonstrated that a combination of different materials such as cotton and silk, can be more effective than one material alone. Moreover, they revealed that densely woven cotton provides significantly more protection than cotton with looser weaves. A proper fit is particularly important to avoid leakage. The authors recommended the use of cotton masks that have a high protective effect and only little restriction when breathing.
Study 8—meta-analysis comparing PPE partial vs. complete protection
Verbeek (2020) [13]: a recent meta-analysis investigating PPE (personal protection equipment) masks looked at 24 studies with a total of 2.278 participants. Fourteen studies were randomized, one was quasi-randomized and nine had no study design with randomization. Eight studies compared different PPE even though personal protective equipment included more than the mask. Six studies evaluated the quality of the protective equipment. 75% of these studies used a simulated exposure with fluorescent markers tagged on harmless microbes. They concluded that protecting the whole body is not superior to protecting different parts separately. Furthermore, proper donning and doffing protocols were more beneficial in preventing the spread of the disease. Both steps require proper training to be effective.
Conclusion of the studies
Currently, most of the literature available on this topic is from experimental investigations. As expected, all the studies demonstrated an increase in protective effects in the following order: masks for everyday use–MNP–N95/FFP–PPE. Masks for everyday use can have a small protective effect for the wearer. MNP offers a greater protective effect since it was originally designed to decrease droplet elimination, therefore protecting the user’s surroundings. Unfortunately, due to ethical reasons, there is a lack of randomized controlled studies on the protective role of masks in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infections when compared to a control group with no masks. Since the Netherlands lack of a law to wear protection masks in public except for public transport since May 2020, it could serve as the control in future studies that compare the infection rates of different countries with different approaches to tackling the pandemic.
In 2016, Smith et al. [10] concluded that possible advantages of wearing a mask were difficult to apply to the social “day-to-day” situation. Konda et al. (12) highlighted the inability to discriminate between the protective effects of the mask on the environment, when worn by an infected person, versus the general protective effect within a given population. This would not have a significant health benefit if only a small percentage of individuals were infected. Only a study done in infected people with and without masks would allow a clear conclusion on the role of masks on the spread of the infection. Finally, a lesson learnt from the COVID pandemic shows significant educational gaps and lack of basic training that need to be addressed. The state should guarantee mask supply for everyone and educate on the proper use. Mass means of communication could be used for this purpose. A commercial broadcast before the daily news about the correct donning and doffing of the mouth and nose protection and its disinfection could reach a vast audience. In addition to public law, private and digital media, as well as healthcare providers such as doctors, pharmacists and nursing staff could also play an important role in education.
Consequences of the use of protective masks on the wearer—pathophysiologic considerations
Wearing a mask has its own advantages and indisputable protective effects against infections. However, there are also potential risks and side effects that require attention. This specifically applies to the use in the general population.
From a medical standpoint, there is a theoretical possibility of an airflow obstruction when wearing a mask. A subjective feeling of strained breathing rarely occurs when wearing surgical masks. When wearing very dense masks without valves (N95/FFP2-3), breathing occurs against an air flow resistance. Theoretically, an increase in work of breathing can occur, especially during physical exertion.
Depending on the design, masks can increase the lung’s dead space. In extreme cases, carbon dioxide retention (hypercapnia) can occur with side effects. Only few investigations are available and addressing this medical problem. The available literature examined different types of N95 masks in the industrial setting in detail [14,15,16], and found relevant effects on the wearer. In this context, Kim et al. [17] studied the role of N95 masks on lung function and heart rate during low-to-moderate exercise/physical work load. Only healthy subjects seem to tolerate wearing such a mask. Studies conducted on employees in advanced stages of pregnancy showed a good tolerance for masks. The results of this study, even though specific to this population, are valuable for the daily use of MNP as a general mean of protection [18]. Finally, the role of N95/FFP-2 masks was tested in 97 patients with advanced COPD while undergoing a 6-min walk test. Seven patients did not tolerate the test and stopped prematurely. The respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and CO2 levels changed significantly while wearing N95/FFP2 masks. These results demonstrated the potential risks of wearing this type of mask in the presence of advanced COPD [19]. Their use should be recommended with caution in this patient population, a questionably relevant recommendation, since the use of these masks is limited to health care workers in direct contact with COVID patients. Finally, people with hearing impairment rely on lip reading to understand others. This is not possible when wearing a mask.
Conclusion
Measures to prevent infections are necessary in the current pandemic. Face masks have been considered a first step to prevent and contain the spread of the disease. Different types of masks are available on the market for this purpose.
Simple masks covering mouth and nose are primarily used to prevent transmission by holding back droplets. This is useful when the recommended minimum distance of 1.5 m is not feasible. The masks provide only limited self-protection for its wearer and this is only when they are used properly.
High-quality FFP2/3 masks are a more reliable protection from infections. They should always be available for medical staff and people at risk. When used by the general population, specific groups at risk for complications related to the mask use should be educated on what to expect. For example, patients with severe COPD can experience a deterioration of their respiratory parameters. Therefore, patients must be individually educated by their general practitioner about the risk of wearing MNC.
Finally, it is imperative that the user is educated on the different types of masks available, how and when to wear them and, above all, how to handle them correctly, similar to the safety instructions given before take off in an aircraft.
Our results are consistent with the ones recently reported by Chu et al. in Lancet [20]. These publications will help guide the decisions of politicians and caregivers on when and where to use the available tools to fight a viral pandemic.
Availability of data and materials
All data and materials can be accessed via CM and FM.
Abbreviations
COPD:
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
COVID-19:
Coronavirus disease 2019
EN:
European normalization
FFP:
Filtering face piece
MNC:
Masks covering mouth and nose
MNP:
Medical mouth–nose protection
N95:
Masks filtering > 95% of particles and droplets
PPE:
Personal protective equipment
RIVM:
Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu the Dutch federal government agency and research institute responsible for disease control and prevention
RKI:
Robert Koch Institute the German federal government agency and research institute responsible for disease control and prevention
RM:
Respiratory masks
SARS:
Severe acute respiratory syndrome
SARS-CoV-2:
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
WHO:
World Health Organization
I'm not even going to bother reading whatever crap you post, I'll just reply with a real peer reviewed study. Got 9999 more.
https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-020-00430-5
Face masks: benefits and risks during the COVID-19 crisis
European Journal of Medical Research volume 25, Article number: 32 (2020) Cite this article
Abstract
- 115k Accesses
- 11 Citations
- 402 Altmetric
- Metricsdetails
Background
The German government has made it mandatory to wear respiratory masks covering mouth and nose (MNC) as an effective strategy to fight SARS-CoV-2 infections. In many countries, this directive has been extended on shopping malls or public transportation. The aim of this paper is to critically analyze the statutory regulation to wear protective masks during the COVID-19 crisis from a medical standpoint.
Methods
We performed an extensive query of the most recent publications addressing the prevention of viral infections including the use of face masks in the community as a method to prevent the spread of the infection. We addressed the issues of practicability, professional use, and acceptability based on the community and the environment where the user resided.
Results
Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. However, the use of MNC seems to be linked to relevant protection during close contact scenarios by limiting pathogen-containing aerosol and liquid droplet dissemination. Importantly, we found evidence for significant respiratory compromise in patients with severe obstructive pulmonary disease, secondary to the development of hypercapnia. This could also happen in patients with lung infections, with or without SARS-CoV-2.
Conclusion
Epidemiologists currently emphasize that wearing MNC will effectively interrupt airborne infections in the community. The government and the politicians have followed these recommendations and used them to both advise and, in some cases, mandate the general population to wear MNC in public locations. Overall, the results seem to suggest that there are some clinically relevant scenarios where the use of MNC necessitates more defined recommendations. Our critical evaluation of the literature both highlights the protective effects of certain types of face masks in defined risk groups, and emphasizes their potential risks.
Introduction
The knowledge that the use of face masks delays the SARS-CoV-2 transmission is rapidly gaining popularity in the general population. Politicians need guidance on how masks should be used by the public to fight the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. In this review, we summarize the relevant literature on this topic.
On March 17th, 2020, this was the headline of an article in the New York Times on the role of face masks during the COVID-19 outbreak. Face masks have become a clothing accessory that is worn every day and everywhere. A variety of shapes, forms, and materials are being used and advertised to the point that in 2020 the business of producing and selling face masks was born.
In Germany, the government has ruled that wearing a face mask is obligatory to protect the population from any risks of airborne illness, according to the constitutional law [1] stating that “Protection must be easily provided to every citizen in the country.”
The aim of this paper is to analyze and critically discuss the regulations of some Federal States in Germany, which require protective masks in public to conform to similar regulations already in place in other countries.
Most masks covering the mouth are named mouth nose covering (MNC) according to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI; the German federal government agency and research institute responsible for disease control and prevention) and do not protect against respiratory and airborne infections. In the following review, the term “protective masks” will be used to describe any type of face mask.
Face masks protecting from infections
Respiratory masks (RM) are protective devices covering a part of the face. They are designed to protect both the person who wears them and the immediate environment from breathable pollutants (respiratory poisons or bacterial/viral pathogenic organisms). Different masks can be classified as I) full masks (normed following EN 136) and II) half and quarter masks (EN 140) (Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4). While a full mask covers the whole face, a half-mask fits from under the chin to above the nose, a quarter mask fits from the top of the nose to the top of the chin. The breathing resistance varies proportionally to the density of the mask material.
Fig. 1
FFP (filtering face piece) mask without valve
Full size image
Fig. 2
FFP (filtering face piece) mask with valve
Full size image
Fig. 3
Homemade face mask for everyday use
Full size image
Fig. 4
Surgical mask (MNP)
Full size image
FFP masks (filtering face piece) are classified as half masks. Their use is required to prevent the entry of pathogens through the airway and have the role of protecting both the wearer and the surrounding people. They are different from medical MNC, (often referred to as “surgical masks”), and from “self-made” masks for everyday use. MNCs and self-made masks are not “leak-proof” and do not provide complete respiratory protection since air can escape through them. FFP masks come without (Fig. 1) or with (Fig. 2) a valve. FFP (filtering face piece) masks with valves provide an air flow from the inside to the outside of the mask. FFP 1 masks are dust masks and mainly used for this purpose. They do not prevent COVID-19 infections. FFP1 masks are suitable for work environments in which only non-toxic dusts are found. FFP2 masks are suitable for work environments where there are pathogens and mutagens in the air composition.
In the context of SARS-CoV-2 the following types of masks are available (WHO, 2020):
A full face mask in a level-3 biosafety lab is shown in Fig. 5.
- 1.
Masks for everyday use (temporary masks made from fabric, etc.; Fig. 3): These masks grant no protection for the user from being infected. However, it is safe to assume there is a small risk reduction for droplet transmission, especially during exhalation, resulting in a reduction of potential viral spread. These masks should not be used in the health care system, but are commonly recommended for the general population for walking, shopping, or using public transportation.- 2.
MNP (= medical mouth–nose protection; Fig. 4): often referred to as a “surgical mask”. The industrial production of MNP abides to strict rules to provide protections against infection. The filtering capability is like the one for everyday use masks and they are intended to protect patients. They are approved for medical staff use, warrantying only patient-protection, specifically aimed against aerosols.- 3.
FFP2-mask (= face filtering piece)/N95-mask: FFP2-masks fulfil a set of stricter protective norms. They protect the person wearing them, as > 95% of particles and droplets are held back when inhaling. FFP2-masks also effectively protect the environment as long as there is no exhaling valve. In contrast, masks with an exhaling valve let exhaled air pass out unfiltered, with contamination of the immediate environment.- 4.
FFP3-mask: FFP3-masks protect the user even more effectively than FFP2, as > 99% of droplets and particles are filtered when inhaling. FFP3-masks also protect the environment in the absence of an exhaling valve.
Fig. 5
Full face mask in a level-3 biosafety lab (source: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic)
Full size image
The WHO states that the declared protective effect of these masks recommended during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic can be severely reduced by their inappropriate use, such as improper donning or doffing, insufficient maintenance, long or repeated use of disposable masks, no dry cleaning of fabric masks, or using masks made of non-protective material [2].
During an epidemic/pandemic crisis every possible risk reduction strategy is useful. It is likely that the risk of infection and its severity depends on the viral load entering the body. This was the rationale for the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) to recommend the use of masks starting from March 2020. Specifically, they looked at the availability of the resources and tailored the supply to the risk of infection. Healthcare workers were considered essential workers at high risk of infection, therefore prioritized to the use of FFP2/3 masks, while MNC or masks for everyday use were to be made available for the general population.
Current decree on wearing a mouth and nose covering
Due to the German Federalism, the Federal Minister of Health can only make health recommendations, which are then reinforced by the Infection Protection Act of the different Federal States. In the current situation of a pandemic crisis, nearly all measures are taken to prevent an exponential increase of new SARS-CoV-2 infections.
As of June 1st, 2020, the Netherlands considers the public use of protective masks unnecessary. This is based on the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 is only transmitted as a droplet infection via the nasopharynx pathway, which mostly occurs during coughing or sneezing. These droplets do not stay in the air, but rather drop to the ground within a 1.5 m radius if larger than 5 µm [3]. It has been postulated that for SARS-CoV-2—in contrast to other respiratory-driven infections—the droplets in the aerosols are of little relevance for a COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, securing a 1.5-m social distance is assumed to be an essential and sufficient preventive measure. However, recent data published in 2020 using high-speed cameras show that small droplets of saliva and mucus can fly up to 8 m [4], requiring critical reconsideration of the above-mentioned assumption.
We conducted a Medline survey to scientifically justify this approach with the key words SARS-CoV-2, face masks, COVID-19, pandemic.
Leung and colleagues [5] screened more than 3000 individuals and identified 123 patients suffering from a viral respiratory infection. The viral load in the exhaled aerosol and droplets were different depending on the etiology of the infection, but was exponentially reduced by wearing surgical masks (cat. no. 62356, Kimberly-Clark). More viral particles were released through coughing. Generally, the authors reported a notably higher viral load in nose swabs compared to throat swabs. This data applied to influenza, corona, and rhino virus. No data are available for SARS-CoV-2 yet.
In general, droplets, and hence SARS-CoV-2, can be transferred via direct contact or smear transfection modality when the hands are contaminated from touching the nose or the face and then come in direct contact with others, e.g. by handshaking. For this reason, not only the “cough etiquette”, but regular and thorough handwashing are a significant and mandatory hygienic rule (6).
As a result of scientific data combined with daily routine, the RIVM (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, the Dutch equivalent of the RKI) has mandated to wear masks while using public transportation, due to the inability of maintaining enough protective distance, especially when riding during rush hour. This rule does not apply to other public spaces yet.
Summarizing the arguments in favour of wearing a mask
Main arguments against wearing a mask
- Wearing a mask in areas where sufficient distance is not feasible, such as public transportation, most likely reduces the spread of virus-loaded droplets and therefore the risk of transferring SARS-CoV-2.
- It is indisputable that infected patients can transfer SARS-CoV-2 to other people, starting few days before manifesting clinical symptoms or during the incubation period. However, there is no reliable data concerning the amount of virus particles that can be spread by an asymptomatic person, when keeping a minimum safe distance.
Protective masks in context of rivalling concerns
- If there is a limited supply of protective masks, they should be reserved for health care workers in hospitals and care facilities. This applies for surgical masks and for FFP2 and FFP3 masks.
- Masks give a false sense of security. The main role of MNC is the protection of people standing nearby. MNC do not protect the wearer.
- It is essential to wear the mask correctly. It must fit airtight to the skin, otherwise its effect is lost. Doffing of the mask needs to be properly done as well. The outside of the mask should not be touched. When supply is not an issue, surgical masks should be used only once.
- The lack of nonverbal communication when wearing a mask may make people feel insecure, disheartened or even psychologically troubled. This may be particularly true for people suffering from mental illness or hearing impairment.
- Breathing dampens the mask. If there is excessive moisture, the masks become airtight. Therefore, air is inhaled and exhaled unfiltered around the edges, losing the protective effect for both the wearer and the environment.
- If masks are not exchanged regularly (or washed properly when made of cloth), pathogens can accumulate in the mask. When improperly used, the risk of spreading the pathogen—including SARS-CoV-2—might be critically increased.
In Germany, the COVID-19 pandemic has been more contained than in other European countries or even worldwide. However, we are not immune to this infection. It is imperative to implement any measure to control the spread of the infection, or at least the speed of diffusion to the population. It is important to make sure that the German health care system does not deplete its resources. Theoretically, we are affected by the scarcity of mask supply like other nations or countries. People who risk their health and even their lives need to be protected. There should be a fine balance when suggesting preventive measures, since reinforcing them indiscriminately may contribute to psychological discomfort, acts of violence, and financial strain.
Available data
The summarized studies examine different types of masks focussing on FFP/N-95 masks. As expected, there are no scientific studies on economic and social consequences of wearing masks (Table 1).
Table 1 Most important publications
Full size table
In the following, the most important results are summarized.
Study 1—PPE
Chia et al. (2005) [6] used a questionnaire to analyze the perception of doctors, nurses and other personnel on the role of PPE (= personal protective equipment) during the SARS-outbreak in Singapore over a period of 2 months in 2003. In summary, 32.5% of doctors, 48.7% of nurses and 77% of the administrative personnel thought that a simple MNP would be sufficient to prevent the SARS-infection. It was evident that even qualified staff did not have sufficient knowledge on the protective properties of face masks during a pandemic. This study highlights the importance of adequate communication, education and exchange of information in a timely fashion.
Study 2—MNP masks
Lipp et al. (2005) [7] investigated the pattern of use and the protective effects of masks on wound infections using a questionnaire in two randomized studies. While the use of MNP was statistically beneficial in a smaller study (n = 200), the same recommendations were not valid when a larger cohort (n = 1250) was studied.
Study 3—MNP vs. N95 valve masks
Li (2008) [8]: this study compared the protective effects of simple MNP with two different N95 masks with different valve systems. In contrast to the commonly available masks, this model had valves placed on the sides and was studied in an experimental setting with artificial droplets. All masks blocked the inside transmission of droplets from the front. The effectiveness of the regular MNP mask was only 95–97% when compared to the N95, which had a protective effect of 99%. Thus, N95 masks offer considerably better protection from influenza and SARS virus infections when compared to other mask types.
Study 4—masks for everyday use
Rengasamy (2010) [9]: the protective effect of masks for everyday use made from different materials was tested against 20–1.000 nm particles with different velocities and compared to N95 masks. This study found marginal protective effects against exhaled particles. Specifically, depending on the material and dampness, 40–90% of aerosols were able to penetrate through these masks.
Study 5—N95 vs. MNP
Smith et al. (2016) [10] analyzed all the available literature from 1990 to 2014, including 3 randomized controlled studies, one cohort study and 2 case–control studies comparing MNP vs N95 masks. Their meta-analyzis assessed: (a) the laboratory-proven infection rate, (b) influenza-related infections, and (c) work absence secondary to illness in employees. Their results indicated that the overall calculated risk assessment is not considerably improved using more sophisticated N95 masks.
Study 6—N95
Zhou and colleagues (2018) [11] examined the role of various features on N95 masks, including valves for a more comfortable breathing, on the rate of infection. The endpoint was the retention of small particles of around 2.5 µm. The results revealed that the protective effect was sufficient against the examined viruses including influenza and rhinovirus.
Study 7—masks for everyday use
Konda et al. (2020) [12] investigated the use of different materials on the effective filtration capabilities of masks for everyday use. They demonstrated that a combination of different materials such as cotton and silk, can be more effective than one material alone. Moreover, they revealed that densely woven cotton provides significantly more protection than cotton with looser weaves. A proper fit is particularly important to avoid leakage. The authors recommended the use of cotton masks that have a high protective effect and only little restriction when breathing.
Study 8—meta-analysis comparing PPE partial vs. complete protection
Verbeek (2020) [13]: a recent meta-analysis investigating PPE (personal protection equipment) masks looked at 24 studies with a total of 2.278 participants. Fourteen studies were randomized, one was quasi-randomized and nine had no study design with randomization. Eight studies compared different PPE even though personal protective equipment included more than the mask. Six studies evaluated the quality of the protective equipment. 75% of these studies used a simulated exposure with fluorescent markers tagged on harmless microbes. They concluded that protecting the whole body is not superior to protecting different parts separately. Furthermore, proper donning and doffing protocols were more beneficial in preventing the spread of the disease. Both steps require proper training to be effective.
Conclusion of the studies
Currently, most of the literature available on this topic is from experimental investigations. As expected, all the studies demonstrated an increase in protective effects in the following order: masks for everyday use–MNP–N95/FFP–PPE. Masks for everyday use can have a small protective effect for the wearer. MNP offers a greater protective effect since it was originally designed to decrease droplet elimination, therefore protecting the user’s surroundings. Unfortunately, due to ethical reasons, there is a lack of randomized controlled studies on the protective role of masks in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infections when compared to a control group with no masks. Since the Netherlands lack of a law to wear protection masks in public except for public transport since May 2020, it could serve as the control in future studies that compare the infection rates of different countries with different approaches to tackling the pandemic.
In 2016, Smith et al. [10] concluded that possible advantages of wearing a mask were difficult to apply to the social “day-to-day” situation. Konda et al. (12) highlighted the inability to discriminate between the protective effects of the mask on the environment, when worn by an infected person, versus the general protective effect within a given population. This would not have a significant health benefit if only a small percentage of individuals were infected. Only a study done in infected people with and without masks would allow a clear conclusion on the role of masks on the spread of the infection. Finally, a lesson learnt from the COVID pandemic shows significant educational gaps and lack of basic training that need to be addressed. The state should guarantee mask supply for everyone and educate on the proper use. Mass means of communication could be used for this purpose. A commercial broadcast before the daily news about the correct donning and doffing of the mouth and nose protection and its disinfection could reach a vast audience. In addition to public law, private and digital media, as well as healthcare providers such as doctors, pharmacists and nursing staff could also play an important role in education.
Consequences of the use of protective masks on the wearer—pathophysiologic considerations
Wearing a mask has its own advantages and indisputable protective effects against infections. However, there are also potential risks and side effects that require attention. This specifically applies to the use in the general population.
From a medical standpoint, there is a theoretical possibility of an airflow obstruction when wearing a mask. A subjective feeling of strained breathing rarely occurs when wearing surgical masks. When wearing very dense masks without valves (N95/FFP2-3), breathing occurs against an air flow resistance. Theoretically, an increase in work of breathing can occur, especially during physical exertion.
Depending on the design, masks can increase the lung’s dead space. In extreme cases, carbon dioxide retention (hypercapnia) can occur with side effects. Only few investigations are available and addressing this medical problem. The available literature examined different types of N95 masks in the industrial setting in detail [14,15,16], and found relevant effects on the wearer. In this context, Kim et al. [17] studied the role of N95 masks on lung function and heart rate during low-to-moderate exercise/physical work load. Only healthy subjects seem to tolerate wearing such a mask. Studies conducted on employees in advanced stages of pregnancy showed a good tolerance for masks. The results of this study, even though specific to this population, are valuable for the daily use of MNP as a general mean of protection [18]. Finally, the role of N95/FFP-2 masks was tested in 97 patients with advanced COPD while undergoing a 6-min walk test. Seven patients did not tolerate the test and stopped prematurely. The respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and CO2 levels changed significantly while wearing N95/FFP2 masks. These results demonstrated the potential risks of wearing this type of mask in the presence of advanced COPD [19]. Their use should be recommended with caution in this patient population, a questionably relevant recommendation, since the use of these masks is limited to health care workers in direct contact with COVID patients. Finally, people with hearing impairment rely on lip reading to understand others. This is not possible when wearing a mask.
Conclusion
Measures to prevent infections are necessary in the current pandemic. Face masks have been considered a first step to prevent and contain the spread of the disease. Different types of masks are available on the market for this purpose.
Simple masks covering mouth and nose are primarily used to prevent transmission by holding back droplets. This is useful when the recommended minimum distance of 1.5 m is not feasible. The masks provide only limited self-protection for its wearer and this is only when they are used properly.
High-quality FFP2/3 masks are a more reliable protection from infections. They should always be available for medical staff and people at risk. When used by the general population, specific groups at risk for complications related to the mask use should be educated on what to expect. For example, patients with severe COPD can experience a deterioration of their respiratory parameters. Therefore, patients must be individually educated by their general practitioner about the risk of wearing MNC.
Finally, it is imperative that the user is educated on the different types of masks available, how and when to wear them and, above all, how to handle them correctly, similar to the safety instructions given before take off in an aircraft.
Our results are consistent with the ones recently reported by Chu et al. in Lancet [20]. These publications will help guide the decisions of politicians and caregivers on when and where to use the available tools to fight a viral pandemic.
Availability of data and materials
All data and materials can be accessed via CM and FM.
Abbreviations
COPD:
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
COVID-19:
Coronavirus disease 2019
EN:
European normalization
FFP:
Filtering face piece
MNC:
Masks covering mouth and nose
MNP:
Medical mouth–nose protection
N95:
Masks filtering > 95% of particles and droplets
PPE:
Personal protective equipment
RIVM:
Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu the Dutch federal government agency and research institute responsible for disease control and prevention
RKI:
Robert Koch Institute the German federal government agency and research institute responsible for disease control and prevention
RM:
Respiratory masks
SARS:
Severe acute respiratory syndrome
SARS-CoV-2:
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
WHO:
World Health Organization
All good in theory but the data from ground does not validate the theoretical outcomes.
Last edited:
Same as CCP propaganda, say lies to cover backside. Idiot.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/545311-cases-of-coronavirus-variants-on-the-rise-in-florida
Cases of coronavirus variants spiking in Florida
BY SARAH POLUS - 03/28/21 08:42 PM EDT 2,244
389
The number of COVID-19 cases in Florida stemming from the virus's variants has more than doubled over the past two weeks, according to a report released Sunday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The new report shows Florida having a total of 2,330 variant cases — the highest in the country. On Thursday, 1,075 variant cases were reported. An additional 1,255 were included in Sunday's report, USA Today noted.
The vast majority of variant cases in Florida, as well as the U.S. in general, came from the B.1.1.7 strain, first seen in the United Kingdom.
Florida also experienced a doubling of P.1, a variant initially recorded in Brazil, for a total of 42 cases.
On March 20, Florida became the third state to reach 2 million coronavirus infections, behind California and Texas.
Florida has relatively lax coronavirus restrictions, which have sent tourists and spring breakers from around the nation flocking to the Sunshine State. Notably, a surge of spring breakers descended on Miami in recent weeks, causing Democratic Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber to issue a state of emergency.
- Biden announces 90 percent of adults to be eligible for vaccine by...
- Overnight Health Care: Biden calls on states to keep mask mandates,...
Anthony Fauci, the nation's leading infectious disease expert, on Sunday warned that it's too soon to be easing coronavirus restrictions, despite widespread vaccination efforts.
"What we’re likely seeing is because of things like spring break and pulling back on the mitigation methods that you’ve seen now. Several states have done that," he said.
TAGS DR. ANTHONY FAUCI ANTHONY FAUCI VARIANT VARIANTS OF SARS-COV-2 COVID-19
A new variant will be announced soon that will require a new round of vaccines and the charade will continue.
Similar threads
