Masks are NOT proven to protect anyone or prevent anything

amother

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 3:42 pm

DrMom the days of obeying rules for the sake of obeying rules are over
it's clear we can't trust anyone in office and almost anywhere else
we're basically left to our own devices

social distancing is also not realistic

I don't know what the solution is

I have no issue if they SUGGEST wearing masks
I have an issue when it's mandatory
when the research isn't conclusive

amother

Mauve

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 3:42 pm

[quote]
The two employees who were positive for Covid likely weren't contagious anymore. A positive Covid test does not indicate level of contagion. For all we know, they also already had antibodies.

Some of their family members did contract the disease from them, since they weren't masked at home.

DrMom

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 3:47 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

I and others gave concise explanations why mask-wearing blocks transmission of droplets (I would have thought it was pretty obvious...). But even if you can't comprehend these basic explanations, you still need to obey the law.

Maybe you don't understand carseats but you are still negligent if you don't use them.

What's so difficult about SD? Most of the time it is pretty easy. When it's not, make an effort. Or do you not understand the reasoning behind that one either? Are you okay with hand washing? Or is that a big conspiracy too?

I think people these days are just plain spoiled.

amother

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 3:52 pm

I wash my hands

I try my best to social distance

I'm an on off mask wearer and I don't want to be branded a criminal for it

shabbatiscoming

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:00 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

So many think its the government
So many think its all a conspiracy.
So many are going to be very sad and apparently shocked as well, when numbers keep going up because nobody wants to wear masks and SD.

simcha2

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:02 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

I wash my hands

I try my best to social distance

I'm an on off mask wearer and I don't want to be branded a criminal for it

Why not?

If you actively choose not to follow the law, why shouldn't you be branded a criminal?

Just because you don't understand the science, and the why, doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.

Someone may not understand why they have to pay to ride the subway. It's running anyway, they aren't increasing the cost for it to run. Why should they pay? Just because they don't understand doesn't mean they shouldn't be cited when they jump the turnstile.

DrMom

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:02 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

I wash my hands

I try my best to social distance

I'm an on off mask wearer and I don't want to be branded a criminal for it

Okay, but not wearing a mask all the time (I *hate* wearing mine, BTW) is different from saying that it offers zero protection against the transmission of droplets coming out of the nose and mouth of the person wearing it.

I don't know what the rules are where you live, but all studies show that masks are most critical indoors and/or in crowds. Are you in such situations for long periods of time? I recognize that that is very uncomfortable.

amother

Bronze

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:04 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

I wash my hands

I try my best to social distance

I'm an on off mask wearer and I don't want to be branded a criminal for it

Honestly, you sound ridiculous. A criminal is someone who doesn’t follow the law. That’s like literally the definition. It’s doesn’t have a clause to exclude people that don’t follow the laws they don’t like or don’t agree with.

On to the masks. There are numerous credible studies that mask HELP reduce transmission of the virus, because the virus travels in respiratory droplets.

People have brought examples that illustrate that masks do work that you are ignoring or adding in your own imaginary hypothesis to fit your personal narrative that masks don’t work, like oh they weren’t contagious anymore. (They were, they infected household members) or oh they didn’t test people so how do they know (they tested clients)

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But masks don’t cost strep, dirt doesn’t cause strep and strep is caused by Streptococcus pyogenes, also known as group A streptococcus.

I live in South Africa and every single GP and health professional and teacher and school administrator that’s I’ve asked has told me that this winter has been the healthiest winter ever in terms of viruses, colds and flus, because masks and social distancing have prevented a lot of outbreaks particularly in the schools. (Also, not letting kids come to school with any signs of an illness is probably helpful.)

This is the first year that not one of my children had ruptured ear drums, ear infections or needed grommets.

So honestly, there are thousands of children in schools here wearing masks all day. We have been back at school, since the third term (end of July) and I sometimes wonder if Americans are just dirtier or reusing the same masks or what, with all this talk I keep hearing of masks causing rashes and sicknesses. I’m just baffled.

amother

Seafoam

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:04 pm

youngishbear wrote:

Please explain this to me again.

You say that masks prevent exposure to "things" that our immune system needs to fight off in order to stay strong.

I'm assuming these "things" are germs, which is a catch-all term for bacteria and viruses.

You also say that kids got sick with strep because their masks were dirty. Where do you think the step bacteria came from?

I don't know about the outbreak you are referring to, but to me it seems to show the masks did not prevent germs from passing around, rather than them keeping our immune system in a bubble.

The two points you raised are opposites and undermine your argument.

I agree with you that dirty masks are a bad idea. I would recommend changing them more frequently, not putting them on and off multiple times, making sure they're worn properly, etc.

Please stop. It's like you are just trying to catch me in some contradiction where there is none.

There are studies comparing health of children who are kept in a (figurative) bubble and never allowed to touch anything dirty vs. those who are free to roam and explore and touch things. Are you really unaware of how immune systems develop and function?

Are you also truly unaware how having some tiny bit of bacteria in your mask and then breathing it in for hours, with warm, humid breath, can cause sore throat and strep?

If you are still confused as to how both things can. be true please just google or talk to a doctor. I'm tired.

Success10

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:08 pm

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but in this article Dr. Zelenko expresses the belief that masks do nothing.

If you disagree, please do not launch a personal attack on Dr. Zelenko. Rather just voice your arguments against his.

pause

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:13 pm

wiki wrote:

Read the study. They tracked down clients who had seen the hairstylists from the days before the onset of symptoms and also the first two days of symptoms, which is when Covid is generally most contagious.

You're right that I didn't read the study. I just responded to the information in your post.

imorethanamother

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:14 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

I'm simply baffled why people talk about a mask like it's a no-brainer when in actuality it raises so many more issues than it helps with
and like another poster said - every article contradicts the previous one
there is just no clarity around the topic
and yet the government and others require masks and shame non-maskers in a manner that makes you wonder where they get they're facts from

I will say this under my screen name. Science is science and data is data. Nursing home data are now being collected as part of a national effort, and so far in the nursing homes we run, when you wear a mask, the patient doesn’t get covid. When you don’t wear a mask, or you keep the same gloves on between patients, you get a sudden influx of three of four residents with Covid. “Coincidentally” with the same nurse.

I’m an administrator, and we’ve had staff infections (we do randomized testing weekly) that go no further, thanks to correct usage of PPE. This saves lives.

If you want to disbelieve in germ theory and put your hope in magical fairy tales, I can’t stop you. If you want to say that viruses can escape all efforts to stop them, sure. Life finds a way. But if you show up to my nursing home without a mask, we can show you videotapes that you might as well smother the resident with a pillow. And the state can charge you with immediate jeopardy.

simcha2

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:15 pm

Success10 wrote:

For the exact reasons stated above. The virus is transmitted in respiratory droplets, and it is their size that matters, not the size of the virus.

imorethanamother

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:20 pm

Success10 wrote:

Again. As another poster said - if your doctor had a bad cold and was operating on you, would you leap up and say “hey, no worries! It’s a virus! Feel free to sneeze on my intestines, it’s not like the mask will do anything.”

We have high standards for our medical care. We should have high standards for the way we behave. Doctors are not inherently more moral than the rest of us, or stronger, they just follow research. If they can do it, so can we.

amother

Copper

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:21 pm

DrMom wrote:

The idea behind mask-wearing is not new. Furthermore, it has been explained during the current pandemic ad nauseum in the news.

Someone who doesn't see the point by now is probably trying very hard to miss it.

Even if you don't see the point, you should obey rules.

Correct, it's not new and it was discounted until this past April.

The reason it was studied to begin with is because masks have been worn in China and other Asian countries since their earlier SARs outbreaks.

amother

Copper

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:24 pm

I found this to be persuasive. Not the article, but clicking through the actual studies cited. You have to view the original article for the links to work.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed.....masks
Horowitz: E-MASK-ulation: How we have been lied to so dramatically about masks
What did the scientific literature say before the issue became political?

If you are looking for the scientific rationale behind universal mask-wearing, you certainly won't find it now that the issue has become as political as guns, abortion, and taxes. We are now at a point where Canada's chief public health officer is calling on people to wear masks when engaging in s-xual activities and 19-month-old babies are being forced to wear them on airplanes. There is no rational thought in a political cult. But what did the governmental and scientific literature say on the issue before it became political?

On April 3, already several weeks into the unprecedented lockdown over coronavirus, but before the big media push for universal masking, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued guidance for respiratory protection for workers exposed to people with the virus. It stated clearly what governments had said all along about other forms of airborne contamination, such as smoke inhalation — "Surgical masks and eye protection (e.g., face shields, goggles) were provided as an interim measure to protect against splashes and large droplets (note: surgical masks are not respirators and do not provide protection against aerosol-generating procedures)."

In other words, they knew that because the virions of coronavirus are roughly 100 nanometers, 1/100,000 the width of a hair and 1/30 the size of surgical mask filtrations (about 3.0 microns or 3,000 nanometers), surgical masks (not to mention cloth ones) do not help. This would explain why experience has shown that all of the places with universal mask orders in place for months, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, France, Peru, Philippines, Hawaii, California, and Miami, failed to stave off the spread of the infection. Surgical masks could possibly stop large droplets from those coughing with very evident symptoms, but would not stop the flow of aerosolized airborne particles, certainly not from asymptomatic individuals.

This is why the CDC, as late as May, was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed "no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks." The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford also summarized six international studies which "showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers."

When Dr. Fauci spoke so assertively against universal mask-wearing early on in the epidemic, it was clearly based on this knowledge. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask," infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci told "60 Minutes" on March 8. He went on to explain that masks can only block large droplets, they give a false sense of security, and they cause people to get more germs on their hands by fiddling with it. Those facts don't change with time.

Several weeks later, Surgeon General Jerome Adams punctuated this point about the counterproductivity of wearing masks in public. Appearing on "Fox & Friends" on March 31, Adams said that based on a study that shows medical students who wear masks touch their faces 23 times more often, one has to assume that "wearing a mask improperly can actually increase your risk of getting disease."

Ever since then, we have all seen how people leave masks in their pockets or cars for days and continuously put it on and off as needed without washing their hands. It's inconceivable that this is not serving as a bacteria trap, if not downright helping spread the virus on our hands.

A 2015 randomized clinical trial from the University of South Wales testing the effectiveness of cloth masks among health care workers in Hanoi found that the poor filtration becomes a conduit for moisture retention. Researchers found a high rate of infection among those workers presumably because "their reuse and poor filtration may explain the increased risk of infection." Can you imagine how much worse this is in a non-health-care setting where reuse and cross-contamination are rampant?

This is why before mask-wearing became a cult in Canada, Quebec's public health director Horacio Arruda told the Montreal Gazette that masks are counterproductive. Arruda's guidance as given in the article states that masks "get saturated with moisture from the mouth and nose after about 20 minutes. Once they're wet, they no longer form a barrier against viruses trying to come through or exit." This renders the daylong mask wearing in businesses, stores, and schools, as opposed to the short onetime use in clinical settings, a complete hazard to spread of bacteria and pathogens.

Nothing about the biology of the virus or our discovery of it has changed in the past few months that would lead us to believe that masks are somehow more effective against it than they are against the spread of other respiratory viruses. What has changed is the politics. Governments could no longer control our lives through wholesale lockdowns, because it was logistically untenable, so they created the mask mandate as a way of permanently controlling our movement. They wisely did this on the heels of the full-scale lockdown when people were grateful just to be back in business under any conditions and were desperately willing to do anything to stave off a shutdown.

Dr. Jeffery Klausner, an infectious disease doctor at UCLA, described mask-wearing in early February as all psychological, not physiological. He told the Los Angeles Times that "fear spreads a lot faster than the virus" and that a mask only "makes you feel better." What is so dangerous about this is that, as Fauci and others originally warned when they were actually speaking from a modicum of scientific grounding, is that many immunocompromised people will go to dangerous places thinking the mask protects them. I've seen countless friends and neighbors who are concerned about their heart conditions and diabetes blissfully walk around indoors thinking the mask is their shield.

This is why Swedish epidemiologist Anders Tegnell warned that because scientific evidence for mask-wearing to prevent COVID-19 is "astonishingly weak," it is "very dangerous" to believe that face masks on their own could control the spread of the disease rather than hand washing or, in the case of those who are seriously ill, staying away from indoor gatherings. He would know, because his country barely has any cases left, and almost nobody in Sweden wears a mask.

The Dutch government made the prudent decision of only requiring masks on public transit when people are really close to each other for a limited period of time. With such scant evidence of the effectiveness of mask-wearing, how can we disrupt lives of children in school, businessmen in offices, and even people walking outdoors in some countries and states? "From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a national obligation," said Netherlands Medical Care Minister Tamara van Ark in August.

The Danish supposedly commissioned a randomized clinical trial to study mask effectiveness specifically as it relates to protecting against SARS-CoV-2, but despite promises of imminent release weeks ago, the study has not been published. Henning Bundgaard, chief physician at Denmark's Rigshospitale, noted, "All these countries recommending face masks haven't made their decisions based on new studies." It doesn't appear that anyone else is interested in finding out the truth.

Even in England, where there is more mask-wearing than in some of the other northern European countries, Public Health England concluded, "There is weak evidence from epidemiological and modelling studies that mask wearing in the community may contribute to reducing the spread of COVID-19 and that early intervention may result in a lower peak infection rate."

Our own U.S. government has failed to produce new evidence that counters years' worth of evidence that masks don't work in stopping respiratory viruses and is still producing evidence to the contrary. In June, HHS' Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a systemic review of all relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of mask-wearing in stopping respiratory infections and published the findings in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The conclusion was as clear as it is jarring to the current cult-like devotion to mask-wearing. "Review of RCTs indicates that N95 respirators and surgical masks are probably associated with similar risk for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral infections in high- and low-risk settings." The study noted that only one trial did show "a small decrease in risk" for infection when doctors wore N95s in high-risk settings, but even that evidence was scant.

The study looked at eight trials with 6,510 participants that "evaluated use of surgical masks within households with an influenza or influenza-like illness index case (child or adult). Compared with no masks, surgical masks were not associated with decreased risk for clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness, or laboratory-confirmed viral illness in household contacts when masks were worn by household contacts, index cases, or both." Remember, Dr. Deborah Birx, the Coronavirus Task Force coordinator, is now saying people should wear masks even at home?

How have we gone from public officials universally warning about the lack of effectiveness plus the potential to spread germs from masks to mandating that young children who are germ factories wear them all day in school – without even a legislative debate or public hearings?

The answer is that we have become emasculated as a society. We have become a people who are willing to surrender every morsel of our liberty at the ever-changing and capricious whims of "public health officials," even when they are appallingly contradictory and without any evidence justifying the 180-degree U-turn.

During times of panic, opportunistic politicians in positions of power will always latch on to desperate and regressive ideas to infringe upon liberty, while packaging them as some sort of enlightened advancement in technology or understanding. In reality, these same desperate measures were tried in 1918, and even then, it was understood that they didn't work. A November 16, 1918, headline of the Santa Barbara Daily News read, "Average Person Doesn't Know How to Take Care of Mask and It Becomes Veritable Bacteria Incubator."

Many principles in life are inviolable and do not change with time. We used to understand that mask-wearing was a novelty of Halloween. Now, our passivity has allowed our entire country to become a Halloween nightmare masquerade every day, with no end in sight.

This article has been updated.

simcha2

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:36 pm

amother [ Copper ] wrote:

The premise of this article contains a huge fundamental error.

It assumes that the change in recommendation is political, whereas it is clear from journals that the change is to do with greater knowledge of the virus.

When covid was first described the mode of transmission was not thought to be airborne, it was thought to be surface transmitted. Which is why handwashing was so pushed.

It was only after it was studied further that it became clear that it is airborne- and at that point masks were pushed.

This is a novel virus, it is not surprising that the science is evolving.

But the politicization of masks, is, in my opinion, one of the greatest tragedies. And honestly, I'm not sure I can forgive those who have done that.

imorethanamother

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 4:52 pm

You know why they're making masks mandatory? Because peer pressure is a thing. I've seen with my own eyes people who walk into a shul with a mask, and then when they see no one else is wearing one, they take it off. The same people will walk into a store with everyone wearing a mask, and will keep it on.

I take issue with articles that say that Sweden is doing great with no mask wearing. Like, what? Sweden is a small country with a small population that is homogenous, and they are an example of what herd immunity could look like. They are not a country that can point to a lack of masks and say, "see? We didn't get it!" There were countless articles that most people DID get it, they had higher rates than surrounding countries, and that many more stayed home until the majority did get it.

I was actually thinking Sweden is the best model, until I read recently that they suddenly have a surge of Covid positive cases. That's a bit confusing. But it ruined the article for me. Also, he took Dr. Klausner's words out of context. He said that "a mask may make you feel better, but you're missing the more important protective measures." He says that if you wear a mask in a crowded place, or you touch your face repeatedly and don't wash your hands after touching other surfaces and other people, then duh, the mask won't be so effective.

My child's school has mask wearing, and it's definitely decreased outbreaks.

LovesHashem

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 5:08 pm

Israel and other countries with mandatory masks still had outbreaks because people aren't listening!

Clubs and bars and restraints and parties and huge weddings and plenty of people meeting up with friends and family without masks. Shuls. If everyone wore a mask and social distanced you would see it in the numbers.

amother

Cobalt

Mon, Oct 12 2020, 7:56 pm

Quote:

“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

This is what Dr. Fauci said in March. I know he has since changed his tune, but why? Because there werent enough masks then and now there is? Then he should have said then "masks are important but since there arent enough, we should leave them for the frontline workers, nurses..."

He is the expert. He claimed they dont help. They dont all of a sudden start working because there is more available.