radarman Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 4 minutes ago, weathafella said: Masks supposedly didn’t work until the guidance changed in late March 2020. Some of us knew otherwise and masked up but supplies were thin. The virus was not widely thought to be airborne until much later. Now I think it's taken for granted that it is. N95 type respirators might be quite effective but if indeed most people are getting it via aerosols the majority of the fabric masks you see aren't going to help very much. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said: Heading out to a restaurant where I will possibly be tasting fermented shark. Forget the ‘vid, this might kill me Ugh I've seen that on the travel Channel. Looks gross. I still haven't tried seal here. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natedizel Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, radarman said: The virus was not widely thought to be airborne until much later. Now I think it's taken for granted that it is. N95 type respirators might be quite effective but if indeed most people are getting it via aerosols the majority of the fabric masks you see aren't going to help very much. Ya pretty sure the NIH CDC and WHO knew it was airborne weeks after first lockdowns in China. If not we have some pretty bad people running the show. Plus terrible intelligence community. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tunafish Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Here's a June 2021 study: ' Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission'https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439.full "Abstract Airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols is important for the spread of viruses. Face masks are a well-established preventive measure, but their effectiveness for mitigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is still under debate. We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread. More-advanced masks and other protective equipment are required in potentially virus-rich indoor environments, including medical centers and hospitals. Masks are particularly effective in combination with other preventive measures like ventilation and distancing." 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitinsvilleWX Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 1 hour ago, rclab said: Are they playing the Mets? As always …. They’re off today 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said: They’re off today They’ll find a way to lose even still. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitinsvilleWX Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 21 minutes ago, tunafish said: Here's a June 2021 study: ' Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission'https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439.full "Abstract Airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols is important for the spread of viruses. Face masks are a well-established preventive measure, but their effectiveness for mitigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is still under debate. We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread. More-advanced masks and other protective equipment are required in potentially virus-rich indoor environments, including medical centers and hospitals. Masks are particularly effective in combination with other preventive measures like ventilation and distancing." Yes. It’s worked so well in other countries that are very mask compliant. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radarman Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 22 minutes ago, tunafish said: Here's a June 2021 study: ' Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission'https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439.full "Abstract Airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols is important for the spread of viruses. Face masks are a well-established preventive measure, but their effectiveness for mitigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is still under debate. We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread. More-advanced masks and other protective equipment are required in potentially virus-rich indoor environments, including medical centers and hospitals. Masks are particularly effective in combination with other preventive measures like ventilation and distancing." Thanks. Below is the link to an observational study referenced in that paper which did not share the same conclusion. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817 Important to note that while this study was done with social distancing, it was not done in conjunction with mask mandates. So it informs mainly the self-protective side of the equation rather than the protection of others. In a situation where masks were ubiquitous it may well be better protection, however it's hard to conduct a large scale observational study using an unmasked control group in the presence of mask mandates. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreaves Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 16 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said: Yes. It’s worked so well in other countries that are very mask compliant. Is it possible that things would have been much worse without masking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitinsvilleWX Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, mreaves said: Is it possible that things would have been much worse without masking? CDC own publication says maybe 1.5%. Basically down in the noise 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdxken Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 15 minutes ago, wxtrix said: Well-run study. I'm sure all 81 counties were a perfect control group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radarman Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 It seems consistent with a very small benefit. Cases rose at a rate of 1/10th of a case per day in the unmasked counties, which went into the mandate with a case rate 1/3rd of that of the masked counties. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdxken Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, wxtrix said: you’re free to make a fact-based rebuttal. Garbage study not much more to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Does anyone want me back yet? LOL 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 20 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said: CDC own publication says maybe 1.5%. Basically down in the noise Purely observational, was it a combo of masking and hygiene theater that seemed to completely nip any sickness at all out last winter? Many people seemed to have their healthiest winter ever… not even a minor sniffle. I just know that from ski areas being absolute cesspools of sicknesses in winter (basically thousands of people a day with runny noses spraying droplets everywhere) from rental shops to ski school classes to lodges…. literally seemed no one got sick at all from anything. Or maybe it’s as simple as high self awareness that if you don’t feel right you stayed home when in the past you’d still go out for your ski day or work day? Combo of all of the factors working together? I see the studies on masking but I just can’t deny how little sickness there was last winter or any kind at all. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdxken Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, wxtrix said: so as usual, wingers have zero facts, just their precious emotions. https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/statistical-analysis-mandates-and-mask-usage-kansas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdxken Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, PhineasC said: Does anyone want me back yet? LOL Come on in the water's great! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 OT Thread is where it's at. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Just now, PhineasC said: Does anyone want me back yet? LOL Haha, I was just thinking as soon as Trix showed up you vanished. That would be one helluva conspiracy theory… schizophrenia. One part is Trix and the alter ego is Phin and they battle COVID all day long inside a single human brain. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, powderfreak said: Purely observational, was it a combo of masking and hygiene theater that seemed to completely nip any sickness at all out last winter? Many people seemed to have their healthiest winter ever… not even a minor sniffle. I just know that from ski areas being absolute cesspools of sicknesses in winter (basically thousands of people a day with runny noses spraying droplets everywhere) from rental shops to ski school classes to lodges…. literally seemed no one got sick at all from anything. Or maybe it’s as simple as high self awareness that if you don’t feel right you stayed home when in the past you’d still go out for your ski day or work day? Combo of all of the factors working together? I see the studies on masking but I just can’t deny how little sickness there was last winter or any kind at all. I think the best done mask study in terms of RCT on a population level was the Danish one imo. There was a 23% risk reduction... unfortunately they powered the study before hand to find statistical significant at 50%. The biological plausibility is all there on an individual level. Maybe it gets more washed out when people don't wear them properly and touch them too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdxken Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 45 minutes ago, wxtrix said: The New York Times data suggests that the split between mandate and non-mandate counties is far from clean. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the respondents in counties without mandates report either frequently or always wearing masks during early July. Moreover, according to the Times data, many counties without mandates experienced more mask use than others with mandates. This fact, however, is lost when the data is weighted across the Kansas population because heavily populated counties are highly influential in the computation of the associated weighted average. At the very least, the Times data suggest that many people wore masks even in the absence of government mandates to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdxken Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 1 minute ago, wxtrix said: the Heritage Foundation. lol Npr lol 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian5671 Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, powderfreak said: Haha, I was just thinking as soon as Trix showed up you vanished. That would be one helluva conspiracy theory… schizophrenia. One part is Trix and the alter ego is Phin and they battle COVID all day long inside a single human brain. I'd bet this Trixie character is not even a woman, probably is an anti vaxx Trump nut. LOLOLOLOLOL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdxken Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 1 minute ago, wxtrix said: the Heritage Foundation. lol I'm waiting for some factbase reply. Never comes from these liberals. Name-calling is all they're capable of. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdxken Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 6 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said: I think the best done mask study in terms of RCT on a population level was the Danish one imo. There was a 23% risk reduction... unfortunately they powered the study before hand to find statistical significant at 50%. The biological plausibility is all there on an individual level. Maybe it gets more washed out when people don't wear them properly and touch them too much. I would think it with n95 it would be higher then 23% and with those flimsy cloth masks practically non-existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian5671 Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, kdxken said: I'm waiting for some factbase reply. Never comes from these liberals. Name-calling is all they're capable of. and then they whine when you call them a name-do as I say not as I do 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, kdxken said: I would think it with n95 it would be higher then 23% and with those flimsy cloth masks practically non-existent. This was a community mask study. They were all flimsy cloth masks. I think there should have been more of an effort to get n95s to essential workers but alas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 7 minutes ago, wxtrix said: wow, you’re right: no sickness at all last winter: I’m just stating what we saw up here in a place where hundreds of thousands of people visit each winter and folks routinely get smoked by various sicknesses every winter. The number of call outs due to illness was all-time low. No one puking in the bathroom from stomach bugs, no hoarse throats, no strep, no mono, … yes I’m aware people were getting COVID but I know I’m not the only one who noticed a vast reduction in the normal wintertime illnesses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWeather Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Well starting the 11th my work is back to wearing masks full time. We have over 20k employees. Substantial/high risk according to this map have to wear mask. Was fun while it lasted. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 11 minutes ago, kdxken said: I'm waiting for some factbase reply. Never comes from these liberals. Name-calling is all they're capable of. It’s always crazy how few people seem to understand that calling someone names, stupid, or even insinuating it with hyperbole just negates their whole argument. It’s rampant in politics these days. When all else fails, revert back to your 2nd grade survival skills… put ‘em down with scary words! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now