Posted on 03/07/2021 6:24:52 AM PST by CheshireTheCat
The CDC recommends wearing masks after their study showed that related to COVID, the results of wearing masks were statistically the same as the results when not wearing masks.
The results of a CDC study at first appear to show that wearing masks help reduce the spread of COVID.
The results were inside the statistical margin of error.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
The study was about mask mandates. It is not about wearing masks. Two different things. Even in states where there is no mask mandate, there is probably high numbers using masks.
This has been known from day one.. no study, EVER, has shown masks prevent respiratory viral infections.. NONE!
Masks have always been about theater and control, nothing else.
Anyone telling you any study ever has shown their effectiveness is a liar.
Covid is a lung disease. Washing your hands doesn’t do much. Social distancing is what keeps you safe. All of our contact tracing pointed back to gatherings and family settings.
COVID manifests its symptoms in the respiratory tract as many of these things do, but like all of them is is spread most effectively by hand contact.
It is spread by droplet transmission, but that is only one part of it. Not only do droplets get dispensed in the air, but droplets settle onto surfaces that can be touched by hands and easily transferred to a new host very easily through hand contact with the face regions.
This is because of the human propensity to touch the face, eyes, mouth and nose, then transfer that to nearly everything else from keyboards to coffee dispensers that may be touched by other people. Touching surfaces and your own face is human nature.
And that fact that the vast majority of people simply don’t wash their hands. Washing your hands is not human nature which is why they have to pound it into people.
Handwashing is the single most effective thing that can be done to prevent the spread of infection. Ask anyone who has ever worked in healthcare. They pound that into you, year after year. And it is true.
Additionally, you will hear mask advocates say “particles can stay in the air for hours” which is utter BS.
These are based on lab studies that take place with particles that are so small they can remain in the air, in environments that have no air movement.
COVID is spread by droplet transmission and deposition onto surfaces that may be touched by human hands. And droplets are big. They don’t hover around in the air.
These modest decreases in rate of increase were found to be statistically significant.
Which is the opposite of what GP says in the article.
It’s really junk science in its poor design (or they modified design to present results that most reflected what they wanted to find).
If Hoft wanted to argue that, he should have. Or, he could have listed the limitations that were in the report (like you did). Instead, he repeated an incorrect tweet.
Maybe you should write an article.
“They don’t exist. Matter of fact I am seeing a lot of mask just tossed on the ground.”
Same here in California. I saw a bunch of them in a parking lot. Being California, the environuts will soon demand that masks must be outlawed for the sake of the “environment”, like they did with plastic straws and bags.
I have a difficult time understanding the analysis of this data. Doesn’t help that we can’t SEE the data.
To me, it sounds like a 2% reduction in the growth rate is a DAMNED SMALL NUMBER over a period of 100 days. That’s the difference between 5% and 4.9%. Really? That’s enough to justify destruction of an entire industry?
The statement that it’s “statistically significant” is, to me, misleading. Compared to what? To their own “ASSUMED” null case. To be true, that means they have corrected for ALL variables that might have impacted the numbers by even less than 2%. There is no way to know whether or not that is true.
I see, the growth rates of Covid were ALREADY decreasing before their refence date, then continued at more or less the same rate. How did they account for the dramatic INCREASE that happened later in the year?
I wish I could say for certainty whether this data is significant, or not. It SURE DOESN’T LOOK LIKE IT to me. If this is all they’ve got, it’s a pretty weak case.
The study is irrelevant anyway for the reason I described.
I don't agree. If that were true, masks would be highly effective. Clearly, they are not.
One of the very first "superspreader" event was: massive spread in a church choir practice. Something like 70% of the people in the room were infected. That can't happen just from transmission from droplets.
Aerosols are an important part of the spread of this virus, just as it it with every other respiratory virus.
It’s possible you and I agree on some points, we just need to define our terms. If we do, I suspect we will find we agree to a degree.
Droplet transmission has two main ways of getting from the source to the new host: Direct droplet transmission where someone breathes in the airborne droplet containing the pathogen that a new host might breathe in, or droplet deposition onto a “vehicle” which is just a term for something someone might touch or come into contact with.
It is my contention that direct droplet transmission is NOT the primary way, or even a major way this virus is spread. Sure, it can and will be spread that way, but I simply do not think that is the primary way...and protection against droplet spread is only marginally improved if at all by a mask. Wearing an airtight mask with a fine filter will absolutely protect, but the stupid fabric and disposable ones are worthless. Not to mention cloth ones from Amazon, t-shirts and bandanas, all of which appear to be fine with many people.
It is my opinion that the virus is spread primarily via droplet transmission directly onto vehicles such as a door handle, a counter, a box of raisins, or a keyboard. Someone talks (they spray it, didn’t say it) and it sends droplets into the air, and those droplets settle onto a surface that other people touch and the droplet content is spread to their hands. That person then touches their nose, mouth, or eyes, and the virus is spread in that fashion.
Granted, viruses transmitted in this fashion have a lifespan-if droplets spread onto an inhospitable surface such as a hot, black steering wheel in a rented car left out in the Florida sun, that virus is going to have a very short lifespan. But if it is deposited on a cool protected surface like a computer keyboard in a library (or the credit card swipe screen inside a store) it is going to survive far longer. If the droplet is transferred to a doorknob by a janitor cleaning up at night and nobody is going to touch it for hours, that is fine...the virus will likely die on that surface. But if there is a line of people waiting to go into a bathroom at a rest area and the droplet is deposited on a urinal flush handle...it isn’t long before someone else is going to touch it and get it on their hands.
And in all those cases, people touch their mouths, nose, eyes, and face.
In the example you gave of a Choir practice, that is not a typical event. It was likely indoors, confined space, no air movement, everyone with their mouths wide open pushing air from their diaphragm, with people standing elbow to elbow. (This is my opinion)
And these “aerosols” coming out of people’s mouths are not uniform. I used to have to use an aerosol with radioactive isotope in it for diagnostic purposes, and you had to have the machine set just right. If you set it too low, you don’t get enough aerosol (isotope) into the lungs. Too high, and the droplets are larger and deposit more easily (and undesirably) in the bronchial areas instead of further down in the alveoli areas.
In both cases, these were generally pretty controlled aerosol droplet sizes.
In the case of someone talking, they range from being great big globs you see exiting someone’s mouth as the person across from them winces, all the way down to droplets not seen unless the light is just right, and even then.
It is a wide spectrum. At the larger end, those end up dropping due to gravity onto a surface that is touched by human hands. At the smaller end, those may be inhaled and infect someone. If that person is wearing a standard mask, bandana, t-shirt, underwear on the head with ears in the leg holes, some smaller droplets can deposit on a mask, but many more would go in or out around the edges. Not worth a cup of warm spit. Or, they are.
Probably more agreement than disagreement. I understand and appreciate your comments about direct transmission of droplets. Indeed, there is a wide range of sizes that come into play. Reasonably well-fitted masks SHOULD prevent direct transmission of most of the larger sizes.
I guess, it gets trickier when you start trying to split hairs between the really smaller sizes. What's the actual diameter that differentiates between a "droplet" and an "aerosol"? The smaller the particle, the lower the virus loading, making is harder to transmit. From what I've seen, time and proximity are key factors in spread.
I also have a hard time believing the physical spread on surfaces is the primary method of transmission. The virus might be capable of surviving. But, again.. the amount of virus picked up seems too low to me.
I guess, we'll all know, someday. When the gazillions of research dollars are spent on transmission studies.
Here's what I DO KNOW: Government mask mandates make NO DIFFERENCE at all.
LOL, see...I KNEW there was something fundamental we were in agreement on!
Thanks...:)
I think I stole my maps from you... many decades ago. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.