9 ms·

I just learned that an acquaintance of mine flew on a plane knowing they had tested positive for covid. Or my partner's family just had a family get-together (s

by _6hmp 4y ago

I just learned that an acquaintance of mine flew on a plane knowing they had tested positive for covid. Or my partner's family just had a family get-together (she didn't go) while one her family members had covid. In the former case, policy changes to reduce likelihood of people flying with covid (temp checks, affidavits, allowing removal of obviously ill passengers), and to increase ventilation and filtration on planes, and perhaps to even bring back masks or at the very least encourage or incentivize them in times of high transmission. I don't know that we can do much about the latter case other than better public health education and perhaps PSAs.

_yoqn 4y ago
People should stay home when they are ill and isolate, with any transmissible illness. But in 99.999% of cases, non-airtight masks do not work at all. Not even a little bit.
- gruez 4y ago
  The number of significant digits you provided suggests you're extremely confident of this. Can you provide a source? For instance, there's this study[1] that suggests surgical masks are as effective as n95 masks. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)13168-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
  - _yoqn 4y ago
    The Lancet also said that HCQ were dangerous and caused extra fatalities in COVID patients. They then retracted that because the data there were basing that on was completely made up. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... The journals are unreliable on this and many other topics. Objective data suggests that mandatory masking has no effect on transmission.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >The journals are unreliable on this and many other topics. Objective data suggests that mandatory masking has no effect on transmission. 1. It's ironic how much you denounce the value of journals and extol the value of "objective data", yet you have not attached any "objective data" (in any meaningful sense) with your original comment, and have dodged follow up requests for sources. 2. You're moving the goalposts from masks "do not work at all" to "mandatory masking has no effect".
      - _yoqn 4y ago
        The Lancet knowingly lied about HCQ. Therefore I don't trust them. Anything less than an airtight full aerosol filtration respirator will not stop aerosols infected with SARS-CoV-2 from leaving and being inhaled by people. Fact. The latest CDC data suggests that "medical masks are better than cloth masks" but never attempt to identify a difference between a cloth mask and nothing. This article outlines a paywalled paper suggesting masks don't work at all. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-not-back-cloth-masks-limit-covid-19-experts-say https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-... The incidence of infection between areas that are fully mask-mandated can't be proven to differ significantly from areas that had no mask mandate due to many other factors https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-.... I don't trust the establishment because they were wrong about everything. Fauci lied about masks, then lied about lying about masks, then lied about HCQ, then about IVM and other treatments. The NIH has provided 0 guidance on treating COVID other than vaccines. They did eventually do a study on HCQ to "disprove" it's effectiveness but started the dose at 1200mg/day! Nearly lethal. This of course started on patients that were too far advanced in disease and also had co-morbidities. It was a sham and borderline homicidal. All to protect the emergency use authorization for vaccines and Remdesivir. A course of HCQ: $10. A course of Remdesivir: $3000. Which is a more fiscally responsible opportunity for a for-profit industry that controls the NIH and FDA? The NIH staffers including Fauci (and of course the expert who is not an expert: Bill Gates) stand to make a lot of money on vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer. Fauci also lied about the NIh funding gain of function research in the Wuhan lab under oath to Congress. https://www.outkick.com/nih-admits-fauci-lied-about-gain-of-function-funding-to-wuhan-lab/ https://www.outkick.com/nih-admits-fauci-lied-about-gain-of-... Historically the entire medical industrial complex and APA lied about the "chemical imbalance" theory for depression for decades while making billions of dollars selling SSRIs and misleading the population for profit: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0 It is my opinion that these establishment organizations have 0 credibility anymore and I would never trust anything put forth by them at face value. 2. If masks don't prevent transmission, and mandates are intended to prevent transmission then mandates don't work. Aristotelian logic.
hadlock 4y ago
We had to cancel a lot of summer vacation plans as our kid wasn't eligible to get vaccinated (until very recently) and they abruptly cancelled the in flight mask mandate. The scenario you describe is exactly why we wear N95 in the airport and on planes even today. Case counts are going to need to come way down before the masks go away.

by _6hmp 4y ago

_yoqn 4y ago

People should stay home when they are ill and isolate, with any transmissible illness. But in 99.999% of cases, non-airtight masks do not work at all. Not even a little bit.

gruez 4y ago
The number of significant digits you provided suggests you're extremely confident of this. Can you provide a source? For instance, there's this study[1] that suggests surgical masks are as effective as n95 masks. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)13168-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- _yoqn 4y ago
  The Lancet also said that HCQ were dangerous and caused extra fatalities in COVID patients. They then retracted that because the data there were basing that on was completely made up. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... The journals are unreliable on this and many other topics. Objective data suggests that mandatory masking has no effect on transmission.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >The journals are unreliable on this and many other topics. Objective data suggests that mandatory masking has no effect on transmission. 1. It's ironic how much you denounce the value of journals and extol the value of "objective data", yet you have not attached any "objective data" (in any meaningful sense) with your original comment, and have dodged follow up requests for sources. 2. You're moving the goalposts from masks "do not work at all" to "mandatory masking has no effect".
    - _yoqn 4y ago
      The Lancet knowingly lied about HCQ. Therefore I don't trust them. Anything less than an airtight full aerosol filtration respirator will not stop aerosols infected with SARS-CoV-2 from leaving and being inhaled by people. Fact. The latest CDC data suggests that "medical masks are better than cloth masks" but never attempt to identify a difference between a cloth mask and nothing. This article outlines a paywalled paper suggesting masks don't work at all. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-not-back-cloth-masks-limit-covid-19-experts-say https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-... The incidence of infection between areas that are fully mask-mandated can't be proven to differ significantly from areas that had no mask mandate due to many other factors https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-.... I don't trust the establishment because they were wrong about everything. Fauci lied about masks, then lied about lying about masks, then lied about HCQ, then about IVM and other treatments. The NIH has provided 0 guidance on treating COVID other than vaccines. They did eventually do a study on HCQ to "disprove" it's effectiveness but started the dose at 1200mg/day! Nearly lethal. This of course started on patients that were too far advanced in disease and also had co-morbidities. It was a sham and borderline homicidal. All to protect the emergency use authorization for vaccines and Remdesivir. A course of HCQ: $10. A course of Remdesivir: $3000. Which is a more fiscally responsible opportunity for a for-profit industry that controls the NIH and FDA? The NIH staffers including Fauci (and of course the expert who is not an expert: Bill Gates) stand to make a lot of money on vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer. Fauci also lied about the NIh funding gain of function research in the Wuhan lab under oath to Congress. https://www.outkick.com/nih-admits-fauci-lied-about-gain-of-function-funding-to-wuhan-lab/ https://www.outkick.com/nih-admits-fauci-lied-about-gain-of-... Historically the entire medical industrial complex and APA lied about the "chemical imbalance" theory for depression for decades while making billions of dollars selling SSRIs and misleading the population for profit: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0 It is my opinion that these establishment organizations have 0 credibility anymore and I would never trust anything put forth by them at face value. 2. If masks don't prevent transmission, and mandates are intended to prevent transmission then mandates don't work. Aristotelian logic.

hadlock 4y ago

We had to cancel a lot of summer vacation plans as our kid wasn't eligible to get vaccinated (until very recently) and they abruptly cancelled the in flight mask mandate. The scenario you describe is exactly why we wear N95 in the airport and on planes even today. Case counts are going to need to come way down before the masks go away.