Coronavirus COVID-19 Thread

[Jolly_Green_Giant]

So, you agree. Good. Although it would be kind of funny to see Hillary running around with a magnifying glass, staring at things she doesn't comprehend. In general, that's the kind of thing that politicians and diplomats would have to do. For the most part, they lack the training and expertise.

Also, you mentioned the 90 day duration. That's a tactic that good managers, military officers, and parents use when you don't intend to micro-manage the work. After the time elapses, you review the work and see what was accomplished. Then you can make decisions without having to have the work take your attention from other things that are also important. I'll just point out that in situations like that generally you don't want to have nothing done. You were in the military weren't you? So you should know how this works.

I remember all of the 'we must get this inspection done in this strict guideline". Worst days of my life preparing for inspections years out, all to find out it was probably some commander getting their rocks off to bolster their OPR. Its events like that that get labeled as 'dog and pony show'. Of course it had utility to the command decisions, but in my experience I was told twice it was all bullshit for the sake of bullshit. I understand what you're saying though, but like i said earlier, im just here to argue. Im sure its standard procedure and good practice, but just like anything else in life it can always be interpreted another way.

Question on free will: As a fine fellow TESTie commented on earlier about the virus having potentially having been released from a lab, if it is found by the intelligence services the lab was not the source, would we all believe it?

Honestly no. While it may be irrational to be convinced of something without direct evidence, its also irrational to trust our intelligence community. Feels before reals at this point man.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Honestly no. While it may be irrational to be convinced of something without direct evidence, its also irrational to trust our intelligence community. Feels before reals at this point man.

Thanks for the response, appreciate it.

I understand and ofcourse respect your viewpoint, and like I said with the example of Ian Huntley the truth of a matter can be there for all to see in plane sight - no proof does not always mean what seems obvious is wrong.

Take the Masks thing. For so long it was repeated over and over there was no evidence wearing masks helped, but we all wore them all the same until the evidence turned up showing yes they very much did make a difference, didn't we?

To ask another question, say you saw the evidence, yourself, which clearly one way or the other showed the fact of the matter? Would that then be enough to make you feel in a different way?

And connected to that question, how does knowing it could have been something which will never be able to be proved one way or the other, like wild transmission, affect your feeling?

 

[Jolly_Green_Giant]

To ask another question, say you saw the evidence, yourself, which clearly one way or the other showed the fact of the matter? Would that then be enough to make you feel in a different way?

Looking at something myself definitely would make me feel better, but I understand I'm only so wise and may be missing a lot of the details. When it comes down to looking at things objectively rather than conceptually I have no choice but to look at the big picture. It would have to be something that was irrefutable and verified by independent sources that dont have strong opinions and they are assumed to be free of political bias. If the evidence came from our intelligence community, or from some sort of joint venture with china, I could not trust it. Say either of them did come out and say it was from the lab, I hate to say it but I would still be skeptical. The intelligence community can make all the sense in the world but they know how to manipulate the truth without telling lies and thats where the spoke gets thrown in the wheels.

And connected to that question, how does knowing it could have been something which will never be able to be proved one way or the other, like wild transmission, affect your feeling?

I wouldnt feel good about us not being able to pinpoint where it came from with confidence. It's always going to make you wonder what really happened. I'm sure we have the technology and resources to figure it out, but ultimately it comes down the interest of our politicians and the amount of cooperation we can expect from the CCP. If we couldn't find the answer I would think someone is failing at their job. It is so important to figure this out so we can prevent it from happening again, be it watching the animals closer or figuring out how to make our labs safer.

If its found to be a lab leak and a cover up, then that ones easy, we just get angrier at china and write them a strongly worded letter reprimanding them for their gross negligence. ;)

 

[Vavrik]

I remember all of the 'we must get this inspection done in this strict guideline". Worst days of my life preparing for inspections years out, all to find out it was probably some commander getting their rocks off to bolster their OPR. Its events like that that get labeled as 'dog and pony show'. Of course it had utility to the command decisions, but in my experience I was told twice it was all bullshit for the sake of bullshit. I understand what you're saying though, but like i said earlier, im just here to argue. Im sure its standard procedure and good practice, but just like anything else in life it can always be interpreted another way.

Haha! Well, it is mostly bullshit for the sake of bullshit, until it's not. Just like a parent spouting out rules to their kids, and corporate managers, and military officers that do the same. If you want to see why, "reach for the hot stove."

I can't argue American politics like an American. I'm only a permanent resident here and don't have a vote, my wife is the American. I understand it from a technical perspective only, but I get to laugh or shake my head at some of the political shenanigan's I see on both sides. That includes the good and bad about the way this pandemic has been handled, and a few other things.

 

[Vavrik]

Take the Masks thing. For so long it was repeated over and over there was no evidence wearing masks helped, but we all wore them all the same until the evidence turned up showing yes they very much did make a difference, didn't we?

That was a really weird position for the medical community to take, and I think it was due to fear of running out of respirators. The reason I can say that with confidence is that respirator masks have been warn by people working with hazardous materials, including scientists in virology labs, for many many years for their safety. In fact you know what the N in N-95 means? It's "Non Oil". There is an R rating, which means "Resistant to Oil" (for up to 8 hours), and P which means "Oil Proof". That might give you a few hints as to where the respirator designations come from.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Looking at something myself definitely would make me feel better, but I understand I'm only so wise and may be missing a lot of the details. When it comes down to looking at things objectively rather than conceptually I have no choice but to look at the big picture. It would have to be something that was irrefutable and verified by independent sources that dont have strong opinions and they are assumed to be free of political bias. If the evidence came from our intelligence community, or from some sort of joint venture with china, I could not trust it. Say either of them did come out and say it was from the lab, I hate to say it but I would still be skeptical. The intelligence community can make all the sense in the world but they know how to manipulate the truth without telling lies and thats where the spoke gets thrown in the wheels.



I wouldnt feel good about us not being able to pinpoint where it came from with confidence. It's always going to make you wonder what really happened. I'm sure we have the technology and resources to figure it out, but ultimately it comes down the interest of our politicians and the amount of cooperation we can expect from the CCP. If we couldn't find the answer I would think someone is failing at their job. It is so important to figure this out so we can prevent it from happening again, be it watching the animals closer or figuring out how to make our labs safer.

If its found to be a lab leak and a cover up, then that ones easy, we just get angrier at china and write them a strongly worded letter reprimanding them for their gross negligence. ;)

Many thanks for your kind response, can't argue at all (not that I was trying to) so many thanks for allowing me your time in expanding, again appreciate it.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

That was a really weird position for the medical community to take, and I think it was due to fear of running out of respirators. The reason I can say that with confidence is that respirator masks have been warn by people working with hazardous materials, including scientists in virology labs, for many many years for their safety. In fact you know what the N in N-95 means? It's "Non Oil". There is an R rating, which means "Resistant to Oil" (for up to 8 hours), and P which means "Oil Proof". That might give you a few hints as to where the respirator designations come from.

What got me was the chants of "But wearing a mask may be MORE unsafe than wearing one!" I just sat there (before we knew they reduced transmission, not reception) and said to myself "But if the virus has hit the mask to make it dangerous to handle, it would have gone inside my lungs without one which is more dangerous...?"

 

[Bambooza]

That was a really weird position for the medical community to take, and I think it was due to fear of running out of respirators. The reason I can say that with confidence is that respirator masks have been warn by people working with hazardous materials, including scientists in virology labs, for many many years for their safety. In fact you know what the N in N-95 means? It's "Non Oil". There is an R rating, which means "Resistant to Oil" (for up to 8 hours), and P which means "Oil Proof". That might give you a few hints as to where the respirator designations come from.

I would agree with you if it was a policy that was just created in the first few months of the Covid outbreak. But the truth is the mask effectiveness had been questioned and many papers going back years had shown little to no effect in protecting mask wearers from pathogens. As much flack as Dr fauci, the CDC, WHO and other agencies are getting for their original stance against wearing masks it was because that was the common consensus as to the effectiveness of masks such as worn by medical staff was that they do not protect the wearer from partial bypass as their main design purpose was to reduce the wearers exhale particle spray. The medical staff wears masks to protect you the patient from them not the medical staff from you the patient.

It is why when one goes to paint, sand blast or engage in activities that are more susceptible for inhaling lung damaging particulates the practice has been to wear at a minimal a double strap N95 mask with vent but OSHA guidelines have been that an employee must have access to a respirator as part of their PPE as well as the specifics of the paint booth air flow. I know from personal experience even with wearing a 3m 5000 respirator I still get some paint leakage around the sides of my nose as evident of the paint lines left when removing the mask after use.

Do Masks Work In India’s Air Pollution? – Smart Air

We fit-tested 18 pollution masks available in India. The open-source data shows that some of the cheapest masks are among the most effective.

smartairfilters.com

While this study was done in 2018 for air pollution in India it still shows the kind of masks and their effect at blocking pollution particles which on average much larger than virus particle size.

So my stance continues to be that it was not fear of the medical community of running out of supplies but a stance based upon past studies that showed limited to no effect on mask wearing. Which was contrary to the political machine that needed to look like it was doing something in the growing fear and so masks became a tool and in fact masks became far more a star for the sneetches. A way for members of political tribes to declare their allegiance while neither side truly had the scientific studies needed to definitively declare victory. In the end the vast majority of people wearing masks did so because of requirement/allegiance while not wearing an effective mask or not wearing it in a way that would provide any usefulness. But as a tribal marker it did its job in allowing easy identification and in fact it's why towards the end the whole double and triple mask became important as was the whole no mask movement. It was no longer based upon what is the right answer so much as a way to bludgeoned the opposing side with ones righteousness.

 

[Bambooza]

What got me was the chants of "But wearing a mask may be MORE unsafe than wearing one!" I just sat there (before we knew they reduced transmission, not reception) and said to myself "But if the virus has hit the mask to make it dangerous to handle, it would have gone inside my lungs without one which is more dangerous...?"

The two studies that came to this conclusion based their conclusion on that masks while protecting the user if used correctly also increased the wearers subconscious action of touching their face. It had nothing to do with viral particles being airborne (most have a hard time with airborne transmission) but in transmission from touch. We humans are terrible about not touching our eyes and mouth with our hands which touch lots of commodity touch points. So the talking point while based upon a sound study quickly became distorted and twisted as each side cherry picked words to support their arguments. (I'm still looking for the original papers)

At this point in time I am finding myself being highly sceptical of any study or paper published on masks, virus transmissions and such done in 2020 and 2021 as its way to politically charged.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

COVID Catharsis Corner, reports from around the world from today, Thursday 3rd of June:

- World: 171,793,904 confirmed cases and 3,694,050 confirmed deaths.

- World: Two billion shots have been administered worldwide.

- Variants: Nepal believed to have discovered another new variant with simelaritis to the Beta and Delta versions..

- US: To donate 75% of unused vaccine surplus to the COVAX scheme.

- US: Issues travel advice to leave Afghanistan as cases there climb.

- UK: Announces 50% of adults have now been fully vaccinated.

- UK: As cases rise once again the country sees highest level since March.

- UK: Amazon (the company) to increase its COVID lab testing capacity. Having set up a lab last year they have processed over 900,000 tests.

- India: Places an order for 300 million doses of an as yet unapproved vaccine to be produced domestically.

- EU: Pre-orders roughly 55,000 doses of a potential mono-colonial antibody treatment.

- Pakistan: Head of one of the countries provinces degrees any government employee who refuses a vaccine will not be paid as of next month.

- Italy: Opens vaccination to anyone over the age of 12.

- Venice: First cruise ship since the beginning of the pandemic reaches the city where it is due to pick up 650 passengers for a voyage around the Med.

- Democratic Republic of Congo: Third wave takes hold.

 

[Vavrik]

I would agree with you if it was a policy that was just created in the first few months of the Covid outbreak. But the truth is the mask effectiveness had been questioned and many papers going back years had shown little to no effect in protecting mask wearers from pathogens. As much flack as Dr fauci, the CDC, WHO and other agencies are getting for their original stance against wearing masks it was because that was the common consensus as to the effectiveness of masks such as worn by medical staff was that they do not protect the wearer from partial bypass as their main design purpose was to reduce the wearers exhale particle spray. The medical staff wears masks to protect you the patient from them not the medical staff from you the patient.

It is why when one goes to paint, sand blast or engage in activities that are more susceptible for inhaling lung damaging particulates the practice has been to wear at a minimal a double strap N95 mask with vent but OSHA guidelines have been that an employee must have access to a respirator as part of their PPE as well as the specifics of the paint booth air flow. I know from personal experience even with wearing a 3m 5000 respirator I still get some paint leakage around the sides of my nose as evident of the paint lines left when removing the mask after use.

Do Masks Work In India’s Air Pollution? – Smart Air

We fit-tested 18 pollution masks available in India. The open-source data shows that some of the cheapest masks are among the most effective.

smartairfilters.com

While this study was done in 2018 for air pollution in India it still shows the kind of masks and their effect at blocking pollution particles which on average much larger than virus particle size.

So my stance continues to be that it was not fear of the medical community of running out of supplies but a stance based upon past studies that showed limited to no effect on mask wearing. Which was contrary to the political machine that needed to look like it was doing something in the growing fear and so masks became a tool and in fact masks became far more a star for the sneetches. A way for members of political tribes to declare their allegiance while neither side truly had the scientific studies needed to definitively declare victory. In the end the vast majority of people wearing masks did so because of requirement/allegiance while not wearing an effective mask or not wearing it in a way that would provide any usefulness. But as a tribal marker it did its job in allowing easy identification and in fact it's why towards the end the whole double and triple mask became important as was the whole no mask movement. It was no longer based upon what is the right answer so much as a way to bludgeoned the opposing side with ones righteousness.

Dating from 2011, Not a study but references studies.

Respiratory Protection for Workers Handling Engineered Nanoparticles | Blogs | CDC

CDC - Blogs - NIOSH Science Blog – Respiratory Protection for Workers Handling Engineered Nanoparticles -

blogs.cdc.gov

Some of 3M's technical documentation

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/376179O/nanotechnology-and-respirator-use.pdf

Refer to the chart on page 2 for filtration.

A real study, not an article.

Respirator Performance against Nanoparticles under Simulated Workplace Activities

Filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHRs) are commonly used by workers for protection against potentially hazardous particles, including engineered nanoparticles. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A recent study, SARS-COV-2 specific.

Face masks and nanotechnology: Keep the blue side up

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is one of the biggest challenges of the 21st century. While researchers are working on vaccine development and elu…

www.sciencedirect.com

and the article you quoted says specifically (it's' conclusion)

Bottom Line: Pollution Masks


Masks capture even the smallest particles—even while people are wearing them (on faces in India too!) — and they have documented health benefits. That should be enough to satisfy even the skeptics!

 

[Bambooza]

Dating from 2011, Not a study but references studies.

Respiratory Protection for Workers Handling Engineered Nanoparticles | Blogs | CDC

CDC - Blogs - NIOSH Science Blog – Respiratory Protection for Workers Handling Engineered Nanoparticles -

blogs.cdc.gov

Some of 3M's technical documentation

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/376179O/nanotechnology-and-respirator-use.pdf

Refer to the chart on page 2 for filtration.

A real study, not an article.

Respirator Performance against Nanoparticles under Simulated Workplace Activities

Filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHRs) are commonly used by workers for protection against potentially hazardous particles, including engineered nanoparticles. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A recent study, SARS-COV-2 specific.

Face masks and nanotechnology: Keep the blue side up

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is one of the biggest challenges of the 21st century. While researchers are working on vaccine development and elu…

www.sciencedirect.com

and the article you quoted says specifically (it's' conclusion)

Correct these are all studies done on respirators which are defined as designed to seal tight to the face of the wearer and be test fitted to make sure they are using the appropriate model and size so as to prevent unfiltered air from being inhaled.

These are the basic form of a respirator as a negative pressure particulate with filter as an integral part of the facepiece.

These are not approved for any paint spray environments.

This is approved for paint spray environments and incorporates an active carbon layer that requires the filters to be changed daily.

And scale up to a positive pressure filtered respirator.

The US military standard issue M50/M51 against chemical and biological agents, toxic industrial chemicals, and nuclear fallout.

These are not

The Sciencedirect.com article is pretty good but it's not a study its an opinion piece.


Several things it does bring up

As SARS-CoV-2 continues its global spread, universal mask wearing is protecting the world population. The most evident reason is of course the prevention of viral particles shedding from noses and mouths of infected and asymptomatic people

Single-use face masks and cloth masks are usually made of a single thin layer and cannot filter very small particles, however, they might still be able to block the emission of large droplets and are useful when the supply of masks is limited in the community. Surgical masks became the most common protective mask. They loosely fit on the face and are designed to block large respiratory droplets during routine surgical procedures but do not filter small particles.

Besides the touching of infected surfaces, influenza transmission can occur via large droplets, which remain suspended in the air for a short time or via small airborne particles that can be transmitted over longer distances. Indeed, in the air, respiratory particles shrink to a diameter estimated to be a little less than one-half their initial diameter, if completely desiccated

One of there links does reference a study on the effects of aerosols penetration which talks about how masks without an active mechanism for destroying the virus particles can allow the particles to penetrate the mask by various mechanisms such as capillary force between particles and filters as well as reduced electret filters caused by high humidity. This means that the mask while being used collects and protects the virus captured thus allowing the virus to slowly penetrate the mask as well as be present when the mask is touched thus transferring the virus to contact surfaces.

An overview of filtration efficiency through the masks: Mechanisms of the aerosols penetration

The masks have always been mentioned as an effective tool against environmental threats. They are considered as protective equipment to preserve the r…

www.sciencedirect.com

Secondly, we provide visual evidence that typical household materials used by the population to make masks do not provide highly efficient protection against respirable particles and droplets with a diameter of 0.3–2 μm as they pass through the materials largely unfiltered. Thirdly, we show that even simple mouth-and-nose covers made of good filter material cannot reliably protect against droplet infection in contaminated ambient air, since most of the air flows through gaps at the edge of the masks.

Fundamental protective mechanisms of face masks against droplet infections

Many governments have instructed the population to wear simple mouth-and-nose covers or surgical face masks to protect themselves from droplet infecti…

www.sciencedirect.com

One thing of note was the concept of weaving silver and copper into the fabric to help reduce the viral load of the mask. I would like to see more studies done on this as it has potential to create a mask that is effective. While more studies need to be performed to look at all aspects of mask effectiveness it seems that the preliminary outcome is that masks do not do much to protect the wearer from airborne virus transmission. Possibly reduce the airborne spread of infected people but can increase the spread of contact surface transmission as the mask harbors virus and bacteria and so any touching of the mask is the same as sneezing on your hand and touching things.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

Criminal charges for Faucci? Lying to congress is perjury. This guy needs a vacation at FCI Petersburg.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBEECclSJ7s

 

[Vavrik]

Correct these are all studies done on respirators which are defined as designed to seal tight to the face of the wearer and be test fitted to make sure they are using the appropriate model and size so as to prevent unfiltered air from being inhaled.

These are the basic form of a respirator as a negative pressure particulate with filter as an integral part of the facepiece.

These are not approved for any paint spray environments.
View attachment 20847 View attachment 20848

This is approved for paint spray environments and incorporates an active carbon layer that requires the filters to be changed daily.
View attachment 20854


And scale up to a positive pressure filtered respirator.

View attachment 20853

The US military standard issue M50/M51 against chemical and biological agents, toxic industrial chemicals, and nuclear fallout.

View attachment 20855


These are not
View attachment 20851

View attachment 20852


View attachment 20856

The Sciencedirect.com article is pretty good but it's not a study its an opinion piece.


Several things it does bring up






One of there links does reference a study on the effects of aerosols penetration which talks about how masks without an active mechanism for destroying the virus particles can allow the particles to penetrate the mask by various mechanisms such as capillary force between particles and filters as well as reduced electret filters caused by high humidity. This means that the mask while being used collects and protects the virus captured thus allowing the virus to slowly penetrate the mask as well as be present when the mask is touched thus transferring the virus to contact surfaces.

An overview of filtration efficiency through the masks: Mechanisms of the aerosols penetration

The masks have always been mentioned as an effective tool against environmental threats. They are considered as protective equipment to preserve the r…

www.sciencedirect.com

Fundamental protective mechanisms of face masks against droplet infections

Many governments have instructed the population to wear simple mouth-and-nose covers or surgical face masks to protect themselves from droplet infecti…

www.sciencedirect.com

One thing of note was the concept of weaving silver and copper into the fabric to help reduce the viral load of the mask. I would like to see more studies done on this as it has potential to create a mask that is effective. While more studies need to be performed to look at all aspects of mask effectiveness it seems that the preliminary outcome is that masks do not do much to protect the wearer from airborne virus transmission. Possibly reduce the airborne spread of infected people but can increase the spread of contact surface transmission as the mask harbors virus and bacteria and so any touching of the mask is the same as sneezing on your hand and touching things.

I would like you to look at this news video, from today. It's an interview with Dr. Fauci. Timestamp 3:00 to 4:36.

View: https://youtu.be/v-pG1Qiqr-o?t=180
or watch the whole video if you want.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I think science needs to take a good long hard look at the way it operates and say to itself "where pandemics are concerned a chain of analytical evidence is not fast enough because by the time it exists, hundreds of thousands are potentially dead and millions infected and reinfecting."

In the UK where I am, the broken record being used as a crutch to prop up the image of policy makers has been "we are following the science", it was particularly loud at the beginning of the pandemic when there was no science on this novel virus and they were following the plan for Influenza - like trying to treat hemmeroids with a plaster cast, it had some holes in it.

Precautions started with hand washing and not touching your face, as was the public advice was at the time. Where did that base level of precaution come from considering there was no established science to that point? It came from the Influenza assumption, built on what the country had assessed prior was the most likely pandemic scenario. A scientifically based assumption is still an assumption, like all those people in the 1950's who drank Atomic Cocktails for that "tingle of health" which was actually deconstructing their DNA. Yes, physical contact with infected surfaces is one vector but it is not the only one. The base level of precaution was too low. The UK paid with the highest total deaths in Europe to this point.

Science is not invalid by any means but it's potential for denial of all possibilities until proof is presented as we have seen over the last year and a bit doesn't work when a contagious pathogen is spreading, a virus is not going to wait for the boffins to notice its modus operandi, it will continue to churn until that key vector element is identified and reduced or eliminated entirely. If humanity took the same approach with Gravity we'd all be throwing ourselves off buildings attempting to fly as, although we all feel the effects of it every moment of every day, it's cause is still only theoretical - the virus without key precautions in place continued to spread unchecked right up to the point the evidence showed clearly enough it was aerosol borne and measures were taken to do something about that, at which point it had been running away for months... The initial response to the crisis was not following the science, there wasn't any, the initial response was following a theory.

I'm sure I've said this before, but I firmly feel science needs to start looking at all viral types/pathogens with pandemic potential and draw up a base level of precaution which the public can continue to operate daily life under, which then can be relaxed as evidence comes to light to discount various requirements rather than lax measures being strengthened once it has already spread across the country.

A pandemic, especially fuelled by a Novel pathogen, needs to be treated as Guilty until proven Innocent. Following science when there is none is a fool following a fool who openly admits that to that point they know nothing but are willing to learn, and as Obi-Wan once asked:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swGVAaJ4pbY

 

[Vavrik]

I think science needs to take a good long hard look at the way it operates and say to itself "where pandemics are concerned a chain of analytical evidence is not fast enough because by the time it exists, hundreds of thousands are potentially dead and millions infected and reinfecting."

How are you going to fund it, and what shortcuts are you willing to live with? The fastest a vaccine has ever been created before was 4 years, but it normally takes 10 years to make a safe vaccine. There's a lot of Government red tape that has to be navigated too. This time, it took less than 1 year - and they called it "Operation Warp Speed".

From last summer:

A Timeline of COVID-19 Vaccine Development

What do you think is how much time is required for vaccine development? In a pandemic, the timeline is less than normal. Want to know why? Read the article and find.

www.biospace.com

And then you have governments suing these companies because they didn't make it fast enough. So record time wasn't good enough. And it's the fault of the scientists. But don't increase my taxes, or the cost of medical care.

 

[Vavrik]

Criminal charges for Faucci? Lying to congress is perjury. This guy needs a vacation at FCI Petersburg.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBEECclSJ7s

This document (American) describes what is meant by "Gain-of-function" research. It's not quite what you think, and the name itself is not universally accepted. You can read the whole thing but just the top of the page would do it for most people to understand. (this is chapter 3 of the document, the purpose of which is to explore alternatives)

Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives - Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Bambooza]

I would like you to look at this news video, from today. It's an interview with Dr. Fauci. Timestamp 3:00 to 4:36.

View: https://youtu.be/v-pG1Qiqr-o?t=180
or watch the whole video if you want.

Yes asymptomatic transmission in which case even a surgical mask can help reduce transmission if its handled correctly. But that's the problem, the mask once placed on the face cannot be touched and once its removed the wearer needs to wash their hands. Just like a old time handkerchief used to blow your nose into, a mask is going to capture and foster virus allowing contact spreading past hand washing.

While understanding how each part works and its effectiveness it cannot be taken in isolation as the sole solution but needs to be incorporated into a full system test. Take for example the CDC practice of glove wearing in food preparation. In theory it was a sound idea, gloves would prevent contamination of foods and lead to less food borne illness. In practice it was witnessed that gloves were not changed between different food prep steps and often gloves were far more contaminated than bare hands.

Workers wearing gloves when hand-washing should occur were less likely to wash their hands at that point than were workers who were not wearing gloves at the same point. For example, workers who were wearing gloves while preparing raw animal product were less likely to wash their hands when they were done than were workers who were not wearing gloves.

Food Worker Handwashing in Restaurants | EHS-Net | EHS | CDC

The spread of germs from the hands of food workers to food is a common cause of foodborne illness outbreaks in restaurants. It accounts for nine of ten outbreaks in which food was contaminated by food workers.

www.cdc.gov

We cannot take out the human factor in determining the effectiveness of a suggested practice. This is why the suggestion that masks in fact bolster the spread of the virus instead of reduce the spread of the virus has merit and needs to be looked into. We know that in isolation mask material has shown to be effective in capturing and thus reducing the spread of virus particles and in fact a face shield and respirator is very effective if worn correctly and handled safely in significantly reducing the chances of being infected. But that's the issue they have to be work correctly and handled safely to be effective. Masks need to be fitted correctly and not touched until they can be dealt with in a safe way. Otherwise any touching of the mask transfers the virus to your hands and then any surface you touch afterwards which has the potential effect of transferring the virus far more effectively then simply breathing without a mask.

I think science needs to take a good long hard look at the way it operates and say to itself "where pandemics are concerned a chain of analytical evidence is not fast enough because by the time it exists, hundreds of thousands are potentially dead and millions infected and reinfecting."

In the UK where I am, the broken record being used as a crutch to prop up the image of policy makers has been "we are following the science", it was particularly loud at the beginning of the pandemic when there was no science on this novel virus and they were following the plan for Influenza - like trying to treat hemmeroids with a plaster cast, it had some holes in it.

Precautions started with hand washing and not touching your face, as was the public advice was at the time. Where did that base level of precaution come from considering there was no established science to that point? It came from the Influenza assumption, built on what the country had assessed prior was the most likely pandemic scenario. A scientifically based assumption is still an assumption, like all those people in the 1950's who drank Atomic Cocktails for that "tingle of health" which was actually deconstructing their DNA. Yes, physical contact with infected surfaces is one vector but it is not the only one. The base level of precaution was too low. The UK paid with the highest total deaths in Europe to this point.

Science is not invalid by any means but it's potential for denial of all possibilities until proof is presented as we have seen over the last year and a bit doesn't work when a contagious pathogen is spreading, a virus is not going to wait for the boffins to notice its modus operandi, it will continue to churn until that key vector element is identified and reduced or eliminated entirely. If humanity took the same approach with Gravity we'd all be throwing ourselves off buildings attempting to fly as, although we all feel the effects of it every moment of every day, it's cause is still only theoretical - the virus without key precautions in place continued to spread unchecked right up to the point the evidence showed clearly enough it was aerosol borne and measures were taken to do something about that, at which point it had been running away for months... The initial response to the crisis was not following the science, there wasn't any, the initial response was following a theory.

Science in of itself is simply a means to seek out the truth. What a lot of people like to do is take only supporting theories and weld them with their self righteousness to take power. The issue with trying to speed up or allow bypasses to the process tends to speed up both the spread of good and bad conjectures. It is the slow and meticulous process that truly allows for the researchers own bios to be found and more successfully weeded out which leads to a better conclusion to the research. This is not to say that scientists are infallible or published works are always correct, unfortunately when there is money and fame there is a tendency to not only only conduct research that continues to support one's stance but also stifle other research attempts to conduct further testing into the soundness of the proposed theory. In time it does work itself out but it often takes time for the currently authority to move on.

I'm sure I've said this before, but I firmly feel science needs to start looking at all viral types/pathogens with pandemic potential and draw up a base level of precaution which the public can continue to operate daily life under, which then can be relaxed as evidence comes to light to discount various requirements rather than lax measures being strengthened once it has already spread across the country.

A pandemic, especially fuelled by a Novel pathogen, needs to be treated as Guilty until proven Innocent. Following science when there is none is a fool following a fool who openly admits that to that point they know nothing but are willing to learn, and as Obi-Wan once asked:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swGVAaJ4pbY

They do. That is what the Wuhan lab was doing. That is what the CDC does that is what Dr Fauci did for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. There are thousands of teams all over the world collecting information from hospitals, collecting samples from migratory bird, bat and mammal populations. Even the yearly flu shot is heavily researched and modeled before a regional based recommendation is created and given to the drug companies for production. It is not a perfect system but all in all look at how fast they identified a new possible pandemic and how fast they were able to identify what virus it was and then means to combat it. How easily it could have been overlooked as just the seasonal flu.

 

[Radegast74]

Yes asymptomatic transmission in which case even a surgical mask can help reduce transmission if its handled correctly. But that's the problem, the mask once placed on the face cannot be touched and once its removed the wearer needs to wash their hands. Just like a old time handkerchief used to blow your nose into, a mask is going to capture and foster virus allowing contact spreading past hand washing.

What's that old saying? "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good" ?

Obviously, having military NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) level precautions would be "state of the science" but COVID isn't like a nerve agent where a single droplet could kill you.

It's a virus, so there are a lot of other factors to transmissability that I could go into at length, but the TL;DR is "wearing a mask works!"

 

[Vavrik]

What's that old saying? "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good" ?

Obviously, having military NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) level precautions would be "state of the science" but COVID isn't like a nerve agent where a single droplet could kill you.

It's a virus, so there are a lot of other factors to transmissability that I could go into at length, but the TL;DR is "wearing a mask works!"

"Ain't that the truth!" ... Other old saying.