I have just one question for you...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRRsXxE1KVY&list=RDwKjxFJfcrcA
Coronavirus COVID-19 Thread
- Thread starter Jolly_Green_Giant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus virus wuflu
I am not sure it's a Democrat vs Republican thing it's more a people thing as both sides have their issues with being told what is and is not ok to do. It goes from what forms of entertainment to drugs, sex, medical procedures, etc. Both sides are terrible about attempting to impose or reject the will of the other side and both sides' leaders are corrupt and utilize their tribalism for their own gains. So once again your assumption about my statement is ill-founded as you attempt to paint me as someone very much against masks. My stance is very much we need to be unbiased in seriously looking into what seems to be working and find out why it's working so we can focus on making sure it's part of future plans. Making plans on assumptions and limited research is dumb and dangerous as it gives a false sense of security that has a very real potential of killing us next time. This virus as scary as it was for a lot of people really is just a warning shot.
@Bambooza, try reading this - see references at end.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html#:~:text=References-,SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted by exposure to infectious respiratory,respiratory fluids carrying infectious virus.
Then this: https://www.science.org/content/article/you-may-be-able-spread-coronavirus-just-breathing-new-report-finds
And this: https://first10em.com/covid-19-is-spread-by-aerosols-an-evidence-review/
Then this article from nature on 06 April 2022, criticizing the WHO's handling of the early pandemic.
www.nature.com
.
There are a ton more, but these and their references (these are articles that point to research studies) are a good start.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html#:~:text=References-,SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted by exposure to infectious respiratory,respiratory fluids carrying infectious virus.
Then this: https://www.science.org/content/article/you-may-be-able-spread-coronavirus-just-breathing-new-report-finds
And this: https://first10em.com/covid-19-is-spread-by-aerosols-an-evidence-review/
Then this article from nature on 06 April 2022, criticizing the WHO's handling of the early pandemic.
Why the WHO took two years to say COVID is airborne
Early in the pandemic, the World Health Organization stated that SARS-CoV-2 was not transmitted through the air. That mistake and the prolonged process of correcting it sowed confusion and raises questions about what will happen in the next pandemic.
www.nature.com
There are a ton more, but these and their references (these are articles that point to research studies) are a good start.
Last edited:
Back to covid... not politics...
Trust is critical... lost my trust about a year ago. That is when I really started looking into it.
So... here I am with my friken 3rd infection tested positive last Thursday (so yes, I'm pissed and taking out on you dumbasses, because you deserve it).
So you fucks who have all the answers... (who are not doctors, just everyday Joes trying to make sense of it because you were told to).
A. You cant hide unless you want to starve in your redneck bunker
B. Its just a matter of time until you get it, because it WILL happen, just like the flu
C. Stop peddling misinformation
1. First infection was horrible - high fever, I thought I was going to die (can't prove it but all the symptoms were there - January of 2020)
2. Second infection was a dry cough
3. Third time was pretty mild with some stomach problems
I work from home, the only time I talk with people is in the drive through at Taco Bell and Burger King.
Wife works at home, just goes to the store to get food.
Son is on summer break, and only playing basket ball with his friends.
So, yes, you dumbasses can hold your breath till you fall over or deal with it...
I still love you folks but sometimes I want to kick you in ass.
Trust is critical... lost my trust about a year ago. That is when I really started looking into it.
So... here I am with my friken 3rd infection tested positive last Thursday (so yes, I'm pissed and taking out on you dumbasses, because you deserve it).
So you fucks who have all the answers... (who are not doctors, just everyday Joes trying to make sense of it because you were told to).
A. You cant hide unless you want to starve in your redneck bunker
B. Its just a matter of time until you get it, because it WILL happen, just like the flu
C. Stop peddling misinformation
1. First infection was horrible - high fever, I thought I was going to die (can't prove it but all the symptoms were there - January of 2020)
2. Second infection was a dry cough
3. Third time was pretty mild with some stomach problems
I work from home, the only time I talk with people is in the drive through at Taco Bell and Burger King.
Wife works at home, just goes to the store to get food.
Son is on summer break, and only playing basket ball with his friends.
So, yes, you dumbasses can hold your breath till you fall over or deal with it...
I still love you folks but sometimes I want to kick you in ass.
Sorry to hear you are dealing with it once more and good to hear it isn't too severe at the moment, and thanks for explaining why you have such a bee up your arse that helps it was starting to feel like you were just trying to harass :D
No it is not a theory on why some people seem to have a far more significant reaction to the virus over others. You are combining two separate statements and giving the same answer to both.
"Does initial viral load exposure effect the severity of overall infection in a host?"
Is not the same question as:
"Why do some peoples immune systems have a worse reaction to COVID-19 than others?"
I did not say "Symptomatic" in my statement which is crucial to the second question. There are symptomatic infections, there are asymptomatic infections, and they can both have a host produce just as high a viral load while infected i.e. the severity of infection.
Either this is honest misunderstanding of the subject which I can sympathise with or an intent to steer the conversation toward topics you know do not yet have solid answers to match your intent to answer all queries with "no one knows and even evidence can't account for real world conditions".
For the moment I will take it you are mistaken and offer you the following exercise for your enlightenment:
I put it to you to find the evidence and information on the following:
- Whether masks lower transmitted viral loads.
- Which measures in concert with mask wearing have been found to reduce initial viral load exposure.
- Whether initial viral load exposure reduces severity of infection.
You are not looking to prove or disprove, you are only looking for the information available to then make a final judgement on. Remember to take note of the sources and the dates the things you are finding were published and to check if it is a reliable report and if there have been updates and new discoveries since - remember Science is ever evolving. Even for things which work , what may be accepted as making it work today may be disproved with new evidence tomorrow bringing better understanding.
Explore the subject, read the information there, not the information you want to see, and have fun! :)
Last edited:
Radegast74
Space Marshal
Correct, but you noticed they did not give any indication of the weight given to the given means of exposure? Just that it's not mutually exclusive?
And here we see that the virus exists in aerosolized droplets which is the standard for airborne virus vs blood pathogens like ebola or fecal matter like escherichia coli and fecal streptococci. But these aerosolized droplets do not need to only be transmitted by breathing or coughing in ones face, they, as was pointed out, can be transmitted by touching any contaminated surface and spreading it to other surfaces and finally contact with your eyes, nose, and mouth. So once again it does not go into weights of transmissions because it's not known how the virus gets from host to host only speculation. And so making the assumption that mask-wearing is a great tool to combat the spread of a virus which is not at all understood on how its transmitted is dangerous in its false sense of security. No where have I said no one should wear a mask but I am attempting to get the point across that we really need to know how airborne virus are transferred in the wild and the weight of those paths. Until then anything we do in an attempt to combat the spread is just based upon assumptions and is no better than tribal witch doctor medical putting a doll under the sick person's bed. While the person may recover it's not because of the doll.
This says it all, might and not conclusive. IE a guess with the possibility it might happen but not how it happens and how often it happens.
And this: https://first10em.com/covid-19-is-spread-by-aerosols-an-evidence-review/
Then this article from nature on 06 April 2022, criticizing the WHO's handling of the early pandemic.
.Why the WHO took two years to say COVID is airborne
Early in the pandemic, the World Health Organization stated that SARS-CoV-2 was not transmitted through the air. That mistake and the prolonged process of correcting it sowed confusion and raises questions about what will happen in the next pandemic.
There are a ton more, but these and their references (these are articles that point to research studies) are a good start.
Look I shall be as clear as possible. While it is possible that covid19 is predominantly airborne route transmission (not by an intermediary fomite ) and thus the impact on the use of masks can easily be determined it is at this point in time its all speculation.
Question. Why do hospital staff wear masks? Is that to protect them, or to protect you?
edit.. I should ask the other half. Why to research chemists, and industrial workers wear masks too?
Last edited:
In both cases, they wear masks as part of their attempt to make as sterile an environment as possible in so much as they take every single possible procedure even if it has little to no impact. Take for instance the procedure of washing their hands, it starts with antibiotic soap and a scrub brush and a count, then they do not dry their hands but raise them into the air and let the water run off their elbows before having someone else place multiple gloves on the clean hands. The truth is most likely just having gloves placed on their hands or washing their hands with regular soap and water would have been enough as is expected in the food industry. But they take all of the safeguards they can because they do not know how a lot of the post-op infections happen and so they are attempting to rule out any possible means of contamination. In some ways, I am surprised they have not gone to the same level as CPU manufacturing with clean rooms and even here there is contamination.
As for industrial workers they wear a mask to protect their lungs against inhaled particulars that have the potential of causing irritation and cancer. And here there are lots of studies performed on the effect and a rating towards that impact. On this subject is much easier to evaluate the usage of a mask as the substance is easily tracked and lab results can be verified in the field.
Pobre PerroFrio,
So, I'm almost out of my quarantine (5 days) for a mild stomach ache - fucking should be in the mountains fishing and riding my dirt bike. Instead I get to hang out here, think about how stupid the world is and play 3.17.2
So, I'm almost out of my quarantine (5 days) for a mild stomach ache - fucking should be in the mountains fishing and riding my dirt bike. Instead I get to hang out here, think about how stupid the world is and play 3.17.2
I asked why medical staff wear masks. Is it to protect themselves or you (i.e. the patient) - Your answer sounds like you wanted to answer a question about gloves.
I can answer about gloves too, I'm supposed to be using them but I generally don't bother unless I need to touch a lot of stuff to figure out where I am.
The correct answer is, they wear protective gear like masks to protect the patient. In fact this is so engrained in them in general that they forgot what N-95 means and where that name comes from. They use the N-95 and now N-99 (or without the -) because they protect the patient. They were unaware, or had forgotten that the protection is two way, and that realization caused a bit of a stir in the medical industry when they were confronted with it (and a bit of headshaking in those other industries that use these masks)
The identification codes N in N-95, and P as in P-95 reference when it is safe to use. The designation N means simply, "No petroleum" or "No Oil". The designation P means "Petroleum safe". The number is the % of particulates that are blocked, without reference to the size of the particulates. The designations do not specify which way is being protected, because it does not matter. Many of the particulates that are blocked by these masks are blocked by something other than pure mechanical filtering. It turns out to also be electrostatic, which is why an n-95 mask is generally useful in medical circumstances. The electrostatic properties of the mask means it can protect against particle penetration even when the particle size is smaller than the hole it is passing through. There is also an as yet not qualified quantum effect when you get below 100 nm particle size (which is way smaller than the holes in the mask that allow you to breathe. That is a particle we see as following a straight line isn't actually following a straight line. It's following a random 3d path of it's vibrations - and gets into science I have no real experience in. These respirator masks are all governed by OSHA, and not the FDA.
FYI if you see a K in front of or replacing the N, then the mask is considered unsafe in the US, because it has not been tested or rated by OSHA. We have only the say so of the manufacturer about it's properties. Caveat emptor.
A surgical mask only protects the other person (i.e. the patient.) We normally don't see them very often outside of the medical community, and they are regulated in the US by the FDA.
Everything less can only offer some of the protection that a surgical mask gives, but consider that it wasn't even 25 years ago that surgical masks were made of 3-5 layers of cotton. They're effectiveness is not null, but it is not as good with keeping stuff from coming in as it is at catching sputum going out. And we produce a lot of sputum.
Last edited:
I was simply using gloves as an illustration on the whole pre-op procedures implemented in an attempt to keep things as safe for the patient as possible. Masks, gloves, gowns, sterile trays, etc are all done in an attempt to keep infections out, while not always effective as there are lots of post-op complications from bacterial infections it's still the purpose of the procedures. In surgeries, masks are worn not to protect the patient from virus transmission but from bacteria that are significantly larger. My point is simply that all of the pre op procedures are geared toward eliminating every possible contamination source with many redundant procedures rolled in as there is still contamination. While any one of the steps would normally be enough for most cases because the risks are so high they go on to try and get zero. Even prior to Covid19 it was highly debated the effectiveness of surgical masks which is why there was such a delay in its recommendation. And in that time period, we have not magically found the answer all we have done is agree that it might have some impact and it's not a very costly implementation. But might have an impact and proven to have an impact are very distinct and all I am suggesting is we need to know our ignorance on the subject and spend the money necessary to find out how effective mask-wearing is as well as other options so that when the time comes we are far more prepared. This insisting on masks being the holy grail of safety precautions is ignorant as it is not based upon any study showing its proven effectiveness. It would be easy if mask wearers did not get sick but they still do. The question still remains how effective is wearing a mask at preventing transmitting and receiving a virus-like Covid19. And one of the biggest missing pieces is knowing all the pathways the virus is transmitted and how effective they are. Until then all we have is isolated tests that show under specific conditions but they are isolated from each other and no direct comparison can be done.
These circular arguments are getting incredibly boring. So what then do you suggest? Do we
- Wait until we have a definitive answer (there are virtually none in science),
- Take a guess based on what we do know?
- Just let whoever do whatever they want?
Is there another choice?
Hi @Bambooza how's your research going? I can see multiple responses to Vavrik but not even acknowledgement to mine I'm beginning to think you are ignoring me! :-D
To help you along please see the following from the British Medical Journal in December 2020:
Lightening the viral load to lessen covid-19 severity
Adherence to separation measures is key Although the number of positive tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) across many European countries has risen sharply in recent weeks, increases in the number of hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 have not been...
www.bmj.com
"In humans, randomised trials of patients with viral upper respiratory tract infections have shown mask wearing reduces viral droplet emissions.[14] Furthermore, masks have been found to reduce inhalation of particles.[15] Several epidemiological studies have indicated mask wearing and other social distancing measures reduce the severity of covid-19. [16, 17] Additionally, the use of masks has been shown in a laboratory setting to reduce both disease transmission and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hamsters.[18] A case series in humans comparing three transmission clusters with different degrees of social distancing showed differences in outcome severity between the clusters.[19]"
All those numbers in square brackets relate to research linked to in the footnotes of the article, known observed findings. Go on the article, look up that research, then carry on from there, December 2020 was over a year and a half ago, has research progressed and found even more information? You know it has, but what did it find? ;-)
And I'll throw you a bone here: Beware articles talking about how much viral load the infected are carrying Vs the serverity of infection, it's a red herring that may waste your time and effort, remember we are looking at the initial exposure load and eventual infection serverity not how much load the infected produce. :-)
Last edited:
Just ask Jolly and be done with insanity! He will tell you, masks yes or masks no... beyond that you have to be responsible and make your own friken decision. We all know it is circumstance driven, we know this shit is airborne, we know if you are debating this subject you are either in quarantine and really pissed off or are extremely/excessively bored! I am not here because I want to be, I'm here reading your dumbass posts because I have nothing else to do since I'm stuck here with my dumbass brothers/corp mates and my Samsung drive is broke. Please, use some common sense. I'm starting to feel like the lady from the John Cena prank call.
Last edited:
I am in favor of taking a guess based on what we do know but would also like to make sure we are pursuing research into the area and adjusting procedures based upon what we know while recognizing the boundaries of our knowledge. Masks in of themselves are fine so long as we recognize that we really do not know how effective they are. While we have some theories and speculations the narrative that masks saves lives is as a definitive fact is as truthful as voodoo dolls under your bed keep the evil spirits from coming close and getting you sick. While there have been some limited scope studies on the effect of masks and possible transmission of airborne pathogens there are still huge areas of how these viruses spread and are contracted that makes it hard to suggest with any degree of confidence the success of mask-wearing. Given the amount we don't know, I am not fine with forcing people to adhere to public policies that are based upon a guess and letting them decide their own risk tolerance. So instead of masks saves lives as an unchallengeable truth the narrative should have always been more a suggestion on mask-wearing as a precaution against spreading an infectious virus. Much the same way washing hands is recommended. In fact, I would have spent far more effort and resources on the washing hands than on mask-wearing while letting people and businesses decisions for themselves about what policies they implement within their sphere of contact. IE I do not hang out with friends who do not wear masks or No shirts No Shoes No Mask no service.
While I do not think the arguments are circular as I do not believe in all this time there has been a single study that shows the transmission pathways and their infectious weights as I stated from the start and continue to ask for each time so that mask-wearing effectiveness can be determined. While there have been some studies performed on limited edge cases regarding mask effectiveness when controlled for every other possibility it is of limited information as we do not know on the whole how many of the infections are caused by it. Is it only 1 in a million chance of being infected in such a way that a mask would reduce your risk by 1%? And if that's the case you can easily see that while masks have a 1% reduction in the spread of viruses along this pathway the chance of that pathway being the cause of your infection is similar to winning the lotto. And the reason why I can use such absurd numbers as an example and you cannot refute it is simply because we don't know. And that is all I am trying to drive home. We do not know how or at what percent the virus is spread.
So no I do not believe it has been a circular argument I have clearly stated that there is and still remains no study that showcases how Covid19 spreads and thus how much masks can contribute to preventing it. So once we know how we can easily take the studies so far performed and show the overall effectiveness of things like washing hands and mask wearing. But until then it's at best a guess in the dark.
You need a new hobby. You could try joining us in Discord. It can be slow but there's a lot going on. There are people there doing other things than mining in SC,. You can get into combat, or whatever interests you. Some are even playing other games.
As for me, I enjoy most of this thread, and ignore what I do not. I enjoy @Bambooza's contributions too by the way, he gives me fuel sometimes so I can do part of my real life job. He's also a friend.
You also shouldn't think that everyone that contributes here has no relevant experience.
Sorry I missed it in all the posts. Not intentional as I am glad for your and @Vavrik viewpoints and willingness to engage and discuss as I think it makes us all more informed and better for it.Hi @Bambooza how's your research going? I can see multiple responses to Vavrik but not even acknowledgement to mine I'm beginning to think you are ignoring me! :-D
To help you along please see the following from the British Medical Journal in December 2020:
Lightening the viral load to lessen covid-19 severity
Adherence to separation measures is key Although the number of positive tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) across many European countries has risen sharply in recent weeks, increases in the number of hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 have not been...
"In humans, randomised trials of patients with viral upper respiratory tract infections have shown mask wearing reduces viral droplet emissions.[14] Furthermore, masks have been found to reduce inhalation of particles.[15] Several epidemiological studies have indicated mask wearing and other social distancing measures reduce the severity of covid-19. [16, 17] Additionally, the use of masks has been shown in a laboratory setting to reduce both disease transmission and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hamsters.[18] A case series in humans comparing three transmission clusters with different degrees of social distancing showed differences in outcome severity between the clusters.[19]"
All those numbers in square brackets relate to research linked to in the footnotes of the article, known observed findings. Go on the article, look up that research, then carry on from there, December 2020 was over a year and a half ago, has research progressed and found even more information? You know it has, but what did it find? ;-)
And I'll throw you a bone here: Beware articles talking about how much viral load the infected are carrying Vs the serverity of infection, it's a red herring that may waste your time and effort, remember we are looking at the initial exposure load and eventual infection serverity not how much load the infected produce. :-)
They glossed over that genetics, the health of the individual, and prior exposure to the same or similar strain all play a significant part in the overall impact a virtual infection has on an individual and why such studies have to be performed on a large group to reduce the impact such variation plays. Some studies attempt to control for this by using siblings and thus reducing the genetic diversity of the sample and thus theoretically reducing the need for a large sample size. But even here it has been shown that genetic mutation and diversity even within the family leads to significant variation in the immune response to infections. This does not count for other factors like the individual's stress levels, or fitness. Other aspects of randomness like the binding site of the virus load and the location of the white blood cells also significantly factor into the overall immune response. Which all plays against small sample sizes and pushback on needing not only larger study groups but a desire to have a more pronounced p-value.
But back to my point as pointed out in a study referenced in the study you provided (14) ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2)
This kind of information makes me wonder just how effective masks are given the majority did not have detectable virus in the respiratory droplets and so while masks show a reduction if your sample already shows a majority not shedding in that way then masks only impact a small subset and we still need to find the major way viruses are transmitted so as to put our resources towards that for even a 1% reduction in a pathway that is 50% infection rate has a larger overall impact then a 20% reduction of a 1% infection rate.
That is perfect.
We do need the studies, but it would be unethical to do anything but a retrospective study unless you consider people as lab rats. There are those that do, so don't wish it.
Until we get retroactive studies, what we have is OSHA and FDA knowledge - which are both based on science and scientific principles and not speculation. The studies used largely lab rats and other rodents. Sucks to be them sometimes. But yeah humans were used as lab rats back in the last century for enough stuff to make your hair fall out. Well, your hair falling out might depend if you were a victim of that or not.
Indeed I still struggle with the ethicalness of even using the data acquired from those studies. Part of me wonders if using the data encourages others to feel empowered to disregard the boundaries of what is right or the pursuit of expedited knowledge. And there is a part of me that says we should honor the sacrifice of those who contributed to the data even if it was forced upon them and not using the research would be a disservice to their sacrifice. Take the case of how fast we would be able to learn the effectiveness of masks and transmission pathways if we just forced thousands into test cases.