Main Edition
US
FR
August 24, 2023 - 5:00pm
This week a handful of American schools, businesses and healthcare facilities re-imposed mask mandates and other Covid safety policies. This provided an opportunity for lobby groups and our new Covid safety subculture to advocate for the return of the “new normal” media narrative: a “surging” virus is meeting a “complacent” population that will need to be “nudged” to do the “right thing”.
This included a small college in Atlanta with 400 students, elementary schools in Texas and Kentucky, an LA Hollywood film studio (responsible for The Hunger Games) and some Kaiser Permanente health facilities in California. Pro-mask mandate scientists and doctors, such as Independent SAGE member Trish Greenhalgh of the University of Oxford and former US surgeon general Jerome Adams took the opportunity to model “good” mask behaviour.
According to CNN, a number of “experts” continue to claim that it “may be time to break out the masks again” since “the virus is always lurking, waiting for openings,” and “Covid is just going to be a bit of a roller coaster, probably forever.” The US and UK have seen medical advocacy groups recently call, in the BMJ and Annals of Internal Medicine, for the return of permanent or seasonal medical mask mandates in all healthcare facilities, which has continued in some states and clinics.
Media articles have mostly focused on advocating for high-risk groups to “return” to masking as a personal decision. Yet the mandate debate in healthcare facilities does threaten to fundamentally (and literally) change the face of healthcare for years to come. The public is being reintroduced to the moralisation and virtue-signalling of collectivist masking. The risk-framing narrative, use of selective experts and social marketing techniques are all reminiscent of 2020-21 nudge strategies. Yet the exaggerated poetic licence and double-think of the “long masker” subculture ignores some key facts.
Before Covid, population-wide medical masks were not viewed as a particularly effective tool for respiratory viruses. In a 2018 address at the National Academy of Medicine, science writer Laurie Garrett stated that “the major efficacy of a mask is that it causes alarm in a person and so you stay away from each other.” This is roughly consistent with the updated 2023 Cochrane review, which found that mask-wearing made little difference in a community setting. More recent RCT studies of community masking during Covid in Bangladesh and Guinea-Bissau (America forgot to run RCTs on masks) found little to no benefit of community-wide cloth masking, too.
Pro-mask groups will argue that the Cochrane review did not account for the many observational studies that appear to support mask mandates. But there are major flaws with such studies. The results from a recent high-profile evaluation that found lifting mask mandates at Massachusetts schools was associated with increased Covid cases could also be explained by uncontrolled confounders. Other observational studies in Spanish and American schools show no effect from mandatory mask policies.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeEverything within the state. Nothing outside the state. And the state must always be in crisis.
“War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength”.*
(*GO.)
Govern me harder, daddy.
We’re all in this together, so may the devil take the hindmost!
We’re all in this together, so may the devil take the hindmost!
Well said. I can’t believe we’re back here again.
Just to play Devil’s Advocate- Maybe the Experts have recently developed a multi-layered approach to infection mitigation techniques. As you know, they’ve already developed a Climate Positive Infrastructure to build out healthier communities through robust initiatives with strategic Public-Private Partnerships. With the use of Adaptation Strategies to limit negative externalities it could promote collaboration amongst those with Industry Segment Knowledge.
It hit me one night that Climate Change is Covid and Covid is Systemic Racism. That night, I fell to my knees and promised to affirm and declare sacred all covid mitigation strategies that proclaim to disproportionately center Indigenous BIPOC communities susceptible to the crisis of Global Boiling.
Well played sir!
Thank God someone understands.
Climate change, Covid, and systemic racism are evergreen concerns that keep the socialist/Marxists supplied with excuses to control their fellow citizens forever. If these ever disappeared, they would find new causes to control you. Racism has declined very dramatically over the last 50-100 years, that’s why the very rare incidents get so much publicity. In fact, these folks have no desire to solve these problems since that would take away their purpose in life.
Truth!
Precisely. Screw the ‘experts’. Even more so the weak-willed, timid souls who give them credence.
Truth!
Precisely. Screw the ‘experts’. Even more so the weak-willed, timid souls who give them credence.
I like T bone steak but I like your post even more.
It took me a minute to figure out that your word salad is satire. V good.
Well played sir!
Thank God someone understands.
Climate change, Covid, and systemic racism are evergreen concerns that keep the socialist/Marxists supplied with excuses to control their fellow citizens forever. If these ever disappeared, they would find new causes to control you. Racism has declined very dramatically over the last 50-100 years, that’s why the very rare incidents get so much publicity. In fact, these folks have no desire to solve these problems since that would take away their purpose in life.
I like T bone steak but I like your post even more.
It took me a minute to figure out that your word salad is satire. V good.
“War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength”.*
(*GO.)
Govern me harder, daddy.
Well said. I can’t believe we’re back here again.
Just to play Devil’s Advocate- Maybe the Experts have recently developed a multi-layered approach to infection mitigation techniques. As you know, they’ve already developed a Climate Positive Infrastructure to build out healthier communities through robust initiatives with strategic Public-Private Partnerships. With the use of Adaptation Strategies to limit negative externalities it could promote collaboration amongst those with Industry Segment Knowledge.
It hit me one night that Climate Change is Covid and Covid is Systemic Racism. That night, I fell to my knees and promised to affirm and declare sacred all covid mitigation strategies that proclaim to disproportionately center Indigenous BIPOC communities susceptible to the crisis of Global Boiling.
Everything within the state. Nothing outside the state. And the state must always be in crisis.
Jeremy Farrar coordinated the response to shut down and marginalise the authors of the Great Barrington declaration which was basically just what was in the government’s own pre-Covid plan for a respiratory virus.
He also framed the lab-leak theory as a conspiracy theory, never mind the gain of function research which is all now accepted fact.
I also notice that well-known Commie Susan Michie (who was in favour of permanent lockdowns) has got herself a plum job at the WHO to facilitate epidemic response measure compliance.
Mr Van Tam, the erstwhile vaccine tsar, has got a plum job at Moderna.
We are building a facility to manufacture 250 million shots per annum of MRNA vaccines following the overwhelming success of the last one (they had to change the definition of the word vaccine in Webster’s dictionary so I was joking).
And that well-known philanthropist and frequent flyer to Epstein Island (ask Melissa why she divorced him), Bilbo Gates (who made $23 Billion out of the last pandemic)is confidently predicticting a new pandemic soon (kerching ).
Are you awake yet ?
Yes, hanging pro vaccine verm*n (listed here but many hundreds more) on meat hooks in Trafalgar Square would be a good start.
But unlike Germany we have no trials for vaccine caused damage.
Death threats?
Suggestions?
Suggestions?
Death threats?
Continuing Mike’s exposé:
Jeremy Farrar coordinated the response to shut down and marginalise the authors of the Great Barrington declaration which was basically just what was in the government’s own pre-Covid plan for a respiratory virus.
And interestingly he is now the chief scientist of the WHO, and was previously the director of the Wellcome Trust, which is essentially the UK counterpart to the Gates Foundation.
*Side note: His collaborator of the Declaration’s smear campaign, Dominic Cummings(a SAGE crony of the Hancock-class) has interestingly been spared from much of his major role in pushing this madness, a role of which arguably surpasses even Boris’s(Cummings coerced him to go along).
And don’t forget Neil Ferguson, the man who whose highly erroneous models kickstarted the whole downward spiral not only in the UK but many countries beyond(many abroad confirmed this). He has in fact ZERO training & qualification with anything remotely relevant to biology, virology, epidemiology, OR public health- a fact even Wikipedia openly admits. And of course, most of us here are far too aware of his disastrous track record with his modelled predictions for the past 22 years. With a history like this any of us would’ve been rightly called a fraud and permanently banned from practice- But Ferguson has been wrongly called an epidemiologist, arguably a massive insult to the actual profession itself.
And meanwhile Ferguson’s US counterpart(and more), Deborah Birx has recently got her own plum job at Armata Pharmaceuticals.
Even the interesting people at the Expert Village Channel couldn’t have made up something as ridiculous as this!
Yes, hanging pro vaccine verm*n (listed here but many hundreds more) on meat hooks in Trafalgar Square would be a good start.
But unlike Germany we have no trials for vaccine caused damage.
Continuing Mike’s exposé:
Jeremy Farrar coordinated the response to shut down and marginalise the authors of the Great Barrington declaration which was basically just what was in the government’s own pre-Covid plan for a respiratory virus.
And interestingly he is now the chief scientist of the WHO, and was previously the director of the Wellcome Trust, which is essentially the UK counterpart to the Gates Foundation.
*Side note: His collaborator of the Declaration’s smear campaign, Dominic Cummings(a SAGE crony of the Hancock-class) has interestingly been spared from much of his major role in pushing this madness, a role of which arguably surpasses even Boris’s(Cummings coerced him to go along).
And don’t forget Neil Ferguson, the man who whose highly erroneous models kickstarted the whole downward spiral not only in the UK but many countries beyond(many abroad confirmed this). He has in fact ZERO training & qualification with anything remotely relevant to biology, virology, epidemiology, OR public health- a fact even Wikipedia openly admits. And of course, most of us here are far too aware of his disastrous track record with his modelled predictions for the past 22 years. With a history like this any of us would’ve been rightly called a fraud and permanently banned from practice- But Ferguson has been wrongly called an epidemiologist, arguably a massive insult to the actual profession itself.
And meanwhile Ferguson’s US counterpart(and more), Deborah Birx has recently got her own plum job at Armata Pharmaceuticals.
Even the interesting people at the Expert Village Channel couldn’t have made up something as ridiculous as this!
Jeremy Farrar coordinated the response to shut down and marginalise the authors of the Great Barrington declaration which was basically just what was in the government’s own pre-Covid plan for a respiratory virus.
He also framed the lab-leak theory as a conspiracy theory, never mind the gain of function research which is all now accepted fact.
I also notice that well-known Commie Susan Michie (who was in favour of permanent lockdowns) has got herself a plum job at the WHO to facilitate epidemic response measure compliance.
Mr Van Tam, the erstwhile vaccine tsar, has got a plum job at Moderna.
We are building a facility to manufacture 250 million shots per annum of MRNA vaccines following the overwhelming success of the last one (they had to change the definition of the word vaccine in Webster’s dictionary so I was joking).
And that well-known philanthropist and frequent flyer to Epstein Island (ask Melissa why she divorced him), Bilbo Gates (who made $23 Billion out of the last pandemic)is confidently predicticting a new pandemic soon (kerching ).
Are you awake yet ?
And the harms of mask-wearing are demonstrated even to healthy people if they’re engaging in moderate exertion over an extended period of time: hypoxia and hypercapnea.
So, if you have dysautonomia (difficulty controlling your body temperature), perimenopausal hot flashes or MS, wearing a mask will already make you extremely warm and even risk losing consciousness unless you’re in a cool environment. Then, you’ve got people (some w/ same condition) who already have dyspnea, asthma, and/or other breathing issues, so that their oxygen normally goes down simply from wearing a mask. if they breathe in too much, they get too warm. If they don’t breathe in enough, they become faint.
But apparently, protecting the “vulnerable” with this unsubstantiated iatrogenic abuse is more important than the actual harm that’s happening to people who are literally vulnerable to the harm of masks. That’s not even addressing the profound harm to developing children posed by masks.
I’m at a cancer center these days–the one place they make them mandatory, because of compromised immune systems. Here’s the study that needs to happen that hasn’t yet: hypoxia and hypercapnea are associated w/ overall increase in tumorigenesis. So what if all of those cancer patients–esp the ones w/ lung cancer who can barely breathe anyway–are forced to wear masks for hours a day to get their “treatment”–and the masks are actually exacerbating their existing cancer.
I’ve yet to see a study that shows the pre-mask, Cancer Center patients lived longer. There’s no evidence that the required masks are protecting anyone. But that doesn’t stop the busybodies from following you everywhere and sanctimoniously claiming you’re harming others–while they’re harming YOU.
And I doubt that you will see any studies that you suggest, because they may raise inconvenient questions for the reigning Public Health narrative.
I can vouch for the detrimental effects of hypercapnia with N95 masks. Wore them all day in the operating room during the first wave, had horrible headaches and fatigue by the end of the day. Switched over to a “less protective” KN94 first chance I got, then went back to standard surgical masks after having had the original jab plus Omicron back in early’22, and have been just fine, thank you, despite being in a high risk medical specialty.
I also note that the current mRNA jabs are being outrun by the virus mutation, though Pfi$er er al. insist that they will be effective (while they rush to crank out updates). Caveat emptor.
And I doubt that you will see any studies that you suggest, because they may raise inconvenient questions for the reigning Public Health narrative.
I can vouch for the detrimental effects of hypercapnia with N95 masks. Wore them all day in the operating room during the first wave, had horrible headaches and fatigue by the end of the day. Switched over to a “less protective” KN94 first chance I got, then went back to standard surgical masks after having had the original jab plus Omicron back in early’22, and have been just fine, thank you, despite being in a high risk medical specialty.
I also note that the current mRNA jabs are being outrun by the virus mutation, though Pfi$er er al. insist that they will be effective (while they rush to crank out updates). Caveat emptor.
And the harms of mask-wearing are demonstrated even to healthy people if they’re engaging in moderate exertion over an extended period of time: hypoxia and hypercapnea.
So, if you have dysautonomia (difficulty controlling your body temperature), perimenopausal hot flashes or MS, wearing a mask will already make you extremely warm and even risk losing consciousness unless you’re in a cool environment. Then, you’ve got people (some w/ same condition) who already have dyspnea, asthma, and/or other breathing issues, so that their oxygen normally goes down simply from wearing a mask. if they breathe in too much, they get too warm. If they don’t breathe in enough, they become faint.
But apparently, protecting the “vulnerable” with this unsubstantiated iatrogenic abuse is more important than the actual harm that’s happening to people who are literally vulnerable to the harm of masks. That’s not even addressing the profound harm to developing children posed by masks.
I’m at a cancer center these days–the one place they make them mandatory, because of compromised immune systems. Here’s the study that needs to happen that hasn’t yet: hypoxia and hypercapnea are associated w/ overall increase in tumorigenesis. So what if all of those cancer patients–esp the ones w/ lung cancer who can barely breathe anyway–are forced to wear masks for hours a day to get their “treatment”–and the masks are actually exacerbating their existing cancer.
I’ve yet to see a study that shows the pre-mask, Cancer Center patients lived longer. There’s no evidence that the required masks are protecting anyone. But that doesn’t stop the busybodies from following you everywhere and sanctimoniously claiming you’re harming others–while they’re harming YOU.
Even if we assume that masks are effective in the short term (a big if), do we really want a society of “bubble people”, who haven’t encountered any infectious diseases?
It seems reasonable to expect that our immune systems work best when they are regularly tested, and that periodically reacquainting them with pathogens (at low levels) will give a better outcome than attempts at isolation.
Good question. The follow up question is: How many extra premature deaths will it cost to keep our immune systems in trim?
There you go again Rasmus. Always a stooge for authority.
How can anyone think, let alone say this after what has been done is beyond me! I, like so many millions of others have suffered greatly during the lockdowns and mask wearing – ostensibly to save other’s lives.. Without wishing to go into details here, my own health has now declined seriously as a direct result of these ‘measures’ and I harbour no extemist views in any direction! Despite a few ‘expert’s’ claims, countless children’s mental and physical health has been badly affected too.
Do you even believe in a robust functioning immune system as a means of dealing with infection? How did you ever survive to your present age without masking 24/7, or a jab for every potential infection?
Immune sysetms are very good, but they are not all-powerful. So I take jabs for tetanus, polio and tuberculosis, I take antibiotics if I have an infection, I would use condoms to avoid AIDS and stay away from sources of infection if I reasonably can. What do you do? Do you scorn all of that, go in bareback, and assume that your immune system is damn well stronger than any possible virus? Would you advise other people to do that?
Straw man arguments. I was not talking about blanket avoidance of all vaccinations, antibiotics (which only assist a functioning immune system) or cavalier behaviors wrt HIV, etc.
Of course the immune system is not all-powerful, but in the case of COVID, especially given that a large majority of US and UK citizens have *had* the illness +/- original vaccines, and the rapidity with which this virus ( and most respiratory viruses) mutate to less virulent, more communicable variants, I would suggest that herd immunity is decent for a large majority of people, and that we’re chasing our collective tail. If you’re in a high-risk group, knock yourself out with NPIs and boosters (although I question the risk-benefit calculus of repeatedly goosing your system). Just please don’t continue mandating questionable measures for the majority of us, healthcare workers included.
Straw man arguments. I was not talking about blanket avoidance of all vaccinations, antibiotics (which only assist a functioning immune system) or cavalier behaviors wrt HIV, etc.
Of course the immune system is not all-powerful, but in the case of COVID, especially given that a large majority of US and UK citizens have *had* the illness +/- original vaccines, and the rapidity with which this virus ( and most respiratory viruses) mutate to less virulent, more communicable variants, I would suggest that herd immunity is decent for a large majority of people, and that we’re chasing our collective tail. If you’re in a high-risk group, knock yourself out with NPIs and boosters (although I question the risk-benefit calculus of repeatedly goosing your system). Just please don’t continue mandating questionable measures for the majority of us, healthcare workers included.
Immune sysetms are very good, but they are not all-powerful. So I take jabs for tetanus, polio and tuberculosis, I take antibiotics if I have an infection, I would use condoms to avoid AIDS and stay away from sources of infection if I reasonably can. What do you do? Do you scorn all of that, go in bareback, and assume that your immune system is damn well stronger than any possible virus? Would you advise other people to do that?
There you go again Rasmus. Always a stooge for authority.
How can anyone think, let alone say this after what has been done is beyond me! I, like so many millions of others have suffered greatly during the lockdowns and mask wearing – ostensibly to save other’s lives.. Without wishing to go into details here, my own health has now declined seriously as a direct result of these ‘measures’ and I harbour no extemist views in any direction! Despite a few ‘expert’s’ claims, countless children’s mental and physical health has been badly affected too.
Do you even believe in a robust functioning immune system as a means of dealing with infection? How did you ever survive to your present age without masking 24/7, or a jab for every potential infection?
“…periodically reacquainting them with pathogens (at low levels) will give a better outcome than attempts at isolation.”
Probably correct for individuals <60 ? < 50 ? y. although questions remain with this virus regarding increased risks of acquiring T2Diabetes, heart problems, long covid and maybe other problems the more infections you have.
Not clear to me how you might ensure any infection is delivered to an individual at “low levels”
With Omicron, re-exposing older people still doesn’t seem to be a great idea (wimpy antibody responses) see :
Early Omicron infection is associated with increased reinfection risk in older adults in long-term care and retirement facilities August 2023 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(23)00325-5/fulltext
and waning T cell responses
Global patterns of antigen receptor repertoire disruption across adaptive immune compartments in COVID-19 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2201541119
This remains a nastier infection than flu if you are unlucky enough to be hospitalised and continues to effectively cull the old and weak.
Roll on winter.
If I can piggy-back on you: Do you know the current state of consensus on asymptomatic transmission, either for COVID or in general?
Hi Rasmus
Just spent 3 hours re-reading my paper collection on secondary attack rates.
It seems that very few if any asymptomatics (never have a symptom) transmit.
For presymptomatics it is a different story. Very tricky research to do because with this virus the presymptomatic phase may be very short (possibly 48 hours max). However. there are some reasonable contact and trace case series that do indicate that such transmission occurs e.g.
Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, January 23-March 16, 2020
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32271722/
and
Analysis of Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic Transmission in SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak, Germany, 2020 Bender April 2021
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article
There are others.
Thanks – and my apologies for sponging off your knowledge. It all rather makes sense. I shall make sure to say ‘presymptomatic’ rather than ‘asymptomatic’ in the future.
Thanks – and my apologies for sponging off your knowledge. It all rather makes sense. I shall make sure to say ‘presymptomatic’ rather than ‘asymptomatic’ in the future.
Hi Rasmus
Just spent 3 hours re-reading my paper collection on secondary attack rates.
It seems that very few if any asymptomatics (never have a symptom) transmit.
For presymptomatics it is a different story. Very tricky research to do because with this virus the presymptomatic phase may be very short (possibly 48 hours max). However. there are some reasonable contact and trace case series that do indicate that such transmission occurs e.g.
Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, January 23-March 16, 2020
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32271722/
and
Analysis of Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic Transmission in SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak, Germany, 2020 Bender April 2021
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article
There are others.
As an older person, I don’t want anyone to be forcibly masked in order to “protect” me. Self protection is my responsibility.
Sing it, sister!
Sing it, sister!
If I can piggy-back on you: Do you know the current state of consensus on asymptomatic transmission, either for COVID or in general?
As an older person, I don’t want anyone to be forcibly masked in order to “protect” me. Self protection is my responsibility.
Why should we assume that masks are effective?
There is no prove they are (unless you have BioChem mask).
Given the principle that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, we should assume that masks are ineffective.
Given the principle that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, we should assume that masks are ineffective.
Good question. The follow up question is: How many extra premature deaths will it cost to keep our immune systems in trim?
“…periodically reacquainting them with pathogens (at low levels) will give a better outcome than attempts at isolation.”
Probably correct for individuals <60 ? < 50 ? y. although questions remain with this virus regarding increased risks of acquiring T2Diabetes, heart problems, long covid and maybe other problems the more infections you have.
Not clear to me how you might ensure any infection is delivered to an individual at “low levels”
With Omicron, re-exposing older people still doesn’t seem to be a great idea (wimpy antibody responses) see :
Early Omicron infection is associated with increased reinfection risk in older adults in long-term care and retirement facilities August 2023 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(23)00325-5/fulltext
and waning T cell responses
Global patterns of antigen receptor repertoire disruption across adaptive immune compartments in COVID-19 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2201541119
This remains a nastier infection than flu if you are unlucky enough to be hospitalised and continues to effectively cull the old and weak.
Roll on winter.
Why should we assume that masks are effective?
There is no prove they are (unless you have BioChem mask).
Even if we assume that masks are effective in the short term (a big if), do we really want a society of “bubble people”, who haven’t encountered any infectious diseases?
It seems reasonable to expect that our immune systems work best when they are regularly tested, and that periodically reacquainting them with pathogens (at low levels) will give a better outcome than attempts at isolation.
We must overwhelm the “Public Health” Bolsheviks with data. Smother them with facts. And resist as if our lives depend upon it. Just say “No” to the masks, and back your words with actions.
Jay Bhattacharya for President!
Damn right.
Damn right.
We must overwhelm the “Public Health” Bolsheviks with data. Smother them with facts. And resist as if our lives depend upon it. Just say “No” to the masks, and back your words with actions.
Jay Bhattacharya for President!
Right on time today the Royal Society produced a report on the effectiveness of NPIs, which was immediately bigged up by the usual suspects (including Jeremy Farrar). If you simply read the executive summary you will immediately see it is deeply flawed, and Carl Heneghan said the same on Talk TV this morning. I expect that he will follow up with a more detailed written analysis.
I would recommend reading Claire Craig’s recently published book ‘Expired’ on NPIs. Make your own judgment.
The Royal Society wrong, Nik on the internet right? Yeah ok.
I was never in favour of mask mandates, but if they said they worked then I’m inclined to believe them.
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/impact-non-pharmaceutical-interventions-on-covid-19-transmission/
Oh, you’re back. So is your attack on Judith Curry I see.
Have you read it? I doubt it. My take:
It appears aimed to back up the view that the moment there is any hint of a problem we must lockdown hard and fast, close borders, etc.. This, of course, is the whole point of the WHO Pandemic Accord that we will sign next year, handing our sovereignty to the WHO. It is also the line very much taken in Jeremy Farrar’s attack on the Johnson administration in his book ‘Spiked’, which I’m sure you’ve read.
By its own admission there is only evidence that NPIs may have been effective in the earliest stages of the pandemic, that they had low efficacy from Omicron onwards.
There is no discussion whatsoever on the balance between NPIs and the destruction of the global economy, the damage to children’s education and mental health etc..
There is a mealy mouthed admission that they didn’t realise that it was aerosolised in the first few months. Strange, because a scientist who has worked for the WHO told me in the earliest days that it was aerosolised, and there were many other voices. Claire Craig’s book is particularly good on this topic.
They focus on post hoc observational studies, because there were no RCTs, but admit that these have uncertain specificity in determining which NPIs were the most effective, because they were all in play simultaneously. As we know from the recent Cochrane Review, face coverings were ineffective.
As Carl Heneghan put it this morning: “There’s a mismatch between the conclusion and spin of it… they’re not being critical anymore, it’s a disservice to science.”
I didn’t listen to him at the beginning of the pandemic. I wish I had, because he was right.
It’s amusing that you try to come across as well reasoned and articulate, yet you have completely swallowed right wing conspiracy theory. All the material you claim to read does appear to be just more confirmation bias.
I don’t mean to sound patronising Robbie, but here’s some advice for you:
Never comment on something you haven’t read. It invariably makes one look like an idiot. I have learnt this from experience.Always try to go back to the primary sources. Don’t trust somebody else’s account of what something says.If you had actually read Judith Curry’s work, which we discussed yesterday, you would know that what you wrote was nonsense.
You may not be patronising, but you’re certainly wildly arrogant in your assumptions, including considering yourself to be the most intelligent in the room. I suggest you take a step back and look at your sources and who you trust to form your opinions. Lone mavericks with their own agenda will just feed your biases and dismissing respected organisations merely leaves you in an echo chamber.
Do you know why this thread keeps disappearing Robbie?
Here’s somebody explaining it in much more detail:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/24/lockdowns-and-masks-unequivocally-cut-covid-infections-say-experts-give-me-a-break/
The dailysceptic that used to be called lockdownsceptic? Really? I’m uncertain this is a neutral voice.
But yeah, it’s infuriating that comments keep disappearing, it happens regularly to anything that is downvoted and totally kills debate. It’s not clear if it’s a bug or if Unherd suppress what they don’t want.
You’re at it again. Play the ball, not the man.
You’re at it again. Play the ball, not the man.
The dailysceptic that used to be called lockdownsceptic? Really? I’m uncertain this is a neutral voice.
But yeah, it’s infuriating that comments keep disappearing, it happens regularly to anything that is downvoted and totally kills debate. It’s not clear if it’s a bug or if Unherd suppress what they don’t want.
Do you know why this thread keeps disappearing Robbie?
Here’s somebody explaining it in much more detail:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/24/lockdowns-and-masks-unequivocally-cut-covid-infections-say-experts-give-me-a-break/
You may not be patronising, but you’re certainly wildly arrogant in your assumptions, including considering yourself to be the most intelligent in the room. I suggest you take a step back and look at your sources and who you trust to form your opinions. Lone mavericks with their own agenda will just feed your biases and dismissing respected organisations merely leaves you in an echo chamber.
I read in the news today that if you have had Covid even once, your risk of death is increased. Turns out that prior to covid, we had a real chance of immortality! Curse covid and the mask deniers, I could’ve lived forever!
I don’t mean to sound patronising Robbie, but here’s some advice for you:
Never comment on something you haven’t read. It invariably makes one look like an idiot. I have learnt this from experience.Always try to go back to the primary sources. Don’t trust somebody else’s account of what something says.If you had actually read Judith Curry’s work, which we discussed yesterday, you would know that what you wrote was nonsense.
I read in the news today that if you have had Covid even once, your risk of death is increased. Turns out that prior to covid, we had a real chance of immortality! Curse covid and the mask deniers, I could’ve lived forever!
It’s amusing that you try to come across as well reasoned and articulate, yet you have completely swallowed right wing conspiracy theory. All the material you claim to read does appear to be just more confirmation bias.
Interesting: Cochrane meta-analysis points out that masks were ineffective. The only RCTs conducted for usage of masks to stop the transmission of respiratory viruses (included in Cochrane Review) conclude that masks were not effective. Similarly, the only comprehensive review and meta-analysis under the auspices of John Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise states that the net efficacy of lockdowns (excluding their social, health and economic consequences) was on the margin of statistical error. Yet, you consistently claim that these NPIs were incredibly effective.
They call it cognitive dissonance.
Maybe you should read my post again, I was not in favour of masks. I do have faith in our scientific institutions however, especially The Royal Society. btw you need to look up what cognitive dissonance actually means.
To quote from the first page of Festinger’s “When Prophecy Fails”:
“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. […]
But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong; what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.”
You happen to have faith in scientific institutions but only ones that confirm your belief and that do so against the scientific status quo on the matter.
Well for the third time, I did not advocate usage of masks, not sure I can make that any clearer.
And a lot of people on these boards have an equally unshakeable faith that scientific institutions are wrong, and their own disagreeing bubbles know all the truth.
A quote like that would IMHO describe Johan Strauss and various anti-vaxxers to a T.
You will have to give up on generic name-calling and descend into actual argumentation to get anywhere on this.
Yeah I think I’ll go with the Royal Society over dailysceptic.org
Yeah I think I’ll go with the Royal Society over dailysceptic.org
Well for the third time, I did not advocate usage of masks, not sure I can make that any clearer.
And a lot of people on these boards have an equally unshakeable faith that scientific institutions are wrong, and their own disagreeing bubbles know all the truth.
A quote like that would IMHO describe Johan Strauss and various anti-vaxxers to a T.
You will have to give up on generic name-calling and descend into actual argumentation to get anywhere on this.
Well as a Fellow of the RS, I for one do not trust the stuff they put out, especially when it is politically motivated and not based on solid, reliable data, but on confounded, biased and poor observational data. The situation i science is really straightforward. You have to rely on the best, unconfounded, unbiased data, and not cherry pick poor observational data. The fact of the matter is that when put to the ultimate test of an RCT, the effect of masking is demonstrated to be insignificant against all influenza-like viral illnesses (which includes SARS-CoV2).
You haven’t thought that through – it’s only possible to do observational data during a pandemic since you cannot ask test subjects to be involved in randomised trials and be exempt from lockdowns or mask mandates.
I have thought it through. First several RCTs were done during COVID, including one on healthcare workers in the Cleveland Clinic (Which if you don’t know happens to be one of teh top 3 hospitals in the US). Second, many RCTs were done previously on influenza-like illnesses and it was well known that masks simply have no significant impact on the transmission of influenza-like viruses. Third, a key aspect of both medicine and public policy is “First Do No Harm”. Yet both masking and lockdowns have well known harms associated with them.
Yet both these strategies saved countless lives and were a success and should therefore be considered as potential emergency policies.
What you are saying is religious belief. There is no evidence that either masking or lockdown saved any lives. Further, any mitigation measure for an influenza-like virus simply broadens the curve but leaves the area underneath (the number infected) unchanged. So even if mitigation worked it would simply kick the can down the road. It solves absolutely nothing.
“ Yet both these strategies saved countless lives and were a success and should therefore be considered as potential emergency policies.”
Could you back your claims by giving actual data on the countless saved lives?
I’m obviously referring to the Royal Society report as linked above, but there are other studies. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/large-scale-lockdowns-in-europe-saved-millions-of-lives/25046
I’m obviously referring to the Royal Society report as linked above, but there are other studies. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/large-scale-lockdowns-in-europe-saved-millions-of-lives/25046
Please explain to Johann and the rest of us how one can prove “lives saved” by NPIs. Also, please compare those “lives saved” with known excess deaths during the pandemic years, as well as those people who had delayed or missed diagnoses of illnesses that resulted in death or shortened life expectancy.
BTW, I’m seeing a lot of the last category in my medical practice.
Both the report I have linked clearly show that proof. As for excess deaths now, there are many reasons for that some of which may be linked to the pandemic, but also greedy and immoral NHS staff going on strikes.
Can’t speak to the NHS, since I’m a Yank. However, the excess deaths during the pandemic and continuing to the present may well outpace the deaths that can be truly attributed to COVID. And overwhelming occurred in age groups not at high risk from the virus.
I maintain that some courageous epidemiologists should do a systematic analysis of excess deaths and delayed/missed diagnoses that resulted in premature deaths vs. the USA COVID death toll. I’m not holding my breath, given that the results would be damning for Fauci, Birx, and the “expert elite.”
Can’t speak to the NHS, since I’m a Yank. However, the excess deaths during the pandemic and continuing to the present may well outpace the deaths that can be truly attributed to COVID. And overwhelming occurred in age groups not at high risk from the virus.
I maintain that some courageous epidemiologists should do a systematic analysis of excess deaths and delayed/missed diagnoses that resulted in premature deaths vs. the USA COVID death toll. I’m not holding my breath, given that the results would be damning for Fauci, Birx, and the “expert elite.”
Both the report I have linked clearly show that proof. As for excess deaths now, there are many reasons for that some of which may be linked to the pandemic, but also greedy and immoral NHS staff going on strikes.
This is an eminently unfalsifiable claim. Also consider the amount of people infected by the virus killed by other factors whose deaths were reported as caused by COVID. Also that in the US 78% of COVID deaths ocurred in people who were either old or who had preexisting health issues. Why don’t you safety sissies and your policy experts just form your own country and leave the rest of us the hell alone?
What you are saying is religious belief. There is no evidence that either masking or lockdown saved any lives. Further, any mitigation measure for an influenza-like virus simply broadens the curve but leaves the area underneath (the number infected) unchanged. So even if mitigation worked it would simply kick the can down the road. It solves absolutely nothing.
“ Yet both these strategies saved countless lives and were a success and should therefore be considered as potential emergency policies.”
Could you back your claims by giving actual data on the countless saved lives?
Please explain to Johann and the rest of us how one can prove “lives saved” by NPIs. Also, please compare those “lives saved” with known excess deaths during the pandemic years, as well as those people who had delayed or missed diagnoses of illnesses that resulted in death or shortened life expectancy.
BTW, I’m seeing a lot of the last category in my medical practice.
This is an eminently unfalsifiable claim. Also consider the amount of people infected by the virus killed by other factors whose deaths were reported as caused by COVID. Also that in the US 78% of COVID deaths ocurred in people who were either old or who had preexisting health issues. Why don’t you safety sissies and your policy experts just form your own country and leave the rest of us the hell alone?
“…and it was well known that masks simply have no significant impact on the transmission of influenza-like viruses.”
Well not according to these two studies :
A strict mask policy for hospital staff effectively prevents nosocomial influenza infections and mortality: monocentric data from five consecutive influenza seasonshttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34929232/
and more importantly :
Universal Mask Usage for Reduction of Respiratory Viral Infections After Stem Cell Transplant: A Prospective Trialhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5036914/
“An RCT of HCW in the Cleveland Clinic” – so were there randomly selected HCWs who wore masks and randomly selected HCWs who didn’t ?
A couple of things.
There have been quite a few RCTs in hospital healthcare settings for influenza-like viral infections over the years involving healthcare workers (randomly assigned) and none of them have shown any significant effect.The Cleveland clinic study involved a comparison (randomly assigned) between surgical and N95 masks. No difference was seen. Yet surgical masks cannot possibly afford any protection as there are too many large spaces on the sides and top/bottom for air to come through (and indeed you can check this yourself, as I mentioned above, by simply covering your surgical mask with duct tape through which no air can go through and you will find there is no increase in the work of breathing. it i possible that masking may block emission but only to some extent as (a) most of the exhaled droplets and aerosols will go out through the pass of least resistance and (b) the mask itself will only be partially effective when it isn’t saturated with water which only takes about 10-20 min.The stem cell transplant situation is entirely different because nobody is going to spend extensive amount of time or be in contact with the patient while in the recovery phase. In other words contacts are likely to be limited for short periods of time (5-10 min) and any worn mask will be fresh and then discarded.
A couple of things.
There have been quite a few RCTs in hospital healthcare settings for influenza-like viral infections over the years involving healthcare workers (randomly assigned) and none of them have shown any significant effect.The Cleveland clinic study involved a comparison (randomly assigned) between surgical and N95 masks. No difference was seen. Yet surgical masks cannot possibly afford any protection as there are too many large spaces on the sides and top/bottom for air to come through (and indeed you can check this yourself, as I mentioned above, by simply covering your surgical mask with duct tape through which no air can go through and you will find there is no increase in the work of breathing. it i possible that masking may block emission but only to some extent as (a) most of the exhaled droplets and aerosols will go out through the pass of least resistance and (b) the mask itself will only be partially effective when it isn’t saturated with water which only takes about 10-20 min.The stem cell transplant situation is entirely different because nobody is going to spend extensive amount of time or be in contact with the patient while in the recovery phase. In other words contacts are likely to be limited for short periods of time (5-10 min) and any worn mask will be fresh and then discarded.
Yet both these strategies saved countless lives and were a success and should therefore be considered as potential emergency policies.
“…and it was well known that masks simply have no significant impact on the transmission of influenza-like viruses.”
Well not according to these two studies :
A strict mask policy for hospital staff effectively prevents nosocomial influenza infections and mortality: monocentric data from five consecutive influenza seasonshttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34929232/
and more importantly :
Universal Mask Usage for Reduction of Respiratory Viral Infections After Stem Cell Transplant: A Prospective Trialhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5036914/
“An RCT of HCW in the Cleveland Clinic” – so were there randomly selected HCWs who wore masks and randomly selected HCWs who didn’t ?
I have thought it through. First several RCTs were done during COVID, including one on healthcare workers in the Cleveland Clinic (Which if you don’t know happens to be one of teh top 3 hospitals in the US). Second, many RCTs were done previously on influenza-like illnesses and it was well known that masks simply have no significant impact on the transmission of influenza-like viruses. Third, a key aspect of both medicine and public policy is “First Do No Harm”. Yet both masking and lockdowns have well known harms associated with them.
You haven’t thought that through – it’s only possible to do observational data during a pandemic since you cannot ask test subjects to be involved in randomised trials and be exempt from lockdowns or mask mandates.
To quote from the first page of Festinger’s “When Prophecy Fails”:
“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. […]
But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong; what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.”
You happen to have faith in scientific institutions but only ones that confirm your belief and that do so against the scientific status quo on the matter.
Well as a Fellow of the RS, I for one do not trust the stuff they put out, especially when it is politically motivated and not based on solid, reliable data, but on confounded, biased and poor observational data. The situation i science is really straightforward. You have to rely on the best, unconfounded, unbiased data, and not cherry pick poor observational data. The fact of the matter is that when put to the ultimate test of an RCT, the effect of masking is demonstrated to be insignificant against all influenza-like viral illnesses (which includes SARS-CoV2).
165 million people slipped back into poverty because of lockdowns. The legitimacy of lockdowns
Maybe you should read my post again, I was not in favour of masks. I do have faith in our scientific institutions however, especially The Royal Society. btw you need to look up what cognitive dissonance actually means.
165 million people slipped back into poverty because of lockdowns. The legitimacy of lockdowns
Be sure to get your booster, and the next one and the nex…..
but if they said they worked then I’m inclined to believe them.
Well bully for you and best of luck-in the mean time let the rest of us get on with our lives in the clear knowledge that mask mandates not only don’t work (not one single study supports the thesis)but are harmful-
Pro-mask groups will argue that the Cochrane review did not account for the many observational studies that appear to support mask mandates.
Which is precisely the point-since when does an “observational study “(wtf is that!!!) that “appears to support” become a statistically valid piece of evidence.
That is the problem with mask enthusiasts like Robbie, Fog and Giedroyc.
The have Stalinist mindset.
I am happy for covidiots to wear triple mask etc.
But stop insisting on others to wear masks.
The same goes for vaccines. They don’t stop transmissions.
So if you believe they work in preventing covid, great.
Have one every month.
But stop forcing others to have them you Naz*s
I am sorry, it looks like I am ranting at you.
This covidiots cost me a lot of my savings and best years of my retirement.
I hate them with vengeance.
Stop apologising. You’re right.
Stop apologising. You’re right.
I am sorry, it looks like I am ranting at you.
This covidiots cost me a lot of my savings and best years of my retirement.
I hate them with vengeance.
That is the problem with mask enthusiasts like Robbie, Fog and Giedroyc.
The have Stalinist mindset.
I am happy for covidiots to wear triple mask etc.
But stop insisting on others to wear masks.
The same goes for vaccines. They don’t stop transmissions.
So if you believe they work in preventing covid, great.
Have one every month.
But stop forcing others to have them you Naz*s
Oh, you’re back. So is your attack on Judith Curry I see.
Have you read it? I doubt it. My take:
It appears aimed to back up the view that the moment there is any hint of a problem we must lockdown hard and fast, close borders, etc.. This, of course, is the whole point of the WHO Pandemic Accord that we will sign next year, handing our sovereignty to the WHO. It is also the line very much taken in Jeremy Farrar’s attack on the Johnson administration in his book ‘Spiked’, which I’m sure you’ve read.
By its own admission there is only evidence that NPIs may have been effective in the earliest stages of the pandemic, that they had low efficacy from Omicron onwards.
There is no discussion whatsoever on the balance between NPIs and the destruction of the global economy, the damage to children’s education and mental health etc..
There is a mealy mouthed admission that they didn’t realise that it was aerosolised in the first few months. Strange, because a scientist who has worked for the WHO told me in the earliest days that it was aerosolised, and there were many other voices. Claire Craig’s book is particularly good on this topic.
They focus on post hoc observational studies, because there were no RCTs, but admit that these have uncertain specificity in determining which NPIs were the most effective, because they were all in play simultaneously. As we know from the recent Cochrane Review, face coverings were ineffective.
As Carl Heneghan put it this morning: “There’s a mismatch between the conclusion and spin of it… they’re not being critical anymore, it’s a disservice to science.”
I didn’t listen to him at the beginning of the pandemic. I wish I had, because he was right.
Interesting: Cochrane meta-analysis points out that masks were ineffective. The only RCTs conducted for usage of masks to stop the transmission of respiratory viruses (included in Cochrane Review) conclude that masks were not effective. Similarly, the only comprehensive review and meta-analysis under the auspices of John Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise states that the net efficacy of lockdowns (excluding their social, health and economic consequences) was on the margin of statistical error. Yet, you consistently claim that these NPIs were incredibly effective.
They call it cognitive dissonance.
Be sure to get your booster, and the next one and the nex…..
but if they said they worked then I’m inclined to believe them.
Well bully for you and best of luck-in the mean time let the rest of us get on with our lives in the clear knowledge that mask mandates not only don’t work (not one single study supports the thesis)but are harmful-
Pro-mask groups will argue that the Cochrane review did not account for the many observational studies that appear to support mask mandates.
Which is precisely the point-since when does an “observational study “(wtf is that!!!) that “appears to support” become a statistically valid piece of evidence.
The Royal Society wrong, Nik on the internet right? Yeah ok.
I was never in favour of mask mandates, but if they said they worked then I’m inclined to believe them.
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/impact-non-pharmaceutical-interventions-on-covid-19-transmission/
Right on time today the Royal Society produced a report on the effectiveness of NPIs, which was immediately bigged up by the usual suspects (including Jeremy Farrar). If you simply read the executive summary you will immediately see it is deeply flawed, and Carl Heneghan said the same on Talk TV this morning. I expect that he will follow up with a more detailed written analysis.
I would recommend reading Claire Craig’s recently published book ‘Expired’ on NPIs. Make your own judgment.
Masks are as effective in keeping viruses out of your nasal passages as a chain-link fence is in stopping the flight of a mosquito.
To be fair it could stop Mosquito plane if high enough.
To be fair it could stop Mosquito plane if high enough.
Masks are as effective in keeping viruses out of your nasal passages as a chain-link fence is in stopping the flight of a mosquito.
God spare us all (or at least me …)
One question, a school in Texas? I could understand California, but Texas??
Even in red states, the cities, like everywhere else, are populated with the young, dumb, “educated. “progressives”. who vote for the Left – who ruin. everything- and then, come the next election. dutifully vote for more of the same. Austin, Texas has a particularly bad infestation of the woke.
But woke infestation happens because woke policies destroy cities.
After city is crime ridden, lefty woke locust moves to another location to destroy it.
Vacationing in Alaska, a red state, I can attest to the presence of plenty of progressives in Anchorage.
But woke infestation happens because woke policies destroy cities.
After city is crime ridden, lefty woke locust moves to another location to destroy it.
Vacationing in Alaska, a red state, I can attest to the presence of plenty of progressives in Anchorage.
Click the links and you’ll find these are local decisions made by local school districts to close temporarily, not out of line from historic practice long predating COVID. I suspect this is about economics as much as anything, but they can’t say that. I. Being a Kentuckian, I can speak to the fact that in our state, districts have always been allotted a certain number of closing days per year for weather and illness before they have to make up days at the end of the year. Districts don’t want to make up days because it’s expensive and unpopular with parents who may schedule vacations around the stated end date of the year. They also don’t want to pay substitutes when a number of their staff are sick, which again, represents additional expense. They’d rather use their allotted days first, and they do. It results in some silliness if it gets to February and a district hasn’t used most of their days. I’ve seen school canceled for predicted snow rather than actual snow, and this dates well before COVID to when I was a kid back in the 80’s. Since COVID, they have nontraditional instruction days, which is basically distance learning from the lockdown period. Don’t know whether that replaced the allotted absentee days or was added to them, but I’m pretty sure one way or the other, there’s more than there used to be. Texas probably does something similar. The author is connecting some rather disparate dots in this case.
Thanks for the explanation. Clearly I knew nothing about it and it is very interesting to hear.
Is now the beginning or the end of the school year?
The year is just starting, so I would assume they expect a significant percentage of absent students, but we’re talking about a county with a population of around 7500 people. To give some context, my own county which is still decidedly rural in character has a population over 30000, so it may not take much. Regardless, it’s quite a leap to extrapolate this school closing into anything meaningful regarding COVID in general. I can understand why a foreign journalist might not fully understand the situation. American school districts are fairly autonomous. Each district has their own board. Many boards are elected by voters directly and other boards are generally appointed by local officials for the county or city in question, where they would be the friends/allies of whoever the mayor/county commissioner is and subject to being replaced if that person lost an election. Either way, they aren’t insulated from local political opinions and tend to reflect local views. State oversight is fairly minimal, and the national government has almost no impact whatsoever. I would assume this is very different from the situation in Europe, and if that’s the case, I can give this journalist a bit of a pass. Edit: As for the college, private universities are completely free to do whatever they want within the law, and there is very little regulation of private universities. The boards of private universities are usually the people who donate the most money to the university and/or the representatives of those people. The citation of that tiny Atlanta college is basically meaningless. If a public university, or a large well-known private school did the same thing, it would be noteworthy, but these small unknown private colleges are a dime a dozen in the states and some of them don’t have much of an operating budget.
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
The year is just starting, so I would assume they expect a significant percentage of absent students, but we’re talking about a county with a population of around 7500 people. To give some context, my own county which is still decidedly rural in character has a population over 30000, so it may not take much. Regardless, it’s quite a leap to extrapolate this school closing into anything meaningful regarding COVID in general. I can understand why a foreign journalist might not fully understand the situation. American school districts are fairly autonomous. Each district has their own board. Many boards are elected by voters directly and other boards are generally appointed by local officials for the county or city in question, where they would be the friends/allies of whoever the mayor/county commissioner is and subject to being replaced if that person lost an election. Either way, they aren’t insulated from local political opinions and tend to reflect local views. State oversight is fairly minimal, and the national government has almost no impact whatsoever. I would assume this is very different from the situation in Europe, and if that’s the case, I can give this journalist a bit of a pass. Edit: As for the college, private universities are completely free to do whatever they want within the law, and there is very little regulation of private universities. The boards of private universities are usually the people who donate the most money to the university and/or the representatives of those people. The citation of that tiny Atlanta college is basically meaningless. If a public university, or a large well-known private school did the same thing, it would be noteworthy, but these small unknown private colleges are a dime a dozen in the states and some of them don’t have much of an operating budget.
Aha – information! Thanks.
Wow ! Actual facts !
Thank you
Thanks for the explanation. Clearly I knew nothing about it and it is very interesting to hear.
Is now the beginning or the end of the school year?
Aha – information! Thanks.
Wow ! Actual facts !
Thank you
Even in red states, the cities, like everywhere else, are populated with the young, dumb, “educated. “progressives”. who vote for the Left – who ruin. everything- and then, come the next election. dutifully vote for more of the same. Austin, Texas has a particularly bad infestation of the woke.
Click the links and you’ll find these are local decisions made by local school districts to close temporarily, not out of line from historic practice long predating COVID. I suspect this is about economics as much as anything, but they can’t say that. I. Being a Kentuckian, I can speak to the fact that in our state, districts have always been allotted a certain number of closing days per year for weather and illness before they have to make up days at the end of the year. Districts don’t want to make up days because it’s expensive and unpopular with parents who may schedule vacations around the stated end date of the year. They also don’t want to pay substitutes when a number of their staff are sick, which again, represents additional expense. They’d rather use their allotted days first, and they do. It results in some silliness if it gets to February and a district hasn’t used most of their days. I’ve seen school canceled for predicted snow rather than actual snow, and this dates well before COVID to when I was a kid back in the 80’s. Since COVID, they have nontraditional instruction days, which is basically distance learning from the lockdown period. Don’t know whether that replaced the allotted absentee days or was added to them, but I’m pretty sure one way or the other, there’s more than there used to be. Texas probably does something similar. The author is connecting some rather disparate dots in this case.
God spare us all (or at least me …)
One question, a school in Texas? I could understand California, but Texas??
I agree with the author’s opinion here, but he’s overstating the situation quite a bit. I live in KY, and it’s an election year, so reading the first paragraph, I immediately wondered if our governor had lost his mind and shot himself in the foot, but no, he’s not stupid enough to try to reimpose mask mandates on hospitals or schools or anything else. The case cited (and linked), as well as the one from Texas, are independent decisions by local school districts to close temporarily. These are more like weather related closings, and the practice well precedes COVID. It was rare, but local breakouts of the flu or strep or w/e would cause local officials to close schools for a few days even when I was a child in the 80’s. It happened most often in small districts with few students where it took fewer absences to affect the overall percentages. Further, if a number of teachers are sick, then they have to hire substitutes, which is an additional expense, and in rural areas, there’s a limit on how many are even available at any one time. Economics is likely the deciding factor in these cases, but don’t expect any public official to acknowledge that. I would hazard a guess that the small college in Atlanta faces a similar scenario. No, there’s not a groundswell of public support in most places to return to mask mandates. The media, on the other hand, is surely as guilty of this as ever, but this is pretty standard media behavior. There have always been fear mongers in the media who use whatever disaster or crisis to scare people for the sake of money, influence, or both, and COVID was a gift to their ilk, a gift that will keep on giving for a while yet I suspect. Media hadn’t been handed a windfall like that since 9/11, so of course they’ll ride the wave as long as they can wring another buck or two out of it. The media’s fear mongering over COVID has itself been so well documented and written about so often that further articles about it seem trite at this point. Like it or not, there’s enough sheeple that see a terrifying headline or blurb about COVID returning and will buy a paper, click a banner, or tune in at five and there’s not much sensible folk can do about it but hope they grow up at some point. The media are just giving people what they want, but it’s not a majority of people, or even close, in most places. As for the healthcare industry, I’ve always been of the mindset that hospitals, doctor’s offices, etc. have got a decent case that everybody should wear masks regardless of COVID provided they actually prevent the spread of disease, and the author does a good job making the case that this question is far from settled.
Thank you again.
Thank you again.
I agree with the author’s opinion here, but he’s overstating the situation quite a bit. I live in KY, and it’s an election year, so reading the first paragraph, I immediately wondered if our governor had lost his mind and shot himself in the foot, but no, he’s not stupid enough to try to reimpose mask mandates on hospitals or schools or anything else. The case cited (and linked), as well as the one from Texas, are independent decisions by local school districts to close temporarily. These are more like weather related closings, and the practice well precedes COVID. It was rare, but local breakouts of the flu or strep or w/e would cause local officials to close schools for a few days even when I was a child in the 80’s. It happened most often in small districts with few students where it took fewer absences to affect the overall percentages. Further, if a number of teachers are sick, then they have to hire substitutes, which is an additional expense, and in rural areas, there’s a limit on how many are even available at any one time. Economics is likely the deciding factor in these cases, but don’t expect any public official to acknowledge that. I would hazard a guess that the small college in Atlanta faces a similar scenario. No, there’s not a groundswell of public support in most places to return to mask mandates. The media, on the other hand, is surely as guilty of this as ever, but this is pretty standard media behavior. There have always been fear mongers in the media who use whatever disaster or crisis to scare people for the sake of money, influence, or both, and COVID was a gift to their ilk, a gift that will keep on giving for a while yet I suspect. Media hadn’t been handed a windfall like that since 9/11, so of course they’ll ride the wave as long as they can wring another buck or two out of it. The media’s fear mongering over COVID has itself been so well documented and written about so often that further articles about it seem trite at this point. Like it or not, there’s enough sheeple that see a terrifying headline or blurb about COVID returning and will buy a paper, click a banner, or tune in at five and there’s not much sensible folk can do about it but hope they grow up at some point. The media are just giving people what they want, but it’s not a majority of people, or even close, in most places. As for the healthcare industry, I’ve always been of the mindset that hospitals, doctor’s offices, etc. have got a decent case that everybody should wear masks regardless of COVID provided they actually prevent the spread of disease, and the author does a good job making the case that this question is far from settled.
At this point it’s no longer a question of whether mask mandates “work.” We don’t want a perma-masked society, period.
At this point it’s no longer a question of whether mask mandates “work.” We don’t want a perma-masked society, period.
Over my dead body
Over my dead body
Well, of course. Did they not use the term “the New Normal” from the very outset?
You will never be free of this; nor is their any intention that you should be
Well, of course. Did they not use the term “the New Normal” from the very outset?
You will never be free of this; nor is their any intention that you should be
There is no fking way I am ever, ever going to wear one of those fking things ever again.
There is no fking way I am ever, ever going to wear one of those fking things ever again.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a virus?
Have you?
Have you?
Are you now, or have you ever been, a virus?
Fun Fact: There are 10 MILLION viruses in every drop of sea water.
If people had any understanding of the scale of mask fabric holes to viruses they would have a little more mental armour to resist this stupidity.
I read about someone who I think may have been a particle physicist, who compared maskurbating against Wuhan Flu to using builder scaffolding against a peashooter.
I read about someone who I think may have been a particle physicist, who compared maskurbating against Wuhan Flu to using builder scaffolding against a peashooter.
Fun Fact: There are 10 MILLION viruses in every drop of sea water.
If people had any understanding of the scale of mask fabric holes to viruses they would have a little more mental armour to resist this stupidity.
The masking during covid made for the worst years of my life. I can’t stand having materials around my neck (no scarfs or turtlenecks for me) and every second of a mask on my face was psychological torture. Seeing everyone masked really messed with my mind and made me scared. It took me six months after the mandates ended to start to feel vaguely okay.
The masking during covid made for the worst years of my life. I can’t stand having materials around my neck (no scarfs or turtlenecks for me) and every second of a mask on my face was psychological torture. Seeing everyone masked really messed with my mind and made me scared. It took me six months after the mandates ended to start to feel vaguely okay.
Yesterday afternoon I was waiting in line to check out a book in the library. A librarian became available and offered to serve me. However she was maskurbating, so I told her that I don’t speak to people in masks, and continued to wait for the other librarian to become available.
Yesterday afternoon I was waiting in line to check out a book in the library. A librarian became available and offered to serve me. However she was maskurbating, so I told her that I don’t speak to people in masks, and continued to wait for the other librarian to become available.
https://ayenaw.com/2021/10/23/tyranny-tourism/
https://ayenaw.com/2021/10/23/tyranny-tourism/
If you wish to ingratiate yourself with well-heeled right-wingers, start complaining about “mask tyranny”.
Beware! Tyranny! Apocalypse now!
https://ayenaw.com/2021/10/23/tyranny-tourism/
If you people wish to ingratiate yourselves with well-heeled woke-whingers, start mocking women complaining about masked trannies attacking them.
If you people wish to ingratiate yourselves with well-heeled woke-whingers, start mocking women complaining about masked trannies attacking them.
If you wish to ingratiate yourself with well-heeled right-wingers, start complaining about “mask tyranny”.
Beware! Tyranny! Apocalypse now!
https://ayenaw.com/2021/10/23/tyranny-tourism/
It is not at all as simple as this sneering article suggests.
Starting on the Cochrane report the main output is that conclusions are uncertain because data are few. And a lot of the data on masks and handwashing came from earlier investigations on flu, some in non-epidemic periods. One problem with that is that with COVID, unlike flu, you are contagious several days before you show symptoms. But the big problem is that the effectiveness of a population campaign depends whether people are actually complying. You will not get high compliance for flu when there is not even an epidemic. And this matters because masks not only protect you from other people – the bigger effect seemed to be that they protect other people from you.
So, we have two questions here: Can masks protect you? And will people comply enough to make it work in practice? A possible conclusion would be that masks can help, but only if people can be bothered to use them. It takes a high degree of compliance to make mask protection work, just like it takes a large proportion of immune people to make herd immunity work. Quite likely a major reason that masks have not worked in practice is the large and loud group of Unherd readers and the like who have systematically been sabotaging the project. Yes, you!
I do not claim the matter has been settled, either way. Ultimately it is a cost/benefit calculation, and the costs are hard to tot up. But I’d like you to consider a thought experiment. Imagine that the next epidemic, Son-Of-Covid, is just like COVID but has the opposite age profile, so that the high death rate comes in young children and the old are safe. Or imagine that Son-Of-Covid is just like COVID, but the death rate is 10% every time someone gets sick. Would you still reject masks as useless nosense, vaccines as a dangerous experimental drug, and punt on isolating the vulnerable and herd immunity? If not, you will have shown that the issue is not whether masks work, but whether the costs (to other people) are enough to outweigh the discomfort (to you).
Rasmus you always seem to write reasonably but what comes out is nonsense. Do an experiment. Take a surgical mask and fully cover it with duct tape which will prevent you breathing through it. Put it on and see how you do. You will find that there is no difference in the work of breathing between the duct tape covered mask and the one without. Even with an N95 there isn’t much difference. The answer is simple and obvious. The air you breathe in comes through the path of least resistance; i.e. the open sides and top/bottom. Conclusion: masks offer zero protection for the wearer. Now what about the wearer protecting others. Here too, after about 20 min or so, the mask (any mask, will be next to useless as it will be saturated with water, and any emission (droplets/aerosols, etc…) will bounce off the surface of the mask and escape out of the sides and top/bottom.
As for trials, quite a number of RCTs were done in hopsital environments for flu and flu-like illnesses involving health care workers who were most definitely wearing the masks “properly”. And again no significant effect was found. All of this was very well known prior to COVID.
As for the oft repeated nonsense that those infected with COVID can transmit prior to symptoms, there is no evidence for this either. COVID is no different from an flu-like virus of which there are many. To be really infectious you have to have a large viral load and when you do, you will be symptomatic.
As for COVID, everybody, and by that I mean upwards of 99%, will eventually contract COVID. As it is the number is already very high.
As always, I have two choices. I take it on your authority that you know how things work, that the conclusions are obviojus – and that a large proportion of the most knowledgable experts in the field are talking obvious nonsense. Or I do not.
And who exactly are those authority figures? The Royal Society as if a report from the RS is reflective of the fellowship. Further as a scientist you should be able to think for yourself. Incidentally, the Royal Society’s motto is “Nullius in Verba”; i.e. “take nobody’s word for it” including the esteemed voice of so-called experts at the Royal Society (and incidentally I just so happen to be a Fellow of the RS). The RS’ recent report is nothing short of hype and post-modern science where the evidence, no matter how poor and unreliable, no matter how biased and confounded, is distorted to fit a particular hypothesis. The fact of the matter is that the RCTs provide no evidence for the effect of any mitigation measures including masking. This is clearly demonstrated by the extensive meta-analysis of RCTs produced in the Cochrane Review. Mixing up biased and confounded observational studies with RCTs is simply poor medical science. Observational studies, unfortunately, have shown time and time again that they are highly problematic.
For example, just consider the case for stents if a coronary artery blockage is found versus medical treatment. Logic might tell one that clearing the blockage and opening up the artery with a stent is the obvious thing to do. Unfortunately, when a proper RCT was done (in the UK by the way) including sham surgery, it was found that placing a stent had absolutely no impact on outcome (well-being, angina, further coronary disease and death from coronary artery disease) relative to medical treatment (i.e. drugs). Why? Because coronary artery disease is not localized to one place but is extensive throughout the cardiac coronary vessels. As a result placing a stent in one place doesn’t prevent a blockage from forming a centimetre up or down.
The same goes for masking. It might seem like common sense but it really isn’t when one considers things properly. As I said you can easily do the experiment yourself by simply seeing how covering up your mask with duct tape (through which no air can get through) impacts your ability to breathe. Likewise take a puff of a cigarette or vape, breathe out and see where all the smoke goes. That provides your answer as to why masks (including N95s) are ineffective.
In the meantime, also realize that eventually everybody will get Covid, Virtually everybody (>90%) in the UK and US) already has.
You are a bit inconsistent, my dear Johan. You keep emphasizing that I should not trust authority figures (‘nullius in verba’). And at the same time you insist that I should trust your interpretations on your unsupported word, and try to bolster your authority by boasting about your MD, PhD, Royal Society membership etc.
I’ll give you my approach, if you like. I assume that people doing science are by and large intelligent, open to argument, and trying to find out the truth. There will be a lot of bias and mistakes around, to be sure, but collectively, in the long run, they tend to get there. I do try to evaluate available data and arguments, particularly by comparing the arguments from two opposite sides, but when I do not have the time or expertise to make my own de-novo analysis of an entire field, I assume that a sensible-sounding majority of scientists in a field are quite likely to be right, and highly likely to have at least a decent case. It is not just that they agree, it is that if there were obvious compelling arguments against their position, an increasing number of them would become convinced.
Note that this is about consensus – individual scientists are quite likely to get it wrong and go off on a tangent – it is the fact that ultimately they need to be able to convince their peers that validates the result. Whereas a single, loud voice that claims that it is all bl**dy obvious and that everybody who disagrees have to be wilfully blind, if not outright dishonest (and who refuses to share links since he claims that I should find out for myself), well, on the balance of probabilities he is more likely to be a crank and wrong, than to be a unique genius and right. You may eventually prove to be right on masks – I do not think the evidence is in yet. But when you blithely claim that the idea of asymptomatic transmission is ‘obvious nonsense’, in sharp contrast to the expert consensus in the field, well I choose not to believe you. On this point, or on any others.
What you clearly illustrate is that you are incapable of bothering to think for yourself but simply accept blindly the word of higher authority. Well those authorities have proven wrong so many times that it’s far too many to mention.
As for expert consensus in the field regarding asymptomatic transmission, there is absolutely no consensus. The asymptomatic transmission was simply put forward initially on weak epidemiological considerations when there was insufficient information was available. Just repeating the same thing again and again doesn’t make it so. To postulate something completely novel that is specific to SARS-Cov2 but not to any other influenza-like virus simply doesn’t make any sense.
I do not know the field (I have asked Elaine), but a quick Google gave this: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00059-4/fulltext. One random paper does not do it, of course, but it is at least a plausible and authoritative start. If it is not against your principles to hand out information, could you give us a link that suggests asymptomatic transmission does not exist? If not I submit that I am one-up on you.
Oh, for the avoidance of confusion: Maybe the right word is presymptomatic rather than asymptomatic?
With the word ‘and’ you transform ‘plausible’ into ‘authoritative’, no supporting argument needed.
With the word ‘and’ you transform ‘plausible’ into ‘authoritative’, no supporting argument needed.
Nice Firehosing Johann !
Asymptomatic / presymtomatic spread :
For practical purposes asymptomatic = presymptomatic once infection numbers become exponential and there is certainly evidence for presymptomatic spread, particularly in households. One example : Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, January 23-March 16, 2020
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32271722/
If you don’t like that one I have another 4 studies I can toss in your direction.
I agree with you that there is little or no evidence for asymptomatic (NEVER had symptoms) spread.
I do not know the field (I have asked Elaine), but a quick Google gave this: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00059-4/fulltext. One random paper does not do it, of course, but it is at least a plausible and authoritative start. If it is not against your principles to hand out information, could you give us a link that suggests asymptomatic transmission does not exist? If not I submit that I am one-up on you.
Oh, for the avoidance of confusion: Maybe the right word is presymptomatic rather than asymptomatic?
Nice Firehosing Johann !
Asymptomatic / presymtomatic spread :
For practical purposes asymptomatic = presymptomatic once infection numbers become exponential and there is certainly evidence for presymptomatic spread, particularly in households. One example : Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, January 23-March 16, 2020
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32271722/
If you don’t like that one I have another 4 studies I can toss in your direction.
I agree with you that there is little or no evidence for asymptomatic (NEVER had symptoms) spread.
What you clearly illustrate is that you are incapable of bothering to think for yourself but simply accept blindly the word of higher authority. Well those authorities have proven wrong so many times that it’s far too many to mention.
As for expert consensus in the field regarding asymptomatic transmission, there is absolutely no consensus. The asymptomatic transmission was simply put forward initially on weak epidemiological considerations when there was insufficient information was available. Just repeating the same thing again and again doesn’t make it so. To postulate something completely novel that is specific to SARS-Cov2 but not to any other influenza-like virus simply doesn’t make any sense.
You are a bit inconsistent, my dear Johan. You keep emphasizing that I should not trust authority figures (‘nullius in verba’). And at the same time you insist that I should trust your interpretations on your unsupported word, and try to bolster your authority by boasting about your MD, PhD, Royal Society membership etc.
I’ll give you my approach, if you like. I assume that people doing science are by and large intelligent, open to argument, and trying to find out the truth. There will be a lot of bias and mistakes around, to be sure, but collectively, in the long run, they tend to get there. I do try to evaluate available data and arguments, particularly by comparing the arguments from two opposite sides, but when I do not have the time or expertise to make my own de-novo analysis of an entire field, I assume that a sensible-sounding majority of scientists in a field are quite likely to be right, and highly likely to have at least a decent case. It is not just that they agree, it is that if there were obvious compelling arguments against their position, an increasing number of them would become convinced.
Note that this is about consensus – individual scientists are quite likely to get it wrong and go off on a tangent – it is the fact that ultimately they need to be able to convince their peers that validates the result. Whereas a single, loud voice that claims that it is all bl**dy obvious and that everybody who disagrees have to be wilfully blind, if not outright dishonest (and who refuses to share links since he claims that I should find out for myself), well, on the balance of probabilities he is more likely to be a crank and wrong, than to be a unique genius and right. You may eventually prove to be right on masks – I do not think the evidence is in yet. But when you blithely claim that the idea of asymptomatic transmission is ‘obvious nonsense’, in sharp contrast to the expert consensus in the field, well I choose not to believe you. On this point, or on any others.
Would these ‘most knowledgable experts in the field’ include Fauci, Farrar, Dzesak and the rest of the cabal that conspired to quash the lab leak theory and vilify anyone who dated to challenge them?
And who exactly are those authority figures? The Royal Society as if a report from the RS is reflective of the fellowship. Further as a scientist you should be able to think for yourself. Incidentally, the Royal Society’s motto is “Nullius in Verba”; i.e. “take nobody’s word for it” including the esteemed voice of so-called experts at the Royal Society (and incidentally I just so happen to be a Fellow of the RS). The RS’ recent report is nothing short of hype and post-modern science where the evidence, no matter how poor and unreliable, no matter how biased and confounded, is distorted to fit a particular hypothesis. The fact of the matter is that the RCTs provide no evidence for the effect of any mitigation measures including masking. This is clearly demonstrated by the extensive meta-analysis of RCTs produced in the Cochrane Review. Mixing up biased and confounded observational studies with RCTs is simply poor medical science. Observational studies, unfortunately, have shown time and time again that they are highly problematic.
For example, just consider the case for stents if a coronary artery blockage is found versus medical treatment. Logic might tell one that clearing the blockage and opening up the artery with a stent is the obvious thing to do. Unfortunately, when a proper RCT was done (in the UK by the way) including sham surgery, it was found that placing a stent had absolutely no impact on outcome (well-being, angina, further coronary disease and death from coronary artery disease) relative to medical treatment (i.e. drugs). Why? Because coronary artery disease is not localized to one place but is extensive throughout the cardiac coronary vessels. As a result placing a stent in one place doesn’t prevent a blockage from forming a centimetre up or down.
The same goes for masking. It might seem like common sense but it really isn’t when one considers things properly. As I said you can easily do the experiment yourself by simply seeing how covering up your mask with duct tape (through which no air can get through) impacts your ability to breathe. Likewise take a puff of a cigarette or vape, breathe out and see where all the smoke goes. That provides your answer as to why masks (including N95s) are ineffective.
In the meantime, also realize that eventually everybody will get Covid, Virtually everybody (>90%) in the UK and US) already has.
Would these ‘most knowledgable experts in the field’ include Fauci, Farrar, Dzesak and the rest of the cabal that conspired to quash the lab leak theory and vilify anyone who dated to challenge them?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-022-01814-3
> The meta-analysis of RCTs found a significant protective effect of facemask intervention (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.71–0.99; I2 = 0%). This protective effect was even more pronounced when the intervention duration was more than two weeks (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.66–0.88; I2 = 0%).
Please cite the studies that overrule this meta-analysis.
Well yes. Just download the most recent Cochrane review on the topic as well as the previous 2019 review. The Cochrane reviews are considered the gold standard in evidence-based medicine. The fact is that if masks have any effect it is too small to warrant mandating.
When you have two studies of comparable support and authority that contradict each other, the obvious conclusion is that the matter is not yet settled. You would have to read them and argue to show that one of them trumps the other, not just pick the one that agrees with you.
Let’s assume matter of mask efficacy is not settled as you claim.
So wear one but stop forcing others to do so.
The trouble with that one is that masks protect the other people, not just you. This is a collective action problem – unless most everybody coooperates, no one will benefit. You can argue whether we all should mask or not mask, but your solution is a waste of time – as you surely know. It is like saying “I will keep dumping my rubbish in the park. If you care so much about a clean park just stop dumping yours.“
The trouble with that one is that masks protect the other people, not just you. This is a collective action problem – unless most everybody coooperates, no one will benefit. You can argue whether we all should mask or not mask, but your solution is a waste of time – as you surely know. It is like saying “I will keep dumping my rubbish in the park. If you care so much about a clean park just stop dumping yours.“
Let’s assume matter of mask efficacy is not settled as you claim.
So wear one but stop forcing others to do so.
The Cochrane Masks Review :
Has some problems listed here by avowed pro maskers but their observations are all correct :
https://www.tvo.org/article/once-and-for-all-masks-reduce-the-risk-of-spreading-covid
Just because a review is carried out under the Cochrane banner does not eliminate the need to critically appraise it like any other review – Cochrane are just very fussy about the methodology and statistics that you use however the same old adage applies (garbage in, garbage out)
The efficay of masks in reducing transmission :
Well there is more to a mask than just holes, notably the electrostatic polypropylene layer in N95 masks and yes … they need to be fitted properly and discarded at appropriate intervals if they are going to work optimally.
As for the gaps around the side – they don’t need to provide a perfect seal to reduce transmission risk.
In source control one is after a reduced velocity of exhaled airflow and the carried particles in the droplets/aerosol.
For someone to become infected they need to be exposed for a certain time to a certain number of viable virions. These numbers will vary massively from individual to individual and situation to situation (and will be reduced if the source is wearing a properly fitting mask) – another reason why mask studies are so difficult to do.
A huge even handed review : A critical review on the role of leakages in the facemask protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection with consideration of vaccination and virus variants October 2022
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ina.13127#ina13127-bib-0085
Glad you’re such an expert. I have read the Cochrane review and the authors are world authorities on influenza-like illnesses and heir transmission in the community.
What you have to come to terms with is that it is clear from the net results in all countries and US states that employed mask mandates that the effective,, if any, was extremely small. That’s precisely why almost everybody has contracted COVID.
Slowing things down a bit, and it doesn’t even look as if that happened, does no good because the area under the curve always remains the same.
But if you wan to wear a mask and want to continue doing so, you should be perfectly free to do so, just as those who disagree with you should be free to do what they want.
Here you are *really* inconsistent. You scold me as a credulous idiot because I put a lot of trust in the mainline medical consensus – and tell me one should look at the original data and form ones own opinions. But when Elaine does exactly that, you scold her as an uppity ignorant because she dares to apply her judgement to compare and evaluate the papers she sees, instead of bowing down before the authority of the Cochrane review and their authors.
Here you are *really* inconsistent. You scold me as a credulous idiot because I put a lot of trust in the mainline medical consensus – and tell me one should look at the original data and form ones own opinions. But when Elaine does exactly that, you scold her as an uppity ignorant because she dares to apply her judgement to compare and evaluate the papers she sees, instead of bowing down before the authority of the Cochrane review and their authors.
Glad you’re such an expert. I have read the Cochrane review and the authors are world authorities on influenza-like illnesses and heir transmission in the community.
What you have to come to terms with is that it is clear from the net results in all countries and US states that employed mask mandates that the effective,, if any, was extremely small. That’s precisely why almost everybody has contracted COVID.
Slowing things down a bit, and it doesn’t even look as if that happened, does no good because the area under the curve always remains the same.
But if you wan to wear a mask and want to continue doing so, you should be perfectly free to do so, just as those who disagree with you should be free to do what they want.
When you have two studies of comparable support and authority that contradict each other, the obvious conclusion is that the matter is not yet settled. You would have to read them and argue to show that one of them trumps the other, not just pick the one that agrees with you.
The Cochrane Masks Review :
Has some problems listed here by avowed pro maskers but their observations are all correct :
https://www.tvo.org/article/once-and-for-all-masks-reduce-the-risk-of-spreading-covid
Just because a review is carried out under the Cochrane banner does not eliminate the need to critically appraise it like any other review – Cochrane are just very fussy about the methodology and statistics that you use however the same old adage applies (garbage in, garbage out)
The efficay of masks in reducing transmission :
Well there is more to a mask than just holes, notably the electrostatic polypropylene layer in N95 masks and yes … they need to be fitted properly and discarded at appropriate intervals if they are going to work optimally.
As for the gaps around the side – they don’t need to provide a perfect seal to reduce transmission risk.
In source control one is after a reduced velocity of exhaled airflow and the carried particles in the droplets/aerosol.
For someone to become infected they need to be exposed for a certain time to a certain number of viable virions. These numbers will vary massively from individual to individual and situation to situation (and will be reduced if the source is wearing a properly fitting mask) – another reason why mask studies are so difficult to do.
A huge even handed review : A critical review on the role of leakages in the facemask protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection with consideration of vaccination and virus variants October 2022
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ina.13127#ina13127-bib-0085
Well yes. Just download the most recent Cochrane review on the topic as well as the previous 2019 review. The Cochrane reviews are considered the gold standard in evidence-based medicine. The fact is that if masks have any effect it is too small to warrant mandating.
As always, I have two choices. I take it on your authority that you know how things work, that the conclusions are obviojus – and that a large proportion of the most knowledgable experts in the field are talking obvious nonsense. Or I do not.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-022-01814-3
> The meta-analysis of RCTs found a significant protective effect of facemask intervention (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.71–0.99; I2 = 0%). This protective effect was even more pronounced when the intervention duration was more than two weeks (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.66–0.88; I2 = 0%).
Please cite the studies that overrule this meta-analysis.
You last sentence also misses various key points. First, the more lethal a particular virus, the less the transmissibility. Second, blindly relying on unproven and improperly trialed vaccines is simply not appropriate. Recall that in both the Moderna and Pfizer trials there were more deaths in the vaccine arm than the control arm (albeit not significant). But since the incidence of symptomatic covid was reduced (at least in the 6 week period following vaccination) this simply tells one, right off the bat, that the vaccine is also responsible for various other untoward effects leading to death. There is no point preventing an infection if one increases the chances of death from other things. Third, with regard to masks one better know that they actually work rather than believe that they work. It is quite possible that a properly fitted N95 worn for a short period of time (no more than 10 min) while in contact with an infected patient may do something; but that’s not the issue when one is exposed 24/7. For example, if I were to see an Ebola patient I would absolutely want to don the appropriate BSL4 getup, but one sure couldn’t go round 24/7 wearing that could one.
“the more lethal a particular virus, the less the transmissibility” Oh yeah? Could I then conclude that the Spanish flu was less transmissible than other flu strains, since it was clearly more lethal? I think not. Now it may well be the case that in the long term, on average, after evolution has had time to do its work, highly lethal viruses tend to be less transmissible. After all, if it was both lethal and highly transmissible, the potential victims would have died out. But there is no way you can use that argument on a newly emerged virus to conclude how lethal it could be.
You do know what the cause of death was during the Spanish flu. It wasn’t the flu virus but secondary bacterial pneumonia! See paper published by Fauci et al. where they looked at histological specimens from those who died.
So you are saying that lethality is not a matter of how many die after infection, but of what mechanism causes the death? There is some kind of mechanism that ensures a trade-off between infectivity of a virus and the damage it can do to the host, that has nothing to do with wehether the host survives or not? 1) That sounds rather weird, some in-depth information is needed. 2) If getting the Spanish flu means there is a high risk that I die, I will take my measures on that basis. It does not really make a difference to me or anyone else if I die as a direct or indirect result of catching the virus, since I will not be alive to appreciate the difference.
If they hadn’t caught the flu they wouldn’t have been susceptible to the bacterial infection. The clue is in the word “secondary” :
“secondary bacterial infection, as the name suggests, is a bacterial infection that occurs during or after an infection from another pathogen, commonly viruses”
That is true but you also know that secondary bacterial pneumonia is perfectly treatable today (in contrast to the situation in 1918). The fact is that if ICUs hadn’t been so focussed on covid and the use of remdesivir (a completely useless antiviral), they would have realized that their patients had secondary bacterial pneumonia and would have treated them accordingly with the appropriate broad spectrum antibiotic(s) after having ascertained what the bacterial infection actually was by culturing sputum, etc…
So you actually believe that in 2020 ICUs were not clued in to the risks of secondary bacterial infections ?
LOL !
It has been known for years that ventilators in particular and ICUs in general are high risk for this sort of problem (the longer your stay in an ICU the higher your risk)
You should take the time to read this :
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Secondary bacterial infections and the impact on antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antimicrobial-stewardship-and-healthcare-epidemiology/article/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid19-secondary-bacterial-infections-and-the-impact-on-antimicrobial-resistance-during-the-covid19-pandemic/3D8D218C354DE5E5227D7AE64DE72A27
National US guidelines (from the National Institutes of Health), updated in April 2021, recommend empiric antibiotics if secondary bacterial pneumonia or sepsis is suspected in patients with COVID-19 but to re-evaluate patients daily and de-escalate or stop antibiotic treatment if there is no evidence of bacterial infection. 49
This paper is REALLY depresssing – detailing the lack of antibiotic stewardship at the begining of the pandemic.
Personally I am much more worried about AMR than Covid.
So you actually believe that in 2020 ICUs were not clued in to the risks of secondary bacterial infections ?
LOL !
It has been known for years that ventilators in particular and ICUs in general are high risk for this sort of problem (the longer your stay in an ICU the higher your risk)
You should take the time to read this :
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Secondary bacterial infections and the impact on antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antimicrobial-stewardship-and-healthcare-epidemiology/article/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid19-secondary-bacterial-infections-and-the-impact-on-antimicrobial-resistance-during-the-covid19-pandemic/3D8D218C354DE5E5227D7AE64DE72A27
National US guidelines (from the National Institutes of Health), updated in April 2021, recommend empiric antibiotics if secondary bacterial pneumonia or sepsis is suspected in patients with COVID-19 but to re-evaluate patients daily and de-escalate or stop antibiotic treatment if there is no evidence of bacterial infection. 49
This paper is REALLY depresssing – detailing the lack of antibiotic stewardship at the begining of the pandemic.
Personally I am much more worried about AMR than Covid.
Give me strength!
Give me strength!
So you actually believe that in 2020 ICUs were not clued in to the risks of secondary bacterial infections ?
LOL !
It has been known for years that ventilators in particular and ICUs in general are high risk for this sort of problem (the longer your stay in an ICU the higher your risk)
You should take the time to read this :
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Secondary bacterial infections and the impact on antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antimicrobial-stewardship-and-healthcare-epidemiology/article/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid19-secondary-bacterial-infections-and-the-impact-on-antimicrobial-resistance-during-the-covid19-pandemic/3D8D218C354DE5E5227D7AE64DE72A27
National US guidelines (from the National Institutes of Health), updated in April 2021, recommend empiric antibiotics if secondary bacterial pneumonia or sepsis is suspected in patients with COVID-19 but to re-evaluate patients daily and de-escalate or stop antibiotic treatment if there is no evidence of bacterial infection. 49
This paper is REALLY depresssing – detailing the lack of antibiotic stewardship at the begining of the pandemic.
Personally I am much more worried about AMR than Covid.
So you actually believe that in 2020 ICUs were not clued in to the risks of secondary bacterial infections ?
LOL !
It has been known for years that ventilators in particular and ICUs in general are high risk for this sort of problem (the longer your stay in an ICU the higher your risk)
You should take the time to read this :
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Secondary bacterial infections and the impact on antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antimicrobial-stewardship-and-healthcare-epidemiology/article/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid19-secondary-bacterial-infections-and-the-impact-on-antimicrobial-resistance-during-the-covid19-pandemic/3D8D218C354DE5E5227D7AE64DE72A27
National US guidelines (from the National Institutes of Health), updated in April 2021, recommend empiric antibiotics if secondary bacterial pneumonia or sepsis is suspected in patients with COVID-19 but to re-evaluate patients daily and de-escalate or stop antibiotic treatment if there is no evidence of bacterial infection. 49
This paper is REALLY depresssing – detailing the lack of antibiotic stewardship at the begining of the pandemic.
Personally I am much more worried about AMR than Covid.
That is true but you also know that secondary bacterial pneumonia is perfectly treatable today (in contrast to the situation in 1918). The fact is that if ICUs hadn’t been so focussed on covid and the use of remdesivir (a completely useless antiviral), they would have realized that their patients had secondary bacterial pneumonia and would have treated them accordingly with the appropriate broad spectrum antibiotic(s) after having ascertained what the bacterial infection actually was by culturing sputum, etc…
So you are saying that lethality is not a matter of how many die after infection, but of what mechanism causes the death? There is some kind of mechanism that ensures a trade-off between infectivity of a virus and the damage it can do to the host, that has nothing to do with wehether the host survives or not? 1) That sounds rather weird, some in-depth information is needed. 2) If getting the Spanish flu means there is a high risk that I die, I will take my measures on that basis. It does not really make a difference to me or anyone else if I die as a direct or indirect result of catching the virus, since I will not be alive to appreciate the difference.
If they hadn’t caught the flu they wouldn’t have been susceptible to the bacterial infection. The clue is in the word “secondary” :
“secondary bacterial infection, as the name suggests, is a bacterial infection that occurs during or after an infection from another pathogen, commonly viruses”
You do know what the cause of death was during the Spanish flu. It wasn’t the flu virus but secondary bacterial pneumonia! See paper published by Fauci et al. where they looked at histological specimens from those who died.
“the more lethal a particular virus, the less the transmissibility” Oh yeah? Could I then conclude that the Spanish flu was less transmissible than other flu strains, since it was clearly more lethal? I think not. Now it may well be the case that in the long term, on average, after evolution has had time to do its work, highly lethal viruses tend to be less transmissible. After all, if it was both lethal and highly transmissible, the potential victims would have died out. But there is no way you can use that argument on a newly emerged virus to conclude how lethal it could be.
Rasmus you always seem to write reasonably but what comes out is nonsense. Do an experiment. Take a surgical mask and fully cover it with duct tape which will prevent you breathing through it. Put it on and see how you do. You will find that there is no difference in the work of breathing between the duct tape covered mask and the one without. Even with an N95 there isn’t much difference. The answer is simple and obvious. The air you breathe in comes through the path of least resistance; i.e. the open sides and top/bottom. Conclusion: masks offer zero protection for the wearer. Now what about the wearer protecting others. Here too, after about 20 min or so, the mask (any mask, will be next to useless as it will be saturated with water, and any emission (droplets/aerosols, etc…) will bounce off the surface of the mask and escape out of the sides and top/bottom.
As for trials, quite a number of RCTs were done in hopsital environments for flu and flu-like illnesses involving health care workers who were most definitely wearing the masks “properly”. And again no significant effect was found. All of this was very well known prior to COVID.
As for the oft repeated nonsense that those infected with COVID can transmit prior to symptoms, there is no evidence for this either. COVID is no different from an flu-like virus of which there are many. To be really infectious you have to have a large viral load and when you do, you will be symptomatic.
As for COVID, everybody, and by that I mean upwards of 99%, will eventually contract COVID. As it is the number is already very high.
You last sentence also misses various key points. First, the more lethal a particular virus, the less the transmissibility. Second, blindly relying on unproven and improperly trialed vaccines is simply not appropriate. Recall that in both the Moderna and Pfizer trials there were more deaths in the vaccine arm than the control arm (albeit not significant). But since the incidence of symptomatic covid was reduced (at least in the 6 week period following vaccination) this simply tells one, right off the bat, that the vaccine is also responsible for various other untoward effects leading to death. There is no point preventing an infection if one increases the chances of death from other things. Third, with regard to masks one better know that they actually work rather than believe that they work. It is quite possible that a properly fitted N95 worn for a short period of time (no more than 10 min) while in contact with an infected patient may do something; but that’s not the issue when one is exposed 24/7. For example, if I were to see an Ebola patient I would absolutely want to don the appropriate BSL4 getup, but one sure couldn’t go round 24/7 wearing that could one.
It is not at all as simple as this sneering article suggests.
Starting on the Cochrane report the main output is that conclusions are uncertain because data are few. And a lot of the data on masks and handwashing came from earlier investigations on flu, some in non-epidemic periods. One problem with that is that with COVID, unlike flu, you are contagious several days before you show symptoms. But the big problem is that the effectiveness of a population campaign depends whether people are actually complying. You will not get high compliance for flu when there is not even an epidemic. And this matters because masks not only protect you from other people – the bigger effect seemed to be that they protect other people from you.
So, we have two questions here: Can masks protect you? And will people comply enough to make it work in practice? A possible conclusion would be that masks can help, but only if people can be bothered to use them. It takes a high degree of compliance to make mask protection work, just like it takes a large proportion of immune people to make herd immunity work. Quite likely a major reason that masks have not worked in practice is the large and loud group of Unherd readers and the like who have systematically been sabotaging the project. Yes, you!
I do not claim the matter has been settled, either way. Ultimately it is a cost/benefit calculation, and the costs are hard to tot up. But I’d like you to consider a thought experiment. Imagine that the next epidemic, Son-Of-Covid, is just like COVID but has the opposite age profile, so that the high death rate comes in young children and the old are safe. Or imagine that Son-Of-Covid is just like COVID, but the death rate is 10% every time someone gets sick. Would you still reject masks as useless nosense, vaccines as a dangerous experimental drug, and punt on isolating the vulnerable and herd immunity? If not, you will have shown that the issue is not whether masks work, but whether the costs (to other people) are enough to outweigh the discomfort (to you).