Mask vs Corona virus. Wear or Not.

[Vassago]

Of course. We haven't had enough time to really study the virus to this level. The evidence does seem to point to it being true though.

They've also said that the symptoms are different for people who get less sick. According to articles and my observations... For people I know who have worn masks and caught it, they had sneezing, runny nose, loss of taste and smell, but no dry cough or fever, the original two main symptoms they originally stated to look out for. They've revised their statements since. In fact, they say the more severe cases don't seem to lose their senses as often and have used that to know how sick someone may get.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1TAmOVD_LO-iNj-4e4L2Jc

[/URL]

We really are learning a lot as we go. Some people look at the contradictory statements and accuse them of flip-flipping, but the truth is far more delicate. We didn't know a lot in the beginning. Of course statements will revise and instructions will change as time goes on.

 

[Vassago]

And really, it's about slowing the virus more than stopping it. Until we have an effective vaccine, is imperative we all follow the instructions laid out by the health experts and not the politicians. They clearly don't know what they are doing, as this pandemic has shown. Trump had an opportunity to set an example. His followers would have listened. They do! With his lack of care during this unprecedented situation, they have taken note. For the Americans here, we've all seen the ignorance out there at the grocery store with people refusing to adhere to the policies, making it about their right to chose to not wear one without a care about the impact it may have on others. With the risk I have at home, I have to avoid going during peak hours because of these asshats. My wife has to be that much more careful when she goes to her appointments because of them. The lack of empathy and integrity that trickles down from our leadership is alarming and depressing. People at high risk can't simply stay at home. We need food and medicine, too.

 

[Isaac]

It's not just less likely to infect you. It's less severe. Does anyone read my full post? Lol

Yes, viruses multiply... But your body begins fighting immediately. Less viruses in = less to multiply, potentially a LOT less. You'll get less sick of you're body doesn't have to fight as hard.

Wearing a Mask May Reduce How Sick You Get from COVID-19

New research suggests that wearing masks not only protects others from the spread of COVID-19, but may reduce the amount of virus that gets through to the wearer as well, resulting in less severe illness if they do become sick.

www.healthline.com

That's encouraging.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The discussion of slowing vs. stopping ignores that even if you can't stop it, there is still a benefit. The resources it takes to treat a person with COVID-19 include hospital rooms and medical staff, which are in limited supply. Sort of like slowing down your spending to spread out cash flow, slowing down the virus to prevent overwhelming the hospitals is a good thing.

 

[Isaac]

Let me explain slightly differently. If you have a continuum between letting zero particles through and 100% particles through, then there is a gradient between how effective a mask is. The experiment was talking about N95 masks stopping 95% of particles. So most people will look at this as saying, "Well, if it cuts out 95% of particles, maybe you get a 95% drop in transmission."

The point I was making was that lets say (hypothetically) you only need 1 particle to get into your system. It then multiplies. That would mean a mask that cuts out 95% of particles will be very ineffective, because 5% still get through. That 5% could be billions of particles. In this scenario, the outcome is binary. The mask needs to cut 100% of particles, else it doesn't work at all.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. i.e. you need a certain number of particles to get into your system for the chance of one of them to take a hold. But considering the particles are tiny, 95% effective masks could mean billions of particles into your system.

So, given just the 95% reduction in particles data, that might mean virtually no difference to the rate of slowing of the virus.

Remember though, there is also a variable factor in how many particles are "near" the mask, needing to be prevented in the first place.
If the mask prevents 95% of them, that will have a certain net effect with a billion particles near it trying to get in, and a different net effect if there are 100 particles near it trying to get in.

From what I have read, the consensus among scientists is pretty strong that masks reduce the likelihood of getting infected or it being so severe.

If a mask prevents infection any percent of the time, it means one less person infected at that point in time, which slows the overall spread.

 

[Vassago]

This is the kind of ignorant BS I'm talking about.

Pence To Continue Travel After ‘Close Contact’ With Top Aide Who Tested Positive

At least 5 Pence staffers reportedly tested positive for coronavirus Saturday, fueling concerns of a second White House outbreak just 11 days before the election.

www.forbes.com

You have another spreader event and you were potentially exposed, yet you don't care enough about those around you to quarantine. F**k you, Pence.

 

[Isaac]

Until we have an effective vaccine, is imperative we all follow the instructions laid out by the health experts and not the politicians

I agree with the main "gist" of what you are saying, but still I maintain that this advice (only listen to medical experts, not others) only holds true in the case of "harmless" solutions.....Such as wearing masks. (Full agreement there).

When it comes to the various OTHER solutions, then I think it makes no logical sense at all to listen only to medical experts.
Why? Because they can only advise you on medical causes and effects. They are not experts in evaluating the significance of other harm caused by the solution.

Every decision we make, all day long, is a calculation of numerous risks and rewards. Some of those decisions during COVID will involve actions that imply medical risks + many other risks. The doctors can help us understand the quantification of the medical risks. It is a matter of balance IMO. "Listen to the scientists [only]" makes sense in the case of harmless solutions that we lose virtually nothing by employing. But when employing solutions that cause their own harm as well, it makes sense to listen to all the experts who can advise us on all of the ramifications of the solution.

 

[Isaac]

The discussion of slowing vs. stopping ignores that even if you can't stop it, there is still a benefit. The resources it takes to treat a person with COVID-19 include hospital rooms and medical staff, which are in limited supply. Sort of like slowing down your spending to spread out cash flow, slowing down the virus to prevent overwhelming the hospitals is a good thing.

I agree! I feel like I've stated that multiple times and even I stated that within the very post I made which is still being criticized as if I hadn't, but I did. Regardless, we all agree that slowing is good, in light of vaccinne development, resources & and whatever else.

 

[Isaac]

This is the kind of ignorant BS I'm talking about.

Pence To Continue Travel After ‘Close Contact’ With Top Aide Who Tested Positive

At least 5 Pence staffers reportedly tested positive for coronavirus Saturday, fueling concerns of a second White House outbreak just 11 days before the election.

www.forbes.com

You have another spreader event and you were potentially exposed, yet you don't care enough about those around you to quarantine. F**k you, Pence.

Interesting quote from the very article you linked to:

Nonetheless, Pence will “maintain his schedule in accordance with the CDC guidelines for essential personnel

Pence could argue that he is actually following the guidance given to us by scientists based on the assertion that the associate in question is essential personnel. Is he wrong? The most important thing here isn't any of our individual responses to that question........the point is, even inherent in those guidelines is the obvious fact that you will still have to make your own decisions about what is or isn't essential vs. the goal of total safety.

Wouldn't the safest possible approach be for neither candidate to campaign? A: Of course it would...

My wife just went to visit her family in Mexico. Would it have been "safer not to" ? Of course, but we made a personal decision based not only on Covid safety, but all of our other values as well.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I agree you have stated it, Isaac, but sometimes it isn't what you say, it is how you say it. We are in general agreement here.

 

[Isaac]

I agree you have stated it, Isaac, but sometimes it isn't what you say, it is how you say it. We are in general agreement here.

And I'll be the first to say I don't know the best answer to a lot of these questions. Everything will seem clearer in hindsight I suppose, and it's a hard situation to navigate.

I sometimes think of a hypothetical, whereby for some reason it is decided to totally shut down the country for another 6 mo. Let's say 100,000 lives are saved, but our country is basically 'gone' as we know it.....Honduras-like conditions for the next 50 years, along with all the things that come with Honduras-like conditions! Is it worth it? Well gee....who can answer those questions other than perhaps Socrates? : )

 

[Jon]

From what I have read, the consensus among scientists is pretty strong that masks reduce the likelihood of getting infected or it being so severe.

If a mask prevents infection any percent of the time, it means one less person infected at that point in time, which slows the overall spread.

This has always been my point in favour of wearing masks. To reduce the viral coefficient, even by a tiny amount, will reduce the absolute number of people infected over time. Numbers compounded over time lead to far higher numbers than most people believe. So if you reduce the coefficient from 2.0 to 1.9, over the course of a year, you are likely to have millions of fewer infections than if you had not done so.

The different angle I spoke about was the non-linear relationship between % of droplets "received" vs the probability of infection.

 

[Vassago]

I agree with the main "gist" of what you are saying, but still I maintain that this advice (only listen to medical experts, not others) only holds true in the case of "harmless" solutions.....Such as wearing masks. (Full agreement there).

When it comes to the various OTHER solutions, then I think it makes no logical sense at all to listen only to medical experts.
Why? Because they can only advise you on medical causes and effects. They are not experts in evaluating the significance of other harm caused by the solution.

Every decision we make, all day long, is a calculation of numerous risks and rewards. Some of those decisions during COVID will involve actions that imply medical risks + many other risks. The doctors can help us understand the quantification of the medical risks. It is a matter of balance IMO. "Listen to the scientists [only]" makes sense in the case of harmless solutions that we lose virtually nothing by employing. But when employing solutions that cause their own harm as well, it makes sense to listen to all the experts who can advise us on all of the ramifications of the solution.

What advice should people NOT follow from the medical experts? So far as I've seen, they've never recommended shutting down the economy. They've recommended nationwide mask mandates and social distancing. They've recommended quarantine to those exposed. You're implying that they've said something that would harm the economy. I've only seen things that would allow it to continue.

 

[Jon]

Regardless, we all agree that slowing is good, in light of vaccinne development, resources & and whatever else.

Even if there were no vaccines coming, isn't it a bit like going to hospital, to slow down when you are going to die? That surely is a good thing. We take vits to keep healthy, put off death. Same with slowing the uptake of Covid.

 

[Jon]

What advice should people NOT follow from the medical experts?

The advice we should not follow from the medical experts was the advice that masks are futile, and that you only need them for the medics. I've been banging on about this from way before the WHO even reluctantly got on board with the idea. I've got plenty of posts about the topic, and how stupid the medical community have been on this issue. And these posts are way before they ever changed their mind on the issue.

 

[Vassago]

The advice we should not follow from the medical experts was the advice that masks are futile, and that you only need them for the medics. I've been banging on about this from way before the WHO even reluctantly got on board with the idea. I've got plenty of posts about the topic, and how stupid the medical community have been on this issue.

That goes back to opinions changing as we learn more. The current instruction is to use them and has been for many months.

 

[Vassago]

What CURRENT advice should we not follow?

 

[Jon]

That goes back to opinions changing as we learn more. The current instruction is to use them and has been for many months.

So you concede that their advice was wrong before and therefore you cannot always trust the advice of medical experts.

Also, if masks are ineffective at reducing transmission, how do you explain them advising us to save them for the medics? The virus doesn't care if you are a medic or not.

 

[Vassago]

Also, you have to consider lack of supplies at the time. I know the US was at risk of hospitals running out of supplies early on. The advice at the time was sound with that taken into consideration. Now homemade masks are rampant and the instruction has changed.

 

[Vassago]

Because people can social distance and avoid going out. Medics are at higher risk by simply doing their jobs. There can't be any disputing they are clearly at the highest risk.