The COVID19 SCAMdemic... Economy So Strong That eBay Hard Up For Business

[anotero]

To be fair, I did talk about density per unit area right under the sentence you bolded. Though, I guess per unit volume is more accurate, since we're talking about air.

You made an assumption in the statement i bolded out, so my comnent is still valid.

 

[anotero]

someone say white car

View attachment 224162

Racist.

 

[anotero]

Those are a lot of words to still end up saying that masks are more effective than no masks.

All I've been trying to say is that they make a difference. N95 much more so than cloth, but something is still better than nothing.

Better than nothing.

 

[Unreal1]

This is to not understand scale.

When you multiply those minutes by hundreds of thousands or millions the small differences become very large.

The time it takes to emit enough viral load and for someone to be infected doesn't change based on scale.

For example, if you're at a family gathering and one person is infected the extra 1 minute you're afforded by everyone being masked isn't going to make any difference. This stays constant regardless of scale.

 

[Unreal1]

Those are a lot of words to still end up saying that masks are more effective than no masks.

All I've been trying to say is that they make a difference. N95 much more so than cloth, but something is still better than nothing.

You don't know that they're more effective until you can provide data showing that they stop aerosol. I'm giving you a best case scenario based on your incomplete data. Even still, the time exposed is a far greater factor than the mask, but if that qualifies as "significantly effective" to you, then so be it.

There's nothing that's going to convince you otherwise.

 

[anotero]

You don't know that they're more effective until you can provide data showing that they stop aerosol. I'm giving you a best case scenario based on your incomplete data. Even still, the time exposed is a far greater factor than the mask, but if that qualifies as "significantly effective" to you, then so be it.

There's nothing that's going to convince you otherwise.

If i spend 10.5 hours at work in an inclosed space with everyone wearing cloth masks the entire time (an oversimplification), everyone in that enclosed space will eventually exhale and inhale enough virus to infect each other. Masks are for "flattening the curve" because the healthcare system was not ready 1.5 years ago. Are they still flattening the curve because they haven't spent the last 1.5 years preparing and expanding? Rhetorical questions, not asking you specifically.

 

[JC_451]

The time it takes to emit enough viral load and for someone to be infected doesn't change based on scale.

For example, if you're at a family gathering and one person is infected the extra 1 minute you're afforded by everyone being masked isn't going to make any difference. This stays constant regardless of scale.

Imagine instead of one singular hours long event, millions of shorter interactions. In each of those shorter interactions the virus is simply less likely to spread if impeded (to whatever degree) by the mask.

At a super spreader event, you are correct, the mask ultimately does nothing as your exposure time is simply too long.

 

[Escape Hatch]

would you prefer we do nothing while it evolves? A majority of scientists are scared/impressed by this virus. I'm def. not a scientist bet to listen to them be in awe at how adaptable/transmissible it is is kinda scary

It is too late! The virus will grow and mutate no matter what. Other variants are already popping up in other countries around the world and will transmit, no way around that.

 

[Escape Hatch]

lol alright, man. Backpedal Olympian. They make you a custom bike?

You may mean what you say, but it's starting to sound like you don't understand what you say? Because no one had to jump to any conclusions based on what you said.

You and greta are two peas. My God, the existence of such a group is truly impressive.

 

[torga]

You don't know that they're more effective until you can provide data showing that they stop aerosol. I'm giving you a best case scenario based on your incomplete data. Even still, the time exposed is a far greater factor than the mask, but if that qualifies as "significantly effective" to you, then so be it.

There's nothing that's going to convince you otherwise.

Sure, I'll concede that time exposed is very important. Like anotero said, 10 hours in one room where everyone is masked isn't going to do anyone any favors. But in general, taking into account the relatively short nature of many interactions, masks are better than no masks. They don't stop aerosols and droplets, they reduce. That's all I've been saying this whole time.

Here's a study that specifically investigates aerosol escape. They conclude that masks are better than no masks.
Expiratory aerosol particle escape from surgical masks due to imperfect sealing | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

 

[Escape Hatch]

They intentionally ignore the role of viral load in infection and outcomes, either because it suits their argument or they're just ignorant of basic science and health care principles.

Masks aren't a magic bullet. Vaccines aren't a magic bullet. Distancing isn't a magic bullet. But done in conjunction, they reduce viral load, which reduces infections, reduces the severity of infections, and makes the vaccine more effective when it's only having to fight off a lower viral load.

This isn't rocket science. It's all well established infection control, healthcare and scientific concepts.

Yeah, that's working out well. Again, a virus with a high percentage of survival.

 

[Unreal1]

Imagine instead of one singular hours long event, millions of shorter interactions. In each of those shorter interactions the virus is simply less likely to spread if impeded (to whatever degree) by the mask.

At a super spreader event, you are correct, the mask ultimately does nothing as your exposure time is simply too long.

So far no one has posted any data on how much it impedes aerosols.

 

[Unreal1]

Sure, I'll concede that time exposed is very important. Like anotero said, 10 hours in one room where everyone is masked isn't going to do anyone any favors. But in general, taking into account the relatively short nature of many interactions, masks are better than no masks. They don't stop aerosols and droplets, they reduce. That's all I've been saying this whole time.

Here's a study that specifically investigates aerosol escape. They conclude that masks are better than no masks.
Expiratory aerosol particle escape from surgical masks due to imperfect sealing | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Most of us are in an office 8 hours a day. We go to the gym 30-60min. We're with friends and family for extended periods of time. Realistically, I just don't know what setting you're going to be in where a mask is going to make a difference. It takes 5-15 minutes of exposure to be at risk, so chatting with a cashier masked or not likely isn't risky to begin with. It's not the short interactions we need protection from.

 

[cb1111]

Thank you for this explanation. I was already cooking up my own in response to the mask comment when I came up on your comment.



This is what happens when someone half understands something and gets adamant. Unfortunately, most of the thread's arguments stem from half understandings and half truths, such as this.

Yes, you are right. 0.06-1.4um is smaller than 20-30um. But saying that the masks don't stop these droplets at all, is incorrect. If you shot a single COVID droplet through the gaps in the cloth weave, then yes, it would slip right through -- nothin' but net. But a cough or a sneeze or even a simple breath is so much more complicated than that. It's an incredibly turbulent expulsion of gas, and droplets will get caught on the mask fibers. Some droplets will slip through, but cloth masks do a decent job at catching a large amount of them -- N95s and PM2.5 filters do an even better job. Even the source you yourself posted says that a multi-layer cloth mask can catch up to 50-70% of fine droplets and up to 50% of ultrafine droplets, <1um. At that microscopic level, it isn't like a single fish slipping through a gap in a net. At the micron level, each individual cloth fiber looks like giant, snarling seaweed trap and the tiny particles do stick to the fibers when they come in contact -- they do not bounce off. No one ever said that masks completely stop COVID droplets from escaping -- not a single person with a medical degree has ever said this. The entire point is to inhibit the spread, which masks are proven to do. 30%-50% of droplets escaped is markedly better than 100% of them escaping, wouldn't you agree? Masks work when we ALL wear them. Masks are not for personal protection, they're for protection of others.

There you go again trying to inject facts into this thread.

 

[cb1111]

Ok, but back to the real meat & potatoes of the IVM argument... which is the mind-boggling suggestion that a drug regimen based around a poorly studied drug, plus 10 other drugs/therapies is a better course of action than a preventative measure that is FREE, and whose effect on humans has been studied much more thoroughly than IVM.

If I recall correctly, the only study I read that showed any significant benefits of IVM against COVID was done in vitro. When studies were conducted in vivo, they found that the small dose that's safe on humans and worked before in the petri dish... did next to nothing.

Bingo - but see my post above