Comments by "betabenja" (@betabenja) on "Reuters"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ultrabellok this is the classic 'I give up' post. 'I have not provided any sources or evidence, you have, but I'm not going to look at them, I'll repeat what I said even though it has been debunked I have no evidence, so this is my last post on the matter and here's an insult'. great stuff.
Pandemic: A pandemic (from Greek πᾶν, pan, "all" and δῆμος, demos, "people") is an epidemic of an infectious disease that has spread across a large region, for instance multiple continents or worldwide, affecting a substantial number of people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic
"if you need a government to legislate wearing a mask, instead of you having the capacity for acting like an adult in your own life and making decisions accordingly... you already have bigger problems"
we do have bigger problems. it's people saying masks do not work. that is why the government needs to step in. because people can't act like adults.
1
-
@ultrabellok the second sign off! we're progressing to full abstension. I'd point out that wikipedia is generally relatively accurate. For a different source, from the oxford dictionary of epidemiology: “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”. sound familiar? pretty much the same. https://pestcontrol.ru/assets/files/biblioteka/file/19-john_m_last-a_dictionary_of_epidemiology_4th_edition-oxford_university_press_usa_2000.pdf
Maybe you might provide some counter evidence from disparate sources before trying to mock mine. My safe space is the space of all information available, with some critical thinking added. Not so safe, huh? What's yours? Right wing media? Hard to tell when you never back yourself up.
But you're right, 'worldwide' includes all first world countries, but 'over a wide area' does not. However, this IS over the whole globe. so DOES include all first world countries. not by definition, by fact, in this case. And that is why they are wearing masks outside of hospitals where before they were not; an epidemic, for instance, might not affect countries on the other side of the world, so doctors in those countries don't need to wear masks. Plus, this virus kills at a higher rate. It is not the flu.
this is not rocket science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ravenrock541 so, I've not looked too hard into this, but there are a couple of points. The article that this is based on is not a study, but a perspective, not based on an experiment: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372 . In it, it discusses whether all medical staff should wear a mask, not jut those in ppe equipment. It states
"First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection." -
this is an admittance that masks do indeed provide a level of protection; their argument seems to be that masks don't provide enough protection in a hospital setting:
"A mask alone in this setting will reduce risk only slightly, however, since it does not provide protection from droplets that may enter the eyes or from fomites on the patient or in the environment that providers may pick up on their hands and carry to their mucous membranes"
although, this is not actually backed up by any referenced study. But, given this is concerning ppe usage in a hospital setting, it's probably good to back to what they say about using masks outside of a hospital:
"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes .. The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal."
the argument here is that masks are not worthwhile because you're unlikely to catch the disease anyway. So, firstly, this does not say that they don't work; secondly, it suggests that the virus spread is so unlikely that masks are not needed - this is demonstrably not true.
either way, it looks like this is one article in a bunch of opinion pieces which are discussing the effectiveness of masks, e.g
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748920302005?via%3Dihub#bib0001
"Mass-masking, no less than altruism, would work more than an individual level in community settings. It may lead to a significant reduction of the basic reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 and consequently may portray an effect parallel to herd immunity"
and
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30918-1/fulltext
But, again, these are just opinion pieces.
Generally, they all agree that masks do work for protecting against breathing in the virus, but they need to be properly fitted, and overall risk reduction is achieved by hygiene, facial protection and distancing.
one article attempts to use studies:
http://www.ijrc.in/article.asp?issn=2277-9019;year=2020;volume=9;issue=2;spage=149;epage=152;aulast=Sharma
and concludes: "Therefore, social distancing, meticulous hand hygiene and respiratory etiquettes have significant role in curbing the infection transmission rather than use of face mask alone. However, people may use multilayer cloth face covering especially in the areas of significant community based transmission but it should not be used as substitute for social distancing. .. Frontline health care workers caring for confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 must use N95 mask at least when they have a risk of exposure to aerosols."
i.e masks work to reduce risk of overall transmission but are not a substitution for all other measures.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1