Comments by "clray123" (@clray123) on "Thoughty2"
channel.
-
16
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ruialexandre6197 There you have it "the quality of studies was low overall". And yes, they are not recommending removing masks during surgery just because they have "always" been worn in this context. The unknown risk of changing such established procedures is not deemed worth the potential benefits (of not having to bother with the potentially useless masks).
Finally, surgical masks are used to prevent bacterial infections of open wounds. They are not meant to protect against viruses. If a surgeon has a viral infection, they cancel the operation. They do not trust the mask because of lack of evidence in this context. Neither do people who handle viruses. They wear hazmat suits and plastic head shields. Such important decisions are not made on a "maybe it works" basis. Neither should be yours.
As for N95, nobody really wears them in an everyday setting, so these are fairly irrelevant. Also, to be effective they require custom fitting to an individual's face. Again, nobody bothers with that for everyday masks.
Finally, notice that what we are discussing is the exact opposite situation of the "should we cancel masks during surgery": introducing a new measure that is not known to work. Just as well you could demand that people wear some magical amulets. Those have not been tested either. Maybe they would work.
The whole "mandatory mask without defining what a mask is" policy is a disaster. You can see the negative side effects every day, and it destroys trust in health authorities and invites people to break rules like nothing else. That's what you get by making up stuff, withholding information, and introducing fines instead of treating the public like intelligent, concerned people.
(That is also why several countries have still not introduced these stupid laws - and have not suffered an increased wave of infections.)
2
-
@ruialexandre6197 "I think it's obvious" is not a valid argument. Aerosols can remain in the air for minutes/hours. Evidence from superspreader events (e.g. choir sessions in which one person has infected the entire group) suggest that aerosols, not droplet contact is how the virus spreads.
I don't know of any data on minimum infectious dose of SARS CoV-2, but there is existing data on other viruses, which suggests that very minimal amounts are already infectious.
Finally, there is ample evidence that masks in fact do induce people to reduce social distancing and engage in risky behaviors (such as speaking) - as was feared before they were introduced as a policy measure. In fact, their introduction was accompanied by bogus arguments such as "restart economy", "enjoy normal life again" - which of course mislead people and are completely contrary to the "social distancing" guideline.
Coupled with the amount of aggression, conflict and everyday stress the masks cause, it is quite safe to say that they do more known harm to public health than the (unknown) benefit of stopping the coronavirus from spreading. In fact, some of the strictest mask-mandating countries like Argentina have seen no reduction in infections whatsoever.
There is multiple reasons why mandatory masks, as a policy measure, are not working and most probably are worsening the situation. Technical details such as filtering efficiency of the materials being probably the least important - and the other far more crucial issues of adoption and side effects seem to not have been considered at all (or willfully ignored and then no longer examined such as the "induces risky behavior" story).
There are signs of negligence in supporting the measure which is not working (and even calling for more of this same measure) instead of admitting that a huge policy mistake has been made.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onecoinmidas4541 If the mask mandates were working, they would cause the infection rates to fall, which in turn would be visible in the graphs. But evidently it's not - there is no change whatsoever before and after the mandate. If you cannot understand this, you are beyond help.
Covid is mainly spread by aerosols, not droplets. Droplets don't fly over 10m distance.
As for the surgical masks, they are intended to stop bacteria, not viruses. There are studies prior to covid that show that dentists who routinely wear masks get the same amount of infection as other people.
Yes, if you can breathe all around your mask, as is the case with most masks on the market, that are not custom-fitted to your face shape, it is very clear evidence that wearing a mask is nonsense. And this is exactly corroborated by the graphs that show no effect from mask mandates.
If masks were so effective, thenfull body biohazard suits or under-pressurized isolation chambers would not be necessary to deal with deadly pathogens. Somehow the people who work there prefer not to rely on masks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ruialexandre6197 Provide sources for your claim that an amount of exhaled/inhaled viral particles really matters for the (severity of) infection. I'm aware of at least one paper which suggests that the amount required for infection of known viruses (not coronavirus, as the paper is from 2011) is minimal and certainly not changed by redirecting some of exhaled air toward your glasses and behind your ears (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7090536/)
Back to common sense and epidemiological data, if masks really were effective to contain viral epidemics, Japan, the country known for widespread voluntary use of masks, would not have experienced such a severe flu season in 2019. And maybe at least one of those hospital studies conducted over the past 100 years would also have demonstrated their efficacy. Maybe viral antibody rates in dentists would have not been above average (another old study).
The argument that masks improve odds is a conclusion which is easy to believe (I considered it plausible myself BEFORE the mask laws were introduced - and before I looked into publications on the topic). But ultimately it's a layman's fallacy that is not reflected by data. A fallacy which has apparently not been communicated properly to law makers, and around which, as a result, unfortunately the entire world (with exception of a few countries) is making bad policies.
After the mandatory masks, an argument was invented to rationalize the switch that the prior recommendations AGAINST mask were based on concern to avoid a run on surgical mask suppliers. However, if DIY cloth masks had been touted as they are, such a run would not have occurred. So this argument does not make sense, there must be different reasons.
I suspect that these policies have a deep political background (indeed WHO themselves did not deny that they changed policy on masks because of lobbying, not because of emerging new scientific data).
The presence of masks in everyday life provides a reminder of the crisis and also hints at how politicians are "in control" and doing a "great job" fighting it. It provides a justification for spending tons of public money and embezzling a sizeable amount in the process. The goal of masks is to make an average person feel partly guilty for the pandemic, more willing to rationalize all past mistakes made by the decision makers, and more ready to accept any further actions that go against your own (economic) interest (it's a valid psychological tactic used by scammers to demand little concessions before robbing the victim in big style). Finally, they also serves as a very effective distraction to divide people (as our discussion here demonstrates).
1
-
1
-
1