Coronainsanity

[zyxt9]

No, I'm just saying we've been over this. Fauchi and experts in general shifted their focus on masks from how good they are at preventing the inhalation of virus to how good they are at reducing spread and changed their recommendations. And then everybody had this exact argument in 2020.

Of course two masks are better than one. I bet 12 feet between people is better than 6. How much better, they aren't saying. But I bet the change in recommendation is aimed more at getting people to refocus on wearing masks and not get lazy/tired of it since they don't seem to realize how bad things are right now.

12' distance with no mask is better than 6' distance with 2 masks. Viral loads will be much lower at 12' than at 6', and 6' will be much lower than 3'.

And no mask is air tight...if they were, you would suffocate and die...so there are plenty of pathways for the germs to travel. There is also the potential for this virus to enter through the eyes, which masks do not help so shouldn't they be mandating shields also??? Maybe 2 shields. Maybe we all need NASA to give us all spacesuits to walk around to stay safe.

 

[byco42]

there are a lot of reasons to be suspicious of Fauci, but questioning masks at this point is ridiculous.

There's enough data to show aerosol transmission of the virus is primarily how it spreads, and wearing masks keeps dramatically less aerosol droplets in the air, AND to a lesser extent protects the wearer from inhaling them.

I read several studies that it was touch-and-surfaces that was the primary cause of transmission and that only through nebulization could aerosol transmission be achieved. Now, that’s been flipped on its end.

earlier in the pandemic, I read comments from people saying gloves were more effective in preventing transmission, and masks were fine, but not necessary. These people changed their tune and admitted they were wrong on this... and that's fine. To me, Fauci's rationale of why he said no masks was more troubling (link):

"I don't regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct. We were told in our task force meetings that we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs," he said.
​

So it wasn't that he changed his mind when presented with data to the contrary of his earlier recommendation, he intentionally lied.

The top infectious disease expert was UNAWARE that masks WORKED to the point that he said no one needed them? And then was corrected? I ain’t buying this. But I do think that Fauci backpeddled on the mask story. What is the connection between “lack of PPE” in the health industry and of the peons needing to make their own masks out of cloth or buying those paper ones that are more porous than the average screen door?

Here’s some studies that agree with Fauci’s original claim that masks are not necessary or effective:

Link This one essentially concludes that viruses will run a course, and discourages the measures we’ve endured for a year, because they are not a deterrent.

“But studies have shown the ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus. The pores in the mask become blocked by moisture from breathing, and the air stream simply diverts around the mask."​

” Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.​

Leading Author One of above study. Leading Author #2

Link This MEJM study says that masks are useful in health care setting, but not in public.

“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 (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.“​

 

[Michchamp]

12' distance with no mask is better than 6' distance with 2 masks. Viral loads will be much lower at 12' than at 6', and 6' will be much lower than 3'.

...

not if you're in an enclosed space for long periods of time. then distance doesn't help you, unless there are really good air filters and circulation

 

[Michchamp]

If I had my own message board, I'd implement a feature that adds the clause "... but I'm not saying don't wear a mask, just quibbling over details. And I'm not a doctor or an expert about any of this, BTW. So WEAR A FUCKING MASK" to the end of any post where someone starts nit-picking mask efficacy.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I read several studies that it was touch-and-surfaces that was the primary cause of transmission and that only through nebulization could aerosol transmission be achieved. Now, that’s been flipped on its end.

Not about covid 19. Scientists used other things, other covids, as models. There weren't labs spraying covid 19 into the air, measuring concentrations at distances.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If I had my own message board, I'd implement a feature that adds the clause "... but I'm not saying don't wear a mask, just quibbling over details. And I'm not a doctor or an expert about any of this, BTW. So WEAR A FUCKING MASK" to the end of any post where someone starts nit-picking mask efficacy.

You could have a list of qualifiers that we could tack onto posts like footnotes.

"... but I'm not saying the death count is off by more than 50%."
"... but I'm not saying minorities are responsible for racial wealth inequality."

 

[zyxt9]

...Surviving in DC as long as he has is not a badge of honor.

Damn right on that. How many ways has he twisted himself to fit whatever POTUS agenda was put before him? Whether he is using his mouth or his asshole, it all sounds the same. Kinda like when Trump would talk, except that was 99% coming out his ass. Fauci is about 50/50 which actually makes things more confusing because you have to figure it out or flip a coin to guess what to believe as opposed to not being able to believe 99% and being shocked when the info is actually legit.

 

[zyxt9]

not if you're in an enclosed space for long periods of time. then distance doesn't help you, unless there are really good air filters and circulation

The viral load is considerably less, even in enclosed spaces with no filters or air circulation. The density of the viral load is going to be decrease exponentially with distance. It is pure science regarding volumes and diffusion. The volume in a 12' radius sphere is 7,238 ft^3, the volume of a 6' radius sphere is 905 ft^3. The amount of viral load being released by the infected person is a constant, barring sneezes or coughs, but even then the individual at 6' away has approximately an 8x risk of exposure compared to the person at 12'. So if a person at 12' has a 10% chance of being exposed, the person at 6' has an 80% chance.

None of this is to say the person at 12' is not at any risk at all, of course they are. There is a percentage of individuals who would catch it at 12' while someone at 6' does not, but that probability is very low compared to the probability of the person at 6' becoming infected relative to the person at 12'.

This is the kind of basic Science I wish Fauci would utilize.

 

[byco42]

Not about covid 19. Scientists used other things, other covids, as models. There's weren't labs spraying covid 19 into the air, measuring concentrations at distances.

The studies I read were using the CV19 virus, because its main thesis was to demonstrate how long the virus lived on selected surfaces.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The viral load is considerably less, even in enclosed spaces with no filters or air circulation. The density of the viral load is going to be decrease exponentially with distance. It is pure science regarding volumes and diffusion. The volume in a 12' radius sphere is 7,238 ft^3, the volume of a 6' radius sphere is 905 ft^3. The amount of viral load being released by the infected person is a constant, barring sneezes or coughs, but even then the individual at 6' away has approximately an 8x risk of exposure compared to the person at 12'. So if a person at 12' has a 10% chance of being exposed, the person at 6' has an 80% chance.

None of this is to say the person at 12' is not at any risk at all, of course they are. There is a percentage of individuals who would catch it at 12' while someone at 6' does not, but that probability is very low compared to the probability of the person at 6' becoming infected relative to the person at 12'.

This is the kind of basic Science I wish Fauci would utilize.

I don't think it's as clear as that
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021850220301476

Our results show that the design of ventilation is critical for reducing the risk of particle encounters. Inappropriate design can significantly limit the efficiency of particle removal, create local hot spots with orders of magnitude higher risks, and enhance particle deposition causing surface contamination.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The studies I read were using the CV19 virus, because its main thesis was to demonstrate how long the virus lived on selected surfaces.

That's only one side of the air-vs-surface issue, and not a conclusive one at that. They found it remains viable on surfaces for a long time I thought. Like 3 days. But they also don't seem to have a lot of transmission data pointing to that as a big driver. How do you reconcile these two observations? I don't know. First guess would be surface-to-person is unlikely for some reason. Someone's got to do more studies if we want to know that.

 

[zyxt9]

Furthermore, what is the increased protection 2 masks provides over 1? Did they provide any scientific data regarding that? Considering the air flow generally is going around masks more than through the mask, I am questioning that the advantages are so great as to warrant the recommendation, as the second mask is not really changing that air flow around the 1st mask.

But again...the lack of concrete scientific data validating these types of recommendations makes anyone with a Science background, and even a large number of those without, question the legitimacy of the recommendation.

 

[tomdalton22]

I saw this guy at speedway wearing what looked like a deep sea diving helmet. I snapped a picture of him as he walked by my car. I wish I knew how to download it to this forum...it was freaking hilarious.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Furthermore, what is the increased protection 2 masks provides over 1? Did they provide any scientific data regarding that? Considering the air flow generally is going around masks more than through the mask, I am questioning that the advantages are so great as to warrant the recommendation, as the second mask is not really changing that air flow around the 1st mask.

But again...the lack of concrete scientific data validating these types of recommendations makes anyone with a Science background, and even a large number of those without, question the legitimacy of the recommendation.

Depends on the masks, but by mid-summer I was rocking the rectangular surgeon's mask (little, cheap, super common ones) with a cloth mask over it to hold the edges down. One fit well, one actually filtered. Together they seemed like a much better option than either of them separately.

 

[zyxt9]

I don't think it's as clear as that
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021850220301476

Really Gulo? Come on...your knowledge of Science is better than that. There is a specific volume of air and a specific volume of viral load. Yes, that viral load increases with each breath, which is why there are time recommendations of 10 (or 15) minutes of exposure. But fluid dynamics dictate that the 1st breath will create a specified amount of viral load based on the lung capacity of the individual compared to the volume of enclosed space. Each subsequent breath will diffuse the viral load outward, but the volume of space it is entering is increasing as well. Will it be more concentrated in certain areas? Of course, it won't be a pure diffusion with complete uniformity; however, it is going to be greater the closer you are to the person...hence the 6' recommendation to begin with. If this was really as off base as being implied, then it would not be safe regardless of distance, which is complete bullocks as you very well know and understand.

Furthermore, the air resistance of moving the air to 12' is far greater than moving the air to 6'. So if you really want to examine the dynamics of air circulation, the person at 6' is going to have an even larger than 8x chance because of how difficult it is to have the air move out to 12' compared to 6'. The turbulence with each breath increases the friction and dynamics of the air currents, particularly if the unmasked person is breathing toward the infected person. Their breath will produce air currents keeping the viral load closer to the infected person than if they were wearing a mask where the air currents move on an angle. The angled air flow will actually encourage the viral load being breathed toward the masked person to congregate in front of them, creating a more concentrated viral load in their immediate location whereas the unmasked person at 12 feet has the viral load being dispersed and dropping the concentration that is approaching them.

I did not read the research paper you presented, sorry...but my bet is they only studied the air flow from a singular individual as opposed to the more complicated dynamics of 2 people breathing. Obviously a singular person will have their breath carry much further in a specific direction than if there is a 2nd person breathing toward them creating an increased resistance to the distance each breath is able to reach.

 

[byco42]

That's only one side of the air-vs-surface issue, and not a conclusive one at that. They found it remains viable on surfaces for a long time I thought. Like 3 days. But they also don't seem to have a lot of transmission data pointing to that as a big driver. How do you reconcile these two observations? I don't know. First guess would be surface-to-person is unlikely for some reason. Someone's got to do more studies if we want to know that.

72 hours on plastic.
48 hours on stainless steel.
4 Hours on copper.
24 hours on cardboard.

The median half-life of SARS CoV-2 was 5.6 hrs on stainless steel and 6.8 hrs on plastic.

It gave the same “plausible” adjective to both fomite and aerosol transmission, but no one never hears about fomite transmission, and the aerosol transmission was in laboratory conditions with Ct values between 20 and 22 “similar to “those observed in samples obtained from upper and lower respiratory tract in humans.”

More on Ct value: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii4RRiMUxa8

 

[zyxt9]

Depends on the masks, but by mid-summer I was rocking the rectangular surgeon's mask (little, cheap, super common ones) with a cloth mask over it to hold the edges down. One fit well, one actually filtered. Together they seemed like a much better option than either of them separately.

Massive difference between a mask with a filter vs one that does not have a filter, that is undeniable. However, especially early on, the only individuals who should have been using masks with filters were front line workers. The percentage of people with COVID was so low, the masks with filters was nearly unnecessary. As more people became sick, obviously having masks with filters in general public increased the likelihood of them being effective. In terms of percentage of risk, a freaking paper cloth mask was just as effective as a filter mask when less than 1,000 in all of the US had it. But even now, frontline workers have a much higher percentage risk and therefore need of having masks with filters.

Just because there have been a almost 27 million cases of COVID in the US since it started, that does not mean there are currently 27 million contagious people out and about across the US. I'm unsure how many currently have it, in no small part because of how many are asymptomatic, but it is undoubtedly less than 27 million. The MSM continually uses the total numbers since first infections as opposed to current number of people who are contagious. I get it, they get to increase the Fear Factors by using the biggest number available, and that increases ad revenue.

Know what number is not mentioned in MSM? The Mortality Rate having dropped from early estimates of 10% down to the 2.1-2.2% it is now shown to be based on total cases and total deaths. Taking into account those who are asymptomatic, that % should easily be recognized as being below 2%. That means if one gets infected, they have a 98% chance of surviving.

I say all this as a person who wears a mask and will get the vaccine. I'm not stupid and I would prefer not going through the experience of getting it; however, I think if MSM were to have not hyped up the Fear Factor and just been more Matter Of Fact with the entire thing, and the government did not force close "non-essential" businesses while allowing "essential" businesses to sell the exact same items available from "non-essential" and thereby saving many businesses and jobs, treating it more like "maintain business as usual, just do it wearing a mask, social distancing, and sanitize hands regularly the majority of Americans currently displaying resistance would have been more inclined to not resist and just make those small adjustments to daily life.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Really Gulo? Come on...your knowledge of Science is better than that. There is a specific volume of air and a specific volume of viral load.

Also, the particles vary in size so much they behave differently and their evaporation rate, which varies with temp and humidity, will cause them to transition from heavy particles that drop out of the air fairly quickly to smaller ones that won't. If Dyson can use a vortex to get particles out of air flow without blocking it, why should it be hard to believe that the specific details of a building would yield unequal concentrations from spot to spot?

 

[Gulo Blue]

It gave the same ?plausible? adjective to both fomite and aerosol transmission

Not to mention the use of the word 'airborn' to sometimes mean aerosol and sometime just mean droplet in the air, which is not the same thing.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think if MSM were to have not hyped up the Fear Factor and just been more Matter Of Fact with the entire thing, and the government did not force close "non-essential" businesses while allowing "essential" businesses to sell the exact same items available from "non-essential" and thereby saving many businesses and jobs, treating it more like "maintain business as usual, just do it wearing a mask, social distancing, and sanitize hands regularly the majority of Americans currently displaying resistance would have been more inclined to not resist and just make those small adjustments to daily life.

You don't think the downplaying of the impact from some of the government had anything to do with it?