No mask!

[+ KensingtonHomo]

3 hours ago, Pensant said:

Some people will mask forever. It’s some kind of peculiar status symbol.

This is literally one of the silliest takes that gets circulated. 

The very wealthy and elite politicians are being very well protected. See how far they went at Davos to ensure COVID wasn't spread. 

• PCR to enter with an access wristband tied to result
• HEPA air cleaners in every room
• Possibly amped up ventilation
• UVGI/Far-UVC
• Masks at some events

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2023/01/20/world-economic-forum-is-taking-all-these-covid-19-precautions-at-davos/?sh=6dcc34696304

So elites are making sure they don't get COVID, while you are saying the rest of us should just accept endless illness and death. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

....I will mask in certain instances (subways, planes, etc) probably for the rest of my life....

You weasled your way out of answering my question. You previously said that you masked whenever you were indoors, not just on public transportation. So you didn't answer my question. What is different now from the rest of your life? Why won't you wear your mask indoors for the rest of your life? Incidentally, your comparison of masking with HIV prevention is ridiculous. Masks are at best 10% effective at reducing transmission, whereas condoms are a good 90% effective when used correctly and PrEP over 99% effective when taken as directed. (Not even mentioning that, unlike the Covid-19 virus, HIV has life-long implications for anyone infected with it). So you're going to be hard-headed for the rest of your life when on public transportation. Do you have the balls to answer how long you'll continue to mask indoors?

[+ KensingtonHomo]

2 hours ago, Unicorn said:

You weasled your way out of answering my question. You previously said that you masked whenever you were indoors, not just on public transportation. So you didn't answer my question. What is different now from the rest of your life? Why won't you wear your mask indoors for the rest of your life? Incidentally, your comparison of masking with HIV prevention is ridiculous. Masks are at best 10% effective at reducing transmission, whereas condoms are a good 90% effective when used correctly and PrEP over 99% effective when taken as directed. (Not even mentioning that, unlike the Covid-19 virus, HIV has life-long implications for anyone infected with it). So you're going to be hard-headed for the rest of your life when on public transportation. Do you have the balls to answer how long you'll continue to mask indoors?

Yes, I mask at concerts, broadways show, grocery stores, any place where I cannot be certain if I'm around irresponsible people like you. And, like the people who survived SARS and MERS, I will likely use them in various situations for the rest of my life. The primary different in my life is that Democrats reached a new low of cowardice in the face of pressure from their donors to "re-open." So now COVID-19 is being normalized instead of combatted. Again, if we took this tact with smallpox, AIDS or polio, those infections would still be ravaging the world. 

You don't know anything about mask efficacy. If everyone wears them, there's far less virus in the air and transmission reduces. Even if you're just wearing an N-95 for your own protection, it has a measurable impact of testing positive for COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm

So, you're repeating a bunch of debunked talking points you got from editorial writers. It's tedious to engage with people who don't actually care about others. 

 

 

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

10 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

I will mask in certain instances (subways, planes, etc) probably for the rest of my life. I get fewer colds. I haven't had the flu in over three years. 

Some people do not wear masks for the same reason they do not use plastic straws...they think the environmental and/or societal damage outweigh their personal benefit.  There are people who may desire a straw for their physical disability or personal enjoyment, so it stands to reason  there must be people who desire a mask to live their life fully.

I will not comment on governments' role in mandates or prohibition of masks or straws, as we no longer have a political forum on this website.  But I will gladly discuss the topic with you or anyone while lounging at a pool party.  I will be in the pool sipping my drink through a straw.  You are welcome to join me in the pool and wear your mask!

Edited March 9, 2023 by Vegas_nw1982
Grammar

[Guest]

21 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

I mask at concerts, broadways show, grocery stores, any place where I cannot be certain if I'm around irresponsible people like you... So now COVID-19 is being normalized instead of combatted... Even if you're just wearing an N-95 for your own protection, it has a measurable impact of testing positive for COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm

 

No, no one "normalized" the virus. The virus normalized itself. With the omicron variant, it reverted (via mutation) to essentially the wild form of the common cold virus, and is no more virulent let alone deadly. This variant took over in the US around January 2022. Look around you when you go to the grocery store. It is you who's the outlier, refusing to adapt to the changing circumstances. Even without looking at the data, most people understand that this virus isn't the deadly scourge it once was. I'll take your word for it that you'll be masking in grocery stores for the rest of your life. Maybe you won't even feel like a dimwit when you do it. 

The study you referenced is quite silly. It's a case-control study which can, at best, show associations, as it reports: "During February–December 2021, using a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings was associated with lower odds of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection...". However, it's egregiously lousy even as a case-control study, because the whole point of a case-control study is that you're supposed to control for other factors which are known to be relevant in this discussion. Only a complete idiot would conclude that carrying matches causes lung cancer based on a case-control study that didn't control for a known cause of lung cancer, namely smoking. The authors of the study acknowledge that they made NO attempt to control for known causes of the virus's transmission:
"The findings in this report are subject to at least eight limitations. First, this study did not account for other preventive behaviors that could influence risk for acquiring infection, including adherence to physical distancing recommendations. In addition, generalizability of this study is limited to persons seeking SARS-CoV-2 testing and who were willing to participate in a telephone interview, who might otherwise exercise other protective behaviors. Second, this analysis relied on an aggregate estimate of self-reported face mask or respirator use across, for some participants, multiple indoor public locations. However, the study was designed to minimize recall bias by enrolling both case- and control-participants within a 48-hour window of receiving a SARS-CoV-2 test result. Third, small strata limited the ability to differentiate between types of cloth masks or participants who wore different types of face masks in differing settings, and also resulted in wider CIs and statistical nonsignificance for some estimates that were suggestive of a protective effect. Fourth, estimates do not account for face mask or respirator fit or the correctness of face mask or respirator wearing; assessing the effectiveness of face mask or respirator use under real-world conditions is nonetheless important for developing policy. Fifth, data collection occurred before the expansion of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant, which is more transmissible than earlier variants. Sixth, face mask or respirator use was self-reported, which could introduce social desirability bias. Seventh, small strata limited the ability to account for reasons for testing in the adjusted analysis, which may be correlated with face mask or respirator use. Finally, this analysis does not account for potential differences in the intensity of exposures, which could vary by duration, ventilation system, and activity in each of the various indoor public settings visited."

To put this in simple terms, a person who doesn't wear a mask is also more likely to go to crowded parties, bars, discos, and the like. The fearful liver transplant recipient who wears the N95 is also much more likely to avoid social activities, etc. For example, my partner and I stopped wearing masks in mid-2021, when everyone had the opportunity to get vaccinated and the only ones dying of the illness were those who chose to go unvaccinated. We never tested positive nor got sick, but if we had, it would be because we went to crowded parties, bars, and discos, not because we weren't wearing a mask. Hell, the idiots who did this study didn't even control for prior vaccinations (number or timing), another known factor. Crappy studies lead to meaningless results.

How does one show that an intervention is helpful (causation, not just association)? The only way is via randomized controlled trials, or RCT's. Have RCT's been done, you might ask? Yes, there were six RCT's comparing N95's to surgical masks, and not one of those studies showed any difference. There was also a meta-analysis of those studies (combining their data), which is the highest level of evidence that exists, and it's known with iron-clad certainty that there is NO difference between N95's and surgical masks when it comes to this virus's transmission. How about an RCT comparing masks vs no masks? Yes, that study was done (only one that I'm aware of), and it showed a 9.5% drop in positive tests when masking is used. The references to those studies were posted in prior strings, and I'm not going to look them up again, but you're certainly welcome to look if you're interested, which I suspect you're not (you appear to be more interested in cherry-picking lousily-designed studies which support your view instead of more solid science). 

Your comparison with smallpox, HIV, and polio also provides further evidence of your complete ignorance in public health matters. These viruses are completely different from SARS-CoV2 in innumerable ways, including their method of transmission. Masking had nothing to do with quashing any of those viruses (smallpox and polio were eliminated with vaccines, and HIV controlled with antiviral medication). 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Unicorn

[+ KensingtonHomo]

10 hours ago, Unicorn said:

No, no one "normalized" the virus. The virus normalized itself. With the omicron variant, it reverted (via mutation) to essentially the wild form of the common cold virus, and is no more virulent let alone deadly.

I didn't read past this because 500 people do not die every day from the common cold. So everything past this point is just justification for letting people die. 

As for the other viruses, decades were spent with a variety of interventions to solve those and you're ready to give up after three years. I fervently hope you do not work in healthcare. If so, it's time to change careers. 

[+ LIguy]

I had an appointment with my pulmonologist yesterday and was surprised to see that masking no longer required in office however my dr and masked up in exam room.  Masking is still required in the hospital where my cardiologist office is and also at my oncologist.

Edited March 9, 2023 by LIguy

[pubic_assistance]

Overall....if you just look at raw data instead of cherry picking....the TOTAL death rate in the US during the height of the COVID panic is similar to the percentage of population in 1985 (no...not 1885). It is actually lower than every year 1984 and back. 

The fact of the matter is that the mass killing effect of COVID was exaggerated through the media by using sheer numbers of deaths instead of noting that a percentage of the population die every year.

Consistently the data has shown that everyone makes a natural immune response to COVID. Being immunized gives you a head start in making that immune response and if you ACTUALLY died from a COVID infection it's because your overall immune response was defective. 

NO "healthy" person died from COVID-19 There is ZERO data to support that rumor. 

 

[BtmBearDad]

If you want to wear a mask, wear a mask. If you don’t want to, don’t. Neither group should be judging the other for their choice.

I’m in NYC, and just from my observations, the number of people wearing masks continues to decline significantly. On the streets, on the subway, in stores, etc.. I will say though that of the ones wearing, there’s a good number that shouldn’t even bother because they’re wearing them incorrectly - they’re basically using them as chin guards. 

Personally, I can’t remember the last time I wore a mask - but I always have one on me just in case I need it. 
 

BBD

[+ tassojunior]

Then why did life expectancy plummet? It's disturbing when life expectancy suddenly falls to several years younger than one is. 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

I didn't read past this because 500 people do not die every day from the common cold. So everything past this point is just justification for letting people die. 

As for the other viruses, decades were spent with a variety of interventions to solve those...

I know you're not interested in reading the facts--you don't have to tell me. That's why your behavior is so preposterous. It also gives you an excuse, albeit a silly one, for not responding to the factual information in the post. You're like a crooked reporter who cherry-picks information to include only what he agrees with, and ignores facts which don't agree with his view.

What's your reference for your statement that 500 people don't die with the cold every day? First of all, coronaviruses are one of the two viruses which cause colds, so what you're saying is that 500 people a day don't die from coronaviruses, which is true (most of the 500 deaths are clearly for other reasons, since the statistics include everyone testing positive, even those who have no symptoms related to the virus). How could you possibly know (which you don't) that 500 people a day don't die of rhinoviruses, the other main cause of colds? There's no practical way to test for them. Once, again, you're simply blowing hot air, and showing your ignorance in these matters. In fact, hundreds of people a day do die of "COPD exacerbations," most of which are probably due to rhinoviruses or coronaviruses (no way to know for sure, of course). 

You're also factually wrong about the eradication of smallpox and near-eradication of polio. Immunizations were essentially 100% responsible for their eradication. The SARS-CoV2 virus fairly quickly showed its ability to evade immunization with the alpha variant. There has only been one virus completely eradicated in human history (smallpox, obviously), and one nearly eradicated (polio). You're dead wrong if you think SARS-CoV2 is going to be the third. Keep deluding yourself. And keep your hands firmly affixed over your eyes. It'll make you feel better. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Unicorn

[pubic_assistance]

4 hours ago, tassojunior said:

Then why did life expectancy plummet? It's disturbing when life expectancy suddenly falls to several years younger than one is. 

Life expectancy has grown exponentially in the last century.

COVID pushed that back and will continue to do so. 

But we are living longer because of modern medicine, not because people just magically started living longer. Many people live ten years longer than they should with no quality of life laying in a hospital bed for years. They're gonna go eventually and COVID will make sure they do. It's the planet's way of saying you're using up resources unnecessarily. Time to go. 

[+ KensingtonHomo]

2 hours ago, Unicorn said:

I know you're not interested in reading the facts--you don't have to tell me. That's why your behavior is so preposterous. It also gives you an excuse, albeit a silly one, for not responding to the factual information in the post. You're like a crooked reporter who cherry-picks information to include only what he agrees with, and ignores facts which don't agree with his view.

What's your reference for your statement that 500 people don't die with the cold every day? First of all, coronaviruses are one of the two viruses which cause colds, so what you're saying is that 500 people a day don't die from coronaviruses, which is true (most of the 500 deaths are clearly for other reasons, since the statistics include everyone testing positive, even those who have no symptoms related to the virus). How could you possibly know (which you don't) that 500 people a day don't die of rhinoviruses, the other main cause of colds? There's no practical way to test for them. Once, again, you're simply blowing hot air, and showing your ignorance in these matters. In fact, hundreds of people a day do die of "COPD exacerbations," most of which are probably due to rhinoviruses or coronaviruses (no way to know for sure, of course). 

You're also factually wrong about the eradication of smallpox and near-eradication of polio. Immunizations were essentially 100% responsible for their eradication. The SARS-CoV2 virus fairly quickly showed its ability to evade immunization with the alpha variant. There has only been one virus completely eradicated in human history (smallpox, obviously), and one nearly eradicated (polio). You're dead wrong if you think SARS-CoV2 is going to be the third. Keep deluding yourself. And keep your hands firmly affixed over your eyes. It'll make you feel better. 

Dude, you're not fit for purpose when it comes to this conversation. You're conflating correlation with causation, vaccination campaigns with NPIs, and rhinovirus with COVID, MERS and SARS. 

No, 500 people do not day from rhinovirus every day in the US. In fact, probably no one does. COVID-19 is the THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH in the US for three years in a row. Even the combination of flu and pneumonia, which disproportionately kill the elderly, do not have that death rate. 

You haven't provided factual information. You've posted pro-corporate propaganda, which I'm sure also makes you feel better about sitting on your ass during mass death. 

COVID could be eliminated if we chose to do so. It could have been nipped in the bud before it killed 10 million people. And it wasn't for one reason: profits. 

So keep shilling for billionaires who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. 

[+ KensingtonHomo]

52 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Many people live ten years longer than they should with no quality of life laying in a hospital bed for years. They're gonna go eventually and COVID will make sure they do. It's the planet's way of saying you're using up resources unnecessarily. Time to go. 

Citation needed for your claim that people live ten years longer than they "should." And your callousness really knows no bounds. I hope you're going to follow the Zeke Emmanual plan. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

... You're conflating correlation with causation, vaccination campaigns with NPIs, and rhinovirus with COVID, MERS and SARS...

So you did read the response you said you didn't read. I suspect as much, and that you simply couldn't refute the issues I brought up, but I didn't want to accuse you of lying. So I'm glad you fessed up yourself. However, if you're going to read something, read it carefully. It was you who insinuated that a study, which at best showed a correlation between mask wearing, implied that the lower rate of test positivity was due to the mask wearing. I'll repeat: a case-control (retrospective) study can, at best, show a correlation, NEVER a causation. However, the study you cited was horribly done (by the authors' own admission). They made no attempt to control for known factors involved in contracting the virus, such as attendance of crowded venues, number of immunizations, time since last immunization, and so on. They simply went to testing clinics and asked the patients there to describe their mask-wearing habits. One would expect a host of different behaviors from mask vs non-mask wearers, so that study was complete junk. 

The only way to know if an intervention is effective is to randomize all comers into different interventions and then follow what happens. When those studies were done, they showed (1) no difference between N95's and surgical masks, and (2) minimal drops in transmission between masks and no masks. Those are the facts. And, just like polio and smallpox, MERS and SARS have nothing to do with the masking discussion. Completely irrelevant.

 

[+ KensingtonHomo]

7 hours ago, Unicorn said:

The only way to know if an intervention is effective is to randomize all comers into different interventions and then follow what happens. When those studies were done, they showed (1) no difference between N95's and surgical masks, and (2) minimal drops in transmission between masks and no masks. Those are the facts.

Again, you just repeat pro-corporate talking points without having done the slightest bit of actual research. I guess you work in healthcare because you're fluent enough in the terminology to sound like you know what you're talking about. But, you don't. 

A study in Massachusetts definitively concluded that universal masking indoors greatly prevented the spread of COVID-19 among students and staff. When masking was dropped, transmission increase 44 percent. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2211029

Like many other people who put their mild inconvenience ahead of other people's lives, you pretend to care about efficacy but that's just a "mask" for your own selfishness. 

[+ Lucky]

Mask report was misunderstood: nytimes.com

The debate over masks’ effectiveness in fighting the spread of the coronavirus intensified recently when a respected scientific nonprofit said its review of studies assessing measures to impede the spread of viral illnesses found it was “uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.”

Now the organization, Cochrane, says the way it summarized the review was unclear and imprecise, and that the way some people interpreted it was wrong.

“Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation,” Karla Soares-Weiser, the editor in chief of The Cochrane Library, said in a statement.

“The review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses,” Soares-Weiser said, adding, “given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.”

 

 

She said that “this wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize,” and that Cochrane would revise the summary.

Soares-Weiser also said, though, that one of the lead authors of the review even more seriously misinterpreted its finding on masks by saying in an interview that it proved “there is just no evidence that they make any difference.” In fact, Soares-Weiser said, “that statement is not an accurate representation of what the review found.”

Cochrane reviews are often referred to as gold standard evidence in medicine because they aggregate results from many randomized trials to reach an overall conclusion — a great method for evaluating drugs, for example, which often are subjected to rigorous but small trials. Combining their results can lead to more confident conclusions.

Masks and mask mandates have been a hot controversy during the pandemic. The flawed summary — and further misinterpretation of it — set off a debate between those who said the study showed there was no basis for relying on masks or mask mandates and those who said it did nothing to diminish the need for them.

Michael D. Brown, a doctor and academic who serves on the Cochrane editorial board and made the final decision on the review, told me the review couldn’t arrive at a firm conclusion because there weren’t enough high-quality randomized trials with high rates of mask adherence.

While the review assessed 78 studies, only 10 of those focused on what happens when people wear masks versus when they don’t, and a further five looked at how effective different types of masks were at blocking transmission, usually for health care workers. The remainder involved other measures aimed at lowering transmission, like hand washing or disinfection, while a few studies also considered masks in combination with other measures. Of those 10 studies that looked at masking, the two done since the start of the Covid pandemic both found that masks helped.

(It's a very long article! https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochrane-study.html)

[Guest]

5 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

...A study in Massachusetts definitively concluded that universal masking indoors greatly prevented the spread of COVID-19...

If there's any study less useful in showing causality (or even an association) than a case-control study, it's a purely observational one. The degree of ignorance in thinking that an observational study shows anything "definitely conclusive" is mind-boggling. One cannot have an intelligent discussion with someone who has no idea what he's talking about. It makes as much sense as arguing with a bird.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Lucky said:

...Cochrane reviews are often referred to as gold standard evidence in medicine because they aggregate results from many randomized trials ...

Michael D. Brown, a doctor and academic who serves on the Cochrane editorial board and made the final decision on the review, told me the review couldn’t arrive at a firm conclusion because there weren’t enough high-quality randomized trials with high rates of mask adherence...

You are correct. Cochrane reviews generally represent the gold standard of evidence in medicine (along with the USPSTF, or United States Preventative Services Task Force), since they review randomized controlled trials when evaluating evidence. Since there has only been (to my knowledge, and presumably to theirs) one RCT evaluating masks vs no masks, they were correct in stating there is not enough evidence at this time to state masks are helpful. Obviously, that statement does NOT mean that there is evidence that masks are completely useless, and it is a misinterpretation of their statement to come to such a conclusion. In this instance, @mike carey's famous adage "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is indeed relevant. 

That being said, the one RCT is the only solid evidence we have at this time, and that evidence strongly suggests that any effect of masking, if present, is small. What IS certain, since there have been 6 RCT's and 1 meta-analysis on the issue, is that N95's are no better than surgical masks. 

[+ Lucky]

@Unicorn, you are quoting the NY Times article, not me. Just to be clear.

[Stormy]

I had a doctors appointment today and forgot about the mask requirement.   I think we need to get back to normalcy.  It’s time that masking should be voluntary everywhere 

[Rudynate]

On 3/8/2023 at 10:06 AM, Unicorn said:

You weasled your way out of answering my question. You previously said that you masked whenever you were indoors, not just on public transportation. So you didn't answer my question. What is different now from the rest of your life? Why won't you wear your mask indoors for the rest of your life? Incidentally, your comparison of masking with HIV prevention is ridiculous. Masks are at best 10% effective at reducing transmission, whereas condoms are a good 90% effective when used correctly and PrEP over 99% effective when taken as directed. (Not even mentioning that, unlike the Covid-19 virus, HIV has life-long implications for anyone infected with it). So you're going to be hard-headed for the rest of your life when on public transportation. Do you have the balls to answer how long you'll continue to mask indoors?

COVID is a respiratory virus and HIV is sexually-tranmitted/bloodborne.  I'm not a virologist, but I would guess the transmission risk is much higher with COVID.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Rudynate said:

COVID is a respiratory virus and HIV is sexually-tranmitted/bloodborne.  I'm not a virologist, but I would guess the transmission risk is much higher with COVID.

Completely irrelevant and non-responsive.

[Rudynate]

47 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

Completely irrelevant and non-responsive.

Ha Ha!!  You're funny. Transmissability has a lot to do with how much you would protect yourself from a virus.  Of course HIV is much more virulent than the newer strains of COVID, so transmissability doesn't tell the whole story.

[Rudynate]

On 3/21/2023 at 10:24 AM, Stormy said:

I had a doctors appointment today and forgot about the mask requirement.   I think we need to get back to normalcy.  It’s time that masking should be voluntary everywhere 

What sort of people are found in healthcare facilities?  Sick people, old people, small children - people who can't afford to catch COVID.   People are still dying from COVID - mostly preventable deaths.