COVID protections eliminated a strain of flu

When?

 

No interest in the Swedish story? Heard of a library? Your loss.

 

You have previously made comments that seem to disagree with your statement above.

Now you seem to be saying masks do protect and prevent.

And

You don’t ‘glue’ a P100 to your face and you are claiming it is protective. I am pointing out that previously you stated that masks don’t provide protection nor prevent illness and provided different reasons. Perhaps, you should have educated yourself first about masks before claiming they all don’t work. You are incorrect that it’s only P100’s that are protective and prevent infection.

And

Do you no longer believe this?

It wasn’t necessary to wear a P100 mask in all situations. You seem to assume that all environments will be the same and all people are the same. As a health care professional, I chose different masks for different circumstances during the pandemic.

A P100 mask does not automatically provide ‘absolute’ protection unless the person is also wearing eye protection as well. As you say, wearing a mask when low-risk should be at the person’s discretion. Again, low-risk people should have protected those at risk throughout the pandemic. A maskless low-risk person who is infected with covid can infect a person wearing a P100 mask by simply sneezing or coughing because the route of entry can be the mucous membranes of the eyes. Even wearing a surgical mask definitely decreases the chances of that happening by decreasing the distance any virus particles can go as well as decreasing the velocity of the particles.

Many people find a P100 mask difficult to wear because it makes it harder to breathe. The N95 ones which are recommended in most hospitals make breathing much easier even though not offering the 99.97% protection the P100’s do. Generally though, a surgical mask is good enough in low risk situations. N95 masks are good enough in most situations. When a person is in a closed environment working closely with people infected with covid then a P100 along with safety goggles or glasses offers the best protection. I can tell you though, there is no such thing as ‘absolute’ protection because even with equipment that is close to 100 percent effective at blocking pathogens, there are always the very human lapses of attention — not putting the mask on properly, touching it while taking it off and infecting the hands with the virus and then infecting yourself, touching a door handle and infecting self etc.

The problem with your approach is you are now considering only high risk people need super protective masks. The problem is that it’s more than just wearing a mask that is protective. It’s incorrect to say that only the P100’s are protective when other masks are as well. You ignore people’s behaviour; you ignore different situations require different masks.

The point of protective measures is not just for the high-risk people. No matter what, it is important for everybody to protect each other in a pandemic situation when nobody has immunity and when people have high-risk for severe disease. Wearing a mask was important for everybody. Your thinking seems to be because people are not at risk for severe illness, they don’t need to protect themselves. The key word is ‘themselves’ which ignored protecting everybody around you. That person who decides they are low risk and therefore don’t need a mask might just be talking to somebody not knowing they are infected and off-load a enough of the virus into the eyes of a high risk person. So much for their attempt to protect their life with a really good mask. During a pandemic, why would a low risk person risk contracting covid by choosing not to wear a mask because that means they are going to spread the virus to others which is what keeps a pandemic going.

Actually it is a big deal for healthy people under the age of 70 when they develop long-covid. Healthy people develop long-covid after a mild infection. Long-covid is known to occur in healthy people, people who have allergies, people who are slightly over-weight to name a few things. There are currently once healthy people who had a mild case of covid who are now unable to go to work due to the long-term effects of virus. Covid also may not be a big deal for healthy people but it is a big deal when they spread it around to high-risk people because they don’t get that as they said during the pandemic in the UK — Hands (keep them germ-free) Space (social distancing) Face (wear a mask to protect yourself and others) matters.

I hope you are getting all of this or at least think about it.

 

Sorry but you are wasting your time. I have given up reading your posts.

 

I think they warned people, but they didn't tell them how to use quality PPE to avoid infection. We could have avoided lockdowns if we had done a better job of convincing the vulnerable to get vaccinated, stay out of crowds during periods of high transmission and wear better PPE.

 

Worn properly, a P100 respirator provides superior protection. When I wore a P100...



... I protected others by not catching covid.

Sure. I wore the P100 in stores and enjoyed the fresh air when I was exercising.

I disagree. The one-way valve makes breathing pretty easy. I can walk upstairs, do light work,

 

You think your book is necessary to ascertain what was going on in Sweden?

 

Yes. Your previous answer showed that you do not understand what went on in Sweden.

 

No they didn't. There were public service adverts on TV but not until 2022.

 

"Long Covid"

Such nonsense.......

 

Your opinion of what you think I know is grounded in your biases. British Columbians paying attention are well aware of what Sweden was doing because it was extensively discussed by BC officials in their handling of the pandemic. Sweden has a covid death rate of 2,677 per million while BC has a covid death rate of 1,258 per million. In the end, Sweden adopted policies similar to BC--restrictions on large gatherings and restrictions on some types of businesses. Why? The same reason they were adopted in BC. Both governments wanted to ease pressure on their healthcare systems.

 

So, you think "long covid" doesn't exist? Geezuz, get a clue.

 

That data is meaningless without age and preconditions information. The Swedish politicians took control out of the public health ministry in Sweden but not until November of 2020. And the changes they implemented were miniscule.

Anderberg, Johan. The Herd: how Sweden chose its own path through the worst pandemic in 100 years (pp. 306-307). Scribe Publications Pty Ltd. Kindle Edition.

 

There was a lot of information about co-morbidities and age impacting covid complications and death rates. Vaccinations, for example, were directed at older people first. Why? The rationale was they are at greater risk. Geez, we had tens of millions of folks keenly interested in getting vaccinated. They were paying attention.

Billions of words about covid and not enough truth about what respirators can do. Old folks in skilled nursing could have seen their families if they wore good PPE. The gratuitous cruelty of denying people the touch of loved ones marks our covid response.

 

Where? There was no national information campaign to alert people with these preconditions were at high risk to the body’s response to Covid viral infection.

 

And they helped stop the pandemic, whilst adding a layer of protection to themselves.

All we can do as humans is learn and evolve. Lessons learnt from a first modern-day pandemic, that we know for certain will not be the last. Unfortunately, there are those who through their ignorance are sabotaging the survival rates for many, through the incessant regurgitation of conspiracy garbage.

Correct. Layers of protection.

Correct. Layers of protection.

 

The restrictions in British Columbia were minuscule, too.

You think I'm supposed to track down a book you could have quoted? Egads.

I told you the essential facts about Sweden--they backed off voluntary measures because they wanted to take pressure off their healthcare system.

"The Commission considers that the focus on recommendations which people are expected to follow voluntarily has been fundamentally correct. Sweden's choice of path has had the significant benefit that people have not been forced to the same extent as in many other countries to comply with regulations restricting their personal freedom. By and large, they have been able to move freely in society, although it has been painful at times not to be able to receive visits or visit relatives in residential care facilities for older people or to attend large political, religious or cultural gatherings or events. The Swedish health care system managed to adapt rapidly and was for the most part able to offer care to those falling ill with COVID-19, although this required significant sacrifices by staff and came at the price of cancelled or postponed surgery and other treatment. Preschools and compulsory (primary and lower secondary) schools have been able to remain open, and children in the age groups concerned have received the teaching they need to prepare them for the future."​

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21274246/summary_20220225.pdf

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/sweden-report-coronavirus-1.6364154

 

And Sweden did not do that until after nearly a year had passed due to panic concerning a second wave.

 

All over the news.

No, there was no coordinated effort to inform people--about anything. They didn't tell the truth about "masks" (including respirators). They didn't tell people how VAERS works. They didn't tell people about the vaccines. They didn't bother explaining how opening up everything wasn't going to make people go to a restaurant, movie theater or mall.

 

By that time, BC K-12 schools were running full time for all students. Sweden was tali g some of the measures BC has decided they no longer needed.

 

Where? I never saw any adds until a year after.

 

Sweden never closed elementary and middle schools.

 

People in Canada and Sweden made cooperation work because they were more likely to socially distance, wear PPE and get vaccinated.

Correct. I'm hoping we'll learn something about the importance of cooperation.

 

But they closed high schools. BC closed schools in early 2020, then reopened all of them two months later.

BC started easing measures when in the Spring and Summer 2020, a province with 5m people had an average daily case load of 10--that's right, ten. The government then said it was going to ease restrictions. It's as though Sweden and British Columbia ended up in pretty much the same place after a couple of years.



https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a6f23959a8b14bfa989e3cda29297ded

Keep in mind BC had a much lower covid death rate than Sweden.

 

Why did BC have a lower "with covid" death rate?