MASKS- many opinions, swiss-cheese viewpoints from "experts".

Discussion in 'Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions' started by spiritgide, Jul 30, 2020.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Masks work the same everywhere. Their physical properties do not change when their geographical locations change. Viruses don’t change in size in your house. Masks are effective everywhere they are worn properly.

    So, here’s one study that backs me up. Since you have a hard time reading links I’ll supply a pull quote for third parties.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...e-could-curb-covid-19-transmission-by-79/amp/

    Note the emphasis on presymptomatic use. Just the opposite of what you say here.

    Now recall the times I’ve told you I’m ahead of the curve? Check this out. Last Thursday we had this conversation about masks at home.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...itive-for-covid.576154/page-8#post-1071913712
    Over the weekend Dr. Birx said this.
    Link.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/health/dr-birx-advises-people-who-live-in-multi-generational-households-to-wear-masks-at-home/?amp=true

    I’ve also said experts are often behind the curve, but it looks like Birx is coming around. Multigenerational is a good start.
    Yes masks work the same at Home home as Home Depot.

    Up to you. But I’m the rational one basing my posts on science. Nobody will be able to cure me of that I’m afraid.
    Absolutely false. The R naught of this virus is around 2.5. That means an infected individual without altering behavior will infect 2.5 others over the span of their contagious period, usually at least ten days. You just assumed every time your theoretical person goes to Lowe’s unmasked they have a 100% chance of infecting someone. If this was true the R0 of C19 would be similar to measles (R0 of 11-18
    Also your math is way off because at home you are 6 times more likely to infect someone than at home. So using your math, the R0 of C19 would be astronomical.
    Nope. See above. You have no idea what you are talking about. You show me the R0 of this thing is 15-20 and we will go further with your math. But there is no data supporting an R0 that high.
    The chance of an infected person passing C19 to a household member is 17%. I provided you references last week. I’ve provided a study above that shows my arithmetic is correct.
    Done.

    PS. You made the same error as another member last week on statistics. If you flip a coin today, what are the odds you get heads? If you flip the coin again tomorrow what are the odds you get heads?
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
  2. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does that contradict what I said? I'll say it again: forget the science, how realistic is that?

    Unless you have clear overwhelming evidence that wearing the mask at home, when you don't even know if anybody is infected or not.... it's just not going to happen unless you show waaaay more than that. And I doubt it even then. Not in this country.

    I have no idea what that "79%" means. You didn't provide a link to the study. There are too many variables that are not considered in the article (maybe in the study). Such as the likelihood of a member catching it from somebody outside the home.

    I already said, at least twice on this thread, that wearing a mask at home only makes sense if you know somebody is infected.

    Great. But even if you had the proper body of knowledge to try to convince people to wear masks at home, you first need to get them to wear them at Home Depot.

    You base your posts about "magical homes" on science? Oh oh...!

    I'm not talking about that! I am altering behavior (like going to Lowe's every day, which is not normal behavior for anybody) to illustrate a point.

    No idea what it was you were trying to say there.

    Again no link to the study. But I say one more time: wearing a mask at home when you know somebody is infected is plausible. Wearing one just as a prevention... not so much.

    I have a better idea: start by convincing people to wear a mask when they go out. And then you can start talking about convincing them to wear one at home. I'm not saying you won't succeed (though at this point I don't see much hope for that position). But first things first.

    The odds of each individual flip are not relevant here. If you flip a coin four times, the probabilities that one of those four is heads is 1-1/(2^4) . That's 87.5% If you flip it 8 times, it's 1-1/(2^8 ) or 99.6%... etc People who live together interact every day. And typically more than once a day.

    Anyway... that's irrelevant. The important thing is that I don't see much hope for your proposal with the scant evidence you provide. And you still have to convince people to wear their masks outside.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
  3. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With science deniers like you it probably won’t happen. But if you want the pandemic to end it’s one if the fastest ways short of a full lockdown.
    I don’t know what other evidence one would need. We have all the relevant facts. I agree it won’t happen here. You want your “free-dumb” at home. Nobody really cares about ending the pandemic. They just want the security blanket feeling of a mask now and then.
    Here you go.
    https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/5/e002794.full
    The explanation of how they controlled for variables is there.
    Yes. And you are incorrect. The study I’ve provided concluded the opposite. As the pull quote I provided shows. And Dr. Birx clearly disagrees with you. It’s funny you don’t want to comment on her statement. Do you think her statement is based on research or is she a pseudoscience pusher?
    Not interested in convincing everyone to wear a mask at home. Just pointing out it’s the proper thing to do if you care about your family and others.

    You are the one who believes masks and viruses behave differently in homes. Not me.
    Well you failed at making a point because none of what you posted is based on facts we know about this virus.
    Not surprised. I’m saying the R0 of the virus in your goofy example would be astronomical because you had already upped it to measles levels just based on random interactions at Lowe’s. You have to figure transmission at home as well and transmission at home is 6 times that of in public. I’m just pointing out how ignorant you are of the facts.
    I provided the link last week. You didn’t read it then you won’t read it now. But here’s a non political source for third parties.
    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/06/18/world/coronavirus-spreads-at-home/
    Not interested. Just trying to get some folks to think for themselves. And show based on science more good could be done by wearing masks at home than elsewhere.

    Maybe it’s relevant in theory but in your Lowe’s hypothetical we know the odds of giving C19 to someone outside the home with no behavior modification is only 2.5% over 10-14 days of continuous “coin flips”. Actually you wouldn’t use a coin for an analogy, but a die with thousands of facets and only one facet representing transmission.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
  4. TCassa89

    TCassa89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    9,056
    Likes Received:
    3,691
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The first medical masks were actually designed to protect doctors from the plague, but yes doctors also wear masks to protect the patients. As for the individuals who cannot wear a mask for medical reasons, again that is only for people who have severe respiratory issues, and even then so, it is not carbon exposure that puts them at risk. No matter how many paragraphs you write saying the mask is exposing the subject to an unhealthy level of CO2, it doesn't change the fact that the notion you are speaking of is false. The carbon we exhale dissipates through the mask

    Now granted there are some inconsistencies in the research put into COVID-19 (particularly in determining the most effective treatment for the virus), it is after all called COVID-19 because it came to light in the year 2019, but just like anything else in the medical field, our knowledge of the condition improves over time

    One thing that is consistent is this, the standard for all doctors treating COVID patients is to wear a mask to protect themselves from the virus. Medical masks were literally created hundreds of years ago as a means of protecting doctors from the plague, and are to this day used to protect doctors from harmful viruses. The only concerns in people wearing masks was that it could lead to a shortage for hospitals. The consensus on the effectiveness of masks has been consistent
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2020
  5. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I think the point is that you aren't open to any view except your own. Therein lies the bulk of the conflicts we are seeing in all this ridiculous argument- everybody insists on being right.
    No matter if you are breathing into a paper bag, through a long tube or a mask- anything that reduces the completeness of exchange of air (where all possible exhaled air is cleared, all incoming air in fresh and normal) you are changing the gas levels in that inhaled air. This isn't some scientific interaction, it's strictly a physical fact- for example if you fail to completely dump off all the water in a glass before you fill it with orange juice, you now have watered-down orange juice. IF you fail to clear the old air from your system in exhalation, you re-inhale part of what failed to clear in the next cycle. Kind of like connecting your car's exhaust pipe to the air intake, and expecting nothing to change. Again, it does not matter for most people. It matters for people who's capacity to respiratory efficiency is compromised, because they are already in marginal condition.
     
  6. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hah! You never heard the expression "Forget X, talk about Y"? It doesn't mean that I deny science. It means that the science you mention is not as relevant as the fact that it does not apply to the real-world scenario that you are claiming it applies to.

    Whether masks are effective or not at home depends of science (of which you have shown very little and inconclusive for the scenario you present), but also on its applicability. And the applicability of your proposal "stop the spread of the pandemic by wearing masks at home" is absolutely ridiculous in real life, when you can't even convince people to wear masks when they go out.

    Look... throwing around scientific studies, and reaching unsubstantiated conclusions that those studies do not reach is the very nature of pseudoscience. Show a controlled study in which the conclusion is that wearing masks at home even when you have no reason to suspect that somebody is infected, has a significant impact (and serious studies will define what they consider "significant" and why) on stopping the spread of the pandemic. It might also be advisable if you live with somebody who is at high risk. But not something that should be done by everybody.

    On that we agree. So what was your point?

    The quote you sent

    Dr. Birx: "“But more importantly, if you're in multi-generational households, and there's an outbreak in your rural area or in your city, you need to really consider wearing a mask at home,”​

    Your extrapolation:

    You: "Just demonstrating the ridiculousness of you wearing a mask in what you say is the most risky environment (ICU) and very low risk environment (public places like stores) but won’t wear one in an intermediate risk area, your home."

    If you live in a multi-generational home, if you live with a high risk individual, or if you live with somebody you know is infected, it makes sense to wear a mask. First you compare that to wearing one in an ICU full of patients infected with Covid 19. Then you assume any of the above applies to me. That is pure nonsense!

    And to push that, you want to extrapolate a single study done in China to the U.S. That (your intent, not the study) is illusory at best, but most appropriately pseudoscience.

    To be clear: it's pseudoscience at this point. Who knows if in the future there will be support to validate this as a recommendation. But pushing a conclusion without proper scientific support will always be pseudoscience. Even if studies turned up in the future concluding that it's advisable for me to wear a mask at home, this would not put you "ahead of the curve". It would only show you throwing crap at the wall and finding out that some of it ended up sticking.

    Then why are you pushing for people to wear masks at home? If you are not interested in divulging science, then what are you doing here?

    I think I know the answer to that. I perceive that you were actually trying to undermine the need to wear masks outside. Forget the "I think" part. I'm convinced of this. There is no dispute in science about wearing masks outside. And there is nothing to "think" about. Just do it! It's a proven fact that this is the only (along with social distancing, and the other expert recommendations) alternative to a lock down.

    Using scientific studies that do not conclude what you claim to support that unsubstantiated claim. And then using that to undermine proven fact, is pure textbook pseudoscience any way you look at it.

    One last thing: I'm glad you grant credibility to Dr. Birx. Unfortunately, our President undermines her, and all experts like her day in and day out. This is what we should be outraged about. When I hear any of these experts, I don't know if they're struggling to get out a message like "everybody needs to wear masks at home!", but they are softening it in order to try not to draw rage from this idiot President*, or if what they are saying is actually just a recommendation. And this is something that goes on every day every time they say something Trump doesn't want to hear. It's the consequence of having an idiot in charge who only cares about himself and his re-election. It's one of the main reasons why we have the worst response to this pandemic in the world. And this won't stop if we don't get rid of him as quickly as possible.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2020
  7. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The study I provided was of the real world scenario. LOL
    Ah, so because we can’t convince people to wear masks in public the science we use to conclude masks are helpful is “ridiculous In real life”. Also, because flat earthers exist, all we know about planetary orbits, shapes of planets, etc. is ridiculous in real life. Your argument here is absurd. What percentage of people would need to wear masks at home before the science is no longer absurd? Unbelievable.
    Show me a controlled study showing masks at Lowes slow spread even when no known infected persons are present. Show me one on mask effectiveness at grocery stores.

    When you say what I’ve done here presenting evidence is pseudoscience you indict the CDC and the WHO as well. Their recommendations on mask usage in public are based on observation, meta analysis of old data, and case studies. The exact same evidence I’ve presented.
    Good. My point is getting you on record admitting we have all the evidence we need to recommend mask usage at home. Because you at times infer we don’t have enough information.
    Yes, your position masks are only sensible in the home if there is a known infection is nonsense. That’s why I’ve pointed out the science and Dr. Birx disagree with your unsubstantiated opinion on the matter. If you would like to present evidence I’m wrong or that Dr. Birx is a pseudoscience pusher go ahead. And don’t think I don’t notice you moving the goalposts. Your admission now that high risk and multigenerational households should wear masks at home is not your original position. And you are still wrong on wearing a mask after symptoms appear. The research I presented showed the opposite. Here is the pull quote again since you seem to have missed it the first time.
    Exactly the opposite of your opinion that is unsubstantiated by science.
    If masks at home is pseudoscience masks in public are as well. The evidence for both are identical.
    I’m attempting to get people to take actions most likely to keep them safe from infection if that is their intent. My methods are multifaceted.
    You are incorrect. I support mask usage by those who have used science and logic to conclude it is the best way for them to deal with this pandemic. Outside, in Lowes, and in the home.
    I have done none of the above that you claim.
    Birx is like everyone else. She’s right some and wrong some. My pointing out she is correct on this subject in no way grants her broad credibility. (I’m shocked progressives find her credible at all with her views on abstinence etc.) Just like the fact Trump was correct when he told Cuomo he didn’t need as many vents as Cuomo wanted doesn’t lead me to grant Trump broad credibility. I’m no fan of appeal to authority. Neither orange men or scarf ladies.
     
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In China. Which is fine. But not enough to establish a general rule.

    But if you're not trying to get people to wear masks, who cares? That's what you said before. What relevance does it have? What is your point?

    Yes, but it's your whole narrative that is ridiculous, if you're not trying to convince people to wear masks, this whole discussion serves no purpose. Unless you can tell us what that is.
    .
    Doesn't matter if it's at Lowes or Walmart or the beach. Studies show that they are effective if people wear them wherever there are accumulations of people where you don't know who is infected or not. But the effect is only significant if everybody wears one.

    It's amazing to me that you are discussing this, and you don't even know this very basic fact.

    Then you should be able to start your narrative by quoting the CDC or WHO, and there would be no reason to present the conclusions as if they were yours, and not theirs.

    I'll do that when (and if) there is proper science behind that recommendation.

    But even if that happens, your claim will still be pseudoscience. i.e. a misleading application of scientific knowledge to forward some... pre-established notion. The nature of which escapes me. I thought it was to get people to wear masks inside. But you said that's not it without explaining what it actually is.

    No! There are many differences between public areas and home that invalidates such a statement. I already mentioned the fact that at home you interact with the same people, those people have similar eating, drinking as well as sanitary and hygienic habits, they generally interact with more or less the same people, they usually develop similar acquired immunities and vulnerabilities, ...

    As I said, your assumption is the very essence of pseudoscience.

    The "for them" in the above paragraph indicates that you are the one who doesn't understand the science and logic behind masks. Anybody who understands the science behind the FACT that masks are the best way to deal with a pandemic knows that it's not "for them" that they are wearing them.
     
  9. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,217
    Likes Received:
    14,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wear a mask in public.
    Wash your hands frequently.
    Maintain social distancing.
    Avoid large gathering, especially indoors.
    If you won't accept societal responsibility, whine about it later.
     
  10. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But we have so much more evidence. Enough apparently to get Dr. Birx to come around to my way of thinking. :)
    It’s not my job to get people to wear masks. It isn’t the job of the researchers in China to get people to wear masks. I’m content to present the scientific basis for wearing masks where they are most effective. One of those places is at home. Nobody (Dr. Birx a few days after I started) is giving information to people that can save lives. So I am.
    I provide good information based on science so people can make informed decisions.
    Exactly! And in your home (unless you live alone) is one of those places! (You are welcome to present evidence that isn’t just your opinion the home is an exception. LOL)
    Provide some evidence this is true. Not your opinion, evidence.
    You are the one ignorant of the fact masks work the same in homes as anywhere else. You will need to back up your claims now Golem.
    I’ve told you before the CDC and WHO are usually weeks behind me. Turns out Birx is charging hard this time though.

    Mask use in public is supported by case studies, meta analysis of old data, and observations. So is mask usage in the home. Show otherwise.

    You already did. I said this:
    And you said this:
    We agree, we have all the relevant facts. Do you have a ghost writer, Golem?
    Nothing misleading. Just facts.
    Not interested in your opinion Golem. I presented a formal study concluding the opposite of your opinion. Back up your opinion with something concrete.

    I’ve made no assumptions. I’ve presented studies and facts. You have given opinions contrary to formal studies without any evidence to back your opinion.

    You are denying science. It’s clear now wearing masks correctly protects the wearer. There’s this:
    And this:
    https://www.eatthis.com/covid-face-mask-protection/

    I’m well aware of the protection they offer others as well. That’s why I’ve presented solid evidence they protect household members from a presymptomatic family member if that infected individual is wearing a mask. Not only do I understand one side of the equation, I understand the self protective side as well. The side you are in denial of. Will you ever tire of denying science?
     
  11. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Even Swiss cheese stops some virus and when you're done with it it's safe to eat the Swiss cheese right out of the mask.:)

    And you're 100% right, the more heat and humidity, the harder it is to breathe thru the mask. But you won't inhale any skeeters or noseeums.

    Mama always said that anything that holds you back from breathing freely is going to limit your supply of oxygen.

    If you camp for a couple of weeks at 9,000 feet the mask will be easier for you to handle when you get home at 1,000.:)
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
    Antiduopolist likes this.
  12. TCassa89

    TCassa89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    9,056
    Likes Received:
    3,691
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, this isn't my view, it's something that has been debunked many times by multiple sources already. Medical masks do not collect nearly enough carbon to be a medical issue, that is a fact. That's the thing about facts, they don't change or adjust to better fit your argument, they remain the same
    https://www.healthline.com/health-n...-co2-poisoning#Face-mask-blamed-for-car-crash
    https://www.bbc.com/news/53108405
    https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem....ing-of-health/debunked-myths-about-face-masks

    Comparing the fabric of a medical mask to a paper bag is completely ridiculous.The material density is not the same, and the air's ability to escape are clearly different. The carbon dissipates through the mask, and no this does not vary based on age. No matter how old or young you are, the size of carbon particles do not change, nor does the density of the mask. Arguing that either of these factors change based on age is completely irrational

    Medical masks can be an issue for people with severe respiratory issues, however this has nothing to do with the mask collecting carbon. Again, this is something that has been proven many times over again, it's not something that is going to change based on what you want to be true. Wring another paragraph about how it does without any medical source to back it up is not going to change that
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
  13. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sadly, you miss the point again. It's not the air going through the mask that is at issue here, or the fabrics filtration qualities or retention of carbon. It's volume of air exchanged;; the amount of added space in which the exhaled air does not actually leave the respiratory path to be replaceded with fresh air- it's the air that stays inside that path and is inhaled again; altering gas values due to the blood gas exchange process. This volume varies with the mask design and inner space- but it always exists. Granted, it makes no discernible difference to most people other than the feeling they rare breathing pre-heated, less-than fresh air- which they are. It DOES make a difference to a person with marginal respiratory conditions.

    For example if you are swimming with a snorkel, any exhaled air that does not clear the end of that snorkel tube is re-breathed; surely you can understand that. Now make the tube long enough, and none of your exhalation will reach the end of that tube, ALL of each breathe will be re-breathed. Every time, the O2 content goes down, the CO2 goes up. Try it. To exaggerate the process so you realize it quickly, get yourself a paper tube say 2" x 16", and try breathing only through it. The average tidal volume of a normal breathe is about .5 liters. That 2" tube will have a volume of .5 liter per 10", thus NO fresh air exchange will actually take place. Your blood O2 will drop below the range needed to support consciousness. When your blood O2 saturation drops to about 75%, You WILL pass out. Do you understand the point now?
     
    jay runner likes this.
  14. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok. These posts are getting too long again. So let's get to the bottom line. All this started because you thought it was ridiculous that I would wear a mask in an ICU full of Covid 19 patients, but no wear one at home. So let's summarize where we are on that.

    Dr. Birx has recommended, as far as I know, wearing masks when you know somebody is sick, and to "consider" them when somebody is at high risk (depending on the level of risk). The former is very obvious. I don't remember if anybody had even said that when we included it in our family plan, in case somebody did get infected. Which my family and I agreed on very early on at the beginning of this crisis. We even designated a room where the infected person would stay, and installed in it a TV set and a computer for that person The other one does not apply to me. Nobody in my household is sick. But I've heard that recommendation many times from experts.

    So if there is anything in Dr. Birx's recommendations that I'm missing, do let me know what that is.

    Other than that, you have not provided appropriate evidence that wearing a mask in the house makes any significant difference in the chances of somebody getting infected in households where people don't know they are infected. The study in China you provided is one piece of information. But it is not be enough for experts to recommend such practice in the U.S. In the real world, it would probably not work. If we were to try to implement it in my household, the question I would receive is "why?". And "because they did one study in China in which they interviewed people who said they wore masks all the time at home. And they are smart enough to figure out that that is flimsy evidence at best. The burden of proof to demonstrate that wearing masks at home is advisable is much higher than that of wearing masks outside. Because it would significantly disrupt family life. Because people can't sleep with a mask on. What good would wearing a mask during the day do, if you're not wearing it at night? Because interacting with the same people day in and day out is not the same as interacting with hundreds of people outside. Even with a mask, your interaction with your family (at least mine) is closer than your interaction with strangers. There are many many differences.

    A study in real life scenario, in which a group composed of a large number of families that wear masks, compared to another large number that don't, in the U.S. or a culture similar to ours might help your case. But we don't even know what your case is. "Providing information" has nothing to do with your statements about whether or not I would use a mask in the ICU but not at home.

    Just one more thing....

    Recent studies have shown that wearing masks marginally protect the wearer. But it's not the reason why masks were recommended by experts. The reason is that they significantly protect others when worn in public settings. This has been explained over and over. So to expect people to be wearing masks just because they feel it's better "for them" is a clear indication that you were unaware of this very basic notion. And it's fine that you didn't know. Because now you do know.

    This can be seen in the actual recommendations as they were originally explained by those experts.

    "A mask may not protect the wearer, but it may keep the wearer from spreading the virus to others."
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...A mask may not protect,, chanting, or singing).​

    "The finding adds to a growing body of evidence that cloth face coverings provide source control – that is, they help prevent the person wearing the mask from spreading COVID-19 to others. The main protection individuals gain from masking occurs when others in their communities also wear face coverings."
    https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html





     
  15. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's sad that people keep repeating the same pseudoscience they read on social media. This has been debunked again and again based on real scientific data.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/53108405

    If we were not in the middle of a pandemic, we would be able to just say "what you say is inaccurate" and go about our business. But at a time of crisis like the current one, dissemination of this garbage actually costs lives.

    How can we get people to stop doing this? Because this is precisely what makes the negative numbers we see in our country grow exponentially.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
  16. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually my point is it’s ridiculous to wear a mask in public and not at home. You keep trying to deflect from that.
    If you had read my link and pull quote of Birx you would not be asking this question. She clearly stated things have changed and because of how widespread this is now, multigenerational households need to consider wearing masks at home if there is an outbreak in your area.
    No more of your opinions Golem. I’ve presented evidence. Your opinion my evidence is insufficient is meaningless when you can’t offer ANY evidence to support your opinion. And your opinion is less relevant every time you commit gross errors like assuming an R0 of 20+ for C19 in analogies you create.

    When you provide the same kind of study for Lowe’s or your local grocer, we can continue that thought. Otherwise my case is stronger than the case for wearing masks there. Provide evidence Golem. No more opinions. I’ve presented evidence directly refuting your opinion. You have not substantiated your opinion with anything but more of your incorrect opinion.
    I’ve never claimed masks aren’t worn to protect others. I’ve claimed they protect wearer and others. I’m correct. I’ve provided actual evidence of both.

    You also are ignoring the links I provided that show if you were to wear masks at home (or anywhere) the odds of having a severe case of C19 go down significantly even if you are infected. So if you bring the virus home to your family and they are wearing a mask, they are much less likely to die even if they become infected. I guess it just boils down to how much you care about others. I get you want your freedom at home. You admitted that’s why people don’t want to mask up at home. But that seems very selfish if the studies I’ve linked to discussions of are correct.

    When I say I provide information so people can do what’s best for them, I say that because I’m not an authoritarian. I don’t say it because I don’t understand the science of masks and their uses. Thanks for again demonstrating that you are authoritarian. Added bonus. :)

    A few fun facts and trivia question.

    The ICU is not the place one is most likely to be infected. There is a workplace that workers are almost 3 times more likely to be infected than ICU workers. Any guesses?

    In an interview, Dr. Paul Marik, who has created one of the most successful protocols for treating critically ill Covid 19 patients said this in response to the question “mask or no mask”?

     
  17. TCassa89

    TCassa89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    9,056
    Likes Received:
    3,691
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you don’t understand is the claim that a medical mask will trap anywhere close to enough co2 to change your blood oxygen level by so much as a single percent is a complete fallacy. It’s been disproven several times already by multiple medical sources, and to compare a medical mask to an object such as a paper bag or snorkel tube is absolutely doltish. No, a medical mask does not trap carbon the same way these other object do

    Granted there are people with severe respiratory issues who cannot wear a medical mask, but again this has nothing to do with trapped co2. Even a person with such health issues isn’t in danger of carbon poisoning from a medical mask
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No I'm not. It's an absolutely absurd point. That's not even a point. Since you said you're not seeking for people to wear masks at home. So your point seems to be that you think people should not wear masks anywhere. But you don't say it because you know that would really directly fly in the face of all known science on this topic.

    Yeah... I also mentioned that on an earlier post. That doesn't apply to me either.

    I have not submitted a single opinion throughout this discussion. I have pointed out the fact that you have extrapolated science that has proven its worth in many countries, and applied it to a completely different situation. As if interacting with 3, 4, 6... .people at home; is in some way similar to dozens ... or maybe hundreds... outside. Ridiculous pseudoscience!

    You did! The very second you claim that your criteria for wearing masks is whether it's the best way for them to deal with this pandemic

    It's clear. Because not only is the protection to the wearer only marginal, but this is only that was only proven relatively recently. Protection to others far precedes and exceeds protection to the wearer. There is no way you can justify inverting the criteria.

    In any case, I fail to see the purpose of any of this. You use pseudoscience to tout wearing masks at home, but you say your point is not to promote wearing masks at home. So, lacking a point, this whole discussion is meaningless.
     
  19. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ I think some people have developed a mask fetish ... :whisper: :lol:
     
  20. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL. You just offered your opinions again. I’m interested in science and facts. You can’t offer either. Have a good evening.
     
  21. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    PLEASE READ AGAIN:: It's not the air going through the mask that is at issue here, or the fabrics filtration qualities or retention of carbon.

    This has to to with VOLUME OF EXCHANGE. IF you do not inhale a complete breath of clean air, IF you re-breathe part the same air, the O2 goes down, the CO2 goes up because part of the same air is be re-used, over and over. Has nothing to do with filtration- everything to do with completeness of exchange.
    ALL fresh air in a breath, or 90% fresh air, or less. No, it does not matter if your lungs run at high efficiency. It matters a great deal if your lung efficiency is barely keeping blood gasses within functional limits. Try again to understand. This IS NOT complicated.
     
  22. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  23. TCassa89

    TCassa89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    9,056
    Likes Received:
    3,691
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually that is exactly what the issue is for people with severe respiratory issues is. For people who already have difficulty getting enough o2 to their bloodstream, wearing a mask can be problematic, but contrary to what your posts have suggested, this has absolutely nothing to do with co2 that is collected in the mask itself. Again, a standard fabric mask doesn't collect nearly enough co2 to be a health issue, even for those with respiratory issues. The health concerns in wearing a mask for these individuals has nothing to do with a inhaling a higher dosage of co2, but rather lowering their ability to get enough o2 (oxygen)

    The co2 you exhale dissipates through the mask, a standard medical mask does not collect nearly enough co2 to be considered a health issue. However, for individuals who already have difficulty getting enough o2 into their bloodstream, wearing a mask can be problematic
     
    Golem likes this.
  24. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The co2 THAT REMAINS IN THE AIRE REBREATHED reduces the ability of the blood to dump it's Co2
     
    557 likes this.
  25. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I ran across this quite awhile back and posted it to some science deniers but they don’t know enough about science to spot the hilarity.
    Here’s the link.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...iment-shows-N95-did-NOT-drive-CO2-levels.html

    Now the picture in the link “proving” masks are safe. LOL
    upload_2020-8-6_8-34-51.png

    My reposting this isn’t really commentary on if masks are safe, but on how ignorant media, apparently some in healthcare, and the general public are.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020

Share This Page