Packed Mike Pence retirement village rally risks becoming a superspreader event

Wait...so if something in not 100% it's useless?

WRONG

 

I like the word "optional," especially when it comes to masks. It's a beautiful word.

 

50% at best at reducing inflow, and the other 50% gets trapped in your mask.

 

"Gets trapped in your mask" means you already HAVE it...and that DOESN'T get spewed on my wife and myself

 

No it doesn't mean that. Whatever virus is in the air, 50% of it will pass thru the mask and into your lungs, and the other 50% will get trapped in your mask. This is why you are instructed to change your mask every day, because the mask becomes a contaminate in and of itself. How many people actually change their mask every day? Very few I suspect.

 

Dude...if it's trapped in your mask YOU put it there

 

No, someone else put it there, because you were foolish enough to inhale 50% of someone elses covid, and the other 50% is now trapped in your useless mask, which you now exhale a part of it back out into the public, and inhale the rest.

We have 210,000 deaths for a reason, and that reason is because masks don't work.

 

Dude...if 50% of covid got inside your mask...without that mask 100% would have gotten through.

Either way YOU have it and your mask is preventing at least some of it spewing onto ME

 

No, that's not true of N95 masks. They filter out more than that, in numerous studies. Of course they need a good seal, but with a good one, they filter out up to 98% of particulates of 0.1 micron size thanks to brownian motion. That's the size of the naked coronavirus, but it travels in macro or micro droplets and even in aerosol its surroundings are bigger than that. It is true of cloth masks, though. They don't perform much better than 50%, again in numerous studies.

The N95 standard means that to pass the NIOSH tests they need to filter out at least (some perform even better than that) 95% of particulates the size of 0.3 micron, which is paradoxically a size that gets through more easily than 0.1 (again, due to brownian motion).

 

Given that the virus doesn't live for more than 5 to at most 7 days in fabric, the recommendation in my hospital, when PPE was scarce, was for each worker to have seven pieces, and wear one per day in a 7-day sequence, putting them aside in labeled paper bags at the end of the day, thus on day 8 reusing the mask used on day 1. But yes, ideally, in a no-shortage situation, they should be changed more often.

 

You are wrong. Masks are not 100% protection, obviously, but they do decrease the odds of transmission, to variable degrees depending on the type of mask and on how correctly they are worn. What they do, is that they decrease the relative risk. So I don't know what you mean by "don't work." With no masks whatsoever, we'd have had MORE than 210,000 deaths. How many more is unknown as there are no parallel universes (that we know of) we could use for a comparison so all we can do is take a look at epidemiological models and they are inherently flawed.

But we can also look at some studies that looked at mask vs. no mask based on the number of "events" (meaning how many people got the virus out of a given studied population) and compare the two situations. There are many intervening factors, it's not a randomized controlled trial, but it can give us an overview of the relative risk (RR), especially if we do a meta-analysis, that is, we put together as many of these studies as we can find. So, this was done... and the conclusion was clear. The masked group beat the unmasked one.

Here, the meta-analysis. It looked at coronaviruses only (MERS, SARS-1, and SARS-CoV-2):


So, can you see the average of the adjusted relative risk? 0.15.
This means that without a mask someone would have a risk of 1.0; with a mask it drops to 15% of that.

So what would you rather prefer? Some protection (average, 85% risk reduction) or no protection whatsoever?

Me, sign me up for some protection.

By the way, size of the inoculation and subsequent viral load matter. So if you filter out 98% of viral particulates but you inhale 2% and it's still sufficient to make of you an "event" like in the studies above, chances are that by reducing the number of viral copies you breathed in, you'll have much better odds of only developing an asymptomatic or mild disease, while if you inhale a massive number of viral copies you will be more likely to have your immune system overwhelmed.

So not only masks demonstrably drop the relative risk of catching the virus, but they are also likely to decrease the severity of your illness if you don catch it.

If by "don't work" you mean perfection, then they "don't work" as they are obviously not perfect.

But if by "don't work" you mean they have no impact whatsoever in improving your odds of not catching this or catching just a mild case, then you are wrong.

Your argumentation is akin to saying "some people still die in car crashes despite wearing their seatbelts, so that means seat belts don't work."

While seat belts don't avoid all deaths, they avoid many deaths so wearing them make sense.

 

It is not only their own risk, however. They later on go into the community and spread the virus they picked up at the rally to others. Thus, everyone's risk increases by these morons going to the packed rallies.

If you hear them talk, though, they are absolutely clueless about the risk and have bought hook line and sinker into the Fox News/Trump propaganda.

 

They should loot and burn a couple of businesses at the rally and then they wouldn't be spreading any virus.

 

I went to a local market a couple of days ago and had gotten my groc. and at the register before I realized I had left my mask in the car. I hope I didn't kill anyone.

 

Looting and burning is wrong...and no excuse for OTHER bad behavior.

 

You wouldn't have gotten that far here. In NY we take it seriously

We had to. We saw our friends, loved ones, and, neighbors dying

 

And if you do come down with symptoms and spread that to others that day...your response would be what?

Mehhhh...freedom...

 

Yes, the looters and rioters are morons, as much as the Trump rally attendees. Your point?

 

They were all safe, I was the only one maskless and at risk.

 

Don't see many left wing posts condemning them for spreading the virus.

 

You just quoted one...

 

Actually they were all at risk...from YOU

 

But how can that be, they were all masked up.

 

How many times do you need this explained to you?

Masks protect OTHERS from YOU

They offer some minimal protection for the wearer but the real purpose of them is to prevent YOUR spewage from infecting THEM

So...do you understand NOW that you endanger others every time you go near other people without a mask?

I doubt it

 

I try not to spew on other people. I learned how rude that was before there was a Covid-19.