COVID-19 Thread [V2.0]

[FVBrewerFan]

Isn't that exactly what health experts and leaders are saying though? Everything I see says to not gather with people not from your household. Wouldn't that mean gather only with the people you live with and, in the vast majority of cases, exclude grandparents?

 

"The experts" have been wrong about just about everything Covid related, so I won't be following their advice, no.

 

Virus is not spread by human/human contact. (When it was already proven it does.)

Virus is not spread airborne.

Facemasks do not help.

Facemasks DO help prevent spreading to others, but doesn't protect you.

Facemasks DO protect you as well.

No way will vaccine be ready by the end of the year.

 

Denmark completed the largest randomized controlled study of masks. Result? They don't work. Same thing WHO found in 2019. But results of the Denmark study will never be made public, because politics come before public health.

 

Covid-19 is spread from symptomatic people coming into contact with others. Can someone who's asymptomatic or presymptomatic spread it, sure, probably. But largely unproven, especially the chance of spread. So take precautions, of course. But there's no reason not to have Thanksgiving and Christmas.

 

I think masks work to some degree but that degree has been drastically overstated and too many are acting like it is a magic shield. I'm mostly with you though. I don't say it to anybody because it's just not worth fighting. So much of this is posturing and using any kind of study at this point as concrete evidence as to why one place did well and another didn't is just so premature. I wear one everywhere because it's easy but I've never really believed it's doing a whole lot.

 

My belief is that in the end, Korea and New Zealand will have benefited from easily sealed off borders and extremely healthy people more than some fabric and distancing. That won't be stated conclusively until years from now though.

 

It won't take years. The Denmark mask study used 6,000 people. It had wide acceptance from the scientific community. But they don't like the results, which is why it's not being released.

 

People, and journalists, used to question everything. Those days are gone. I've said itbefore, but I wear a mask anywhere I go. With all the rules changing constantly, just easier to always wear it.

 

Honestly, the experts screwed us here by focusing on too many thigs, including ones like masks that are virtually meaningless.

[homer]

Denmark completed the largest randomized controlled study of masks. Result? They don't work. Same thing WHO found in 2019.

 

Links?

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.worldhealth.net/news/why-wont-anyone-publish-danish-mask-study/&ved=2ahUKEwju-Y7884rtAhWFQc0KHUGbDj0QFjAEegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3bclnU9FEV1ta8dYfhzoql

 

And you call Time Magazine an unreliable source:

https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/WorldHealth.net-3-27-20.pdf

 

 

We really need to make media literacy mandatory in high schools.

[tmwiese55]

I would have questions with the whole premise of how that study was done to begin with, talk about a lot of variables involved. That said, it is a different way to do it and should be looked at and reviewed. But taking it as grand evidence that masks are a joke as it's trying to be pushed here is a big stretch imo. Essentially it involves ignoring study after study by reputable sources showing one thing, yet putting all stock in a bit off an odd type of study that shows different. Seems like some strong confirmation bias there. But similar to things I think Snapper has been saying it could be that since people are doing so many other things and the horse is out of the barn that it just won't matter too much at this point. A study done like this could support that. But that doesn't mean the mask itself does not' reduce the amounts getting in and out in the way that basically all studies show.

 

And I'd agree the latest only topic pushed as masks masks masks is probably giving the impression to too many that they're shields and that's just not true. Keeping distance and limiting being around people is still the most important. A study like this could show that because it supposedly made them spend 3 hours out in social situations around people, basically that if you're going to do bad things for large chunks of time you're still at risk. I think Machu used the Reduce Reuse Recycle as a good way to describe as well.

[homer]

The study he references hasn't even been published. The "evidence" is one of the co-authors apparently told a Danish magazine that the results "could" be seen as controversial.

[FVBrewerFan]

The study he references hasn't even been published. The "evidence" is one of the co-authors apparently told a Danish magazine that the results "could" be seen as controversial.

 

Don't be naive. This study has been completed. Do you really believe if the study showed masks are effective it wouldn't already be leaked and front page headline on NYT? If you really believe that, cool. We all know why report hasn't been released, formally or otherwise.

[Machu Peach]

The study he references hasn't even been published. The "evidence" is one of the co-authors apparently told a Danish magazine that the results "could" be seen as controversial.

 

Don't be naive. This study has been completed. Do you really believe if the study showed masks are effective it wouldn't already be leaked and front page headline on NYT? If you really believe that, cool. We all know why report hasn't been released, formally or otherwise.

Over the last 5 years or so the use of preprint servers has become quite common for scientific studies. These servers allow scientists to share their work without any sort of peer or editorial oversight (other than the most basic of quality check). This is a very positive development as it allows authors to share important findings that were getting held up in peer review (often for years, sometimes over extremely minor details that didn't impact the overall message). This is very negative development because science journalists or laypeople will often read these studies and (not having the technical knowledge) will uncritically report the findings as accepted fact within their scientific field, which they very much are not (some of the 'studies' presented here are very poor quality pre-prints).

 

The reason I mention this is because the study in question is not available via a pre-print. If the authors were concerned that their study was being suppressed by major journals due to political concerns they could very easily make the study available via a pre-print and let their work stand for itself. This is very very common (I believe every paper where I've been an author in the past five years was first available as a pre-print before being eventually published in a reputable journal). That fact that they are unwilling to offer their study on a pre-print makes, in my opinion, their claims extremely suspect.

[BillScottCanRake]

To be clear, is this study saying masks never, in any circumstance, ever help the wearer or those around the wearer, prevent them from being exposed to COVID? Never ever? If that is the claim, I don't buy it. Even if masks only reduce the chances of exposure a small percentage under a very small set of circumstances, then masks "work" by my definition.

 

To me this is analogous to a discussion as to whether or not seatbelts work or not. If you feel like they don't work because people die wearing them, I would argue your expectations are wrong. The best way to survive a car crash is to not drive or ride in cars, which avoids almost all crashes entirely. But if you have to be in a car, driving responsibly will help reduce your odds of a crash, as will driving during non-peak hours,, in good weather, etc.. Seatbelts are there as a last line of defense when all else fails. If those are your expectations, one can make a solid case seatbelts work even tho they will never be effective beyond a certain point and aome people will continue to die while wearing them.

 

Masks and COVID are similar. The best way to avoid getting COVID is to avoid people. But that isn't any more realistic than asking people to stop driving. Instead, a person can limit their own exposure thru their behavior, which includes not going out unnecessarily, attempting to limit close contact with peoples when you do go out, washing your hands, etc. A mask is like a seatbelt; the last line of defense which is only helpful in some cases. Based upon this expectation, masks work even tho they will never be effective beyond a certain point and some people who wear them will both get and spread COVID.

 

I will continue to wear a mask for the same reason I wear a seatbelt: there will always be a percentage of our population whose driving is awful, and I want to be prepared when I encounter them. I also want to be prepared when a good driver has a bad day. And I want to be prepared if I have a bad day. A seatbelt won't protect me all the time, but they will more often than not.

 

Masks are exactly the same. My wife and I don't leave our house often, we go thru soap and hand sanitizer like crazy, and we don't spend time around other people often. That is what we can control. We cannot control who I will run into when I do have to go out to get groceries or gas. So I wear a mask.

 

I certainly don't wear a mask so I can behave recklessly and expect to avoid COVId any more than i'd drve like Romain Grosjean or Pastor Maldonado because i have a seatbelt on.

[adambr2]

Final trial results for Pfizer show 95% effectiveness with no major side effects. Now seeking emergency FDA approval.

 

As bad as things are, that light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter. Remember there was a time when we wondered if there would EVER be a possible vaccine. Even if it was, we thought it would be at least 18 months before it was possible. It has been done in half that time.

[JosephC]

Government acts like they will save population.

Government tells people that masks will do no good.

People stay home.

Government sees tax revenue drop and freaks out.

Government comes up with plan to get tax revenue back up, just lie to people and give them a false sense of security. Wearing mask will help "stop the spread."

 

Sure, a mask can help if it's common that you have people cough, sneeze or spit directly in your face. So when looking at the big picture, the masks are helpful in that regard. But when looking at the other half of the big picture, how many people go out and do unnecessary things (can be as seemingly insignificant as standing right next to someone when having a conversation) because now they have a mask on a a mask will help stop the spread? Numbers in Wisconsin were roughly 1000 positive cases per day pre-mask mandate, now over 7000. Looking at all of the USA, about 60,000 per day during the timeframe when states started issuing mask mandates, that number has now gone up to about 170,000.

 

Those numbers, along with the simple SCIENCE of knowing that a 50 Angstrom sized droplet of moisture containing COVID-19 will get sucked right through a cloth mask considering the vacuum cleaner that's right behind it, pretty much demonstrates that the entire mask thing is a complete bust and very likely another government lie right from the start. I would never, never, never, never be foolish enough to think my life was more important to the government than my tax dollars.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

Those numbers, along with the simple SCIENCE of knowing that a 50 Angstrom sized droplet of moisture containing COVID-19 will get sucked right through a cloth mask considering the vacuum cleaner that's right behind it

 

This is a major hang-up for me as well. I suppose it's plausible that it stops some of stuff, which in effect is all that really matters. But it's why I think the effectiveness is drastically overstated. Probably somewhere between washing your hands and 'duck and cover'.

 

I also don't appreciate the way anyone questioning this is treated like some conspiracy loon. The official word intentionally misleading people and giving them false security is not a new or made-up thing. It's happened throughout history as long as there have been governments.

 

Do I think there is a mass conspiracy at work? No. Do I think the masks provide some protection? Yes, but I think it is minimal and, some advertising is at work here, to both help people feel better and keep things humming along to some degree.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Government acts like they will save population.

Government tells people that masks will do no good.

People stay home.

Government sees tax revenue drop and freaks out.

Government comes up with plan to get tax revenue back up, just lie to people and give them a false sense of security. Wearing mask will help "stop the spread."

 

Sure, a mask can help if it's common that you have people cough, sneeze or spit directly in your face. So when looking at the big picture, the masks are helpful in that regard. But when looking at the other half of the big picture, how many people go out and do unnecessary things (can be as seemingly insignificant as standing right next to someone when having a conversation) because now they have a mask on a a mask will help stop the spread? Numbers in Wisconsin were roughly 1000 positive cases per day pre-mask mandate, now over 7000. Looking at all of the USA, about 60,000 per day during the timeframe when states started issuing mask mandates, that number has now gone up to about 170,000.

 

Those numbers, along with the simple SCIENCE of knowing that a 50 Angstrom sized droplet of moisture containing COVID-19 will get sucked right through a cloth mask considering the vacuum cleaner that's right behind it, pretty much demonstrates that the entire mask thing is a complete bust and very likely another government lie right from the start. I would never, never, never, never be foolish enough to think my life was more important to the government than my tax dollars.

 

In the government's defense (I know, I know), they have never once indicated that wearing a mask is a 100% foolproof way to avoid contracting and spreading COVID, and they were not marketed as the "get out of jail free" cards that you seem to be indicating here. They have only been floated as a part of the response, along with sanitation and social distancing, in order to mitigate the spread. Many models predicted an outbreak in the midwest this fall as the weather turned colder, more people spent time indoors, and the outbreaks that dotted the east and west coasts last spring moved inland. Unfortunately those models have proven correct ... perhaps even moreso because, as you pointed out, people are either not wearing masks at all and going about their daily lives, or they are putting too much faith in the effectiveness of masks, and are not following other suggested guidelines.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The study he references hasn't even been published. The "evidence" is one of the co-authors apparently told a Danish magazine that the results "could" be seen as controversial.

 

Don't be naive. This study has been completed. Do you really believe if the study showed masks are effective it wouldn't already be leaked and front page headline on NYT? If you really believe that, cool. We all know why report hasn't been released, formally or otherwise.

 

The Danish mask study was released/printed this morning, from what I can tell...basically the parameters tell us nothing significant to current conditions because:

 

1 - it wasn't designed to determine masks' effectiveness of source control (i.e., how well it limits spread from infected patients)

2 - results of wearing a mask to prevent your own infection were essentially inconclusive (ranging from a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in chance of infection vs wearing no mask at all) based on the study size and the fact the study period occurred when Denmark didn't have widespread mask use by the general population. In other words, the study group was exposed in community conditions that aren't where we currently are at as a country, with closer to 90% of people consistently wearing masks when out in public.

 

There are items in the study discussion for both "sides" to run out and cling to, but the problem is that there's sides at all. Knowing the fact COVID can spread via aerosol transmission and can sustain itself in airborne particles for several days, particularly in dry/conditioned indoor air, means that wearing a mask in high-risk indoor settings doesn't really do much to protect you from getting COVID if there is virus present in the air. However, independent from everything else it does make sense that a properly fitted mask of any material would at least limit the acuteness of spread from an infected wearer in the form of COVID-laden water droplets. The problem is that alone isn't enough to prevent transmission - particularly in indoor spaces that recirculate air to the point that even keeping 6' or 10' apart from one another has little impact.

 

My opinion regarding masks has long been that it creates a false sense of security for too many people, and that in turn negates any benefits widespread use of them offers - just look at the case count graphs in various states and countries that are timestamped with when various mask mandates went into effect for proof of that. Mask wearing far too often replaces many of the other social distancing/hygiene measures that are proven to be effective at limiting exposure. Because of human nature and the visibility masks offer, it's end result is a "can't hurt but doesn't help" measure that provides a sense of comfort to people in public that we're at least aware of the COVID transmission risk. In short, mask wearing has a positive mental placebo effect, but doesn't provide an actual health benefit because humans aren't robots.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I agree with you completely in your last paragraph, FTC. There isn't consideration for the reality that we are animals, and I said earlier, we all create exceptions for ourselves that we do not grant others. This effectively makes most of these kind of efforts fruitless. "If I do this once, it's OK, but you should not do it." Nearly everyone does that, with things as mundane as eating an extra dessert, all the way to drunk driving once or twice. We're not good at this sort of thing as a species.

[tmwiese55]

Don't forget there was that study at least about 2 months ago by now showing the severity of the illness was affected by how much (so to speak) of it you took in when you got infected. I'm not sure what follow up was done on that or if it's been verified by other studies or not though.

 

Also really shouldn't put too much stock in that cases have gone up after the mandate in WI. First, go to the rural areas and they don't really follow any of it (distancing, masks, etc) while also opening things back up. But along with what others have said in way, wearing a mask at the grocery store is a blip on the radar if you then hang out with people at your house (or wherever) without a mask. People just don't wear them when hanging in their small groups(and this is ignoring any comment on if the mask would matter when they are hanging). The fatigue of this all has just led to tons of that happening now vs earlier on. Combine that with the huge uptick in people being around each other at schools of all kind and all other increases in 'opening things up'. And that's not to blame/rip on anyone, just that human interactions are massively up Sept-now vs say April-Jun.

 

Agree on the humans not robots issue point and the overall point that I've seen more people looser on the distancing stuff since mask came on, like it gives too much of a false sense of security.

 

Not so sure where that govt conspiracy is even going as it has so many basic flaws in logic.

[homer]

Don't forget there was that study at least about 2 months ago by now showing the severity of the illness was affected by how much (so to speak) of it you took in when you got infected. I'm not sure what follow up was done on that or if it's been verified by other studies or not though.

.

 

Viral load. It's been mentioned many times.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.13.20193508v2

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8

 

And as luck would have it, the Danish study was published today:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-facemasks/danish-study-finds-face-masks-provide-limited-protection-to-wearer-idUSKBN27Y1YW

 

A Danish study released on Wednesday found face masks provide the wearer with only limited protection against COVID-19 infection, but said this should not be used to argue against their widespread use to prevent people infecting others.

 

Not so controversial. You can still get infected if you wear a mask. You most likely won't get as sick if you wear a mask. You are less likely to get others sick if you wear a mask. Wear a mask.

[Machu Peach]

Does anyone have a link to the actual study or where it was published. The Reuters article mentions a press release, but nothing else.

 

Without the actual study data in hand any interpretation of the results is just a Rorschach test of the beliefs of the reader.

[PeaveyFury]

Those numbers, along with the simple SCIENCE of knowing that a 50 Angstrom sized droplet of moisture containing COVID-19 will get sucked right through a cloth mask considering the vacuum cleaner that's right behind it, pretty much demonstrates that the entire mask thing is a complete bust and very likely another government lie right from the start.

 

What is the actual "simple" science you're referring to here? I'll again note on of the key aspects of mask wearing that I think this comment fails to acknowledge: The PRIMARY benefit of mask wearing is to others, rather than the wearer. There is actual science showing benefits of masks reducing the chance of an infected person transmitting the virus to others. The benefit to a mask-wearer is somewhat less than this primary benefit, and there is a lot of yet-to-be determined data regarding the level of this effectiveness, which appears to be heavily dependent on quality/type of the mask, behavior of the wearer, etc. The changing information here is not indicative of a government conspiracy or "lie", it's indicative of us obtaining/determining additional data regarding a novel virus.

 

Again, if a claim is like Chorizo's in that the some members of the public still doesn't understand this and feels that wearing a mask is primarily or solely to protect yourself and leads to irresponsible choices, I'll agree completely. Undoubtedly, some people are wearing masks and thinking they're protected and ignoring other guidelines, creating a diminishing-return type situation. But what we don't know, I suppose, is how many of those people would just engage in the same risky behaviors without the mask as well.

[homer]

Does anyone have a link to the actual study or where it was published. The Reuters article mentions a press release, but nothing else.

 

Without the actual study data in hand any interpretation of the results is just a Rorschach test of the beliefs of the reader.

 

Good point. It's technically not "published". Data is not public.

[PeaveyFury]

Not so controversial.

 

Regarding the 'controversy', I did some reading regarding the circumstances- The controversy seemingly started when an American reporter quoted one of the researchers as saying that the study would be published 'when someone was brave enough to do so.' This apparently went a bit viral (no pun intended) among the anti-mask community. What presumably went less-viral was that the researcher then claimed that the reporter took his comment out of context and that the article was still in review.

[CheezWizHed]

This apparently went a bit viral (no pun intended)

 

For shame! Take all opportunities to make puns intentional!

[homer]

At a press conference Wednesday in Wausau, Aspirus CEO Matt Heywood said facilities at the Wausau hospital are nearly full and staff resources are strained. As a result, he said, the hospital is going to move some patients who would otherwise be hospitalized into home care to "keep our beds available for the sickest of the sick."

 

 

https://www.wpr.org/make-room-sickest-sick-wausau-hospital-will-send-some-covid-19-patients-home

[reillymcshane]

At a press conference Wednesday in Wausau, Aspirus CEO Matt Heywood said facilities at the Wausau hospital are nearly full and staff resources are strained. As a result, he said, the hospital is going to move some patients who would otherwise be hospitalized into home care to "keep our beds available for the sickest of the sick."

 

 

https://www.wpr.org/make-room-sickest-sick-wausau-hospital-will-send-some-covid-19-patients-home

 

Only four ICU beds in the 8-county Fox Valley region are available. Statewide, 91% of ICU beds are filled.

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2020/11/18/wisconsin-coronavirus-state-reports-nearly-7-989-cases-52-deaths/3766559001/

 

It should be noted that - as pointed out in the above quote - the hospitals are doing everything to keep beds free. The most difficult thing right now is keeping personnel.

[JosephC]

 

In the government's defense (I know, I know), they have never once indicated that wearing a mask is a 100% foolproof way to avoid contracting and spreading COVID, and they were not marketed as the "get out of jail free" cards that you seem to be indicating here.

 

I would disagree with you but we might not be on the same wavelength in terms of government versus media. I agree that the government has been fairly consistent with stating that facemasks are just part of the equation, but I think more and more the isolation part of that message has been buried in the fine print. The thing that is still particular damning in relation to the government is when the state Department of Health completely removed the statement that many feel that masks could actually be counter-productive because it may encourage people to congregate more which could actually make the masks counter-productive. You look at what has happened in Wisconsin and that statement looks like it was right on the money. And picking this as the example is not to single out Evers. I'm sure if I could go back in time and look at DOH websites in states with Republican governors I'd see the exact same modification of the message.

 

But, that said, I would agree that for the most part the government has been consistent with distancing + facemasks + handwashing. But the media on the other hand. I can't tell you how many times, once it got into the summer months, I'd be sitting there watching CNN and there would be a reporter on the street and the camera would pan over to a group of 20-somethings sitting around without masks and the reporter would just go into the lecture about how they weren't wearing masks. It was easy to see the danger in this. Not wearing a mask is uncool...which morphs into wearing a mask is cool...which morphs into young people thinking they have the license to do anything if they have a mask on because it's cool. I think there was a TON of that from a big percentage of the media over the summer months. Maybe I'm wrong, obviously we all have different personal experiences. All I can say is that I'm in Madison and work with a bunch of 20-somethings and in the spring those people weren't running around like 20-somethings normally do, and by the fall that completely flipped to hearing the conversations of person 1 going to the brewery this weekend, person 2 hitting this bar on Friday night and that restaurant the following night, person 3 going to a party on Friday night, etc, etc, etc. Some folks, not knowing these people personally, could think they are correct in just saying that we are dealing with 20 year old's and they are simply too restless to stay home for 6 months in a row. But knowing these people, and knowing they are probably a really good representation of young college grads across the state, I feel pretty safe in flat out stating that the attitude is definitely more along the lines of "if I'm wearing a mask I am cool and following the rules and; therefore, anything that I decide to do is a good idea." And yeah, maybe not so much government but definitely the media has a lot to do with that IMO.

 

And a quick comment about homer's viral load post. That is a key part of the science that I think has been largely ignored or under-reported. I know that if people went back and looked at all my posts they would see what they think is a lot of flip-flopping. In this post I am critical of masks and argue that people need to keep distance, and in earlier posts I was very critical of the stay-at-home order (although not so much the concept, but the selective implementation of business one being essential by business two being non-essential). But the best way to explain it...I really don't have any concerns about catching COVID if I go to the grocery store because it's a big area and, for the most part, I keep moving which gives me a decent amount of confidence that if I am exposed that the exposure will be so limited that my immune system will be able to defeat what limited amount of virus that I am exposed to. But when I drive home from work on Friday night and go past a bunch of sit-down restaurants and those parking lots are just packed (two steakhouses where people will be in and won't be out for at least 90 minutes)...I look at that and just shake my head and just wonder what good any facemask mandate will do.

[logan82]

Wear a mask when out of the house. Keep your distance from anyone outside of your household for a few more months. Give up one year of holidays. Deal with it or be selfish and do as you like. I am tired of all the people who think this is about freedom and don't care about other people. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a lot of empathy but holy cow, be decent human being. How hard is that?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Wear a mask when out of the house. Keep your distance from anyone outside of your household for a few more months. Give up one year of holidays. Deal with it or be selfish and do as you like. I am tired of all the people who think this is about freedom and don't care about other people. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a lot of empathy but holy cow, be decent human being. How hard is that?

 

Agreed ... but apparently it is very hard. But, then, everyone has different priorities.