Coronavirus

[Houndoc]

That is in no way what i stated or implied. You should re-read my post.

The point is that we have TONS of data now. Last march we had very little. Now we know exactly who, where and what this virus is effecting in our society. So we should focus on those areas with treatment or preventative measures. Not blanket shut everything down.

To hold onto the antiquated notion of blanket shut downs is to be anti-science.

If that is not what you meant, then please clarify.

You a said that publishing total deaths without 'context' just 'frightens people'

I take that to mean that since only old and those with chronic health concerns are likely to die the rest shouldn't really care- is isn't their problem.

I have seen other people take that same logic and flat out say those at risk should isolate and the rest live our lives as normal. Interestingly, one of the most vocal proponents I know of that tact also bemoans how difficult the pandemic has been on his elderly (upper 80s?) mother who couldn't have visitors in her care center.

Any focus on "isolating" those at risk ignore the fact that millions have those exact risk factors and live otherwise normal lives and that for those in hospitals or care centers, there is of course a need for people to care for them. Do we isolate everyone that works in such a facility as well? I don't think so.

The reality, is that basic disease control measures of masks, distancing, proper hygiene, vaccinations etc. work but need widespread application to bring a disease under control, especially one that is both potentially fatal and has asymptomatic carriers.

The simple truth is that scientists and medical experts have known from very early on that certain groups are at higher risk of serious disease and death- that is not the ground of skeptics. The only way I see to claim the 'skeptics' got anything right is to claim (without basis) the numbers are false.

 

[TRD270]

The reality, is that basic disease control measures of masks, distancing, proper hygiene, vaccinations etc. work but need widespread application to bring a disease under control, especially one that is both potentially fatal and has asymptomatic carriers.

Bacterial Pneumonia Caused Most Deaths in 1918 Influenza Pandemic

Implications for Future Pandemic Planning

www.nih.gov

Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness - PMC

Despite the availability of published data on 4 pandemics that have occurred over the past 120 years, there is little modern information on the causes of death associated with influenza pandemics. We examined relevant information from the most ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The majority of deaths during the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 were not caused by the influenza virus acting alone, report researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. Instead, most victims succumbed to bacterial pneumonia following influenza virus infection. The pneumonia was caused when bacteria that normally inhabit the nose and throat invaded the lungs along a pathway created when the virus destroyed the cells that line the bronchial tubes and lungs.

A future influenza pandemic may unfold in a similar manner, say the NIAID authors, whose paper in the Oct. 1 issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases is now available online. Therefore, the authors conclude, comprehensive pandemic preparations should include not only efforts to produce new or improved influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs but also provisions to stockpile antibiotics and bacterial vaccines as well.

The work presents complementary lines of evidence from the fields of pathology and history of medicine to support this conclusion. "The weight of evidence we examined from both historical and modern analyses of the 1918 influenza pandemic favors a scenario in which viral damage followed by bacterial pneumonia led to the vast majority of deaths," says co-author NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "In essence, the virus landed the first blow while bacteria delivered the knockout punch."


And I get it, doesn't directly say that masks caused this, and they "may" help slow the spread. But i've noticed since i've been back in a more humid climate that the funk pretty much starts within the first hour of wearing my mask. In dry Utah I could go awhile before I felt the need to wash it. I really should probably be wearing 3 different masks in a day now, and if you honestly want to tell me wearing non surgical homemade masks are doing more good than harm okay. I've recently been feeling what I felt when i've had pneumonia before, and i'm not a fan of breathing hot moist air all day when perfectly fresh air is available to me.

 

[TRD270]

Just found this gem of info in CDC website

Masks are attributed to stopping 1.1-1.8% of cases 😂🤣

All that trash, Karen’s yelling at you and people hating each other

During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period.

 

[Houndoc]

Bacterial Pneumonia Caused Most Deaths in 1918 Influenza Pandemic

Implications for Future Pandemic Planning

www.nih.gov

Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness - PMC

Despite the availability of published data on 4 pandemics that have occurred over the past 120 years, there is little modern information on the causes of death associated with influenza pandemics. We examined relevant information from the most ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The majority of deaths during the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 were not caused by the influenza virus acting alone, report researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. Instead, most victims succumbed to bacterial pneumonia following influenza virus infection. The pneumonia was caused when bacteria that normally inhabit the nose and throat invaded the lungs along a pathway created when the virus destroyed the cells that line the bronchial tubes and lungs.

A future influenza pandemic may unfold in a similar manner, say the NIAID authors, whose paper in the Oct. 1 issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases is now available online. Therefore, the authors conclude, comprehensive pandemic preparations should include not only efforts to produce new or improved influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs but also provisions to stockpile antibiotics and bacterial vaccines as well.

The work presents complementary lines of evidence from the fields of pathology and history of medicine to support this conclusion. "The weight of evidence we examined from both historical and modern analyses of the 1918 influenza pandemic favors a scenario in which viral damage followed by bacterial pneumonia led to the vast majority of deaths," says co-author NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "In essence, the virus landed the first blow while bacteria delivered the knockout punch."


And I get it, doesn't directly say that masks caused this, and they "may" help slow the spread. But i've noticed since i've been back in a more humid climate that the funk pretty much starts within the first hour of wearing my mask. In dry Utah I could go awhile before I felt the need to wash it. I really should probably be wearing 3 different masks in a day now, and if you honestly want to tell me wearing non surgical homemade masks are doing more good than harm okay. I've recently been feeling what I felt when i've had pneumonia before, and i'm not a fan of breathing hot moist air all day when perfectly fresh air is available to me.

Secondary bacteria infections are very common after viral infections. I see it in my patients, none of whom ever wear masks.

As noted in the quote above viral infections damage tissues that make them susceptible to bacteria that the body normally fights off. Well known medical fact that does zero to minimize the seriousness of COVID or influenza virus infections.

As to the 'masks make you sick ' argument, that logic goes something like this:
You breath out bacteria from your healthy lungs which enter your mask.
You then breath in that same bacteria into the same healthy lungs it came from and it now makes you sick.

Sorry, but medically speaking that idea really doesn't hold water.

 

[anderson750]

Secondary bacteria infections are very common after viral infections. I see it in my patients, none of whom ever wear masks.

As noted in the quote above viral infections damage tissues that make them susceptible to bacteria that the body normally fights off. Well known medical fact that does zero to minimize the seriousness of COVID or influenza virus infections.

As to the 'masks make you sick ' argument, that logic goes something like this:
You breath out bacteria from your healthy lungs which enter your mask.
You then breath in that same bacteria into the same healthy lungs it came from and it now makes you sick.

Sorry, but medically speaking that idea really doesn't hold water.

Your theory doesn’t hold water

It makes sense in the same manner as the theory of viral load. The case for masks has been to minimize the viral load from possible exposure to me from you or you to me. Your body has bacteria constantly being produced and under normal living you are expelling. With a mask you are expelling g and taking it back in.

Why is it that in the lab that we can culture infectious bacteria and identify it within hours. It is because we put it in optimal growing conditions with the proper nutrients to feed it and temperature to grow. Moist and warm........kind of like the inside of a mask. Bacteria grow and multiply virus needs your cells to grow. I can easily justify the claim that the above scenario can increase infection rates.

to quote Stephen Crowder ..........change my mind.

 

[Houndoc]

Except mask wearing, especially cloth/non- medical masks do increase your mouth's temperature and microclimate. As well as decreases saliva.

There's evidence that impacts heart rate, thermal stress, and bacteria growth.

Both are ignoring the most basic fact was explained in the initial reference to the 1918 flu pandemic.

Secondary bacteria infections develop because of viral damage to cells and normal protective mechanisms that weaken the body's natural defenses
That is without question a major cause of death from influenza or other viral infections. That bacteria may be part of your normal bacterial flora or bacteria you are exposed to that you would normally fight off. In the second case, masking would help ( which is why people with severe immune weakness included chemo patients often mask up.)

Your mask is no warmer or wetter than your lungs. You are not going to self-infect your lungs with bacteria from your lungs. If it did, then for decades doctors. nurses, dentists etc who mask at work would suffer high rates of pneumonia. That doesn't happen.

And yes, that is my medical degree speaking.

 

[anderson750]

I agree that cell damage plays a role but you cannot discount the fact that people are wearing masks and not cleaning them regularity contributes to abnormal exposure to respiration bacteria. If everybody put on a clean mask regularity then I think you can make a case otherwise.

 

[Houndoc]

I'd respect your "medical degree doing the talking" if you supported your claims rather than passive-aggressively condescend folks you don't agree with.

That said, I continually try to give you the benefit of the doubt and look past the childish behavior.

Anyway, I am not a doctor or a veterinarian but I spent a decade in the IP technologies that doctors, scientists, military, astronauts, oil drillers, etc., develop and use AND I know how to read... haha. I've seen enough smart people try to BS because they had paper hanging on the wall. Literally, I read the work/IP and checked it to see if it held up (20+ million words a year). So, I'd rather get to a place of understanding than judge you.

That said, in this study:

Study of the micro-climate and bacterial distribution in the deadspace of N95 filtering face respirators - Scientific Reports

It is common for people to use N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) in daily life, especially in locations where particulate matter (PM2.5) concentration is rising. Wearing N95 FFRs is helpful to reduce inhalation of PM2.5. Although N95 FFRs block at least 95% of particles from the...

www.nature.com

There are interesting findings that counter your "no warmer or wetter" claim.

Re: microclimate and bacteria:

What's very interesting is the conditions that create "mask mouth", tooth decay, inflamed gums, bad breath (from bacteria growth), gum disease, etc., (which are all highly prevalent since the mandates... ask a dentist/orthodontist) may lead to heart disease. That's not my hypothesis either. This has been continually researched.

I've been following this for years since my mother (had 2 heart attacks in 2020) and father who just passed of a sudden/massive heart attack both had really bad oral hygiene since I was a child.

There are links between oral health and disease like heart disease, RA, and so on. The theory that bacteria of infected gums/mouth are traveling through the blood stream and they cause blood vessel inflammation and damage; tiny blood clots, heart attack and stroke may follow.

Along with that theory is what is being learned from the mask-wearing of a large population of unhealthy people. While they may be safer from covid (the results don't purely correlate) their affected systems are stressed in a multitude of ways.

The theory is that this will be exacerbated along with the increased number of gum disease, mask mouth, "maskne" tooth decay, etc. In the same way that covid patients (or their blood) will be studied, this is a line that will be studied, as well.

Obviously, we're in the middle beginning of it.

I don't actually care if people are for one or the other when it comes to masks. I accept all viewpoints. Although I prefer people have a choice, for the most part, it baffles me that there's a hard line, too, that masks are either great or horrible and there's very little wiggle room in the view that they can help but they can expose some to harms. Especially since we're seeing it daily.

The possibility that mask-wearing could lead to unhealthy outcomes for unhealthy people... especially when these folks aren't those wearing masks 8 hours a day professionally isn't a pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theory. The questions, backed by science (and even other people's medical degrees) that the same protective equipment that we are using to prevent contact with COVID-19 is directly creating negative implications to our health is a reality for many.

I mean, a couple of weeks back, I saw an ambulance outside my gym and a woman being attended to inside. I walked in and asked what happened. One of the trainers said she was with a trainer, and complained she couldn't breathe (she was wearing 2 masks at the time). I guess he had her sit and went to get her water. He came back and she was out... nearly gone on the floor. A nurse who was working out heard the commotion and ran over and administered CPR until the ambulance arrived.

Come to find out a couple of weeks later, the hospital administrator I work out with, a real social guy, chatted with the nurse. She said the older lady had some pulmonary disease and that she's had several other episodes with her mask on. The time in the gym almost got her.

I will apologize if my tone is out of line at times. Some topics get my goat. I do appreciate that you put in time reading and learning the medical issues, even if I don't fully agree with your conclusions or how that information is applied.

You are absolutely correct on the connection between dental disease and systemic health. It is one of the biggest health issues we see in my patients, with liver, kidneys and heart all impacted (I would say liver most commonly). I am not aware (either in personal experience with my own patients or studies) of a connection between dental disease and increased risk of pneumonia.

Periods unmasked (at home, when alone outside etc.) and rotating masks is wise. And note the study a few posts above that was being used to downplay the effectiveness of masks looked at mask mandates- not mask wearing- that showed only a slight benefit. Those are different issues.

Cases like the woman at the gym you mention above are tricky- did decreased airflow from the mask contribute or was it purely her underlying health issues? Being high risk with known lung disease, she be more likely to have severe COVID disease if she caught the virus and thus was masking (both herself and those around her) overall protective? Is working out in a public gym while masked during a pandemic a wise choice for someone with known lung disease? Clearly a single case may be interesting, but is far from instructive when creating policy.

But I will stand firmly by my statement that during a pandemic of an airborne virus such as COVID the benefits of masks outweigh the risks.

 

[TRD270]

But I will stand firmly by my statement that during a pandemic of an airborne virus such as COVID the benefits of masks outweigh the risks.

Even when the CDC’s own data shows it only attributed to 1.1-1.8% decrease?

Which you could argue the time that decrease was seen was coming out of winter and going into warmer months.

 

[Gravy]

I just wanted to add an observation.

I took my kid to the doctor the a while back for a fever. (Ended up being a tooth thing)

When the PA checked his blood oxygen levels with a mask on :it was unacceptably low.

Mask came off: blood oxygen levels came up to acceptable levels.

Poor kid is 4 and the mask was causing serious problems while he was under duress.

 

[Houndoc]

Even when the CDC’s own data shows it only attributed to 1.1-1.8% decrease?

Which you could argue the time that decrease was seen was coming out of winter and going into warmer months.

Again, the studies reference mask mandates, not mask wearing. Clearly a controlled study wear people are assigned to wear or not wear masks and compare infection, hospitalization and death rates at the end of the pandemic is the only way to 100% answer the question. But we also know ethically and practically that won't happen.

But is a 1-2% decrease significant? A 1.5% decrease is 460,000 fewer cases and nearly 10,000 fewer deaths. In my mind those are not trivial numbers.

 

[xjtony]

Are you seriously implying that the small percentage of people not complying with the mask mandates are the reason mask wear only contributed to a 1-2% decrease? There were TENS OF MILLIONS of people nationwide wearing masks as required and recommended by the CDC, but the handful not wearing them caused the effective rate to decrease less than 2%?

 

[Houndoc]

Are you seriously implying that the small percentage of people not complying with the mask mandates are the reason mask wear only contributed to a 1-2% decrease? There were TENS OF MILLIONS of people nationwide wearing masks as required and recommended by the CDC, but the handful not wearing them caused the effective rate to decrease less than 2%?

I didn't see anyone say that.

We do not have stats on percent of people who wear masks in areas with or without mandates (we all know many mask with out mandates and many don't despite them.) Plus of course you have other differences like population density, general health, etc. that likely varies between areas with and without mandates.

Is what I think can be said is that the difference between areas with and without mask mandates does not tell us whether or not masks themselves are effective. It is an interesting stat from a policy perspective but not informative medically.

 

[ID Bronco]

Is what I think can be said is that the difference between areas with and without mask mandates does not tell us whether or not masks themselves are effective. It is an interesting stat from a policy perspective but not informative medically.

Yet mask policy is determined by "medical science" and per your admission above no one really knows medically if "masks themselves are effective"

That is interesting.......or is it just a nutty conspiracy theory a fringe group talk about?

 

[xjtony]

You may not have meant to, but you clearly implied it.
"Again, the studies reference mask mandates, not mask wearing."

Per the numbers the CDC released, which as stated by all here are the best we are going to get, there is not any solid evidence that mask are overly effective. You claim science science science, yet refuse to look at the numbers as they are released. Statistically 1-2% is not a result. It's an error factor. No one is claiming that the lives represented by that 1-2% are worth nothing. The more data that is collected, the better picture we have going forward. The issue is people refusing to accept new data. It's ok to go back and say "Hey we hoped this would work but it didn't help like we thought". There is a reason there is a lack of trust towards both the government and medical (talking heads that are more interested in their sound bites on the news not frontline medical folks) regarding this. Science is collecting data and shaping a path forward with the results gathered not ignoring the data that doesn't suit our personal beliefs or political whatever. At the risk of sounding more aggressive than I intend to be (internet typing doesn't help) you have in this post completely attacked any data, no matter who it came from, that doesn't mesh with your point of view. That's not science. Where is your data refuting the CDCs official report on the effectiveness of masks sir? You argue the numbers that are referenced but have yet to back any of it up with actual published data. Again science.

 

[Houndoc]

Yet mask policy is determined by "medical science" and per your admission above no one really knows medically if "masks themselves are effective"

I said no such thing.

You may not have meant to, but you clearly implied it.
"Again, the studies reference mask mandates, not mask wearing."

No, that was not implied at all.

Both of you seem to be looking for an answer that the study never asked. That also does not mean that answer isn't out there from other studies and research. The study we have been discussing is one of policy, not medicine or biology.

Let me try again to explain what I mean.

A study looking at MASK MANDATES is simply determining if mandates lowers disease spread. It is not a study on MASK WEARING.
Why? Because many people in areas with mask mandates still refuse to wear them and many people in areas without mask mandate choose to wear them. It is not comparing areas with 100% masking to ones with zero.

There is nothing in that information that says masks are ineffective or unsafe but does say that mask mandates may not be effective public policy.

To read anything else into it is wrong.

 

[glockman]

But is a 1-2% decrease significant? A 1.5% decrease is 460,000 fewer cases and nearly 10,000 fewer deaths. In my mind those are not trivial numbers.

You yourself have pointed out that none of this stuff happens in a vacuum. 460,000 cases may well be overshadowed by other unintended consequences caused by the masks, we don't have any study to prove or disprove that but we have to consider it a possibility, so the 460K is not a known constant.

Let me try again to explain what I mean.

A study looking at MASK MANDATES is simply determining if mandates lowers disease spread. It is not a study on MASK WEARING.
Why? Because many people in areas with mask mandates still refuse to wear them and many people in areas without mask mandate choose to wear them. It is not comparing areas with 100% masking to ones with zero.

There is nothing in that information that says masks are ineffective or unsafe but does say that mask mandates may not be effective public policy.

I didn't conduct a peer reviewed study, but I did work every day through the pandemic in Utah county which from everyone I have talked to was much more relaxed than SL county.
What I noticed was the overwhelming majority of people wore masks in public. I'd guestimate my observation of non mask wearers at no more than 10%, likely closer to 5%. So if those 5-10% were the cause of the mask mandate not providing a reasonable case study, there is no way any mask mandate will, which also means no mask mandate can be effective. If the 5-10% noncompliance undermines the entire dataset, it has to do so by undermining the theory that mandates create herd containment and stop public spread because as you said, there will never be 100% compliance.

 

[xjtony]

I don't think I really have anything more to add over here. Some people will never even attempt to see things from another point of view.

1. Your belief that there is some polar difference between a study on "mask mandate vs mask wear". If the study states mask mandades only accounted for a 1-2% decrease, and let's say conservatively that 75% of Americans comply, this is a direct correlation between the two. We've all stated numerous times now that there is never going to be a sterile environment with no variables. This is the best data they have. It's not perfect, but it's enough. To say that the two are completely separate issues and don't corelate makes zero sense at all.

You sir in the beginning of this whole mess preached "believe the numbers. Listen to the CDC". Now that a different opinion than yours has been published, you simply attack anyone who discusses a different conclusion to the best current data the CDC has.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I'm done with this thread. I left FB to get away from all the drama, not going to start it up here.
😁

 

[ID Bronco]

I said no such thing.

I agree with XJ Tony. I believe that you will simply not believe any mask or mask mandate study unless it's a perfectly executed study which isn't going to happen in this environment of political narrative trumps science. I can use my mind to conclude that in areas with severe mask mandates and more mask wearing there are no real benefits and they in fact have quite high numbers. Yes variables are going to come into play but what matters to me is my environment. The policies that the "Pandemic" brought on ruined one of my businesses into total shut down, brought fear into the lives of my family, and disrupted our lives in countless ways. The actual virus gave us about two weeks, maybe four weeks total of sickness, thankfully not too bad. The recommendations are all over the place when you look at nationally, locally, and real life on the street. I live in real life on the street, so that's what I am going to make my decisions on. We are done with mandates or shaming of any kind. I decided long ago to use my mind, my best judgement and my agency to mitigate and take what risks we are comfortable with to best serve our family. We will take the consequences of those actions.
I know some have really suffered, that's sad and I am empathetic towards them. It's high time to protect the vulnerable and for the healthy folks it's time to live life and be truly kind and truly virtuous by doing truly helpful/kind things for others. Not pretend virtue and shaming of others.

Realistically I'm also not going to change my mind on this subject. I just hope our great grandkids don't go bankrupt for the spending of pretend Pandemic needs.

 

[TRD270]

FWIW I had my vaccination on the 1st since the ministry of travel says I can visit friends on other islands without having to pay $150 each way for a test if i'm vaccinated. I was way more sick yesterday than I was at any point during actual covid. I'm fairly certain I could have cooked an egg on my body. Woke myself up from shivering so bad several times.