COVIDiots

Originally posted by Mindship
As in the freedom to be selfish and in denial?

A society that fosters self-indulgence is now being asked to practice self-discipline, and it is falling short. Not by all citizens, but by enough. No wonder the US is handling the virus worse than Europe.

With great power (rights) comes great responsibility (including social/collective responsibility). While this is commonly attributed to Stan Lee, initial forms of the phrase date back to the French Revolution, ~1793. Since then, the phrase has been quoted often (usually in Spider-Man form), including by the SCOTUS.

Rights w/o responsibility leads -- as we are seeing -- to narcissistic recklessness.
And just to clarify: responsibility w/o rights ... that's slavery.

I mean, I'd agree more if we weren't asked to selectively self discipline.

Discipline yourself and don't attend religious services or funerals, but do attend mass protests? Nah, not gonna fly. It can be both or neither, but not one and not the other.

Originally posted by Surtur
I mean, I'd agree more if we weren't asked to selectively self discipline.

Discipline yourself and don't attend religious services or funerals, but do attend mass protests? Nah, not gonna fly. It can be both or neither, but not one and not the other.

And if it was just private citizens...okay, whatever fine. People protested the lockdown too.

The difference is the mayors and governors of the places where lockdown protests happened came down hard on them(condemning them, saying they would get grandma killed by spreading it). Hell New Jersey even fined people who organized a lockdown protests.

These same officials reacted to the George Floyd protests differently. It was 1 of 3 responses: staying silent, showing support, or actively joining in the protests.

Then they turn around and tell people "stay home for July 4th please". Mayor of Washington DC said this. She did not tell people "stay home, don't protest". And there was indeed a protest in DC yesterday.

Public officials need to all get on the same page here.

Originally posted by Mindship
This I have to agree is troublesome. The protests are happening at a very bad time. I could say, at least the protests are for a good cause, but the virus doesn't give a shik about causes. People do need to practice safety measures here as well, better than they are apparently doing.

Yeah, attending religious services or funerals is not a good cause, right? 🙄

Oh I forgot..to many atheist a-holes religious folk are just crazy anyway so that cause isn't just because you don't agree with it.

That cause you don't agree with but marching thru the streets yelling "f*** the police!" based on a lie that black people are being specifically hunted-down and killed by the police is totally fine.

Viruses don't give a shit what the cause is so you shouldn't even have brought it up, ffs.

I'd argue running a small business so your family has food and shelter is also a good cause...maybe not for society as a whole, but surely for that family.

Then again society benefits when small businesses do well and people aren't poor, hungry, or homeless.

Originally posted by Surtur
And if it was just private citizens...okay, whatever fine. People protested the lockdown too.

The difference is the mayors and governors of the places where lockdown protests happened came down hard on them(condemning them, saying they would get grandma killed by spreading it). Hell New Jersey even fined people who organized a lockdown protests.

These same officials reacted to the George Floyd protests differently. It was 1 of 3 responses: staying silent, showing support, or actively joining in the protests.

Then they turn around and tell people "stay home for July 4th please". Mayor of Washington DC said this. She did not tell people "stay home, don't protest". And there was indeed a protest in DC yesterday.

Public officials need to all get on the same page here.

Don't you get it, Surtur? Celebrating our country's independence is not a good cause so the virus would infect all of those people.

Marching thru the streets and screaming "fu** the police!" is totally just though and so the virus would not harm those people. 🙄

Covid-19: The most "woke" virus in the history of the world! 😆 lmao.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'd argue running a small business so your family has food and shelter is also a good cause...maybe not for society as a whole, but surely for that family.

Then again society benefits when small businesses do well and people aren't poor, hungry, or homeless.

Yup. I'd say that is just as much a just cause to mass gather as marching thru the streets over your perceived "oppression" of black people by the police.

But, again, viruses don't give a damn what your cause is which is why MS shouldn't have brought up "well, at least theirs is a just cause her derp" if he truly cared about stopping the virus from spreading.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yeah, attending religious services or funerals is not a good cause, right? 🙄

Oh I forgot..to many atheist a-holes religious folk are just crazy anyway so that cause isn't just because you don't agree with it.

That cause you don't agree with but marching thru the streets yelling "f*** the police!" based on a lie that black people are being specifically hunted-down and killed by the police is totally fine.

Viruses don't give a shit what the cause is so you shouldn't even have brought it up, ffs.

And not enough people are doing this because of different forms of denial (again, eg, "I have the right to have fun!" / "You can't tell me what to do!"😉.

That is the epitome of a protest to deny authority and the many aspects involved, although we have had riots in addition to protests and I doubt either group is social distancing. Regardless of their reasons.

In NY they weren't allowed to ask if ppl were protesting when it came to cencus material and checkong corona virus information.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That is the epitome of a protest to deny authority and the many aspects involved, although we have had riots in addition to protests and I doubt either group is social distancing. Regardless of their reasons.

Well then you should treat all mass gatherings as being equally bad instead of downplaying all those that are for a cause you agree with. It's makes you seem like you aren't sincere in your concern when you add "well, they're doing it for a just cause" when you "criticize" the people whose protests you agree with.

You can't have it both ways. Be consistent in your concern.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Be consistent in your concern.

Originally posted by Mindship
... not the gatherings per se, but how they're being done. Wear a mask. Stay 6 feet away. And not enough people are doing this ...

Personally, I think celebrating the birth our country at a time when the left is shitting all over it every chance they get and when children everywhere are being brainwashed into believing America is so evil and was never a great country is far more just than protesting against something that is not really happening. .. at least not to the extent that many are making it out to be.

Our country, our founding fathers, our flag, our constitution, our electoral process, and even our individual, God-given inalienable rights are all continually bashed by those on the left. So, yeah... when you say that people are more concerned about personal rights than personal responsibility but don't say the same thing about those protesting police violence then it points out your double standards.

Btw, this "pandemic" is not really a pandemic at all.... at least not at the moment. As I've said before, they're superficially inflating the numbers. If you think that it's truly as bad as they're making it out to be then you're a naive sheep.

Originally posted by Mindship
Stop splitting hairs. The point is, not the gatherings per se, but how they're being done. Wear a mask. Stay 6 feet away. And not enough people are doing this because of different forms of denial (again, eg, "I have the right to have fun!" / "You can't tell me what to do!"😉.

Masks are useless to actually slightly negative for this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Masks are not effective in preventing respiratory illnesses according to a large metaanalysis that made use of RCT where available, posted by the CDC:

We did not identify any published research on the effectiveness of respiratory etiquette in reducing the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza or ILI. One observational study reported a similar incidence rate of self-reported respiratory illness (defined by >1 symptoms: cough, congestion, sore throat, sneezing, or breathing problems) among US pilgrims with or without practicing respiratory etiquette during the Hajj (32). The authors did not specify the type of respiratory etiquette used by participants in the study. A laboratory-based study reported that common respiratory etiquette, including covering the mouth by hands, tissue, or sleeve/arm, was fairly ineffective in blocking the release and dispersion of droplets into the surrounding environment on the basis of measurement of emitted droplets with a laser diffraction system (31).

Respiratory etiquette is often listed as a preventive measure for respiratory infections. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence to support this measure. Whether respiratory etiquette is an effective nonpharmaceutical intervention in preventing influenza virus transmission remains questionable, and worthy of further research.

...

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35). Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did more research and it looks like I might be wrong. A meta-analsysis of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of masks was undertaken, already.

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial”, American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 - 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002 N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review”, Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence”, Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x “There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 “We identified 6 clinical studies ... In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.” 3

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 “Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial”, JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214 “Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381 “A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The
4 use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

Masks and respirators do not work.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340570735_Masks_Don't_Work_A_review_of_science_relevant_to_COVID-19_social_policy

Originally posted by dadudemon
(any studies that do support mask wearing are not real world studies that use RCTs - they do not measure real world outcomes just cultures in a petri dish).

But the 6 feet thing is legit. No face touching, frequent hand washing, hand sanitizer use: all legit.

I was wrong about the social distancing thing.

MIT Researchers showed that the coronovirus can travel 27 feet, in the air, within minutes.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/31/coronavirus-could-travel-27-feet-stay-in-air-for-hours-mit-researcher/

So, looks like I need to amend my position because science points to a different direction.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Masks are useless to actually slightly negative for this.

1. Does this mean useless/negative in even protecting others (the main reason masks are advised, not for self-protection)? The mask-effectiveness demonstrations I've seen do show some reduction in how far droplets travel. It's not perfect, but is it still not better than nothing? If they're useless/negative, then why should front-line health workers bother wearing them? And how is it that states that practice these measures do better than those that don't? (Uh-oh, does that count as a third question?)

Pandemic aside, if I was going in for, say, surgery, is my doctor wearing a mask just for show (4th question?), because it's otherwise useless?

2. Does 'useless/negative' take into account that masks may give a false sense of security to many people, who then forgo other, additional protective measures, like distancing and hand-washing?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was wrong about the social distancing thing.

MIT Researchers showed that the coronovirus can travel 27 feet, in the air, within minutes.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/31/coronavirus-could-travel-27-feet-stay-in-air-for-hours-mit-researcher/

So, looks like I need to amend my position because science points to a different direction.

Pshhh the flash could totally beat it in a race

Coronavirus: Texas mayors warn of 'serious trouble' as cases surge across US

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/05/coronavirus-texas-mayors-serious-trouble-hospital-beds-florida-trump?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy

Originally posted by Mindship
Two questions:

1. Does this mean useless/negative in even protecting others (the main reason masks are advised, not for self-protection)? The mask-effectiveness demonstrations I've seen do show some reduction in how far droplets travel. It's not perfect, but is it still not better than nothing? If they're useless/negative, then why should front-line health workers bother wearing them? And how is it that states that practice these measures do better than those that don't? (Uh-oh, does that count as a third question?)

They actually did include that in their metaanalysis (the one from the CDC's site) this and got a result (short answer - no benefit):

Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group...

Originally posted by Mindship
Pandemic aside, if I was going in for, say, surgery, is my doctor wearing a mask just for show (4th question?), because it's otherwise useless?

That's also covered in the study, as well:

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Meaning, it is useful for surgeons when they are working very closely with patients and open wounds both for the wearer and the patient. Not useful for preventing respiratory illnesses in both directions.

Originally posted by Mindship
2. Does 'useless/negative' take into account that masks may give a false sense of security to many people, who then forgo other, additional protective measures, like distancing and hand-washing?

That's my theory. My theory is that if the masks were worn with PERFECT protocol adherence (proper fitting, hand sanitization, frequent replacements, absolutely no face touching, and everyone around you is also adhering to perfect protocols) in a closed environment, you'd see a benefit. But since that is impossible, the slight net negative we saw in some of those studies makes masks a dangerous prospect for the public. We are better off with those sanitization stations than masks.

What bothers me is I see people freaking out about masks in public. Lording over others to wear them. Then I see literally everyone, absolutely everyone, touching their face constantly, adjusting their masks, and improperly wearing them - all of those things they are doing will actually increase their chance of infection, not decrease. What a better way to increase you chance of respiratory illness than to put the illness right their on your face or on your mask so you can then inhale it deeply into your lungs. Perfect!

Originally posted by Mindship
Two questions:

1. Does this mean useless/negative in even protecting others (the main reason masks are advised, not for self-protection)? The mask-effectiveness demonstrations I've seen do show some reduction in how far droplets travel. It's not perfect, but is it still not better than nothing? If they're useless/negative, then why should front-line health workers bother wearing them? And how is it that states that practice these measures do better than those that don't? (Uh-oh, does that count as a third question?)

Pandemic aside, if I was going in for, say, surgery, is my doctor wearing a mask just for show (4th question?), because it's otherwise useless?

2. Does 'useless/negative' take into account that masks may give a false sense of security to many people, who then forgo other, additional protective measures, like distancing and hand-washing?

2) a mask and shield are the optimal cheap protection solution. Combined they are much more effective for obvious reasons.