MIT researchers develop an AI model that can detect Covid-19 in asymptomatic individuals

[Squid Surprise]

So...no conspiracies?

How about hydroxychloroquine getting dragged through the mud?

I guess when false info was reported and posted in The Lancet (2nd top rated medical journal in the world to my understanding) about how hydroxychloroquine was harmful to use even though nearly 7 decades of use did not show any of the symptoms/issues reported against it once it was suggested as a possible cure for covid.

Huh....I wonder why it was posted? Then later pulled?

Hydroxychloroquine is an inexpensive drug to produce and it's readily available. Guess that's too convenient for money making companies to try a cheap, readily available drug...they clearly value money over human lives.

No need to post links, you can dig these things up yourself with some easy searching online.

(I'm not saying hydroxychloroquine is a cure for covid and I don't know if it's even effective. I'm just simply pointing out that there is some truth to a lot of these "conspiracy theories" out there. Again, learn to educate yourself. Don't take what they shove in your face as fact unless you've come to that conclusion yourself.)

While this conspiracy theory about hydroxychloroquine getting bashed isn't all that exciting or engaging.....someone [or some group(s)] out there quickly wanted to put the kibosh on using hydroxychloroquine. Why? Most likely because it's inexpensive. It doesn't generate massive amounts of revenue that big drug companies like to line their pockets with.

How about hospitals getting paid more for treating covid and putting folks on ventilators?

Conspiracy? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's still up in the air last I looked into it. The Cares Act did approve more money to covid treated patients. It's fact that a person put on a ventilator does cost more than someone that's not....without any actual proper digging into everything at the time it happens, it's only speculation this is really happening. Are hospitals over reporting to get more money? Sure, some have to be. Kind of like police force - are all cops bad? No, most are really great, but it just takes one bad choice/person to do the wrong thing and soon all cops are treated as being bad.

How about incorrect deaths being reported as covid?

Conspiracy? Hard to say.
Lots of folks say no, lots say yes. But when the CDC outlines really vague methods to confirm if a deceased person is positive or not without a test is pretty lenient, if you ask me.

The CDC guidance says that officials should report deaths in which the patient tested positive for COVID-19 — or, if a test isn’t available, “if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.” It further indicates that if a “definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.'”

There's a lot of room to just say "Yep, that person died of covid because of a possible symptom that covid might cause." Mark it as covid even though no test was given, just because the poorly written CDC guidelines for classifying deaths from covid were given out to the health departments.

I'm not going to debate the existence of general conspiracy theories - only COVID conspiracy theories... and there simply are none!!

#1) hydroxychloroquine
Again, don't care about the general use of it - but it is completely useless in regards to Covid - therefore, irrelevant in this thread.

#2 and #3) While I won't bother arguing if these things are happening (there is no evidence to support it, but sure, let's argue that they are...)

Let's say Covid cases are being over reported by 100% (they aren't, I'm not claiming that you are saying this either, it's just to prove my point), that's STILL about 23.5 million cases and 600,000 deaths!!

The "real" numbers - for those who don't believe in conspiracy theories (and can't do the math) are 47 million cases and 1.21 million deaths.

And the numbers are RISING!!

Lastly: For everyone arguing that Covid is a hoax, it's not that serious, etc.... EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT.... the government doesn't agree with you - nor does any other world government...

Lockdowns WILL continue as long as cases (or in your misguided views, "perceived cases") keep going up.

If you really think lockdowns are unacceptably damaging to the public - you need to do your part to make sure that case numbers GO DOWN!! Only then will the lockdowns end!!

So again, I beg of you... practice social distancing, wear a mask and wash your hands... AND DON'T GO TO FOOTBALL GAMES!!!

 

[Endymio]

There are about 50 million people in the US over 65 - and the fatality rate in seniors is FAR higher than .2-.4%.... it's well over 1 in 10

Many errors in the above. First of all, you're confusing the IFR (infection fatality rate) with hospital mortality rate. As of Sept 21, the CDC's official survival rates by age cohort were:

Age 0-19: 99.997%
Age 20-49: 99.98%
Age 50-69: 99.5%
Age 70+ : 94.6%

That's mistake #1. Your second mistake is far larger: your assumption that universal shutdowns are the only way to protect those individuals. The fastest and safest way to achieve herd immunity is to quarantine only the high-risk individuals, while allowing the rest of us to get the disease, and get over it as quickly as possible. This actually reduces the risk to those individuals, as their window of potential infection would be much shorter. It also would prevent the truly massive upsurge in suicides, homicides, developmental and psychological problems, and economic devastation that shutdowns have incurred.

There are several more mistakes in your analysis, such as the fact that by some estimates, we're already halfway to herd immunity already, meaning at least half those individuals have already been exposed -- but the first two are so glaring, its probably not worth detailing the others.

 

[Endymio]

So fully expect Fat clowns, Endy and Mr. Neato to reject it without facts or proper conclusions from any source better than Mr. Billy Bubba from Git er Done University.

In this thread alone, I posted peer-reviewed research from the CDC, Emerging Infectious Diseases journal, the National Institutes of Health, the National Library of Medicine, the Journal of Pediatric Health, and the medical journal Hippokratia.

You posted a pop news article written by a Public Relations specialist, who got his sources completely wrong.

 

[scavengerspc]

In this thread alone, I posted peer-reviewed research from the CDC

The problem is you didn't post anything new.
MASKS are single-use only?!?! STOP the presses and send them back to March.
And I'm still curious if you even realize how many things I have said that YOU proved in your own posts.
And last, you rarely, very rarely post links.

You posted a pop news article written by a Public Relations specialist

And well sourced.
"Dean Blumberg chief of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Children’s Hospital".
" William Ristenpart, a professor of chemical engineering at UC Davis"

I don't care if even YOU write an article so long as the sources are reputable. And they were.

And since you finally accepted the CDC (I missed when that happened) here is a link final update on their view of masking:

COVID-19 ARCHIVED WEBPAGE

This historical page is not up to date. Find the latest on COVID-19.

www.cdc.gov

When responding please. - GET TO THE POINT. No double talk babble looking more like a novel that you so enjoy. Don't make people wonder if they should just wait for the movie.

 

[Endymio]

The problem is you didn't post anything new.

I'll take research from the National Library of Medicine and the CDC over a story by a public relations specialist, even if the latter is newer.

[The article] was well sourced....I don't care if even YOU write an article so long as the sources are reputable.

The point you continue to ignore is that his sources don't say what he claims they do.

you rarely, very rarely post links.

I gave the link to the underlying research from your article earlier. Did you miss it? Here it is again. Your PR specialist made several errors when citing this study. I already named a number of them in the thread above.

Here a link final update on the CDC's view of masking:

We've covered this before. That's a public statement, not research. Worse, it's a public statement the CDC changed in the face of political pressure, after the epidemic began. They will assuredly change in back in a few months time.

Once again: a large body of medical research indicates that cloth and cotton masks are ineffective when used by the general public in general public settings. N95 or 16-layer surgical masks used in high-risk situations by individuals trained on how to properly wear, handle, and dispose of the masks are a different story. But placing a piece of fabric over your face outdoors, or for a ten-minute supermarket trip is only increasing the risk to you, and to others.

 

[scavengerspc]

They will assuredly change in back in a few months time.

It's been their position since early August and it's how they feel now.

Here is something for you to ignore:

Coronavirus behind two-thirds of excess deaths in US: CDC

A recent report found that coronavirus caused two-thirds of almost 300,000 higher-than-average deaths this year, per a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

www.foxnews.com

"These “excess deaths” include lives lost from any cause, and can give a better idea of the mortality associated with the pandemic, study authors wrote. Deaths counts directly owing to the pandemic are prone to underestimates due to inaccuracies in death certificates or testing shortages, among other limitations, the agency noted".

 

[Endymio]

Oh for Gods sake: RIGHT IN THAT VERY ARTICLE

Are you having difficulty with language comprehension? Articles are not research. Yes, that article cites some actual research. No, none of that research supports the claim that cloth masks are efficacious in general public settings. That question has been a topic of hot research for decades and, prior to the politicization of Covid, the consensus view was that they are not.

As for the article's rather fatuous claim of "emerging evidence" that masks reduce droplet spray -- halt the presses! That's hardly breaking news: we've known that for the last century or more. That's not the issue. Respiratory virus vectors include fomites, aerosols, and droplets. High-quality masks -- worn properly -- reduce one of those vectors, at the potential risk of increasing the other two. Pieces of fabric draped across the face worn and handled improperly (as the general public does) do almost nothing to reduce that one vector, and dramatically increase the other two. This isn't rocket science. Is it really so difficult for you to understand?

Please tell me you honestly don't subscribe to the view that -- after decades of both the CDC and the WHO recommending that the general public not wear masks during epidemics and pandemics -- that suddenly a light bulb went off above someone's head and they realized that covering your mouth with cloth might reduce droplet spray? And science thus suddenly took a great leap forward? Anyone intelligent enough to find the "on" switch on their computer should be perceptive enough to disassemble that narrative.

Now, between this thread and others, I've given you more than a dozen research papers demonstrating that masks don't work for the general public. Instead of countering with "articles", why not break the habits of a lifetime and actually read some of the actual research that has been done on the subject?

 

[Squid Surprise]

That question has been a topic of hot research for decades and, prior to the politicization of Covid, the consensus view was that they are not.

As for the article's rather fatuous claim of "emerging evidence" that masks reduce droplet spray -- halt the presses! That's hardly breaking news: we've known that for the last century or more. That's not the issue. Respiratory virus vectors include fomites, aerosols, and droplets. High-quality masks -- worn properly -- reduce one of those vectors, at the potential risk of increasing the other two. Pieces of fabric draped across the face worn and handled improperly (as the general public does) do almost nothing to reduce that one vector, and dramatically increase the other two. This isn't rocket science. Is it really so difficult for you to understand?

Please tell me you honestly don't subscribe to the view that -- after decades of both the CDC and the WHO recommending that the general public not wear masks during epidemics and pandemics -- that suddenly a light bulb went off above someone's head and they realized that covering your mouth with cloth might reduce droplet spray? And science thus suddenly took a great leap forward? Anyone intelligent enough to find the "on" switch on their computer should be perceptive enough to disassemble that narrative.

Except that the research shows that Covid spreads primarily through droplets - hence the rationale for wearing ANY KIND of mask.

Had you bothered to read my posts back near the beginning of this thread, you'd already know this.

Since Covid is so new, it's not really a surprise that information on the disease is going to change with time.

The research you've shown about masks not helping were all published BEFORE Covid. Yes, masks aren't always helpful with the flu and other diseases - but they ARE helpful with Covid!!

Now, back to my first post - got any reasons for a 70,000 stadium full of people being ok?

 

[scavengerspc]

none of that research supports the claim that cloth masks are efficacious in general public settings

I never specified cloth. Yet. Triple-layer cotton.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Many errors in the above. First of all, you're confusing the IFR (infection fatality rate) with hospital mortality rate. As of Sept 21, the CDC's official survival rates by age cohort were:

Age 0-19: 99.997%
Age 20-49: 99.98%
Age 50-69: 99.5%
Age 70+ : 94.6%

That's mistake #1. Your second mistake is far larger: your assumption that universal shutdowns are the only way to protect those individuals. The fastest and safest way to achieve herd immunity is to quarantine only the high-risk individuals, while allowing the rest of us to get the disease, and get over it as quickly as possible. This actually reduces the risk to those individuals, as their window of potential infection would be much shorter. It also would prevent the truly massive upsurge in suicides, homicides, developmental and psychological problems, and economic devastation that shutdowns have incurred.

There are several more mistakes in your analysis, such as the fact that by some estimates, we're already halfway to herd immunity already, meaning at least half those individuals have already been exposed -- but the first two are so glaring, its probably not worth detailing the others.

Oops... somehow missed this post... Sorry...

Here is a paper dated October 31...

Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications

Objective Determine age-specific infection fatality rates for COVID-19 to inform public health policies and communications that help protect vulnerable age groups. Methods Studies of COVID-19 prevalence were collected by conducting an online search of published articles, preprints, and...

www.medrxiv.org

Here's the results, as I'm sure you won't bother to actually read it:

Results Our analysis finds a exponential relationship between age and IFR for COVID-19. The estimated age-specific IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25) but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and 15% at age 85. Moreover, our results indicate that about 90% of the variation in population IFR across geographical locations reflects differences in the age composition of the population and the extent to which relatively vulnerable age groups were exposed to the virus.

So, taking the numbers from the US Census as of July, 2019:

Population of the U.S. by sex and age 2022 | Statista

The estimated population of the U.S.

www.statista.com

Here's what the death breakdown would be if we just "lived our lives". The numbers in parenthesis are the IFR for each age bracket.

0-64: 274.16 mill (~0.2%) = 548,320 deaths
65-69: 17.46 mill (1.4%) = 244,440 deaths
70-74: 14.03 mill (4%) = 561,200 deaths
75-79: 9.65 mill (4.6%) = 443,900 deaths
80-84: 6.32 mill (13%) = 821,600 deaths
85+: 6.61 mill (15%) = 991,500 deaths

Total= 3,610,960 Deaths

Now, the deaths over 85 would be far higher - I don't have a breakdown on how old they actually are, so simply applied the 15% IFR... the IFR rises exponentially by age, however, so anyone older than 85 would have an even higher IFR.

I was rounding before.... if anything, there'd probably be far more than 5 million deaths if we went with "herd immunity", since the resulting hospitalizations would swamp the healthcare systems and increase the fatality %...

By the way - that's JUST for the US.... apply this worldwide and just imagine how many deaths there'd be - especially in 3rd world countries where hospitals aren't as good..

Oh... and here's a paper just written - so, no, not peer reviewed yet - that goes over mortality rates after mass gatherings...

COVID-19 Mortality Following Mass Gatherings

We examined Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) mortality following 5 mass gatherings at outdoor rallies in the United States, during August 2020. We found that COVID-19 mortality started increasing 19-24 days after the mass gathering. In a 50-mile radius there was a 2.1-fold increase in...

www.medrxiv.org

Care to debate that?

 

[Endymio]

Except that the research shows that Covid spreads primarily through droplets

The research most emphatically does not show this:

New England Journal of Medicine: Aerosol and Surface spread of Covid-19.

MedRX Preprint Server (8 authors: Oxford, Columbia, U. of Texas, etc.) Aerosol transmission of Covid-19

From the journal Clinical of Infectious Diseases: Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (aerosol transmission)

Scientific American article on the controversy surrounding CDC's refusal to admit aerosol spread, despite widespread acceptance by researchers.

I apologize for including the last article; use it only for perspective. Certainly the issue of fomite spread on hard surfaces is less dangerous than we first thought months ago. But fomite spread on damp surfaces is a far different matter, which is why so many researchers are concerned over the moisture retention of re-used or too-long-used cloth and cotton masks.

Edit: Since you two so often misconstrue plain English, allow me to clarify. The research does not show that droplets are not the primary vector either. The research is inconclusive. However, even if droplets are the primary means of spread, that does not invalidate the conclusions about mask use by the general public. Lowering one vector by a small amount while increasing two others by a large amount is still a net loss.

 

[Endymio]

Here is a paper dated October 31...Here's the results, as I'm sure you won't bother to actually read it

Did you read it? Those IFR values match almost exactly those I posted earlier. How do they match up to your earlier claim that "10% of those 65+ will die"?

From your own link: "IFT is very low for children...but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75...

I appreciate you having the honesty to look up and post the actual data, even though it contradicts you resoundingly.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Did you read it? Those IFR values match almost exactly those I posted earlier. How do they match up to your earlier claim that "10% of those 65+ will die"?

From your own link: "IFT is very low for children...but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75...

I appreciate you having the honesty to look up and post the actual data, even though it contradicts you resoundingly.

But it DOESN'T contradict what I said... I said 5 million would die originally... the exact number I then posted was just over 3.6 million - but I already explained that the number would be a lot higher if we knew the ages of the 85+ crowd as well as assuming that IFR would be higher if everyone got infected at once overwhelming the hospitals...

The research most emphatically does not show this:

New England Journal of Medicine: Aerosol and Surface spread of Covid-19.

MedRX Preprint Server (8 authors: Oxford, Columbia, U. of Texas, etc.) Aerosol transmission of Covid-19

From the journal Clinical of Infectious Diseases: Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (aerosol transmission)

Scientific American article on the controversy surrounding CDC's refusal to admit aerosol spread, despite widespread acceptance by researchers.

I apologize for including the last article; use it only for perspective. Certainly the issue of fomite spread on hard surfaces is less dangerous than we first thought months ago. But fomite spread on damp surfaces is a far different matter, which is why so many researchers are concerned over the moisture retention of re-used or too-long-used cloth and cotton masks.

Edit: Since you two so often misconstrue plain English, allow me to clarify. The research does not show that droplets are not the primary vector either. The research is inconclusive. However, even if droplets are the primary means of spread, that does not invalidate the conclusions about mask use by the general public. Lowering one vector by a small amount while increasing two others by a large amount is still a net loss.

OK, let's look at your "proof".... first article, dated April - we already know that the DATA HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN!!!

2nd Article
The paper concludes that both structural and individual factors must be taken into account when predicting transmission or designing effective public health measures and messages to prevent or contain transmission.

3rd Article
At least this one does state that airborne COULD be a way that Covid is spreading but...

We are concerned that the lack of recognition of the risk of airborne transmission of COVID-19 and the lack of clear recommendations on the control measures against the airborne virus will have significant consequences: people may think that they are fully protected by adhering to the current recommendations, but in fact, additional airborne interventions are needed for further reduction of infection risk.

This matter is of heightened significance now, when countries are reopening following lockdowns: bringing people back to workplaces and students back to schools, colleges, and universities. We hope that our statement will raise awareness that airborne transmission of COVID-19 is a real risk and that control measures, as outlined above, must be added to the other precautions taken, to reduce the severity of the pandemic and save lives.

Looks like the authors are actually arguing that we should be doing EVEN MORE than we are now... not LESS like you're advocating!

Anyways... once again... wear a mask, DON'T go to mass gatherings!

 

[Endymio]

But it DOESN'T contradict what I said... I said 5 million would die originally...

Your lack of honesty is becoming conspicuous. You said, to quote, "There are about 50 million people in the US over 65 - and the fatality rate in seniors [is] well over 1 in 10". You then used that 10%+ figure to claim that 5 million of those 50 million would die. Your figure is vastly overstated, as evidenced by your own link.

Worse, you ignore the even larger fallacy of pretending there is no way to protect high-risk individuals except through universal shutdowns. Those individuals can be more easily (and more safely) protected through risk-targeted quarantines, rather than closing down the entire nation.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Your lack of honesty is becoming conspicuous. You said, to quote, "There are about 50 million people in the US over 65 - and the fatality rate in seniors [is] well over 1 in 10". You then used that 10%+ figure to claim that 5 million of those 50 million would die. Your figure is vastly overstated, as evidenced by your own link.

Worse, you ignore the even larger fallacy of pretending there is no way to protect high-risk individuals except through universal shutdowns. Those individuals can be more easily (and more safely) protected through risk-targeted quarantines, rather than closing down the entire nation.

MY lack of honesty? I believe the pot is talking to the kettle...

And my argument was against the Barrington Report - which says "live your lives"... well, 5 million dead is what happens if you "live your lives"...

 

[scavengerspc]

I've given you more than a dozen research papers demonstrating that masks don't work for the general public

I can't find those, could you repost the links, please.
Just the better ones.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I can't find those, could you repost the links, please.
Just the better ones.

Don't hold your breath... None of his articles prove that masks are bad for Covid - they are all older articles saying that they aren't always effective to prevent influenza... I'm still awaiting his reasons for why it's OK to go to a 70,000 seat stadium to watch football...

 

[Endymio]

I can't find those, could you repost the links, please.
Just the better ones.

Post #13,26,37 in this thread; several more in the earlier thread you began.

None of his articles prove that masks are bad for Covid - they are all older articles saying that they aren't always effective to prevent influenza...

Untrue, of course. Read above. Here's another addressing Covid directly:

Masks for Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2

" The strength of evidence for mask use and risk for SARS-CoV-2 in community settings remains insufficient...."Two new studies reported on mask use in health care settings. One cohort study in Italy [reported] an imprecise estimate, with no statistically significant difference between mask use [and] no mask use and risk for COVID-19 (adjusted OR, 1.6 [CI, 0.9 to 2.9]). Use of an FFP2 or FFP3 mask versus a surgical mask was associated with increased risk for COVID-19....A case–control study of hospital physicians in Bangladesh...also reported an imprecise estimate for medical mask use versus no mask use and risk for COVID-19 (adjusted OR, 1.40 [CI, 0.30 to 6.42]). However, N95 mask use versus no mask use was associated with decreased risk for COVID-19 during aerosol-generating procedures (OR, 0.37 [CI, 0.16 to 0.87]) ...Evidence for mask use versus nonuse [remained] insufficient..."

Quite obviously, the research dealing specifically with Covid is newer, and thus less voluminous and more flawed than that of other respiratory viruses. What we have is mixed, contradictory -- but in general trends against mask use in general public settings. Furthermore, past research on other coronaviruses and influenza is certainly relevant. SARS-CoV-2 is still a coronavirus, and similar in size and and vector modes to both SARS-CoV-1, and other respiratory viruses in general.

You misunderstand how science works when you demand that we just assume masks work, unless someone presents hard evidence that they're harmful. It is a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. Science requires a hypothesis to be supported with evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Learn the difference.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Post #13,26,37 in this thread; several more in the earlier thread you began.

Untrue, of course. Read above. Here's another addressing Covid directly:

Masks for Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2

" The strength of evidence for mask use and risk for SARS-CoV-2 in community settings remains insufficient...."Two new studies reported on mask use in health care settings. One cohort study in Italy [reported] an imprecise estimate, with no statistically significant difference between mask use [and] no mask use and risk for COVID-19 (adjusted OR, 1.6 [CI, 0.9 to 2.9]). Use of an FFP2 or FFP3 mask versus a surgical mask was associated with increased risk for COVID-19....A case–control study of hospital physicians in Bangladesh...also reported an imprecise estimate for medical mask use versus no mask use and risk for COVID-19 (adjusted OR, 1.40 [CI, 0.30 to 6.42]). However, N95 mask use versus no mask use was associated with decreased risk for COVID-19 during aerosol-generating procedures (OR, 0.37 [CI, 0.16 to 0.87]) ...Evidence for mask use versus nonuse [remained] insufficient..."

Quite obviously, the research dealing specifically with Covid is newer, and thus less voluminous and more flawed than that of other respiratory viruses. What we have is mixed, contradictory -- but in general trends against mask use in general public settings. Furthermore, past research on other coronaviruses and influenza is certainly relevant. SARS-CoV-2 is still a coronavirus, and similar in size and and vector modes to both SARS-CoV-1, and other respiratory viruses in general.

You misunderstand how science works when you demand that we just assume masks work, unless someone presents hard evidence that they're harmful. It is a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. Science requires a hypothesis to be supported with evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Learn the difference.

Did you not read your own article?
Wearing a mask all of the time versus no use was associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection after adjustment for age; sex; exposure to contact;

And the conclusion was “inconclusive”....

You’ve been consistently refusing to debate the only thing that matters in this thread - since ALL of this is wildly off-topic to begin with.

My very first post I stated how I was nauseated by seeing a full stadium of people.... you replied ”why” in your snarky tone....

Please get back to that point please.... can you supply evidence that it’s ok to go to a mass gathering? If not, go away...

 

[scavengerspc]

Post #13,26,37 in this thread; several more in the earlier thread you began.

Ok now here is the thing. I think a lot of people like myself are still not sure if cloth masks are effective and if so in what degree. And I have mentioned many times that Im speaking of the cotton 3 layer masks. And another post mentions their loss in effectiveness over time but is quite capable if used properly and not overused. I have never, would never deny that they will become near useless if not worn properly and tossed out when the time comes. I know that health care workers started throwing out their surgical masks regularly, some after only an hour or so.

What I have been looking for is absolute proof that a 3 layer cotton mask (not cloth), worn properly, and tossed in a timely manner is not effective at COVID-19 prevention.

 

[Endymio]

Did you not read your own article? the conclusion was “inconclusive”...."'

Exactly so. Past research on masks showed no benefits and even harm from their use, and the most recent research on Covid specifically is inconclusive and does not change that.

You’ve been consistently refusing to debate the only thing that matters in this thread...My very first post I stated how I was nauseated by seeing a full stadium of people....

And my very first post explained why such events were not only acceptable, but should be encouraged. The risk is trivial, and far outweighed by the benefits of social interaction. I've directly addressed that point in multiple posts. Would you like me to recapitulate the argument, perhaps using smaller words?

What I have been looking for is absolute proof that a 3 layer cotton mask (not cloth), worn properly, and tossed in a timely manner is not effective at COVID-19 prevention.

To repeat what I've said in several threads: the preponderance of research shows that multi-layer cotton masks or better, in certain situations (I.e. longer term indoor exposure), worn by individuals trained to wear, handle, and dispose of them properly, are efficacious. The research also shows that mask use in general public settings is ineffective and even harmful. This is for several reasons: not only does the general public tend to poor-quality cloth masks, but even their use of surgical cotton masks is improper. Masks are worn haphazardly, reused, often for extended periods, their wearers touch them repeatedly to adjust and readjust them, and they are rarely disposed of properly. The consensus view prior to Covid was that mask mandates do more harm than good, and no research done post-Covid counters that conclusion.