Had the most pleasant shopping experience yesterday--

[Malcolm McLeod]

...
When I go to various farm and hardware stores for feed and supplies there are sometimes customers not wearing masks. When another customer approaches with no mask I say nothing but make a detour down another isle until the coast is clear. I choose to not let their choice risk my health.

...

Well done. Sounds like you are being responsible for yourself and respectful of others.

...hmmmm... I'm sure I've heard that before...somewhere??

[Robert Engel]

Wow - you could not be more incorrect! Where did you get so much misinformation?

I don't believe I'm misinformed, sir.

From the Annals of Internal Medicine: "Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients." Article here.

From Nature "Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks" Article here Interestingly one of the major difficulties in the study was actually recovering virus particles from the breath of infected people.

From the U of Minn Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy: "Data do not back cloth masks to limit COVID-19, experts say" Article here.

COVID gains entry through mucous membranes (eyes, nose, mouth) not just by inhaling aerosols. This is not disputable. Touching masks, re-using, washing hands, etc is simply common sense.

In contrast, here is what NPR reports in Face Mask Debates: Yes, Wearing Masks Help. Here's Why" Referring to the studies on face masks, here is a quote from an epidemiologist: "they were observational, not the gold standard of science, a randomized controlled trial, which would be very unethical in a pandemic" Compare that to the 3 articles I cited above.

You say I'm misinformed, but I would ask where do you get your information?

[Jim Koepke]

I don't believe I'm misinformed, sir.

From the Annals of Internal Medicine: "Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients." Article here.

From Nature "Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks" Article here Interestingly one of the major difficulties in the study was actually recovering virus particles from the breath of infected people.

[edited for time]

Maybe not misinformed, maybe the information was misleading?

From the page of the first link:

Notice of Retraction.png

The article has been retracted. One comment on the reasons:

Just the fact that a reusable cotton mask was more effective than a manufactured surgical mask was news worthy by itself. Instead, the public was misled to believe the masks were totally ineffective.

A quote from the second link:

We detected coronavirus in respiratory droplets and aerosols in 3 of 10 (30%) and 4 of 10 (40%) of the samples collected without face masks, respectively, but did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols collected from participants wearing face masks, this difference was significant in aerosols and showed a trend toward reduced detection in respiratory droplets (Table 1b).

It appears there is information in these links indicating the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of a disease.

After reading through two links and finding them non-supportive of a position, it was my choice to save my time by not going any further, hence the original was edited for time saving.

jtk

[Bob Turkovich]

From the U of Minn Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy: "Data do not back cloth masks to limit COVID-19, experts say" Article here.

It also appears the proponent of your third point has backed away from his original position...

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...nting-covid-19

An excerpt from the link:

• I support the wearing of cloth face coverings (masks) by the general public.
• Stop citing CIDRAP and me as grounds to not wear masks, whether mandated or not.
• Don't, however, use the wearing of cloth face coverings as an excuse to decrease other crucial, likely more effective, protective steps, like physical distancing
• Also, don't use poorly conducted studies to support a contention that wearing cloth face coverings will drive the pandemic into the ground. But even if they reduce infection risk somewhat, wearing them can be important.

[Kev Williams]

I don't believe I'm misinformed, sir.

From the Annals of Internal Medicine: "Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients." Article here.

That article has been retracted:

According to recommendations by the editors of Annals of Internal Medicine, we are retracting our article, “Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2. A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients,” which was published at Annals.org on 6 April 2020 (1).
We had not fully recognized the concept of limit of detection (LOD) of the in-house reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction used in the study (2.63 log copies/mL), and we regret our failure to express the values below LOD as “<LOD (value).” The LOD is a statistical measure of the lowest quantity of the analyte that can be distinguished from the absence of that analyte. Therefore, values below the LOD are unreliable and our findings are uninterpretable. Reader comments raised this issue after publication. We proposed correcting the reported data with new experimental data from additional patients, but the editors requested retraction.

I've said this before: A typical screen door will stop up to 80% of air flow. When it comes to this virus, ANY barrier is better than NO barrier IMO...

[Bert Kemp]

I agree Kev any mask is better then nothing, it will at least shorten the distance the droplets will travel.

That article has been retracted:


I've said this before: A typical screen door will stop up to 80% of air flow. When it comes to this virus, ANY barrier is better than NO barrier IMO...

[Nicholas Lawrence]

It also appears the proponent of your third point has backed away from his original position...

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...nting-covid-19

An excerpt from the link:

• I support the wearing of cloth face coverings (masks) by the general public.
• Stop citing CIDRAP and me as grounds to not wear masks, whether mandated or not.
• Don't, however, use the wearing of cloth face coverings as an excuse to decrease other crucial, likely more effective, protective steps, like physical distancing
• Also, don't use poorly conducted studies to support a contention that wearing cloth face coverings will drive the pandemic into the ground. But even if they reduce infection risk somewhat, wearing them can be important.

Also from the link:

"These concerns [concerns that CDC guidance about masks is misleading] remain true today, particularly after CDC leadership made the unfortunate statement that the US epidemic could be driven to the ground if everyone wore face coverings for the next 4 to 6 weeks. If this were true, why do we need a vaccine to end this pandemic? Just "mask our way" to control. When put into this context, it's obvious how the CDC statement is unrealistic and misleading."

[Malcolm McLeod]

... A typical screen door* will stop up to 80% of air flow...

...until the differential pressure increases such that it overcomes the resistance (drag) of the screen. Then flow is restored and the screen is the approximate equivalent of, well ...nothing!

(* - A really poor analogy to breathing - IMHO.)

[Bert Kemp]

...until the differential pressure increases such that it overcomes the resistance (drag) of the screen. Then flow is restored and the screen is the approximate equivalent of, well ...nothing!

(* - A really poor analogy to breathing - IMHO.)

what does this mean exactly ?

[Robert Engel]

Perfectly acceptable scientific studies retracted by an editorial board, then fit into a narrative doesn't make negate their conclusions.

As a health care professional I've tried to present some information from reputable scientific journals.

If you choose to reject them because an editorial board pulled the article for political reasons, that is your prerogative.

Meanwhile, COVID is following its biological course, masks or not.

Take a look at Sweden.

Now pay attention to New Zealand and you'll see why lockdowns absolutely do not work.

COVID is a political disease and this forum proves it.

I'm done with you guys

[Jim Koepke]

...until the differential pressure increases such that it overcomes the resistance (drag) of the screen. Then flow is restored and the screen is the approximate equivalent of, well ...nothing!

(* - A really poor analogy to breathing - IMHO.)

what does this mean exactly ?

It means don't expect a screen door to hold back a hurricane or tornado.

jtk

[Bert Kemp]

It means don't expect a screen door to hold back a hurricane or tornado.

jtk

Well I tell ya I have tried putting a box fan in my bedroom window that is screened to cool me off at night. It doesn't work, very little is air drawn thru the screen no matter how long I leave it there

[Jim Koepke]

Perfectly acceptable scientific studies retracted by an editorial board, then fit into a narrative doesn't make negate their conclusions.

As a health care professional I've tried to present some information from reputable scientific journals.

If you choose to reject them because an editorial board pulled the article for political reasons, that is your prerogative.

Meanwhile, COVID is following its biological course, masks or not.

Take a look at Sweden.

Now pay attention to New Zealand and you'll see why lockdowns absolutely do not work.

COVID is a political disease and this forum proves it.

I'm done with you guys

The first article wasn't "pulled" (it is still available) for political reasons. It was "retracted" because it was found to be misleading.

Looking at Sweden and New Zealand indicates social habits in Sweden have been modified due to the pandemic without government mandates:

"Swedes in general have changed their behavior to a great extent during the pandemic and the practice of social distancing as well as physical distancing in public places and at work has been widespread," said Maria Furberg, MD, PhD, an infectious diseases expert at Umea University Hospital in northeastern Sweden.

"During the months of March to early June, all shops were practically empty, people stopped dining with friends, and families stopped seeing even their closest relatives," Furberg told MedPage Today. "A lock-down could not have been more effective. Handwashing, excessive use of hand sanitizers, and staying home at the first sign of a cold became the new normal very quickly."

From > https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/87812

This sounds like a well educated population without political agendas getting in the way of public health.

New Zealand has an unexpected outbreak of so far less than 20 cases of infection. On August 16 Sweden recorded 60 new cases.

New Zealand 2020 population is estimated at 4,822,233 people at mid year according to UN data.

Sweden 2020 population is estimated at 10,099,265 people at mid year according to UN data.

Sweden has approximately twice the population of New Zealand yet the infection rate has a much wider spread:

New Zealand - Sweden.png

Those are from Google with searches on > covid new zealand cases today < & > covid sweden cases today <

jtk

[Nicholas Lawrence]

This sounds like a well educated population without political agendas getting in the way of public health.

A lot of the statistics that get thrown around are misleading because they do not account for population.

As of 30 seconds ago, Sweden has a death rate of 568.3/million. The U.S. has a death rate of 529.8/million.

Sweden's confirmed case fatality rate is 6.8%. The U.S. is at 3.1%.

Italy, France, U.K are all over 12%. Germany is at 4.11%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/

[eugene thomas]

since wisconsin requires mask now i wear when out and about. if others dont. thats their business. if not like seeing mask breakers then stay home.