• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CDC confirms the first US coronavirus case of 'unknown' origin. The California patient was hospitali

So, wait, the argument here is not to take precautions?
 
Threegoofs said:
Well... your position is that masks are worthless.

So why would a non masked person be at any more risk?

That’s not unethical or dangerous.

I think we can conclude that surgical masks and respirators are both useful to reduce flu transmission when you are buying them off the shelf. No, they’re not as good as full lab virus gear and spacesuits, but they reduce transmission and that is definitely a good thing.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that masks are worthless. I said that N95 masks work, but they need proper fit. I said that several times over different posts even before this study was brought up. Sure, I misspoke about surgical masks being useless. They are not entirely useless as they help in some small capacity (like you said, so that people don't put hands in mouths) but they are unable to filter out airborne viruses when the mask wearer is the healthy recipient of the virus-rich aerosol.

A PROPERLY FIT NIOSH-graded N95 respirator confers much better protection, regardless of the conclusions of the flawed study that you quoted. How do you supposed NIOSH got to these standards? By studying the issue.

It's not ONE study that didn't account for the fit, that invalidates the NIOSH standards.

Is it absolute protection? Of course not! The very name of the mask, N95, stands for 95% filtration (when properly fit) therefore it is obvious that it isn't 100% like a space suit. Duh!
 
GreatNews2night said:
I didn't say that masks are worthless. I said that N95 masks work, but they need proper fit. I said that several times over different posts even before this study was brought up. Sure, I misspoke about surgical masks being useless. They are not entirely useless as they help in some small capacity (like you said, so that people don't put hands in mouths) but they are unable to filter out airborne viruses when the mask wearer is the healthy recipient of the virus-rich aerosol.

A PROPERLY FIT NIOSH-graded N95 respirator confers much better protection, regardless of the conclusions of the flawed study that you quoted. How do you supposed NIOSH got to these standards? By studying the issue.

It's not ONE study that didn't account for the fit, that invalidates the NIOSH standards.

Is it absolute protection? Of course not! The very name of the mask, N95, stands for 95% filtration (when properly fit) therefore it is obvious that it isn't 100% like a space suit. Duh!
Click to expand...

Ummm.. surgical masks are ineffective, you said.

So why would it be unethical to do a non-masked study and ethical to do a surgical masked study?
 
Chomsky said:
Lookee here:

(Fortune) Trump administration budget cuts could become a major problem as coronavirus spreads
Click to expand...

Rachel Maddow has a good piece on how the CA case (which is fairly close to us) may have been started... by D.C.'s HHS dept. First, a bunch of Americans were transferred from a cruise ship outside of Japan, with the Trump administration vetoeing CDC's advice that those who already tested positive be returned separately from those who did not test positive. Totally stupid. So all were crammed into the same plane, flown to Travis Air Force Base here in NoCal, in the same town as the woman who is the subject of the OP. HHS personnel from around the state/country were sent by Trump's HHS to greet these people in person, without any training, protective gear, or medical knowledge provided to them.

The HHS personnel went into the base, into the quarantine area, interacted with those passengers, then left the base and returned to from whence they came without so much as a passing glance. Now this woman, who lives in close proximity to Travis AFB, is at the University of Davis medical facility, fighting for her life, and they are desperately back-tracking all the medical personnel and personal contacts she has had from all around the county.

That's a brief summary; Rachel's report is really quite explosive and detailed. YouTube
 
JasperL said:
I don't really agree with any of that, so we'll agree to disagree I guess.
Click to expand...

My friend, what goes on in the back rooms of what passes for good science is appalling. I've seen so many distortions... manipulating inclusion and exclusion criteria to increase the N... using multiple outcome instruments and only reporting the ones that show some separation from placebo even if ten others don't... twisting the statistical treatment... using attractive research assistants to keep the subjects engaged in the study to artificially decrease attrition... and so on and so forth. All that because the department wants grants... and to get more grants you need to be published... and on, and on.

The number of irrelevant studies that could have been much better designed and could have answered much more clinically pertinent questions, but don't because it's always simpler to cut corners and end up with more money left in the grant to help paying for the researchers salaries...

But sure, you want to disagree, fine. We'll leave it at that.
 
GreatNews2night said:
My friend, what goes on in the back rooms of what passes for good science is appalling. I've seen so many distortions... manipulating inclusion and exclusion criteria to increase the N... using multiple outcome instruments and only reporting the ones that show some separation from placebo even if ten others don't... twisting the statistical treatment... using attractive research assistants to keep the subjects engaged in the study to artificially decrease attrition... and so on and so forth. All that because the department wants grants... and to get more grants you need to be published... and on, and on.

The number of irrelevant studies that could have been much better designed and could have answered much more clinically pertinent questions, but don't because it's always simpler to cut corners and end up with more money left in the grant to help paying for the researchers salaries...

But sure, you want to disagree, fine. We'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

So we should do away with science?
 
Fletch said:
But we are talking about this particular issue. And in this case, the left is trying to use this to bash trump. Theres no denying that. You can see it happening on this thread.
Click to expand...

Repeatedly posting the equivalent of "Look, Squirrel!!" is neither useful nor germane to the topic.
 
Threegoofs said:
You realize what has happened over the last couple weeks, right?

1) CDC recommends against repatriating Americans from China. Trump admin does it anyway. Sick along with healthy.

2) They land, and HHS is sent for unclear reasons to meet them. HHS is not trained or with gear, so they go into the quarantine areas without gear. With potentially infected people.

3) The HHS staff then goes home, with at least one staying in a hotel and flying home on a commercial jet. To clarify for you, who tends to be kinda slow on this stuff, that means a government employee exposed to COVID was walking around the public.

4) Not far from the airbase, someone gets sick with the flu, which turns out to be the first case of COVID in the US that isnt from travel or known contact. This means COVID is loose.

Can you connect the dots here?
Click to expand...

You really are working hard to make it seem like it is way worse than it is, and that Trump is the cause. Sorry, peddle that garbage on your low information type lefties, they'll eat it up. What is there, 15 cases? There will be thousands. Trump gave a presser yesterday, he was in control and on top of it, despite the media's attempts to derail it. Lighten up, Francis.
 
Fletch said:
But we are talking about this particular issue. And in this case, the left is trying to use this to bash trump. Theres no denying that. You can see it happening on this thread.
Click to expand...

People will always criticize the words and actions of the President. Stop pretending Trump is a victim.
 
GreatNews2night said:
These are not rates. These are absolute numbers. A rate is number of fatal cases versus total number of cases. For the flu, the RATE is 0.1%. For the COVID-19, the rate so far is 2 to 3.4%. The absolute number of flu-related deaths is bigger because there's been way more cases of flu, since the COVID-19 likely pandemic is only starting.

Wait for the pandemic to be fully installed (it will), and then compare again the absolute number of deaths.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, they are not rates.
 
Why aren't we testing for Covid?
 
Threegoofs said:
Ummm.. surgical masks are ineffective, you said.

So why would it be unethical to do a non-masked study and ethical to do a surgical masked study?
Click to expand...

For how long will you punish me for having misspoken regarding surgical masks being useless? I've already acknowledged it a number of times that it was a poor choice of words. I'm not writing a dissertation here, I'm merely posting in a forum. At one point someone - an obviously lay person - was saying something about buying surgical masks and some such - I don't even remember, would have to go back - and I made it simple and said they are useless, that the person should rather aim for an N95. No, they are not useless, but they are much less efficacious than N95 respirators.

Now, from that to NO personal protective equipment whatsoever in a research study, it is a stretch. Good luck finding the employees that would be willing to participate in such study, and like I said, the Institutional Review Board and the Legal Department would simply not approve it even if volunteers were available. Do you think the organization is stupid? The first employee who got hurt in such a study would have a rather juicy claim against the principal investigation, regardless of disclosure of risks, and by extension, against the organization whose IRB embraced the study. Not only the IRB and the Legal Department would balk at it, but the Principal Investigation would also not dare risking his/her license and malpractice insurance by designing a study in which participants were exposed to known risks without any PPE. Surgical masks are not highly effective but they are commonly used so the research wouldn't deviate as much from accepted practice.

But no PPE? Please tell me what hospital in the developed world does not have standards and guidelines recommending PPEs in all situations of infectious risk. If you find one, we might want to send notice to the Department of Labor for a survey, followed by stiff sanctions.
 
Last edited:
Hamish Howl said:
So we should do away with science?
Click to expand...

No, we should read scientific papers with good critical sense and good understanding of potential methodological flaws. Review studies often do this: they go over other published studies to criticize the quality and to come up with degrees of confidence in the information and conclusions.

But what I'm saying is that there are LOTS of flawed studies out there. I'd say that it is more the rule than the exception, to find methodological, design, and statistical flaws.

But sure, there are some good studies that deliver stronger evidence out there. Unfortunately, not all.
 
JasperL said:
I'm not ignoring anything. Your first comment was, "What bothers me about a possible pandemic are people who don't give a damn about their fellow man and send their kids to school sick...."

My response, "The bolded is true, but those people often have a choice - work sick, or don't get paid and then can't pay the rent if they take a week or two off...."

So of course there's no one reason why people do stupid, reckless stuff. Some are just thoughtless, reckless, inconsiderate assholes. My only point is when you give the lowest paid workers, those who can least afford unpaid sick leave and who the great majority do NOT have paid sick leave, often in public facing service jobs, a powerful financial INCENTIVE to go to work sick, do not be surprised when they DO.

We can fix the financial incentives, and I'd suggest that at least during this pandemic crisis, maybe employers ought to think about doing that, for the good of their workers, themselves, and the broader society. Pay people to do the right thing - stay home when they are ill - instead of penalize them, and more people WILL DO THE RIGHT THING. Makes sense to me! That's it!
Click to expand...

I wish what you state will happen but Jasper, I don't think it will have any effect on those who just don't give a damn.
 
Hamish Howl said:
The best benefit of the mask is it keeps infected people from breathing all over uninfected people.

Which is why they tell you to put a mask on at the urgent care clinic if you think you have the flu.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. But there are a lot of folks who refuse to implement wearing a mask when they are ill is how most get infected
 
GreatNews2night said:
My friend, what goes on in the back rooms of what passes for good science is appalling. I've seen so many distortions... manipulating inclusion and exclusion criteria to increase the N... using multiple outcome instruments and only reporting the ones that show some separation from placebo even if ten others don't... twisting the statistical treatment... using attractive research assistants to keep the subjects engaged in the study to artificially decrease attrition... and so on and so forth. All that because the department wants grants... and to get more grants you need to be published... and on, and on.

The number of irrelevant studies that could have been much better designed and could have answered much more clinically pertinent questions, but don't because it's always simpler to cut corners and end up with more money left in the grant to help paying for the researchers salaries...

But sure, you want to disagree, fine. We'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

You're handwaving away serious and what appear to me insurmountable resource constraints to crap on this study. I don't think it's reasonable. It would be different if you suggested a way to do what you suggest without having the funding of a major healthcare company looking for regulatory approval of its products. But you throw bricks from the sidelines, which is always REALLY easy, without any suggestions of how to accomplish what you're demanding, which is a study that answers a question it wasn't intended to answer.

Here's one complaint: It is a weakness of the study to NOT assess the quality of the seal, as, if done, it would have added a hugely important piece of information. The study might conclude something like "80% of health care workers do not adhere to the need to ensure a proper seal for N95 masks, which explains why their effectiveness ends up being so low."

Just for starters, How do you get to "80% do not adhere"? If you know half what you claim, you have to know that's an enormously difficult task, to evaluate a proper seal, across an entire shift, with 2800 participants and 30,000 shifts at work. So how would you do that and obtain useful results? I don't know about you, but if I see study lady on the floor I check my seal! Heck, I'll be more attentive knowing I'm part of this study and will be checked, period. So does your study and when and how you evaluate it impact measured compliance. Of course it will. Is there a real risk that when the study ends, or a participant drops out, compliance drops? Or that compliance for staff IN your study will differ from those not in it? Of course that's a real risk. How do you control for that? What are you really studying, if the study itself will impact your measured compliance and participants in your study are NOT likely to behave like those whose N95 seal researchers are not going to check many times in a 12 week period? So how do you generalize those results to another hospital whose staff isn't being constantly monitored by researchers like you? I don't know - seems like a really difficult hurdle to me!

So how would YOUR study overcome those hurdles? I'm interested in finding out.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
I wish what you state will happen but Jasper, I don't think it will have any effect on those who just don't give a damn.
Click to expand...

LOL, we are talking in circles, but OK. :roll:
 
Threegoofs said:
It ranks #1 when you are infected.
Click to expand...

Not if you have any one of probably 100 flu strains..

I could be 100% wrong about corona virus , FIR SURE, but that was the worst rebuttal ever. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
eman623 said:
I'd say buy some surgical masks too, but there's none to be had. I checked and EVERY store is sold out. Same with Amazon.
Click to expand...

Surgical masks are good for bacteria, but not viruses, they are useless.
 
GreatNews2night said:
No, we should read scientific papers with good critical sense and good understanding of potential methodological flaws. Review studies often do this: they go over other published studies to criticize the quality and to come up with degrees of confidence in the information and conclusions.

But what I'm saying is that there are LOTS of flawed studies out there. I'd say that it is more the rule than the exception, to find methodological, design, and statistical flaws.

But sure, there are some good studies that deliver stronger evidence out there. Unfortunately, not all.
Click to expand...

No one study is the final word on anything. It takes many studies, from many angles, to get a full picture of the subject under study.
 
JasperL said:
You're handwaving away serious and what appear to me insurmountable resource constraints to crap on this study. I don't think it's reasonable. It would be different if you suggested a way to do what you suggest without having the funding of a major healthcare company looking for regulatory approval of its products. But you throw bricks from the sidelines, which is always REALLY easy, without any suggestions of how to accomplish what you're demanding, which is a study that answers a question it wasn't intended to answer.

Here's one complaint: It is a weakness of the study to NOT assess the quality of the seal, as, if done, it would have added a hugely important piece of information. The study might conclude something like "80% of health care workers do not adhere to the need to ensure a proper seal for N95 masks, which explains why their effectiveness ends up being so low."

Just for starters, How do you get to "80% do not adhere"? If you know half what you claim, you have to know that's an enormously difficult task, to evaluate a proper seal, across an entire shift, with 2800 participants and 30,000 shifts at work. So how would you do that and obtain useful results? I don't know about you, but if I see study lady on the floor I check my seal! Heck, I'll be more attentive knowing I'm part of this study and will be checked, period. So does your study and when and how you evaluate it impact measured compliance. Of course it will. Is there a real risk that when the study ends, or a participant drops out, compliance drops? Or that compliance for staff IN your study will differ from those not in it? Of course that's a real risk. How do you control for that? What are you really studying, if the study itself will impact your measured compliance and participants in your study are NOT likely to behave like those whose N95 seal researchers are not going to check many times in a 12 week period? So how do you generalize those results to another hospital whose staff isn't being constantly monitored by researchers like you? I don't know - seems like a really difficult hurdle to me!

So how would YOUR study overcome those hurdles? I'm interested in finding out.
Click to expand...

The 80% was a hypothetical. I thought the use of the word "might" indicated it. I'm not saying, of course, that I know for a fact that 80% of people don't adhere to the standards. I'm just saying, this is a piece of information that I'd like to know. As for how to do it, if it is impractical and too expensive to check so many shifts (you have a point there) one might at least survey a *sample* of people to at least have *some* idea if this is an important intervening factor. It would have made the study a better one, and I believe this is so clear that I wonder why you and the other guy are disputing it.

But sure, the study is what it is and it serves its purpose, but it doesn't invalidate my hypothesis that N95 masks are more effective than surgical masks, because IT DIDN'T CONTROL FOR THE VERY DAMN THINK THAT CAN DEFEAT THE EFFICACY OF N95 MASKS!!! GEE!!

So, look at this study for other conclusions, but not for this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom