- Joined
- Jun 16, 2019
- Messages
- 39,601
- Reaction score
- 38,154
- Location
- Tucson
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
So, wait, the argument here is not to take precautions?
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.
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!
I don't really agree with any of that, so we'll agree to disagree I guess.
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.
How about we start with adequate testing for the virus?
US isn't 'remotely prepared' to test for coronavirus, experts say | Live Science
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.
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?
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.
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.
What is there, 15 cases?
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?
Why aren't we testing for Covid?
So we should do away with science?
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!
"I call them The Original Fifteen."
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.
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.
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.
It ranks #1 when you are infected.
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.
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.
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.