The Coronavirus, not the beer

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720333028



Conclusion
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.
 
Someone on these boards has talked about the catastrophic psychological issues stemming from wearing masks.

Hmmmmm
 
msstate7 said:
Did Stanford release a mask study that found masks ineffective?
Click to expand...

Credentials aren't everything. But when a guy (an exercise physiologist writing about a topic outside his area of expertise) makes up an affiliation with Stanford, that's a red flag. Just sayin.
 
sturg33 said:
Way to go California!

You wrecked your economy and made everyone miserable and destroyed your citizens rights, while leading the nation in unemployed and homeless... All to achieve the same outcomes as FL and TX

Amazing leadership says the useful idiot Zito as he adjusts his 2nd mask

[tw]1383496963555880961[/tw]
Click to expand...

Bump for Zito.

There is no mention of economy in this data. It's just deaths.

All those liberty restrictions you drooled over gave us worse outcomes AND wrecked economies.

What a weird and stupid rant. The party of science is no longer interested in data and evidence
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, not a. Single study has done with a control group showing mask effectiveness.

Not one.

There has been one done showing ineffectiveness.

But, the party of science is not interested in evidence.

And if the lecturer assures us that masks work, we'll you can pretty much take it to the bank that the don't.
 
sturg33 said:
As far as I know, not a. Single study has done with a control group showing mask effectiveness.

Not one.

There has been one done showing ineffectiveness.

But, the party of science is not interested in evidence.

And if the lecturer assures us that masks work, we'll you can pretty much take it to the bank that the don't.
Click to expand...

Masks will end up having a negative net effect to society even if they are found to help reduce transmission slightly.

Just absolutely terrible policy making.
 
More and more people are starting to wake up to Fauchis role in the origins of the ccp virus Josh Rogin has done a tremendous job but to be honest it’s stuff Bannon has talked about for over a year.
 
sturg33 said:
Bump for Zito.

There is no mention of economy in this data. It's just deaths.

All those liberty restrictions you drooled over gave us worse outcomes AND wrecked economies.

What a weird and stupid rant. The party of science is no longer interested in data and evidence
Click to expand...

It was a terribly off base rant. I didn't even know where it came from.
 
msstate7 said:
I'm just a part-time scientist (online only), so I could be wrong, but aren't all NIH papers peer reviewed? Here's the NIH link to the study...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/
Click to expand...

No. This is not an NIH paper. And it is not peer-reviewed. The NIH has a portal of sorts that provides access to papers published by various journals and organizations. Not all of them are peer reviewed.

Here's the author's linked in page:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/baruch-vainshelboim-5591b532/

His background seems to be that of a physical therapist.

He is not listed in the Stanford directory. Unlike a friend of mine who teaches at the medical school and is listed. People with a real Stanford affiliation will also have a stanford.edu email.

As I said credentials are not everything. Maybe a physical therapist does know something about masks. But making up a credential or affiliation is usually not a good sign.

Or you could read the paper and judge for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Where is the peer review study that shows masks are effective at reducing transmission from air particles?
 
thethe said:
Where is the peer review study that shows masks are effective at reducing transmission from air particles?
Click to expand...

The literature is voluminous by now. But here is one.

https://msphere.asm.org/content/5/5/e00637-20

"We found that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks all have a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by a virus spreader."
 
You should learn how to review these.

—-
To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded. Although the efficiency of detecting infectious virus was reduced when the amount of exhaled virus was reduced, viral RNA was detected regardless of the type of mask used. These results indicate that it is difficult to completely block this virus even with a properly fitted N95 mask. However, it remains unknown whether the small amount of virus that was able to pass through the N95 masks would result in illness.

——-
Non asymptomatic people have low viral loads.
 
thethe said:
You should learn how to review these.

—-
To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded. Although the efficiency of detecting infectious virus was reduced when the amount of exhaled virus was reduced, viral RNA was detected regardless of the type of mask used. These results indicate that it is difficult to completely block this virus even with a properly fitted N95 mask. However, it remains unknown whether the small amount of virus that was able to pass through the N95 masks would result in illness.

——-
Non asymptomatic people have low viral loads.
Click to expand...

I would argue as a logical proposition that something that works in screening out high viral loads would work even better screening out low viral loads.

Anyhow this issue has been examined from many different angles. Here is a review of the literature published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences earlier this year.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
You should learn how to review these.

—-
To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded. Although the efficiency of detecting infectious virus was reduced when the amount of exhaled virus was reduced, viral RNA was detected regardless of the type of mask used. These results indicate that it is difficult to completely block this virus even with a properly fitted N95 mask. However, it remains unknown whether the small amount of virus that was able to pass through the N95 masks would result in illness.

——-
Non asymptomatic people have low viral loads.
Click to expand...

He's an academic. He reads whatever supports his narrative.

I've never seen someone get so many things wrong in my lifetime
 
nsacpi said:
I would argue as a logical proposition that something that works in screening out high viral loads would work even better screening out low viral loads.
Click to expand...

Risk assessment.

Done in every aspect of life.

Cost benefit analysis.

Goal is not to save every single human being from potentially dying of the ccp virus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top