Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
CDC “Mask Guideline Update”
This could be medical malpractice of the highest sort. The data, and the science, show that mask-wearing by ordinary, uninfected members of the American Public does not slow or stop the spread of the Wuhan Coronavirus. If it did, the State of Washington would have had very few new cases after July of 2020 when our statewide mask mandate went into effect. Instead, we are told that there are over 700 new cases appearing daily. And the average citizen of Washington State is extremely compliant. I can count on the fingers of two hands, the number of people I have seen in stores without masks.
Today, the CDC issued new “guidelines” on mask-wearing. The result of One Lab Experiment shows that two masks, one on top of another, help slow the spread of the Wuhan Coronavirus. This is a bald-faced lie.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its mask guidance on Wednesday to include data from a recent lab experiment that found placing a cloth mask over a surgical mask, as well as using a properly fitted mask, was effective in stopping coronavirus spread.
The update, which was announced by CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky during a White House coronavirus briefing, comes after a lab experiment using simulated respiratory breaths found that placing a cloth mask over a medical procedure mask or using a medical procedure mask with knotted ear loops and tucked in sides decreased exposure to potentially infectious aerosols by about 95%.
This is the biggest bunch of baloney I have ever heard. The American population has already been subjected to a full year of lockdowns, business and school closures, unemployment, and deaths of despair of people young and old alike. Are they going to send a healthcare professional to each and every household daily to ensure that everyone is wearing a mask or two properly? Will a doctor be stationed at the door of every business to make sure all customers are properly wearing their two masks?
This new guidance is stupid and unnecessary. No mask mandate! Let the American People live their lives!
Published in Healthcare
Uh, huh… Ever looked at a graph? Apparently not. Virtually all mandates have come after the virus has peaked out and is on a steep decline, followed later by a rise. So either no effect or a harmful effect. What you’re suggesting would be extremely obvious in the data if true. It’s not.
Yup.
China Joe’s Puppeteers have said to expect us to have to wear masks and avoid gathering with friends and family for the rest of the year. Doesn’t matter how many people end up committing suicide out of depression and loneliness.
I had kind of expected that with China Joe in the Oval Office, they’d set us all free to make China Joe look like the hero. That was the only positive outcome I could see from the stolen election. Had Trump remained, they would have continued to keep us locked down in order to destroy him. So I figured that if they were going to steal the election, at least they’d set us free.
But nope. Control of the populace is too powerful a draw for them.
There will be more pressure as individual governors wisen up. Good news from Iowa, and it’s quite possible we will see a domino effect. This whole thing is built on lies, and that is difficult to sustain when people with brains have access to information.
The graph is entirely consistent with masks working followed by the inevitable relaxation of mitigation steps leading to an ensuing rise in cases- the problem with gross population data is lack of control groups, the 2-3 week delay between exposure and obvious spread and the public’s mitigation fatigue (worsened by the mask deniers and those who claim it is just the flu, a plot…etc etc). The JAMA article I posted earlier concludes that masks work- I do not think any of the deniers here have anywhere near the judgement or experience of those authors.
Those authors’ livelihoods are not threatened by COVID lockdowns either. Ours are.
Who is talking lockdowns- the authors are talking masks- totally different and the failure to keep them separate is part of the problem. The right wants no mitigation and the left wants any and every step possible – both bad choices.
That is beyond grasping at straws. By your logic, there is absolutely nothing that would be “inconsistent” with your preferred outcome. That is idiotic, but it is what drives the continued push for masks in the face of overwhelming evidence against it.
In places with no masks, the outcomes are exactly the same if not better. I suppose that proves masks work, too.
Grasping at straws- you mean like denying virtually every expert in the fields opinion yet relying on assorted random population graphs?
How does this appeal to authority work when the experts disagree with you? I’ve noticed that you only use that line when convenient (leaving out that many of these “experts” are computer modelers); ignoring the many, many experts who disagree.
https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a-careful-review-of-the-evidence/
already reviewed that non-article- the cited article cites a prior article on the same site claiming it refutes mask effectiveness-but the article does nothing of the sort-just a set of theoretical ramblings by a CHEMIST without a single piece of evidence about coronaviruses nor any experience with it. He should stick to his field-regulatory compliance-ie filling out government forms. If masks are as useless as he alleges how come healthcare workers aren’t infected in droves WHILE caring for COVID patients? Even if you unrealistically think that healthcare workers all wear N95s and do not break technique how about the thousands of counterfeit masks that have been used by healthcare workers-why did we not see a big outbreak ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/millions-of-counterfeit-masks-flooded-u-s-customs-facilities-last-year-116124364030)?
I hereby deny all health “expert” opinions. I am sick and tired of so-called experts trying to run my life (into the ground). Go ahead, call me a denier and a fool. I am no threat to any other person. I understand that a virus is widely circulating in America, and it might make me sick and if I get sick I might die. If I get sick, I will stay home so I will not infect others. I have over 95% chance of surviving if I get the virus, and I like those odds. If I die, I will die a free person.
A further note on masks- despite what that Chemist in the AIER article claims masks have been very effective-as shown in reducing spread amongst healthcare workers. I suspect the main reason his concerns haven’t been borne out is b/c he assumes aerosol spread rather than predominantly droplet spread (plus he assumes easy spread from handling contaminated masks). As the WSJ article cited above shows counterfeit masks have been sold by a number of vendors to hospital systems. The hospital I work at has purchased masks from a vendor who had unwittingly obtained counterfeit masks- and NONE of the providers using suspected masks has gotten ill-and these are “high risk” providers. This is probably b/c you do not need a great mask (N95 level) to obtain protection-because the virus doesn’t typically spread via aerosol. True aerosol spread would render many masks ineffective. If the virus was spread via aerosol we would have had more sick healthcare providers & worse spread in the community (R0 for aerosols is often in the teens). If aerosol spread was common the spread among healthcare workers would have been very evident early on when there weren’t anywhere near enough high level masks available in the early stages of the pandemic-but it wasn’t. It maybe that the so called super spreader events in the community occur in conditions where the spread is more aerosol like rather than the more typical droplet spread.
Is one of these the rambling CHEMIST? (et al):
Funny thing about that… Most of the articles that claim to support masks are not written by anyone with any sort of expertise (it’s mostly computer modeling), but it’s apparently some sort of slam dunk to suggest that a ph.d biochemist doesn’t know how to read and interpret scientific studies.
When your best counter argument is ad hominem, you’ve lost the argument. As I said, the data and evidence on masks is clear. Once enough people wake up to that fact… I think we will have a very angry public.
No ad hominems by me – I simply said the theoretical ramblings of a chemist (who works in regulatory compliance) is hardly expert opinion in infectious diseases. I never stated he was bad at regulatory compliance chemistry- just he is out of his area of expertise- a fact not an ad hominem. None of the 5 people listed above are experts in the FIELD we are discussing- except perhaps Alexander but he has been disavowed by McMaster University and if you doubt anyone for political reasons he would be high, if not top, on the list. Do not quote cardiologists, neurosurgeons, ophthalmologists, astrologists nor phrenologists as experts when we discuss infectious diseases.
I believe you are an attorney- as you are well aware no judge would accept as an expert witness in virology a regulatory compliance chemist particularly when there are plenty of infectious disease specialists around- look at the experience of the fraud in OK who passes himself as an anti-mask expert MD:
https://www.wshu.org/post/anti-science-expert-witnesses-deemed-unsuitable-connecticut-mask-trial#stream/0
additionally your claim that none of the pro-mask articles are written by experts is ludicrous- most are by infectious diseases experts in PEER reviewed publications- while anti-maskers quote non-infectious diseases MDs from predatory journals!
If they are claiming expert status in COVID then they are worse than rambling chemists they are negligent physicians who are attempting to use their credentials out of their area of expertise. Cardiologists are not qualified in infectious diseases- believe me I work with them on a regular basis- I hope I need not remind you dentistry isn’t a subspeciality of virology. Alexander has been disavowed by McMaster (where he had an UNPAID position) and is a political appointee.
Dr Risch’s colleagues at Yale: “As his colleagues, we defend the right of Dr. Risch, a respected cancer epidemiologist, to voice his opinions,” the letter states. “But he is not an expert in infectious disease epidemiology and he has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials, which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments“
so no-none of them is an expert
You beat me to it! Japan’s cases multiplied by more than 10 times the rate of infection than it was during the supposed peak of the pandemic back in March. And this is explained by “relaxation of mitigation steps?” They are supposedly the country that always wears face masks, whether during a pandemic or not.
You are not fooling anybody here. The graphs plotting rising infection rates after mask mandates are clear as day. Anybody with two brain cells can see that. It takes mental gymnastics to discount it. If you can give me a clear explanation of why infection rates should go up despite masks stopping the virus, then I will take notice.
From a story I remember vaguely:
A journalist once pointed out to Einstein that 100 or so scientists had signed a letter disputing one of his theories. Einstein replied to the guy something like this “Why 100? If my theory is wrong, it only takes one scientist to disprove it.”
My takeaway is this – I don’t trust in “appeals to authority.” In other words I don’t believe something just because some famous or important people says so, unless I don’t have any other way of knowing. I am smart enough to deduce some basic commonsense principles such as “are the masks stopping the rise in infections or are they not.” If one person can convince me otherwise, than great! Go for it!
They are not anybody’s experts in infectious diseases….
Since you are so concerned with the narrow field of expertise of the authors of articles on masks, here is one from AAPS, The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons:
https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
In the article they conclude:
“Conclusion: Wearing masks (other than N95) will not be effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.”
You seemed to have linked to court case involving a ludicrous witness who doesn’t even believe the Coronavirus exists. Nobody would take him seriously. This is more grasping at straws to make your argument
You are so wrong-He has been quoted numerous times here on Ricochet as an “expert”.
Well, Dr. Fauci has all the credentials in the world and he’s been telling two different stories about wearing masks. Credentials are not the final word, either.
Being quoted on Ricochet makes one an expert? So is Gary Robbins. Hell, I must be an expert 1,000 times over!
Not a respected group on this topic, unfortunately. The article is not based on any evidence specific to our experience with COVID- it is mainly based in the premise that the spread is mainly aerosol and that only high level masks can prevent aerosol spread. It is not clear that the spread is predominantly aerosol- especially since aerosol vs droplet spread is actually a continuum and not a binary situation. It is likely that there is both droplet and aerosol spread- The AAPS stance is it is aerosol spread and therefore only N95s will work but many disagree:
Myth 5a. “If it’s airborne then surgical masks (or cloth face coverings) won’t work”
This statement is false because it is essentially presented as an over simplified binary scenario, i.e. masks work (completely) or don’t work (at all) against viruses in respiratory particles.Several laboratory studies have already shown that surgical and home-made masks are somewhat (but incompletely) effective in both limiting exhaled particles, and in protecting wearers from inhaling particles from others. Surgical masks can contain, and therefore reduce, the dissemination of viruses shed by an infected wearer by up to 3-4-fold (i.e. ∼67-75%), and even 100% in the case of seasonal coronaviruses.34,51 When an infectious person wears a mask or face covering, the size of the exhaled plume is also reduced and this also helps to reduce the risk of exposure to those nearby.Surgical masks also protect the wearer, by reducing the exposure to incoming droplets and aerosols from infected individuals by an average of 6-fold (range 1.1 to 55-fold).52,53The filtration capacity of surgical masks in the micron size range is often considerable, although it varies between brands.54 We know that the filtration capacity of N95/FFP2 respirators is better if they have been appropriately fit-tested, to avoid leakage of aerosols around the side of the respirator into the breathing zone.Even home-made cloth masks (made from tea cloths or cotton t-shirts) can reduce the exposure from incoming particles by up to 2-4-fold (i.e. ∼50-75%).55,56 This mainly depends on how the mask is made, what materials it is made from, the number of layers, and the characteristics of respiratory secretions to which it is exposed. Based on the evidence supporting a role for airborne transmission of COVID-19, the use of N95/FFP2/FFP3 respirators by frontline healthcare workers should be recommended. For those that cannot tolerate wearing these masks for long periods, the less restrictive surgical masks still offer some protection, but it needs to be acknowledged that these won’t be quite so effective.
Myth 5b: “The virus is only 100 nm (0.1 μm) in size so filters and masks won’t work”
This myth is related to 5a. There are two levels of misunderstanding to be considered for this myth. Firstly, there is a lack of understanding of how high efficiency particle air (HEPA) and other filters actually work. They do not act as simple ‘sieves’, but physically remove particles from the airstream using a combination of impaction and interception (where faster moving particles hit and stick mask fibres via a direct collision or a glancing blow); diffusion (where slower moving particles touch and stick to mask fibres); and electrostatic forces (where oppositely charged particles and mask fibres adhere to each other). Together, these create a ‘dynamic collision trap’ as particles pass through the network of air channels between fibres at various speeds.57The minimum filtration efficiency typically occurs for particles in the vicinity of 0.3 μm in diameter. Those smaller than this “most penetrating particle size” are captured with greater efficiency because their Brownian motion (allowing diffusion at an atomic level) causes them to collide with fibres in the filter at a high rate. Particles larger than this limiting diameter are efficiently removed through impaction and interception.Secondly, viruses that are involved in transmission of infection are not generally ‘naked’. They are expelled from the human body in droplets containing water, salt, protein, and other components of respiratory secretions. Salivary and mucous droplets are much larger than the virus,58 and it is the overall size that determines how the droplets and aerosols move and are captured by mask and filter fibres.High efficiency particle air (HEPA) (or ‘arrestance’) filters can trap 99.97 % or more of particles that are 0.3 μm (300 nm) in diameter. Exhaled salivary/mucous droplets start from about 0.5 μm size range and are entirely removed by HEPA filters. Indeed, HEPA filtration is not strictly needed in the ventilation systems of most commercial buildings other than healthcare, where specialist areas such as operating theatres, clean rooms, laboratories and isolation rooms benefit from single-pass capture of particles. Stand-alone ‘portable’ air cleaners that filter room air through built-in HEPA filters are an option for non-specialist areas such as offices and classrooms, though their performance may be limited by imperfect mixing, noise and draught effects.59https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(21)00007-4/fulltext
The majority opinion is that masks (even short of N95) provide a measure of protection vs both droplet and aerosol spread. Masks are not perfect- but better than no protection. I personally wear masks that are better than the typical cloth masks- I have cloth masks with HEPA filter inserts or KN95s for non work situations. In the hospital I wear at LEAST a N95 level “respirator” ( it’s mask) while doing procedures b/c I work in a “high risk” speciality for COVID. I also wear eye protection and am fully vaccinated- but the rules for PPE are the same at work irrespective of your vaccination status.
addendum- I looked into joining AAPS years ago- during the Clinton years-but they have more than their share of kooks- their journal is a predatory journal and is listed on Quackwatch.
You misunderstand-to be clear: those quoting him claim he is an expert-when in fact he is a charlatan.
ok, this conversation is fruitless. The hilarious thing about it is the fact that in order to make pro-mask arguments, you have to argue that all of the data and actual facts are lying. Masks really work because some people you consider to be experts (who hold no more education and expertise than the many, many others who rightly observe that masks don’t work) say they do… in spite of the fact that masks have had zero positive effect (and often a negative effect) literally everywhere they have been used.
But here’s the point. When you have to go into painful detail to explain why all of the facts are wrong because your theory is so amazingly sound, what you are dealing with is something that – in the very least – is not a major undeniable fact. Here, we are talking about something that is being mandated – in other words, forced on an otherwise free population by threat of violence. That is 100% unacceptable in the United States, as it should be unacceptable everywhere in the world. Even if it could be shown that masks were so effective that places without them had far worse outcomes than places with them (i.e. the opposite of the facts we actually have), it would still be unacceptable to force them on people.
The reality is this: mask mandates are an extreme violation of basic human rights. This is the type of thing that has prompted wars, and rightly so. It cannot be tolerated in a free society. Period. That is non-negotiable.
People should, however, be permitted to make whatever arguments they want in order to justify their individual choices. Those sorts of conversations are important. Gradeschool reasoning and examples of bad science are actually important as an instructional tool – the mental gymnastics that mask-zealots have to engage in to justify their position is extremely important because this is how actual education is advanced. We get so arrogant when we pretend that ignorant zealotry is a thing of the past – we talk about Galileo as if it’s some sort of dunk on the Church, when we’re experiencing the exact same thing on a widespread scale, not just here in the US but all around the world. We make self-righteous and condescending movies about things like the Salem Witch Trials or McCarthyism (which ironically serve the purpose of doing the exact same things to people we disagree with) – but when I walk out my own door, I see thousands of faces, dutifully masked up, based on junk “science” that has been so thoroughly debunked over the course of he past year… enforced by ignorant fools who ironically believe themselves to be better than some past generations who just as dutifully enforced geocentrism or burned witches at the stake, in line with the unquestioned wisdom of the “experts” of their day…
yeah… kind of like Neil Ferguson, Fauci, etc… etc…
Of course, your only criteria for whether a person is an “expert” or a “charlatan” is whether that person agrees with your preferred conclusion. That’s how you get nurses (you are a nurse, correct? Or are you a janitor at a hospital, claiming medical expertise?) referring to Biochemists as incompetent charlatans who don’t know how to read and interpret data.
That’s CHEMIST to you, pal.