There are 144 comments.

1. Thatcher
   MiMac

   @MiMac

   11:58 AM EST ⋅ Feb 13, 2021

   Hammer, The (View Comment):

   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…

   You have the right to not wear masks and make your claims but I also have the right and DUTY as a medical professional to push back against misinformation- physicians take an oath to act in the best interests of their patients and that includes making sure they get correct medical information. And at present, the weight of medical evidence supports the wearing of masks as a mechanism to reduce the spread of  the novel coronavirus causing the current pandemic.

   Addendum- the painful detail is REQUIRED b/c of, in many cases, carelessness or dishonesty-look at the Federalist article-the author must not have read almost any of the articles he CLAIMS refute mask effectiveness-b/c almost everyone of them supported masks. It is in fact not painful detail to carefully read medical articles- THAT IS WHAT DOCTORS DO if they want to stay current in medicine. It isn’t easy-takes time and experience but that is why physicians train for YEARS. There are countless examples of careful-you would say painful-reading of published studies by physicians that revealed errors or outright fraud-or lead to further studies that advanced medical care. It is an critical skill for the medical community to retain- and is endangered by many of the calls to expedite  the training of physicians.

2. Thatcher
   MiMac

   @MiMac

   12:16 PM EST ⋅ Feb 13, 2021

   Hammer, The (View Comment):

   MiMac (View Comment):

   Steven Seward (View Comment):

   MiMac (View Comment):

   Steven Seward (View Comment):

   MiMac (View Comment):

   I believe you are an attorney- as you are well aware no judge would accept as an expert witness in virology a chemist particularly when there are plenty of infectious disease specialist 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

   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….

   Being quoted on Ricochet makes one an expert? So is Gary Robbins. Hell, I must be an expert 1,000 times over!

   You misunderstand-to be clear: those quoting him claim he is an expert-when in fact he is a charlatan.

   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.

   So now ad hominems are now in vogue? I guess the old legal dictum is enforce- when you have facts you pound the facts, if not pound the table! We have gone over this before- in an earlier thread-I am a physician who practices a subspeciality that deals with acute care. The criteria for experts is to be in the field in which you trained and practice. So cardiologists, ophthalmologists, retired neurosurgeons, retired physicists, retired compliance chemists, and doc-in-box owners etc are not experts in infectious diseases (all have been touted as authorities by HCQ flackers and mask deniers-on this website). The MD who tried to be an expert witness referenced earlier is an ophthalmologist who apparently no longer practices as such and sells vitamins and potions to ward off COVID on line while decrying masks- there are numerous other “red flags” about him as well-that is why the trial judge wisely refused to allow him to testify as an expert. When every relevant medical society supports the use of masks (ALA, SCCM, IDSA, etc etc) you will indeed have trouble finding contrary experts- for good reason. None  of the so-called experts touted today would be allowed by a judge to testify as such on infectious diseases (perhaps Alexander- but the other attorney would have a field day with him).

3. Thatcher
   MiMac

   @MiMac

   12:30 PM EST ⋅ Feb 13, 2021

   The Hammer- (I wanted to add a plug for Ricochet )I initially misread part of you prior post and thought you were claiming Niall Ferguson wasn’t an expert and I was perplexed how he got on the list-on re-reading I see you wrote the other Ferguson. Niall is on the PostCorona Podcast here on Ricochet and it is very good. 

4. Coolidge
   Flicker

   @Flicker

   3:00 PM EST ⋅ Feb 13, 2021

   How about this for a study? Take 100 patients known to have active, communicable covid. Mask them properly to assure compliance. Swab their mouths for viral load. Have moist tissue paper extended an exact distance, say 12 inches, directly in front of the mask. And let the person live, that is move about, cook, exercise, watch TV, sleep, or just putter around the room, for 8 hours. Every half hour swab the patients’ mouths for covid viral load, and swab the inside and the outside of the mask, and replace the collection tissue paper and swab the used one for viral load.  You can replace the masks at any interval you want, or not at all.  But say at 1/2 hour, and at an hour, or just every two, or four hours.

   Heck, do this in a hundred locations: a dozen different counties, cities and states, of a dozen countries, noting the various weather conditions and the season for future reference.

   The experiment itself could be done in a day, and fully accomplished from start to finish is a couple of weeks.  This would put to rest the “at this time we simply don’t know” and the “but it’s so obvious!” arguments. Can anyone else think of a better way to know the efficacy of masks? If so I’d like to hear it.

5. Member
   Steven Seward

   @StevenSeward

   6:32 AM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

   MiMac (View Comment):

   Myth 5a. “If it’s airborne then surgical masks (or cloth face coverings) won’t work”

   …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

   I’m so glad you are posting actual details instead of just “arguments from authority,” and I have learned a lot by reading your linked article.  However, I’m going to take the article to task as per your conclusions.

   The little footnotes 34, and 53, refer to studies cited for your article.  They are scrupulously detailed and I don’t pretend to understand all the language, but some simple sentences stick out from study #34.   The first paragraph in their abstract says:

   “The CDC recommends that healthcare settings provide influenza patients with facemasks as a means of reducing transmission to staff and other patients, and a recent report suggested that surgical masks can capture influenza virus in large droplet spray. However, there is minimal data on influenza virus aerosol shedding, the infectiousness of exhaled aerosols, and none on the impact of facemasks on viral aerosol shedding from patients with seasonal influenza.”

   When it comes to coarse exhaled particles greater than 5 microns, or 5,000 nanometers, they report capturing influenza RNA  through the surgical face masks of only 11% of infected volunteers as opposed to  43%  of infected volunteers wearing no mask.  But when it comes to particles less than 5 microns, they say this:

   “We detected viral RNA in 78% (29 of 37) of fine particle samples collected from volunteers when they were wearing a mask and in 92% (34 of 37) of samples collected when they were not wearing a mask. Thus, the relative risk for any virus detection with mask versus without a mask was 0.85 and borderline statistically significant”  [Emphasis mine]

   This does not inspire confidence in the masks considering that the actual Coronavirus size is 1/10th of a micron, or 100 nanometers.  Now in fairness, they summed up their study by giving a nod to wearing of masks by people infected with influenza:

   “Surgical masks nearly eliminated viral RNA detection in the coarse aerosol fraction with a 25 fold reduction in the number of viral copies, a statistically significant 2.8 fold reduction in copies detected in the fine aerosol fraction, and an overall statistically significant 3.4 fold reduction of viral copy number in the exhaled aerosols. This finding supports current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations that healthcare facilities encourage patients with influenza-like illness to don surgical facemasks as one component of an influenza infection control program.”

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591312/

   I’m out of word space.  Continued in next comment:

6. Member
   Steven Seward

   @StevenSeward

   7:00 AM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

   MiMac (View Comment):

   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

   Now to the second cited study, #51.  From their abstract:

   “Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill individuals to prevent onward transmission (source control)4,8. Surgical face masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound infection and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures, and were later adopted to protect healthcare workers against acquiring infection from their patients. However, most of the existing evidence on the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro experiments with nonbiological particles9,10, which may not be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is little information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections8, and most research has focused on influenza.” [Emphasis mine]

   Now the experiments did not detect either large droplets or aerosols coming through the masks of Coronvirus patients, but it also did not detect anything coming from more than half of them while their masks were off.  There were only ten subjects in the experiment, so you can take it for what it is worth.  That is where your article gets its claim of 100% effectiveness against seasonal Coronavirus.  They also investigated Influenza patients with 23 subjects and determined that the masks blocked the larger particles but were completely ineffective at blocking particles less than 5 microns.

   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2

    

7. Thatcher
   MiMac

   @MiMac

   7:03 AM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

   Steven Seward (View Comment):

   MiMac (View Comment):

   Myth 5a. “If it’s airborne then surgical masks (or cloth face coverings) won’t work”

   …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

   I’m so glad you are posting actual details instead of just “arguments from authority,” and I have learned a lot by reading your linked article. However, I’m going to take the article to task as per your conclusions.

   The little footnotes 34, and 53, refer to studies cited for your article. They are scrupulously detailed and I don’t pretend to understand all the language, but some simple sentences stick out from study #34. The first paragraph in their abstract says:

   “The CDC recommends that healthcare settings provide influenza patients with facemasks as a means of reducing transmission to staff and other patients, and a recent report suggested that surgical masks can capture influenza virus in large droplet spray. However, there is minimal data on influenza virus aerosol shedding, the infectiousness of exhaled aerosols, and none on the impact of facemasks on viral aerosol shedding from patients with seasonal influenza.”

   When it comes to coarse exhaled particles greater than 5 microns, or 5,000 nanometers, they report capturing influenza RNA through the surgical face masks of only 11% of infected volunteers as opposed to 43% of infected volunteers wearing no mask. But when it comes to particles less than 5 microns, they say this:

   “We detected viral RNA in 78% (29 of 37) of fine particle samples collected from volunteers when they were wearing a mask and in 92% (34 of 37) of samples collected when they were not wearing a mask. Thus, the relative risk for any virus detection with mask versus without a mask was 0.85 and borderline statistically significant” [Emphasis mine]

   This does not inspire confidence in the masks considering that the actual Coronavirus size is 1/10th of a micron, or 100 nanometers. Now in fairness, they summed up their study by giving a nod to wearing of masks by people infected with influenza:

   “Surgical masks nearly eliminated viral RNA detection in the coarse aerosol fraction with a 25 fold reduction in the number of viral copies, a statistically significant 2.8 fold reduction in copies detected in the fine aerosol fraction, and an overall statistically significant 3.4 fold reduction of viral copy number in the exhaled aerosols. This finding supports current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations that healthcare facilities encourage patients with influenza-like illness to don surgical facemasks as one component of an influenza infection control program.”

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591312/

   I’m out of wed space. Continued in next comment:

   Again, Overall the studies support the use of masks- furthermore the fact that masks did not completely eliminate the detection of virus overlooks the fact that viral LOAD is an important consideration in the spread of severe disease. Many scientists believe that viral load has a significant influence on disease severity so reducing the viral load in exhaled air would provide important benefits, even if not full protection, to others.

8. Member
   Steven Seward

   @StevenSeward

   7:49 AM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

   MiMac (View Comment):

   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.57

   In the interest of brevity (and the interest of me getting some real work done today instead of wasting time on the Internet) I’m going to post some excerpts from some of the sources that are cited in your article.  Not that they say all bad things about masks, but quotes like these in studies about the efficacy of masks cast serious doubt on their value. 

   “Surgical face mask (Fig. 3) is initially designed to shield the wearer from infectious droplets in clinical environments, but it does not help much to protect from spread of respiratory diseases.”

   “As discussed in the section of cloth masks, Rengasamy et al. [17] indicated that the penetration of cloth masks is more than N95, and it means that wearing cloth masks will not have much effect.”

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7426537/

   “If influenza virus is carried in the smaller particles and transmission occurs via the airborne route, the use of interventions such as surgical-type masks as personal protective equipment may not prevent transmission.”

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2442192/

    

   It may be that many lab experiments have shown efficacy of masks stopping viruses, but I want to quote a famous Russian Chess Grandmaster who said “Theory is not the same as practice.”  This applies to science as well as chess.  Just because something works well in a laboratory does not necessarily mean that it will work under real-life conditions, especially in the “softer” sciences.  The real-life results of rising Corona cases while wearing masks has not been adequately explained away.

9. Thatcher
   RushBabe49

   @RushBabe49

   Post author

   10:03 AM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

   My favorite saying of Ayn Rand is “Check your premises”.  The unstated premise for requiring every person to wear a dehumanizing face mask is that everyone is assumed to be infected until proven otherwise. I reject that premise, for myself, and for all others. 

10. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    10:18 AM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    My favorite saying of Ayn Rand is “Check your premises”. The unstated premise for requiring every person to wear a dehumanizing face mask is that everyone is assumed to be infected until proven otherwise. I reject that premise, for myself, and for all others.

    I quit thinking about this months ago, but personally I find it very interesting that nobody ever talks about how many people out of 100 are actually spreading. Is it three out of 100? Seven out of 100? One out of 100? 

    Just to be clear, I’m not against masks if they actually work to lower the coefficient of spread, but I don’t see it.

    They also aren’t explaining the mechanics of what the vaccine does. Apparently it doesn’t kill the virus in the way the average citizen thinks it works.  Then they babble about why we need to keep wearing masks for a long time after everybody gets the shot with no explanation. 

     

     

11. Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt

    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    10:43 AM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    My favorite saying of Ayn Rand is “Check your premises”. The unstated premise for requiring every person to wear a dehumanizing face mask is that everyone is assumed to be infected until proven otherwise. I reject that premise, for myself, and for all others.

    I quit thinking about this months ago, but personally I find it very interesting that nobody ever talks about how many people out of 100 are actually spreading. Is it three out of 100? Seven out of 100? One out of 100?

    Just to be clear, I’m not against masks if they actually work to lower the coefficient of spread, but I don’t see it.

    They also aren’t explaining the mechanics of what the vaccine does. Apparently it doesn’t kill the virus in the way the average citizen thinks it works. Then they babble about why we need to keep wearing masks for a long time after everybody gets the shot with no explanation.

    Personally I suspect the CDC and others health organizations had it right in the first place.  Useful in a clinical settings but in day to day full population use not really all that helpful.  The social distancing and remote work seems to me to be more effective.

    You can do all the mask testing you want but people are people and to expect everybody to use a mask at clinical standards day after day in a 24×7 setting year after year is just not going to work.  Then to blame all failure on people not being serious is silly.  

    Most pandemics take about 18 months to 2 years to burn through the population.  This one seem on course to do what every other one has done except we decided to panic on this one.  

12. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    11:06 AM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Personally I suspect the CDC and others health organizations had it right in the first place. Useful in a clinical settings but in day to day full population use not really all that helpful. The social distancing and remote work seems to me to be more effective.

    This is exactly my opinion. Every policy should flow from this. Don’t lock anything down unless there is no other option to not run out of medical resources; plus when you do that, it’s going to just put off what is going to happen anyway.

     

     

13. Thatcher
    MiMac

    @MiMac

    12:53 PM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    My favorite saying of Ayn Rand is “Check your premises”. The unstated premise for requiring every person to wear a dehumanizing face mask is that everyone is assumed to be infected until proven otherwise. I reject that premise, for myself, and for all others.

    I quit thinking about this months ago, but personally I find it very interesting that nobody ever talks about how many people out of 100 are actually spreading. Is it three out of 100? Seven out of 100? One out of 100?

    Just to be clear, I’m not against masks if they actually work to lower the coefficient of spread, but I don’t see it.

    They also aren’t explaining the mechanics of what the vaccine does. Apparently it doesn’t kill the virus in the way the average citizen thinks it works. Then they babble about why we need to keep wearing masks for a long time after everybody gets the shot with no explanation.

     

     

    I don’t think the average citizen has much in the way of any thinking on how the vaccine “kills” viruses. The mRNA vaccine simply “exposes” the immune system to a viral protein so that the immune system makes antibodies (and T cells) against the viral protein- in a way quite analogous to what having an infection with the virus would.

14. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    1:00 PM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    My favorite saying of Ayn Rand is “Check your premises”. The unstated premise for requiring every person to wear a dehumanizing face mask is that everyone is assumed to be infected until proven otherwise. I reject that premise, for myself, and for all others.

    I quit thinking about this months ago, but personally I find it very interesting that nobody ever talks about how many people out of 100 are actually spreading. Is it three out of 100? Seven out of 100? One out of 100?

    Just to be clear, I’m not against masks if they actually work to lower the coefficient of spread, but I don’t see it.

    They also aren’t explaining the mechanics of what the vaccine does. Apparently it doesn’t kill the virus in the way the average citizen thinks it works. Then they babble about why we need to keep wearing masks for a long time after everybody gets the shot with no explanation.

     

     

    I don’t think the average citizen has much in the way of any thinking on how the vaccine “kills” viruses. The mRNA vaccine simply “exposes” the immune system to a viral protein so that the immune system makes antibodies (and T cells) against the viral protein- in a way quite analogous to what having an infection with the virus would.

    I am probably going to do a very lousy job at explaining what I mean. I think when people get the flu vaccine and we all go to the trouble of getting the flu vaccine, it’s like the virus dies on the person that took the shot. What they are saying right now is, that is not exactly what is going on and that is why some people that have had the shot are still spreading and somewhat dangerous even though they aren’t going to get sick. 

    I think that if they would go to the trouble of talking like that I wouldn’t want to kill myself when I hear freaking  Jen Psaki talking about dragging these policies out even though everybody’s getting vaccinated. 

     

     

15. Member
    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone

    @DrewInWisconsin

    1:24 PM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    What they are saying right now is, that is not exactly what is going on and that is why some people that have had the shot are still spreading and somewhat dangerous even though they aren’t going to get sick. 

    I don’t think they even know that for sure. I think it’s “Well, you might still spread it. We don’t know. And because we don’t know, we have to continue to take away your liberty.”

16. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    1:27 PM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    What they are saying right now is, that is not exactly what is going on and that is why some people that have had the shot are still spreading and somewhat dangerous even though they aren’t going to get sick.

    I don’t think they even know that for sure. I think it’s “Well, you might still spread it. We don’t know. And because we don’t know, we have to continue to take away your liberty.”

    I don’t see why they can’t be very explicit about this. Or actually I can. lol 

17. Member
    Full Size Tabby

    @FullSizeTabby

    1:50 PM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    My favorite saying of Ayn Rand is “Check your premises”. The unstated premise for requiring every person to wear a dehumanizing face mask is that everyone is assumed to be infected until proven otherwise. I reject that premise, for myself, and for all others.

    I quit thinking about this months ago, but personally I find it very interesting that nobody ever talks about how many people out of 100 are actually spreading. Is it three out of 100? Seven out of 100? One out of 100?

    Just to be clear, I’m not against masks if they actually work to lower the coefficient of spread, but I don’t see it.

    They also aren’t explaining the mechanics of what the vaccine does. Apparently it doesn’t kill the virus in the way the average citizen thinks it works. Then they babble about why we need to keep wearing masks for a long time after everybody gets the shot with no explanation.

     

     

    This is related to my problem with universal masking – is the supposed benefit worth the cost? The cost being a fundamental transformation of society and in many cases a significant change in personality of individuals. 

18. Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt

    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    2:30 PM EST ⋅ Feb 14, 2021

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Personally I suspect the CDC and others health organizations had it right in the first place. Useful in a clinical settings but in day to day full population use not really all that helpful. The social distancing and remote work seems to me to be more effective.

    This is exactly my opinion. Every policy should flow from this. Don’t lock anything down unless there is no other option to not run out of medical resources; plus when you do that, it’s going to just put off what is going to happen anyway.

     

    I think pushing / encouraging remote work when it can be done is appropriate.  In our info economy it is amazing how much work can be done remotely and it is an option that has not been available in past pandemics.  This is only to spread out the sickness load so as to not over tax medical facilities.   

19. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    3:45 AM EST ⋅ Feb 18, 2021

    This is pretty interesting on the legal and scientific issues.

     

    Today, I’m joined by Kristen Meghan, a senior industrial hygienist in the field of occupational and environmental toxicology, to discuss the fraud of mask mandates. She explains everything you need to know about how the mask mandates violate rules of PPE, anti-discrimination, OSHA, and the ADA. She explains exactly why mask mandates don’t work and how people are being misled because the media promote white coats talking about masks rather than talking to PPE experts. 

    https://www.theblaze.com/podcasts/daniel-horowitz-podcast 

     

    I think it starts around 14 minutes.

    cc: @skyler

     

20. Thatcher
    MiMac

    @MiMac

    3:42 PM EST ⋅ Feb 19, 2021

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    This is pretty interesting on the legal and scientific issues.

     

    Today, I’m joined by Kristen Meghan, a senior industrial hygienist in the field of occupational and environmental toxicology, to discuss the fraud of mask mandates. She explains everything you need to know about how the mask mandates violate rules of PPE, anti-discrimination, OSHA, and the ADA. She explains exactly why mask mandates don’t work and how people are being misled because the media promote white coats talking about masks rather than talking to PPE experts.

    https://www.theblaze.com/podcasts/daniel-horowitz-podcast

     

    I think it starts around 14 minutes.

    cc: @ skyler

     

    Listen to it and I wish I had that hour back- way too much of it was Ms Meghan talking about her PTSD and resulting inability to wear a mask. Much of the hour was about OSHA not medical care- and OSHA has no expertise nor authority on the community use of masks by individuals- it only covers the workplace. Many of her statements about COVID (and masks) are not widely held by MDs working in infectious diseases. She and Horowitz continue to claim it is ONLY aerosol spread- when in fact spread is a continuum from droplets to aerosols AND studies have shown that masks provide some protection from both droplets and aerosols. She claims MDs use PAPRs not N95 respirators when caring for patients with respiratory viruses- that is definitely untrue- there were no where near enough PAPRS in the entire country in the 1st 6-9 months of the pandemic- yet very few MDs got infected ( a large hospital system I know of had 2 functional PAPRS in TOTAL and, at times, over 130 COVID patients in the hospital). One reviewer of Ms Meghan has stated:

    …rant from people who claim to be “OSHA-certified PPE experts,” and then he asserts they “explain in depth why mask mandates are insane” on a YouTube video where they’re featured guests on an anti-vaxxer YouTube channel. As you can imagine, an OSHA certification is not exactly hard to come by. You take a 10- or 30-hour course, answer some questions, and you’re OSHA-certified. One of the two experts, Kristen Meghan, seems to specialize in conspiracy theories. She has allegedly “blown the lid off of ongoing geoengineering/chemtrail operations.” The other consults on safety services for the construction industry, including OSHA-certification classes, which has nothing to do, last I checked, with infectious diseases. I started the video and had to stop because it’s clear they didn’t have any data to share, but they do spend lots of time boasting of their expertise and the host relies on old, since-corrected information. And unfortunately, there is more data and more data showing their claims are wrong.

    (That anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists are also anti-mask is striking, and want to tie it into politics, but stories for another day.)”

    she presents no data from any study on any coronavirus. She repeats the ludicrous claim that masks cause hypoxia when studies disprove this and surgeons wear masks for hours and there is no proof of resulting brain damage in surgeons (I frequently denigrate their intelligence but it is not from wearing masks). Not a very enlightening podcast- there are many better ones here on Ricochet.

     

21. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    3:55 PM EST ⋅ Feb 19, 2021

    If a lawyer could raise hell based on what she saying I would donate in a second. 

22. Thatcher
    MiMac

    @MiMac

    5:59 PM EST ⋅ Feb 19, 2021

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    If a lawyer could raise hell based on what she saying I would donate in a second.

    Save your money for a lawyer with a much better expert witness….

23. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    12:10 AM EST ⋅ Feb 20, 2021

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    If a lawyer could raise hell based on what she saying I would donate in a second.

    Save your money for a lawyer with a much better expert witness….

    My point is, it would be hilarious if all of these mask orders violate OSHA or something. 

    ---

    I had to wear a paper mask yesterday and I swear every time you put those things on again after they’ve been worn a while they stink. 

24. Thatcher
    MiMac

    @MiMac

    4:34 AM EST ⋅ Feb 20, 2021

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    If a lawyer could raise hell based on what she saying I would donate in a second.

    Save your money for a lawyer with a much better expert witness….

    My point is, it would be hilarious if all of these mask orders violate OSHA or something.

    ---

    I had to wear a paper mask yesterday and I swear every time you put those things on again after they’ve been worn a while they stink.

    The public mask mandates are out of OSHAs jurisdiction. OSHA only covers employment situations-and OSHA isn’t known to go in and order reduced safety measures in the workplace the only likely intervention would be to mandate increased steps thereby worsening the situation.

    famous cartoon about OSHA: