/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12269348
Why wouldn't it?

>>12269348
By physically blocking it?

>>12269348
stops you pushing air out of your mouth as far
the real benefit is that it stifles your outward breath, not so much filtering it

>>12269373
>>12269374
isn't the virus is too small to get blocked, i really don't get it?

>>12269389
The virus travels on droplets bigger than the virus. You could have Googled this.

>>12269348
Its a droplet propagated virus. Seriously? This is basic clinical stuff

>>12269402
what's the difference between droplet propagated and airborne?

>>12269428
It means that masks can block it and also that not wearing masks would be fine as long as everyone just kept their distance because you'd have to literally spit into someone's mouth to transmit the virus to them.

>>12269348
According to this review of RCTs it does nothing if you labtest and it gives a 4% reduction AT BEST if you go by symtpoms.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365162/

I think Security Theater is the right word for this.
Or clown world circus.

>>12269398
You are retarded if you think COVID is stopped by a cloth mask. People that have it have a dry cough, you can see this as a typical symptom in plenty of the footage that there is available of patients, and what that means is that there are not that many droplets being dispersed.
Obviously there are still some droplets, however you can safetly assume that you are getting a fair amount of dry particulate matter alongside those droplets. And what that means is that having a shitty mask made by an elderly woman in her spare time won't protect you. Nor would those trash surgical masks either.
>"b-but muh who said it is only droplets"
The WHO also made a public announcement that there is no evidence of human-human transmission of the disease after the Chinese government officially announced cases of human-human transmission. And then half a month later said that there might be A LITTLE human-human transmission.

>>12269474
droplets up to 120 micrometers dry out within 3 seconds of leaving a persons mouth. The dried residue is 0.3-5 micrometer particles that stay suspended in the air.

You can create thousands of droplets without coughing, talking or sneezing, just by breathing. Individual variations exist.

This is why you have superspreader event. A guy comes by. Spends 20 minute having a coffee and a cake, no symptoms, maybe talks on a phone for 5 mintues. And suddenly the indoor air contains 1000 infectious particles per square meter that will remain for 6-12 hours.

>>12269480
>And suddenly the indoor air contains 1000 infectious particles per square meter that will remain for 6-12 hours.
Everyone would be infected in that case (like the measles). I've heard of very few events where the majority of people were infected.

>>12269506
Individual variations exist. seasonal variations modify it etc. There's several cases where every visitor or waiter of a resturant or cafe get infected in a discrete superspreader event. The guest obviously didn't go around to directly cough in everyones face.

It doesnt stop it, it just curtails the spread.

>>12269517
>There's several cases where every visitor or waiter of a resturant or cafe get infected in a discrete superspreader event.
Can you link them? I haven't heard that. Planes should be the absolute worst, sitting for 8 hours near an infected person where aerosols can build up, but the infection rates have still remained fairly low.

>>12269480
Also just in case the maskfags haven't realised, masks don't stop 0.3-0.5 micron particles. Certainly not paper masks that have fucking enormous gaps around the nose that you could easily put your finger through.

>>12269525
>Can you link them?
No because they've been flowing through my newsfeed for the last 3 months and I don't hoard links just to have a good internet argument 3 months down the line.

If you do look up superspreader events it will be obvious it's not thorugh short range droplets though if that's what you're looking for.

>>12269530
Covid will piggyback on larger particles too, you exhale various proteins, bacteria, other viruses and aggregates of multiple viruses, so there's a range of particle sizes that will be infectious.

>>12269553
>No because they've been flowing through my newsfeed for the last 3 months and I don't hoard links just to have a good internet argument 3 months down the line.
I'm not saying your excuse isn't valid, but I've also been reading about this since February and I haven't come across any stories like that. The majority of events have explanations that don't need aerosols involved, with people crowding together, not wearing masks, eating, singing, drinking, etc.

>>12269398
Droplets can be any size, some get through some don't.

>>12269639
It can also just be spread in dry form which people seem to get incredibly defensive over because [insert organisation here] keeps regurgitating the meme about how it can only travel in droplets just the right size to be stopped by a piece of toilet paper

>>12269648
Are you saying it doesn't even need aerosols?

>>12269648
i dont think anyone is saying it ONLY travels by droplets, but if you had a chance to cut out a significant portion of emitted virions you'd be stupid not to do it when it's as easy as wearing a mask

>>12269348
youtu.
be/qXaMb8Tih5M
>not just 1 piece of cloth but 5 pieces of cloth

>>12269639
OK, and? No one said the mask is magic, just that it helps.

>person has coof
>wears mask
>coofs
>mask catches vast majority of particles
>bystander also wears mask
>their mask catches the particles that escaped the coofers mask

Same reason surgeons have been wearing masks nearly a century.

>>12270119
If I don't have symptoms then not wearing a mask should be a personal risk that I have the right to take.

>>12270158
You could be asymptomatic as many are with the coof, do you have the right to endanger others as the coofer being masked is way more effective than the coofee?

IMO suck it up and wear a mask if you give a single fuck about your nation or kinsman. If on the otherhand you actively seek to inflict as much death and hardship as possible on your fellow man lick everything.

>>12270158
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/even-asymptomatic-people-can-spread-covid-19-within-a-room

>>12270158
>should be a personal risk
But you're putting others at risk, so it's not just personal.

>>12270158
Contemplate suicide

I feel like most of this anti mask movement is just retards like >>12270158 who don't even know the most basic shit like the fact that people can contaminate others without knowing they're contaminated.
Ignorance, irresponsibility and covid19. What a wonderful combination.

>>12270172
>if you give a single fuck about your nation or kinsman.
I don't. I care far more about my personal comfort. If someone else is in a high-risk group that would succumb to the 2% death rate of the virus, maybe they just shouldn't be spending time out in public. But if they choose to do that, it's their risk to take as well.

>>12270206
>If someone else is in a high-risk group that would succumb to the 2% death rate of the virus
Or maybe you manage to infect someone who isn't at risk, who goes home to someone who is at risk.

>>12270206
the target is always moving. first the mask doesn't do shit. no wait who cares if the masks helps you should stay home i don't wanna wear stupid masks.

>>12270206
>I care far more about my personal comfort.
You know who else have this kind of mentality? Niggers.

>>12270224
I don't think the mask does shit, I just also realize no one will listen to that so I give up. We don't wear masks every flu season, we didn't wear masks for bird flu or swine flu, studies comparing East Asian countries to Western countries show that mask-wearing historically does not have an effect on the spread of viruses, fuck wearing a mask for this 98% survival rate virus. If you're that worried about it then fucking stay home.

>>12270212
If that person is worried about contracting the virus and passing it to someone at-risk in their home then they should stay home, too. If they're not worried about it then that's their decision.

>>12270230
>>12270236
>spending 5 seconds putting a mask on my face before I go out? why can't everyone just stay home lol

>>12270245
It's about freedom of choice and body autonomy, not about how long it takes to put on a mask.

>>12270206

2%? the IFR is below 0.14%

>>12270254
you could also freely exercise your empathy to help your fellow human for the mild discomfort of wearing a mask. if you don't wear a mask people will just use their free speech to shame you.

>>12270254
>freedom of choice
Does freedom of choice also allow killing people we dislike or don't care about?
Many people consider that your personal freedom stops where that of others begin. You live in a society, so you'll have to compose with the public interests. And if the public interest is to slow down the propagation of covid-19 by wearing masks, you'll have to deal with it.

>body autonomy
You're not allowed to walk naked in the streets. Does having to wear clothes also count as a violation of body autonomy?

Your only argument is that you don't care. Well you know what? Many more people actually do care. No side is objectively true, because it all boils down to personal preferences.
But if you're getting roasted ITT, that's solely because you keep spreading your ignorance.

>>12270294
>you'll have to deal with it.
so you just dont care about freedom then

>>12270300
>so you just dont care about freedom then
Non sequitur.
You have all the freedom you want. Just don't act surprised when people fight you back for infringing on theirs.

>>12270284
>you could also freely exercise your empathy to help your fellow human for the mild discomfort of wearing a mask.
But since masks don't do shit that's not what I would be accomplishing anyway, I would just be putting retards at ease.
>if you don't wear a mask people will just use their free speech to shame you.
Sure, that's fine, and everyone has a right to their opinion. But what's actually happening is that a fucking government mandate says that I can be fined up to $800 and jailed for up to 60 days for violating it and that's the problem.

>>12270294
>Does freedom of choice also allow killing people we dislike or don't care about?
No, but that's a false equivalence because I'm not killing anyone at all, and that phrasing is basically just propaganda to weaponize citizens against each other in the name of compliance with the government.
>Many more people actually do care.
Let them. Everyone should do what they feel is best for themselves. Take the risks you're willing to, don't take the risks you're not willing to. It's not my responsibility to change my behavior to accommodate your personal risk tolerance.
>it all boils down to personal preferences.
That's what I've been saying this whole time! It's personal preference, not up to anyone to mandate upon anyone else.

>>12270336
>that's a false equivalence
I'm not making the equivalence between you not wanting to wear a mask and killing people.
My point is that you're brandishing freedom of choice, as if people had the moral duty to respect it.
Well my friend, anyone can justify pretty much anything with that, so it's a shitty argument.

Also your claim that you're not actually murdering people is statistically incorrect.
Not wearing a mask increases the risk ever so slightly, and will contribute to killing more people than if you did wear a mask. Mathematical simulations of virus propagation with and without masks are evidence for that.

>just propaganda to weaponize citizens against each other in the name of compliance with the government.
Brainwashed into thinking everyone have been brainwashed. Sad.

>>12270393
>as if people had the moral duty to respect it.
They do actually and that is how things go.
>Not wearing a mask increases the risk ever so slightly, and will contribute to killing more people than if you did wear a mask.
You using the computer ALSO increases that risk, since your power consumption would bit-by-bit pollute the planet and as such you would be killing people. You and everyone else on this board is a murderer: you increased the risk.
>Brainwashed into thinking everyone have been brainwashed. Sad.
I like how you immediately jump to saying how he thinks everyone is brainwashed when what he actually said is that there is propaganda to get people to become informants on one another.

The virus isn't airborne it's waterborne. Cloth absorbs moisture very well thus will catch most water droplets emitted by an infected person's mouth or nose.

>>12269376
false and homosexual

>>12270909
opinion discarded

>>12269348
Even n-95 masks have pores bigger than the virus, masks can stop particles somewhat smaller than their pore size because of stuff having to do with pressure and air currents, basically the cloth slows down the air that the virus is riding in and makes it much more likely to ditch on the mask itself and not make it through.

>>12269525
Commercial airplanes cycle in fresh air from outside. They would be much worse with no air circulation. Not sure what they do to disenfect between flights but that would help too.

>>12270916
The 95 in N95 means that it does in fact still let it through. And for smaller particles that can get through the mask(such as this one), it would be let through more than larger ones that can get through the mask.

>>12270911
Try blowing cigar smoke with a mask on. You will find that it doesnt go as far. Brainlet.

>>12269573
>that don't need aerosols involved, with people crowding together, not wearing masks, eating, singing, drinking, etc.

The range of droplets is 2 meters, beyond that particles have either fallen to the ground, and are not a problem anymore. Or they have evaporated and are not droplets anymore. It literally takes 1-3 seconds for the droplets to evaporate, after that they are aerosols and no longer falling with gravity towards the ground, instead traveling with airstreams.

Do you think the virus instantly deactivates as soon as the water is gone and the infectivity of airborne viral aerosol is therefor zero? No. Well then you agree that transmission is by aerosols. Also because the droplets are falling the 2 meter range assumes you're standing and talking to someone lying on the floor 2 meters away to optimize infectivity. Someone in a corner of a choir infecting someone standing at the end of the same row doesn't happen by droplet transmission. It happens due to aerosols. The singing produces more droplets so the aerosol intensity is higher but it's still aerosol.

There is no other explanation that makes sense unless all the years of droplet dispersion studies are proven false and WHO and other bureaucratic agencies who promote droplets only spread are sitting on some secret science(they are not, they are overpaid dumbasses who play political games)

t. MD

>>12270936
>WHO and other bureaucratic agencies who promote droplets only spread are sitting on some secret science
Or bureaucratic agencies are exactly that, paper pushers. Not people that deal with patients or occupy themselves with pathogens, but rather a bunch of overqualified office workers. I mean, it took half a month after the start of the outbreak before the WHO admitted that maybe there could potentially in a hypothetical scenario be the possibility of human-to-human transmission.

>>12269348
>airborne virus
i throw a cat in the air, now its airborne
>twice as contagious as the flu
these are claims based on limited credibility
>How exactly does a piece of cloth stop
mechanically

>>12269348
It totally blocks viruses bro.

>>12271068
>vapor comes out on the side of the mask
>very little vapor comes out of the mouth area directly
>its a handmade bullshit mask, rather than a n95
whats your point exactly?

>>12271079
>vapor comes out on the side of the mask
Meaning anything can come in from the sides
>very little vapor comes out of the mouth area directly
See above
>its a handmade bullshit mask, rather than a n95
Like 99% of the people wearing masks

>>12269961
>no replies from mask-opposing idiots

>>12269648
>It can also just be spread in dry form

source?

>>12271089
>Like 99% of the people wearing masks
Also even those that aren't wearing homemade ones aren't wearing N95s or its equivalents either. They simply wear surgical masks instead.

>>12271089
>Like 99% of the people wearing masks
how would you know that? which numbers are you quoting?
>anything can come in from the sides
... since the mask isnt sealed on your face
is the smoke from a vape sufficiently similar to the discharge from coofing?
doubt it.
a silly comparison, that in no way allows any conclusions about the effectiveness of the mask when it comes to influencing corona spread.

>>12271096
>They simply wear surgical masks instead.
Ye
>>12271098
>how would you know that? which numbers are you quoting?
Where I'm from no one ever wears n95 types, is most definitely the same everywhere else. Just going outside is proof of it.
>a silly comparison, that in no way allows any conclusions about the effectiveness of the mask when it comes to influencing corona spread.
There's multiple studies that confirm that masks in general are not effective at all, I could give the references if you like.

>>12271098
>is the smoke from a vape sufficiently similar to the discharge from coofing?
It actually is.
The mask doesn't possess any sort of super strange properties that would make it any different from a simple mesh. So it shouldn't really matter. Smoke is a very basic solid-gas dispersion.
>a silly comparison, that in no way allows any conclusions about the effectiveness of the mask when it comes to influencing corona spread.
It does provide information since you only see the smoke because of the solid particles present in the dispersion.

>>12271111
>Where I'm from no one ever wears n95 types
>most definitely the same everywhere else
>going outside is proof of it
anecdotal evidence isnt proof
>There's multiple studies that confirm that masks in general are not effective at all
nitpicking studies that fit your perception, doesnt mean that you are right, or that there is any validity to your claims
>I could give the references if you like
pointless, as they are bullshit anyways
>>12271117
>It actually is
[citation needed]
>Smoke is a very basic solid-gas dispersion
is the coof discharge?
how is it composed? surely coof discharge isnt homogenous in particle size and distribution, like typical vapor
>The mask doesn't possess any sort of super strange properties that would make it any different from a simple mesh
and this is not necessary
>since you only see the smoke because of the solid particles present in the dispersion
being able to see the vapor is nice, this still isnt a valid experiment as the system model is ill addressed
coofing != exhaling mostly homogenous vapor from a vape

>>12271140
>anecdotal evidence isnt proof
There's no studies in general to see how many people wear n95 so is the best evidence we have lmao
>nitpicking studies that fit your perception, doesnt mean that you are right, or that there is any validity to your claims
Not nitpicking you are obviously biased to anything that says the contrary of your beliefs. Again, I could link them if you like.
>pointless, as they are bullshit anyways
Yep you just won't accept anything that's against your own narrative, why bother reply at all if you just going to enter denial mode?

>>12271140
>coofing != exhaling mostly homogenous vapor from a vape
Homogenous vapour through mild exhaling is the absolute easiest and most basic case possible. Mild exhaling means that the dispersion lacks any noticable kinetic energy and thus does not travel very far. Things with lots of kinetic energy, such as particles that are spread by coughing, tend to go fast and thus travel further. Uniform particle distribution is also very easy to predict and easy to counter since you aren't going to get a wide range of different particle sizes (and thus velocities) that all need to be accounted for. Did you fail physics in seventh grade or did you just not show up to class?

>>12269348
1. Stopping large droplets by blocking them.
2. Stopping small droplets through van der Waals force.
3. Destroying laminar flow of mid-size droplets so the turbulence will dilute the viral density.

>>12269462
Did you even read that study? Retard.

>>12269474
>dry cough means viruses aren't completely shed on droplets
Nigga what
>having a shitty mask made by an elderly woman in her spare time won't protect you
Of course not, that has never been the point you absolutely retarded brainlet.

>>12271162
you are wrong.
different composition.
pointless block of text, hardly related.
>Did you fail physics in seventh grade or did you just not show up to class?
passive aggressive bickering, pull the dildo out your ass, faglord

It does not need to be perfect. Even if it decreases transmission by 50%, its worth the very mild discomfort.

Covid is mostly a droplet infection. Masks, even shitty homemade cloth masks, stop droplets.

>>12269348
Its physical properties are irrelevant. It works through placebo effect - the people wearing the mask are convinced that they're now immune to the virus and it boosts their immune system.

>>12269348
Not sure about the mask at your picture, but usual masks are explained at mine.

>>12271189
Fleece masks aerosol the droplets. Fleece masks are not banned even though they are worse than no mask at all.

>>12271147
>the best evidence we have
its not evidence of anything
>you are obviously biased to anything that says the contrary of your beliefs
... and so are you
>you just won't accept anything that's against your own narrative
... and so do you
>why bother reply at all if you just going to enter denial mode
yeah, why reply at all, there is no point in our discussion.

>>12269348
stop replying to these threads, dont waste your time arguing with braindead poltards, if they really dont understand how mask prevents spread of the virus after it being explained through all information mediums thousands of times during the last 6 months they are already a lost cause

>>12271189
>Covid is mostly a droplet infection
>mostly a droplet infection
>mostly
[citation needed]
>Masks, even shitty homemade cloth masks, stop droplets
to which quantity exactly?
this is important when evaluating the effectiveness of the mask

Early into the pandemics a bunch of fucking losers were coming up with "masks" that forced you to breath through a filter, as if the entire atmosphere was poisoned. Surgical masks aren't supposed to do that. They only stop spit from falling into patients open bodies, which is pretty much a death sentence. That's what the masks are supposed to do. For the exact same reason it's pointless to wear one outside of crowded environments.

>>12270901
You are a fucking retard. I hope you or someone close to you know get knocked on your ass by COVID so maybe you'll learn a lesson.

>>12271239
This goes for >>12270336 too.

>>12269389
Yeah true. the virus is about the size of a neutrino so nothing can stop it, not even staying inside.

>>12271230
>a bunch of fucking losers were coming up with "masks" that forced you to breath through a filter
wrong, the concept of masks exist since longer than this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask
what we are talking about in the first instance are "surgical masks"
the people who came up with these masks were doctors and medical staff, to replace cloth masks
>bunch of fucking losers
no.
>as if the entire atmosphere was poisoned
surgical masks are not for this purpose
>only stop spit from falling into patients open bodies
thats a part of it most certainly
>only
no.
>which is pretty much a death sentence
>spit falls into body -> death
not necessarily, thats a very specific case
>For the exact same reason it's pointless to wear one outside of crowded environments
no.
by your own logic the masks still provide spit from falling onto something that other people in a public space could come in contact with
that doesnt have to be a "crowded environment", this is an arbitrary classification
>it's pointless to wear one
no.

>>12271251
>the people who came up with these masks were doctors and medical staff, to replace cloth masks
What the fucking hell are you talking about?

>>12271251
>surgical masks are not for this purpose
And what did I say?

>not necessarily, thats a very specific case
It is.

>by your own logic the masks still provide spit from falling onto something
Fomites aren't a significant form of transmission

>no
It is, schizo

>>12271282
>What the fucking hell are you talking about?
ah, you are pretending to be retarded, hilarious!
a complete lack of self reflection marks the brainlet
>fomites "objects or materials which are likely to carry infection, such as clothes, utensils, and furniture."
>Fomites aren't a significant form of transmission
[citation needed]
talking out of your ass isnt an argument, retard
>It is, schizo
its not, retard

>>12271183
He's right though.

I don't understand why fucking masks are the thing taking up 50% of the discourse around the virus.
Litteraly the most inconsequential thing about this whole event.

2 years of my career are basically a write off because of this pandemic, i have made effectively no money this year, almost everyone i used to work with have been made redundant.

But no, the real tyranny is masks (or people not wearing masks)...

>>12271308
hes not tho

>>12271310
you dont understand, putting on a mask for 10 minutes while getting groceries every few days is the REAL problem here

>>12271314
Oops, I rechecked. Meant to reply to the other guy.

>>12271324
>Meant to reply to the other guy
thats me >>12271140
>He's right though
oh yes, i am

>>12271317
yeah, masks are against my FREEDOM™

>>12271338
no clue why a miniscule temporary constraint is stylized as a core issue during an extreme situation like a pandemic.

>>12271239
I too hope that I get it so that I wouldn't have to listen to your retarded bullshit

>>12270279
no one knows the true IFR

>>12271350
because they dont want to wear a mask, but they have to wear a mask to go into stores, and the freedom to buy things is the only true freedom americans have

>>12271350
>no clue why a miniscule temporary constraint is stylized as a core issue during an extreme situation like a pandemic.

It's part of the arguments for and against lockdown

>The virus would be over if everyone wore masks
>The lockdowns are not working because everyone is not wearing masks.

No, the masks make too little(or none?) difference, the lockdowns don't work becuase people still go to work, have kids in school, go shopping groceries and other things.

The only lockdown that works is chinese style welding doors shut. But that's also just a temporary measure becuase you have to let go of the lockdown at some point and then things start rolling again.

>>12271242
I've known several people who got COVID-19, none of them even had to go to the hospital.

it doesn't have to be 100% blocked. even 10% reduces the spread significantly. come on zoomers stop circle jerking on /sci/ with your stupid questions, feeding on each others ignorance. instead learn to read, learn about statistics and read some lancet articles on the topic.

>>12270158
kys

>>12271677
Not what randomized controlled studies say. Stop living in a fantasy world.

>>12271652
Masks also have a fun side-effect of making people unnecessarily reckless. Back when all this started, everyone was big on social distancing. All people kept their distance from everyone else, they were careful not to cough into the open air, they tried to avoid touching their faces, and washed their hands more. Ever since the government and media started telling everyone to wear a mask and that masks are the best way to stop the virus, I've noticed in my area a sharp decrease in actual social distancing, people coughing into the open air instead of a sleeve, less hand-washing, and people smearing their hands all over their faces to constantly adjust their masks. All because they think that loose piece of cloth they don't even put over their nose somehow makes them invincible.

There is a balance that needs to be struck between safety and the FEELING of safety. If people FEEL safer than they actually are, it promotes an increase in recklessness and makes everyone even less safe. If people FEEL LESS safe than they actually are, it promotes cautionary behavior and makes everyone more safe. So the question is: Are masks actually so effective that people can afford to abandon social distancing and handwashing, cough into open air, and touch their faces/masks all day long? Because that's the behavior that mask-wearing promotes: It's a highly-visible symbol of safety that makes people think they need nothing else since the mask is their safety blanket protecting them from the virus.

1/2

>>12271714
2/2

This is always the side of safety that no one wants to talk about, but which I always feel very keenly aware of. The most obvious example I can think of is many studies that have shown if a cyclist on a road is wearing a helmet then drivers in passing cars are more willing to pass closer and at higher speeds because of the illusion of safety the helmet provides. A cyclist without a helmet is more likely to be passed at further distances and slower speeds by cars because the drivers are more worried for their safety. The cyclists themselves are also more likely to take bigger risks with a helmet on than without. So then you have to balance whether the helmet actually makes you so much less likely to sustain injury that it's worth a significant increase in the likelihood that you'll be in an accident in the first place.

There's not usually an easy answer to these things, and no one ever wants to discuss the idea that there can be "too many" safety measures in a sense, but my perspective is that masks do not offer enough protection to offset just how reckless people have become since they've been mandated.

>>12271714
>everyone was big on social distancing
You must live in the most beautiful place on earth. That sure didn't happen here in Europe anywhere.
>Masks also have a fun side-effect of making people unnecessarily reckless
Like seatbelts and helmets for byciclists? But yeah, humans are exceptionally shitty at evaluating invisible dangers.

>>12271738
>Like seatbelts and helmets for byciclists?
Yes, actually, precisely like that. My second post addresses helmets specifically.

>>12269449
You know that while talking with people we do actually spit very tiny droplets of our saliva into each other, when you think about it, it is very gross, but it is a natural thing that happens and we can't stop it, unless we wear masks to prevent these unwanted exchange of droplets

>>12271730
>How it actually it.

>>12271756
Binary fags have no understanding of statistics, how surprising.

>>12271753
You know that when you breathe your small airways kicks out tiny droplets. The water content of these evaporates and whatever protein, virus or bacteria they contain hangs around like dust in the air.

Masks serve to redirect the airflow upwards(see webm) so that instead of having a chance to deposit on the floor before fully evaporating they are instead rocketed into the air and rain down like confetti over everyone around you and infect everyone just as well as if you had no mask on at all.

>>12271764
You have no brain, how surprising.

Here's the result of studies.

>Particularly in the community setting, we wanted to see if there was any evidence of benefit from systematic use of masks by the general public outside the home, but we found no such evidence.
>we found no such evidence.
>no such evidence.

>There are many potential reasons why RCTs of masks have historically struggled to find statistically significant differences. The first reason might simply be that masks do not prevent viral respiratory infection transmission.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365162/

I wipe my ass with your IFL t-shirt, go back to your fearmongering central on reddit.

>>12271773
Now do the same without a mask.
I guarantee your webm will be completely opaque.

I know what most of the people think, we all did the same at some point, you think that masks do not actually protect us, and does not guarantee any security for those who wear it, and it is actually a political lie made by giant pharmaceutical companies in the world, to oblige us to wear it, as they are triggering our collective fear of extinction, and they are trying to promote fake advantages of masks to convince us to buy as much as we can, and so they can achieve more sustainable gain. But if you think that risking your life, and the life of your family and those you love, for a conspiracy theory is worth trying, you are totally wrong. Till we discover the truth (because there is certainly something unclear, and that should be brought to light) we will keep taking social distance and wearing masks

>>12271718
>many studies that have shown if a cyclist on a road is wearing a helmet then drivers in passing cars are more willing to pass closer and at higher speeds
Link please. I highly doubt any driver even notices a difference.
>The cyclists themselves are also more likely to take bigger risks with a helmet on than without
See above.

>>12271796
Doesn't matter, it infects everyone around you in both cases if you emit viral droplets.

>>12271811
>But if you think that risking your life, and the life of your family and those you love, for a conspiracy theory

The irony is that wearing a mask is partaking in a conspiracy theory. Study upon study upon study shows they do NOT work for preventing respiratory infections.

>>12271773
Dudes wearing his mask over his eyes. That's not how you should wear your mask.

>>12271828
>Study upon study upon study shows they do NOT work for preventing respiratory infections.
Feel free to actually cite these studies.

>>12271791
From your source:
>However, in the 2 trials that most closely aligned with mask use in real-life community settings, there was a significant risk reduction in influenzalike illness
You can stop trolling now.

>>12271828
You neither know the definition of "conspiracy theory" nor "study"

>>12271839
Feel free to read the thread >>12271791

>>12271840
Influenzalike illness is clinically determined, not laboratory verified.

Also the risk reduction was statistically significant with an NNT = 24 which is a nothingburger.

>>12271844
>muh definitions
Go back to your philosophy department or come up with a real argument.

>>12271815
>Link please
Here's a page that I found which concentrates a lot of the information about helmets and bike safety with links to sources: https://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
Here's a published paper on the subject: https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k
Here's a different study from a university in the UK: http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking110906.html

>I highly doubt any driver even notices a difference.
Yes, people don't usually notice subconscious biases affecting their judgement. That's what makes it so dangerous.

>>12271832
You're right, people wear their masks below their eyes, where there'd be even more space between your face and the mask at the top opening because it would be resting on a more pronounced part of your nose.

>>12271791
you didnt read the study properly, did you?
>... mask use averaged 5 hours or less per day or that 50% of participants or less reported regular use
>... individuals could therefore get infected outside work, while not wearing a mask, influencing the overall results
lol, sounds solid!
this definitely is good material to quote as an argument to not use a mask!
>There are many potential reasons why RCTs of masks have historically struggled to find statistically significant differences
here they explain the source of error
good that out of the points give you quote only one, the one that fits your narrative the best

now in the conclusion part :
>Our systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections
>limited evidence
thats a bit more than the
>no such evidence
you choose to nitpick
furthermore :
>... but found a possible reduction on the risk of influenzalike illness when masks are used at least a few hours a day by a population in a specific area
hmmm, that sounds a bit different from your narrative
>Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial
>limited to 1 trial
bwahaha! now thats a strong foundation to build a bullshit mountain on

tldr:
you didnt read and nitpicked lines that fit your narrative, the conclusion doesnt support it, also the scientific practices and credibility of this article is questionable.
you didnt went out with the intent to inform yourself but to "prove others wrong".

>>12271791
>Particularly in the community setting, we wanted to see if there was any evidence of benefit from systematic use of masks by the general public outside the home, but we found no such evidence.
Why didn't you include the whole sentence?

>but found a possible reduction on the risk of influenzalike illness when masks are used at least a few hours a day by a population in a specific area.

>>12271874
>tldr:
>you didnt read and nitpicked lines that fit your narrative
Right back at you retard.

The original claims still stand. If masks were so fucking fantastic then RCTs of healthcare worker who actually can wear them properly would show it by now after decades of studies.

Instead there's nothing at all to see if you go by laboratory confirmation of illnesses instead of clinical symptoms.

But you'd rather do mental gymnastics and stick your head up your ass than admit that the science shits on the usefulness of masks.

>Some guy on reddit said so therefor it's truer than dozens of properly conducted studies
If this is the level of evidence we're using then the Harry Potter movies are also documentaries. Retard

>>12271881
Because influenza like illness are determined not by objective measures but by asking someone highly unspecific questions.
If someone had a runny nose one day that's an influenza like illness. If someone coughed twice that can too be. If someone overtrained and had some muscle aches that's also influenza like illness.

Do you see the problem by suddenly including highly subjective measurements in an otherwise carefully controlled trial?

>>12271899
>Instead there's nothing at all to see if you go by laboratory confirmation of illnesses instead of clinical symptoms.
Viral load has an effect on severity my guy.

>>12271913
>All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

Saline injections doesn't help against infectious disease.

>>12271791
You'd be interested to read the discussion part of your article.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365162/#__sec20title

You'll find several explanations as for why the studies analyzed did not find masks useful, among which:
>Some have postulated this is because people are not using them properly, are touching their face while wearing one, or are wearing it below their nose.
>Some also postulated that people using masks might feel protected and might be less likely to follow other recommendations such as hand hygiene.
>many studies use a cluster-randomized design, which reduces the power of these studies and the ability to achieve statistical significance if indeed there is a difference
>adherence to wearing masks is generally poor. For example, most community studies found that mask use averaged 5 hours or less per day or that 50% of participants or less reported regular use.
>in some studies, event rates (eg, influenza cases) were low, with only a few cases in either arm, reducing the ability of the studies to determine statistical significance if there is a difference.
>many community studies were designed to start mask use after the index patient was seen by a health care provider. This means patients might have already been sick at home for 1 to 3 days, potentially transmitting infection to family members and making mask introduction potentially useless.

>>12271791
And finally, the true conclusion of the article
>Our review did not identify any study examining if wearing masks in a large community such as a city prevents the spread of infection to others. The studies of sick individuals wearing masks to prevent secondary infection of family members did not find benefit but had many limitations as mentioned above; therefore, we do not yet know if wearing masks will reduce transmission to others.
This study concludes that they DO NOT yet know if wearing masks will reduce transmission to others.

You just outed yourself as the binary fag I claimed you are. You just cherrypick whatever suits your black and white views, and strut around like a glorious pigeon.
You do not seek the truth, you seek to impose your personal views. You have nothing to do on /sci/

>>12271899
imagine having to claw single lines out of a paper and then telling yourself you are making a point
>then RCTs of healthcare worker who actually can wear them properly would show it by now after decades of studies
a reason for this is give in the paper you didnt read
people dont wear masks properly, healthcare workers can still infect themselves outside of work when they dont wear a mask, that they infected themselves while wearing the mask is not proven, not provable and up for speculation
the chance of infection when a family member shows symptoms is not effected by wearing a mask simply because there are other ways of infection that are described in the paper
also people are infectious before they show symptoms, so if you put on a mask after a family member shows symptoms, chances are you are already infected so its ineffective
>there's nothing at all to see
the conclusion of the paper doesnt support this claim
>you'd rather do mental gymnastics and stick your head up your ass
projection
>science shits on the usefulness of masks
it does not, not even the single paper out of which you nitpicked few lines without reading

>>12271920
You can keep making ad hoc explanations for why the study failed to fit your expectations but the point of it still remains: In a real world situation people do not gain any kind of protection to laboratory diagnosed respiratory illness from wearing masks. This have been repeatedly proven, the RCT studies always come to the same conclusion: NO BENEFIT.

>>12271912
>If someone had a runny nose one day that's an influenza like illness. If someone coughed twice that can too be. If someone overtrained and had some muscle aches that's also influenza like illness.
Seriously just fuck off you disingenuous cunt.
>Note that the definition of influenzalike illness in these trials was broad: cough and at least 1 constitutional symptom such as chills or fever.

>>12271920
>>Some have postulated this is because people are not using them properly, are touching their face while wearing one, or are wearing it below their nose.
>>Some also postulated that people using masks might feel protected and might be less likely to follow other recommendations such as hand hygiene.
These alone are reason enough not to mandate masks. People need to feel a little insecurity so they'll follow recommended measures. Masks make people feel invincible (even when they're wearing them wrong) because everyone is focusing so heavily on them and stopped focusing on distancing and handwashing.

>>12271926
>people dont wear masks properly
Post a study that actually proves it.

As far as I'm concerned you're grasping straws because an RCT toppled your preformed conceptions of reality and you can't cope.

And it's by far not the only metastudy that comes to the same conclusion.

>>12270236
So you believe everyone who lives with an at-risk individual (and that's a lot of people) should never leave their home, which could mean losing their job, because it would be inconvenient for you to wear a mask? You're placing a slight inconvenience for you above the lives of many people. That's incredibly selfish.

>>12271932
see >>12271924

>Our review did not identify any study examining if wearing masks in a large community such as a city prevents the spread of infection to others. The studies of sick individuals wearing masks to prevent secondary infection of family members did not find benefit but had many limitations as mentioned above; therefore, we do not yet know if wearing masks will reduce transmission to others.
>we do not yet know if wearing masks will reduce transmission to others.

You saying mask do not work clashes with what the article you posted concludes.

>>12271937
Attacking a tiny part of the study isn't going to change the main conclusion of it retard.

>>12271949
They should do what they feel is best for themselves and their families. My wearing a mask won't do shit either way.

>>12271950
>Conclusion
>Our systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, we found no evidence regarding the use of masks by the general public outside the home,
>we found no evidence regarding the use of masks by the general public outside the home,
> no evidence regarding the use of masks by the general public outside the home,
> no evidence regarding the use of masks by the general public
> no evidence regarding the use of masks

>>12271949
>That's incredibly selfish.
Yes.

>>12271949
You're saying that we should wear a beacon of virtue signaling that doesn't actually prevent these people from infecting their loved ones, so you want to murder their grandma

That's incredibly selfish.

>>12271940
That's not a problem with mask. That's a problem with people.
Mask could potentially be useful if people weren't retards.
Dismissing masks altogether is less of a solution than informing people on what they should do.

>>12271963
>"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" fallacy
No evidence for masks working is not evidence that they do not work.
Please only talk to me when you passed logic 101

>>12270936
I think your viewpoint is incredibly simplistic and the majority of spreading events are not supported by your claims. Directional air conditioning and fans can carry droplets much farther than 2 meters. Singing and shouting can carry droplets much farther than 2 meters. Droplets can land on objects and food, which leaves a path for fomite transmission.

>Someone in a corner of a choir infecting someone standing at the end of the same row doesn't happen by droplet transmission.
1. They were singing, which will project droplets farther.
2. The practice was several hours long.
3. They weren't wearing masks.
4. They ate a meal afterwards.

Aerosols are not needed to explain any of that. And I'm not against the potential for aerosols, especially when singing and shouting is involved, but you seem to be severely overstating your claims. An entire cafe infected by someone quietly talking? Nearly ever super spreader event I've read about primarily involved no masks, often booze and/or eating, shouting and/or singing, fans and/or directional AC, and in most of those events, the majority were not infected.

>>12271992
>No evidence for masks working is not evidence that they do not work.
You really are a philosopher aren't you? Trying to slither away with some semantic argument and twisting definitions.

No evidence for masks working to prevent infections is the same as evidence for masks not working to prevent infections.

>>12271992
>Dismissing masks altogether is less of a solution than informing people on what they should do.
I disagree because before masks were mandated here I saw tons of people keeping their distance and generally taking greater care. The second masks were mandated, no one gave a shit about anything else and everyone stopped keeping their distance or taking any other precautions. I would rather discard the (mostly improper) use of masks and bring back the time when people took proper precautions. Unfortunately, the damage is done and the propaganda for masks is too strong, we could never flip it back. So now we're just stuck with people wearing masks below their nose and breathing down each other's necks because muh mask keeps me safe.

>>12271974
>that doesn't actually prevent these people from infecting their loved ones
Except masks work.

>>12272019
>Except masks work.
No mask work just as well, if that's the definition of working then it's easy to achieve.

>>12272024
Nope, masks work. They reduce risk of infection and severity of infection.

>>12269348
Because corporations who make them say so

>>12272028
>They reduce risk of infection
By 0%, unless it's a cloth mask then it can actually increase infection risk.
>and severity of infection.
Also by 0%

>>12269961
>only a "significant portion"
>of a virus there's a 99% chance you don't have
>with a 99.9% survival rate
the amount of lives you're saving by wearing a mask as an arbitrary asymptomatic person is probabilistically zero

>>12272005
>Trying to slither away with some semantic argument and twisting definitions.
Only a massive brainlet would consider basic logic a "semantic argument".

>No evidence for masks working to prevent infections is the same as evidence for masks not working to prevent infections.
No evidence for masks working to prevent infections can either mean two things:
-masks don't work
-masks work but they are not used adequately and thus are ineffective
The article does not favor one option over the other.

The article you posted is inconclusive. Sadly, you're probably too dumb and blindfolded to even consider this a possibility.

>>12270119
Surgeons don't wear masks to prevent them from inhaling/spreading respiratory viruses, they wear them to prevent spit from dripping into a patient's open cavity as well as to keep blood spatter from the patient from getting in their mouth

>>12272036
>-masks don't work
>-masks work but they are not used adequately and thus are ineffective
So either masks don't work or nobody uses masks right so they don't work. What's the functional difference, again?

>>12271943
>Post a study that actually proves it
the people who conducted the study state exactly that in the paper
if you would have read the paper then you wouldnt try to bullshit yourself out of looking like a retard
>As far as I'm concerned you're grasping straws
right back at you
>an RCT toppled your preformed conceptions of reality and you can't cope
the paper doesnt substantiate your bullshit claims
nitpicking single lines of a paper and choosing to ignore everything else is not making a sound argument
>it's by far not the only metastudy that comes to the same conclusion
good. find 10 more.
make sure that the conclusion of the analysis done by the scientists at least matches your idiotic narrative.

>>12272064
>good. find 10 more.
is 10 the number that would make you change your mind or are you just giving random internet anons busywork?

>>12272036
>-masks work but they are not used adequately and thus are ineffective

We call that not working in plain English. Slither back to your philosophy bachelor zoom call

>>12272030
https://academic.oup.com/cid/
advance-
article/doi/10.1093/
cid/ciaa644/5848814
>Noncontact transmission was found in 66.7% (10/15) of exposed naive hamsters. Surgical mask partition for challenged index or naive hamsters significantly reduced transmission to 25% (6/24, P = .018). Surgical mask partition for challenged index hamsters significantly reduced transmission to only 16.7% (2/12, P = .019) of exposed naive hamsters. Unlike the severe manifestations of challenged hamsters, infected naive hamsters had lower clinical scores, milder histopathological changes, and lower viral nucleocapsid antigen expression in respiratory tract tissues.

That's a pretty damn significant reduction.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606
-020-06067-8
>Closed settings, such as cruise ships, can be particularly illustrative when examining phenotypes associated with SARS-CoV-2. For example, one of the earliest estimates of the rate of asymptomatic infection due to SARS-CoV-2 was in the 20% range from a report of a COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship.37 In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected.38 In this closed setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via RT-PCR, the majority of infected patients on the ship (81%) remained asymptomatic,38 compared with 18% in the cruise ship outbreak without masking.

>>12272069
>second study
literally anecdotal evidence

>>12272075
It's repeated many times. People who wear masks have a much lower risk of significant infection.

>>12272005
>semantic argument
>twisting definitions
the paper you quote doesnt say what you think it does

>>12272078
Neither of your studies show that directly, do you have any studies which do?

>>12272083
>Neither of your studies show that directly
How does the first study not show that directly?

>>12272066
i dont care about the number, as i already know you wont be able to find a single one

>>12272052
>>12272067
>What's the functional difference, again?
>We call that not working in plain English.
That's like saying computers don't work because monkeys can't use them effectively.
You have yet to disprove that masks can't be used effectively.

>>12272064
The study says masks don't work.
>the paper doesnt substantiate your bullshit claims
It does. It's right there in the conclusion.
>good. find 10 more.
Why? I already have enough proof for my position while you have zero

>>12272086
Because the setup barely resembles the actual experience of walking around a grocery store or sitting on a plane with a mask on

WEAR

YOUR

FRIGGIN

MASK,

CHUD

>>12272094
At this point it's just dogma. The proof that masks work is, "Because I said so," and if you say otherwise then you must back up all your claims with dozens of completely conclusive studies that show masks have 0% effectiveness under all circumstances and if even 1 study anywhere in the world says that masks have any level of even theoretical effectiveness then all your evidence is nullified. You can't argue with people like this, it's a religion to them.

>>12272099
You believe the physics differ in a grocery store compared to a cage?

>>12272106
>The proof that masks work is, "Because I said so," and if you say otherwise then you must back up all your claims with dozens of completely conclusive studies that show masks have 0% effectiveness under all circumstances and if even 1 study anywhere in the world says that masks have any level of even theoretical effectiveness then all your evidence is nullified

Correct. It is called precautionary principle. Evidence for masks working is inconclusive, with some studies showing no effect and some showing reduction in risk. Hence they should be worn.

>>12272110
>walking around in a large space with a cloth on your face for 15 minutes
>sharing a partitioned cage contained within an air filtration system for a week
these are physically different situations yes

>>12272094
>The study says masks don't work.
No it doesn't.
It says that either masks don't work, or there are factors that render them ineffective.

>Then they are functionally ineffective!
No. You have yet to prove masks can't be used effectively.

>>12272094
>The study says masks don't work
it doesnt
>It does. It's right there in the conclusion
no, its not
>I already have enough proof for my position
you dont have any proof for your position

>>12272115
If we actually treated everything this way no one would ever go outside.

>>12272126
Never walking outside is impractical, wearing masks is not.

>>12272117
Actually, that study places a far greater burden on masks than your scenario. If they're capable of reducing aerosols and droplets over the course of a week, I'd consider that a much higher standard to meet than a 15-minute exposure.

Then you have the real world situations in the second study that show mask wearers had an extraordinarily high rate of asymptomatic infections compared to situations where people weren't wearing masks. That also fits neatly with the findings of the first study.

>>12272115
That's not what the precautionary principle says, that principle says don't introduce new innovations without being sure that they are beneficial. Precautionary principle says don't introduce universal masking until we're sure it's a good idea.

At some point we're going to discuss if washing hands actually work.

>>12272135
>If they're capable of reducing aerosols and droplets over the course of a week, I'd consider that a much higher standard to meet than a 15-minute exposure.
Why? Why would a "mask" be more effective in the first 15 minutes than over a week? Mask in quotes because it's not like they had rats running around in little masks. Presumably there was no gap in the partition for air to blow through, unlike the massive gaps on the side of your face that your breath escapes through (if you don't think this is the case, push the fabric of your mask directly up against your lips and try to breathe through it)

The second study, as I have said, is anecdotal evidence. There are also situations where people are hanging out and nobody is wearing a mask, and nobody gets sick.

>>12272140
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591
-020-0843-2
>We detected coronavirus in respiratory droplets and aerosols in 3 of 10 (30%) and 4 of 10 (40%) of the samples collected without face masks, respectively, but did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols collected from participants wearing face masks, this difference was significant in aerosols and showed a trend toward reduced detection in respiratory droplets

I'm not really sure what you want. Masks prevent infection in animals, masks block droplets and aerosols in humans, masks increase the proportion of asymptomatic infections.

>>12272147
>Viral RNA was identified from respiratory droplets and aerosols for all three viruses, including 30%, 26% and 28% of respiratory droplets and 40%, 35% and 56% of aerosols collected while not wearing a face mask, from coronavirus, influenza virus and rhinovirus-infected participants, respectively
How does that even work? I thought it was acknowledged that the viral particles are way smaller than gaps in the mask and that any blocking effect came from blocking droplets from going forward. How is the mask specifically blocking droplets with RNA in them?

>>12272156
quoted wrong sentence
>We detected coronavirus in respiratory droplets and aerosols in 3 of 10 (30%) and 4 of 10 (40%) of the samples collected without face masks, respectively, but did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols collected from participants wearing face masks, this difference was significant in aerosols and showed a trend toward reduced detection in respiratory droplets

>>12272156
>I thought it was acknowledged that the viral particles are way smaller than gaps in the mask and that any blocking effect came from blocking droplets from going forward.
They block aerosols as well, obviously.

>>12272162
Right but again it's supposedly only blocking the aerosol with RNA in it more than un-virused aerosol. How is that possible?

question to masked faggots: when does it stop?

>>12272133
>practicality is the only reason we should ever leave our homes instead of cowering in fear forever
People like you really disgust me. This "safety at all costs" mentality is ultimately very destructive. Severe allergies are on the rise with each generation of kids because parents are too scared to expose their children to anything. "I can't let my child eat peanuts because he might have a nut allergy!" Then they get older and have a nut allergy precisely BECAUSE they were never exposed to it as a kid. Sanitize everything, don't let kids get dirty, baby formula for everyone. "Wait a second, how come all these kids have such shit immune systems and get sick so often?!" It's a horrible cycle being perpetuated by a society so deathly afraid of risks that we'd rather harm ourselves in the long term to save a minor amount of even potential suffering in the short term.

>>12272110
You seriously believe a hamster model study involving 3 fans blowing air on a surgical mask accurately represents the dynamics of infections in an highly correlated and accurate way of a human being wearing a mask while going on its daily business?

Just ask a guy from reddit to write down the conclusions that you have and call it a study based on a neural model of onions consumers the next time.

>>12269462
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365162/
You didn't actually read the article, did you?

>>12272175
not an argument

>>12272175
You just know that if that study ended up showing no decreased transmission, maskfags would have been pointing out what a ridiculous setup it had

>>12272164
>Right but again it's supposedly only blocking the aerosol with RNA in it more than un-virused aerosol
I don't see where they measured total droplet and aerosol reduction, only the reduction of viral copies. The viral copies very likely went down due to a reduction of droplets and aerosols.

>>12272184
Welcome to scientific dogma at its finest.

Retards now feel compelled to use studies to justify their point. That's a positive.
The problem is that they don't actually read them, they just take a quote out of context and misinterpret it.

The same was it stops a virus exactly as contagious as the flu you retard

>>12272175
>You seriously believe a hamster model study involving 3 fans blowing air on a surgical mask accurately represents the dynamics of infections in an highly correlated and accurate way of a human being wearing a mask while going on its daily business?
Considering there's a case study of multiple families being infected several tables away from an infected person in a restaurant due to the AC blowing infectious air in their direction, I'd say it's very good representation of a real world event.

>>12272184
The argument I've seen repeatedly is that paper can't stop a virus, and that's clearly false.

>>12272191
It appears as if they collected aerosols and larger particles with the G-II bioaerosol collecting device, but I can't quite tell from the text whether they're seeing absolutely less viral particles or if they're seeing fewer viral particles in the collected aeosols proportionately. Almost like it's a shitty study

>>12272210
>but I can't quite tell from the text whether they're seeing absolutely less viral particles or if they're seeing fewer viral particles in the collected aeosols proportionately.
There was a reduction at every level, so you're arguing semantics at this point.

>>12272200
>Our study has limitations. We did not conduct an experimental study simulating the airborne transmission route. We also did not perform serologic studies of swab sample–negative asymptomatic family members and other diners to estimate risk for infection.

>>12269348
maybe it doesn't completely stop the virus, but at least it reduces the probability of catching it.
you won't be a niqabi muslim. don't panic

>>12272215
So there was a reduction specifically in the amount of RNA that droplets had? Again how is that possible?

it doesn't
it's just good at fucking up your immune system and respiratory system

just like all other measures

>dont touch people
fucks your immune system
>stay indoors
fucks your immune system
>sanitize everything
fucks your immune system
>6 feet
fucks your immune system
>big stress
fucks your immune system
>wear a mask
fucks your respiratory system

enjoy the slow death once something more sinister takes the stage

>>12272216
This is hilarious.

>We also did not perform serologic studies of swab sample–negative asymptomatic family members and other diners to estimate risk for infection.
Have we also not been arguing about asymptomatic cases and masks? The severity of the infection is tightly linked to the initial infectious dose. When you have multiple people tables away develop symptomatic cases while those at other tables don't, that's significant proof that they were exposed to a larger amount of infectious particles.

>>12272198
>The same was it stops a virus exactly as contagious as the flu you retard
Oh, so not at all? Good to know.
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/maskguidance.htm

>>12272221
>fucks your respiratory system
What?

>>12272168
Ultimately depends on the public appreciation.
If antimask fags like those ITT become more prevalent, then it won't last long. Otherwise it could last a long time.
My personal stance is that I'm okay to wear a mask until most of the population contracted the disease and that hospitals aren't flooded anymore. If we make an effective vaccine and old people get it, I wouldn't support wearing a mask any longer.
Wearing a mask really isn't a problem for me, I can do at least that for my elders and other people at risk.

>>12272219
>So there was a reduction specifically in the amount of RNA that droplets had?
There was a reduction in RNA, I see nothing about a reduction in the % of RNA within the droplets. You can also assume from the hamsters that total droplets and aerosols are reduced, yes? And a higher proportion of asymptomatic cases in mask wearers also suggests a reduced exposure, yes?

>>12272032
cases going up all across the country suggest that there's a non-zero chance that you could actually be one of those asymptomatic cases. also, as others have said, death is not the only possible negative outcome of having the disease

>>12272233
Just saying the authors are admitting that they're giving a theoretical scenario with no experimental evidence to back it up

>>12272238
What do you mean until hospitals aren't flooded anymore? There has been barely any hospital flooding

>>12272236
>what is sucking back CO2 all day
hm, fresh air or CO2

>>12272252
how is this /sci/ and not /x/

>>12272257
>sucks back CO2 all day
>paranormal activity

>>12272242
There's also a non-zero chance that I have already had the virus, and that chance is necessarily increasing over time
It's always going to be a non-zero chance that I'm asymptomatic and contagious, and you're right there is also a small non-zero chance that one will have chronic health problems from coronavirus. There's also a small non-zero chance that a rock will roll off a rooftop and hit me in the head but I don't walk around in a helmet

>>12272251
I'm not from the USA

>>12272241
Yes

>>12272266
Where are you that hospitals were flooded?

>>12272263
>There's also a small non-zero chance that a rock will roll off a rooftop and hit me in the head but I don't walk around in a helmet
Would have been funnier if you said a piano.

>>12272263
if you were in a construction site you'd wear a helmet. in normal times in america, sure, dont wear a helmet. but right now teh whole country is a construction site.

>>12272251
People think that because NYC's fucked up hospital system get more fucked up from the pandemic it means that hospitals across the nation and indeed the world were ALL flooded and fucked by the pandemic. That's the tale the media was spinning to increase views and clicks, using NYC's hospitals to farm hysteria and make people think that's how everything is everywhere when it never was.

>>12269398
The virus is officially confirmed to be fully airborne, not just droplet spread. You need a hepa type filtration media like that on an N95 to actually stop it enough to prevent infection in an environment with many viral particles. A cloth mask can still reduce your risk slightly, but only if you otherwise use it properly (correct donning, doffing, and sanitizing procedure).

>>12272277
What criteria would make it stop being a construction site for you?

>>12272283
I'm in NYC and it wasn't even that bad. There were definitely some hospitals getting full, but there was never any crisis point for any of them, the extra space made at the Javitz center was barely used and I don't think the hospital ship Trump called up was used at all

>>12272283
Stop the hyperbole because literally nobody has said all hospitals were flooded. Honestly just shut the fuck about shit you have no idea about.

>>12272274
France

>>12272302
That's the hyperbole the news was pushing for weeks, based on NYC having a hard time keeping up with the pandemic, ignoring the fact that NYC had a fucked hospital system for years prior. There was nowhere else in the US that had even a single full hospital. In fact, many hospitals cleared out space to have a "coronavirus overflow wing" that ended up never getting used at all.

>>12272290
if we had a vaccine and vaccination rates were above that required for herd immunity

>>12272314
I guess Italy and Spain was just DA MEDIA as well.
God knows how many hospitals have been at ICU capacity over the summer.

>>12272325
We can get herd immunity without vaccines, too.

>>12272147
>17 people with non-covid coronavirus. 10 30 minute collection samples.
>aerosol numbers for flu and rhinovirus were NOT hugely affected by masks(thereby showing that masks are not universal filters)

Do you have the same study with larger number of participants with coronaviruses? It's significant because different people produce different amount of droplets and aerosols.

>>12272338
I personally find the associated harm that would cause to the populace to be unacceptable.

>>12272357
But throwing away 50% of GDP is perfectly acceptable?

>>12272342
There was actually a pretty decent reduction in every group. A larger study would be nice, yes, but almost all mask studies are indirect (i.e. compare an unmasked group to a masked group, who are likely to encounter different rates of infection and different circumstances). The ideal would be a human challenge trial with a masked and unmasked group, with controlled exposures, but I don't think we're ever going to see anything like that. In my opinion, there's enough evidence to suggest plain old surgical masks reduce risk, and probably at a decent rate if used correctly. Respirators would be better, but even N-95's don't entirely remove the risk. I'll use a mask, I hope others do too (and keep their noses covered!), but I'm aware that compliance will never be great, so I just have to be as cautious as possible.

>>12272375
Yes.

>>12270254
I've given up trying to explain boldly autonomy to people. Most people are too dumb to grasp the concept that just because something is simple to do doesn't mean that it's okay to force everyone to do it. These days I just share anti-lockdown stuff. Lockdown is widely opposed outside of Reddit.

I actually wore a mask until the day the government made it mandatory. From that point I stopped wearing one purely in protest of the law. Therefore "anti-mask" is a misnomer. I'm sure many like me and >>12270336 aren't against wearing masks we just say it should be a choice. Why is this controversial?

>>12271310
>It's inconsequential therefore just accept it
Isn't that every tech giant's argument for eroding privacy?

>>12272426
Your "protest" is putting others at risk, potentially (I don't know how often you're going out without a mask and in what situations). Were you wearing a mask before the government made it mandatory because you believe they work?

>>12272426
>it should be a choice
then it should also be a choice for doctors to treat you
if you purposefully disregard hygienic safety measures

>>12272426
>I actually wore a mask until the day the government made it mandatory. From that point I stopped wearing one purely in protest of the law.
That sounds incredibly stupid.
If the government made it mandatory to breath, would you stop doing it out of protest?

>>12272442
Honestly I had no idea if they worked or not. Government advice was conflicting back then. You put others at risk by doing many things. Driving a car, having unprotected sex. Thousands die of the flu every year yet I was never held personally responsible. The other reason apart from bodily autonomy is that I don't agree with how the government has shifted the blame from themselves to the public.

>>12272448
That's a slippery slope that the right keeps wanting to slide down
>Car crash? No treatment because you should have been more careful!
>Cancer? Should have ate your veggies! No treatment!
In short it's a slippery slope because it is very difficult to conclusively prove cause of a disease even in seemingly obvious cases like a smoker getting cancer. There is a chance that they would have got it whether they smoked or not.

>>12272397
>There was actually a pretty decent reduction in every group.

Quote from study:
>For influenza virus, we detected virus in 6 of 23 (26%) and 8 of 23 (35%) of the respiratory droplet and aerosol samples collected without face masks, respectively. There was a significant reduction by wearing face masks to 1 of 27 (4%) in detection of influenza virus in respiratory droplets, but no significant reduction in detection in aerosols (Table 1b).
>For rhinovirus, there were no significant differences between detection of virus with or without face masks, both in respiratory droplets and in aerosols (Table 1b).

Nice if coronaviruses are different and easier to mask away, but we need a bigger sample of coronavirus patients to know if that is true. Preferably with actual covid-19

>>12271858
My argument is that you're using both words disingeniously. Grow up.

>>12272484
My argument is that you're a lying sneak that refuses to see facts even as they straddle you and punch you in the face. Take your split tongue back to /r/philosophy.

>>12271846
>study upon study upon study
>single source with questionable results
Not him, but you're not making a point here.

>>12272462
I mean, burgers have been fighting for years to have the right to not have healthcare.

>>12272492
Not him but I don't see you having an RCT study with opposite result with you so you should just go back to being silent.

I don't get it. /sci/ is always talking about exterminating jews, blacks, LGBT anyone not straight and white yet all of a sudden are telling me I must "protect strangers". /sci/ also says that the medical establishment is full of shit (gay is a choice, transgenderism isn't real, blacks have low iq) except this time, they are 100% correct and we must blindly obey them.

>>12272480
>>Car crash? No treatment because you should have been more careful!
if you didnt put on a seatbelt? yep
if you said "oh well i was going to wear a seatbelt but others told me its smart to put on a seatbelt and not i cant be arsed to, also there is no evidence that seatbelts are useful"
>Cancer? Should have ate your veggies! No treatment!
for half of cancer patients there is no cause in the way of their life, terrible example

>it's a slippery slope
no its not, you want to be careless and risk the well being of others for the sake of being self righteous?
good, do it
but dont be a faggot then and deal with the consequences of your poor choices
>oh i decided to not put on a mask while going shopping but now doctors should put themselves at risk of infection when treating me!
no Medicare for people who refuse to wear masks!

>>12272491
>the facts are so clear how can't you see them?
That's not an argument. Nice try though.
Wearing masks does in no way fit the definition of conspiracy theory and you foaled to post a single study that supports your claim.

>>12272507
This is the most retarded attempt at logic I've ever read. Please tell me you're trolling.

>>12272495
Mask wearing is so hypocritical
>wear a mask for a 0.0001% chance of preventing a death - yes
>paying for someone's cancer treatment - fuck no

>>12272519
just scroll the thread, you are replying to that dipshit who doesnt even understand the study hes quoting
as the study he links in no way states that masks are ineffective

>>12272521
>muh death
Have you considered the possibility that some people want to spare their peers of months of recovery time? Or that some people are trying to get the numbers down so we can return to normal?
God damn this board is dumb.

>>12272526
I know. How does that matter for the fact that the post I replied to was batshit retarded?

>>12272509
But no hospital refuses treatment to a car crash victim who wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Doing so is not only unethical but as I said they may have been seriously injured regardless without the seatbelt. You are acting like everyone who caught coronavirus did so because they weren't wearing a mask. This is bullshit.

>>12272509
>you want to be careless and risk the well being of others
I'll stop wearing a mask just to spite you from now on. With a bit of luck I create an infection chain that reaches your family.

I'll also condition myself to sneeze violently whenever I see tomatoes.

>>12272536
it doesnt?

>>12272511
Nice strawman. I'm just following the science here

>>12272526
>as the study he links in no way states that masks are ineffective


>Conclusion
>...Our systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, we found no evidence regarding the use of masks by the general public outside the home
> we found no evidence

Are you illiterate or just stupid?

>>12272539
God I hope the gubmint bans shooting yourself in the dick

>>12269348
it doesn't, was only meant to slow the spread not stop it, anyone who says otherwise is a retard.

>>12272530
All locking down and hiding will achieve is simply moving the spike to a later date. If your prime motivation for supporting the lockdown is actually because you just want to get this over with quickly then you are mistaken. If we just let it spread freely and kill whoever it is going to kill it will be over far more quickly.

>>12272538
You're putting way too much effort into talking with this idiot. When a car crash victim gets into a hospital "well were you wearing a seatbelt?" wouldn't be the first question.

>>12272538
>But no hospital refuses treatment to a car crash victim who wasn't wearing a seatbelt
correct.
>its unethical
no, putting other willingly and knowingly at risk is
>they may have been seriously injured regardless without the seatbelt
not a justification
>everyone who caught coronavirus did so because they weren't wearing a mask
thats certainly not the case
>>12272539
>I'll stop wearing a mask just to spite you from now on
>With a bit of luck I create an infection chain that reaches your family
>I'll also condition myself to sneeze violently whenever I see tomatoes
k lol
>>12272556
you have been BTFO already several times
>we found no evidence
and this does not mean that masks are ineffective, also you wont find anything in the whole paper calling masks ineffective per se
>nitpicking single lines out of context
its like you are not even trying

>>12272509
>no Medicare for people who refuse to wear masks!
Won't affect me because I'm not 65 years old or disabled.

>>12272539
I don't get the point of angrily trying to get people to accept mask wearing. For every person told by security to wear a mask they just take it back off when security isn't looking. No matter how much the redditors ITT bitch and scream at me to wear a mask I never will so they may as well close the browser and go play Fortnite or something.

>>12272544
lmao how the hell is that a strawman?
Ah, the trolls here really need to go back to >>>/b/

>>12272576
good, then you have nothing to fear
you dont need it anyways

>>12272570
You're right, they're just shifting the argument to absurd things.

>>12272567
We're about 2 years from
>guys do we even need hospitals

>>12272556
>> we found no evidence
It has been remarked countless of times in this thread that this statement doesn't prove that masks are ineffective.
If anything, you are the illiterate one: you keep disregarding any logical argument that contradicts your mindless partisan opinion.

>>12272580
Are you saying that anyone who doesn't wear a mask today should not be allowed on Medicare 35 years from now? What a retarded concept.

>>12272567
>All locking down and hiding will achieve is simply moving the spike to a later date.
What are you even on about? We're talking about wearing masks. Neither lockdown nor "hiding" is implied.
>If your prime motivation for supporting the lockdown
Are you trying to strawman here?
>If we just let it spread freely and kill whoever it is going to kill it will be over far more quickly.
No, not at all, since the death rate is way too low, asymptomatic spreaders are a thing, multi-organ damage renders a huge chunk of the population unable to work for a very long time, and there is no long-term immunity/reinfections take place.

>>12272573
I take stupid is your final answer

>>12272585
If masks cannot be proven to be effective then they are...............?

>>12272588
>Are you saying that anyone who doesn't wear a mask today should not be allowed on Medicare
correct.
if you fall ill to the corona, then its time to deal with the consequences
why should others pay for your poor choices?

>>12272585
We have no evidence for you not being stupid. Go be a moron someplace else.

>>12272594
ok retard :^)

>>12272592
Post statistics showing "a huge chunk of the population with multi organ damage unable to work"

>>12272597
>If masks cannot be proven to be effective
Incorrect premise. Correct would be "If that one single study I cherrypicked...".
>then they are...............?
Learn what contraposition is, brainlet.

>>12272598
>why should others pay for your poor choices?
I agree. Insurances should be banned.

>>12272597
effective by what metric and in which situation?
thats an important detail!

>>12272606
We don't have any general statistic yet. We do know it happens and that many people need several weeks or months to recover.
Feel free to Google the available numbers on
>strokes even in young people
>heart inflammation that can lead to future cardiovascular problems
>brain inflammation
>ground glass

>>12272598
>why should others pay for your poor choices?
I actually agree with this and would not give money to Medicare or Social Security if it wasn't legally forced. If the government will refund all my payments into Medicare and Social Security and stop taking the money from me in the future then I'd literally go intentionally spend time around confirmed COVID cases just so I could get out of the system.

>>12272608
>trying to deflect, failing miserably
>b.b.b.but my philosophy professor said I can use logic to prove everything when I had babbys first logic class last semester.

Why don't you go dye your hair and hang out with the gender studies crowd, they might be of the mental caliber you're looking for.

>>12272616
So it's bullshit. Ok thanks for clearing that up.

>>12272597
Did I ever implied that retard?
Given only this article, we don't know whether or not masks are effective.
You're the one making preposterous and illogical claim.
And I called you out on it.

>>12272616
>strokes even in young people
Indistinguishable from previous years.
>myocarditic
Same
>Encephalitis
Same
>ground glass
Wow we're namedropping radiological sign names now! How about broccoli sign or humminbird sign or your rectum terminates in your cranium sign.

>>12272621
>>trying to deflect,
No, you're using an incorrect premise that leads to arbitrary conclusion without any value.
>>b.b.b.but my philosophy professor
Strawman.
>I had babbys first logic class
I never had a "logic class", I'm simply able to use my brain for reasoning very much unlike you.

Simple beginner example:
When it rains, the ground becomes wet. When the ground is wet, did it necessarily rain? No, I could have watered it with a bucket or a pool in someone's backyard might have been broken or a water pipe broke, maybe someone sprinkled their lawn. Get it?

>>12272638
go and dilate.

>>12272622
How did you come to that conclusion?
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351
>Imaging tests taken months after recovery from COVID-19 have shown lasting damage to the heart muscle, even in people who experienced only mild COVID-19 symptoms. This may increase the risk of heart failure or other heart complications in the future.
>The type of pneumonia often associated with COVID-19 can cause long-standing damage to the tiny air sacs (alveoli) in the lungs. The resulting scar tissue can lead to long-term breathing problems.
>Even in young people, COVID-19 can cause strokes, seizures and Guillain-Barre syndrome — a condition that causes temporary paralysis. COVID-19 may also increase the risk of developing Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease.
Papers are linked below, in case you're only pretending to have zero reading comprehension.

>>12272626
>Given only this article, we don't know whether or not masks are effective.
Why not? It's a review of several other studies and RCTs and it's rather unambiguous in its conclusion
>no evidence

>I called you out on it.
You're a nobody on the internet. Probably less than 20 years old and intensively browsing reddit. Your calling is worthless

>>12272644
>We don't have any general statistic yet

>>12272633
See
>>12272638
Retard. Does calling it scar tissue trigger you less?
The fact that radiologists noticed a significant increase I'm scar tissue in lung scans is what alarmed us that Corona has been spreading in the west for longer than previously thought.

>>12272481
I'm looking at the specific numbers. Detection of infectious aerosol particles fell from 40% to 0% for coronavirus, 35% to 22% for influenza, and 56% to 38% for rhinovirus. So influenza had the lowest reduction, but it would mean reducing infectious aerosols by a third, which would be significant when you think about the flu burden on the medical system every year. But the sample numbers are low, which is why I assume the authors don't want to make a more definitive statement. Added to the other evidence, I believe larger numbers would also show a reduction.

>Nice if coronaviruses are different and easier to mask away, but we need a bigger sample of coronavirus patients to know if that is true. Preferably with actual covid-19
Absolutely. I also think there's a lot of room to improve masks, making them more comfortable and efficacious. It's an area that needs a lot more study, especially since novel respiratory viruses seem like they're going to be an ongoing issue. We need better solutions than shutting down countries.

>>12272642
>100% memespeak reply
Haha, the sign of the brainlet who can't lose.

>>12272638
You haven't said anything to actually refute the content of the study, you're like a chiuhuahua impotently barking from your owners purse about how your personal definition of words are important.

>>12272648
Yes, but specific ones. Are you dense?

>>12272653
>The fact that radiologists noticed a significant increase I'm scar tissue
Ground glass isn't about scar tissue, take your word salad and eat it, then go to bed, you have school tomorrow.

>>12272657
I don't need to refute the study, I only need to refute your incorrect conclusion.

>>12272646
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365162/
>It's a review of several other studies and RCTs
correct!
>In observational studies, wearing masks is associated with a lower risk of contracting viral respiratory infections.3,4 For example, in a 2011 Cochrane systematic review published by Jefferson et al, the use of masks in case-control studies was associated with an important risk reduction (odds ratio = 0.32; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.39).3
>wearing masks is associated with a lower risk of contracting viral respiratory infections
>the use of masks in case-control studies was associated with an important risk reduction
AHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
seems like you are wrong and cant read, stupid fag
>However, in the 2 trials that most closely aligned with mask use in real-life community settings, there was a significant risk reduction in influenzalike illness (risk ratio [RR] = 0.83; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99)
OH NONONON
seems like you got btfo

POINT AND LAUGH AT THE RETARD!!1

>>12272664
>Ground glass isn't about scar tissue
It's _not only_ about scar tissue. Completely irrelevant here.
>ignoring the point, going for the personal insult
Guess you've been BTFO.

>>12272646
> it's rather unambiguous in its conclusion
Exactly
The line is
>> we found no evidence
So WE FOUND no evidence that they work. But that doesn't mean that there's no evidence that they work.
You're making the baseless assumption that there actually is no evidence.
Prove that.

>>12272644
Serious question, how many of these patients with lasting heart and lung damage were put on closed-system ventilators? Because ventilators can cause that kind of damage, too, and at the start of the pandemic (maybe even still?) doctors in hospitals were just automatically putting all COVID patients onto ventilators out of fear of spreading the virus if they weren't put into a closed system.

>>12272669
It's not that he can't read, he's actively misinterpreting and taking out of context to troll here. And it works.

>>12272638
>I never had a "logic class"
We can tell

>>12272672
>how many of these patients with lasting heart and lung damage were put on closed-system ventilators?
Out of the ones with extremely severe lung damage, a whole lot. It's not only artificial respiration itself, but the doctors also didn't know what pressure to setup and usually got it too high.
I don't know about the heart damage.
I've talked to a few people I know who work in hospitals. One is working in radiology and he says pretty much every covid-19 patient they get has ground glass. That is before ventilation.
Heart damage is difficult to track, since at first it may not be noticeable.

>>12272665
>I don't need to refute the study
Because you can't. So you decide to ad hominem instead

>>12272677
>we
You're the only one in this thread posting retarded bullshit. Don't act like you are several people.
Please tell me what a "logic class" is, Mr. Brainlet.

Mask works*
*does not apply to BLM protests

>>12272687
>Because you can't
No, because I don't need to.
>So you decide to ad hominem instead
I didn't.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6682967/
> was significantly associated with reduced risk of cancer, cardiovascular, respiratory, infectious, renal and liver disease mortality but not with diabetes or Alzheimer’s disease mortality
See? Here's a study that says they work.

>>12272671
Your can argue like a philosopher forever, for or against anything but that's no longer scientific.

We have investigated a claim extensively, found no evidence for it, masks don't work. There's no point in digging further.

>>12272715
wrong

>>12272707
>No
yes
>I didn't.
Yes you did

>>12272719
>wrong
Yes, that's what you are.

>>12272732
no you

>>12272686
>pretty much every covid-19 patient they get has ground glass. That is before ventilation.
But ground glass doesn't necessarily mean that you'll have permanent damage, right? What no one seems to be looking into is the likelihood that the preemptive and unnecessary use of ventilators may have made the condition in the lungs far worse and caused the permanent damage that way.
Since the beginning I've also been trying to figure out whether ventilators are seen as appropriate care for patients with pneumonia in general, or if they would make the lung problems worse. The information is not readily available, which tells me it's not seen as appropriate care, but obviously that's just a guess.
The thing that bugs me the most about it is that people have used "Young healthy individuals who would not need ventilators for the flu are being put on ventilators for COVID-19" as an argument to the severity and lethality of the virus, but it turned out they were just putting everyone on ventilators preemptively and not actually because they couldn't breathe on their own or anything. No one ever addresses this, either, it's like the whole thing is just fucking memory-holed and no one talks about it.
All the statistics about lung and heart damage come off as incredibly misleading to me when they're not doing anything to separate ventilator-related damage from virus-related damage.

>>12272715
>extensively
>pre-2020 studies, performed in shabby context, with poor statistical rigor, not performed during a global virus outbreak
And that's no me saying this, it's in the article itself at the discussion chapter.

>Your can argue like a philosopher forever, for or against anything but that's no longer scientific.
You're incapable of discerning basic logic from philosophy.
Sad.

>There's no point in digging further.
Yeah, I can see that. You're already at the bottom of scientific literacy.

>>12270158
My body, my decision. I'm right with you there sister.

>>12272727
No.

>>12272737
>ground glass doesn't necessarily mean that you'll have permanent damage, right?
Yes and no. If it's scar tissue, it's permanent. The lung can adapt to the changes and breath normally when not doing sports, but you shouldn't ever e.g. dive again.
>What no one seems to be looking into is the likelihood that the preemptive and unnecessary use of ventilators may have made the condition in the lungs far worse
That's true. I guess it's to protect the doctors who didn't know what to do and tried everything they could to save patients.
>and caused the permanent damage that way.
Well, that only explains lung damage after ventilation, not the cases without.
>it turned out they were just putting everyone on ventilators preemptively and not actually because they couldn't breathe on their own or anything.
Err, are you sure? Why would a doctors go through the effort of putting someone on ventilators if that's entirely unnecessary?

>>12272338
>just let everyone get infected, that way no one can get infected

>>12272743
>My body, my decision.
This.
You let them force you to wear a mask today and tomorrow you're Poland where abortions are banned even when the health of the mother is at risk and the baby is lacking its entire brain.
Free choice
Free speech
Free society

>>12272802
>Why would a doctors go through the effort of putting someone on ventilators if that's entirely unnecessary?
It depends on what you consider necessary. In the beginning of the pandemic there was a huge hysteria about the infectiousness of the virus, how easily it would spread, speculation it was airborne, and so on. Doctors were putting every COVID patient on a ventilator because it would put them into a closed system that prevented them from breathing out infected air into the hospital atmosphere. It wasn't for the necessity of the health of the patient, it was for the supposed necessity of preventing the virus from spreading, but then we have to ask what the cost of that was to the patient. I don't think this is something they do any more because the hysteria has calmed down, but all those early patients that were studied in the following months would have been part of that and the fact that no one tries to isolate the differences in outcomes between people put on ventilators and not put on ventilators just seems like a gigantic oversight.

>>12272819
Herd immunity does not mean every person getting infected, retard, just as herd immunity from vaccines doesn't mean every person getting vaccinated.

>>12272819
Yes.
It's our duty to acclerate the spread. The faster everyone have it the faster we're done with it, and if it makes boomers go extinct we should double down on spreading it.

>>12272846
The elderly and other people at risk aren't the same as unborn fetuses lacking a brain.

>>12272850
>Doctors were putting every COVID patient on a ventilator because it would put them into a closed system that prevented them from breathing out infected air into the hospital atmosphere.

You think that actually happened? Oh wait you're pic related so you probably don't think very much.

>>12272856
Doesn't work because there's no long-term immunity.

>>12272863
They have the freedom to lock themselves indoors until everyone is vaccinated.
They're retired, they'll be fine sitting inside until May 2021.

>>12272850
>Doctors were putting every COVID patient on a ventilator
Definitely not. They are all well aware that this is a traumatic process for the patient and a last resort technique.
>closed system that prevented them from breathing out infected air into the hospital atmosphere.
There are sealed rooms for this.

>>12272877
So you'd rather lock up a large part of the population than simply wear a mask for shopping?
Clearly you're a sociopath.

>>12272873
Once everyone have had it once they'll be fine with having it again. But at this rate it will take over a year for everyone to be infected.

I heard a low shh or hmm sound generates as much droplets as loud singing so I'm always humming a tune nowadays. Keeps the spirits up too, people like it and start singing along. It's nice, this is how we build community and immunity.

>>12272697
That is interesting, I don't recall blacks dropping like flies any faster than they usually do.

>>12272894
>Once everyone have had it once they'll be fine with having it again
Almost every case of reinfections was way worse the second time.
Why would it be easier the second time?

>>12272877
You clearly don't have old parents and/or grandparents. Or you simply don't give a fuck about them.

>>12272886
>So you'd rather lock up a large part of the population
No I'm anti-lockdowns.
>than simply wear a mask for shopping?
If masks actually helped I'd be against it even more because then the infection peak happens later.
>Clearly you're a sociopath.
I do what is best for society, on my own. no political optics or virtue signaling required. You'll understand it too when you become an adult.

>>12272869
>>12272878
Christ, why is this being memory-holed so hard by everyone? It was just a few months ago. Do you not remember the ventilator shortages all over the news? That was because they were being used on just about every COVID-19 patient. Literally just Google search "overuse of ventilators covid" and you'll bring up all kinds of articles about it:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/08/doctors-say-ventilators-overused-for-covid-19/
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/04/24/ventilator-study
https://www.livescience.com/too-much-ventilator-use-for-covid19-coronavirus-patients.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ventilators-covid-overuse-1.5534097
https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/ventilator-use-older-coronavirus-patients.html

Why are you acting as if I'm making this shit up? The ventilator controversy was all over the news and now everyone's acting like it never happened.

>>12272898
>Why would it be easier the second time?
If you didn't die the first time, why would you do it the second? And if you do, well, then this world isn't for you anymore.

This is simply evolution. If you're not naturally covid resistent your genes won't make it in on earth post 2020.

>>12272285
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

>The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

>This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

>>12272850
Not that anon, but there was a lot of hysteria and confusion in the beginning re: treatment. People were freaking out about the idea that this was a novel virus and thought it had to be treated differently.

Where I'm from some of the more prominent ICU docs/anesthesiologists were very adamant in using the knowledge and guidelines there already is about viral pneumonia/ARDS and critical care. Treating this as something very different and looking for a silver bullet was a misstep.

That doesn't mean this isn't a nasty disease. You don't really see 45 year olds spend 2 weeks in the ICU from the flu.

>>12272899
>You clearly don't have old parents and/or grandparents.

They live in the rural areas. They support me and actively encourage me to keep up the fight against the oppressors, to not be a slave of arbitrary rules of those who seek power.

>>12272913
None of your links support your statement. Are you gaslighting yourself?

>>12272904
>No I'm anti-lockdowns.
Except you're promoting lockdown for people at risk, instead of just putting a mask when you go shopping.
>If masks actually helped I'd be against it even more because then the infection peak happens later.
Which reduces its intensity and makes it more manageable. It also buys time before a vaccine.
>I do what is best for society, on my own. no political optics or virtue signaling required.
The hypocrisy of this statement.
You're clearly doing what's best for yourself, not society.

>>12272931
Yeah sure.

>>12272904
>No I'm anti-lockdowns.
You're compelling people to self-isolate because you refuse to wear a simple mask to go shopping for half an hour every few days. Nobody mentioned a lockdown.
>If masks actually helped
They do.
>I do what is best for society
No, you're doing what a baby would do that refuses to wear a diaper before learning not to shit itself.
>You'll understand it too when you become an adult.
Babby dreams of being a responsible adult I see. Cute.

>>12272925
>You don't really see 45 year olds spend 2 weeks in the ICU from the flu.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/sd-no-flu-update20180321-story.html
https://www.q13fox.com/news/healthy-23-year-old-woman-dies-from-flu-related-complications
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9846894/mum-died-sepsis/
https://people.com/health/california-woman-dies-from-flu/
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/younger-people-dying-from-flu-in-nova-scotia-303982/

You don't?

>>12272913
>Do you not remember the ventilator shortages all over the news?
Of course I do.
>That was because they were being used on just about every COVID-19 patient
Incorrect. They were used on extreme cases where patients couldn't breathe by themselves anymore. They were used incorrectly though.
>Why are you acting as if I'm making this shit up?
I'm not, you're just misunderstanding a few things.

>>12272925
>You don't really see 45 year olds spend 2 weeks in the ICU from the flu.
Again, this seems to stem more from preemptive treatments than anything else. It's not that 45 year olds need to spend 2 weeks in the ICU, it's just that's what happened because of an overabundance of caution related to this novel virus.

>people get put on ventilators as a preemptive measure and not because the patients are shown to need it to help them breathe
"omg young people shouldn't need to be on ventilators for something like this, that shows how horrible it is!"
>people get put into the ICU as a means to more fully isolate them from spreading the virus and are held for 2 weeks to make sure they're fully recovered and won't be a carrier when they go home
"omg 45 year olds shouldn't need to be in the ICU for 2 weeks, that shows how horrible it is!"

No one really seems to be trying to separate this shit out, though, AT ALL, but it's super important and we absolutely need to. How many people were on ventilators because they NEEDED it to breathe? How many people were in the ICU because they NEEDED it due to the severity of their condition? No one cares to enumerate it that way, all the studies about the long term damage the virus causes just lump on in all these people who were on ventilators for weeks and don't bother to isolate how much of the damage was from the virus and how much was from the ventilator. It certainly makes the statistics more convenient to the narrative, but is it ACCURATE? Anyone who questions it is just branded anti-science and pushed aside.

>>12272957
Oh fuck you're a
>it's just the flu bro
I'm out.

>>12272918
>If you didn't die
>muh death again
Sigh, can you parrot something else please?
>And if you do, well, then this world isn't for you anymore.
Tell that to people who had Dengue fever.
>This is simply evolution. If you're not naturally covid resistent your genes won't make it in on earth post 2020.
Okay, so you don't know anything about the current pandemic. Understood. Do you refuse to educate yourself because you're scared of what you'll find?

>>12272958
>They were used on extreme cases where patients couldn't breathe by themselves anymore.
No, that's wrong. Go read the articles I linked, they talk about the fact that ventilator use should be completely rethought and doctors should stop using them so frequently in these cases. That would not be a valid conversation if the only people going on ventilators were the ones who literally couldn't breathe on their own and needed a ventilator to continue living.

>>12272972
Not him, but you're the one who compared it to the flu. Now you're noping out because it got turned around on you.

>>12272931
Nice LARP.

>>12272957
Those are 5 people. Try again.

>>12272954
>They do.
Then go ahead and wear them so I don't have to. N95. 100% filtration. You're perfectly safe forever.

>>12272942
>Except you're promoting lockdown for people at risk
They can wear a mask. N95 and they're 100% safe, aren't they?

>>12272963
>How many people were on ventilators because they NEEDED it to breathe? How many people were in the ICU because they NEEDED it due to the severity of their condition?
What evidence do you have that there are people who didn't need it and were put into IC or on ventilators? Do you know how difficult and time-consuming the whole procedure is?

>>12272973
>Do you refuse to educate yourself because you're scared of what you'll find?

I've educated myself. I try to share my knowledge and get attacked by small men with neither education nor understanding.

>>12272978
Okay that happened in NYC apparently. Everywhere else doctors only did it to patients who collapsed.
The issue isn't using a ventilator per se, it's that they were incorrectly used.

>>12272985
>Then go ahead and wear them so I don't have to
Wearing masks doesn't protect you from getting infected. Have you still not learned this simple fact? They help in stopping the wearer from spreading it.
The idiocy reeking out of your posts is unbearable.

>>12273001
>I've educated myself.
You clearly didn't since you get even the most basic facts wrong and bring up unrelated statements when you're at a loss for words. Pathetic, really.

>>12272981
Honestly didn't think people on /sci/ were dumb enough for the "it's just the flu bro" argument. I don't know what I was thinking. This place is braindead.

>>12272963
There's really no point in arguing with you think people are put on ventilators just for the fun of it. Have fun.

>>12273009
>They help in stopping the wearer from spreading it.
I have a valved N95. Does it prevent me from spreading it?

>>12273030
No.

>>12273009
except the wearer almost certainly isn't infected

>>12273030
Even then. A bit. Yes. Or are the valves filtered?

>>12273032
Good.
Because it's accepted everywhere as an adequate mask and I'll keep using it wherever it's a legal requirement.

>>12273033
>what are asymptomatic spreaders?
>what is incubation time?
>almost certainly
Are you retarded on purpose or is it a talent?

>>12273038
>Or are the valves filtered?
pic=you.

A filtered exhalation valve would defeat the purpose of the exhalation valve, then it's just a regular N95 without valve.

>>12273043
>it's accepted everywhere
Not really. It's just difficult to check what kind of mask someone wears.
>im going to act retarded and no one's going to stop me
Asocial brainlets like you should be removed from society.

>>12273050
>Not really
Yes really as far as the legal requirements go.

>>12273047
>A filtered exhalation valve would defeat the purpose of the exhalation valve
lmao have you never seen cyclist masks? Guess you posted a self-portrait.

>>12273059
>Talks as if he understood masks
>Doesn't understand mask valves

Can I ask how old you are?

>>12273074
https://www.expertreviews.co.uk/wearable-technology/1407423/best-bike-pollution-mask
Stop acting like you didn't post bullshit.

>>12273044
Estimate the probability that I, having no symptoms, am currently contagious with coronavirus

>>12273079
>still not understanding how the valves work
You're either single digit age range, and then I can teach you or retarded, then I can laugh at you. Pick one, or both.

>>12272924
No control arm. It was a comparison of cloth masks to medical masks, and found medical masks to be better.

>>12273097
But other studies show at best a small reduction in ILI from wearing surgical masks versus no mask at all. This study show a HUGE increase in ILI from cloth masks compared to surgical masks and a BIG increase in lab diagnosed respiratory diseases from cloth masks.

so cloth mask<<no mask<surgical disposable mask

>>12273030
You could tape over the valves, or put a surgical mask over the respirator. But if you're consistent with using it and it fits will, your odds of getting infected and spreading it are very slim.

>>12273109
It's better to have a dual exhalation valve mask and turn one of the exhalation valves around, best of both worlds.

>>12273108
>But other studies show at best a small reduction in ILI from wearing surgical masks versus no mask at all.
What studies? The majority involve medical workers who are required to wear masks around the majority of patients, so they end up being a comparison of surgical masks or respirators.

>>12273089
>what are asymptomatic spreaders?
Absolute brainlet.

>>12273094
Look at the page I linked. The masks have valves with switchable filters. Just admit you didn't know these existed.

>>12272855
>let's kill millions to save thousands

>>12273130
I never said there are no asymptotic spreaders.
What is the probability that I am currently spreading coronavirus? 13%? 41%? .0001%?

>>12273125
>What studies?
Someone posted earlier in this thread

>First, the use of masks by a group in the community setting appears to reduce influenzalike illness in those wearing masks. While community trials that most closely aligned with mask use in real-life community settings16,17 did not show significant effects individually, our pooled analysis showed a significant risk reduction (NNT = 24). Although the same analysis showed no significant risk reduction in confirmed influenza or confirmed viral infection, we believe influenzalike illness to be an important patient-oriented outcome.

With cloth mask ILI RR at 6 and surgical mask NNT for ILI at 24 it's obvious that cloth masks are definitely not conductive to health.

>>12273136
>The masks have valves with switchable filters
You still don't understand how the exhalation valves work.

>>12273137
Are you also anti-vax or what?

>>12273149
no, because the risk of serious side effects from those is far far far lower than that of the actual illness they protect from
herd immunity is a status that helps you containing epidemics that will produce great numbers of infecteds and deads, what's the point of reaching it with the normal infection spread? it's intrinsecally retarded
that's the fucking reason why vaccines are so useful

>>12273130
Asymptomatic spreaders are a meme. It is through symptoms that the vast overwhelming majority of the spread comes from. It is hard to understate how little of a role asymptomatic spread plays. When you sneeze, cough or vomit, you are expelling pathogens into the surrounding environment. But when you don't do any of those things, you may at best wipe your hands on a clean surface with pathogens, which is something that symptomatic spreaders would be doing anyway. This isn't Plague Inc or Pandemic where you can simply remove symptoms and collect points to upgrade later all at once, the disease won't spread very far from having zero symptoms because it is exactly through symptoms that it can spread.

>>12273160
Even the WHO confirmed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQTBlbx1Xjs