A Covidiot
They say the elite are destroying our economy to bring in the New World Order, microchip us, and depopulate the planet. It doesn't seem to occur to them that if the elite were to wreck Western society then China would dominate the world, something the elite are desperately trying their hardest to stop.
They say masks don't work, but when I show them the studies that show they do, they say Bill Gates funds these studies.
A quick check on the Internet brings up the facts, but these peopl are not interested in evidence or facts.
The fatality rate in the UK is around 14%, meaning 86% have “survived”.
In the US, it’s currently at roughly 6%, meaning around 94% of those who’ve had confirmed cases so far have not died.
UK Independent Fact Checking Charity - We don’t know the true Covid-19 survival rate yet
9 comments:
“ A quick check on the Internet brings up the facts, but these peopl are not interested in evidence or facts.”
All Art Degree or no degree people... they start with the Thesis FIRST...
In this case their Thesis is “Masks Don’t Do Anything” then they just look for evidence that only supports this Thesis...
Same as Monetarists, QTM people, gold people, etc...
A great many British people are like children they vote largely on the basis of the hope things will turn out OK. There's precious little effort to understand how things really work and therefore how things could be.
There's nothing stopping you from looking at WHO data. The impact of the virus on the world is trivial. It amounts to a few days of deaths from all causes.
Covid hates Belgians for some reason... or the officials there can't count.
Masks do NOT work -- this does not mean that they are not wrong on the other issues, but the WHO and others have bowed to political pressure. The masks are magical bullets. My public health specialist friend calls them the homeopathy of PPE.
Fit (face seal), appropriate material, and correct user behavior are needed to filter air coming in or going out. A human source exhales somewhere between 0.2-0.8 particles/sec with a size range of 0.5 to 10 µm. Humans cough 10K to 500K of aerosols in the range of < 1µm to > 500µm. Settling times range from 1hr to 2.8 days for 3 µm to 0.3µm. Aerosols <20µm travel beyond 8m from cough and speech! Aerosols >100µm travel up to 4 m from coughs and 2 m from speech. A typical office (ventilation rate of 10m3) reaches approximately in 100 min a Steady State for an infectious dose if there is only one person present (for a Bathroom it is 15 min and an elevator 2.5 hrs).
Ventilation would need to be increased by a factor of 5 to b e able to share an office.
Back to the mask: surgical masks have at best a poor fit. Some have good filter material, but not all. In ideal situations (laboratory conditions) a fit factor of 4-6 may be accomplished, but human behavior usually breaks it.
Face coverings: non-functional materials, almost no fit, at best-fit factor of 2. Two and 4-6 are means with CI of just above 1 to 7. 1 means no fit. Again human behavior likely drops it. Aerosols will just follow the path of least resistance which is the leak around the mask.
The engineering capacities of face coverages are very well understood and researched for a long time. Surgical masks do not perform as wanted in hospitals and never did. Health care workers should use fitted elastomer respirators and or PAPRs. Homemade masks are worse.
My friend reports that there is flood of poorly done research: he points to a recent paper for a "PPE-journal" which was done incorrectly from a to z. They had no idea what they were doing: ie. wrong equipment, incorrect aerosol source, faulty data analysis, and the editor did not seem to understand either - panic mode -> We need to publish. It is garbage, but what do you expect from an economist, geologist, and an admin person (which were the authors). Remember that epi-studies contain errors. They may show an effect even if the mechanism is not there. The bottom line is: we do not have a magic bullet.
Strict(!)quarantine is really the only control solution at this point. It takes about 90 days to get through the epidemic (e.g. New Zealand, Greece) with a strict quarantine; anything less and it drags on and is not effective.
Very efficient contract tracing can help, but outbreaks will still happen and one can not be sloppy (see South Korea). Neither strict quarantine nor efficient contact tracing is happening in the USA. A somewhat lax quarantine and the size of the country slowed down the spread, but the real outbreak is starting now (the first wave).
Here is a good PPE summary from Dr Lisa Brosseau who has done research for 20 years on the PPE technology: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19-respiratory-protection-commentaries?fbclid=IwAR1qp82k_FY_o3dkWdD-4g3c3DXKfB2dUlmlY8J7gbGVy8_BO40DdY0nHsQ
or listen to the special edition of this podcast: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars
Start with Peter Sandman!
http://www.psandman.com/articles/Corona24.pdf
Masks work... in the same way that pacifiers work for some infants.
Ha!
When you see the word "independent" just substitute in "unelected" and re-evaluate. Then follow the money.
UK deaths are now below normal for the time of year. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-florence-nightingales-daigrams-for-deaths/
Pretty decent analysis of the European case here https://youtu.be/cSKjcltDkng
Excess death data tells is that there is negligible impact on under 40 year olds - which is the majority of the population. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-10th-july/
There's too much spin and curve fitting on all sides.
Marian Ruccius: You seem to be using an excessively restrictive meaning of "work" - for your own citations and statements refute the idea that masks don't work if one uses a less restrictive - and more practical - meaning of "work". Things don't have to be perfect in order to work to provide some protection to large populations by diminishing rates of transmission. Brousseau's papers do the same - she is asking the wrong questions imho - and her idea that people get false senses of security from mask wearing and therefore indulge in riskier behaviors - well it could happen, but it seems to be the opposite of experience.
Peter Sandman's paper you suggest starting with criticizes the WHO's etc earlier dogmatic assertions against masks.
"The entire public health establishment underestimating the importance of asymptomatic
and presymptomatic transmission even after the evidence was already pretty persuasive,
and therefore insisting that masks and other face coverings were useless against COVID-19
in everyday life".
Post a Comment