Bexar County reports 'biggest single day increase' of 436 new cases of COVID-19

[Blake]

ok boomer


so you admit I'm right. Happy to hear

Lol doesn't get "ok boomer"

[TimDunkem]

Lol doesn't get "ok boomer"

He's an angry old boomer so not surprising. :lol

[DarrinS]

Lol doesn't get "ok boomer"

That meme died a few months ago. RIP

[TimDunkem]

19 more people on ventilators today. Highest one day jump for SA.

[tholdren]

19 more people on ventilators today. Highest one day jump for SA.

were you one of them? And were they all covid? Or typical gossip

[TimDunkem]

This message is hidden because th:lolldren is on your ignore list (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

[TheGreatYacht]

were you one of them? And were they all covid? Or typical gossip

Chumpettes fear mongering and gossip :lol

[TimDunkem]

Chumpettes fear mongering and gossip :lol
PATFO still sucks though. Am I right?

[tholdren]

This message is hidden because th:lolldren is on your ignore list (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

Hiding after the embarrassing I have covid now I don't.

Lol

[TimDunkem]

This message is hidden because th:lolldren is on your ignore list.

[tholdren]

This message is hidden because th:lolldren is on your ignore list.

Bwahahahaha

[ChumpDumper]

th:loldren comes out of his bunker after three months to tell people they're hiding.

[DarrinS]

geesh, this forum sucks more and more each day

[TimDunkem]

Dropped off quite a bit when the Ghost of March and April returned from his bunker.

[ChumpDumper]

geesh, this forum sucks more and more each dayEh, what is there to do other than take D3 and drink by the pool?

[tholdren]

geesh, this forum sucks more and more each day

It has always sucked.

[ChumpDumper]

Dropped off quite a bit when the Ghost of March and April returned from his bunker.:lol somehow he's trying to say he was right all along while finding all kinds of new ways to be wrong.

[TimDunkem]

:lol somehow he's trying to say he was right all along while finding all kinds of new ways to be wrong.
10k tops, tbh.

[tholdren]

Dropped off quite a bit when the Ghost of March and April returned from his bunker.

You lied about having a disease.

[ChumpDumper]

10k tops, tbh.:lmao

[TimDunkem]

I never said I had COVID, just the symptoms. Sadly, someone I did know and love was a confirmed case and died. 10k tops tho', hospital admissions flat, just increased testing, just the flu, etc, etc.

:lol th:lolldren

[ChumpDumper]

I never said I had COVID, just the symptoms. Sadly, someone I did know and love was a confirmed case and died. 10k tops tho', hospital admissions flat, just increased testing, just the flu, etc, etc.

:lol th:lolldrenSorry that happened. tholdren thinks it's fake.

[tholdren]

I never said I had COVID, just the symptoms. Sadly, someone I did know and love was a confirmed case and died. 10k tops tho', hospital admissions flat, just increased testing, just the flu, etc, etc.

:lol th:lolldren

yes you did.

[TimDunkem]

th:lolldren lies

[Blake]

th:lolldren lies

[ChumpDumper]

th:lolldren lies:lol he spent three months in the bunker developing his "just lie all the time" strategy.

[tholdren]

:lol he spent three months in the bunker developing his "just lie all the time" strategy.

lololol
Wet markets
Ships
Kansas
Ifr
Daily cases
Furloughs
Trump
Finland.

Lol you grasping for anything. Anything. Its been hialrIous

[TimDunkem]

:lol he spent three months in the bunker developing his "just lie all the time" strategy.
Basically the same repeat BS ad-infinitum strategy he worked on upstairs with the "lol no-skill NBA/ you don't know basketball/ I was an athlete" shit every time he disagreed with someone.

:lol th:lolldren
:lol Ghost of March and April
:lol Angry washed up boomer who peaked in HS

[DarrinS]

Eh, what is there to do other than take D3 and drink by the pool?

Not spend hours circle-jerking your time away?

Back to the pool and margaritas for me.

[ChumpDumper]

Basically the same repeat BS ad-infinitum strategy he worked on upstairs with the "lol no-skill NBA/ you don't know basketball/ I was an athlete" shit every time he disagreed with someone.

:lol th:lolldren
:lol Ghost of March and April
:lol Angry washed up boomer who peaked in HS:lmao claimed he was an athlete

[ChumpDumper]

Not spend hours circle-jerking your time away?Estrange your daughter, I guess.

[TimDunkem]

:lmao claimed he was an athlete

Guy is a cross between ducks and Avante :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Guy is a cross between ducks and Avante :lolAl Bundy: hospital census hobbyist

[DMC]

This message is hidden because th:lolldren is on your ignore list (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

:lol putting someone on ignore but continuing to talk about them at every opportunity.

[TimDunkem]

:lol putting someone on ignore but continuing to talk about them at every opportunity.

Go on and tell me how much you don't care again, fat hands. :lol

[pgardn]

lololol
Wet markets
Ships
Kansas
Ifr
Daily cases
Furloughs
Trump
Finland.

Lol you grasping for anything. Anything. Its been hialrIous

"its a mild flu"

Says it all.

[tholdren]

Basically the same repeat BS ad-infinitum strategy he worked on upstairs with the "lol no-skill NBA/ you don't know basketball/ I was an athlete" shit every time he disagreed with someone.

:lol th:lolldren
:lol Ghost of March and April
:lol Angry washed up boomer who peaked in HS
Bwahahahaha. Covid guy so emotionally invested. Lololololol

Love when he responds with ignore then comes right back with a response. Lololololol

Pwned and admitted he's still sad about the talentless NBA. Bwahahahaha... pwned

[DMC]

Go on and tell me how much you don't care again, fat hands. :lol

Ask your master.. errr.. I mean "boss" if you can take a break. Wouldn't want you getting fired from your driving job.

[tholdren]

Cases don't equal different people or new cases or current infections. Stop gossip

[tholdren]

Cases don't equal different people or new cases or current infections. Stop gossip

2 more weeks

[tholdren]

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Review of the Medical Literature
Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

“A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Conclusion Regarding That Masks Do Not Work
No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

Masks and respirators do not work.

Precautionary Principle Turned on Its Head with Masks
In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic, and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks. In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease and of Why Masks Do Not Work
In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and that is caused by viruses. For example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular. (Publisher's note: All links to source references to studies here forward are found at the end of this article.)

For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has “Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity,” here:

The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity (“viable decay”), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets (“physical loss”): “Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical.”

The latter (“physical loss”) seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle/droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven “decay.” Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A “virion” is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet “viable decay” of a virion has not been explained or studied.

In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependent on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol/droplets. Shaman’s quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether “viable decay” or “physical loss.”

The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is “the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible.” The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19–1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid-summer values of just larger than “1” and dry-winter values typically as large as “4” (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modeling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modeling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).

To put it simply, the “second wave” of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the “second wave” is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., “physical loss”), then Shaman’s work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centers, and on-board airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):

“Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus −3 concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m . On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 μm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modeling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 × 105 genome copies m−3 air h−1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies m−2 h−1 by Brownian motion. Over one hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission.”

Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).

Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.

Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:

Most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibilityIt is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the hostThe 50-percent probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virionsThere are typically 10 to 3rd power − 10 to 7th power virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μmThe 50-percent probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized dropletFor further background:A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans,“we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections.”Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90 percent of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed.

All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).

Why There Can Never Be an Empirical Test of a Nation-Wide Mask-Wearing Policy
As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results [because]:

Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

Unknown Aspects of Mask Wearing
Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification?What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?Do the masks shed fibers or substances that are harmful when inhaled?

Conclusion
By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.

Otherwise, what is the point of publicly funded science?

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Denis G. Rancourt is a researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA.ca) and is formerly a tenured professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada. This paper was originally published at Rancourt's account on ResearchGate.net. As of June 5, 2020, this paper was removed from his profile by its administrators at Researchgate.net/profile/D_Rancourt. At Rancourt's blog

[pgardn]

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

More recent.

Give us the link that puts together all these studies.
Yours.

[ChumpDumper]

th:lolldren

[Blake]

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Review of the Medical Literature
Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

“A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Conclusion Regarding That Masks Do Not Work
No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

Masks and respirators do not work.

Precautionary Principle Turned on Its Head with Masks
In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic, and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks. In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease and of Why Masks Do Not Work
In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and that is caused by viruses. For example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular. (Publisher's note: All links to source references to studies here forward are found at the end of this article.)

For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has “Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity,” here:

The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity (“viable decay”), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets (“physical loss”): “Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical.”

The latter (“physical loss”) seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle/droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven “decay.” Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A “virion” is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet “viable decay” of a virion has not been explained or studied.

In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependent on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol/droplets. Shaman’s quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether “viable decay” or “physical loss.”

The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is “the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible.” The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19–1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid-summer values of just larger than “1” and dry-winter values typically as large as “4” (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modeling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modeling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).

To put it simply, the “second wave” of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the “second wave” is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., “physical loss”), then Shaman’s work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centers, and on-board airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):

“Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus −3 concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m . On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 μm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modeling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 × 105 genome copies m−3 air h−1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies m−2 h−1 by Brownian motion. Over one hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission.”

Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).

Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.

Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:

Most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibilityIt is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the hostThe 50-percent probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virionsThere are typically 10 to 3rd power − 10 to 7th power virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μmThe 50-percent probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized dropletFor further background:A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans,“we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections.”Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90 percent of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed.

All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).

Why There Can Never Be an Empirical Test of a Nation-Wide Mask-Wearing Policy
As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results [because]:

Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

Unknown Aspects of Mask Wearing
Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification?What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?Do the masks shed fibers or substances that are harmful when inhaled?

Conclusion
By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.

Otherwise, what is the point of publicly funded science?

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Denis G. Rancourt is a researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA.ca) and is formerly a tenured professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada. This paper was originally published at Rancourt's account on ResearchGate.net. As of June 5, 2020, this paper was removed from his profile by its administrators at Researchgate.net/profile/D_Rancourt. At Rancourt's blog

So in short, masks don't protect you from others.

No shit.

[Dirks_Finale]

If this were true, every health care worker in America would have Corona virus...and given that viral load seems to be a thing with this virus, 25% of those infected would already be dead.


There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Review of the Medical Literature
Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

“A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Conclusion Regarding That Masks Do Not Work
No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

Masks and respirators do not work.

Precautionary Principle Turned on Its Head with Masks
In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic, and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks. In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease and of Why Masks Do Not Work
In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and that is caused by viruses. For example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular. (Publisher's note: All links to source references to studies here forward are found at the end of this article.)

For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has “Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity,” here:

The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity (“viable decay”), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets (“physical loss”): “Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical.”

The latter (“physical loss”) seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle/droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven “decay.” Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A “virion” is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet “viable decay” of a virion has not been explained or studied.

In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependent on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol/droplets. Shaman’s quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether “viable decay” or “physical loss.”

The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is “the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible.” The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19–1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid-summer values of just larger than “1” and dry-winter values typically as large as “4” (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modeling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modeling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).

To put it simply, the “second wave” of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the “second wave” is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., “physical loss”), then Shaman’s work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centers, and on-board airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):

“Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus −3 concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m . On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 μm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modeling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 × 105 genome copies m−3 air h−1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies m−2 h−1 by Brownian motion. Over one hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission.”

Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).

Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.

Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:

Most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibilityIt is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the hostThe 50-percent probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virionsThere are typically 10 to 3rd power − 10 to 7th power virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μmThe 50-percent probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized dropletFor further background:A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans,“we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections.”Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90 percent of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed.

All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).

Why There Can Never Be an Empirical Test of a Nation-Wide Mask-Wearing Policy
As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results [because]:

Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

Unknown Aspects of Mask Wearing
Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification?What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?Do the masks shed fibers or substances that are harmful when inhaled?

Conclusion
By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.

Otherwise, what is the point of publicly funded science?

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

g

[Trainwreck2100]

Lol academic.com researchgate.net.

[ChumpDumper]

"We did have a rally in Bellingham, which is our county seat, and there was also a protest, and we have not been able to connect a single case to that rally or to the protest, and what we're finding is in large part that's due to the use of masks," Erika Lautenbach, the director of the Whatcom County Health Department in Washington State, tells NPR's All Things Considered. "Almost everyone at the rally was wearing a mask, and it's really a testament to how effective masks are in preventing the spread of this disease."

For the clusters that have popped up, Lautenbach says the state has been using contact tracing to learn more about how they're contributing to the spread of the virus. For instance, it found that 14 cases were associated with a party of 100 to 150 people in early June. Subsequently, 15 more cases were associated with the original 14.

"So that one event spread to 29 people and 31 related employers," Lautenbach says. "Our challenge is to continue to trace as it moves through families, as it moves through workplaces and as it moves through social events as well."

But protests just aren't spreading the disease in the same way, Lautenbach says.

"We're finding that the social events and gatherings, these parties where people aren't wearing masks, are our primary source of infection," Lautenbach says. "And then the secondary source of infection is workplace settings. There were 31 related employers just associated with that one party because of the number of people that brought that to their workplace. So for us, for a community our size, that's a pretty massive spread."

https://www.kvcrnews.org/post/parties-not-protests-are-causing-spikes-coronavirus#stream/0

th:lolldren

[TimDunkem]

Over 600 cases today, another record. All stress indicators are up. A third of hospitalizations right now are in the ICU.

[tholdren]

Lol academic.com researchgate.net.
Are theses reviewed?

Hmmmmm

[Trainwreck2100]

Are theses reviewed?

Hmmmmm

why don't you try actually going to academic.com

[tholdren]

why don't you try actually going to academic.com

Are they?

[Trainwreck2100]

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

The actual conclusion of that paper

Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

This right here is why idiots with no grasp of the scientific process are dangerous, the conclusion was actually they needed more people to test.

[tholdren]

The actual conclusion of that paper


This right here is why idiots with no grasp of the scientific process are dangerous, the conclusion was actually they needed more people to test.
Here's why you are not intelligent.
1. You proved the point that not only do masks not prevent spread of contagion but also cause headaches. That was silly to point out.

2. All studies have strengths limitations and further research. Lol

You've never read a peer reviewd article. Bwahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahshhshshshshhshshshsh shshshhsahhs

This guy.

Oh my.


Typical spurstalk.


Bqahahahahhaha

[Trainwreck2100]

Here's why you are not intelligent.
1. You proved the point that not only do masks not prevent spread of contagion but also cause headaches. That was silly to point out.

2. All studies have strengths limitations and further research. Lol

You've never read a peer reviewd article. Bwahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahshhshshshshhshshshsh shshshhsahhs

This guy.

Oh my.


Typical spurstalk.


Bqahahahahhaha

No they don't. And when I say that I'm referring to this crazy idea that you have where ALL studies require further research.


not only do masks not prevent spread of contagion

That's not what this conclusion sentence means, that's also not what that facebook paragraph you linked was trying to say

Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

[tholdren]

No they don't. And when I say that I'm referring to this crazy idea that you have where ALL studies require further research.



That's not what this conclusion sentence means, that's also not what that facebook paragraph you linked was trying to say

The discussion section clearly states the primary findings of the study, poses explanations for the findings and any conclusions that can be drawn from them. It may also include the author’s assessment of limitations in the research as conducted and suggestions for further research that is needed.


Stop the gossip

[Trainwreck2100]

The discussion section clearly states the primary findings of the study, poses explanations for the findings and any conclusions that can be drawn from them. It may also include the author’s assessment of limitations in the research as conducted and suggestions for further research that is needed.


Stop the gossip

Oh really was one of the limitations listed "depending on a syptomatic response, rather than testing for the virus" because that's a big flaw with that study. Which is why the conclusion wasn't that masks didn't work. The conclusion was "we can't show masks work and also we need more people".


The discussion section clearly states the primary findings of the study, poses explanations for the findings and any conclusions that can be drawn from them. It may also include the author’s assessment of limitations in the research as conducted and suggestions for further research that is needed.

So what you're saying here is that you didn't read it.

[DMC]

I try to point people in the right direction. Don't say you couldn't see my finger.

[DMC]

"The simplicity of those recommendations is likely unsettling to people anxious to do more to protect themselves, so it’s no surprise that face masks are in short supply—despite the CDC specifically not recommending them for healthy people trying to protect against COVID-19. “It seems kind of intuitively obvious that if you put something—whether it’s a scarf or a mask—in front of your nose and mouth, that will filter out some of these viruses that are floating around out there,” says Dr. William Schaffner, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. The only problem: that’s not likely to be effective against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19. If it were, “the CDC would have recommended it years ago,” he says. “It doesn’t, because it makes science-based recommendations.”"-Time Magazine article from April 3rd this year

[spurraider21]

"The simplicity of those recommendations is likely unsettling to people anxious to do more to protect themselves, so it’s no surprise that face masks are in short supply—despite the CDC specifically not recommending them for healthy people trying to protect against COVID-19. “It seems kind of intuitively obvious that if you put something—whether it’s a scarf or a mask—in front of your nose and mouth, that will filter out some of these viruses that are floating around out there,” says Dr. William Schaffner, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. The only problem: that’s not likely to be effective against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19. If it were, “the CDC would have recommended it years ago,” he says. “It doesn’t, because it makes science-based recommendations.”"-Time Magazine article from April 3rd this year
right. masks aren't being recommended for the protection fo the wearer.

[baseline bum]

right. masks aren't being recommended for the protection fo the wearer.

:cry But I'm the only one that matters so why should I wear one then? :cry

[spurraider21]

:cry But I'm the only one that matters so why should I wear one then? :cry
1275912010555932672

[DMC]

right. masks aren't being recommended for the protection fo the wearer.

So they are one way devices?

[DMC]

1275912010555932672

Let's find anecdotal weirdos to illustrate how smart we are when we have no clue and rode the CDC's recommendations both ways.

[DMC]

:cry But I'm the only one that matters so why should I wear one then? :cry

So it's a symbol of unity and caring, not so much an actual barrier to the virus.

[DMC]

https://i.imgur.com/FHG7V5i.jpg

[spurraider21]

https://i.imgur.com/FHG7V5i.jpg
yup. they didnt want public buying up masks when doctors needed them :tu

[baseline bum]

So it's a symbol of unity and caring, not so much an actual barrier to the virus.

Boy you are all on the Trump train

[tholdren]

Oh really was one of the limitations listed "depending on a syptomatic response, rather than testing for the virus" because that's a big flaw with that study. Which is why the conclusion wasn't that masks didn't work. The conclusion was "we can't show masks work and also we need more people".



So what you're saying here is that you didn't read it.

No I did. Here from usc.

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

I. Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results, usually in one paragraph.

II. Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

Consider the likelihood that no one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the underlying meaning of your findings and state why you believe they are significant. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think critically about the results [“why didn't I think of that?”]. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. If applicable, begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most significant or unanticipated finding first, then systematically review each finding. Otherwise, follow the general order you reported the findings in the results section.

III. Relate the Findings to Similar Studies

No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for your research. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your study differs from other research about the topic. Note that any significant or unanticipated finding is often because there was no prior research to indicate the finding could occur. If there is prior research to indicate this, you need to explain why it was significant or unanticipated.

IV. Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research in the social sciences is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. This is especially important when describing the discovery of significant or unanticipated findings.

V. Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Note any unanswered questions or issues your study did not address and describe the generalizability of your results to other situations. If a limitation is applicable to the method chosen to gather information, then describe in detail the problems you encountered and why.

VI. Make Suggestions for Further Research

You may choose to conclude the discussion section by making suggestions for further research [this can be done in the overall conclusion of your paper]. Although your study may offer important insights about the research problem, this is where you can address other questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or highlight previously hidden questions that were revealed as a result of conducting your research. You should frame your suggestions by linking the need for further research to the limitations of your study [e.g., in future studies, the survey instrument should include more questions that ask..."] or linking to critical issues revealed from the data that were not considered initially in your research.



Recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper, but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections. Think about the overall narrative flow of your paper to determine where best to locate this information. However, if your findings raise a lot of new questions or issues, consider including suggestions for further research in the discussion section

[DMC]

Boy you are all on the Trump train

Strange leap.

I'll wear a mask because I care about you, but I'll make that run to Home Depot to get those tiki torches because I just have to.

[tholdren]

Boy you are all on the Trump train

As the coronavirus began to spread throughout the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines for how to stay safe and avoid contracting the virus.While they do encourage those diagnosed with or showing symptoms of the COVID-19 virus to take appropriate measures, they acknowledge that everyone wearing face masks is unlikely to be very effective. So why are so many people rushing to buy face masks? Psychotherapist Amy Morin explains that wearing the masks does more for our mental health than our physical well-being, by soothing our anxiety and giving us the illusion of being in control

[DMC]

As the coronavirus began to spread throughout the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines for how to stay safe and avoid contracting the virus.While they do encourage those diagnosed with or showing symptoms of the COVID-19 virus to take appropriate measures, they acknowledge that everyone wearing face masks is unlikely to be very effective. So why are so many people rushing to buy face masks? Psychotherapist Amy Morin explains that wearing the masks does more for our mental health than our physical well-being, by soothing our anxiety and giving us the illusion of being in control

Placebo. This is why the CDC changed directions, it's why the surgeon general followed suit. It doesn't make sense that you cannot breath the virus out though your mask but you can breathe it in through your mask. The droplet bullshit is non sequitur. Droplets existed prior to COVID-19 with corona viruses and yet the CDC never recommended that everyone wear masks.

But it's a religion, folks who know nothing about it trust the "experts" and will put panties on their head if told it will help prevent the spread of the virus. Not going along means you're an uncaring piece of Trump loving shit.

[ElNono]

So they are one way devices?

Basically. The idea is that even if the effect is minor, avoiding infected people from coughing on somebody else will sometimes prevent contagion. Given that the virus is highly contagious, even if they're effective only 10% of the time, that still can mean thousands less cases.

[DMC]

Basically. The idea is that even if the effect is minor, avoiding infected people from coughing on somebody else will sometimes prevent contagion. Given that the virus is highly contagious, even if they're effective only 10% of the time, that still can mean thousands less cases.

The 10% is a manufactured gambler's fallacy number. It could be .0001%. It could be that wearing it exposes a higher percentage to chronic lung issues though inhalation of bacterial growth on the mask. There are a lot of other possibilities than "helps 10% of the time".

[ElNono]

Placebo. This is why the CDC changed directions, it's why the surgeon general followed suit. It doesn't make sense that you cannot breath the virus out though your mask but you can breathe it in through your mask. The droplet bullshit is non sequitur. Droplets existed prior to COVID-19 with corona viruses and yet the CDC never recommended that everyone wear masks.

But it's a religion, folks who know nothing about it trust the "experts" and will put panties on their head if told it will help prevent the spread of the virus. Not going along means you're an uncaring piece of Trump loving shit.

Not really, no. The problem early was that medical personnel didn't have masks while people were hoarding them, thus discouraging them was the right thing to do as part of any medical emergency.

Probably didn't have to be done with the administration didn't botch the response so badly and failed to stockpile (and this falls on this and the previous administration) the necessary masks.

[tholdren]

Basically. The idea is that even if the effect is minor, avoiding infected people from coughing on somebody else will sometimes prevent contagion. Given that the virus is highly contagious, even if they're effective only 10% of the time, that still can mean thousands less cases.
Cases don't arent people. Not how the cdc counts it.

Cdc claims over 20 million Americans already HAD covid. Can't have 20 million already had it and claim to be highly transmissible or fatal. Can't be both

[ElNono]

The 10% is a manufactured gambler's fallacy number. It could be .0001%. It could be that wearing it exposes a higher percentage to chronic lung issues though inhalation of bacterial growth on the mask. There are a lot of other possibilities than "helps 10% of the time".

Do tell. Give me your numbers.

[DMC]

Not really, no. The problem early was that medical personnel didn't have masks while people were hoarding them, thus discouraging them was the right thing to do as part of any medical emergency.

Probably didn't have to be done with the administration didn't botch the response so badly and failed to stockpile (and this falls on this and the previous administration) the necessary masks.

So you're saying the CDC and the surgeon general said face masks don't prevent the spread of the virus as a clever lie to conserve face masks? That almost sounds worse than just being ignorant of asymptomatic people or people simply not yet showing symptoms.

Occam's razor says that both the CDC and the surgeon general genuinely believed face mask use for people not showing symptoms was pointless, instead of some clever conspiracy to lie about the efficacy of using them.

[ElNono]

Cases don't arent people. Not how the cdc counts it.

Cdc claims over 20 million Americans already HAD covid. Can't have 20 million already had it and claim to be highly transmissible or fatal. Can't be both

CDC didn't make that claim. Stop lying.

[ElNono]

So you're saying the CDC and the surgeon general said face masks don't prevent the spread of the virus as a clever lie to conserve face masks? That almost sounds worse than just being ignorant of asymptomatic people or people simply not yet showing symptoms.

Well, the CDC is a branch of the Executive, so they certainly are not necessarily bound to science as an epidemiologist would. And sure, plenty of blame to go around for the fuckups in the response to this pandemic.

[tholdren]

CDC didn't make that claim. Stop lying.

You are lazy

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said Thursday that an estimated 20 million Americans, about 6% of the population, have likely been infected with COVID-19

[ElNono]

To the tune of almost 130k dead in a matter of 6 months...

[tholdren]

You are lazy

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said Thursday that an estimated 20 million Americans, about 6% of the population, have likely been infected with COVID-19
And you can stop your gossip el nono

[ElNono]

You are lazy

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said Thursday that an estimated 20 million Americans, about 6% of the population, have likely been infected with COVID-19

So they didn't claim they're infected, but that they could be. Again, stop making claims the CDC didn't make.

[tholdren]

To the tune of almost 130k dead in a matter of 6 months...
And this will never be proven. As many are not confirmed cases.

[DMC]

Well, the CDC is a branch of the Executive, so they certainly are not necessarily bound to science as an epidemiologist would. And sure, plenty of blame to go around for the fuckups in the response to this pandemic.

Except the most obvious answer is that face masks actually do not help prevent the spread of the virus, but it might help encourage awareness of social distancing and proper hygiene, that the virus is active, and that is important in preventing the spread. It might also serve to salve some anxiety by people who just know they are going to get it and die.. you know, the hypochondriacs.

[ElNono]

And you can stop your gossip el nono

You can't make me. shhh, girl... adults talking here.

[tholdren]

So they didn't claim they're infected, but that they could be. Again, stop making claims the CDC didn't make.
Lol
So let me get this straight. You accept cdc probable cases.
You do not accept when cdc states 20 mil have probably been infected.


Got it

[DMC]

So they didn't claim they're infected, but that they could be. Again, stop making claims the CDC didn't make.

How is that different than saying 130K have likely died of COVID?

[tholdren]

How is that different than saying 130K have likely died of COVID?
Lol he believes cases hospitalizations and fatalities. All include lots of Probable.

Does not believe cdc stating probable.... lololololololol

[ElNono]

Except the most obvious answer is that face masks actually do not help prevent the spread of the virus, but it might help encourage awareness of social distancing and proper hygiene, that the virus is active, and that is important in preventing the spread. It might also serve to salve some anxiety by people who just know they are going to get it and die.. you know, the hypochondriacs.

I mean, I don't necessarily discard a psychological factor, but on the other hand, this isn't the first pandemic we face, and we know masks generally do help minimize the spread of airborne pathogens (thus why they're mandatory for medical personnel). The difference here is that the medical personnel use N95 masks which have a much higher level of protection, and are supposed to protect both the wearer and the patients. For the typical mask, that's obviously not the case.

[ElNono]

Lol
So let me get this straight. You accept cdc probable cases.
You do not accept when cdc states 20 mil have probably been infected.

Got it

No, I never made a case with the CDC numbers, but the actual locally recorded numbers, none of which claim to be estimates.

Swing and miss again, try a little harder.

[DMC]

Lol he believes cases hospitalizations and fatalities. All include lots of Probable.

Does not believe cdc stating probable.... lololololololol

I think it's how it's presented. CDC calls deaths an actual number and says it is likely higher, even though the finer print says the counting and reporting schemes are various and local/state controlled. On the other hand, it uses "probable" for stats that no politician is chasing or running from.

[tholdren]

he does not accept because then the ifr is low. Cog dis just witnessed

[ElNono]

How is that different than saying 130K have likely died of COVID?

I didn't say they likely died of covid, I flat out said they died of covid, per the local counts.

[tholdren]

No, I never made a case with the CDC numbers, but the actual locally recorded numbers, none of which claim to be estimates.

Swing and miss again, try a little harder.

what do you mean? Locally recorded include probables based off cdc guidelines.

[ElNono]

I think it's how it's presented. CDC calls deaths an actual number and says it is likely higher, even though the finer print says the counting and reporting schemes are various and local/state controlled. On the other hand, it uses "probable" for stats that no politician is chasing or running from.

The CDC reports actually says they made that estimate based on the number of positives vs negatives on the blood tests they've received so far. It's an estimate. It's much different than what they do when they report actual numbers from deaths as they came in from actual death certificates.

Apples and oranges, basically.

[tholdren]

I didn't say they likely died of covid, I flat out said they died of covid, per the local counts.
Lol you dont understand how they count cases deaths or hospitalization. Really? Oh my

[ElNono]

what do you mean? Locally recorded include probables based off cdc guidelines.

I have simply no reason to doubt that a death certificate that says covid is not. An estimate is a completely different thing.

[ElNono]

Lol you dont understand how they count cases deaths or hospitalization. Really? Oh my

No, you don't understand what an estimate is, period.

Again, swing and miss, try a little harder.

[tholdren]

The CDC reports actually says they made that estimate based on the number of positives vs negatives on the blood tests they've received so far. It's an estimate. It's much different than what they do when they report actual numbers from deaths as they came in from actual death certificates.

Apples and oranges, basically.

lololoololol

No its not. Localities count off cdc guidance. Probable deaths only have to have a symptom. No pos test

[DMC]

I didn't say they likely died of covid, I flat out said they died of covid, per the local counts.

You're getting your information from the CDC who openly states they cannot guarantee accuracy.

[tholdren]

I have simply no reason to doubt that a death certificate that says covid is not. An estimate is a completely different thing.
Probable deaths are an estimate. Do you not know that a covid death doesn't have to test posotive for COVID-19?

[DMC]

I have simply no reason to doubt that a death certificate that says covid is not. An estimate is a completely different thing.

Death certs are wrong 50% of the time even without COVID. You have a reason to doubt a death cert just out of principle.

[ElNono]

You're getting your information from the CDC who openly states they cannot guarantee accuracy.

I'm not, I'm getting my information from the local counts, which then they transmit to the CDC. I don't trust the CDC in general, considering they were lagging in counts for a long ass time vis a vis the local counts (eventually they caught up).

[tholdren]

I'm not, I'm getting my information from the local counts, which then they transmit to the CDC. I don't trust the CDC in general, considering they were lagging in counts for a long ass time vis a vis the local counts (eventually they caught up).

Local counts include deaths marked as covid but have not tested positive for covid. Its the same issue

[ElNono]

Death certs are wrong 50% of the time even without COVID. You have a reason to doubt a death cert just out of principle.

50% sounds like an exaggeration, link?. But even with minimal error, I have no reason to believe a medical practitioner has any reason to fudge death certificates. The CDC is a different story.

[ElNono]

Local counts include deaths marked as covid but have not tested positive for covid. Its the same issue

You just tried to lie on this thread, so I'm going to put you on timeout until you had the chance to re-think why you openly lie.

I'll consider giving you some of my attention if I see you change your ways.

[tholdren]

Source: NJ Spotlight analysis of data from the NJ Department of Health.

The number of people dead from COVID-19 in New Jersey is likely about 2,000 higher than the state had been reporting, as officials announced Thursday in their first count of probable deaths due to the virus.

During his daily media briefing, Gov. Phil Murphy announced that state health officials had combed through death data and are attributing an additional 1,854 deaths since March 4 — the day the first case was announced — to the novel coronavirus. On top of 26 new lab-confirmed deaths, the total number of New Jerseyans who have died as a result of the pandemic is now nearly 15,000

[DMC]

I'm not, I'm getting my information from the local counts, which then they transmit to the CDC. I don't trust the CDC in general, considering they were lagging in counts for a long ass time vis a vis the local counts (eventually they caught up).

Reporting Issues
On a daily basis, we encounter an increasing number of reporting issues. Some of these include official governmental channels changing or retracting figures, or publishing contradictory data on different official outlets. National or State figures with old or incomplete data compared to regional, local (counties, in the US) government's reports is the norm, so we try to compensate by collecting the missing data and maintaining an accurate and timely count. -Worldometer

Thanks for the discussion, time for bed.

[DMC]

50% sounds like an exaggeration, link?. But even with minimal error, I have no reason to believe a medical practitioner has any reason to fudge death certificates. The CDC is a different story.

Results:
Of 601 original death certificates, 319 (53%) had errors; 305 (51%) had major errors; and 59 (10%) had minor errors. We found no significant differences by certifier type (physician vs nonphysician). We did find significant differences in major errors in place of death (P < .001). Certificates for deaths occurring in hospitals were more likely to have major errors than certificates for deaths occurring at a private residence (59% vs 39%, P < .001). A total of 580 (93%) death certificates had a change in ICD-10 codes between the original and mock certificates, of which 348 (60%) had a change in the underlying cause-of-death code.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5692167/

[ElNono]

Reporting Issues
On a daily basis, we encounter an increasing number of reporting issues. Some of these include official governmental channels changing or retracting figures, or publishing contradictory data on different official outlets. National or State figures with old or incomplete data compared to regional, local (counties, in the US) government's reports is the norm, so we try to compensate by collecting the missing data and maintaining an accurate and timely count. -Worldometer

Thanks for the discussion, time for bed.

Night!

As far as what you quoted, that's good. It's clear there are gaps in recording and transmission, and apparently whenever errors are found, data is corrected. That's the way it should be, so people can't go claiming they're largely bogus numbers.

[tholdren]

A probable case or death is defined as:

A person meeting clinical criteriaAND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19;
A person meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence;
A person meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.


Clinical Criteria

At least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s)

OR

At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing
*cdc also added runny nose and diarrhea*

Or you dont have to have any symptoms
Epidemiologic Linkage

One or more of the following exposures in the 14 days before onset of symptoms:

Close contact** with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19 disease;
OR Close contact** with a person with:clinically compatible illness ANDlinkage to a confirmed case of COVID-19 disease.

Travel to or residence in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.Member of a risk cohort as defined by public health authorities during an outbreak.

[Trainwreck2100]

No I did. Here from usc.

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

I. Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results, usually in one paragraph.

II. Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

Consider the likelihood that no one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the underlying meaning of your findings and state why you believe they are significant. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think critically about the results [“why didn't I think of that?”]. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. If applicable, begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most significant or unanticipated finding first, then systematically review each finding. Otherwise, follow the general order you reported the findings in the results section.

III. Relate the Findings to Similar Studies

No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for your research. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your study differs from other research about the topic. Note that any significant or unanticipated finding is often because there was no prior research to indicate the finding could occur. If there is prior research to indicate this, you need to explain why it was significant or unanticipated.

IV. Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research in the social sciences is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. This is especially important when describing the discovery of significant or unanticipated findings.

V. Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Note any unanswered questions or issues your study did not address and describe the generalizability of your results to other situations. If a limitation is applicable to the method chosen to gather information, then describe in detail the problems you encountered and why.

VI. Make Suggestions for Further Research

You may choose to conclude the discussion section by making suggestions for further research [this can be done in the overall conclusion of your paper]. Although your study may offer important insights about the research problem, this is where you can address other questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or highlight previously hidden questions that were revealed as a result of conducting your research. You should frame your suggestions by linking the need for further research to the limitations of your study [e.g., in future studies, the survey instrument should include more questions that ask..."] or linking to critical issues revealed from the data that were not considered initially in your research.



Recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper, but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections. Think about the overall narrative flow of your paper to determine where best to locate this information. However, if your findings raise a lot of new questions or issues, consider including suggestions for further research in the discussion section

This isn't a social science issue, dumbass. I don't know if social science means what you think it means. Also you didn't read the scientific paper that we are talking about, that i linked, you went to your facebook group to get some random bullshit, go back ask them to explain the paper to you, in their moonbat way

[ElNono]

Results:
Of 601 original death certificates, 319 (53%) had errors; 305 (51%) had major errors; and 59 (10%) had minor errors. We found no significant differences by certifier type (physician vs nonphysician). We did find significant differences in major errors in place of death (P < .001). Certificates for deaths occurring in hospitals were more likely to have major errors than certificates for deaths occurring at a private residence (59% vs 39%, P < .001). A total of 580 (93%) death certificates had a change in ICD-10 codes between the original and mock certificates, of which 348 (60%) had a change in the underlying cause-of-death code.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5692167/

That's just Vermont though. (Conclusions: Error rates on death certificates in Vermont are high and extend to ICD-10 coding).

My understanding is that nationally it's much closer to 30%, and when reduced to actual diagnosis errors (which is what matter here), even lower.

[ElNono]

Plus the point of error rates is moot, as it goes both ways, it could mean some deaths were marked as covid that were not, and the other way around (this why error rates are marked as plus minus). Thus, even if the error rate is 25%, that would put the death count between 100k and 160k. Neither number is really flattering.

[tholdren]

This isn't a social science issue, dumbass. I don't know if social science means what you think it means. Also you didn't read the scientific paper that we are talking about, that i linked, you went to your facebook group to get some random bullshit, go back ask them to explain the paper to you, in their moonbat way

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

Medical Library Association

How to write an original research paper (and get it published)


Always note limitations that matter, not generic limitations.

Point out unanswered questions and future directions. Give the big-picture implications of your findings, and tell your readers why they should care. End with the main findings of your study, and do not travel too far from your data. Remember to give a final take-home message along with implications

[Trainwreck2100]

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

Medical Library Association

How to write an original research paper (and get it published)


Always note limitations that matter, not generic limitations.

Point out unanswered questions and future directions. Give the big-picture implications of your findings, and tell your readers why they should care. End with the main findings of your study, and do not travel too far from your data. Remember to give a final take-home message along with implications

Ok the final take home message was they need more people for the study. Also how do you know what limitations were listed if you didn't read the paper. Also if you wouldn't mind please explain why you used a social science rubric to prove your point.

[Trainwreck2100]

I await your facebook group's response

[tholdren]

I await your facebook group's response

Just giving you multiple sources. S.a. have limitations and future research direction.
You were wrong. Its ok

[Trainwreck2100]

.

[Trainwreck2100]

Just giving you multiple sources. S.a. have limitations and future research direction.
You were wrong. Its ok
/
from usc, no hyperlink and you expect me to take your word on it. And what does that have do to with the facebook group which is what you quoted, also why did you link a social science rubric to back up your point

[tholdren]

/
from usc, no hyperlink and you expect me to take your word on it. And what does that have do to with the facebook group which is what you quoted, also why did you link a social science rubric to back up your point

You dont have to take my word for it. Thinking that published research doesn't have limitations or future implications is your error not mine. You can keep posting. I'll watch

[TimDunkem]

Metro Health director cracks.

Metro Health director resigns as COVID-19 cases surge in San Antoniohttps://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020/06/26/metro-health-director-resigns-as-covid-19-cases-surge-in-san-antonio/

[DMC]

That's just Vermont though. (Conclusions: Error rates on death certificates in Vermont are high and extend to ICD-10 coding).

My understanding is that nationally it's much closer to 30%, and when reduced to actual diagnosis errors (which is what matter here), even lower.

There's no reason to believe Vermont has inherently flawed death cert recording that spikes it above other states. "No significant differences by certifier type. It stands to reason that if there are no significant difference between doctor vs non doctor, then state by state wouldn't be the deciding factor.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23588178/

Does Quality Control of Death Certificates in Hospitals Have an Impact on Cause of Death Statistics?

Interpretation: The continuous correction of death certificates in the hospital was important for adjustments at the individual level and as a quality control of cause of death statistics, but had only minor effects on the general statistics from the hospital.

The point is that death certificates are quite often wrong, and so to use numbers as a concrete proof for anything without first questioning and verifying the veracity of the numbers is to begin going down the wrong road. Bad data leads to bad conclusions.

[tholdren]

Metro Health director cracks.

Metro Health director resigns as COVID-19 cases surge in San Antoniohttps://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020/06/26/metro-health-director-resigns-as-covid-19-cases-surge-in-san-antonio/

Great news

[Trainwreck2100]

You dont have to take my word for it. Thinking that published research doesn't have limitations or future implications is your error not mine. You can keep posting. I'll watch

I never said that I said when you made this satement



. All studies have strengths limitations and further research. Lol

You were full of shit, because not all studies require further research.

Also why did you use a social science rubric to justify your claim, I'll watch

[tholdren]

Ok the final take home message was they need more people for the study. Also how do you know what limitations were listed if you didn't read the paper. Also if you wouldn't mind please explain why you used a social science rubric to prove your point.

Lol bolding this but missing future directions. Whoopsie doodle

[Trainwreck2100]

Lol bolding this but missing future directions. Whoopsie doodle

I'm not missing anything you're the one that brought up limitations, and what I think I'm telling you what I think. The problem is you posted a social science rubric, I can't very well give you an answer if you won't tell me what you were talking about when you post that, and you won't tell me why you posted it.

[tholdren]

I'm not missing anything you're the one that brought up limitations, and what I think I'm telling you what I think. The problem is you posted a social science rubric, I can't very well give you an answer if you won't tell me what you were talking about when you post that, and you won't tell me why you posted it.

I posted multiple sources from experts in peer review as well as one from medical journal, you know the one you are arguing.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not missing anything you're the one that brought up limitations, and what I think I'm telling you what I think. The problem is you posted a social science rubric, I can't very well give you an answer if you won't tell me what you were talking about when you post that, and you won't tell me why you posted it.His bunker madness keeps him from communicating coherently.

[Trainwreck2100]

I posted multiple sources from experts in peer review as well as one from medical journal, you know the one you are arguing.

One of those sources was for social science, why was it there? I can gladly answer your question but I need to know why you included it, I can't answer if you don't tell me why. You're saying I'm ignoring you, but I'm telling you it's not possible to answer your question with the given information. Why did you include a social science rubric.

[tholdren]

One of those sources was for social science, why was it there? I can gladly answer your question but I need to know why you included it, I can't answer if you don't tell me why. You're saying I'm ignoring you, but I'm telling you it's not possible to answer your question with the given information. Why did you include a social science rubric.

I gave you multiple sources. All stating what needed to be contained. Now youre asking questions about how you cant answer questions? There's nothing to answer you were wrong.

[Trainwreck2100]

I gave you multiple sources. All stating what needed to be contained. Now youre asking questions about how you cant answer questions? There's nothing to answer you were wrong.

I can't answer because you gave me a source and you won't tell me why you used that source. Why did you use a social science rubric, you're familiar with scholarly articles so the reason I can't answer without relevant information should be obvious.


There's nothing to answer
You accused me of "missing future" things, I'm trying to tell you if you'd I'll gladly speak on those, but I can't without you telling me why you used a social science rubric. You're accusing me of being wrong about something I've yet to answer

[pgardn]

I can't answer because you gave me a source and you won't tell me why you used that source. Why did you use a social science rubric, you're familiar with scholarly articles so the reason I can't answer without relevant information should be obvious.


You accused me of "missing future" things, I'm trying to tell you if you'd I'll gladly speak on those, but I can't without you telling me why you used a social science rubric. You're accusing me of being wrong about something I've yet to answer

Welcome to theoldren time.

[DMC]

Welcome to theoldren time.

I bet you're a blast to hang out with IRL.

[Splits]

1277337126712094723

[hater]

Lot of ppl dying at home tbqh

And thats with hospitals still having 20% availability

If somehow that goes to 0 we will see bodies pile up on the streets like its Guayaquil Ecuador

[TimDunkem]

Lot of ppl dying at home tbqh

And thats with hospitals still having 20% availability

If somehow that goes to 0 we will see bodies pile up on the streets like its Guayaquil Ecuador

My cousin died at home with COVID. I wonder how many others are out there.

[hater]

My cousin died at home with COVID. I wonder how many others are out there.

A buddy of mine is strugvling w it at home. Hes gone to hospital 3 times already, chest pains, back pain and yes, testicle pain. But they keep sending him home.

[hater]

Double post

[TimDunkem]

A buddy of mine is strugvling w it at home. Hes gone to hospital 3 times already, chest pains, back pain and yes, testicle pain. But they keep sending him home.

Sending well wishes to your buddy. Hope he recovers soon. :tu

[hater]

Sending well wishes to your buddy. Hope he recovers soon. :tu

he better cause hes only late 30s. if he dies this is some serious shit. i just sent him a food delivery

sad thing is he infected his father when they saw each other on fathers day

well see how long he has the side effects, i heard nigas feel it for months

[Blake]

he better cause hes only late 30s. if he dies this is some serious shit. i just sent him a food delivery

sad thing is he infected his father when they saw each other on fathers day

well see how long he has the side effects, i heard nigas feel it for months

Damn

[pgardn]

I bet you're a blast to hang out with IRL.

Old man party-time speaks.

[SnakeBoy]

A buddy of mine is strugvling w it at home. Hes gone to hospital 3 times already, chest pains, back pain and yes, testicle pain. But they keep sending him home.

Yeah my balls hurt at times when I had it, nothing close to the abdominal pain tho but still.

My wife's cousin is on day 14 today. Still spiking a fever to 102-ish everyday but no other symptoms so he'll probably be okay. Days 7-10 seem to be the most common crash & burn period.

[boutons_deux]

24 HEB employees since Friday

[Blake]

24 HEB employees since Friday

Still no statewide mask mandate.

[tholdren]

hospitals normal. Where is RandomGuy with his calculations? Lol

[boutons_deux]

Bexar County to Get Military Medical Personnel to Help ‘Stressed’ Hospital System

The Department of Defense plans to send 250 critical care nurses to Bexar County, Wolff said, and

another 565 have been requested from the Texas Department of State Health Services.

In addition, University Hospital System increased its capacity to treat COVID-19 patients by adding 74 more beds.

https://therivardreport.com/department-of-defense-called-to-bexar-county-to-help-overwhelmed-hospital-system (https://therivardreport.com/department-of-defense-called-to-bexar-county-to-help-overwhelmed-hospital-system/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter-daily&utm_content=editorial&utm_term=coronavirus&utm_source=Rivard+Report&utm_campaign=0abe6fa59e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_21_07_19_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1576c62124-0abe6fa59e-84683437&mc_cid=0abe6fa59e&mc_eid=54a5432c74)

[pgardn]

hospitals normal. Where is RandomGuy with his calculations? Lol

Emergency rooms overflowing.
Methodist hospital.

You best leave this site, its gonna get ugly.

[Trainwreck2100]

he better cause hes only late 30s. if he dies this is some serious shit. i just sent him a food delivery

sad thing is he infected his father when they saw each other on fathers day

well see how long he has the side effects, i heard nigas feel it for months
That's why I didn't, go near my pops on father's day

24 HEB employees since Friday

I actually know 1 of those 24

[Blake]

I actually know 1 of those 24

Just curious, does he think he knows how he got it?

[CosmicCowboy]

Still no statewide mask mandate.

Aren't masks mandatory at HEB?

[koriwhat]

Wgaf really? Out of all those new "tested positive" cases how many died? Let the fear mongering commence!

[tholdren]

Wgaf really? Out of all those new "tested positive" cases how many died? Let the fear mongering commence!

Hospitals not over capacity

[pgardn]

Wgaf really? Out of all those new "tested positive" cases how many died? Let the fear mongering commence!

We continue to do a better job treating this thing in hospitals.
but it still spreads so yeah a lot of people are gonna die
if people keep acquiring the virus even if it’s a small percentage that continues to go down.

do you have a large number of cases you will get a large number of deaths.
there are some diseases that are death sentences, but they’re so rare you don’t hear about them. this is a very contagious virus. it treats people so differently that understandable fear creeps in.

I refuse To infect my relatives and friends and others I don’t even know.
i’m not gonna have that happen so I follow protocol as I best understand it using common sense. Don’t go to three hour indoor choir practice with respiratory therapists that are on the front line. Little things like this.

[tholdren]

We continue to do a better job treating this thing in hospitals.
but it still spreads so yeah a lot of people are gonna die
if people keep acquiring the virus even if it’s a small percentage that continues to go down.

do you have a large number of cases you will get a large number of deaths.
there are some diseases that are death sentences, but they’re so rare you don’t hear about them. this is a very contagious virus. it treats people so differently that understandable fear creeps in.

I refuse To infect my relatives and friends and others I don’t even know.
i’m not gonna have that happen so I follow protocol as I best understand it using common sense. Don’t go to three hour indoor choir practice with respiratory therapists that are on the front line. Little things like this.

lol no

[Trainwreck2100]

Aren't masks mandatory at HEB?

only in city's that call for it

[Trainwreck2100]

Just curious, does he think he knows how he got it?

They have a confident idea

[tholdren]

No more talking about the hospitals?
Wonder why....

All those cases... lol RandomGuy TimDunkem ChumpDumper

[Blake]

No more talking about the hospitals?
Wonder why....

All those cases... lol RandomGuy TimDunkem ChumpDumper

The hospitals keep fudging their numbers. Like you.

[Blake]

Aren't masks mandatory at HEB?

Because the county mandated it. Several weeks ago there were a lot of people walking in and out without masks.

This shouldn't even be just an "HEB" mandated policy. It should be a federal and state and local and store mandate.

[tholdren]

The hospitals keep fudging their numbers. Like you.

In what way?

[pgardn]

The hospitals keep fudging their numbers. Like you.


As well as pulling stuff our of his ass that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[pgardn]

lol no

No laughing

Yes.

To the fckwit.

[tholdren]

As well as pulling stuff our of his ass that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
BwHahahahahass pgardn low iq

[Blake]

In what way?

I've already posted the articles in this thread about the hospitals. Everyone knows how you make shit up. So basically you can go fuck yourself, tbh.

[pgardn]

BwHahahahahass pgardn low iq

And he follows suit.

[tholdren]

I've already posted the articles in this thread about the hospitals. Everyone knows how you make shit up. So basically you can go fuck yourself, tbh.

So no hospitals have ever been overwhelmed and you are still relying on speculation



Got it

[Blake]

I rely on my own personal not expert speculation



Got it

[tholdren]

So no hospitals have ever been overwhelmed and you are still relying on speculation



Got it
So blake will lie about a quote and not answer a question. Typical.

[Blake]

So I will lie about a quote and not answer a question. Typical.

[tholdren]

Fact no hospitals have been overwhelmed with covid only.

Fact hospitals are currently utilizing beds for over 3/4 non covid patients

Fact. Covid hospitalization counts even if you have ab test and are in hospital

Fact covid hospitalization can be for a recovered covid patient.

[ChumpDumper]

BwHahahahahass pgardn low iq:lol you think spelling is grammar

[pgardn]

Fact no hospitals have been overwhelmed with covid only.

Fact hospitals (wrong; designated hospitals take covid patients; they try not to mix too many different maladies) are currently utilizing beds for over 3/4 non covid patients

Fact. Covid hospitalization counts even if you have ab test and are in hospital WRONG

Fact covid hospitalization can be for a recovered covid patient. of course they dont throw them out on the street because it can get bad again. you have no clue what recovered even means

This is all so disingenuous and just flat out wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

Fact: hospitals have patients in them!

th:loldren

[koriwhat]

We continue to do a better job treating this thing in hospitals.
but it still spreads so yeah a lot of people are gonna die
if people keep acquiring the virus even if it’s a small percentage that continues to go down.

do you have a large number of cases you will get a large number of deaths.
there are some diseases that are death sentences, but they’re so rare you don’t hear about them. this is a very contagious virus. it treats people so differently that understandable fear creeps in.

I refuse To infect my relatives and friends and others I don’t even know.
i’m not gonna have that happen so I follow protocol as I best understand it using common sense. Don’t go to three hour indoor choir practice with respiratory therapists that are on the front line. Little things like this.

We get it; you're a subservient sheep. :tu

[tholdren]

Fact: hospitals have patients in them!

th:loldren

They only had low percentages at one time. So low in fact that employees were furloughed. Because the people in gossip Ed about said hospitals would be over capacity.

Cog dissonance gotcha.

[ChumpDumper]

"at one time" :lmao

[koriwhat]

They only had low percentages at one time. So low in fact that employees were furloughed. Because the people in gossip Ed about said hospitals would be over capacity.

Cog dissonance gotcha.

Lol my cousin was furloughed... a nurse!

[tholdren]

"at one time" :lmao
Right. Because they were not allowed to fully operate. Becauer people.like you gossiped and said that if hospitals took care of people and didn't eliminate electives then they would be over capacity. People like you gossiped and said hospitals would be over capacity regardless. You know needed ships. Lol you are so far behind on this its not even funny.

[koriwhat]

CumDumpster strikes again!

[pgardn]

We get it; you're a subservient sheep. :tu

We get it, you dont give a fck about your parents or friends.

[ChumpDumper]

Right. Because they were not allowed to fully operate. Becauer people.like you gossiped and said that if hospitals took care of people and didn't eliminate electives then they would be over capacity. People like you gossiped and said hospitals would be over capacity regardless. You know needed ships. Lol you are so far behind on this its not even funny.I didn't say any of this.

Why do you lie all the time?

Do you think it helps you?

[tholdren]

Lol my cousin was furloughed... a nurse!
Lots of friends and family in the med field. Many states. Some furloughed some not all had no idea what people were talking about with over capacity.

[ChumpDumper]

CumDumpster strikes again!You will now shit yourself.

[tholdren]

I didn't say any of this.

Why do you lie all the time?

Do you think it helps you?

Yes you did. You are lying. You gossip. You tone it back after you are proven wrong, then you try to go on the offensive. You lie, but your gossip is always wrong. Its hysterical really.

[pgardn]

Lol my cousin was furloughed... a nurse!

Yes nurses are being furloughed in private practices.
Private practices took a huge hit during our first shutdown.
If not, what hospital does you cousin work for ? because I can get her a job here.

[tholdren]

Yes nurses are being furloughed in private practices.
If not, what hospital does you cousin work for ? because I can get her a job here.

lololokokokomikikm

[koriwhat]

Yes nurses are being furloughed in private practices.
Private practices took a huge hit during our first shutdown.
If not, what hospital does you cousin work for ? because I can get her a job here.

I believe at Baptist but def not a private practice.

[pgardn]

lololokokokomikikm

You dont have a clue.

[pgardn]

I believe at Baptist but def not a private practice.

Methodist is hiring.
Tell her.

[tholdren]

You dont have a clue.

lolooloolol
Gossiping again?

[tholdren]

yeah tell her the guy that has terrible.math skills on spurstalk sent her.

[pgardn]

Hospitals that are not taking on Covid patients are not close to capacity.

[koriwhat]

We get it, you dont give a fck about your parents or friends.

:cry

[pgardn]

lolooloolol
Gossiping again?

Fact.
You are a dull insolent pest.

[tholdren]

Fact.
You are a dull insolent pest.

Bwahahahahahha no hospitals over capacity even though you posted about it. Lololol you keep doing the same thing. Gossiping

[pgardn]

:cry

Ill tell you what.
Go to the parties they held in Austin, get real close to all the people you can, and then go home and kiss your mom and dad.
then go do voluntary hospital covid work, and go home and kiss your mom and dad. Do this for 3 weeks.

Do this.

[pgardn]

Bwahahahahahha no hospitals over capacity even though you posted about it. Lololol you keep doing the same thing. Gossiping

You have no idea what capacity means.
And have no clue what the workers are going through.
You need to volunteer as well.
Go meet the virus, I dare you.

YOu can deny behind a computer screen, but when you step into that hospital for 3 weeks straight not wearing your mask, come back and tell us about it Mr. Gossip.

go.
now.

[clambake]

Ill tell you what.
Go to the parties they held in Austin, get real close to all the people you can, and then go home and kiss your mom and dad.
then go do voluntary hospital covid work, and go home and kiss your mom and dad. Do this for 3 weeks.

Do this.
His parents died.....from embarrassment

[pgardn]

His parents died.....from embarrassment

Worse than covid most likely.

The horror... or embarrassment?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes you did. You are lying. You gossip. You tone it back after you are proven wrong, then you try to go on the offensive. You lie, but your gossip is always wrong. Its hysterical really.:lol I have challenged to you prove any of your lies. You fold like derp and try to change the subject to another lie.

Why do you lie all the time?

[ChumpDumper]

You have no idea what capacity means.
And have no clue what the workers are going through.
You need to volunteer as well.
Go meet the virus, I dare you.

YOu can deny behind a computer screen, but when you step into that hospital for 3 weeks straight not wearing your mask, come back and tell us about it Mr. Gossip.

go.
now.He's too busy being a pro athlete Nobel laureate.

[tholdren]

:lol I have challenged to you prove any of your lies. You fold like derp and try to change the subject to another lie.

Why do you lie all the time?

Bwahahaahahahaha no I haven't this is a lie. Per usual. You gossip. I tell you it's not true. Then you wiggle around doing your shtick.

Fact hospital stats include nosocomial data. Also fraud the way it is presented.

Lol but you eat it up. And gossip it. You randomguy and TimDunkem said 2 weeks ago sa would be out of icu beds. Lol your ilk be hilarious.

[pgardn]

He's too busy being a pro athlete Nobel laureate.

I don’t get what he’s trying to accomplish by lying all the time

[ChumpDumper]

Bwahahaahahahaha no I haven't this is a lie. Per usual. You gossip. I tell you it's not true. Then you wiggle around doing your shtick.

Fact hospital stats include nosocomial data. Also fraud the way it is presented.

Lol but you eat it up. And gossip it. You randomguy and TimDunkem said 2 weeks ago sa would be out of icu beds. Lol your ilk be hilarious.:lol another lie.

You can't help yourself. All because you never went pro....

[tholdren]

You have no idea what capacity means.
And have no clue what the workers are going through.
You need to volunteer as well.
Go meet the virus, I dare you.

YOu can deny behind a computer screen, but when you step into that hospital for 3 weeks straight not wearing your mask, come back and tell us about it Mr. Gossip.

go.
now.
Beajahahahahahhahaj look at pgardn melting down again. Cue ChumpDumper to save him. And together they can gossip.


Lol I dare you. Bwahahahhahahhahhah

[ChumpDumper]

I don’t get what he’s trying to accomplish by lying all the timeHe's trying to compensate for something. I have no idea what. He can't even acknowledge getting spelling and grammar mixed up.

[ChumpDumper]

Beajahahahahahhahaj look at pgardn melting down again. Cue ChumpDumper to save him. And together they can gossip.


Lol I dare you. BwahahahhahahhahhahMeh, you shrink from every challenge. No one you oppose needs saving.

[tholdren]

:lol another lie.

You can't help yourself. All because you never went pro....
Whats the lie? Explain in detail the lie. Then prove it. Burden of proof is on you.

[ChumpDumper]

Whats the lie? Explain in detail the lie. Then prove it. Burden of proof is on you.This is your specific lie:

You randomguy and TimDunkem said 2 weeks ago sa would be out of icu beds.
I never said this.

Why do you lie all the time.

[pgardn]

Whats the lie? Explain in detail the lie. Then prove it. Burden of proof is on you.

you call Covid a mild flu

[ChumpDumper]

you call Covid a mild fluth:lolldren

[tholdren]

This is your specific lie:

I never said this.

Why do you lie all the time.
Yes you did.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes you did.Prove it.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

[DarrinS]

Evidently, a new record will be set today.

[TimDunkem]

Evidently, a new record will be set today.
1268 new cases
85 new hospitalizations

[baseline bum]

1268 cases today holy fuck. Wasn't the previous high in the 700s?

[TimDunkem]

1268 cases today holy fuck. Wasn't the previous high in the 700s?
795, I believe.

[TimDunkem]

A record high 7000+ new cases in Texas today overall.

[ChumpDumper]

The Texas Medical Association on Tuesday called on the Republican Party of Texas to cancel its in-person July convention scheduled to take place in Houston, one of the country’s fastest growing coronavirus hot spots.

The latest development comes one day after The Texas Tribune reported on the Texas Medical Association’s sponsorship of the convention, an indoor gathering that is not requiring masks of the 6,000 people expected to attend. On Monday, TMA told the Tribune that it would not rescind its sponsorship. But at the time TMA had not yet called on the Republican Party to cancel its convention.

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/30/texas-gop-convention-coronavirus-medical-association/

:lol Republicans

[DMC]

People love talking about records. Obviously they are important.

[ChumpDumper]

People love talking about records. Obviously they are important.Seems important in this case.

Do you think it isn't?

[baseline bum]

People love talking about records. Obviously they are important.

Why is it so important for you to keep minimizing this virus?

[ChumpDumper]

Why is it so important for you to keep minimizing this virus?He's a Trump supporter pretending there is another option out there who could do even less about the virus.

[baseline bum]

He's a Trump supporter pretending there is another option out there who could do even less about the virus.

It's pathetic. As someone living in the San Antonio area, how is it not important for me to know the San Antonio area keeps breaking records for new COVID positive cases?

[DMC]

Why is it so important for you to keep minimizing this virus?

Records aren't important. The virus is exactly just as deadly and as dangerous as it was before. Ramping up the panic over it serves no purpose. There are simple acts we can take to mitigate the risks but there are still risks.

[ChumpDumper]

It's pathetic. As someone living in the San Antonio area, how is it not important for me to know the San Antonio area keeps breaking records for new COVID positive cases?He thinks Trump is doing a good job so the less you know the better.

[DMC]

Seems important in this case.

Do you think it isn't?

If it was one shy of the record, would it suddenly be irrelevant?

[DMC]

He thinks Trump is doing a good job so the less you know the better.

You don't even know what you think, much less what I think. Stick to your low tier shit posting.

[spurraider21]

If it was one shy of the record, would it suddenly be irrelevant?
pedant

the concern is that the number of cases is continuing to grow. the more people have it, the more capacity it has to spread. infections grow exponentially. thats why people are making a big deal about the increasing numbers (or the "record"). the fact that an individual infection isn't any more deadly than it was before (referring to post 478) is completely irrelevant to that point

[DMC]

pedant

the concern is that the number of cases is continuing to grow. the more people have it, the more capacity it has to spread. infections grow exponentially. thats why people are making a big deal about the increasing numbers (or the "record"). the fact that an individual infection isn't any more deadly than it was before (referring to post 478) is completely irrelevant to that point

So the word "record" really just meant "exponential growth". Who knew. Thanks for splainin me, child.

[baseline bum]

Records aren't important. The virus is exactly just as deadly and as dangerous as it was before. Ramping up the panic over it serves no purpose. There are simple acts we can take to mitigate the risks but there are still risks.

You're such a drama queen calling reporting numbers as ramping up panic.

[ChumpDumper]

If it was one shy of the record, would it suddenly be irrelevant?Nope.

Why is the record irrelevant?

[ChumpDumper]

You don't even know what you think, much less what I think. Stick to your low tier shit posting.Do you consider what you're doing high tier shit posting? Fence riding and name calling?

[ChumpDumper]

So the word "record" really just meant "exponential growth". Who knew. Thanks for splainin me, child.low tier

[tholdren]

Do you consider what you're doing high tier shit posting? Fence riding and name calling?

bwahahaaha ChumpDumper accusing of name calling.

Lol

3 percent of new cases were tested during April. 25 percent now.....

Lol new daily cases people.

Talking to ChumpDumper RandomGuy and pgardn the antimathers

[ChumpDumper]

bwahahaaha ChumpDumper accusing of name calling.

Lol

3 percent of new cases were tested during April. 25 percent now.....

Lol new daily cases people.

Talking to ChumpDumper RandomGuy and pgardn the antimathers:lol you lied and ran away when I challenged you to prove your claim.

[TheGreatYacht]

Spurtacular, Chumpettes gossip and fear mongering begging for government to take over

[Xevious]

Records aren't important. The virus is exactly just as deadly and as dangerous as it was before. Ramping up the panic over it serves no purpose. There are simple acts we can take to mitigate the risks but there are still risks.
COVID itself doesn't scare me (though I don't want to test it out). It may not be killing large numbers of people, but they're still requiring hospitalization. With hospitals nearly exceeding capacity, you better hope that nothing else happens to you in the next few months necessitating medical attention. You'll still get help, but the medical staff will be completely overwhelmed and overworked, patients will be spilling out of the ERs because they won't have anywhere to put them. That's when shit gets missed and mistakes happen.

[Blake]

Records aren't important. The virus is exactly just as deadly and as dangerous as it was before. Ramping up the panic over it serves no purpose. There are simple acts we can take to mitigate the risks but there are still risks.

What a shit post.

If everyone gets covid then the only true way for you to mitigate the risk is to basically stay home alone 24/7. One of the purposes of alerting the public of the numbers is to get people to stop doing stupid shit where they exponentially spread it

[tholdren]

What a shit post.

If everyone gets covid then the only true way for you to mitigate the risk is to basically stay home alone 24/7. One of the purposes of alerting the public of the numbers is to get people to stop doing stupid shit where they exponentially spread it

Bqahahahhaaa wrong

[DMC]

You're such a drama queen calling reporting numbers as ramping up panic.

If that's what I was doing, fine. I was calling the fascination over records retarded as fuck, and the constant back and forth about them panicky and stupid.

[DMC]

What a shit post.

If everyone gets covid then the only true way for you to mitigate the risk is to basically stay home alone 24/7. One of the purposes of alerting the public of the numbers is to get people to stop doing stupid shit where they exponentially spread it

If everyone gets it why would I need to stay home? We'd all have it already.

[tholdren]

Seems important in this case.

Do you think it isn't?

Lolololol

[DMC]

COVID itself doesn't scare me (though I don't want to test it out). It may not be killing large numbers of people, but they're still requiring hospitalization. With hospitals nearly exceeding capacity, you better hope that nothing else happens to you in the next few months necessitating medical attention. You'll still get help, but the medical staff will be completely overwhelmed and overworked, patients will be spilling out of the ERs because they won't have anywhere to put them. That's when shit gets missed and mistakes happen.

Normally I hope something bad does happen to me, like I end up in ICU, but thanks for that tip.

[ChumpDumper]

Setting new records for cases and hospitalizations almost every day is newsworthy. When it goes down, that will be newsworthy as well. Restrictions on businesses and employment are dependent upon these numbers. Pretty simple.

[ChumpDumper]

Lololololth:lolldren ran away.

[tholdren]

Setting new records for cases and hospitalizations almost every day is newsworthy. When it goes down, that will be newsworthy as well. Restrictions on businesses and employment are dependent upon these numbers. Pretty simple.

lolol ChumpDumper bwahhahHH