Do Covid 19 masks work?

[AussieBob]

Do masks cause you to get Covid?  No??  Then wear the bloody things when you are out in public !!  

My rights, my rights - copulate off penis cranium.

[BlueSphinx]

6 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

Do masks cause you to get Covid?  No??  Then wear the bloody things when you are out in public !!  

My rights, my rights - copulate off penis cranium.

I would have no problem wearing a mask when they were just a minor inconvenience and had proven benefits.  Unfortunately, neither of that is the case > mask-wearing is both useless AND harmful. 

I never thought I would ever agree with anything broadcasted on FOX News, let alone Tucker Carlson.  But I forced myself to look at an excerpt of the show he broadcasted yesterday, and to my surprise he was SPOT ON regarding the utter madness of forcing millions of American children to wear masks in the class-room.  Just postpone your judgement on anything else you heard from Carlson before (it's difficult I know), and listen to the first 5-minutes of this 12 minute video-clip.  To transmit the MESSAGE this clip is 100 times more effective in demonstrating the lunacy of mask-wearing than all the scientific studies that PROVE it but are disregarded by the mask-fanatics. 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6267538801001#sp=show-clips

Note that also the item he treats in that show on what is happening in Australia where government is recommending NOT to be friendly to your neighbours in these covid-times, is probably even more disturbing...

[Freeduhdumb]

The amount of virologists in these forums always astounds me... 

[Faraday]

1 minute ago, Freeduhdumb said:

The amount of virologists in these forums always astounds me... 

I'll have you know, young man that I worked at the

 Oxford University Virology Department!

Actually quite true, however it was sterilising pipette tips, for about 4 weeks one summer.

Ergo, I is an exapert...!

[NumbNut]

8 minutes ago, Freeduhdumb said:

The amount of virologists in these forums always astounds me... 

Yes, amazing isn't it. And the political angle to so much of the discussion is beyond me

 

[AussieBob]

9 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

I would have no problem wearing a mask when they were just a minor inconvenience and had proven benefits.  Unfortunately, neither of that is the case > mask-wearing is both useless AND harmful. 

I never thought I would ever agree with anything broadcasted on FOX News, let alone Tucker Carlson.  But I forced myself to look at an excerpt of the show he broadcasted yesterday, and to my surprise he was SPOT ON regarding the utter madness of forcing millions of American children to wear masks in the class-room.  Just postpone your judgement on anything else you heard from Carlson before (it's difficult I know), and listen to the first 5-minutes of this 12 minute video-clip.  To transmit the MESSAGE this clip is 100 times more effective in demonstrating the lunacy of mask-wearing than all the scientific studies that PROVE it but are disregarded by the mask-fanatics. 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6267538801001#sp=show-clips

Note that also the item he treats in that show on what is happening in Australia where government is recommending NOT to be friendly to your neighbours in these covid-times, is probably even more disturbing...

I have listened and I hear you @BlueSphinx  There is clearly a need to exercise caution and mandating masks for kids in schools is wrong.  But that does not mean that mandating adults wearing masks when they go out into public areas in close proximity to others is wrong.  See this link to get a definitive report that proves wearing masks is beneficial in stopping/slowing the spread of a virus.

Evidence summary for face mask use by healthy people in the community (hiqa.ie)

However, getting back to the Tucker video - I agree that children should not be forced to wear masks in schools.  Although the evidence is that it will slow/stop the spread of a virus in children in schools (see the report), there are far too many potential complications and downsides in taking that action (also in the report).  While they are out in public on the way to and from school, then they should wear a mask (if over 7), but whilst at school they clearly should not. The report shows the negatives in enforcing children to wear masks at school - either allow them to not wear a mask all day, or dont open the school.  Teachers should all shove their concerns up their backsides - get vaccinated and you wear a mask is what I say. It is teachers that are doing the pushing for kids to wear masks - for themselves.

The vast majority of public schools in the west are dominated by liberal left-wing progressive women. The video shows all the other liberal progressive crap that they are forcing down kids throats as education because they believe it themselves. They are using the schools to indoctrinate the kids into their political views.  This must be stopped somehow.  Meanwhile more and more private schools and home-schooling is taught.  To show how 'entrenched' they are - they have been not working for a long time because of Covid, but they have all been fully paid, and they refused to take a pay cut.  There were many reasons why women were 'held back' in the past from obtaining positions of authority and power, the Chinese (and most Asians) learned it over 1000 years ago after they had their one and only female Emperor. Having said that, over the years I worked with two women who were each Businesswoman of the Year in Australia - they were great and better than most blokes. But they both did not support other women being 'legged up' just because they were women, because they truly know how most women behave when in positions of authority. 'Hell Hath No Fury' is as valid now as it was 2000 years ago, for the majority of women, and many men too these days. 

[longwood50]

15 hours ago, Fester said:

No sheet Cisco! They are continuously exposed to whatver virulent evil they are working on/with. Hopefully most of the rest of us are not!

Fester,

Either the masks work, or they don't work.  The fact that those virologists and medical personnel  are wearing extensive protective gear tells me, they do not believe that the mask only provides adequate protection.  Now this is a scene from Bangkok with people heading towards the BTS train.  Are these people not being potentially exposed to far more people than the medical personnel seeing one patient at a time for testing, who may or may not be infected?  If masks are "effective" then that is all virologists, and medical personnel should need also.  If they are not 100% effective then people are kidding themselves into believing they are somehow protected when out in public.  


 

[Smithydog]

 

One thing concerns me in the mask/no mask debate is that it just seems so filled with inconsistencies.

For example, we wear clothes, hats, shoes. One reason we do this, other than to avoid potential embarrassment or ridicule, is to protect ourselves from the elements we can’t see. Even then, they may not protect us fully, but we still wear them anyway. Should we just view masks as a new type of clothing?

Medical conditions do prevent some people wearing different types of fabrics and hence it is also reasonable to expect some people may have genuine medical conditions that prevent them from wearing masks. Personally, I can’t wear socks with high concentration of nylon, but then I prefer cotton anyway!

But we adapt and choose other materials to use, rather than go without the item of clothing. Why is it that it immediately seems all or nothing for a face mask? Have sufferers of a medical condition even tried a face shield instead? How genuine a condition is it sometimes?

For example, it is remarkable to see the reaction of some claiming they suffer from acute asthma when challenged in a store for not wearing a mask. Those “asthma sufferers” seem to display an innate ability to loudly shout and talk for long periods at store staff and/or police with no apparent breathing difficulties!

Is it really due to a medical condition for those people. I doubt it. They never seem to have any medical evidence with them, however always seem to have the camera ready and visit a place that clearly displays a mask requirement.

I may not be confident it completely protects me, however I am also not be prepared to bet my life on totally discarding something so simple to use and not an inconvenience to me personally. After all, I am not yet prepared to discard the clothes and hat for my natural attire. Too much expanse for the unseen elements to attack!

 

[Smithydog]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Fester,

Either the masks work, or they don't work.  The fact that those virologists and medical personnel  are wearing extensive protective gear tells me, they do not believe that the mask only provides adequate protection.  
 

From a Health and safety perspective, your level of continued exposure to potential risks usually dictates the extent and style of any PPE used, be it people in the street, medical people, soldiers or workers in a factory. After all, I don't wear the heat protection a steel worker does when I pull a hot curry out of the oven.

Medical professionals are the same. The potential exposure risk level may dictate the type of PPE recommended for use by them and the population at large in different circumstances. 

[longwood50]

40 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

After all, I don't wear the heat protection a steel worker does when I pull a hot curry out of the oven.

Medical professionals are the same. The potential exposure risk level may dictate the type of PPE recommended for use by them and the population at large in different circumstances. 

Your thinking is convoluted.  If you are exposed to the virus whether it is in a large public setting or sitting across the desk from a medical worker, the exposure is identical.  

Now if the face masks provide protection  then the face mask is all that would be needed by them also.  The risk is not intensified merely because they are a medical worker.  Exposure is exposure.  The example you gave is two completely different levels of heat exposure.  The steel worker is next to hot molten metal, the kitchen oven with a hot curry is not even remotely an identical risk. 

Using your example, the person pulling out the hot curry would have only a pot holder.  And if the pot holder was truly effective than that is all the protection the steel worker would need.   You were comparing an apples to oranges scenario.   

[Fester]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Fester,

Either the masks work, or they don't work.  The fact that those virologists and medical personnel  are wearing extensive protective gear tells me, they do not believe that the mask only provides adequate protection.  Now this is a scene from Bangkok with people heading towards the BTS train.  Are these people not being potentially exposed to far more people than the medical personnel seeing one patient at a time for testing, who may or may not be infected?  If masks are "effective" then that is all virologists, and medical personnel should need also.  If they are not 100% effective then people are kidding themselves into believing they are somehow protected when out in public.  


 

As I said ages ago, surgical type masks help to limit the release of respitiory droplets which may carry high loads of the virus. This is a prime reason for virus spreading. Masks of increasing suitability and quality will according increasingly mitigate virus-spread. Your "either masks work, or they don't work" comments is far too simplistic and wrong, really. 

 

These virologists and medical personnel are wearing extensive protective gear because they are constantly working in close proximity to high volumes of dangerous viruses - they are also supplied with this PPE by organisations which have budgets to provide such expensive kit. 

You scene from the Bangkok is not a comparison to the lab pics. These people are not being exposed more than the front-line medical "people" as many of these travellers might be exposed for just a few minutes per day. Some people may believe that simple masks offer good protection but most probably now realise that that is not totally true. What people "think" is not the issue here anyway.

However, surgical masks, along with washing and all the other mitigating anti-infection rules can combine to keep regular people as safe as possible. How much do you think a full lab kit with oxy supply would cost and how practical would it be to wear one out on the streets of Bangkok? There would probably be more deaths from heat exhaustion than Covid. 
 

[longwood50]

Just now, Fester said:

. This is a prime reason for virus spreading. Masks of increasing suitability and quality will according increasingly mitigate virus-spread. Your "either masks work, or they don't work" comments is far too simplistic and wrong, really. 

You are the one being "too simplistic"  There are those who believe that masks give them "adequate" or near complete protection against the virus.  The very fact that the medical professionals and virologists wear extensive protection is because they know that is not true. 

Wearing a mask "may help" but so does turning your head away from the person who is coughing.  That does not make the action of turning away from the Covid droplets an effective way of preventing the spread of Covid and neither do the 3 baht masks.  

Consider in Sweden, no mask mandate and its Covid rate of infection is nearly identical to neighboring Estonia and Lithuania and it is lower than the Netherlands.  So if mask mandates were really substantially effective in diminishing the spread of Covid those countries with mask mandates would have rates of infection lower than Sweden.  They don't.  Masks "may" provide some protection against droplets but they hardly stop the virus from exiting the mask of an infected person and they are not effective protection against a person wearing a mask from breathing in the virus. 

[Fester]

6 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Your thinking is convoluted.  If you are exposed to the virus whether it is in a large public setting or sitting across the desk from a medical worker, the exposure is identical.  

Now if the face masks provide protection  then the face mask is all that would be needed by them also.  The risk is not intensified merely because they are a medical worker.  Exposure is exposure.  The example you gave is two completely different levels of heat exposure.  The steel worker is next to hot molten metal, the kitchen oven with a hot curry is not even remotely an identical risk. 

Using your example, the person pulling out the hot curry would have only a pot holder.  And if the pot holder was truly effective than that is all the protection the steel worker would need.   You were comparing an apples to oranges scenario.   

The temperature of molten steel can be up to 1540 celcius. Even the hottest vindaloo stays below 100.

Head....banging..brick wall.....ouchy.

[Fester]

12 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

You are the one being "too simplistic"  There are those who believe that masks give them "adequate" or near complete protection against the virus.  The very fact that the medical professionals and virologists wear extensive protection is because they know that is not true. 

Wearing a mask "may help" but so does turning your head away from the person who is coughing.  That does not make the action of turning away from the Covid droplets an effective way of preventing the spread of Covid and neither do the 3 baht masks.  

Consider in Sweden, no mask mandate and its Covid rate of infection is nearly identical to neighboring Estonia and Lithuania and it is lower than the Netherlands.  So if mask mandates were really substantially effective in diminishing the spread of Covid those countries with mask mandates would have rates of infection lower than Sweden.  They don't.  Masks "may" provide some protection against droplets but they hardly stop the virus from exiting the mask of an infected person and they are not effective protection against a person wearing a mask from breathing in the virus. 

It's just as if you didn't read a word I said. The main advantage of any mask is to limit the output of these droplets. Less droplets, less airborne virus, less risk. Sweden had to backtrack, if you remember. 

[Smithydog]

30 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Your thinking is convoluted.  If you are exposed to the virus whether it is in a large public setting or sitting across the desk from a medical worker, the exposure is identical.  
 

What I was referring to was  a level of risk and the example shows a difference in risk. There are different levels of risk. I would disagree from a health and safety assessment perspective, that working in a hospital ward with 20 patients confirmed with Covid-19 would be the same risk level as walking outside amongst a group of people who may or may not have it at all.

The higher likely risk, the more intense the risk assessment as are the recommendations generated from it. That is how risk is generally assessed in a health and safety environment. In the example I provided, the home oven would be classified as low risk whilst the steel furnace would be rated a higher risk and require greater protection. I agree they are at extreme ends of a risk scale, but they are valid examples of risk.

The reality is that businesses, including hospitals, have to live in the reality of health and safety assessments, often required by law and operate according to the potential risk identified. They don't have the luxury to debate whether it is the right thing to do or not, what today's scientific discovery says or refutes and make changes at the whim of every person's latest "conclusion". Accordingly they will tend to overcompensate to cover perceived and potential risks.

If that means they assess extra PPE is the right things for their workers, so be it. The general population can try and buy their own extra gear if they decide they want to. Personally, a mask suits me fine for my level of risk.

[BlueSphinx]

35 minutes ago, Fester said:

It's just as if you didn't read a word I said. The main advantage of any mask is to limit the output of these droplets. Less droplets, less airborne virus, less risk. Sweden had to backtrack, if you remember. 

...Sweden had to backtrack as you call it, but NOT on masks.

 

Sweden broke with most of the rest of the world but NEVER mandated that people wear masks during the coronavirus pandemic. On July 1st they even dropped the lose recommendation to use them.

Sweden's Public Health Agency said that its recommendation people wear face masks on rush hour on public transport ended that day.  It had advised masking between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m, but only when people could not easily distance themselves from others.

There were no circumstances in which the government said people had to wear masks in other public places.

 

[Fester]

17 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

...Sweden had to backtrack as you call it, but NOT on masks.

Sweden broke with most of the rest of the world but NEVER mandated that people wear masks during the coronavirus pandemic. On July 1st they even dropped the lose recommendation to use them.

Sweden's Public Health Agency said that its recommendation people wear face masks on rush hour on public transport ended that day.  It had advised masking between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m, but only when people could not easily distance themselves from others.

There were no circumstances in which the government said people had to wear masks in other public places.

Sweden backtracked by setting mask-wearing recommendations and guidelines, where there were none originally. I did not use the word mandate.

[Smithydog]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Consider in Sweden, no mask mandate and its Covid rate of infection is nearly identical to neighboring Estonia and Lithuania and it is lower than the Netherlands.  So if mask mandates were really substantially effective in diminishing the spread of Covid those countries with mask mandates would have rates of infection lower than Sweden.  They don't.  

 

Interesting, although I do note you didn't mention any sources for your information.

So let's compare Sweden to its 2 neighbouring countries. After all, they seem to be the ones everyone links together for Eurovision.

Sweden      Only a recommendation for transport etc       10.85 cases per 100 people

Finland       Both mandated and recommendations             2.07 cases per 100 people

Norway      Both mandated and recommendations             2.67 cases per 100 people

Source: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-data-response-measures-covid-19

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#coronavirus-country-profiles

Seems my examples show a different story. But that is what you get when you cherry-pick data!

The reality is no-one can accurately say what actions delivered the actual results. Only the people of that country can say they are happy or not with what happened to deliver results in their own country.

 

[Andy7e7]

On 8/7/2021 at 8:58 AM, OneAngryJew said:

They are not used to prevent droplets from getting tossed into the open body.  They are not there for viral blocking.

No it doesn't :/ You have a better chance getting A virus with a mask on.

[SnapDragon]

Masks do not stop the transmission of a virus, or stop someone inhaling one. They are everywhere. Trillions of them. A part of nature.

But do viruses cause sickness, illness or disease?

I say no. It's impossible.

[longwood50]

3 hours ago, Smithydog said:

So let's compare Sweden to its 2 neighbouring countries. After all, they seem to be the ones everyone links together for Eurovision.

Yes but you are "cherry picking" the data. Yes Denmark, Norway, Finland are lower but Estonia, Lithuania, and the Netherlands are not.  Estonia, and Lithuania are just as close to Sweden as Denmark, Norway, and Finland.  

Again, if "masks" quarantines, lockdowns, etc were so effective every country not just selected ones would have lower covid infection rates than Sweden.  They don't.  Poland, borders Germany on one side, the Netherlands on the other.  Both Poland and the Netherlands have high rates of Covid infection while Germany has a low rate of infection.  All that proves is that there are reasons "other" than masks, quarantines, and lockdowns, that influence covid infection rates.  Otherwise all countries employing the same protocols would have similar infection rates and they don't. 

[Smithydog]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Yes but you are "cherry picking" the data. Yes Denmark, Norway, Finland are lower but Estonia, Lithuania, and the Netherlands are not.  Estonia, and Lithuania are just as close to Sweden as Denmark, Norway, and Finland.  
 

All Good. Never said I didn’t cherry-pick. In fact I used it to show that data can be manipulated by doing so. The link I attached to the early post and shown below, clearly indicates countries have been trying different measures.

 https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-data-response-measures-covid-19

 Scroll down the page to download the excel sheet called “Download data on country response measures to COVID-19”. The sheet below it will help you to understand the coding on the worksheet.

 For example, you could find the following:

 

Country	Response_measure	date_start	date_end
Estonia	MasksMandatoryClosedSpaces	24/11/2020	1/06/2021
Poland	MasksMandatoryClosedSpacesPartial	30/05/2020	18/09/2020
Germany	MasksMandatoryAllSpacesPartial	1/11/2020	21/06/2021
Lithuania	MasksMandatoryAllSpaces	7/11/2020	24/02/2021

 

Each country has multiple methods listed, some more than others and for differing time periods. How you determine which methods actually helped or hindered? Well I’ll leave that up to the crystal ball!

 Unfortunately, people all over the world use data to support their argument. Someone, once said to me rather cynically I thought, give me a piece of data and I could tell you a story why it shows something good has happened and why something bad has happened. It just depends what type of argument you wish to present!

Just a tip. I think Sweden only report new daily numbers 5 days a week. So be careful if quoting their new case figures, if you need to, as those days with 0 may just be a no report day and then they have a high figure next day. Cumulative figures balance. Just the the daily on those days is missing and may give you a false impression if quoting. It seems a regular pattern.

[longwood50]

2 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

All Good. Never said I didn’t cherry-pick

No you cherry picked the data.  Take Sweden out of the equation.  You have low covid rates in the countries you mentioned, Norway, Denmark, and Finland.  Now you have high covid infection rates in other countries in the region such as Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and the Netherlands.  Now all of the mentioned countries have similar to identical protocols.  If the masks were so effective in Denmark, Finland, and Norway, why were the same masks so ineffective in Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and the Netherlands.  

Why would identical protocols in the USA show high rates of covid infection in New York and New Jersey but a rate 50% lower in very urban, very minority, Washington D.C. ? 

There are zero statistics to show that any of the quarantine, mask, lockdown, social distancing mandates have shown improvement in areas with strict controls and higher covid infection rates in areas that don't have them.   The only anecdotal evidence you have is Sweden.  They did little to nothing, and their Covid rate of infection is lower than the Netherlands, and almost identical to Estonia, Lithuania, and Spain, France,  That to me pretty well demonstrates that the strict EU protocols were virtually useless.  If they were so effective those countries would have demonstrably lower covid infection rates than Sweden and they don't. 

[BlueSphinx]

23 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

I would have no problem wearing a mask when they were just a minor inconvenience and had proven benefits.  Unfortunately, neither of that is the case > mask-wearing is both useless AND harmful. 

I never thought I would ever agree with anything broadcasted on FOX News, let alone Tucker Carlson.  But I forced myself to look at an excerpt of the show he broadcasted yesterday, and to my surprise he was SPOT ON regarding the utter madness of forcing millions of American children to wear masks in the class-room.  Just postpone your judgement on anything else you heard from Carlson before (it's difficult I know), and listen to the first 5-minutes of this 12 minute video-clip.  To transmit the MESSAGE this clip is 100 times more effective in demonstrating the lunacy of mask-wearing than all the scientific studies that PROVE it but are disregarded by the mask-fanatics. 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6267538801001#sp=show-clips

Note that also the item he treats in that show on what is happening in Australia where government is recommending NOT to be friendly to your neighbours in these covid-times, is probably even more disturbing...

This short 2 minute clip is absolutely epic.. Nashville father of 4 drops some massive covid truth bombs at the school board meeting       

https://twitter.com/Resist_03/status/1426054400884154369

 

[mcambl61]

Masks are just virtue signaling. If you have actual verified facts that masks reduced the spread, then show it. 

 

Actual factual verifiable references and controlled studies. 

And, to satisfy the leftists, it must be "peer" reviewed. 

 

Have a good day. 

Edited August 14, 2021 by mcambl61