Statistics

Judge Recognizes CDC’s Failed Its Burden To Provide Proof On Masks

A judge yesterday whacked the CDC’s overreaching mask mandate. The judge said “the mandate exceeded the CDC statutory authority, improperly invoked the good clause exemption to notice and comment rulemaking and failed to adequately explain its decision”.

The burden of proof on masks has always been on those who would force people to wear them. The starting hypothesis should have been that masks do not work, or that their benefits are too small to bother with, and that their use produces real harm, such as from the nastiness of wearing dirty cloth for prolonged periods, and in generating and spreading fear.

Mask advocates, and in particular those who criminalized masklessness, had a clear moral duty to provide sufficient positive evidence of mask efficacy to overcome this hypothesis. This they never did.

Experts turned the question around and insisted masks work, and that skeptics must instead provide conclusive proof that masks were useless. And even when such proof was provided it was discounted by one of the oldest fallacies going: the Alternate Explanation Fallacy (described here).

This occurs when somebody proposes an alternate explanation for an observation, and insists the alternate explanation must therefore be true because it is an alternate explanation. It’s used most in attempts to discredit miracles. It’s used with masks to say masks must have worked even when they are observed not to, because (the alternate explanation goes) something stopped them from working; therefore they ackshually work.

In short, there was no way to win against those determined that all must join the Cult of the Mask. To members, it was obvious masks worked because they were masks. No other proof was offered, or needed.

Here’s an example:

The picture clearly shows no difference in infection rates in counties with mask mandates and those without. Conclusion: there is no evidence in this picture that mask mandates work. Therefore, there is good evidence in this picture that masks do not work.

Yet the fellow offers an Alternate Explanation: “You can’t use a graph like this to conclude causation because there are many confounding factors e.g. places where ppl eat and drink were fully open, mandates didn’t apply to all public spaces.” So masks ackshually work because he can think of an alternate explanation.

This is a particularly lame alternate explanation, however, because if people didn’t wear masks in bars in mask mandate counties, even fewer people wore masks everywhere in non-mandate counties.

Here’s another similar example (of which any number can be had):

The man goes on in the thread above to call for “getting more people boosted”, which, of course, has nothing to do with masks. He also wants to increase testing and give masks away free. Which also have nothing to do with whether masks work.

But he still concludes (among other things): “1. Universal masking works. 2. Mask mandates keep essential services safe, open and accessible to all”.

His only argument, and in fairness it is the same many in authority use, is “Masks work; therefore, masks work and so must be imposed.”

Some of my friends in medicine swear by masks. They are sure masks work, and won’t hear that they don’t. After all, masks block easy breathing, therefore they must be keeping out viruses. “Besides,” these professionals say to themselves, “I’m not getting sick that often while wearing one.” Which would be the exact same observation if indeed masks do not work.

Carefully controlled realistic—and not artificial mannequin- or model-based—experiments don’t show masks work. Indeed, they point in the opposite direction. Such as the Danish masks study, which is routinely ignored (just as many pretend never to have heard of Sweden’s anti-lockdown policy).

There are dozens of such studies paced over a century, ever since it was noticed mask mandates did no good in the Spanish Flu pandemic. There are even experiments that show masks worn by surgeons are not effective in preventing infections.

The CDC was satisfied to publish lame, error-filled or self-confirming circular studies is response to the many negative findings. They viewed these efforts, even in the face of the damning criticisms, as conclusive because they were efforts. To them, even just one study, however poor, that confirmed their view was sufficient. They acted like a judge convicting a defendant without hearing the defense: the charge alone was sufficient proof to convict. This is what you would expect from a bureaucracy.

You can see why people like masks. They block the nose and face. They must, these people reason, therefore be doing something. Which might even be true. But it does not follow that people should be forced to wear them, especially by criminalizing their absence.

Mask advocates, beyond ignoring experiments, also reason what’s the harm? They might work, so why not?

Again, beside the obvious nastiness of breathing through dirty cloth, masks spread idiot fear. They cause panic. And that is a sin.

Beyond all that, they give government a power they have no right to. “Thou shalt strap this cloth to thine face where thou goest” becomes law. Since they got away with this, at least until the judge acted, they will try to get away with more in the future.

Don’t worry, though. It will be for your own good.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.

Categories: Statistics

101 replies »

  1. The judges decision was news down under here in Aus and reported on the local evening TV News. Much was made of the “fact” that the judge was a “Trump Appointee” is that point correct?

  2. Almost worse than the mandate itself was the implicit deputising of unqualified persons, e.g. store clerks, to impose the tyranny on their fellow man (other genders available, well, one other). The self assured vitriol from professional mask enthusiasts and otherwise delusional people propagated unprecedented division between complete strangers despite zero efficacy evidence.

  3. One of the most astonishing, to me, features of the pandemic is that nowhere on earth has an actual study been done of masks. ALL mask studies to date have been inferential. Such as study could easily and rapidly done using prisoners – who have volunteered for risky medical studies for over a century. You offer the prisoners time off their sentences for volunteering, and explain the risks clearly. Half the volunteer group wear masks, the other half don’t. They both spend time in a poorly ventilated room with a Covid-19 patient who coughs, sneezes, and talks, for a set period of time. Then you see if the number of prisoners who contract Covid-19 are the same in the mask and maskless group, or different.
    After over two years, no one on earth has any idea whether masks work or do not work. Anyone who says they know is deluded or lying.

  4. @JdaveF “After over two years, no one on earth has any idea whether masks work or do not work. Anyone who says they know is deluded or lying.”

    Not true. We know masks do not work through (i) countless tests performed over decades, (ii) a basic understanding of physics, fluid dynamics, biology and (iii) compelling, statistically valid, efficacy measurement comparing mandated and non-mandated populations. You can use any of these to categorically demonstrate inefficacy.

  5. Not to mention the looming ecological disaster caused by millions (billions?) of filthy, single-use, throwaway face masks littering our streets, parks, and waterways. Those people concerned about things like plastic straws seem oddly silent on the mask-mess.

  6. Jeez Briggs I’m shocked you’d bring this all up don’t you realize we’re in the middle of
    the great patriotic war for Ukraine. Why can’t you just wrap yourself in their flag
    and forget it.

  7. No need to be wearing masks in the US if their numbers are to be trusted.
    Non pharmaceutical interventions are no longer indicated.
    That latter expression “indicated”, being a clinical/medical term. Understand it (or pretend not to). I’m glad that you are now not being asked to wear masks in public places.
     
    Glad to read the title of this article is accurate. Kudos! Hat tip and all that….

  8. PaulH-

    Adjacent to your point, if the coverings are scooping the deadly coof particles from the ether, shouldn’t there be specialized disposal points containing bleach, rubbing alcohol, or an incinerator?

  9. Incitadus: “I’m shocked you’d bring this all up don’t you realize we’re in the middle of
    the great patriotic war for Ukraine?”

    Briggs is still fighting the last psyop, the ol’ fuddy-duddy. Gotta keep up with the times, people, there’s a shiny new psyop being rolled out, WWIII: The Satanic Empire Vs The World. So exciting. Watch your screens for official instructions, sheeple, and be prepared to sacrifice everything for the Devil, Money, and Power. War is peace, stupid is smart, bad is good, wrong is right: it’s the revolutionary, upside-down, New World Order. Huzzah! So drink your kool-aid my fellow zombies, obey your screens, wear your masks and your pussy hats, and march! –> the cliff is right this way –>

  10. “Masks work; therefore, masks work” does seem accurate. Our own Royal Society, however (“Nulliis in verba”) is a bit more sophisticated: “we’ve never needed randomised controlled trials for handkerchiefs, therefore masks must be imposed.”

  11. The Ian Miller tweet is confusing. Miller says “there is absolutely no legitimate, data based argument to justify mask mandates”, but you say his argument is “masks work; therefore, masks work and so must be imposed.”

    Huh? He seems to be contradicting himself.

  12. Let´s not forget that masks gave many people the sense of belonging to a herd, the sense of forgiveness of any past inappropriate social behaviour. Without that mask, they are back into being just individuals responsible for their own acts. And many are afraid of losing their good citizen uniform…

  13. {{Obligatory-Clothing-Mandates}} imposed by public-health-official-appointees (chosen by oligarchs) on penalty of arrest/incarceration; private asset-forfeiture; and/or denial of essential Public Services and Social-Media Deplatforming under Private TOS Policies. Based on The Science(tm), with full-throated 24/7/365 trans-hemispheric support from The Global Medical Industrial Complex (UN/WHO: Chinese-vernacular WUHAN) & The MassCommunicationsGlitteratiBlob. [Entirely outlined in advance as an Agenda-Plan for Solving Global Problems ((A Table-Top Exercise for Our New Global EconomicPlanDemicReset)) ghost-authored by a round-eyed completely bald Swiss-German-accented Deca-Billionaire “senior citizen” who inherited a prized collection of antique monocles and watch fobs from a reclusive paranoic relative with Royal Blood.”Listen Now! – You will own Nothing! – You will eat Ze Bugs! – You will be Happy!] {{A Robert Heinlein social-sci-fi paperback novella.}}

  14. Ah yeh, the fun in wearing masks. Generally the masks don’t work out unless you’re wearing N-95 mask or something similar. But even then, it’s no guarantee because the covid virus could get into your system anyway. Many people that wear the masks don’t have any glasses or any cover over their eyes. So masks are pretty much a sugar pill and provide little security.

    On the other hand, one thing I liked about wearing masks is the fact that they give you extra privacy and make it more difficult for the facial recognition software to identify you particularly if it’s coupled with a pair of shades. Some people that knew me at these local stores weren’t able to recognize me with the dark glasses and bandana around my face. It was kind of fun at times to dress like a criminal going into the store and being able to get away with it without suspicion with all the mask mandates!

  15. Masks are like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain link fence, or a screen door on a submarine, or an itsy bitsy bikini on Fifi La Boomboom. They’re symbolism over substance, and what they symbolize is subservience to mad masters. Nothing better than convincing your slaves to willingly don their own shackles.

  16. Uncle Mike
    Masks are like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain link fence,
    No they are not. They do catch viral droplets.
    There is only controversy over use of masks by the population in c controlling spread.
    They do control spread they do not stop spread.
     
    Virus spreads when masks are used by way of the hands and the eyes.
     
    The chainlink fence analogy is a straw man, but you know this, I guess…

  17. @Joy “They do control spread they do not stop spread.”

    In the same way that a chainlink fence will stop a small number of mosquitoes.

  18. In the same way that a chainlink fence will stop a small number of mosquitoes.
    No, the analogy is wrong in scale and in the way that “spread” happens.
    ! the virus in question “travels” in droplets far larger than the diameter of one virus
    2 The virus would “spread” if (for argument’s sake) a hermetically sealed mask were to be used that caught every droplet of breath into a bag, because virus is present on the skin, in the eye mucus, on the hands and on surfaces.

    So the imperfection of the use of an appropriate mask, i.e. a surgical mask at least, which were the kind recommended in most countries, I believe, DOES slow spread. It just does not stop it.
    The aim of the game is to slow spread to give more time for everybody concerned to get on top of the situation with, in this case, a pharmaceutical intervention. At the stage we are now in, people are free to become a human incubator and or a vector if they prefer.
     
    The point is that the entire population is not at their mercy any more , nor at the mercy of the virus.
    Hence people should be using little fingers and making up again. Carry on, as if nothing happened

  19. Re the eyes, remember the first man in China who was martyred after reporting the new infectious disease. He received more than normal amounts of virus.
    The same is true of the common cold. Before they instituted masks and before the full information came out in early 2020, I thought it would be my responsibility alone to stop my Dad from catching the disease.
    I thought wearing a pair of swimming goggles to the super market might be the way forward, that and wearing gloves. Re masks? Figures if I wasn’t planning on kissing anybody the supermarket or getting that close, the most important thing was not touching things unnecessarily. Something I’ve done subconsciously when travelling in London all my life, pretty much.
     
    So why mandate rules about it you will ask and demand. Because you can’t rely on dirty people to do as they’re told and when one man’s freedom is another man’s death sentence it becomes ideologically silly to claim tyranny because an authority tells you to wear a mask. Also becomes silly when the authority takes on every single person who flouts the rules. That is tyranny. Let people take the advice or be delinquent. That’s what God does when it comes to matters of heart and conscience.

  20. @Joy “the virus in question “travels” in droplets far larger than the diameter of one virus”

    The primary transmission vector is long-residence-time aerosol particles less than 2.5 ?m in diameter. It is not, as you suggest, droplets. The minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle. The two meter rule that was applied in the UK where you reside is a nonsense when the aerosols remain in suspension for an extended period of time. Although you are correct to call out the scale in the analogy (mosquito / chainlink fence vs aerosol / mask mesh size) it doesn’t change the outcome. Masks don’t and cannot significantly control the transmission of respiratory viruses.

  21. The minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.
    How is that relevant to the point about how the virus travels?

    The two meter rule that was applied in the UK where you reside is a nonsense when the aerosols remain in suspension for an extended period of time.
    The don’t stay in the air for an “extended period of time” the do so for about an hour and of course in places where air is most still, without convection currents to keep them drifting, they drop to the ground faster. Ventilation of a room literally ‘blows’ the virus away or draws it out. Although this is already known for similar diseases which are spread by a similar mechanism, experiments were done early on to show what is already known about particles and their spread/residence time in the air/viability once they’ve landed.

    Although you are correct to call out the scale in the analogy (mosquito / chainlink fence vs aerosol / mask mesh size)

     
    it doesn’t change the outcome. Masks don’t and cannot significantly control the transmission of respiratory viruses.
    As long as your’e happy with that. The word significantly is carrying a lot of weight there. WE contend over here, that they did and do (as they are still used routinely in medical and clinical settings) make a difference and enough to help assist the war effort in controlling spread and collateral damage which such an epidemic inevitably brings with it.
     
    The two metre rule was based absolutely on what was already known about similar viruses and backed up by knowledge of the virus in question, as you would expect. How silly that “skeptics” decided such an ‘arbitrary’ number should be attached. These kinds of rules exist all over the place in sports, in engineering, in traffic rules. You have to draw a line somewhere. Two metres was the best / most practical estimate given all that was known. A greater distance would then impinge on societies ability to function in what were deemed essential ways.
     
    The point is “social” distance. AS “social” distance is what causes the spread. It’s a sad fact of life about many viruses generally, not just corona ones.
    So you can’t go from talking about viral size in aerosols to saying two metres is nonsense without making a whole host of assumptions, some of which are wrong, about the aerosols themselves. See the work done at imperial college by Wendy Barclay’s team very early on, re spread in inside clinical spaces.

  22. The primary transmission vector is long-residence-time aerosol particles less than 2.5 ?m in diameter. It is not, as
    In English:
    The main way the virus is spread is by the extended period of time droplets less than 2.5 ?m remain suspended in the air. That’s right. “the main way” is where the real controversy lies. Since it depends on the actual circumstances..the room…the infection status/actions of people in the room.
     
    Aerosols are small droplets, they get their name by how they form. Not by their size.

    aerosol
    a substance enclosed under pressure and released as a fine spray by means of a propellant gas.
    a container holding an aerosol.
    CHEMISTRY?a colloidal suspension of particles dispersed in air or gas.”the organisms are spread in the aerosols generated by showers”

    Al, I’m here arguing for thwhat is known and what is not.
    There has been a shed load of smoke screening that has gone on from people who didn’t want to see the train crash. Just as with the war in Ukraine.
     
    It’s not so much smoke as water vapour.
    Same as for the climate debate. They didn’t want to see the water vapour.
    So it’s really the politics where people are disagreeing. The science is just what it is.
     
    I haven’t recovered from the defence of the paper about masks and don’t think I will. It’s just such a sad inditement on how biased and dishonest people have become in the effort to retain their freedom. Which others saw as liberty taking. THAT was also where the real discussion was taking place.
    behind a steamy vaporous cloak from the swamps of conspiracy theorising.

  23. The point about the minimum infective dose is that preventing transmission of a tiny fraction of virus aerosols is not going to have any measurable effect on infection.

    Particles of this size remain suspended in still air for considerably more than an hour, an arbitrary timeframe given the variables. The point about the two metre rule is made even using your timeframe. For an effect to be significant (i.e. non-negligible) the two metre rule would need to apply to a space equivalent to over 12 square metres surrounding the person in question for an hour during which that person is very probably going to move thus extending that space.

    The word “significantly” is in fact travelling light. To be significant an effect needs to be at least measurable. If it isn’t it is negligible or to use a different word, insignificant. If a mask were capable of preventing half the aerosols exhaled by a person, already an exaggeration in orders of magnitude, from being released into the environment then the effect on transmission would be negligible given the minimum infective dose.

    “We contend, over here, that they did and do”.

    Who is “we”? Do you now speak for the population of your country? Do the laws of fluid dynamics operate differently in the UK?

    Equating proximity regulations that apply to sports and traffic is a red herring.

    In short, your assertions are incorrect.

  24. Joy, we can agree on this: “…There has been a shed load of smoke screening that has gone on from people…”.

  25. The minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

    The infectious part is only virus , nothing else. droplet size is irrelevant once it is in the body. It’s a given that nothing happens in the body without water or tissue fluid.

    Or did I misunderstand your point?
    It takes one virus only, if you’re unlucky. The virus can bypass the first line of defence in the nose and upper airways. Such as through the eye. Ace 2 receptors are all over the body.
    So there is the consideration of slowing the speed of the breath out by introducing more turbulent flow with inevitably slows down particles in water or gas. The Speed of travel obviously affects the spread. See Norovirus for more intuitive notions about aerosols. Projectile body fluid from both ends can be strong enough to ‘create’ aerosol. It is believed it is THAT which makes it so easy to spread. So the principles are quite simple if it weren’t for the politics.

  26. “The infectious part is only virus , nothing else. droplet size is irrelevant once it is in the body.”

    Agreed. But the virus is carried on multiple particles that remain suspended in the air. My point is that, as you say, preventing a small number of particles from escaping through or around a mask has a negligible effect on the desired outcome, transmission of the virus to third parties.

    Again I agree with you (it’s becoming a habit). It is simple if it weren’t for the politics.

  27. Yes, you did take the notion of aerosol size and mix that with the notion of infection.
    Tis is irrelevant because the infection stage is not where the mask is affecting the process.
    To say something about the infective potential is like saying the enemy is already in the stable so shutting the gates won’t stop them getting in. well, we know, and masks aren’t used to stop the infectivity of the virus
    They are there to stop the shed load of virus from being spread through stuttering, heavy breathing, coughing, huffing, sneezing, shouting, laughing out loud as they say
    &nbsp
    The non pharmaceutical interventions as they like to call them are a group of actions taken in combination to have maximum effect on the virus’s ability to find another victim within which to replace.
     
    Misconstruing the purpose of masks is another way that the smoke screeners managed to gain so much traction. As if that weren’t enough they’re still t it with the vaccine. So they seem to me just to want moaning rights. Don’t want to see disaster when it happens, want everything to be shown in a biblical timeframe where disaster’s are to be counted as normal and therefore nothing to try to avert. Yet when it came to the vaccine? all manner of other fever swamp style conspiracy emerged. Just like Putin’s contain of knowledge.
     
    Yet there was never any discernment from people claiming to audit science. Just plain prejudice and more burying of the head into sand.
    Nobody can do effective science through a political lens. Doesn’t matter who’s side they’re saying they’re on.
    If they don’t get with truth…

  28. Al I just read your reply, so ignore first part of previous comment, we agree, will read the rest, slow reading/listening on my part.

  29. Well we agree, in essence then. I just want to make it clear that I believe people disagree/d on such interventions for political reasons not scientific ones. Laying the politics bare isn’t such a good look or an easy preach. On the other hand saying your’e saving the world is always easy to say

    As and where the scientific facts are truly yet unknown? then fair enough, but:

    Ki>But the virus is carried on multiple particles that remain suspended in the air. Yes, think of the invisible cloud of water vapour or a visible steam.

    But to your point. It is not a small number of particles which are prevented from escape. That is the point. The mask is blocking larger water droplets which land on surfaces for people to pick up and catch later when they take their mask off to have a cup of tea or when they rub their eyes, generally use their hands like a toddler with chocolate!

    so,
    escaping through or around a mask has a negligible effect on the desired outcome, transmission of the virus to third parties.
    Misrepresents the purpose of the mask, (one of the important reasons for warning one being prevention of the aerosols caused by forced expiration.)
    If many wear masks, AND wash their hands, there will be less virus in the air AND on surfaces. The latter is never mentioned but it’s the most common way people pick it up.

  30. I’m not convinced that the purpose of the mask was ever explicitly determined. To reduce virus transmission is about as far as it went. My argument is that they had negligible efficacy in this regard. The issue where we are at odds is the efficacy of a mask during normal vs pressurised (e.g. a cough or a sneeze) exhalation.

    I recognise that any obstruction, e.g. a mask, will reduce the velocity of the emission and that this will have *some* effect on the distance any particles carried in the fluid stream travel, particularly larger particles, droplets.

    However. Observe a smoker gently exhaling. Without any appreciable force the exhalation quickly spreads. A similar fluid distribution albeit invisible occurs during non-smoke exhalation, with or without a mask. My contention is that the virus is carried on particles that pass through and around the mask with minimal restriction. And then remain, absent turbulence or other forced air movement, suspended in the space surrounding the location of the exhalation for some considerable time.

  31. I’m not convinced that the purpose of the mask was ever explicitly determined. To reduce virus transmission is about as far as it went. My argument is that they had negligible efficacy in this regard. The issue where we are at odds is the efficacy of a mask during normal vs pressurised (e.g. a cough or a sneeze) exhalation. I recognise that any obstruction, e.g. a mask, will reduce the velocity of the emission and that this will have *some* effect on the distance any particles carried in the fluid stream travel, particularly larger particles, droplets. However. Observe a smoker gently exhaling. Without any appreciable force the exhalation quickly spreads. A similar fluid distribution albeit invisible occurs during non-smoke exhalation, with or without a mask. My contention is that the virus is carried on particles that pass through and around the mask with minimal restriction. And then remain, absent turbulence or other forced air movement, suspended in the space surrounding the location of the exhalation for some considerable time.

  32. Folks – please IGNORE Joy.

    She went all-in hard and enthusiastically and early that Masks work BECAUSE MASK WORK DAMMIT!!!!

    She is a mask warrior. A comrade of mask efficacy. She is Alternative Explanation incarnate.

    She was wrong then. She is wrong now. She is wedded to being wrong. She cannot be corrected. She is wearing her mask even now. And this good news for humanity in America makes her soooo mad despite what she is posting here. She is red livid. She is mufflingly screaming under its fabric!

    She fell for a well orchestrated hoax. She doesn’t want to ever admit that she has. Neither do any of the other cultists of the mask or the vexxines. I mean… that would just be EMBARRASING! They could never live with themselves. It would mean that if they were wrong, then all the unmasked anti-vexxing raciss religious fundy right-wing T-party Brexiteering absolutely-all-must-be hWhyte skins were right and that THE SCIENCE ™ and Dear Mother Government and TeeVee people and Experts and fak-chakers they love and want to be friends with were ALL WRONG! Or worse… LIARS!!! And what else would they be lying about….? That everyone voted for Trump? That Putin is ackshully the good guy??? Or… (shudder)… maybe that Transexualism isn’t ackshully true??? HORRORS!!! It can’t be!

  33. The masks were necessary because… PSYCHOLOGICAL PROPAGANDA AND CONDITIONING!!!

    That’s all. Understand that premise and of course masks work! That is the mental reservation THE SCIENCE ™ makes when it declares this in the affirmative. That you didn’t understans what they actually meant by “masks work” is only your fault, not theirs!

    So fear, panic, and beg government to save you with the great resetting and BUILD BACK BETTER if you want to live!!! Some, even many of you, may die; but that’s a sacrifice that our Experts are willing to make for inevitable progress. The Earth needs a saviour, and for this reason Experts were born into the world to shed their blood sweat and tears… well, mostly your blood, and by shedding, they meant clotting… and by sweating, they meant your labor. The tears, are genuinely theirs, in the face of your incredulity and lack of faith in their Expertese and saving power, for which they shall tearfully punish you.

  34. I’m not convinced that the purpose of the mask was ever explicitly determined. To reduce virus transmission is
    This is where I think things are different in th e UK and were from the beginning regarding what was explicitly explained and what the ‘messaging’ was. Nobody here can make the claim things weren’t clear. The same isn’t true of the US, even from what I watched, forgetting anything I read here. I’m on record calling Fauci out before anybody else for his delivery of information. I wondered why Trump ‘had him’ as his expert.
    ___

    Understanding the spread of covid 2 – Professor Wendy Barclay
    ___
    See the paper “The twelve letters that changed the world”

    8:05 minute onwards describes an investigation in early March 2020 to understand spread within hospitals/ inpatients or outpatients.

    Hands are vitally involved (for the virus) in spread. Couple that with what is known about masks blocking large droplets in aerosol and you have the rational, (in part) in saying that people needed to wear masks in indoor public spaces.
    It’s relevant to note that this information really confirms what was known about common respiratory disease…there was much emphasis placed by those who thought they’d discovered conspiracy, that this was already known by those who knew!!
     
    Ventilation was also part of the non pharmaceutical intervention.
    “Hands Face Space”
    Later on, knowing to avoid refrigerated areas, or modifying the activity in and around them, to further reduce viral presence.

    So whatever happened in Florida, I don’t know, but the number of people now in the US if they are representative, are lower than those in this country by percentage, which I guess is a feature of testing. However. The vaccine and the season are working in a virtuous circle people. Conditions are not favourable for covid.
     
    So the mask court case seems a bit late now.
    They already needn’t have been enforcing them as a point of law given that vaccine is rolling out; so the non pharmaceutical intervention is no longer indicated. So the judge did justice to the situation.
    Why so slow? The ruling authority overshot their purpose.
     
    From around 19 Jn face masks were not mandated in England but people had already given them up, mostly. Judging by observations.
     
    People now have freedom of choice over their own health

  35. I am inclined strongly to Johnno’s position (and advice) but will persevere a little more with the lovely Joy.

    “This is where I think things are different in th e UK and were from the beginning regarding what was explicitly explained and what the ‘messaging’ was.”

    This is revisionism. Masks were touted as a key NPI component of Covid mitigation in the UK as elsewhere. The messaging is globally coordinated.

    Masks were supposed to materially reduce transmission of a respiratory virus. They are not capable of achieving this objective. Experts knew that they were not capable of achieving this objective. They did not achieve this objective.

    Masks were always about a symbolic message to the governed that they should remain submissive, or else. Pure political theatre. In this respect Johnno is 100% correct in my opinion. But you chose to (attempt to) build your case around the science so I chose to rebut those arguments as opposed to pointing to the obvious political agenda.

    Masks don’t work to prevent or materially mitigate respiratory virus transmission. Period.

    I understand that the UK has lifted all mask mandates now. Try to be a little bit happy Joy.

  36. Al I’m posting this having noticed you have another comment.
    Sorry if there’s duplication or you’ve already clarified a point.
    (Definitely need a walk in the woods and a cup of tea as I’m getting tired. )

    … a smoker gently exhaling. Without any appreciable force the exhalation quickly spreads. A similar fluid distribution albeit invisible occurs during non-smoke exhalation, with or without a mask.

    {} How can one make th e analogy of a smoker with the analogy of the virus? The cigarette is producing smoke, or do you mean to speak of the exhalation? All gasses expand to fill the area of the “container”
    But that’s not how the virus travels. It does not travel as a gas.
     
    {} consider a smoker who’s breathing out into a mask?

    My contention is that the virus is carried on particles that pass through and around the mask with minimal restriction. And then remain, absent turbulence or other forced air movement, suspended in the space surrounding the location of the exhalation for some considerable time.

    {} ‘some considerable time’ is about an hour, as far as I can understand, and that is without airflow that carries the virus away and downwards to a surface. Remember masks alone are not the point here. It’s masks X hand cleanliness X space, ie ventilation and distance from others
     
    {} the turbulence I’m speaking of with exhalation is caused <i.by the mask, within the mask, so slowing the virus to the point where it falls to the ground.
     
    My Mum said last year she had recognised that wearing her mask in combination with glasses, meant she had to make up her mind whether she wanted to see or not that day.

    So You can feel the steam on your cheek if you don’t seal the nose grip properly. The steam blows into your eyes (my eyes). Yet the quantity escaping is so small that to say it means the the virus has escaped, therefore nobenefit from wearing one is a leap. It also requires certain assumptions about residence time, which is short, and ventilation. Most of he gas is blown onto the person who wears the mask.
    Yet the risks was/is higher for those indoors with others for long periods of time. Not because of the length of residence time but because of the number of individuals all contributing to the viral shedding potentially. Hence (Public),indoor spaces were supposed to be ventilated and length of stay were kept to a minimum.
    This is where the reasoning came from. It is simply good practice in a clinical setting but when the government or an authority is trying to turn the country into t a clinic, it gets tricky. Controlling People is like herding cats
     
    The notion is that the more people comply, the slower the disease would spread. The outcome data is congruent with that being true. By which I mean the entire gambit of non pharmaceutical interventions.
     
    Drastic measures yes. Those times were drastic. These times are not now. It would take an entirely new virus to produce that same urgency.
    Theories about future mutants are overblown. Vaccines exist now for future mutations and future developments of vaccines, just as for flu.
    So the world is in a different place and a better place than it was two years or even a year ago.

  37. I think I’m going to need a long walk in the woods too. Here goes…

    Re the illustrative example of a smoker. Smoke is not an analogy to a virus, nor did I intend to suggest that it was. I am trying to help you visualise how fluid distribution propagates in a free space. It does not require high speed propulsion, a sneeze for example, to travel a considerable distance. If a professional smoking enthusiast were to gently exhale at one end of a train car you know that a professional Karen would be able to quickly detect it at the other. Particles readily move through a gas.

    “The virus does not travel as a gas”. On this at least we can agree. But stay with me here, it can travel through a gas. It doesn’t get from person A to person B via electromagnetic radiation. Or magic. The virus hitches a ride on liquid particles that are emitted in exhaled breath. You can verify that breath contains such liquid particles, too small to see, by exhaling onto a cold surface and observing the appearance of condensation. Some of these liquid particles are larger than others. Larger ones, typically those greater than 5um are usually called droplets. Those smaller than 5um are typically called aerosolised particles. Don’t worry about the words, there are big ones and little ones. Gravity has a greater effect on the big particles than on the little ones. In a vacuum they would both move downwards at the same rate. But in the real world the smaller particles are more buoyant. They remain suspended in the air for a longer time than the smaller ones. Try to visualise the difference between mist and rain.

    Now unless the mask is made of impregnable plastic and sealed hermetically to the unfortunate user’s face with strong glue, the exhaled gas along with the water vapour and viral hosts, is going to escape. Some of it will go through the mask. Some of it will go around the mask. But trust me on this, the mask is not stopping it.

    If it was misty on your woodland walk I guarantee that you inhaled some water vapour. And some particles hitching a ride on that water vapour.

    Are you beginning to understand the argument for the ineffectiveness of a mask for transmission of respiratory viruses?

  38. If it was misty on your woodland walk I guarantee that you inhaled some water vapour. And some particles hitching a ride on that water vapour.

    Are you beginning to understand the argument for the ineffectiveness of a mask for transmission of respiratory viruses?

    looks like your’e getting sarkier by the minute and trying to act as if you’re the online who notices? Like the others do? It’s not funny or clever. Don’t copy Johnno’s example, he doesn’t know what what and believes in conspiracy of all kinds. Thinks masks cause dementia and cancer and premature death..supports vehemently an article that suggests the same. I expect you saw that? Yet you choose to stick to the binary idea that there are two sides here. One has to pick. I reject that notion too. It’s the device of propagandists and activists, paid or otherwise.

  39. Sorry Joy, clearly there’s some history between you & Johnno. But this is an online place where nobody knows anyone. Sarcasm is my default sometimes, I’m a bad kitty but don’t mean to offend; take it on the chin.

    That said, I stand by my arguments. They are rational. Feel free to dissect them forensically.

    There *is* a binary here in the sense that masks categorically have not been proven to mitigate anything. It’s because they can’t, don’t and haven’t.

  40. By the way, arguably it was mild condescension, not sarcasm. I’ll try to resist it in future but have a go at the substance of my argument.

  41. So, Al you’re like the rest, sneaky and sarky
    “try to be a little more happy Joy”
    what does that have to do with anything/. I said it was a good thing that the US has caught on.
    I’m very happy that we have been without masks for months now, as I stated above and you seem to have not noticed. So your game is to do as the oner one did. Pretend to be friendly, then take aim and start digging? This does. nothin g but gives you five minutes satisfaction. What I WAS trying to do was establish the truth. Put an end to the conspiratorial notions and talk. But no, it seems it’s too hard for the likes of you to let of of it all. The rabbits on your side, mistrust all the way and accusations agains those doing their job.

    This is revisionism

    That’s a cheek Al, do I have to show you by links and speeches what was said then and now? Wow, I linked enough at the time to actual individuals saying actual words to describe what was actually said.
    Still not enough? I c copied a transcript that was so early on in the epidemic and which also disproved so many of the conspiracy claims. They were ignored. Why is a good question to wonder about.
     
    I’m telling you what was said, I was here, presumably you were not?
    or you wouldn’t be arguing on this point. You have changed the subject, it seems.

    Revisionism is another word for bearing false witness? I’m not doing that. I provided you with information about the spread from early march last year. You’re arguing with someone who’s worked in clinical settings treating respiratory disease, so I didn’t just come up the river on a bike. How much respiratory experience do you have? How many seriously infectious diseases have you treated up close and personal? Answer? None. How many did I catch? Perhaps It’s because I stuck to the rules? So not only do I know what was known generally at the time, I know the kinds of methods that are used and also can spot a BS artist when I see one. Particularly on medial matters.

    You do seem fixed on the notion that the UK did bad and the UK was wrong but that’s due to the reading material you’ve been subjected to around here. It was always the policy to include all the “NPI’s”
    Not Only masks. All the measures have to be taken. The point is that mask use or not is a visual sign of compliance. So they became a totem or a ‘thing’. Nobody was forced to have their hands checked on leaving public spaces instead they did force use of gel cleansers on the way in and out of indoors spaces. Ventilation was enforced, social distancing was, too. Whatever happened or was said in America is quite another thing. You can’t answer for what was said and done here as your’e clearly mistaken about it.
     
    Saying “period” alters nothing. It’s a restatement of your position without making the case that masks DO work to slow spread and nobody but conspiracy theorists, activists, paid or otherwise think otherwise. I took you for more sensible than that.

  42. the HABBIT! I bet you’re a rabbit, too!
    start saying “kitty” and all you sound like is a mad internet hacker type who goes around plaguing women.
    They exist you know? I was followed to a swimming pool once!
    Don’t be crazy and start talking cats
    Or I’ll start talking rabbits

  43. There *is* a binary here in the sense that masks categorically have not been proven to mitigate anything. It’s because they can’t, don’t and haven’t.
    I think I’ll leave it with that statement.
    That’s s a dogma, of faith,

    Clinical work involves real life, not imagined scenarios.
    What happens in practice is all that matters.

  44. Calm down. I am completely not what you seem to imagine I am. Not that this should matter to either of us.

    If we had another go around on these topics you’d see that a label like “bad kitty” is that, not more. Irreverence is in my nature; if that’s unbearable for you then so long.

    Be happy Joy. It’s not relevant to the topic, just a wish.

  45. “What happens in practice is all that matters.”

    Unfortunately, at least insofar as your reasoning goes, the data is increasingly demonstrating that what happened in practice is proof of inefficacy of NPIs.

    You don’t need to fight with me, nor me you. I am not addressing you, I am presenting a case to the readers of this blog. You are a useful sparring partner. Does it matter which one of us is right (I am, incidentally)? Nop. This microcosm of opinion will form their own.

    You can come back from this. Your call.

  46. As for” BS artists”, I refer to inept or incompetent Medical staff or l charlatans.
    It was not aimed at you, I’m sorry AL how that sounded. People were calling out Chris white for example who is about as honest as the day is long. I don’t agree with what I’m guessing are his views on political aspects of medicine in other areas, but that’s a separate question. If you ask a medic what they think you should do you’re going to ge t a medical decision. Ask an accountant and they’ll say something else.
    Prime ministers or presidents/executives of companies are forced to make complex decisions and weigh the evidence as they see best. Personally, I greed with most of the decisions. Not because I wanted to be locked down or forced to wear a mask, I’m special and wouldn’t have needed such. Yet, all the others can’t be trusted!
     
    I was glad that Boris told my Dad , personally, to stay at home because my telling him not to go to chess had fallen on deaf eats.
     
    If the truth isn’t enough then it means there’s going to be more BS to come…there’s milage in this argument yet, elsewhere than here I mean.
     
    Did you know that there is a ‘clinical truth’ that says
    “it’s never been proved that weight gain affect osteoarthritis or joint pain”
    The reasoning on masks is something like that.
    Nobody sensible’s having an argument about it.
    People who need to know, understand how they can make clinical decisions taking the most likely risks and benefits into account depending on the situation.

  47. Joy, I am being serious and sincere, I don’t think we are that different. We hold different views, we have different experiences, we rationalise in different ways. I’m not a bad person, I sense that you are not a bad person. But we differ on our understanding of what is going on in the world.

  48. Two observations:1- My son could tell I was eating a grape jolly rancher while both of us were masked and over 10 feet apart. 2-Everyone allowed into our Orthodox Services wore masks and were separated into family groups at least 6 feet apart. Everyone could smell the incense.

  49. @DMA It’s a good point well made. How large are the olfactory molecules in grape jolly ranchers and incense? Don’t all shout out at once. If you want to know I’ll do the chemistry…

  50. But mainly, don’t eat grape jolly ranchers. Everyone knows that the cinnamon fire hard is the way forward.

  51. (I am, incidentally)? Nop. This microcosm of opinion will form their own…</i.
    Well no, I'm right you're misconstruing what I'm saying as well.

    AS for others making up their minds? That's a joke I take it?

    They've already did so once they thought they might have to take action for others. Not only that, most don't read properly with only about three exceptions. It's apparent from responses that Theydon't read.
     
    What would be lovely is if people would actually admit when the've been shown to be wrong. Examples are set though, by others…it's a culture in the microcosm which did not used to be true. It is the central reason I stuck to reading this blog years ago. Alas it's not like that now.
    The better job people do of telling the truth and sorting out bad arguments the less I "feel" the need to compensate for it.
     
    Your claim is that your vision of what happens to a virus is true. I'm saying the evidence is as I understand it from Wendy Barclay's recent investigations (with regards respiratory viruses generally…so 2020) is that the residence time is short. Just as it is for CO2 and methane.
     
    NPI's didn't work?
    That's in contradiction with the data which was measured and published regularly and often in the UK. I don't think they were successful in the US. I say that without slant. It's just the way it happened.
     
    Another factor is accurate data, if you don't have that then decisions made on the back of inaccurate data are going to be less than effective. I have been told, although I doubt it now, that the numbers are made up by the CDC. That doesn't really make a difference in the case which I am arguing with you, because the case of masks as part of non medical intervention is only questioned by so called freedom fighters who take that bias into their argumentation. Arguments about freedom should come later in the chain. That didn't happen for the reasons I said before. It's not a good look to say you want the right to be selfish and free of a mask, take risks for yourself, yes, but also risks for others less fortunate. It's hard to justify freedom to be selfish. It's easy to justify "saving the world". So somewhere in amongst it all there's the truth. I don't think you're there yet.

  52. correction:
    (I am, incidentally)? Nop. This microcosm of opinion will form their own…
    Well no, I’m right you’re misconstruing what I’m saying as well. Smoke particles? erm…

    AS for others making up their minds? That’s a joke I take it?
    They’ve already did so once they thought they might have to take action for others. Not only that, most don’t read properly with only about three exceptions. It’s apparent from responses that Theydon’t read.

    What would be lovely is if people would actually admit when the’ve been shown to be wrong. Examples are set though, by others…it’s a culture in the microcosm which did not used to be true. It is the central reason I stuck to reading this blog years ago. Alas it’s not like that now.
    The better job people do of telling the truth and sorting out bad arguments the less I “feel” the need to compensate for it.

    Your claim is that your vision of what happens to a virus is true. I’m saying the evidence is as I understand it from Wendy Barclay’s recent investigations (with regards respiratory viruses generally…so 2020) is that the residence time is short. Just as it is for CO2 and methane.

    NPI’s didn’t work?
    That’s in contradiction with the data which was measured and published regularly and often in the UK. I don’t think they were successful in the US. I say that without slant. It’s just the way it happened.

    Another factor is accurate data, if you don’t have that then decisions made on the back of inaccurate data are going to be less than effective. I have been told, although I doubt it now, that the numbers are made up by the CDC. That doesn’t really make a difference in the case which I am arguing with you, because the case of masks as part of non medical intervention is only questioned by so called freedom fighters who take that bias into their argumentation. Arguments about freedom should come later in the chain. That didn’t happen for the reasons I said before. It’s not a good look to say you want the right to be selfish and free of a mask, take risks for yourself, yes, but also risks for others less fortunate. It’s hard to justify freedom to be selfish. It’s easy to justify “saving the world”. So somewhere in amongst it all there’s the truth. I don’t think you’re there yet.

  53. Joy, I am being serious and sincere, I don’t think we are that different. We hold different views, we have different experiences, we rationalise in different ways. I’m not a bad person, I sense that you are not a bad person. But we differ on our understanding of what is going on in the world.
    That’s right, which is why it’s worth exploring, since there’s only really one truth.
    Sometimes it is genuinely impossible to know what that ‘truth’ is.

     
    Re particle sizes and particle movement. I believe smoke particles are smaller than virus?
    Hepa filters pick up smoke particles. I have a Dyson fan which does this. Vacuums do the same. I believe masks have those filters in them.
    Ordinary surgical masks, the ones where you have to pinch the nose, blue one side white the other…those are the ones most people are using. However people were allowed to “get away with” just a cloth with two layers. Unless they were going to hospital or a clinic, in which case they were provided with a disposable surgical mask as described.
     
    Have ;you ever held a piece of cloth over your nose to stop a smell?
     
    Well then. Point made? There are absolutely degrees of protection but the mask isn’t there to stop you breathing something in, it’s to stop you breathing suff out: or that’s the emphasis, of course it will to some small degree work north ways. People wanted to think they were directly</i protecting themselves.

  54. according to Alexa!
    average smoke particle due to normal combustion such as wildfires are .01 to 1 micron
    https://www.aerosol.mech.ubc.ca/what-size-particle-is-important-to-transmission/

    This site gives a. List of he ‘particle’ size and which mask is effective
    It’s not just the medics making the claim. They rely on the engineers.

    “joy calm down” I was being funny about the kitty thing, but it really happened and I’m no longer wound up about it. Hard to tell from the written word, what someone “feels”. Much is assumed.
    “Joy be happy” Is also hilarious when you hear it the first time
     
    What makes you think that you, the one complaining along with the rest, comes across as anything other than Mal contented and grumpy? That’s how it seems and always does when people moan constantly about the government.
    Doesn’t mean the government isn’t worthy criticism, in America, but as the cat said to the mouse on his birthday:
    “Some days are different… pushes lump of cheese through mouse hole and says happy birthday”
     
    In this Microcosm Every day is the same day

  55. I am simply cutting & pasting this from another source. I suggest that you put on your objectivity hat and read it carefully.

    https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

    “In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2).

    Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

  56. Particle size https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html

    The Covid virus is about 1.5 micron and is normally attached to water vapor in the breath but remains in the air for tens of minutes. This winter here in Montana my mask showed no real reduction in the frozen vapor I exhaled. I figured if I could see condensed vapor through the mask the bug was not trapped much either.

  57. @DMA It’s a reasonable assumption. Care to counter that Joy?

    You see these are not attacks on you personally. They are statements to which you are open and invited to respond to. You can objectively present your case and the public jury can weigh the evidence.

  58. AL I suggest you do the same and respond to my points about particle size, velocity of movement of those particles and so forth.
    Aslo, the link I offered which shows something other than what you’re now claiming.
    Sp ,mechanical engineers from university of BC must be just saying these things for effect?

    AS for those masks are just identified for use in wound dressing. Well no. They are used in respiratory physiotherapy. They are used for, as you say, “accidental” spluttering, sneezing, coughing huffing, shouting, spitting and. so on by the public in trains, etc. They are called surgical masks for a reason.
    That other more expensive masks exist is true, and there are also make shift masks people put together themselves. Your point is about the particles themselves.s
    So put your objective head on and answer my points, instead of pushing swaths of what you claim is convincing literature in my direction. In order to audit your claim I have to read thousands of pages? Not going to happen. This is something that can be settled in words, simple discussion and short proofs.
    You may as well have said, as you did,
    “I can’t find any proof that shows that masks work in any of this stuff I’m linking”
    It’s not an argument.
     
    Your point is that the do not stop spread at all. “period”. So why do they exist?
    For Big mask providers to make money?
    Somewhere a while ago we even had a reader boasting he’d written to the local ITU to tell them not to wear masks…It would be funny if it weren’t so wrong, I expect it gave the staff a laugh though.

  59. “So put your objective head on and answer my points, instead of pushing swaths of what you claim is convincing literature in my direction. In order to audit your claim I have to read thousands of pages? Not going to happen.”

    This is an extraordinary allegation. Can you point to a single swath that I have pushed?

  60. Your responses are almost entirely composed of uncoordinated non sequiturs. It’s impossible to see how you are formulating an argument for anything tangible.

    If you, or anyone else, is going to propose an action (masking) then the onus is on you, or that person, to set out the justification. Have a go at that.

  61. @DMA It’s a reasonable assumption. Care to counter that Joy?

    I already have right back at the top when I described the leakage of masks even from personal experiencer! They Must leak air or you’d suffocate. I made the analogy two years ago when this came up about frozen water vapour in the winter months, visible to the eye. Yet what does that water vapour contain? Referring back to Michael Moon’s comment on the link about the important new paper. WE know they leak, but he confirms that they do.
    It looks to me like you’re trying to continue the straw man argument of all conspiracy people. Not so objective but actually refusing to recognise the purpose of slowing the spread by mass use of NPI’s. You said that wasn’t the purpose and claimed something else was true about masks. You claimed that they were only ever pushed or recommended on their own as a factor in disease control. That was your claim above.
     
    You said I was revising the history. I wasn’t.
    Now you’re back to the beginning again saying that masks leak.

    DMA says nothing new , odd you act as if something’s been introduced that we didn’t already agree?

    Did you look at the short list from BC University I linked?
    Glad you’ve had enough, I had enough hours ago
     
    Not only am I a good person, I’m in the right here. but “here” shifts as always in these discussions.
    What was said at the beginning is forgotten by the time you reach the end. Well done for hiding the temptation to be insulting. Well done for not resorting to ad H or just shouting inanely.
     
    Neither of us have changed our minds one inch. Spoke there’s still something seriously argh.
    That’s curious. Just like the God debate only in that case there an excuse as everybody knows it’s a matter of faith.
    NPI”S aren’t. They are a clinical fact of daily work.

  62. You got up again?
    @ 5:23 pm
    You quoted and linked an article quoting that in a swath of literature , dated…no?
    How can I check the validity of that?

  63. Your responses are almost entirely composed of uncoordinated non sequiturs. It’s impossible to see how you are formulating an argument for anything tangible.

    If you, or anyone else, is going to propose an action (masking) then the onus is on you, or that person, to set out the justification. Have a go at that.
    so here we are again back at the personal remarks and then switching as you did to the non sequential point about mandates. Make up your mind what you’e objecting to and stick to the flow of the discussion. Your’e the one shifting about, not me.
    You agreed then all of a sudden when it looked like you might have conceded something there was a shift.
    Tomorrow, if I still care I’ll look further up at what happened there.
     
    Like I said, I’m looking for what’s true, you’re looking for a political discussion.
    The onus is not on me at all. It’s you who said that masks don’t work period, or something so close as makes no difference.

  64. “Your point is that the do not stop spread at all. “period”. So why do they exist?”

    I refer the honorable lady to an earlier comment about politics.

    “AL I suggest you do the same and respond to my points about particle size, velocity of movement of those particles and so forth.”

    Please present a valid, concise, point and I will be happy to address it.

  65. Joy, I have no idea what you are talking about. There are vague references to ad hominem and lack of sequence but the reality is that you haven’t presented a valid argument for anything you have asserted. I know you’re upset and I’m sorry. If you had been more cogent then you might have appreciated that I am actually not a ****.

    Have some coffee, and a talk with yourself. And then if you’re ready, have another go.

  66. You got up again?
    @ 5:23 pm
    You quoted and linked an article quoting that in a swath of literature , dated…no?
    How can I check the validity of that?

    What does this nonsense even mean?

  67. You can escape from this exchange. Present a case and defend it adequately, something you have so far conspicuously failed to achieve. Back down gracefully, an option you’re going to find tricky to pull off. Or leave it. I recommend that third option though I have no doubt you’ll have other ideas. Be happy Joy.

  68. In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2).

    The above quote is meta analysis.
    It’s inherently biased.
    Someone else must go through the literature anyway to see if they can find other RCT’s that fond otherwise?
     
    Ask Briggs about P values. He only accepts them when they support his view but the rest of the time they are *paraphrased, as useful as small pox.
     
    How about all the other studies? Only ten in history sounds a bit unrealistic.
    Let me know in what way did the above point not refer to what you said?
    It’s another direct response…
    Good evening

  69. “Let me know in what way did the above point not refer to what you said?”

    About what?

    Is this another swath (part of a swathe) of collateral you alleged I was throwing at you?

    Make a point Joy. If it’s worthy I’ll respond to it. Good luck.

  70. Alison, or Alice, as you’re clearly another female
    I’m not in the wrong, you are.
    You can’t make the claim if you haven’t actually established what you’re contending and supported that with proof. You haven’t. You have just claimed to have done so.
    So all the “nice person’ stuff was just rubbish too?
    Now I have to “back down gracefully” for what reason? to save your embarrassment?
    I don’t find that I’m in the wrong and If I thought you’d said something new or conclusive in the matter.
    Do you think the meta analysis quote proves the case? Really?
    You “be happy Al” and back down gracefully. You haven’t done anything but prove your character is to shift the subject and then blame your opponent. You started so well. Yet now you’re showing that you’re the same as the rest. You just want moaning rights about things which you can’t control
    I don’t know you enough to tell if you’re a nice person. In fact, I think it’s strange to bring that up in a conversation about mask mandates. Another reason to assume your’e female! Which then makes me think you’re not entirely straight forward. As I say I don’t know you, you don’t know me. Although don’t bring in You’re a nice person so back down, if you haven’t made a case, let alone if you have…
    If I thought I was wrong I would’ve said so, so thanks for the character judgement
     
    I care about what’s true and think that you are ignoring some key pints of disagreement whilst “asking” me to back down…odd

  71. “swathes”. tonnes of…
    “swath” one tonne?

    The swathe was of the literature that is supposed all to support your ‘side’ of this ‘binary’ argument as you’re presenting it.
    In order to counter that one has to wade through all of the literature trials over the years *myself. I’m obviously not going o do that.
    “about what”? about my comment about the meta analysis.
    The same comment from which you cut and pasted my words.
     
    I take it on trust from those who HAVE looked into the literature and have worked in control of infectious disease as Drs, that they speak in good faith. They were clear and measured. I speak of the UK CMO and deputy CMO, chief scientific advisor and others who’ve spoken on the matter. As well as speaking from clinical experience. Prior to their being mandated, our deputy CMO said on direct questioning on the matter, that the use of masks in the wide community of rcontrol of respiratory disease is debated ands been for fifteen years since covid 1, presumably. This disease was different and more contagious for reasons explained by Wendy Barclay at the beginning of the video I linked. So later in time our CMO was criticised for not recommending them sooner and was accused of putting the public at risk and all sorts of other shinannigans. So they are dammed either way.
    Yet this is only binary in the political sense. Masks do prevent spread of respiratory disease. People argue whether it’s right or worthwhile enforcing them for the public’s general use. Different question, different risks/benefits etc. The decision was made at the time, given all the variables and considerations, that they should be included in non pharmaceutical intervention.
     
    Back to your point about the leaking masks, I never received a response about that. They are known to leak, so what’s the point?

  72. Well that’s a monumental collection of mumbo jumbo. I’m not entirely sure that you shouldn’t be seeking medical attention. If there is a point in all that it is obscured entirely by, well, whatever that was. Anyway, good luck.

    Al/Alice/Alistair/Alison/Alan/Alain/Alise x

    Dr Briggs, and readers, I’m sorry you had to see this. I thought we were going to talk about mask efficacy.

  73. Please don’t pretend to appeal to the supposed authority of Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Jonathan Van-Tam. You might as well quote Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky as uncompromised political actors. Your credibility rating is sinking by the minute and it was at best marginal to begin with.

    As for the leaking masks, I’m glad you remembered where we came in. If you cannot see the significance of the word “leaking” in the context of mask efficacy then it’s hard to see how we can progress this conversation.

  74. The more I read of your comments the more ridiculous they become
    this:
    You can escape from this exchange. Present a case and defend it adequately, something you have so far conspicuously failed to achieve.
    I don’t need to escape It’s you who’s gone to bed several times…
    I’m incredulous at your responses. They chop and change from reasonable to arrogant condescension without an excuse as if there ever were one.
    Why the need for all of that stuff?
    Masks leak and everybody knows. We agreed that at the beginning.
     
    Where precisely do you think you proved your case?
    can you state a time in the above?
    It looks like a stale mate. ..more of the same …
    When you say something I’ll respond 🙂

  75. This is absolute nonsense, I should have taken Johnno’s advice and ignored this moron.

    And for the record it’s Alejandra and I have things to do.

  76. More ad hominem and genetic fallacy in your last post about Chris witty and the CSO’s.
     
    We came in disagreeing and at no point did I need to alter that view. We agreed on known facts. Nor did we need to have that debate really, since it’s common knowledge as well as common sense, or masks would cause suffocation. They have to allow for gas exchange. (without application of full breathing apparatus
     
    So your point that they leak is a red herring, a side show, not a discovery or flaw.
     
    Alejandra unkindness is unnecessary. I had hoped for something that wasn’t just more of the same political cynicism laden outpouring. Particularly about people who are nothing like your most hated man. It’s what they said that counts, not their role in advising government which must be the measure.

  77. From the above article. I have bolded those bits which are most interesting for skeptics that masks are of any use at all in filtering aerosol:

    .There is epidemiological evidence that masks reduce infection, even when imperfect (118, 119). Any face covering will catch large droplets from a cough or sneeze (120), but aerosol particles follow the airflow and escape through any gaps at the edges (19). Good fit is therefore important (121,122). It might be expected that aerosols would be challenging to filter because the droplet diameter is smaller than the mesh size. However, the choice of filter materials depends on some quite complex physics including coagulation, surface adhesion (123) electrostatic interactions (124). A fairly wide range of multilayer filters (125–127) and even some combinations of natural fibres (121, 126) seem to give worthwhile filtration of aerosol-size particles in practice. Even single cloth layers that do not capture aerosols reduce the range of exhaled air (119, 122, 128), Rapid screens for filtration efficiency are available (129, 130). There is no support for the argument that aerosol transmission makes masks useless (120)..

  78. To put Joyless Karen to the dustbin of nonsense, posted last year this date on Fartbook; The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweater material. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively , when even small gap between the mask and the face exists. Jury? Masks don’t work! And it’s illegal to market any mask and say it prevents the spread of any respiratory disease!

  79. Edward Del Colle => April 21st @ 11:06
    Ad hominem again? you made a false assertion, too, which is essentially a restatement of the assertion made by Uncle mike then by Al, who was unable to keep to the point or refrain from ad hominem either! once pointed out that ten papers in a group aren’t a conclusion as to “no effect on spread of infection”. Absence of a proper explanation, coupled with a lack of knowledge about the aerodynamics of the particles, as well as understanding their various sizes. It’s as if the only thing people want to talk about is one aspect which reveals they don’t understand or care to, why masks are used and continue to be used. I find that very curious.
     
    For what it’s worth:
    Again, viruses don’t travel alone. Their cases are too fragile and non viable to do so. The viruses travel in groups/gangs! in small droplets. Either in form of aerosol or in larger droplets as the smaller ones join together. So that’s only the beginning of the explanation as to why the virus’s diameter is not the measure of interest. I’m glad that you’re glad you don’t have to wear a mask any more, I’m glad that they aren’t even indicated now regardless of what the court judge said about who said what sucked and who sucked what.
     
    Here’s one important paper that gained traction around here but was absolute nonsense in the purest sense. To your point about masks specifically, see Michael Moon’s comment
    Michael Moon:
    April 13th @ 10:01
    April 14th @ 9:20
    https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/35227/

    As posted above, see this:
    Here’s a paper that explains viral aerodynamic considerations and reccomendations:
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.590041/full

    Remaining ignorant may be a wonderful thing, but some people do want the truth to stand and not propaganda and politically motivated activists to win the day. There was never a claim that masks alone were THE mainstay of Non pharmaceutical intervention to control spread of a novel respiratory virus.
     
    They were always advised in conjunction with all other measures that can and do control the spread and viability of viruses in a given environment …Hence, Hands, Face, Space.
     
    Going back tot the beginning, what the CDC did or claimed is another matter.
    If people are so pleased to have been told to take off their masks, why do they seem so fed up? Yet again, good news is construed as bad…

  80. From the above linked article, some insight:

    whereas 100 ?m droplets settle in about 5 s (10). The settling has been visualised by laser sheet imaging (28, 43).
    After 1 s, droplets of aerosol size, <5–10 ?m, have had time to dry to equilibrium. Their equilibrium moisture content depends on the relative humidity, their salt content which determines the water activity, and for smaller particles, their size through the Kelvin effect (55).
    Exhaled droplets become completely dry at 50–70% relative humidity and their equilibrium water content increases, roughly exponentially, at higher relative humidity levels (42, 59). Droplet drying, along with settling and entrainment in cough airflows, has been modelled by computational fluid dynamics (55, 60, 61) to make important predictions about virus transmission in confined settings. In some of these studies (60, 61), an unrealistically high salt content was assumed [100 g/L NaCl, compared with <10 g/L salts in saliva (62)] so that the dry diameter and settling rate were considerably overestimated. A droplet with 1.4% solids content, mainly organic (55), is reduced in diameter by a factor of about four on complete drying (Figure 1).

  81. https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-150-comparative-studies-and-articles-on-mask-ineffectiveness-and-harms/
    And now you can try to understand this, Joyless! Wake up. Masks were ordered during the Spanish flu, they didn’t work, because they don’t protect against the inhalation of aerosols, airborne particles. They fit poorly on most fools one encounters and provide limited filtration. Physics says masks don’t work and physics is not a list of suggestions. It is a list of natural laws that nobody, Karen, can violate. Masks are worthless when it comes to viral transmission. And RCT’s have all failed to prove efficacy. Oh, I guess you don’t check your breath out in the cold , goes right through your mask Karen or note that during ordinary breathing the mean particles are sub micron in size and statistically none of those are filtered in either direction by anything less than N95’s.

  82. I didn’t bother with your link. Clearly you haven’t read or assimilated what has been written above and are simply repeating yourself .

    And now you can try to understand this, Joyless! Wake up
    Hugh?

    Ask yourself why you find it necessary to be rude? Where’ that coming from? Presumably you can’t tackle the points made or see where the argument lies.
     
    Mask don’t work because “aerosols” is a facile explanation of why they are used in the first place; of how they do slow transmission when clinicians use them correctly; ditto members of the public comply with their use in conjunction with other npI’s, in order to contribute to reducing viral load in the environment. Thus slowing spread. It seems though you’re stuck on “stopping’ spread. Which is a shame because it’s something that’s been repeated ad nauseam for two years.
    This isn’t difficult unless you have a political axe to grind. So leave me out of the jamboree. Just ‘be happy’ that masks aren’t indicated for public use now en mass. It’s curious that absolute beginners have decided they know better than the professionals and the mask manufacturers, the engineers and clinicians. Not curious enough though to continue further as this is beyond tedious.
    As long s you’re happy Edward that’s what counts?

  83. and statistically none of those are filtered in either direction by anything less than N95’s.

    </i. Hugh? they're not filtered statistically? None of them are statistically filtered? I missed that line, sorry I thought I was done!

    Have a look at the article I posted about the size of the aerosol droplets that contain virus.

    Virus doesn't travel in the air in a viable way, it can't. Look up dry aerosols; difference in size dependant upon which part of the airway is producing the droplets; see aerodynamics, humidity, air flow, turbulence, Mask types and fit…there's a lot to this. Air flow etc is relevant when considering the quotient of virus which escapes around the sides of the mask. Keeping that to a minimum is obviously the key. It never stops virus altogether and nobody ever claimed it did. What's with the Karen business?
    The estimates made above by either yourself or your mate Al are inaccurate as well. Residence time is
    broken down and explained in the linked article. There must be hundreds like that one and many more up to the minute regarding accuracy.
    Just remember the science of this has been around for many years before Covid. It has been tailored for Covid but these discussions have gone on since the first Sars covid disease. I recall travelling to Canada's Toronto at the time it was at a peak there…skiing,, caught a cold, nothing more. There are just more interesting things to do than argue with someone who just won't see, and where you left off there are plenty more like you. So excuse me.
    Not even proof reading this comment

  84. Before Covid? Guess what ? We’ve tried to figure out how to stop flu transmission for decades , as it kills upwards of 60,000 a year, just here, and have never succeeded. And any transmission that occurs from manual transmission via your hands, masks do zippo, and in fact make the situation worse as the face diaper becomes a transporter of bacteria. The science is and has been clear masks do not work to attenuate aerosol viral Transmission. RCT’s say so, even CDC as far back as May 2020 found that they didn’t have a substantial effect on transmission of lab confirmed influenza. So, your scribblings are for naught.

  85. https://brownstone.org/articles/illegal-mask-mandate-quotes-from-the-district-court-judgment/

    And guess what? This means that for all this time, passengers and transportation employees have been forced to follow a mandate, enforced with criminal penalties, that has been illegal. Countless millions have been threatened, victimized, hectored, barked at, thrown off buses, trains, and planes with even young children forcibly muzzled as their parents are denounced , when in fact, it has been the federal government itself that has been violating the law. And all other mask mandates resulted in spikes in so called ‘ cases”, false, asymptomatic or otherwise, cause they don’t stop manual transmission, nor fecal transmission which was another main vector of spread.

  86. Before Covid? Guess what ? We’ve tried to figure out how to stop flu transmission for decades , as it kills upwards of 60,000 a year, just here,
    Wrong; It was claimed to be 36,000: see right hand bar on chart shows average flu year mortality in Us
     
    https://youtu.be/3BdPKpWbxTg
    See chart @6:30 minutes: (CDC’s numbers, not his). As of today the US has in excess of one million deaths attributed directly to the disease over two years, even if you divide that through three winter seasons, it’s ten times an average BAD year, for three consecutive years…

    … and have never succeeded. succeeded by what measure?
    How are you defining success? Is this a “stopping spread” straw man again? Or the “it won’t work so stop trying” argumentum from hopelessness?

    And any transmission that occurs from manual transmission via your hands, masks do zippo, .
    Here, you illustrate the second error of reasoning or the straw man which is proposed by skeptics arguing in vain along skeptical doctrinal lines.
     
    NPI’s or public measures each contribute, combine, summate like a lock and key, horse and cart to SLOW spread. Nobody on earth has claimed they stop spread. Here’s a direct analogy:
    If you’re cleaning your kitchen you don’t just wash the plates and leave the sides full of goo do you? Who does that? Or if you did Would you then say that because someone picked up salmonella, washing plates is therefore pointless because “someone’s going to pick up salmonella from the kitchen sides.!” Its common place in clinical settings to do many things at once in order to produce a better or defined outcome.

    The conspiracy is on part of the nature of airborne viruses I’m afraid, intervention must necessarily be multi factorial to have an impact where there is no vaccine or cure. That is the definition of. Non Pharmaceutical Intervention.
      Consider a lab which is clean to the highest standard for engineering or operational reasons. Think of the lengths they go to to keep particles down. They have to do so for the given application. That is not the level of cleanliness anybody is claiming is attainable even in a clinical setting, or when carrying out aseptic techniques. Then consider a battlefield: Equipment is dirty, aseptic techniques aren’t feasible. Yet nobody would argue that keeping a wound from dirt & debris wasn’t correct. So anything to hand would be used to protect an open wound site. Political motivation is the only explanation for arguing against infection control measures. Re you think there’s proof, you haven’t been reading. Infection control and clinical work is always a matter of careful prioritisation. It’s a basic element in clinical reasoning.

    …and in fact make the situation worse as the face diaper becomes a transporter of bacteria.
    Now you’re being dramatic: Masks do not do harm if used correctly any more than a child’s nappy causes harm. *incidentally the nappy traps chemically irritant substances and enzymes, bacteria and so forth For which correct hygiene is assumed as a minimum unless the child is being neglected. ..and you called me “karen”. Conversely every child at some point has nappy rash and nobody complains to the CDC about it.
     
    How many clinical staff use a mask on a daily bases and have problems you describe? When barrier nursing you have to wear PPE all the time. Countless professional applications are similar. Be real.

    The science is and has been clear masks do not work to attenuate aerosol viral Transmission. RCT’s say so, even CDC as far back as May 2020 found that they didn’t have a substantial effect on transmission of lab confirmed influenza.
    “the science is settled”? where have we heard that before? The ONLY thing that’s agreed is that they must be part of any serious effort to control spread of novel infectious airborne disease where no other treatment or prevention is available and where herd immunity is not yet reached.
    Nobody says, as your argument suggests that professionals should down their masks because they won’t stop all the bugs! Patients would say that kind of thing and be smiled at 🙂
    The problem is that members of the public aren’t so reasonable and compliant. They have things mixed up and some prefer to exercise rights of freedom to do as they wish. This is of course a right, but it has nothing to do with the truth about mask wearing and infection control. It is that “Political hidden premise” which is my point, as the likely source of the ire against their use. After all, they’re not convenient for anybody and they do have drawbacks that would make then undesirable as a permanent installation. They were always a temporary intervention.


    I note on looking the car u, that this judge has decide on some spurious word definition grounds about “sanitation”.
    I think it won’t stand up to appeal. Yet the indication for masks in the US, right now and going forward, if the figures are to be believed is no longer there.
    So the case of their being mandated has passed.
    The disease has already let rip through an unvaccinated sector. It will be treated like an annual flu as with the rest of the world going forward. Don’t be surprised though if you see people wearing masks out there among the English.
    So if you’re going to say ‘they don’t wrk”
    Find a different song to sing

  87. The denouement of your mindless filibustering is masks did nothing by the data, meaning there is zero correlation between mask use and infection rates and the clot shots not only failed to prevent transmission they made it more likely for you to get infected in the period shortly after being jabbed. Backing up if the answer , en masse, to “wear a mask” back in the early months of 2020 was **** you, Fire me if you wish there would have been zero mask mandates, that were illegal the whole time, Karen, anywhere. Ditto for 2021 with “take the jab” or else. And restrain your droning virtue signaling that it would have been worse without it! The true IFR after backing out the misnomers of dying of Covid when they died obviously of co morbidities is around 0.26 percent, maybe less. IFR for the Asian flu of 57-58, 0.67 percent. No lockdowns, etc. So, get thee to a nunnery or woodshed.

  88. Edward,
    The comment was filled with content and with logical explanation and reasoned argument.
    That you’re choosing to continue with the reframing and dismissal is not surprising, but it’s still fallacious on your part.
    Take a look at the papers:
    1 The Mickey mouse paper/hoax which was withdrawn and think about who’s side of this debate you’ve chosen to take. Think about your own degree of bias and ask yourself if you would have supported that paper too. If so , why.
    2 Check out the engineering explanations and examples of the residence time, lifecycle and vulnerabilities of the virus once airborne.
    The notion that masks should stop all particles of virus is obviously once which captured your imaginatio right at the beginning. It was always a false assumption. It is the first of the straw men used by willing and following skeptics to jump on the bandwagon about the ‘uselessness” of their application.
     
    Those who pushed the notions of “masks should stop spread’ Know better, and they know who they are, some of them. Look up the definition of a straw man fallacy
     

    @not @ Edward,
    The judge didn’t even rule on the usefulness of masks as far as the reports go. She made some legalistic “get out” point about whether the US federal law covers masks as a “sanitation” category. So the CDC’s now in a position where clinically, it looks like the US is in a place where masks mandating is not justifiable (now), but arguing that they are still eligible for inclusion under existing law regarding sanitation.
     
    All because people can’t keep their cool heads on and do the necessary with good grace. so deep seated is the fear of oppression that it’s a tool for those who wish to use that fear to sell and promote fake science; to offer fake salvation with a better way; when in fact, just doing the necessary is/was by far the wisest approach.
     
    That fear of oppression is yet another neurosis that is amplified by bad actors on line, where followers come cheap.

  89. Well Joy, and by the way, hello again…

    If you had entertained the idea that there might be an alternative reality to the cloud cuckoo land you inhabit then you might have embraced some facts.

    Let’s just for the moment accept that masks can restrict ‘some’ particles from passing through or around them. Now consider that restricting 1%, that’s a notional but representative proportion, by definition allows 99% to pass.

    Can you see how your argument is fundamentally bankrupt?

    The biological and physical evidence supporting your argument is simply not there. The real world outcomes from mask mandates don’t support your argument.

    The meta analysis from countless studies going back tens of years does not support your argument.

    When are you going to stop flogging this dead horse?

  90. Masks DO work.
    We have decades of history of surgeons wearing them in operating rooms.

    The general populous, as a rule, wears masks incorrectly and/or the wrong kind of masks.
    Of course masks DO NOT work when they are made of thin cloth and worn below the nose.

    Obviously the CDC has no lawful power to force citizens to wear masks and obviously the general public has demonstrated millions of ways to bypass any advantage to wearing one.

  91. Oh my. After all this time and debate you want to wade back into this again? Did you read all the arguments above? I’m asking because you’ve ventured an opinion. What argument are you presenting to show that masks are effective in the prevention of transmission of respiratory viruses that is a factual rebuttal of those presented above showing that they are not?

    An opinion masquerading as a fact is not helpful in discovery of truth. Over to you Mr Arthur.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.