Covid-19 pandemic & Fake News - How you can help

[OPSSG]

Post 2 of 3: Shining a light on lazy thinking

Governments treat their people as mindless herds by the blanket rules requiring anything from mandatory masks all the time everywhere (like in California now) to curfews on outdoors presence to closing hiking in natural parks. And the less the government repects an individual as a rational being the more of these regulations you get.

...In my opinion, not by instituting obedience laws, but by encouraging personal responsibility and educating on the issue. Such as the mask wearing thing...

...I am sure most people on here, just like most people in general, do not realize how little effectiveness they provide in 90% of normal life situations...

...Aerosols behave very differently depending on the size, dropping to the ground like little rocks when the size is above a dozen of micron or so (the larger the droplets the more infectious) and present no danger to anyone who is further than a meter away. The smaller stuff behaves pretty much like cigarette smoke, which means that outdoors it almost instantly dissipates from the source to very low concentrations which are insufficient to cause a transmission and, again, present no danger to anyone further than a meter from the infected...

...Plus, this smaller aerosol that is carried by air flows is far smaller than the pore sizes of most masks, such as the surgical ones or anything from cloth, and will go through them like knife through butter. The bottom line is, mandating masks outdoors at all times is ignorant idiocy, and the data suggests as much. Presumably, over 90% of all infections are caused by less than 10% of the infected, essentially meaning that the transmission predominantly happens during superspreading events, like the one mentioned above. So, wouldn't it be more reasonable to limit the regulations to address such superspreading events and not go full retard California style and ban everything? Banning hiking? Tennis courts? Curfews? Closed National Forests? It is a disgrace and an embarassment how they treat people...

9. People like Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, Nebraska Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts and President Donald Trump, who ignore his advisors’ guidance on pandemic management, generally have no problem calling others stupid, while behaving badly themselves (but often defending their lazy stance, couched in the language of personal liberty).

​

(a) This forum encourages sophisticated and in-depth discussions to listen to good ideas and at times to debunk bad ideas — I’ll let others in this forum judge — who is misinterpreting the data and ignoring science — and who is using data to illuminate this discussion.​

​

(b) IMHO, American mask mandates by itself is insufficient to stop the spread at this stage of the pandemic cycle. In other posts in this thread, there are real world examples given on how smart governments have deployed multiple measures to get COVID-19 under control, in a matter of weeks, rather than in months. They can work, if they are drastic enough.​

​

(c) But for a population to agree to drastic measures, there needs to be significant efforts at public education — on the known guidelines on pandemic management — while having the political courage to implement tough measures for the greater good (which is really an art).​

One of the problems is that early on, the method of transmission was not known or understood. It was gradually realized that there was a respiratory component, but that too was thought to be droplet transmission and that the infection could not be aersolized...

...What is known to occur, though the reasons are not known, is that some people, for some reason, tend to expel a greater amount of fine matter than others. This 'greater amount' is usually orders of magnitude greater. One of the early 'superspreader' events in the US, which was a church choir practice in WA state IIRC, mentioned the potential for fine matter to have been circulated during the practice.

The point is simple. I don't want to do stupid things my government makes me do.

10. In a speech on 9 Nov 2020, Biden implored Americans to stop politicizing masks and social distancing. The main man has spoken and said:

​

"Please, I implore you, wear a mask," the President-elect said. "Do it for yourself, do it for your neighbor. A mask is not a political statement but it is a way to start pulling the country together."​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1335442418817232896

11. During the campaign, Biden spoke of his plan to issue a nationwide mask mandate. Doing so could be challenged in court, though, and in October Biden said he would go to every governor and urge them to issue mask mandates — studies show that public health measures like mask mandates work to prevent infections and hospitalizations.

12. IMO, the reason why some Americans still feel that masks are optional, reflects on failures at two levels that are mutually reinforcing. One, there is the failure of Trump’s leadership, in pandemic management, at the federal level; and two, a failure of public education efforts, very often at state and city level.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1335442694693240834

13. It warms my heart that President-elect Joe Biden called and recognized @Cleavon_MD (Dr. Gilman). Dr. Gilman has not only been on the front line fighting this pandemic, but has painstakingly shared an inside picture of what’s happening.

14. In related news, Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the US National Institutes of Health, (who has emerged as a leading US public health expert during the COVID-19 pandemic), has been asked to serve as Biden’s chief medical adviser.

15. Biden said: “I asked him to stay on in the exact same role as he’s had for the past several presidents, and I asked him to be a chief medical adviser for me as well and be part of the COVID team.”

16. Dr. Anthony Fauci warns "it's not going to be a light switch" back to normalcy even when a Covid-19 vaccine becomes available to the public. In fact, Fauci recommends people still wear masks and practice social distancing even after getting the vaccine, he told CNN.

 

[OPSSG]

Post 3 of 3: What Santelli’s rant and PhysicsMan’s Posts have in common: Confirmation Bias

17. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top US infectious disease expert, said on 29 Nov 2020 that the U.S. is heading into a difficult period of the coronavirus pandemic.

• He said current restrictions and travel advisories will be necessary for the Christmas holiday season.
• While the CDC warned people against traveling for Thanksgiving, more than 9 million people traveled in airports running up to and after the holiday.
• Fauci said Americans should take their own virus mitigation steps in order to help overwhelmed hospital systems.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1335211030658633735

18. “We're getting those staggering numbers of new cases and hospitalizations before we even feel the full brunt of the Thanksgiving holiday," Fauci said on 7 Dec 2020. Health experts warned before the holiday that Americans should gather virtually rather than risk exposure.

19. People are going indoors, they're not minding the three W's," Health and Human Services secretary Alex Azar told Fox News' Chris Wallace on Sunday. "Our advice is always the same. Wash your hands, watch your distance, wear face coverings." Health experts have long warned that the holiday season would bring a spike in coronavirus cases as people increasingly gather indoors.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1336034179943960576

20. Everyone has faced a steep learning curve since the onset of the pandemic, but we know some things with certainty — thanks to expertise, experience and tragic losses — about how Covid-19 spreads and how to help stem its expansion. As Faye Flam has noted, scientists generally agree that the greatest risk for contracting the coronavirus resides anywhere there is close contact, closed spaces and crowds. It follows that avoiding such places or encounters, particularly if talking, shouting, singing, sneezing or coughing are part of the mix, is sensible. A bigger space with more ventilation, less close contact and less talking or shouting certainly seems safer than the alternative when considering the risk of contracting Covid-19.

21. Santelli’s rant also highlights a phenomenon psychologists call “motivated reasoning” or “confirmation bias.” A predilection for cherry-picking facts that conform to your view of the world and ignoring those that don’t is something all of us do.

22. It is unfortunate that Trump’s most enduring legacy for America—is a nihilistic political culture, one that is tribalistic, distrustful, and sometimes delusional, swimming in conspiracy theories. The result is that Americans are disoriented and frustrated, fearful of and often enraged at one another. Trump didn’t invent misinformation and disinformation; they have been around for much of human history — Trump by virtue of his considerable skills in this area, aided by social media and capitalizing on “truth decay” and diminishing trust in sources of factual information— exploited them more effectively than anyone else has in American history.

23. It is in the above light that I see PhysicsMan’s posts in this thread. It does not matter that he did not vote for Trump. What matters is record numbers of Americans came out to vote for a conman; and even when he lost the elections, they refuse to accept it.

24. As part of this dysfunctional American political culture, much like Trump’s supporters, PhysicsMan attempts to reframe logical and temporary pandemic control measures as an assault on his liberty in a tribalistic manner, and he speaks in total disregard for the health of his fellow man.

 

[John Fedup]

The sad fact is you have significant mentally feeble people group incapable of analyzing proven solutions, and a politically poisonous court system fuelling the spread of this virus. A working vaccine is the best hope for the US, assuming the anti-vaccine lobby doesn’t derail the program, probably wishful thinking.

 

[At lakes]

Communist China is now 'blaming Australia' for giving it COVID-19 (msn.com)

Will the BS coming out of that rag ever stop first it was the US that gave it to China then Italy and now a suggestion its Australian Steaks could be responsible.

 

[PhysicsMan]

I will start with a general formula for probability (of infection in this case):

Pinf = 1 − exp(−ρV /Ninf), [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.21.20108894v3.full.pdf]

Where P is the probability, ρV is the virion load, Ninf is the infectious load (probability that’s considered sufficient to trigger infection). What this means is that once ρV starts getting close to Ninf the probability of infection becomes high, and reversely, falls off very rapidly once below it.

For respiratory infections (Covid-19 included) Ninf is ~1000 virions. [https://absa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/OHCOW-200715_brosseau_infectiousdose.pdf]

Next, let’s look at the virion production rate in an aerosol emitted by a) breathing,) talking, c) sneezing (increasing in that order): [https://absa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/OHCOW-200715_brosseau_infectiousdose.pdf]

• Breathing: ~1000 (virions per min)
• Talking: ~10000
• Sneezing: ~1000000

Having determined the values for both ρV and Ninf in the above formula we can now look at what ρV looks like in an outdoor setting. For this we need to consider the mechanisms for aerosol density dissipation. There are two such mechanisms in play here: 1) gravitational settling, 2) air convection (air movement caused by breathing/sneezing and general air movement aka wind).

Gravitational settling velocity for a droplet is governed by the following equation:

V=(Dexp2)*ρ*g*/18µ, [https://authors.library.caltech.edu/25069/7/AirPollution88-Ch5.pdf]

where D is the droplet diameter, ρ is its density, g gravitational constant, µ is air viscosity. This is valid below 20 micron size, above that size the velocity is superlinear in Dexp2, meaning it increases more rapidly with D than in the formula. Plugging the numbers in, here are some values:

V[1 µm]=0.045mm/s; V[10 µm]=4mm/s, V[50 µm]>90mm/s, V[100 µm]>350mm/s

What this means is that droplets below ~10 µm do not experience gravitational settling outdoors -random air movements completely overwhelm their settling velocity and the droplets simply follow the air stream they are in. Droplets between ~10 µm and ~30 µm display intermediate behavior with settling velocities of about 25cm-2.5m per minute. Those above these values settle rapidly, hitting ground within several seconds.

Now I will go over aerosol size distributions measured while talking and sneezing - two worst case scenarios (talking is worse than breathing with a similar distribution, and sneezing is worse than coughing with a similar distribution).

[Characterizations of particle size distribution of the droplets exhaled by sneeze ] deploys Spraytec, a highly accurate measurement device for determining the statistical size distributions of aerosols. I’ve used it for years with very reproducible results. Referring to figures 2 and 3, both showing the distributions of sneezes (apparently there are two kinds of sneezes, with one producing a single mode/peak, second producing two). I will look at Fig.3 as it represents the worse scenario than Fig.2 (as explained below).

These graphs show the percentage of different droplet sizes in the aerosol, as determined by their volume fraction – which determines the viral load. From Fig 3, droplets range from ~25 µm to several mms in size, and those above 30 µm constitute ~99.7% of the entire volume – settling down to the ground within seconds – a segment having no infectious potential outside of immediate vicinity of the sneezer, within less than several seconds.

The remaining ~0.3% linger around for a longer time. The typical spread of aerosol during a sneeze is depicted here: [Details - Public Health Image Library(PHIL)]
It can be approximated as a cone with a 50-80 degree solid angle (angle increasing with growing distance). For a more strict scenario, let’s assume a constant 45 degree solid angle. That means that a foot from the mouth the density drops from 100% to ~1% (assuming a 1inch mouth opening during a sneeze) and to ~0.25% at 2 feet. Plugging in the viral production rate of a sneeze with 1 million virions, we get a total ~30 virions of the lingering droplets produced by one sneeze one foot away from the source at time zero (dissipating to lower values after that). The critical load for an infection is 1000 virions. That means that after the large droplets settle within several seconds, one has to come into the 1 foot circle of the source and inhale around 30 sneezes within a minute to get infected with high probability – assuming they all linger around (no ambient air movement). To conclude, the only realistic scenario of getting infected from sneezing is remaining indoors for an extended period, when droplets keep accumulating in an enclosed volume of a room. Even if we relax the Ninf value by ten times, to 100, one still needs to inhale 3 sneezes within a minute, within a foot of the source in order to get infected with high probability (reminder, these calculations exclude the largest droplets, >~30 µm, which means they exclude the direct hits of a high speed sneeze right into your face).

Next, let’s move to aerosols due to talking, as they have a very different size distribution. As illustrated in [Characterizations of particle size distribution of the droplets exhaled by sneeze], Fig.5, blue triangles (worst case scenario again), the distribution centers around 5 µm. As it closely follows a Gaussian distribution we can approximate the volume of droplets below ~30 µm to be around 70% of the total (see [A Guide to Particle Size Distribution Weighting - What Was Measured and What It Means] for illustration, first figure) – these, again, are the droplets to worry about beyond the initial several seconds of generation). Assuming the same solid angle of propagation as with sneezing (although in reality it is significantly wider than for sneezing due to low speed of propagation), one gets around 70 virions produced per minute a foot away from the talking mouth. While this concentration can potentially go up in time within a stagnant air room, it only goes down in an open air environment, leading to this conclusion: in order to get infected with high probability one must remain within a foot of a non-stop talking infected person for longer than ~14 minutes. Relaxing Ninf to (unrealistic) 100, one still must be within that foot for longer than around a minute and a half. And, again, this assumes the idealistic scenario with no air movement (aka wind) at all. Any slightest whiff would drop these numbers precipitously, as anyone who’s ever seen cigarette smoke can understand.

And that’s all folks. Welcome to the real science of Covid transmission.

 

[oldsig127]

I will start with a general formula for probability (of infection in this case):

<SNIP - massive amount of babble>

And that’s all folks. Welcome to the real science of Covid transmission.

What you have posted is the classic example of a "Straw Man" argument. This diversion from the thread started with several members noting that masks don't guarantee the non-transmission of COVID but do reduce the likelihood.

No-one claimed them perfect, but we still get the full demonstration thrashing that poor old bale of hay.

It's entirely irrelevant that it doesn't always work and all the maths in the world won't change the practical effects. Together with distancing and hygiene they remain a part of the best practice response because they reduce the number of infections, not eliminate them.

Even your first quoted reference comes to the conclusion that wearing masks is beneficial, to the wearer, and to those they might encounter.

oldsig

 

[DDG38]

I read this article today and funnily enough it made me think of this thread, worth a read to illustrate the contrast between responses : Arriving in the US from Australia during Covid was like walking through the looking glass (Guardian link)

 

[OPSSG]

What you have posted is the classic example of a "Straw Man" argument. This diversion from the thread started with several members noting that masks don't guarantee the non-transmission of COVID but do reduce the likelihood...
Even your first quoted reference comes to the conclusion that wearing masks is beneficial, to the wearer, and to those they might encounter.

oldsig

1. @PhysicsMan is taking about how to calculate the physics of aerosol movement by rate and volume. As he also admits, the data he presents is NOT virological–epidemiological in nature. I hold the view that we should not only read scientific journals and articles, but learn from other members here. IMO, he is a subject matter expert in aerosol movement that we can learn from (but he is not an expert in the virological–epidemiological field).

2. @oldsig127, appreciate you effort catching the straw man. Both sides of the arguments are consistent with PhysicsMan’s discussions on face masks and coverings offering limited protection indoors, if the ventilation is bad. But that also does not change the fact that:

​

(i) the wearing of masks is among the 3Ws recommended by American medial experts in the field of epistemology including by the CDC (and experts can make mistakes, which is why there is peer review of papers published).​

​

(ii) the wearing of masks reduces the amount of particles and distance traveled in the surrounding area, when a person wears them; and​

​

(iii) these is a good reason why all members in an operating theatre wear masks (when they operate a patient, as an infection control measure). Keeping in mind that they are in an enclosed room.​

3. Over time, peer-review will provided the basis for continuous Popperian–Lakatosian criticism on published CORVID-19 studies (see also A Critique of Popper’s Views on Scientific Method). At least in theory, peer review provides a scientific quality badge to information.

​

(i) Both peer review and editing processes take time, which we do not have in the current CORVID-19 pandemic. Hundred of studies are either published in preprint repositories or submitted to fast-track peer review.​

​

(ii) This obviously means loosening the critical parameters, a choice of speed over rigor. That trend is totally in accordance with Lakato’s predicted privileges for progressive programs. However, it requires a permanent critical attitude from the readers and a constant state of alert in the scientific community.​

5. The US is responding to the same pandemic as Australia, South Korea, Singapore and NZ, but you would hardly know it. In the US magical thinking and the elevation of individual freedom above the public good has squandered precious time. In common with the US, on 5 Dec 2020, Japan has had a mini-surge of more than 2,400 new CORVID-19 cases of infections were reported across the country the same day, while the number of those with severe symptoms surpassed 500 for the first time.

​

(i) Singapore after some initial success, had a second wave hit. In Dec 2020, the country has just finished fighting against a second wave of CORVID-19 infections from Apr 2020 that saw infections rise to 1,426 coronavirus cases per day — likewise the Australians and Kiwis set an example that shows the response to a pandemic needs to be strict.​

​

(ii) If we let our guard down, a country can easily be hit by a third wave — just as in the case of South Korea, which they are now fighting. With 583 new coronavirus infections, Seoul launched unprecedented curfews on Saturday, shuttering most establishments and shops at 9 pm for 2 weeks and cutting back public transportation operations. Tighter restrictions are a blow to Asia's fourth-largest economy, which reported a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 4.2% in Oct 2020.​

​

(iii) Lives and a nation’s economy hang in the balance. In the article cited by @DDG38, Abby Bloom wrote: “the response needs to be evidence-based. Precise. Coordinated. Thorough. Caring. Impartial. Transparent. Legally enacted and enforced. Strongly led and clearly communicated. Tough. Really tough. Because that’s what it takes to control a pandemic.” But I do admit my agreement with Abby Bloom could be my “confirmation bias.”​

​

(iv) In conclusion, COVID-19 responses does not require consensus. Instead a review of best of breed is enough. Taking criticism in the right spirit is perhaps the most precious principle of scientific thinking and practice. By submitting the role of science in responding to COVID-19 to the scrutiny of leading critics of mainstream science, we not only vaccinate our community against nihilistic arguments but also reinforce the human value of research activity.​

6. But I caution that research and scientific criticism must be exercised aiming to collaborate with public policies and avoiding messages of uncertainty and insecurity to the already sufficiently frightened population.

 

[Boagrius]

Agreed, as I have said before, dismissing widespread mask use out of hand purely on the basis of aerosol behaviour does not adequately address all the variables at play in a nationwide pandemic response. For example:

- While SARS-Cov-2 appears to spread primarily via airborne means, it can persist on people's hands/bodies as well as on surfaces outside the body (even outdoors). As a consequence, significant emphasis on hand hygiene seems to be warranted:

Does hand hygiene reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission? - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

- Masks and face coverings can significantly reduce the amount of aerosol particle emission/viral shedding from expiratory activities. While a dangerous viral load may not travel far in an outdoor setting, that still means less viral inoculum to be coughed/sneezed/breathed onto an individual's own hands and then transferred to other individuals or frequently used surfaces like door handles etc.

Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities - Scientific Reports

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a surge in demand for facemasks to protect against disease transmission. In response to shortages, many public health authorities have recommended homemade masks as acceptable alternatives to surgical masks and N95 respirators. Although mask wearing is intended...

www.nature.com

- Mask use also seems to reduce the amount of face-touching behaviours that individuals engage in, which is again favourable in any setting (indoor or outdoor).

Mask Wearing and Face-Touching Behaviors Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This cross-sectional study examines mask wearing and face-touching behaviors before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in China, Japan, South Korea, Western Europe, and the US.

jamanetwork.com

- There's also the big picture question of how to elicit the needed behaviour from the population to bring the disease under control. While inconvenient, I would posit that mandating mask use outdoors in hard-hit areas ensures that everyone has a mask on them at all times when leaving the house. So, when they move from the park to the store they still have their mask on them. Earlier modelling suggests that macro-scale mask use should help to control the virus:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376

- As has been said before, nobody is claiming masks to be a panacea, but there is good reason to think they can help. Perhaps it is time we stopped idly fretting over how much they (a minor inconvenience at worst) impinge on a given individual's "personal freedoms" and focused more on what actually helps to beat the disease.

- That is much more a conversation about mitigation (apparently what PhysicsMan advocates) vs suppression. The simple reality is that we have very little (if any) data to suggest that mitigation "works" in hard hit areas, while numerous countries have used suppression with favourable results (if not out of downright necessity).

https://www.idcmjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IDCM_2020_0009.pdf

 

[swerve]

The point is simple. I don't want to do stupid things my government makes me do.

Therein lies the problem. You've just said, in effect, that your analyses are biased, & you're seeking arguments to support what is basically a political stance.

If you'd limited it to "I don't want to do stupid things", everyone could agree with you. When you add "my government makes me do", it starts to fall down. Such a statement is usually associated with the assumption that governments are consistently wrong & do not act in the best interests of the people. While that is true some of the time (& a lot more than "some" for many governments), even rather tyrranical governments like that of China very often act in the public interest, if for no other reason than that it coincides with their own interests. A raging epidemic weakens the country & can threaten the personal survival of the leadership. Minimising its impact increases their prestige & the goodwill of their subjects. Win-win!

 

[PhysicsMan]

There is alot of great information posted on here, with some very thoughtful insights into this global topic. What I wanted to stress (among other things) was that it may be time (as someone already mentioned here as well) to refine the approaches and sort out what works and what does not. My own understanding of the situation tells me that the spread is highly non-linear in its response to measures taken. As often is the case in multi coupled systems such as this one, perturbations/disturbances to one element of the system can lead to a system-wide response disproportionate to the perturbation (as it may seem). I will give one example that everyone can relate to. Recall a time when you are steadily moving along on a multi lane high speed road, filled with a fair amount of vehicles but not enough to slow the traffic down. Then, all of a sudden, the traffic comes to a crawl, and five minutes later you notice a single very slow moving car in one of the lanes. In fact, at some point you may find yourself moving SLOWER than the broken car. How does one broken car slow down a five lane (for the sake of argument) highway? The behavior of all elements of the system is coupled to that of each other, creating this susprising effect. I see the response of the spread to various suppression measures fitting into a conceptually similar model. The task is to determine which measures create this disproportionate response, and which ones are just a background noise. Many countries/governments/entities (whatever) took a sweeping approach where they threw everything they could think of at this thing, and it worked (for some). While that is an appropriate response in a high stress crunch time of the onset of the pandemic, we are nearing to a year from the start, and many of those things start to look very, very questionable to many smart people.
There are some obvious measures that must be taken, such as preventing people from congregating in close proximity in enclosed spaces. All of my posts focused on the measures that are far from obvious and in many cases are downright ridiculous. This thing is driven by superspreader events particular to certain behaviors/situations - not all of them. The normal 80/20 rule becomes more like 90/10 in this case - 10% of events lead to 90% of effects (non-linear system). And the same holds for the suppression measures, where 90% of efforts lead to 10% (and I suspect much less in some cases) of results. Is California with its love for controlling people doing better than Texas that is sort of opposite? It's not, despite the VERY striking difference in mask wearing behavior of people and how they get around and live their lives in the pandemic. Do masks outdoors help reduce the spread? Does making people stay home, avoid work, parks, forests, any places work? The answer is YES. But a more relevant question to ask is HOW MUCH do they help? Not all measures are worth the effort and the burden they impose on people. And, yes, there is that nagging question of personal liberty. I do not want a government to track me, I do not trust it to NOT do that once the pandemic is over.
Many of the government imposed measures mentioned on here I fully support. But it is time to be more careful about sorting them out from the ones that do not influence the big picture and likely hurt people in more ways than we even realize at this point.

 

[Boagrius]

This thing is driven by superspreader events particular to certain behaviors/situations - not all of them.

Source needed.

And the same holds for the suppression measures, where 90% of efforts lead to 10% (and I suspect much less in some cases) of results.

Source needed again.

Is California with its love for controlling people doing better than Texas that is sort of opposite? It's not, despite the VERY striking difference in mask wearing behavior of people and how they get around and live their lives in the pandemic. Do masks outdoors help reduce the spread? Does making people stay home, avoid work, parks, forests, any places work? The answer is YES. But a more relevant question to ask is HOW MUCH do they help?

You are changing the goalposts now. At first you dismissed masks as one of the dumb things the government was making you do on the basis that they would not help thanks to the dynamics of aerosol behaviour, which you described as "the science of COVID transmission". Now you acknowledge that they can help (but not enough?).

I can't comment on the specifics of California's case overall (not an SME), but expecting mask use to drive the difference in overall outcomes vis a vis Texas is absurd. Please be more scientific here - there is good evidence to suggest that they can be a valuable part of the solution, but not the entirety of it.

Not all measures are worth the effort and the burden they impose on people. And, yes, there is that nagging question of personal liberty. I do not want a government to track me, I do not trust it to NOT do that once the pandemic is over.
Many of the government imposed measures mentioned on here I fully support. But it is time to be more careful about sorting them out from the ones that do not influence the big picture and likely hurt people in more ways than we even realize at this point.

Problem is that a quarter of a million of your countrymen have had their civil personal liberties annihilated... forever, with many more to follow. The research you are looking for is being done as we speak (I have already posted some of it) - you just need to bother to look for it. Unfortunately I don't see how you are going to get this thing under control without using a suppression based strategy, and that is going to mean the temporary sacrifice of some personal liberties (by design).

 

[PhysicsMan]

Source needed.

Superspreader events key driver in COVID-19 pandemic

At churches, on cruise ships and even in the White House, superspreading events that can sicken dozens, even hundreds, of people have illustrated the potential for the coronavirus to infect in dramatic bursts.

medicalxpress.com

Source needed again.

You are changing the goalposts now. At first you dismissed masks as one of the dumb things the government was making you do on the basis that they would not help thanks to the dynamics of aerosol behaviour, which you described as "the science of COVID transmission". Now you acknowledge that they can help (but not enough?). I can't comment on the specifics of California's case overall (not an SME), but expecting mask use to drive a difference in overall outcomes vis a vis Texas is absurd. Please be more scientific here - there is good evidence to suggest that they can be a valuable part of the solution, but not the entirety of it.

I am not changing anything, you just missed the point of that statement. Does me holding in a fart right now help reduce greenhouse effects? Yes. But how much? Nature works in probabilites, not like the digital world.


Problem is that a quarter of a million of your countrymen have had their civil personal liberties annihilated... forever, with many more to follow. The research you are looking for is being done as we speak (I have already posted some of it) - you just need to bother to look for it. Unfortunately I don't see how you are going to get this thing under control without using a suppression based strategy, and that is going to mean the temporary sacrifice of some personal liberties (by design).
[/QUOTE]

 

[swerve]

I'm not sure what you mean. The stupid things I am made to do come from government, do they not? How does that in any way imply that government does that consistently and in always detrimental way?
I feel there is this need on here to bring politics into my arguments and use it to go: aha! you're political therefore all your arguments are invalid! If you want to call discussing actions of my goverment political, by all means. I just do not see how we can discuss government driven actions without talking about, humm... government.

You're echoing what certain ideologues say. That may be unintentional, but when that happens, there's always a suspicion that you buy into the rest of the programme. You've said other things that fit it, which adds to the suspicion.

The question of facemasks has become a mark of political identity on the American right, to the bafflement of most of the rest of the world. The medical consensus worldwide is that they reduce the spread of covid-19, as they do other droplet-borne diseases. It's not that they're a panacea, or equally useful in all circumstances, but they help. Arguing against them because their effectiveness is limited misses the point: this is biology. It's messy. Things are almost never 100%. It's bloody complicated, so much so that precision is generally impossible. It runs on approximations.

Facemasks fit that perfectly. Partial protection, highly variable depending on circumstances, differing from invidual to individual. It's a typical biological thing. But in biological terms, they're obviously advantageous. Reducing the number of viruses someone inhales (not blocking them completely) can prevent them from catching the disease. 50% stop can be 100% protection. Or 0% protection, in circumstances identical except for the people involved. It's complicated.

Epidemiologists know this. To them, I think that arguing about precisely what percentage of droplets is caught by a mask as if it decides whether it means effective or worthless is puzzling. They talk in terms of averages, of degrees of effectiveness, etc., whether of masks, drugs, vaccines, behaviour, or whatever.

I'm afraid that to me your arguments have a flavour of . . . how do I say it . . . . ideology . . . rather than being practical.

Sometimes what governments do is data-driven & pragmatic, the sort of thing which most opposition parties in a European country will probably support, or at least not oppose, or argue only about details of implementation. Treating everything as political is mixing up categories. I see the US mask debate as a case of that. Opposing them (& there are people who actively oppose their use) is clearly political signalling, & to me it's bizarre.

 

[Boagrius]

Apologies for the length of this post, but I think it is pertinent, as I have already posted a source that addresses the question raised below.

I am not changing anything, you just missed the point of that statement. Does me holding in a fart right now help reduce greenhouse effects? Yes. But how much? Nature works in probabilites, not like the digital world.

"These analyses may explain why some countries, where adoption of facemask use by the public is around 100%, have experienced significantly lower rates of COVID-19 spread and associated deaths. We conclude that facemask use by the public, when used in combination with physical distancing or periods of lock-down, may provide an acceptable way of managing the COVID-19 pandemic and re-opening economic activity. These results are relevant to the developed as well as the developing world, where large numbers of people are resource poor, but fabrication of home-made, effective facemasks is possible. A key message from our analyses to aid the widespread adoption of facemasks would be: ‘my mask protects you, your mask protects me’."

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376

 

[Boagrius]

Additionally:



I hope this addresses your question. If you are still in doubt, it might also be worth questioning why:

- The USAF
- The USN
- The US Army
- The USMC

...have all adopted widespread mask/face covering policies.

 

[PhysicsMan]

You're echoing what certain ideologues say. That may be unintentional, but when that happens, there's always a suspicion that you buy into the rest of the programme. You've said other things that fit it, which adds to the suspicion.

The question of facemasks has become a mark of political identity on the American right, to the bafflement of most of the rest of the world. The medical consensus worldwide is that they reduce the spread of covid-19, as they do other droplet-borne diseases. It's not that they're a panacea, or equally useful in all circumstances, but they help. Arguing against them because their effectiveness is limited misses the point: this is biology. It's messy. Things are almost never 100%. It's bloody complicated, so much so that precision is generally impossible. It runs on approximations.

Facemasks fit that perfectly. Partial protection, highly variable depending on circumstances, differing from invidual to individual. It's a typical biological thing. But in biological terms, they're obviously advantageous. Reducing the number of viruses someone inhales (not blocking them completely) can prevent them from catching the disease. 50% stop can be 100% protection. Or 0% protection, in circumstances identical except for the people involved. It's complicated.

Epidemiologists know this. To them, I think that arguing about precisely what percentage of droplets is caught by a mask as if it decides whether it means effective or worthless is puzzling. They talk in terms of averages, of degrees of effectiveness, etc., whether of masks, drugs, vaccines, behaviour, or whatever.

I'm afraid that to me your arguments have a flavour of . . . how do I say it . . . . ideology . . . rather than being practical.

Sometimes what governments do is data-driven & pragmatic, the sort of thing which most opposition parties in a European country will probably support, or at least not oppose, or argue only about details of implementation. Treating everything as political is mixing up categories. I see the US mask debate as a case of that. Opposing them (& there are people who actively oppose their use) is clearly political signalling, & to me it's bizarre.

I agree with almost everything you said. Believe me, I am fully aware of the partisan nature of this politically-driven debate. And I agree it is dumb.
Having said that, you must realize that taking a position on any of the high profile social topics will put one on one side of the isle or the other. It can't be avoided. But what's important is that one does not do the reverse - take a position on a topic based on his political leaning - that is the really dumb thing to do. Many do just that, follow the herd. To quote a great American mind, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain.
One last comment on face masks. I do not advocate their complete uselessness, I never made a statement to that end. They are helpful when a danger is real. When I'm in a store and I see a lot of people around, I make sure my mask is on, snug and all.

 

[ngatimozart]

PhysicsMan permanently banned for trolling.

 

[OPSSG]

Data & advances for those in denial — Part 1

You're echoing what certain ideologues say. That may be unintentional, but when that happens, there's always a suspicion that you buy into the rest of the programme. You've said other things that fit it, which adds to the suspicion.

The question of facemasks has become a mark of political identity on the American right, to the bafflement of most of the rest of the world. The medical consensus worldwide is that they reduce the spread of covid-19, as they do other droplet-borne diseases. It's not that they're a panacea, or equally useful in all circumstances, but they help. Arguing against them because their effectiveness is limited misses the point: this is biology. It's messy. Things are almost never 100%. It's bloody complicated, so much so that precision is generally impossible. It runs on approximations.

Facemasks fit that perfectly. Partial protection, highly variable depending on circumstances, differing from invidual to individual. It's a typical biological thing. But in biological terms, they're obviously advantageous. Reducing the number of viruses someone inhales (not blocking them completely) can prevent them from catching the disease. 50% stop can be 100% protection. Or 0% protection, in circumstances identical except for the people involved. It's complicated.

Epidemiologists know this. To them, I think that arguing about precisely what percentage of droplets is caught by a mask as if it decides whether it means effective or worthless is puzzling. They talk in terms of averages, of degrees of effectiveness, etc., whether of masks, drugs, vaccines, behaviour, or whatever.

I'm afraid that to me your arguments have a flavour of . . . how do I say it . . . . ideology . . . rather than being practical.

Sometimes what governments do is data-driven & pragmatic, the sort of thing which most opposition parties in a European country will probably support, or at least not oppose, or argue only about details of implementation. Treating everything as political is mixing up categories. I see the US mask debate as a case of that. Opposing them (& there are people who actively oppose their use) is clearly political signalling, & to me it's bizarre.

1. Agreed. Numerous ideologues in America are in deep denial. Denial does not change the fact that:

​

(a) 1 out of every 500 residents in New Jersey are dead due to the pandemic.​

​

(b) 1 out of every 675 residents in North Dakota are dead due to the pandemic.​

​

(c) 1 out of every 721 residents in Mississippi are dead due to the pandemic.​

​

(d) 1 out of every 731 residents in South Dakota are dead due to the pandemic.​

2. Beyond New Jersey, North Dakota, Mississippi, and South Dakota, 8 other states and DC have already hit the 1 in 1,000 dead milestone: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Louisiana, Rhode Island, Illinois, Michigan and Iowa.

3. Five other states are likely to join that "club" soon: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia and Indiana.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187829299207954437

4. This amazing post by Biden was made in Oct 2019, before COVID-19 pandemic struck. We should not lose sight of these facts:

​

(a) More Americans have died from Covid-19 in 9 months than in combat over 4 years in World War II. The virus death toll exceeds 292,000, compared with 291,557 American World War II battle deaths.​

​

(b) Reported US coronavirus deaths:​

• Feb. 12: 0 deaths
• Mar. 12: 41 deaths
• Apr. 12: 22,073 deaths
• May 12: 83,425 deaths
• Jun. 12: 116,036 deaths
• Oct. 12: 220,210 deaths
• Nov. 12: 242,310 deaths
• Dec. 12: 302,762 deaths

 

[OPSSG]

Data & advances for those in denial — Part 2

5. Pfizer's vaccine has already received emergency approval in Britain and Canada. In more good news, an emergency use authorization allows the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to be distributed in the US. See: FDA Takes Key Action in Fight Against COVID-19 By Issuing Emergency Use Authorization for First COVID-19 Vaccine

Additionally:

View attachment 47854

I hope this addresses your question. If you are still in doubt, it might also be worth questioning why:

- The USAF
- The USN
- The US Army
- The USMC

...have all adopted widespread mask/face covering policies.

6. Mask wearing is important because 42.5% of the confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections detected across the two surveys were asymptomatic (that is, did not have symptoms at the time of swab testing and did not develop symptoms afterwards).

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338164593848356866

7. While the paper is not peer reviewed, and there isn’t a big enough population based study to reliably answer the question of the percentage of asymptomatic carriers, I would take, as a guide the numbers published in — Nature. 2020;584(7821):425. Epub 2020 Jun 30. Notably, 42.5% (95% CI: 31.5-54.6%) of the confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections detected across the two surveys were asymptomatic (that is, did not have symptoms at the time of swab testing and did not develop symptoms afterwards).

8. High mask wearing compliance (99.5%) and lack of community spread of COVID-19 enables Singapore to have a slower and staggered roll out of a vaccination program. To date, Singapore with a population of 6.5 million, has done 4,834,370 COVID-19 swap tests on 1,247,202 individuals (some of whom are tested routinely). Singaporeans will be watching the safety data revealed by the despairing Brits (with 55,508 dearths) and Americans (with 302,762 deaths), as the tropical country rolls out its vaccination program in 1st half of 2021.

​

(a) UK became the first to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine outside of a clinical trial after British regulators granted clearance. The U.K. government has ordered 40 million doses of the vaccine, which is enough for 20 million people since it requires two shots.​

​

(b) In July 2020, the US agreed to a deal with Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech for 100 million doses of their Covid-19 vaccine, if it proved safe and effective.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1334592571310559232

9. But Pfizer is only 1 of many vaccine options. Interim data of the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab suggests 70% protection, but the researchers say the figure may be as high as 90% by tweaking the dose — at a much lower price. The results will be seen as a triumph, but come after Pfizer and Moderna vaccines showed 95% protection. However, the Oxford/ AstraZeneca jab is far cheaper, and is easier to store. Overall, there were 30 cases of Covid in people who had two doses of the vaccine and 101 cases in people who received a dummy injection. The researchers said it worked out at 70% protection, which is better than the seasonal flu jab. Only 3 people experienced serious adverse events (which were possibly related to the vaccine, but we don’t know for sure). Nobody getting the actual vaccine developed severe-Covid or needed hospital treatment.

(a) Prof Andrew Pollard, the Oxford/AstraZeneca trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world". However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people on the trial who were given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.​

(b) "The announcement.... takes us another step closer to the time when we can use vaccines to bring an end to the devastation caused by [the virus]," said the vaccine's architect, Prof Sarah Gilbert.​

(c) The US gives AstraZeneca US$1.2 billion to fund Oxford University coronavirus vaccine — America would get 300 million doses. The UK government has pre-ordered 100 million doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, and AstraZeneca says it will make 3 billion doses for the world next year. In the UK there are 4 million doses of the Oxford/ AstraZeneca vaccine ready to go. But nothing can happen until the vaccine has been approved by regulators who will assess the vaccine's safety, effectiveness, and that it is manufactured to high standard. This process will happen in the coming weeks.​

​

(d) The US will buy 100 million additional shots of Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine — doubling its initial order of the vaccine. Moderna has also announced a rolling review for its vaccine with the Health Sciences Authority, Singapore’s regulatory body for health products. In addition, the Singapore Government has been working really hard to ensure that Singapore has access to these vaccines.​

10. Singapore will work towards securing a portfolio of vaccines to cater to different segments of population, given the multiple factors that come into play regarding vaccine distribution including the lack of data concerning the sustainability of the immunity of particular COVID-19 vaccines, Health Minister Gan Kim Yong had said in Nov 2020.