face masks

[Badgerbadger]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

So where is the enforcement of the traffic act? What's been done about bad drivers?

You repeat the same mantra ad nauseam and you avoid answering the questions that show your stance to be nonsense.

For the rest of you, I found the links, you can too if you want to.

I see how much you research to find support for your arguments, you can certainly find the references I found, if you want to.

I'm not about to waste my time giving you links that you WILL ignore.

But I will give you two. Have fun picking them apart, as I know you will.
Because even official confirmation isn't enough for a closed mind.

From the respiratory medicine publication, "The Lancet"

Not dated but lists references as recent as June 2020


I find it interesting that they would use the word might in this discussion and that they only seem to be referring to health care settings.

Which begs the question, if they only might offer protection in a health care setting, what is the case in a public setting?


From WHO dated July 2020



I think this explains the first quote.

I know you will try to explain these quotes away. Because they don't fit YOUR narrative.

Not that you'll admit to being presented with facts, but:

There is a bunch more sheriffs on the road, giving out tickets. Impairment testing methods and equipment have been improved significantly, and are still being improved.

With regard to "what is being done about bad drivers", unfortunately the UCP cancelled the standardization of testing and reverted it to private companies, so for a few extra bucks people who don't deserve licenses can get 'em.

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you just blinded by ideology and anger?

[sk270]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

You repeat the same mantra ad nauseam and you avoid answering the questions that show your stance to be nonsense.

Which questions are you referring to? I didn't know you asked any. Please repeat them. Thank you.

Are you referring to my stance on seat belts or masks?

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I'm not about to waste my time giving you links that you WILL ignore.

Why not waste a bit of time if it proves your point? I provided you with the references.

Originally Posted by KegRiver

But I will give you two. Have fun picking them apart, as I know you will.
Because even official confirmation isn't enough for a closed mind.

But you haven't provided any references, just quotes.

Originally Posted by KegRiver

From the respiratory medicine publication, "The Lancet"

"The Lancet" is not a "respiratory" medicine publication. I realize this is a minor quibble but let's try to be accurate.

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Not dated but lists references as recent as June 2020

How about something more recent? Lots of research since then.

Originally Posted by KegRiver

From WHO dated July 2020

Again, how about something more recent? I think they have changed their advice since July. Masks are a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives. (https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-de...covid-19-masks)

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I know you will try to explain these quotes away. Because they don't fit YOUR narrative.

BTW providing the references took hardly any time and won't be a waste of my time if you read them. Note that the WHO, which you originally quoted, is recommending mask wearing.

I find it interesting, but difficult to understand, that you provide quotes but no references. My "narrative", as you call it, is based on the latest information from health authorities, including WHO, and material published in various journals.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Cause you do right?

https://worldhealth.net/news/why-won...sh-mask-study/

There are many reasons for journals to reject a specific article. Do you have any more information about the problem with the study? In October, Benfield said they were not yet ready to share results. (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8)

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by sk270

There are many reasons for journals to reject a specific article. Do you have any more information about the problem with the study? In October, Benfield said they were not yet ready to share results. (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8)

My understanding is there are none, they just didn't want to publish it as it goes against popular opinion. I believe it has been published now and doesn't support your stance. If you can provide a study indicating masks actually slow the spread, I'd gladly read it. And I don't mean a webpage saying, "Masks, along with social distancing and hand washing, may help slow the spread", an actual study stating masks do slow the spread. I think there have been 3 Covid/mask related studies performed now and multiple influenza/mask studies. The data tends to show masks make little to no difference.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Trochu

My understanding is there are none, they just didn't want to publish it as it goes against popular opinion. I believe it has been published now and doesn't support your stance. If you can provide a study indicating masks actually slow the spread, I'd gladly read it. And I don't mean a webpage saying, "Masks, along with social distancing and hand washing, may help slow the spread", an actual study stating masks do slow the spread.

I agree with you that this is an important and potentially significant study.

Where was the article published?

I find it hard to believe, but not impossible, that three prestigious scientific journals refuse to publish an article because of popular opinion. It is more likely that there are some problems in design, data gathering and so on. However, history shows that this is not always the case which is why I'd like more information since "my stance" is shared by the majority of experts.

As you know, most of the research has been done in labs or clinical settings. These studies almost all show that masks reduce the transmission of Covid-19 viruses. Masks trap most of the viruses being shed by infectious people and some of the viruses inhaled by others.

Am I correct that your are looking for a study done in public rather than lab setting? If not, I can provide references. Please let me know.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

Not that you'll admit to being presented with facts, but:

There is a bunch more sheriffs on the road, giving out tickets. Impairment testing methods and equipment have been improved significantly, and are still being improved.

With regard to "what is being done about bad drivers", unfortunately the UCP cancelled the standardization of testing and reverted it to private companies, so for a few extra bucks people who don't deserve licenses can get 'em.

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you just blinded by ideology and anger?

So where is your proof that the test standards are lower for private companies, compared to government run testing? If you look at industry and workplaces,l the standards are not always higher for government run corporations compared to private companies. And that still doesn't address the fact that some of the worst drivers are elderly people that are no longer competent, but in Alberta,periodic retesting is not required, so these people keep driving until they do have an accident. Of course retesting would put even more demand on our system, and many people would be upset at having to retest, but the fact is, that it could get some incompetent drivers off of the roads, which would improve public safety.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by sk270

But you haven't provided any references, just quotes.

Just as I expected. You try to sidestep the issue.

I provided quotes with their sources, if you can't find the source from that, providing a link wouldn't help obviously.

If you have more recent material to present, be my quest.

Non of my searches turned up anything more recent.

Since I only have access to google and you seem to have access to better information, go ahead, post up your links to show mine are no longer relevant.

I really won't mind a bit.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

Not that you'll admit to being presented with facts, but:

There is a bunch more sheriffs on the road, giving out tickets. Impairment testing methods and equipment have been improved significantly, and are still being improved.

With regard to "what is being done about bad drivers", unfortunately the UCP cancelled the standardization of testing and reverted it to private companies, so for a few extra bucks people who don't deserve licenses can get 'em.

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you just blinded by ideology and anger?

What facts?

The fact that I have seen exactly two sheriff's vehicles outside of town in the past year?

I agree equipment has improved, including alcohol test equipment.
And it might even do some good if it were used on any sort of regular basis.

The UPC is not the reason this situation exists. It started with Chretien's efforts to balance the budget back in 1997.

You couldn't make a post without a personal jab could you.

That's all I need to know, I'm done here.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Just as I expected. You try to sidestep the issue.

I provided quotes with their sources, if you can't find the source from that, providing a link wouldn't help obviously.

If you have more recent material to present, be my quest.

Non of my searches turned up anything more recent.

Since I only have access to google and you seem to have access to better information, go ahead, post up your links to show mine are no longer relevant.

I really won't mind a bit.

I googled your entire Lancet quote but could not find the original article in the first two pages of results. That is why it is more polite to give the proper citation. I don't know why giving the reference wouldn't help. It would sure help me find out where you are getting your quotes.

I am not side-stepping a single thing.

You say you couldn't find anything more recent. You must not have followed my link to WHO since it is dated October 2020 and clearly advocates mask wearing.

When I google "masks reduce transmission of Covid-19" the first thing I get is a Mayo Clinic page that says masks have been shown to be effective by lab studies and by looking at successful control in various countries. There are pages of results, recent as well as older, that reflect the almost universal view that masks are invaluable in reducing the spread of Covid-19.

I can find many more primary and secondary sources. I won't bother to give them here because you haven't read the ones I have already provided. You have your mind made up, I guess.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Oh so now only those with a better plan that can comment.

Okay, let's hear your plan fist since you set the standard.

My standard is set by our health care professionals and the restrictions etc put forth....no issues here regarding that but you seem to have issues so that being said over to you.....

[Talking moose]

I like clothe masks with Batman insignia.
Or the ones that say kiss me.

[Badgerbadger]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

What facts?

The fact that I have seen exactly two sheriff's vehicles outside of town in the past year?

I agree equipment has improved, including alcohol test equipment.
And it might even do some good if it were used on any sort of regular basis.

The UPC is not the reason this situation exists. It started with Chretien's efforts to balance the budget back in 1997.

You couldn't make a post without a personal jab could you.

That's all I need to know, I'm done here.

Here you go, chum:

https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2018...l-assault.html

Also, your anecdotes are not data. Just because you don't see them with your own eyes, doesn't mean they're not out there. Drive HWY 2 a few times if you want to see more than "exactly two" in any trip.

So, I guess that answers my question about you.

Thanks!

[hilt134]

I keep a few masks kicking around. None of em are clean. Don't like throwing them away after one use

[liar]

Originally Posted by hilt134

I keep a few masks kicking around. None of em are clean. Don't like throwing them away after one use

Yeah , i just flip them over when the inside gets too sticky !

[RandyBoBandy]

Originally Posted by liar

Yeah , i just flip them over when the inside gets too sticky !

Something like your underwear

[liar]

Originally Posted by RandyBoBandy

Something like your underwear

exactly !

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by liar

Yeah , i just flip them over when the inside gets too sticky !

Thow'em in the microwave for 30 sec to kill the things that move about....brush off crusty's and ya good to go...

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

I need a mask for my German wirehaired pointer now. I was thinking a banana peel.

[waldedw]

Mask=Underwear.jpeg

this

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by waldedw

Attachment 169103

this

[bat119]

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Dam elk you got the vid or something

At least the skid stains are on the back.....

[happy honker]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Once again I go back to the hospitals and seniors centers. If masks are so effective why is there even one staff member in those places infected.

But there is way more then one isn't there? Actually from what I hear there are thousands. Which begs the question, just how effective are masks.

In those places isn't it more about "viral load"?

More of the virus around, the greater the amount you are exposed to? Does that increase the odds of you getting infected or not?

As opposed to wearing a mask at work, social distancing, and just being around an infected person (likely asymptomatic and not coughing and sneezing a whole lot yet) for a few minutes at a time to discuss something, or passing in a hallway etc.

What I'm saying is masks arent as effective in those places that you mentioned, where you are just relentlessly exposed to the virus, vs being out moving around in general public, coming into contact for a couple of minutes with an infected person, and the mask manages to minimize the exposure the person wearing the masks.

Oh yeah, not to mention the masks do absorb SOME if not a significant amount of the infected person coughing, sneezing, blowing death droplets when talking loudly etc.

I just finished 6x 12hr plus shifts where I had to wear one all day. I'm a little irritated behind the left ear, but I don't mind wearing it if that's what it takes to keep working, and hopefully keep my co-workers and me as safe as possible.

When you mention "where appropriate", I'll consider any time I'm around other people, unless I'm here at home with immediate family, as appropriate, until this thing is done sometime next year.

I've become a bit of a compulsive hand sanitizer addict as well...now I have to have a couple of squirts in my coffee all morning!!

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by happy honker

In those places isn't it more about "viral load"?

More of the virus around, the greater the amount you are exposed to? Does that increase the odds of you getting infected or not?

As opposed to wearing a mask at work, social distancing, and just being around an infected person (likely asymptomatic and not coughing and sneezing a whole lot yet) for a few minutes at a time to discuss something, or passing in a hallway etc.

What I'm saying is masks arent as effective in those places that you mentioned, where you are just relentlessly exposed to the virus, vs being out moving around in general public, coming into contact for a couple of minutes with an infected person, and the mask manages to minimize the exposure the person wearing the masks.

Oh yeah, not to mention the masks do absorb SOME if not a significant amount of the infected person coughing, sneezing, blowing death droplets when talking loudly etc.

I just finished 6x 12hr plus shifts where I had to wear one all day. I'm a little irritated behind the left ear, but I don't mind wearing it if that's what it takes to keep working, and hopefully keep my co-workers and me as safe as possible.

When you mention "where appropriate", I'll consider any time I'm around other people, unless I'm here at home with immediate family, as appropriate, until this thing is done sometime next year.

I've become a bit of a compulsive hand sanitizer addict as well...now I have to have a couple of squirts in my coffee all morning!!

So you think seniors centers are hotbeds for Covid! How do you figure that!

My sister works in the seniors center here. They don't allow visitors, ever.
The staff have to wear masks all day every day starting at the door. They have to go to the hospital every morning to get screened for signs of infection, the list is endless of what they have to do.

They do NOT see sick people unless one of the residents get sick. So how are they hotbeds of infection?
It's not like a hospital where they work with sick people.

Even in hospitals that treats Covid patients viral load should not be an issue.

They don't have Covid patients wondering all over the place, they are isolated in Covid wards and only staff are allowed in.

Viral load may explain a few health care workers getting infected but there has to be some other reason hospital staff and seniors centers are getting infected.

And even if viral load was the reason, if that could explain what's happening in those institutions then masks can't be making much of a difference out in public places.
Because if the chance of infection is that low outside those institutions then masks aren't doing much out there are they?

Don't get me wrong, I think masks are a good idea, just not worthy of the heavy handed approach some are taking.

They are treating it like it is the equivalent to pointing a loaded gun at someone.

First and foremost there has to be at least one infected person in the space for masks to make any difference at all.
And then, you have to be close to that person for the mask to make a difference.

Yeah I've heard that the virus can drift around for hours. But so far that has not been proven and even of it turned out to be true, masks would not be the answer because if it's true, one infected person in a building not deemed high risk by the system could render that building high risk for hours.

That would mean that every building accessible to the public would have to be considered high risk even if only one person at a time were allowed in.
And that's simply not covered by the rules.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Yeah I've heard that the virus can drift around for hours. But so far that has not been proven ...

Keg, I wish you'd stop the unsupported assertions. These people think they have proven it: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2004973.

Do you have any citations to the contrary?

BTW aren't you afraid that the ghost of Kerry Mullis will be after you for what you said about PCR?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by sk270

Keg, I wish you'd stop the unsupported assertions. These people think they have proven it: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2004973.

Do you have any citations to the contrary?

BTW aren't you afraid that the ghost of Kerry Mullis will be after you for what you said about PCR?

I wish you and others would stop pushing possibilities as fact.

Your link admits they did not prove aerosol transmission, only that it is in their words, plausible

It's in the last paragraph.

Do you have any citations to the contrary?

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

My standard is set by our health care professionals and the restrictions etc put forth....no issues here regarding that but you seem to have issues so that being said over to you.....

Waiting Keg....or are you side stepping this....

[sk270]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I wish you and others would stop pushing possibilities as fact.

Your link admits they did not prove aerosol transmission, only that it is in their words, plausible

It's in the last paragraph.

Do you have any citations to the contrary?

You are changing the subject once more. You said there was no evidence the virus drifted in the air. There is such evidence. Now you want to switch to infectivity because you were wrong.

Do you remember refusing to provide citations to me when I asked for them? As you told me to do, I suggest you use Google. You'll probably also find out why health care workers need N95 masks and still get infected.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by sk270

You are changing the subject once more. You said there was no evidence the virus drifted in the air. There is such evidence. Now you want to switch to infectivity because you were wrong.

Do you remember refusing to provide citations to me when I asked for them? As you told me to do, I suggest you use Google. You'll probably also find out why health care workers need N95 masks and still get infected.

So how does it feel to have your own tactics used against you?

And what I actually said was; "There is no evidence that aerosol transmission causes infections.

As my previous post pointed out the best minds in the field can only say it is plausible.

So why do you keep changing the subject.

This thread is about the effectiveness of masks, which is what I was speaking to when you jumped on my assertion that there is no proof that aerosol transmission causes infections, but if it did, masks would do little to stop it.

So why do you continue to pick at minor points in my posts while ignoring my main assertion, that masks are not effective enough to warrant strong arm enforcement of rules that may not be all that effective?

Do you really believe we should be throwing people in jail for plausible scenarios?

And by the way, if your next response follows the pattern you have followed so far I WILL not respond to you again.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

And what I actually said was; "There is no evidence that aerosol transmission causes infections.

No, what you said was "Yeah I've heard that the virus can drift around for hours. But so far that has not been proven..." In other words, you made an incorrect statement and then switched topics when you saw I was correct.

When I refuted that, and only then, you said there is no evidence that aerosolized virus are infectious. You stopped defending your original position and came up with another angle.

Originally Posted by KegRiver

So why do you keep changing the subject.

You are the one changing the subject every time I suggest you should stop peppering your posts with specious reasoning. Also, you clearly did not read any of the many authorities who think that Covid-19 is spreading by aerosolization.

Originally Posted by KegRiver

So why do you continue to pick at minor points in my posts while ignoring my main assertion, that masks are not effective enough to warrant strong arm enforcement of rules that may not be all that effective?

Well, let's see. Oh yes, you refuse to accept all the studies that show that masks are effective. That's why. In other words, despite the opinions of all those experts who are far smarter and better informed than either of us, you reject the effectiveness of masks and confuse the issue with various fallacious sidebars.

Originally Posted by KegRiver

And by the way, if your next response follows the pattern you have followed so far I WILL not respond to you again.

Since you refuse to provide references, refuse to read the references I provide and continue to argue from your unsupported opinions, I agree. Let's quit talking to each other.