COVID protections eliminated a strain of flu

This is so true. A little bit of protection is better than nothing especially for those with underlying health conditions, elderly or both. Masks can decrease the number of virus particles being expelled as well as the decrease the velocity and distance the virus particles being expelled.

I don’t understand the insistence that masks are useless because they aren’t 100 percent effective. Most medical devices are not 100 percent effective — like condoms, birth control pills — gee, I think I won’t bother with any birth control because it’s not a 100 percent effective.

 

That is not what I am saying.

 

Aerosol emission and superemission during human speech increase with voice loudness

Abstract

Mechanistic hypotheses about airborne infectious disease transmission have traditionally emphasized the role of coughing and sneezing, which are dramatic expiratory events that yield both easily visible droplets and large quantities of particles too small to see by eye. Nonetheless, it has long been known that normal speech also yields large quantities of particles that are too small to see by eye, but are large enough to carry a variety of communicable respiratory pathogens. Here we show that the rate of particle emission during normal human speech is positively correlated with the loudness (amplitude) of vocalization, ranging from approximately 1 to 50 particles per second (0.06 to 3 particles per cm3) for low to high amplitudes, regardless of the language spoken (English, Spanish, Mandarin, or Arabic). Furthermore, a small fraction of individuals behaves as “speech superemitters,” consistently releasing an order of magnitude more particles than their peers. Our data demonstrate that the phenomenon of speech superemission cannot be fully explained either by the phonic structures or the amplitude of the speech. These results suggest that other unknown physiological factors, varying dramatically among individuals, could affect the probability of respiratory infectious disease transmission, and also help explain the existence of superspreaders who are disproportionately responsible for outbreaks of airborne infectious disease.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-38808-z

This is a long and thorough journal article in Nature published before the Covid controversies. It is clear that vocalization, such as voiced speech or singing results in large quantities of aerosol particles.

 

People are not speaking continuously although in some cases ..... Most aerosols are expelled through normal breathing.

 

When people are close together, they tend to talk, some more than others. Here is more on singing. Stay away from choirs.

Exhaled respiratory particles during singing and talking

Choir singing has been suspended in many countries during the Covid-19 pandemic due to incidental reports of disease transmission (Hamner et al. Citation2020).
...
As illustrated in and , there were significant differences in particle emissions between breathing, talking and singing (Friedman test for emitted aerosol particle mass, p < 0.0001). Normal singing generated significantly more aerosol particles than normal talking (p = 0.002). Loud singing produced more particles than normal singing (p = 0.002). illustrates mass emission rates. Median (range) aerosol particle number emission rates were (): 135 (85-691) particles/s for breathing, 270 (120–1380) particles/s for normal talking, 570 (180–1760) particles/s for loud talking, 690 (320–2870) particles/s for normal singing, 980 (390–2870) particles/s for loud singing, and 1480 (500-2820) particles/s for loud singing with exaggerated diction. For loud singing with a face mask, the emission rate was 410 (200–1150) particles/s. Hence, a simple face mask reduced the amount of generated aerosol particles from singing to a level similar to normal talking (no significant difference, p = 0.0.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02786826.2020.1812502

 

You have gone from bars to choirs. How about BLM demonstrations?

The point remains that masks do not protect or prevent. People, especially those at high risk, should not rely on them to do so.

 

You said:

You never say surgical masks offer some protection or that masks are can be preventative. You said ‘DO NOT’ that confers the opinion that they don’t protect or prevent.

Don’t try to backtrack on your comments, more often than not you verbalize your misinformation in absolutes.

You referred to ‘paper masks’ as well and the better higher quality surgical masks are not made of ‘paper’ . This kind of statement indicates a bit of dishonesty on your part

Anyways, I am not interested in your opinion. Thank you.

 

BLM demonstrations? Sure. Except that they are probably outdoors, so air circulation is a protective factor. But any activity where people are close together with their mouths open is risky, especially if they are vocalizing. This goes for all respiratory diseases.

Masks are protective, but not perfect. Their effectiveness depends primarily on being worn by the diseased person emitting the viral particles.

 

That has not been my point for the entirety of this discussion on masks.

 

But again they don’t protect or prevent persons at high risk.

 

Surgical masks offer limited protection for others, but very little protection for the wearer even when worn properly.

These P100 respirators (easily had for about $25) provide protection against aerosol particles--and against SARS-CoV-2. They have one-way valves that make them easy to use, but make them ineffective protection for others.

 

Okay. But where is the legislation which mandated their use. And where was this information available to the general public on day one of the Covid lockdown initiation. The only message was that (cloth and surgical) masks protect the wearer and prevent the spread of covid.

 

Masks During Pandemics Caused by Respiratory Pathogens—Evidence and Implications for Action

October 2023

Abstract

Importance As demonstrated by the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2, viruses spread by the respiratory route can cause deadly pandemics, and face masks can reduce the spread of these pathogens. The effectiveness of responses to future epidemics and pandemics will depend at least in part on whether evidence on masks, including from the COVID-19 pandemic, is utilized.

Observations Well-designed observational studies have demonstrated the association of mask use with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in community settings, and rigorous evaluations of mask mandates have found substantial protection. Disagreement about whether face masks reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has been exacerbated by a focus on randomized trials, which are limited in number, scope, and statistical power. Many effective public health policies have never been assessed in randomized clinical trials; such trials are not the gold standard of evidence for the efficacy of all interventions. Masking in the community to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is supported by robust evidence from diverse settings and populations. Data on the epidemiologic, environmental, and mask design parameters that influence the effectiveness of masking provide insights on when and how masks should be used to prevent transmission.

Conclusions and Relevance During the next epidemic or pandemic caused by a respiratory pathogen, decision-makers will need to rely on existing evidence as they implement interventions. High-quality studies have shown that use of face masks in the community is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and is likely to be an important component of an effective response to a future respiratory threat.
As demonstrated by the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2, viruses spread by the respiratory route can cause deadly pandemics, and face masks can reduce the spread of these pathogens. The effectiveness of responses to future epidemics and pandemics will depend at least in part on whether evidence on masks, including from the COVID-19 pandemic, is utilized.

Observations Well-designed observational studies have demonstrated the association of mask use with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in community settings, and rigorous evaluations of mask mandates have found substantial protection. Disagreement about whether face masks reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has been exacerbated by a focus on randomized trials, which are limited in number, scope, and statistical power. Many effective public health policies have never been assessed in randomized clinical trials; such trials are not the gold standard of evidence for the efficacy of all interventions. Masking in the community to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is supported by robust evidence from diverse settings and populations. Data on the epidemiologic, environmental, and mask design parameters that influence the effectiveness of masking provide insights on when and how masks should be used to prevent transmission.

Conclusions and Relevance During the next epidemic or pandemic caused by a respiratory pathogen, decision-makers will need to rely on existing evidence as they implement interventions. High-quality studies have shown that use of face masks in the community is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and is likely to be an important component of an effective response to a future respiratory threat.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2811136

 

Reduced transmission does not mean protection or prevention. Those at high risk to serious adverse health effects from covid cannot and must not rely on protection from covid through the use of surgical masks. Mr. @LangleyMan has posted a an option which would provide protection if properly fitted.

 

THAT!

What exactly do you think you are doing here? Is your goal to stop mask wearing entirely? To what end? Or maybe you just want to take a contrarian position because of some odd reason?

Reducing transmission does exactly that - EXACTLY. The big clue is in the word REDUCED!

What a ridiculous non sequitur. Nobody "relies on" mask wearing as ultimate protection. It serves as a layer. Keep your distance, wear a mask, get vaccinated, eat healthy food. All solid expert advice.

For some baffling reason, you seem intent on playing devil's advocate when none is needed. The masks work to varying degrees. Period.

 

Aerosol particles diffuse through the air from high to low concentrations.

My position on masks has been very clear.

 

STOP quoting me and ignoring the content you quote!

I couldn't care less about your "position". You stoke up a repeat argument and I suppose you want everyone to go looking for old posts to find "your position"!

 

My position has been clear and consistent. I am stoking nothing.

 

Uhuh, what are you saying then?

Ok, what IS your point!?

WHERE!?

Is this a game? You argue that masks do nothing and tell everyone about "your position". Wow, thanks. Nobody knows why are you arguing about this.
How about you let everyone know about your "clear position"!

 

Reduced transmission can protect.

For an epidemic to increase each sick person must infect more than one well person. If masks, either alone or as one of several measures, can reduce transmission so that each sick person infects less than one well person, then the epidemic dies out.

The objective of "public health" is not to protect each and every individual, but it is to take measures which collectively result in suppression of the disease and a return to safety for the whole community.

We were lucky. Had Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) had a mortality rate as high as SARS-CoV-1 (~7%) or MERS (~30%), much more draconian public health measures would have been taken as the bodies piled up. Fortunately, the virus with the highest transmissibility of the three also had the lowest mortality rate.

There is no assurance that we will be as lucky in the future if another zoonotic or synthetic virus enters the human population.

 

The purpose of public health officials is to provide information so that people can protect themselves. The did not do that until over one year after the first 3 week lockdown in March of 2020. In the case of Covid people over 65 (just under 90% of deaths) with one or more of the CDC listed preconditions (over 90% of deaths) are at very high risk to covid. Healthy individuals under the age of 65 are not at high risk. Masks do not protect the most vulnerable among us. The lockdowns were unnecessary and created more damage than benefit. Sweden got it right.

 

We shouldn't mandate P100 respirators (that filter 99.97% of particles). All we have to do of provide them to people who want them. Worn properly, they're highly effective protection. If people wore them in settings where infection is likely--say a thirty minute rid on crowded transit--we'd cut transmission. Don't want to wear a respirator? Fine. Don't. We'd see soon enough that P100 and N100 respirators work.

Google Scholar. P100 respirators have been around for a long time.

It was and is highly political. The pols don't want to admit that widespread voluntary use of P100 and N100 respirators could have blunted the worst of covid outbreaks that threatened to overrun hospitals, necessitating shutdowns. we could have kept open like British Columbia with fewer deaths. (The covid death rate in the U.S. is 4+ times higher than the province of British Columbia in Canada.)

 

But public health officials could have made sure that accurate and timely information was available so that people at risk could protect themselves. They did not.

 

Reduced transmission does protect. Those who are high risk to serious adverse health effects from covid cannot and must not rely on idiots who won’t decrease the chances of transmission by selfishly refusing to put on a mask.

 

They provided misinformation on behalf of pols who have them on a short leash. As I've said, I saw Fauci say masks weren't necessary and then saw him admit later he lied to protect the supply of quality PPE. Frankly, I think he lied for other reasons, but lie he did.

The damage Fauci and the pols caused is illustrated by the death rate being 4+ times higher than in British Columbia, Canada. BTW, more than half of British Columbians live in the densely populated Vancouver area.

P100 respirators protect the user. Don't want protection? Don't wear one.