OT: COVID-19 Ontario 2nd Wave Thread

[Fairview4Life]

Californiaglobe and the Washingtonexaminer.

If only you were actually done with this clown show.

[13th Man]

Californiaglobe and the Washingtonexaminer.

If only you were actually done with this clown show.

How about discussing the content instead. Unbiased journalism is pretty much dead as far as I'm concerned so you take what you can get. The CDC did report those findings did they not?

[13th Man]

As well we now know that the WHO has changed their stance, saying that lockdowns should not be used as a primary Covid prevention control due to economic damage from it. Although I agree with this, I always wonder what type of political narrative may be behind their statements.

In any case, I'm hoping that Dr. Tam and the head doctor of Ontario will heed their advice and relay this to Doug Ford once this revised lockdown for certain regions in Ontario is over, or whatever they call that.

[execoftheyear]

As well we now know that the WHO has changed their stance, saying that lockdowns should not be used as a primary Covid prevention control due to economic damage from it. Although I agree with this, I always wonder what type of political narrative may be behind their statements.

In any case, I'm hoping that Dr. Tam and the head doctor of Ontario will heed their advice and relay this to Doug Ford once this revised lockdown for certain regions in Ontario is over, or whatever they call that.

The fact that Taiwan (one of the most successful countries in dealing with the pandemic) was excluded from WHO and their early praise for China's efforts says everything you need to know about the organization.

[Kevin Willis]

Watch on YouTube

great video. I still can't believe people are arguing over the effectiveness of masks. It's a simple and effective measure yet people keep digging for info or excuses to avoid wearing one.

Here's another good one:

Watch on YouTube

100% agree with you and that's another good video. After we saw what happened at the White House, I am really shocked people question it's effectiveness. It's disappointing really to read it.

[Westside Gunn]

it shocks me we are like 9-10 months into this and I still have to read about why we should wear masks.

we shouldn't frown upon the third world when they have some draconian rules. it works, and in these situations we can definitely use it so everyone wears a **** mask. everything doesn't have to be about your freedom.

[Local_NG_Idiot]

If you aren't aware of how Google Scholar works, and choose to cite a blogger for all your 'facts', my point is made.

Absolutely bodied.

Anyone even casually interested in real science knows what Google Sholar is. This is like when people try to tell me about COVID and the don't know the difference between the disease and the virus. I learned that in the first hour of reading in March.

Do you want a cookie for that? You can't be serious with this. How about discuss the content of the matter rather than trying to belittle a poster through ridiculous assertions. Local_NG_Idiot seems to be a master user of that tool, yet he could not provide me with one citing of evidence out of the tons that he has.

I'll correct you again. I never stated I 'could' not provide evidence, I stated I would not.

Just because you say they exist doesn't mean I have to take it as truth.

It's just the poorest of the poor of logical fallacies. ie: if I state cotton tailed rabbits inhabit Australia, what level of proof would I need to provide for you to 'take is as truth'?

You guys with your condescending attitudes, grow up. I'm happy to discuss this rationally and am also happy to be proven incorrect if the facts present itself.

Here, I'll go against my better judgement but patiently wait for your reply that will be in line with "not enough to take as truth" since you won't read these objectively, instead you'll just hunt down a sentence in a 65 page study that somehow supports your current 'opinion'

https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bjs.1800621203
https://jb.asm.org/content/83/3/663
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/testing-the-efficacy-of-homemade-masks-would-they-protect-in-an-flu-pandemic/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55

I can easily cite another 10 without hesitation, but these 4 make the point. happy reading.

[13th Man]

Absolutely bodied.

Anyone even casually interested in real science knows what Google Sholar is. This is like when people try to tell me about COVID and the don't know the difference between the disease and the virus. I learned that in the first hour of reading in March.

Do you want a cookie for that? You can't be serious with this. How about discuss the content of the matter rather than trying to belittle a poster through ridiculous assertions. Local_NG_Idiot seems to be a master user of that tool, yet he could not provide me with one citing of evidence out of the tons that he has.

I'll correct you again. I never stated I 'could' not provide evidence, I stated I would not.

Just because you say they exist doesn't mean I have to take it as truth.

It's just the poorest of the poor of logical fallacies. ie: if I state cotton tailed rabbits inhabit Australia, what level of proof would I need to provide for you to 'take is as truth'?

You guys with your condescending attitudes, grow up. I'm happy to discuss this rationally and am also happy to be proven incorrect if the facts present itself.

Here, I'll go against my better judgement but patiently wait for your reply that will be in line with "not enough to take as truth" since you won't read these objectively, instead you'll just hunt down a sentence in a 65 page study that somehow supports your current 'opinion'

https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bjs.1800621203
https://jb.asm.org/content/83/3/663
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/testing-the-efficacy-of-homemade-masks-would-they-protect-in-an-flu-pandemic/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55

I can easily cite another 10 without hesitation, but these 4 make the point. happy reading.

Thank you for posting these.

The first 2 articles were like 40 years old and related to surgical masks so I didn't read but maybe after my work day.

Here is the conclusion from the cambridge article:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/testing-the-efficacy-of-homemade-masks-would-they-protect-in-an-influenza-pandemic/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55/core-reader

Results
The median-fit factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask.

Conclusion
Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;0:1–6)



Yep, this is pretty much consistent with the findings from the AAPS article which they cited a study in Korea


Study measuring filter efficiency (2014, Korea)
https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201
Evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm)
N95 FFR filter — >95% efficiency
Medical masks — 55% efficiency
General (cloth) masks — 38% efficiency
Handkerchiefs — 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers) efficiency.
Conclusion: Wearing masks (other than N95) will not be effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.



So as you can see, the N95 mask is the only true effective mask. There is a huge dropoff from N95 to medical masks in terms of efficiency and then another huge dropoff to cloth masks. The Cambridge article concludes that a surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask.

The Cambridge article does not touch on the side effects of mask wearing which are decreased P02, increased C02, headaches, moisture retention, self contamination, "Mask Mouth" etc., nor improper handling and cleaning procedures which only increase the risk of infection.

So as I've mentioned, most people think that they are doing themselves good by wearing cloth masks but looking at the big picture and taking everything into account, they may be doing themselves more harm than good.

I would say that if you cannot afford or obtain N95 masks, then at least go out and get the medical grade masks and dispose after every usage. They also should not be worn for more than 4 hrs.

I'm not saying that all masks are useless, but that most of the general public that are freaking out on everyone regarding masks aren't doing themselves any real favours either by parading around in their cheap cloth masks, not handling them properly and reusing them several times before washing. They're actually doing themselves more harm than good without even realizing it.

[Fairview4Life]

You have to be kidding with this mask mouth bull.

[13th Man]

You have to be kidding with this mask mouth bull.

That's only one of the listed possible side effects, I didn't come up with it.

[Local_NG_Idiot]

Thank you for posting these.

Conclusion
Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;0:1–6)

and you did EXACTLY as I thought. didn't read anything and went sentence hunting. Even the one you chose states BETTER THAN NOTHING.

I'm not saying that all masks are useless, but that most of the general public that are freaking out on everyone regarding masks aren't doing themselves any real favours either by parading around in their cheap cloth masks, not handling them properly and reusing them several times before washing. They're actually doing themselves more harm than good without even realizing it.

lol, "I'm not saying that all masks are useless, BUT all masks are useless."

[Vaclac]

This whole mask thing has become this weird binary where wearing a mask is perfect and not wearing one means you're a terrible person and also you'll get covid. While I find them personally annoying, I do wear them and think others should wear them as well because they have some effect and to get a comparable effect in terms of reducing spread via other means such as shutting businesses would be much more costly. And even a reduction by a 1/3 with a cloth mask is a substantial improvement over no mask. What I find strange though is that all the focus is on moving from the 0% reduction in spread of no mask to some reduction with any kind of mask. If we were focused only on reducing spread we would be just as interested in moving people up the chain of mask quality, as moving from 1/3 reduction to 2/3 reduction is just as good as moving someone else from 0 reduction to 1/3 reduction.
I understand we were caught unprepared at the beginning, but why have we not ordered the building of N95 mask factories and distribution of those high quality masks to everyone? Of course that step would be unprecedented and costly, but it would have been way less costly than the choices we've actually made. Here we are more than 7 months after the initial crisis and so little has actually been done to improve preparedness. Just sit back and either accept spread of the disease we weren't willing to before or resort to the same extremely blunt and costly measures we used the first time.

[mtcan]

You have to be kidding with this mask mouth bull.

That's only one of the listed possible side effects, I didn't come up with it.

It is bunk. In 8 months of regular everyday wear especially amongst Healthcare providers worldwide...mask mouth is NOT a wide spread public health problem. Reality spits on weak theoretical BS.

[13th Man]

Thank you for posting these.

Conclusion
Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;0:1–6)

and you did EXACTLY as I thought. didn't read anything and went sentence hunting. Even the one you chose states BETTER THAN NOTHING.

I'm not saying that all masks are useless, but that most of the general public that are freaking out on everyone regarding masks aren't doing themselves any real favours either by parading around in their cheap cloth masks, not handling them properly and reusing them several times before washing. They're actually doing themselves more harm than good without even realizing it.

lol, "I'm not saying that all masks are useless, BUT all masks are useless."

Yeah, right after I've changed my stance on the matter to endorse the usage of disposable medical grade masks as well since not everybody can afford or obtain N95 masks. Makes sense. Continue to put words into my mouth that I didn't say, you've been doing this on practically every response which is disingenuous.

The better than nothing part doesn't hold much value especially when it does not take into account the negative aspects of mask wearing, which imo would outweigh the minimal advantages of wearing a cloth mask.

It looks to me like last resort recommendation doesn't take into account of government lockdowns either.

[Local_NG_Idiot]

BTW, for those who actually are interested in summary contents of that article:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/testing-the-efficacy-of-homemade-masks-would-they-protect-in-an-influenza-pandemic/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55/core-reader

Determining the Effect of Masks in Preventing the Dispersal of Droplets and Aerosol
An enclosed 0.5-m3 mobile sampling chamber, or cough box, which was constructed for the purpose of sampling aerosols and droplets from healthy volunteers (PFI Systems Ltd, Milton Keynes), was placed in a 22.5-m3 high-frequency particulate air-filtered environmental room. Four settle plates were placed in the cough box to sample for droplets, together with a 6-stage Andersen sampler to sample and separate small particles. 8 A Casella slit-air sampler 9 was also attached to the cough box. Tryptose soya agar was used as the culture medium. Volunteers wearing protective clothing (Tyvek suits) coughed twice into the box, and the air inside was sampled for 5 minutes. Each volunteer was sampled 3 times: wearing the homemade mask, the surgical mask, and no mask. The air within the cough box was high-frequency particulate air filtered for 5 minutes between each sample to prevent cross-contamination between samples. The plates were incubated for a minimum of 48 hours at 37°C before counting.

[Local_NG_Idiot]

Thank you for posting these.

Conclusion
Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;0:1–6)

and you did EXACTLY as I thought. didn't read anything and went sentence hunting. Even the one you chose states BETTER THAN NOTHING.

I'm not saying that all masks are useless, but that most of the general public that are freaking out on everyone regarding masks aren't doing themselves any real favours either by parading around in their cheap cloth masks, not handling them properly and reusing them several times before washing. They're actually doing themselves more harm than good without even realizing it.

lol, "I'm not saying that all masks are useless, BUT all masks are useless."

Yeah, right after I've changed my stance on the matter to endorse the usage of disposable medical grade masks as well since not everybody can afford or obtain N95 masks. Makes sense.

good, now on to cloth.

In the image of the efficacy of trapping particulate within the 'cough box' testing (ie: protecting others instead of just yourself), surgical mask filtration efficiency is stated at just over 96%, meanwhile cotton shirt, tea towels and other cotton mixes show at worst a 70% filtration efficiency.

So what you are stating with regards to cloth masks is that allowing 70% additional viral droplet spread in public places is OK by you. Good to know.

[13th Man]

BTW, for those who actually are interested in summary contents of that article:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/testing-the-efficacy-of-homemade-masks-would-they-protect-in-an-influenza-pandemic/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55/core-reader

Determining the Effect of Masks in Preventing the Dispersal of Droplets and Aerosol
An enclosed 0.5-m3 mobile sampling chamber, or cough box, which was constructed for the purpose of sampling aerosols and droplets from healthy volunteers (PFI Systems Ltd, Milton Keynes), was placed in a 22.5-m3 high-frequency particulate air-filtered environmental room. Four settle plates were placed in the cough box to sample for droplets, together with a 6-stage Andersen sampler to sample and separate small particles. 8 A Casella slit-air sampler 9 was also attached to the cough box. Tryptose soya agar was used as the culture medium. Volunteers wearing protective clothing (Tyvek suits) coughed twice into the box, and the air inside was sampled for 5 minutes. Each volunteer was sampled 3 times: wearing the homemade mask, the surgical mask, and no mask. The air within the cough box was high-frequency particulate air filtered for 5 minutes between each sample to prevent cross-contamination between samples. The plates were incubated for a minimum of 48 hours at 37°C before counting.

Here is the conclusion from the very article in which you've cited:

Conclusion

A protective mask may reduce the likelihood of infection, but it will not eliminate the risk, particularly when a disease has more than 1 route of transmission. Thus any mask, no matter how efficient at filtration or how good the seal, will have minimal effect if it is not used in conjunction with other preventative measures, such as isolation of infected cases, immunization, good respiratory etiquette, and regular hand hygiene. An improvised face mask should be viewed as the last possible alternative if a supply of commercial face masks is not available, irrespective of the disease against which it may be required for protection. Improvised homemade face masks may be used to help protect those who could potentially, for example, be at occupational risk from close or frequent contact with symptomatic patients. However, these masks would provide the wearers little protection from microorganisms from others persons who are infected with respiratory diseases. As a result, we would not recommend the use of homemade face masks as a method of reducing transmission of infection from aerosols.

[13th Man]

https://worldhealth.net/news/masks-are-neither-effective-nor-safe-summary-science/

Cloth masks

Cloth masks were found to have low efficiency for blocking particles of 0.3 microns and smaller. Aerosol penetration through the various cloth masks examined in this study were between 74 and 90%. Likewise, the filtration efficiency of fabric materials was 3% to 33% (26)

Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks were found to have 13 times the risk of influenza-like illness than those wearing medical masks. (27)

This 1920 analysis of cloth mask use during the 1918 pandemic examines the failure of masks to impede or stop flu transmission at that time, and concluded that the number of layers of fabric required to prevent pathogen penetration would have required a suffocating number of layers, and could not be used for that reason, as well as the problem of leakage vents around the edges of cloth masks. (28)

Risks of cloth masks

Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks had significantly higher rates of influenza-like illness after four weeks of continuous on-the-job use, when compared to controls. (39)

The increased rate of infection in mask-wearers may be due to a weakening of immune function during mask use. Surgeons have been found to have lower oxygen saturation after surgeries even as short as 30 minutes. (40) Low oxygen induces hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1). (41) This in turn down-regulates CD4+ T-cells. CD4+ T-cells, in turn, are necessary for viral immunity. (42)​

[Local_NG_Idiot]

BTW, for those who actually are interested in summary contents of that article:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/testing-the-efficacy-of-homemade-masks-would-they-protect-in-an-influenza-pandemic/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55/core-reader

Determining the Effect of Masks in Preventing the Dispersal of Droplets and Aerosol
An enclosed 0.5-m3 mobile sampling chamber, or cough box, which was constructed for the purpose of sampling aerosols and droplets from healthy volunteers (PFI Systems Ltd, Milton Keynes), was placed in a 22.5-m3 high-frequency particulate air-filtered environmental room. Four settle plates were placed in the cough box to sample for droplets, together with a 6-stage Andersen sampler to sample and separate small particles. 8 A Casella slit-air sampler 9 was also attached to the cough box. Tryptose soya agar was used as the culture medium. Volunteers wearing protective clothing (Tyvek suits) coughed twice into the box, and the air inside was sampled for 5 minutes. Each volunteer was sampled 3 times: wearing the homemade mask, the surgical mask, and no mask. The air within the cough box was high-frequency particulate air filtered for 5 minutes between each sample to prevent cross-contamination between samples. The plates were incubated for a minimum of 48 hours at 37°C before counting.

This is the conclusion from the very article in which you've cited:

Conclusion
A protective mask may reduce the likelihood of infection, but it will not eliminate the risk, particularly when a disease has more than 1 route of transmission. Thus any mask, no matter how efficient at filtration or how good the seal, will have minimal effect if it is not used in conjunction with other preventative measures, such as isolation of infected cases, immunization, good respiratory etiquette, and regular hand hygiene. An improvised face mask should be viewed as the last possible alternative if a supply of commercial face masks is not available, irrespective of the disease against which it may be required for protection. Improvised homemade face masks may be used to help protect those who could potentially, for example, be at occupational risk from close or frequent contact with symptomatic patients. However, these masks would provide the wearers little protection from microorganisms from others persons who are infected with respiratory diseases. As a result, we would not recommend the use of homemade face masks as a method of reducing transmission of infection from aerosols.

you really fail at literacy don't you.

that 2 line conclusion that you bolded is with regards to PROTECTING THE **** WEARER. For the 100th time, cloth masks have been proven to PROTECT THE PEOPLE AROUND THE WEARER.

However, these masks would provide the wearers little protection from microorganisms from others persons who are infected with respiratory diseases. As a result, we would not recommend the use of homemade face masks as a method of reducing transmission of infection from aerosols.

The portion of that study that I cited was with regards to their 'cough box'. It's called reading, try it sometime.

[MadDogSHWA]

If you aren't aware of how Google Scholar works, and choose to cite a blogger for all your 'facts', my point is made.

Absolutely bodied.

Anyone even casually interested in real science knows what Google Sholar is. This is like when people try to tell me about COVID and the don't know the difference between the disease and the virus. I learned that in the first hour of reading in March.

Do you want a cookie for that? You can't be serious with this. How about discuss the content of the matter rather than trying to belittle a poster through ridiculous assertions. Local_NG_Idiot seems to be a master user of that tool, yet he could not provide me with one citing of evidence out of the tons that he has.

You guys with your condescending attitudes, grow up. I'm happy to discuss this rationally and am also happy to be proven incorrect if the facts present itself. Speak to me with a little bit of respect and I'll return the favour.

You're spreading dangerous misinformation that can get people killed and get people infected with a disease with dozens of long term side effects. Idiots like yourself are a big part of why Canada had over 4000 new cases yesterday.

Just. Stop. Posting.