Then wear a mask. I do. But I’m realistic about what the mask does.
That’s the real problem. The myth being perpetuated, in spit of the considerable scientific advice to the country, is making many people think that as long as they wear a mask in public they don’t have to worry. Many people are ignoring other obvious mechanisms of transmission, particularly contact with surfaces (including the outside surface of their mask) and subsequent contact to their face or mouth.
2 Likes
From a “best for the species” perspective, that is absolutely correct. Unfortunately none of us who may be more vulnerable than average want to volunteer to get sick.
Thus the quandary.
We had a 2hr “elective” we called the mandatory elective that was a medical/bioethics course.
We had a weekly 2hr lecture frequently with guest speakers working in the professions in various capacities that covered these subjects in detail.
We had to turn in a paper weekly covering the last lecture showing we were there, awake, and had to give our honest opinions on the subject and be able to document our positions with footnotes.
All the freshman thought it would be an easy A. The upperclassman who had already been through 2,3 or four years of the class always laughed.
Our bleeding hearts are seriously harming our long term survival prospects but science and math cannot alone dictate our direction, if they did we’d have to cull the population by about 80% over a decade and start over.
It doesn’t take long to go completely over the edge into Eugenics and culling the non productive population if you adhere strictly to the math and science.
I blame the Media. If they covered COVID the same way they do seasonal Flu, Pneumonia, and a host of other potentially fatal diseases, most people wouldn’t even know it was here.
They needed to start a fire for their own purposes and continue lying to us, exaggerating, and pouring gas on it to drive their own ratings and to remove Trump in November.
I believe I saw a study that did show mask efficacy via change in infection rate. Ah, here it is. Change in infection rates for states after masks were mandated.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
1 Like
Which proves nothing. Social distancing was implemented at the same time along with basic sanitation protocols.
Your link also makes no positive association in protective ability of the mask at all for the wearer.
It looks like you didn’t finish skimming the article.
2 Likes
You are safer with a mask on than without one.
Allan
1 Like
No, social distancing was being practiced already along with sanitation procedures. This is when masks were mandated by law.
1 Like
Pure assumption. Nobody has produced a study to that effect that compares relative safety with/without eye protection.
What we know for a certainty is that the protocols for treating covid patients require both.
Not with any sort of broad compliance.
The longer the outbreak has gone on and the more spikes we’ve had the broader compliance has been across the board.
Here you go. Lancet no less. Study that shows efficacy of distancing, masks, and eye protection controlling for each.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
1 Like
What’s your argument here? The study showed increased efficacy over time which likely illustrates compliance.
You didn’t actually read it did you?
Is it though? I mean, is it really?
1 Like
The point is people weren’t taking it very seriously for months and compliance with all three was poor at best.
Compliance with all three has gotten better as time has gone on.
There’s no argument that masks help reduce your ability to spread it if you’re infected but without eye protection 1 of the 3 major pathways for infection remains wide open which is why eye protection is required if you are working with infected patients.
I see you spent at most, 4 minutes digesting it. 
1 Like
Agreed. And masks without eye protection also reduces your risk, right?
