This is not a low quality study and cannot be made on science fair experiments. There is extreme importance in corroborating what is though with this virus, not with random aerosols, and with a controlled environment and precise methodology and measurements in order for it to be done. A lot of times what is though to be obvious turns out not to be so (like not transmission from asymptomatic carriers).
I asume you haven't read the literature on mask transmission.
No one is negating that masks are a physical barrier, there have been a lot of studies just like this one that basically show the dynamics of airborne particles when you sneeze from a mask, or breath or whatever, this isn't new.
In fact, before this year, exactly this kind of studies promoted by the WHO were used as a way to show how masks aren't good enough. I remember not so long ago how a similar study was used to basically say that people should try to sneeze and cough in their elbows, and to not think that because you have a mask there is no problem. It's really crazy how the narrative did a 180 degree change in so little time.
What we don't know, is that those results cannot be translated directly on a real world environment. The transmission dynamics are varied, and the way people act with and without masks, makes these kind of studies really just a baseline to the reality.
There has been only ONE single randomized controlled study, in a hospital setting, and it was just comparing strict guidelining with respirators, vs cloth masks and a control group with doctors doing their "usual practices", and what they found is that only respirators with strict guidelines had any difference, the cloth mask group actually performed worse than the control group.
Now, this study isn't really applicable in the general population either, and it isn't good enough to say anything about masks, since the setting was in hospital, it used strict guidelines, and people in the control group weren't necessarily not using masks, but just doing their "usual practices" as medical professionals, even thou one of the conclusions of the study was actually saying that the results showed a combination between the mixed control group and that probably cloth masks could have negative effects.
That's why the Danish study is important, it was basically a complement to the already existing randomized study I just talked about, but instead of looking at a Medical environment, it was looking at the general population, with a control group without masks.
The article you keep mentioning is not published, it should have been at least as a preprint, and excuses about it are not believable
I love how when people hold to an ideology, magically they feel they can just call everyone they disagree with a liar (I mean, you are saying that the fact that they cannot get their paper published, which was covered by Danish news, is just an "excuse", basically saying they are liars) but ok.
If the study gets published, as they actually confirmed that are trying to get it published, will you acknowledge the results?
I know I will, even if it's not what I expect, because the methodology is exactly trying to answer the actual controversy on general usage of masks.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
Digging a little bit more, it seems that at least one news paper in Denmark has published today an article about this debacle.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Having biorxiv available for preprints this sounds more like a bad excuse than a real reason. Scientists do not depend on journals anymore to let other people know their results, their actual use if (supposedly) a good peer review system and collect IF points to get a better position in the future, but since most journals have no problem accepting papers already made available as a preprint anybody can do both things without problem.
This is a pretty big study, with many authors (14 people, 4 of which are lead researchers), and according with some of the authors, there is disagreement if they should make available the preprint without a journal, but some of them do not want that, as they believe it would undermine the results and they would just be ignored.
Let me be just clear, this quotation if from just one of the authors, as a simple response he gave to people asking why the results have not yet been published, even thou they were supposed to be available in September, but the detailed reasons why this is happening are not known, the only thing that we know is that some of the authors are pissed of at this situation.
You can read the actual methodology and details of the study here, which was published in a journal back in August, which was peer reviewed and accepted by the Danish Medical Journal:
The most frequent reason to avoid publishing something even as a preprint is that the results are not what they wanted to find or the methodologies used to "prove" their conclusions are too obviously flawed.
Once again, this isn't some study made by a single person, or anything like that, they had funding from the Salling Foundations, they methodology is already public, so that also doesn't make much sense.
Not to mention that this study was highly quoted by many reviews and papers who talked about masks, as one of the most important current studies on the field.
In the worst case scenario, they could just do it again, but the response of some of the authors make it seem that is not the case.
Once again, there is no public statement about the situation of what is going on with this study, but, as I said, what we need are exactly studies like this one, instead of these low quality, done a million times science fair experiments that keep finding their way into the national and international news as the "definitive answer" to some problem.
-9 ( +0 / -9 )
This is a controlled environment experiment, which is good as a baseline but it isn't really that good at predicting outcomes at a community transition level.
The results of this study are kind of obvious by themselves, obviously if you have any type of physical barrier you will have to some degree a reduction in particles, but this not the kind of research that is needed right now, since it really doesn't represent the real world.
What is needed right now is a randomized controlled trial that test masks vs no masks.
In fact, there is one already, NCT04337541, which was already completed, but even thou the trial was highly regarded and quoted in the recruiting phase, has been unable to publish their results because, and I paraphrase one of the authors, the journals are afraid of the consequences of publishing the results.
-6 ( +7 / -13 )
Does that include the costs to operate, buy tires for, maintain, insure and register your car and depreciation on your current car that you put towards the next car when you wear your current car out from all these deliveries?
Are you aware that most people in Japan who do Uber eats do it with bicycles?
Those who I know that do Uber eats with cars, do it as almost a side business while they already work in the transportation industry, so they don't really have to worry much about those costs.
Most of these Uber and Lyft drivers are essentially working for a negative income when you consider the costs incurred by using your vehicle.
We are not talking about Uber X or Lyft, since "shirotaku" is illegal in Japan, and there is no such thing legally speaking in this country. I have no idea of the rate for those services in other countries, so I cannot really talk about them.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
The mandatory quarantines are extremely prohibitive and a deal breaker for anyone traveling unless going to your country of residence.
Not even for people of that country of residence is a good idea.
For example, I've not travelled mainly because of the 2 week quarantine put on Japanese citizens when coming back. I don't live in Tokyo, and in order to get back to Hokkaido I need to use a plane, which I can't after I come back to japan because of the not using public transportation order, so the only solutions I have is either staying in a hotel for 2 weeks in Tokyo, or having my boyfriend drive all the way to Tokyo, and then drive all the way back to Hokkaido.
Nether is a good idea, and makes travel an impossibility.
But the thing is, tests also aren't a solution, because there is always going to be a limited number of tests, no tests will basically put a hard cap on the number of people who can travel, not to mention that in the case of a false positive, which are a thing, people are not just going to be unable to travel, probably lose money, but also have a horrible experience.
People have to come to terms, like they have come with all other transmittable diseases, that fighting against a rapid mutating virus, with a high percentage of people having no symptoms at all, is basically a lost battle.
We are just doing extra damage with all these stupid rules.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
I was told Uber Eats pays workers some 200yen per ride. Enough said.
You were told completely wrong.
The average per pick (without incentives, meaning boosts or tips) is about 400yen-500yen if about 1km, or 500yen-700yen if 1-5km.
With incentives, and also depending on the city and requests at the time, you can make way more than minimum wage with Uber Eats.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Kinkshaming (even thou we don't even know the kink)? Check
Victim shaming? Check
Sad these 2 things are still a thing, which is why people with these problems do not want to talk about them, making things worse.
Communication is the key, if you say to that guy, sorry but I cannot do that, but the guy continues saying that you must, then is time to part ways.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Retail rules are changed all because of one stolen pot noodle. But can't impose lockdown in a pandemic.
Somehow these kind of comments never get removed by moderators as "off-topic", when similar comments, but of the contrary nature do.
Now, moderator, use your power to remove this comment, because we know that removing comments change the reality that you are just biased.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
It's very telling that when numbers go up, people freak out, and when numbers go down, people still freak out.
The real reason there hasn't been much of a change of actitud since march is because people are still welded to these news, in a perpetual state of panic.
The goal post keeps changing, because the goal post isn't real, it is just a rationalization to continue to freak out.
-6 ( +2 / -8 )
That is not supported by any studies I have seen. Citation would be good.
Which part? The part of asymptomatic people having no symptoms?
Sneeze etiquete stopping droplets? Because each one is kind of self evident.
Here are some recommendations on sneeze etiquete to prevent infections:
Which is no problem, it is not like you can only do one or the other, you can easily do both.
Never said it was a problem.
Citation for this. What is the ID50 for covid-19? how likely is that a reduction of exposure of 90% have no effect in transmission?
The ID50 of SARS-CoV-2 to cause COVID-19 is not known. But usually the ID50 of an infection is more dependent of the viral load of the individual, than the dosage of virus in each droplet.
What I'm saying is from the only available study into cloth masks as a way to stop an infection of ILI.
As said before, there is actually very little studies on the actual effectiveness of masks to stop infections, which for most of the questions you are asking the answer will be "we don't know".
Citation needed for the first part, who demonstrated that a mask does not offer any kind of protection? I mean, absolutely nothing protects to a perfect 100%, but that is not the same as not being protective.
Once again, studies are scarce in the mask front, but basically most randomized high evidence studies find that if there is any benefit on the wearer, it is only with high quality masks.
But there is actually a report from Norway’s Institute for Public Health that made calculations on the current COVID-19 pandemic, and how many infections it could prevent if we assume a 20% asymptomatics and a very large 40% risk reduction by wearing masks, and found out that you will require 200,000 people wearing one to prevent a single infection in a week.
Citation for this would be very interesting, even recent articles only mention that this is considered just a possible route, not even confirmed, much less a "mayor" route.
It would be very interesting to see this evidence, seems like a very simple study to make, and even simpler thing to correct.
So masks are the same as every other preventive measure, from isolation to washing the hands, no surprise here, a perfect reason to educate people in the correct use, not so much to stop recommending doing it.
That wasn't the point I was trying to make.
Anybody that actually would have any trouble by using a 3ply or cottong mask puts more their health at risk by being in any kind of situation where the mask is recommended. The actual recommendation would be not to be in that situation in the first place.
Not really, There are many ailments that have negative consequences by wearing masks, and are not at all vulnerabilities against COVID-19.
One of those groups are those who have medication and behavior managed severe chronic migraines. I know at least of one case of someone like that who has suffered a lot because of the masks requirements, many times not being able to get out of his bed for days with vomiting after wearing a mask for an hour.
Your response is in fact the kind of problems I've seen on this, it is assumed that anyone with a real health problem isn't shouldn't be saying anything for one reason or another.
This should be solved by increasing the supply, there is absolutely nothing wrong with recommending something that is useful and have an effect.
Actually, there was already damage done because of this.
In the UK, people in care homes who had COVID-19 patients were unable to get access to any type of masks, because the government put them in the bottom of the list to get masks, and there were even stories of workers from care-homes asking to school children to make some cloth masks for them, out of desperation.
It is well known that the UK high death toll was in a big part because of there uncontrollable outbreaks in the care homes.
But hindsight is always 20/20 I guess.
Bad would be to recommend something useless, since this is not the case the solution is to have more masks so they can can their intended effect everywhere they are needed.
Not sure if you read the same article, but they basically said that bandanas are useless, and if I remember correctly there were recommendations in some countries of using them.
Which epidemiologist? based on what data? how much of the discussion has been done about the obvious other solutions that solve the problems?
Do you want me to list them all?
I would say, read the discussions and responses on articles like the ones from the BJM.
The people who I know who are "famous" and have been consistently warning about a blanket mask wearing by the wide population , or are critical of these policies are:
Anders TegnelHenning Bundgaard
Epidemiological evidence is also science, after all there is no "hard science" proving the quantitative effect of isolation or hand washing for the prevention of COVID-19 either? so according to you there is no point in recommending any measure.
It is not the same. I'm talking about high quality evidence studies against low quality evidence studies.
There is very high quality evidence for isolation, hand washing for the prevention of ILI. The evidence for face masks is extremely lacking.
There are very few mask studies, and most are not even randomized.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
As I've been saying for a while, masks are just supposed to stop coughs and sneezes, and the quality of masks do matter.
Now, the conondrum of all of this is, asymptomatic people, by definition, have no symptoms, which means they are not going to be sneezing and coughing all the time, and I'm the rare occasion they do, sneeze etiquete should be for the most part more than enough to contain droplets.
In fact, even with masks people should engage in sneeze etiquette, since, like this study shows, droplets still fly away even with masks.
Also, even if droplet ammout is reduced in by up to 90% in cloth masks, infection studies have showed that they performed about as good or worse than not wearing a mask, which means that the remaining 10% of droplets is more than enough to generate transmission by droplets.
My worry, and that of many epidemiologists is not about droplets, but about infection dynamics and risks associated.
First, a mask will not protect anyone against infection for the most part, and most studies link SARS-CoV-2 infections to long interactions in closed spaces, making interfamily in-house interactions the main route of infection.
There is strong evidence that orofecal transmission is a mayor route for SARS-CoV-2, which cannot be prevented by a mask.
Second, there is evidence that people who use masks tend to not social distance, and even in cases forces people to get closer in order to hear a muffled voice, which can have a negative effect on transmission.
Third, not using a mask properly, using the same mask for a long time, constantly touching your face to adjust the mask, moisture accumulation in the mask among other factors can make infection more likely than not wearing a mask at all.
Forth, masks recommendations create stigmatization and discrimination for those with conditions that do not allow them to wear masks, who many times are forced to wear them anyway, putting their health at risk.
Fifth, mask recommendations have already created a problems in the supply of masks, which can translate into people who do require masks not being able to get them.
Because of these risks, and the fact that there is very low evidence that masks are working to prevent the most common routes of transmission, some epidemiologist are against blanket usage of masks by the wider population at all times when outside the home.
Most recommendations by epidemiologists involve very specific scenarios, like peak hour public transportation, in which the distance between people is so small that using all methods posible to avoid transmission could make sense, but once again, even for these scenarios, recommendations are based in theoretical prevention, and not in hard science that has proven the prevention.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )
I'm sure they are doing it to stop COVID-19.
Freedom of press may is dangerous during a pandemic, because it makes people talk with each other about the news, and speaking transmits the virus.
Not to mention that news that say things like "this has nothing to do with the pandemic" or say anything not approved by the government are dangerous fake news, and in the middle of a pandemic these people should just dissapear in the middle of the night for the safety of all.
Journalists who are political prisoners who die, they probably just die of COVID-19.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
It all depends on what "encouraging" means.
If encouraging means something like, manipulating someone emotionally so that they kill themselves, then yes.
If it is something like, a group of persons who are thinking of a group suicide and talking about how the world sucks and life sucks and how killing themselves is the best option, I think it shouldn't be a crime, but it is a very murky situation.
I think intention is crucial in something like this.
And in cases in which people use insults like "kill yourself" or something like that, even if it is a tasteless insult, it should never be illegal.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
Not familiar with Shakespeare, eh?
As I said countless times, I'm not American, nor English is my first language, I'm not really that familiar with English literature.
If I quote you some line from Octavio Paz or something like that, I don't think you would get it either.
It means you're trying very hard to prove to others and to yourself a point that nearly no one else believes
Telling my opinion, and citing the scientific literature is not trying to prove anything.
It has become very clear that people are just politicizing this whole thing, and do not really care about the science.
It carries the underlying meaning that your point may very well not hold water, and by extension, disingenuous.
That's a new one. Never knew that saying things that may be wrong is being disingenuous.
I always thought that it was a pre requirement to be aware that it is wrong while saying it for it to be disingenuous.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I'm really not that aware of American politics, I'm not American, never lived in America, but after reading this, now I see why people from the US in this section are reacting the way they do:
It would be nice if Americans living in Japan didn't brought their national politics to this country and tried to politicize a matter that should be for all intent and purposes scientific in nature.
In Japan, discussions about masks are way more civil, and people who have refused to use them, like Horie Takafumi, are allowed to speak their mind without getting bombarded.
Once again, I'm glad I live in Japan in these times.
It seems that in the end when it really matters, Japan is a way more of a free country than the so called "freest country in the world".
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
I know this is going to be downvoted because heard mentality is at max work right here, but even "there will be a vaccine by the end of the year" Fauci admitted a few days ago he no longer thinks that is the case.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Give this one up, mate.
I think you dug yourself in a similar hole over the plastic bag charge.
It sure should be nice to have this mentality in which if someone has an opinion you disagree with they automatically lose.
At the same time, the lack of actual arguments replaced by "you dug yourself in a hole" without giving an argument other than "you are wrong" is kind of scary.
-6 ( +0 / -6 )
Go see a doctor Luis
Learn not to be a douche
Once again, I've been showing my sources, and I will clarify any question about what exactly I was talking about if you have any problems with my conclusions.
If you know of scientific literature I'm not aware off that would challenge my position, I would be more than happy to read it.
But the way I'm looking this is going, basically this has just gone the road of a name calling competition.
I'm getting basically the same kind of vibe when there were anti-nuclear posts after the Fukushima accident, and I trying to talk about not to panic about nuclear physics, and people just kept on calling me names, and telling me how out of touch I was without many arguments.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
Luis you are so convinced of your own fallacies
Ok, and you will not make an argument as to how that works, just going to claim I'm wrong, cool.
Covering up isn’t a foreign concept to us here in Japan Luis, cmon, how conceited a comment is that?
I never said Japan, I said for you, because you seem to think that only masks can prevent saliva from sneezes to spread. Not to mention that asymptomatic patients, which are supposedly the whole reason of this thing, are not going to be sneezing like a symptomatic patient.
But none of this really matters, you says it works because it is since, not providing any argumentation, and I just should say that you are right.
Having a physical barrier between your face is so logically and painfully obvious to most.
Then wear a face shield. That is way more of a physical barrier and without micro openings like masks.
Sorry youre stuck in your pre corona mindset.
Sorry if I don't share your panic. I actually care about the science behind stuff.
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
Masks are effective. It’s science bro
With arguments as strong like that I really wish I didn't spent all that time writing arguments for my position.
If Masks were meaningless in stopping droplets they would not be worn by medical professionals.
I think I myself addressed this point.
For maintaining sterile environments they work. Surgical masks are the only ones, with low evidence thou, that have shown to have any effect with viral infections.
Cloth masks, which is what most people wear in Japan, if anything have been shown to be useless by the scientific literature, with the possibility of being worse than wearing no mask at all.
Before corona, the main reason why people wear masks was to stop pollen, which those masks actually can do.
And since you will still refute that, how about I sneeze near you twice?
Once with a mask, once without. And after that, you can get all scientific and argumentative again.
I present to you the probably foreign concept of "covering your mouth, and looking down when you sneeze".
In some parts of the world before the Corona scare this was though as simple hygiene and common sense.
If done properly, it is more efficient at stopping droplets from going out wild from your mouth, which is why it is recommended even for people wearing a mask.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
And to reply to Luis, I don't know which literature are you reading but you should change your sources because you are completely wrong. Surgical Mask reduce the infection rate. They are not 100% efficient, but reduce the contamination of other by more than 90% and protect yourself at around 30%. And if you want to protect yourself better you still can with FFP2 mask that protect you at a rate that is higher than 80%.
Once again, citation needed. I've been reading mostly evidence reviews, some by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine of Oxford University, others by the Sax Institute for the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, among others.
And they point to all the relevant studies in their review of the evidence.
Most mask tests that have been done (which aren't that many in the first place) have been done on a medical environment, many aren't even randomized, and many their control group sucks (like the only peer reviewed test on cloth masks, in which the control group was a mixture between people without masks and people with masks, without even taking into account the type of mask or anything).
The only reviews that I've seen that have anything positive to say about mask usage are mostly political in nature, and are trying to give "recommendations" to the government, instead of doing a plain scientific review of the evidence, and their recommendations are basically based in "they might work, so we should use them" ignoring the low evidence for this.
I would ask you, were do you get your info from?, is it a single source, or do you actually look for multiple papers on the literature, and take into account the quality of the evidence they provide?
Because that's what I do.
There many studies that say that transmission (mask to mask) are almost inexistent.
Masks also lower the viral load you would get, even if you are infected.
Those are real studies that say that mask efficiely reduce droplet. And droplets is the main transmission factor in this case.
Masks do stop droplets, but this ignores 2 big points:
if someone is asymptomatic they will not generate to many droplets. Mask usage as a method of stopping droplets is mostly done to avoid contamination of an sterile environment, in the case of people with flu like symptoms, to stop droplets from sneezes and coughsif we are talking about asymptomatic patients, a review on the evidence shows that asymptomatic patients are not seen as the main carriers of the virus, nor as the main sources of the spread.
The actual transmission dynamics on asymptomatic patients are controversial, specially because the definition of an asymptomatic patient is kind of all over the place. If we see an asymptomatic patient as someone who shows positive in a PCR test but doesn't show any symptoms doesn't really, right now it gets counted as a confirmed infection, but the truth of the matter is, PCR tests cannot confirm infections, just if material from the virus was present.
There is actually controversy over the fact that it seems that many of the people who are getting positive results of a PCR were infected but no longer are (meaning, the PCR test shows material of the virus, but the virus is no longer active or able to replicate AKA death), or people who were in contact with the virus but have not actually being infected by it.
So what actually constitutes an asymptomatic patient is not really cristal clear. There are some who are said to be asymptomatic because they show positive in the test, but end up showing symptoms, and they get called "pre-symptomatic".
A review of the evidence has shown that these "pre-symptomatic" are responsible for most of the so called asymptomatic transmissions, and that asymptomatic transmissions are actually quite rare.
What you are saying is basically a theory that, since masks stop droplets it should be effective against SARS-CoV-2, assuming the main transmissions method of SARS-CoV-2 is by droplets, but you require an actual randomized test to be sure about that theory. There isn't one, and since people didn't even cared about coronaviruses before, most of the literature in this respect is mostly based on influenza viruses, which doesn't always translate well with coronaviruses.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
If you’re not wearing a mask during a global pandemic, you are ignorant, selfish or both. Period. Full stop.
Did you wear a mask in the previous 2009-2010 H1N1 global pandemic?
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
You're a higher risk of catching Covid-19 by not wearing a mask.
Also citation needed for that one.
I've reviewed the literature, and if anything, even thou there is low evidence, if you used a surgical mask properly there is a chance that if you have the virus, the probability of you passing it to others will decrease, not the other way around.
I've seen studies that used surgical masks to try to prevent those using the masks to get infected, and they never found any real reduction to the rate of infection.
If you're a serious case, the costs of your care will be very high, and you're now a burden to rest of us.
Same thing for any other transmissible illness, but people do not seem to care about any other illness, yet, I've never seen this argument for any other transmissible illness.
Also, if anything, this makes a good case for allowing private healthcare in this country. If governments are going to control my life based on things like healthcare costs because we are forced to use a socialized health care system with no alternative, I would like to opt out of that system.
What if you don't wear a mask and you're wrong? What if you wear a mask and you're wrong? One hurts you and others. The other doesn't hurt at all.
Actually, one of the reasons I personally don't use one is because there are possible harms associated to mask wearing. There is evidence that people who wear masks feel safer and stop taking other more relevant measures, if what you care is about virus transmission.
Mask usage muffles the human voice, which means that people have to be closer in order to hear each other, and this is specially worrying for the elderly, which many of them have already low hearing.
Mask usage, if not used properly, can actually cause a higher infection rate, because of things like constantly touching your face, accumulation of moisture in long term usage, among other reasons.
Here is the thing, unlike you, I'm not going to tell you what to do. If you think you should use a mask, then go ahead and use one, I mean, I might think it is unnecessary, but I'm not the one to tell you that.
Not to mention, I'm not going to try to guilt trip you with a "What if you are wrong?" scenario, in which I can blame you for higher infection rates, and other mask wearing related harm possibilities.
And that's the thing that most angers me about this discussion, it is a assume benefits ignore risks absolutist discussion, in which basically being skeptical about measures that have yet to be proved efficient, and in the first place necessary, for many mask radicals is almost like heresy.
It's really painful to see people being so smug and self righteous about something that, once again, doesn't even has hard evidence, but still try to paint anyone who for any reason is not in favor of a blanket mask wearing policy as, like you said, "not logical", and worse insults.
If people were really worried about transmission, then they would stay at home. But what I see is that masks are more like a replacement for the stay at home policy, with the hope that it will be just as or more effective.
Masks, even if they do work, are not going to completely prevent infections, just reduce them, and the amount that gets reduced, from the low evidence studies on the subject, is not really that significant, specially when you have a widespread virus that is not going to go anywhere any time soon.
A policy like this MIGHT have had some point very early when the virus was discovered, to prevent as much as possible spread, in order to make the virus disappear. It is too late for that, and people need to be realistic and stop thinking that we are going to be able to make this virus disappear. It is not going to happen, this virus is here to stay.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
I’m not here for ‘American politics’. I’m here for anti-stupid.
Don't know about you, but talking about "Voting for trump" in a Japanese news site in a poll about mask usage with someone who isn't American or lives in America paints a very different picture.
@LDY: Me thinks you doth protest too much.
Isn't that the worst of sins? Maybe Japan should also implement a law like the one from Hong Kong so that people like me do not protest so much, because protesting is bad.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )
Your argument could have been misinterpreted as the Norwegian government dismissing the efficacy of face masks which is clearly not the case.
Actually, they have basically the same approach I have about masks, evidence is low, general population =/= medican environment, surgical masks seem to be the only ones that work, but require to be used properly, and cloth masks are useless.
I'm going to quote the Norwegian Institute of Health:
Based on the current epidemiological situation, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health considers that there would be very little effect from general use of cloth face coverings in the population and there is no scientific basis for recommending the general use of face masks or cloth face coverings.
The idea that they are reviewing things makes sense, there are new studies all the time, and reviewing new evidence is always a good policy, I just hope that any new recommendations they make will be based on evidence and hard science like they have been doing for now, and do not lose to the pressure of a panicking nation as has happened all over the world.
As far as I can tell, you are in the ‘maybe’ category. Is that right? That should be good enough. Think of others. You aren’t being asked to do anything too difficult or costly.
By using that logic, I should also join Jehovah's Witnesses, just in case they are in the right, to avoid eternal hell for me and my family, which surely sounds worse than COVID-19.
Thing is, there is no strong evidence for this, so I will take my chances.
In the Mask department, I actually use masks when I'm sick and have to go out. I don't want to use masks as things are now, not because I think it is hard or anything like that, but because I see it as basically ignoring my own intuition and common sense on the matter, and basically contributing to the ever expanding panic of this pandemic.
If you think I'm selfish or dumb or whatever, be free to, but I'm not going to do something just because everyone is doing it even thou my own intuition tells me how useless it is.
-6 ( +2 / -8 )
Misleading. Keep it honest. The situation in Norway is changing. This is from Forbes:
How is it misleading to say that Norway doesn't recommend masks, when you yourself quote this:
The government is not yet recommending the widespread use of face masks.
And it isn't just Norway, all of the Nordic countries do not recommend masks, have the lowest mask usage right now on record in the world, and somehow they are not dying in hordes as the Mask radicals would make you believe.
In fact, the idea that people in quarantine should use masks I think is a sensible one. You are at least telling people who are more lively to have the virus to use a mask than just in the general population at large.
Oh, I forgot to add masks are required on SAS and Norwegian airlines.
As far as I know those are private businesses?
-10 ( +2 / -12 )
This reminds me of certain opinions about wearing a seatbelt when that became a legal requirement.
The science behind seatbelt was actually pretty rock solid at that point. And it wasn't as if people weren't wearing them before it became a legal requirement.
Wearing seatbelts is a very obvious, physical and instantly visible way of avoiding harm, with little to no risks associated, or with the risks associated being less than the harm avoided.
I really do not remember anyone fighting the fact that seatbelts save lives, but it was more of a movement against nanny state policies (basically, those policies where the government punishes you for doing or not doing something that harms you, in other words harming you to make you avoid getting harmed by your own actions).
People stopped really talking about seatbelts legal requirement because people did see a good reason for it, and because police stopped to enforce the law so carefully as they did on the start.
Masks are nothing like that.
The current push for masks are just to avoid 1 single virus that has an IFR of 0.1-0.6%, assuming that everyone is asymptomatic, which is an overreaching assumption, because there is no way everyone is asymptomatic, so most people will be wearing a mask without any real benefit for anyone.
Not to mention that the science behind the infection dynamics and the role of masks is not hard science, the evidence is actually not that good, and there are a lot of factors that not only reduce the benefits masks could provide, by doing simple things like just not wearing it correctly, or touching your face more constantly that you would otherwise, but could also elevate the risk of infection.
There is a reason why they were actually not recommended before the whole COVID panic, and why countries like Norway are actually telling people not to wear them.
-16 ( +0 / -16 )
Those refusing to wear masks in the middle of this pandemic are similarly irresponsible, dangerous, and ignorant.
I could go with the scientific literature, talking about how the evidence for wearing masks for the general population is actually very fuzzy to near non existent, and that the only study that exists proving the efficacy of cloth masks not only didn't found them effective, but actually put them as probably more harmful than not wearing a mask, but I you will respond with basically the same line.
Facts don't matter, hard science doesn't matter, if governments and organization recommend them after a 180 degree change of policy recommendations in the middle of march of this year, without any real change in the facts or evidence, that's apparently science.
I actually don't care if people wear masks, or if people recommend their use, the real problem is when it is forced, when, once again, its efficacy is actually not cristal clear.
And even in the low evidence studies that do show some kind of benefit, they remark that other measures, like simple distance or washing your hands as way more effective way to prevent spread.
But the thing with masks is that they are now a "symbol" of the "sacrifice" people are doing.
Basically virtue signaling, which explains why the most radical get so aggressive when someone even suggests that "maybe it doesn't work".
-8 ( +3 / -11 )
why have over 3,000 doctors and nurses lost their lives to this new corona virus since January? Just a cold?
Never said it was "just a cold", so nice strawman there.
Doctors and nurses are way more susceptible to get infected, because of their work, and many of the doctors and nurses that died were old people, and were in the vulnerable group, that's a fact.
Also, many of these people, should have never treated these patients if they themselves were vulnerable, but tragically, because of panic, many of them were basically seen as expendable, and ordered to keep working.
In fact, I do have a family member who died in Mexico from COVID-19. He was actually semi-retired, but was told by his old hospital to go back to work, treating only COVID-19 patients.
He got the virus, and was put on the ICU against his own will, and died because of intubation complications.
Of course this is just an anecdote, and it is not meant to represent the bulk of every single person who died from COVID-19.
-16 ( +4 / -20 )