eric76 said:

---

AggieSarah01 said:

---

So many times I have seen people take off their masks to talk, and then put them back on.

---

I stopped at a grocery store yesterday and saw one of the employees with the mask on, but not covering his nose and mouth. I asked him if he knew that the was a large spike in covid cases in the county and that the vast majority of them was in the town he was in (about six times higher than two weeks ago). He had no idea about that.

---

eric76 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

AggieSarah01 said:

---

So many times I have seen people take off their masks to talk, and then put them back on.

---

I stopped at a grocery store yesterday and saw one of the employees with the mask on, but not covering his nose and mouth. I asked him if he knew that the was a large spike in covid cases in the county and that the vast majority of them was in the town he was in (about six times higher than two weeks ago). He had no idea about that.

---

Did you also point out that there is no scientific evidence masks work to reduce spread whatsoever of a viral upper respiratory infection?

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy

Also, why worry about the poor guy, it's not like he was in a bar?

---

Is that the same set of links that we've seen on forum 16? If so, when I actually went through the links one by one, it quickly became clear that they didn't support the position of the person posting them at all. In some cases, the links argued quite the opposite, in fact. So is this the same set of links?

---

Quote:

---

After doing so, a group of leading researchers this week called for an end to the experiment. In a joint statement, the Great Barrington Declaration, they predicted that continued lockdowns will lead to "excess mortality in years to come" and warned of "irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed."

While the economic and social costs have been enormous, it's not clear that the lockdowns have brought significant health benefits beyond what was achieved by people's voluntary social distancing and other actions. Some researchers have credited lockdowns with slowing the pandemic, but they've relied on mathematical models with assumptions about people's behavior and the virus's tendency to spreadthe kinds of models and assumptions that previously produced wild overestimates of how many people would die during the pandemic. Other researchers have sought more direct evidence, looking at mortality patterns. They have detected little impact.

In a comparison of 50 countries, a team led by Rabail Chaudhry of the University of Toronto found that Covid was deadlier in places with older populations and higher rates of obesity, but the mortality rate was no lower in countries that closed their borders or enforced full lockdowns. After analyzing 23 countries and 25 U.S. states with widely varying policies, Andrew Atkeson of UCLA and fellow economists found that the mortality trend was similar everywhere once the disease took hold: the number of daily deaths rose rapidly for 20 to 30 days, and then fell rapidly.

Similar conclusions were reached in analyses of Covid deaths in Europe. By studying the time lag between infection and death, Simon Wood of the University of Edinburgh concluded that infections in Britain were already declining before the nation's lockdown began in late March. In an analysis of Germany's 412 counties, Thomas Wieland of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology found that infections were waning in most of the country before the national lockdown began and that the additional curfews imposed in Bavaria and other states had no effect.

---

Quote:

---

What experimental drug would ever be approved if there were so much conflicting evidence of its efficacy and so much solid evidence of its harmful side effects? The cost-benefit analysis becomes even bleaker if you switch from the metric favored by journalists and politiciansthe running total of lives lostto the metric that's typically used in evaluating medical efficacy. It's called the QALY, for quality-adjusted life year, a wonky term for what we think of as a "good year" of life, free from disease and disability. No politician wants to admit publicly that young people's lives are more valuable than older people's because they have more healthy years remaining, but using this guide is the most sensible way to allocate health resourcesand it's long been favored by some of the same progressive health-care experts now clamoring for lockdowns.

By the QALY measure, the lockdowns must be the most costlyand cost-ineffectivemedical intervention in history because most of the beneficiaries are so near the end of life. Covid-19 disproportionately affects people over 65, who have accounted for nearly 80 percent of the deaths in the United States. The vast majority suffered from other ailments, and more than 40 percent of the victims were living in nursing homes, where the median life expectancy after admission is just five months. In Britain, a study led by the Imperial College economist David Miles concluded that even if you gave the lockdown full credit for averting the most unrealistic worst-case scenario (the projection of 500,000 British deaths, more than ten times the current toll), it would still flunk even the most lenient QALY cost-benefit test.

No one wants to hasten the demise of the elderly, but they and other vulnerable people can be shielded without shutting down the rest of the society, as Sweden and other countries have demonstrated. Sweden was denounced early in the pandemic by lockdown proponents because of its relatively high death rateand it did initially flounder in protecting nursing homesbut its overall mortality rate is now lower than that of the United States and some other European countries. The rate is higher than that of its Nordic neighbors, but mainly because of demographic differences and other factors not related to its failure to shut down.

None of these facts, though, gets as much as attention as the daily case counts for Covid. Nor do all the unseen casualties: the people dying from heart disease, cancer, suicide, and other causes related to lockdowns and economic distress. Early in the pandemic, Scott Atlas at the Hoover Institution and researchers at Swansea University independently calculated that the lockdowns would ultimately cost more years of life than Covid-19 in the United States and Britain, and the toll seems certain to be worse in poor countries. The World Bank estimates that the coronavirus recession could push 60 million people into extreme poverty, which inevitably means more disease and death.

The lockdowns may have been justified in the spring, when so little was known about the virus and the ways to contain it. But now that we know more, there's no ethical justification for continuing this failed experiment.

---

OldArmy71 said:

---

You wear a mask to protect other people whom you might unknowingly infect.

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Follow the science, not the wackadoodle minority but the vast majority of medical opinions and wear them.

---

Show me an RCT stuffy on mask effectiveness. That's science. Problem is, every one of them shows common masks (non N95) are ineffective. RCT is true science. Opinions are opinions.

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

Quote:

---

Feb. 17: "The masks sold at drugstores [don't] truly protect anyone, Fauci said. 'If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't do much to protect you. In the US, there is absolutely no reason to wear a mask."

---

---

It's disturbing the average American can't see the abrupt about face in what he said and recognize they changed their view to calm the masses and act like it could actually protect you. All these restrictions give the illusion of protection but you can't stop a virus from spreading unless you don't leave your home.

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

"Follow the science"
"Medical opinions"

It's all so very confusing, I don't know which one to go with. Since no real evidence has been shown in favor of masks I'm going to err on the side of personal freedom.

---

JesusQuintana said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

"Follow the science"
"Medical opinions"

It's all so very confusing, I don't know which one to go with. Since no real evidence has been shown in favor of masks I'm going to err on the side of personal freedom.

---

So we have doctors on this forum and this thread saying masks work in indoor settings where social distancing can't be followed. Then we have the scientists that say they are useless. So which is it...are docs and medical professionals wrong? Is there a chance that masks might not prevent you or someone else from getting ill in certain scenarios but may decrease the vital load? I tend to listen to my doctor for my care and he says to wear a mask? Is he a science denier? As you said...confusing.

---

JesusQuintana said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

Quote:

---

Feb. 17: "The masks sold at drugstores [don't] truly protect anyone, Fauci said. 'If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't do much to protect you. In the US, there is absolutely no reason to wear a mask."

---

---

It's disturbing the average American can't see the abrupt about face in what he said and recognize they changed their view to calm the masses and act like it could actually protect you. All these restrictions give the illusion of protection but you can't stop a virus from spreading unless you don't leave your home.

---

Or perhaps the avg American is taught to listen to medical professionals when it comes to disease and illness. As seen on this thread and from the docs Facebook posts on the top of the forum, they do indeed believe there are some benefits to mask wearing. Many folks might actually listen to their pcp and not talking heads from the news, DC or message boards. I guess the real shame in this is that some many physicians have got it wrong and people are being mislead by folks they trust with their healthcare instead of following the scientific studies posted on the internet.

---

TCTTS said:

---

The most revealing aspect of this entire pandemic has been just how many people arrogantly and unapologetically place "personal freedom" over kindness, courtesy, and empathy. America is no longer just their country, it is their religion, one in which they worship at the alter of the "self" above all else. I'm not saying our freedoms shouldn't be valued, held dear, or fought for. It's just that we've reached a point where, for so many people, "personal freedom" is now more than a right. It's a green light to blatantly disregard others, in myriad ways, when, if ever there was a time to do the opposite, this is it.

---

nortex97 said:

---

JesusQuintana said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

Quote:

---

Feb. 17: "The masks sold at drugstores [don't] truly protect anyone, Fauci said. 'If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't do much to protect you. In the US, there is absolutely no reason to wear a mask."

---

---

It's disturbing the average American can't see the abrupt about face in what he said and recognize they changed their view to calm the masses and act like it could actually protect you. All these restrictions give the illusion of protection but you can't stop a virus from spreading unless you don't leave your home.

---

Or perhaps the avg American is taught to listen to medical professionals when it comes to disease and illness. As seen on this thread and from the docs Facebook posts on the top of the forum, they do indeed believe there are some benefits to mask wearing. Many folks might actually listen to their pcp and not talking heads from the news, DC or message boards. I guess the real shame in this is that some many physicians have got it wrong and people are being mislead by folks they trust with their healthcare instead of following the scientific studies posted on the internet.

---

Oh look, another post denigrating one side's opinion with zero facts, papers, studies, or data. Where are those studies on the internet showing masks worn by the public today have impacted Covid/ILI spread somewhere on earth?

My PCP told me he thinks it's all theater, btw.

---

JesusQuintana said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

JesusQuintana said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

Quote:

---

Feb. 17: "The masks sold at drugstores [don't] truly protect anyone, Fauci said. 'If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't do much to protect you. In the US, there is absolutely no reason to wear a mask."

---

---

It's disturbing the average American can't see the abrupt about face in what he said and recognize they changed their view to calm the masses and act like it could actually protect you. All these restrictions give the illusion of protection but you can't stop a virus from spreading unless you don't leave your home.

---

Or perhaps the avg American is taught to listen to medical professionals when it comes to disease and illness. As seen on this thread and from the docs Facebook posts on the top of the forum, they do indeed believe there are some benefits to mask wearing. Many folks might actually listen to their pcp and not talking heads from the news, DC or message boards. I guess the real shame in this is that some many physicians have got it wrong and people are being mislead by folks they trust with their healthcare instead of following the scientific studies posted on the internet.

---

Oh look, another post denigrating one side's opinion with zero facts, papers, studies, or data. Where are those studies on the internet showing masks worn by the public today have impacted Covid/ILI spread somewhere on earth?

My PCP told me he thinks it's all theater, btw.

---

I'm not a medical professional nor did I present opinion. I simply presented a scenario that might be playing out in real life....until you get more physicians instructing patients and leadership to ditch the mask they will likely be around....no matter how many scientific studies you conduct. As you know, most folks don't run to the internet for science when they seek medical advice....they call the doc.

---

KidDoc said:

---

My personal take, as already mentioned, is you should use a N95 in high risk situations especially if you have risk factors. In other more middle risk a surgical mask is great. I have yet to see any convincing data that cloth mask help much and most evidence shows gaiters doing nothing at best.

---