Well, I didn’t necessarily say it’s overhyped. I was just saying I don’t see how anyone can put a dart on a number yet.
2 Likes
Even if this (and a few more recent) estimates are high, I see no numerical “adequacy threshold”:
“University of Washington researchers predict 80,000 COVID-19 deaths in U.S. by July”
Source: https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/200326-deaths.jpg
The research paper pre-print submitted today (on March 26, 2020) for peer-review of contents:
And researchers’ predictions are always bang on.
1 Like
Just noting that even if the “estimates” are (all) on the high side, I see an “utter debacle” neverthless.
1 Like
Watching the news now. How to make a mask. Fold a old scarf three times. Take 2 rubber bands. Fold the scarf over the rubber bands . Instant mask. No thank you. Yep it will stop some spatle matter. Will it stop a virus? No. I would understand it if they are N95 compliant. I have worn the mask you refer to. They don’t filter dust particles out once saturated with the humidity of breath.
I used to spray oil paints. The only mask that was safe was the 3M 3micron mask.
Studies are screwi their done in a lab under a control that is not real life.
2 Likes
These two reports (looking at recorded influenza infections) seem to bust the mythical “N95 bubble” ?
Little evidence:
Weak evidence:
Not according to the Bible of every doctor in the US. From the CDC.
The above is a highly simplistic - and a not altogether true - assertion.
Citing a public agency (CDC) that weaves a different narrative every week is a rather dangerous business. Trust the CDC today ? Did you also trust them on March 10, 2020 ? Which is “correct”, then ?
A shortage of specialized masks has prompted federal health officials to loosen their recommendations on the face protection that front line health-care workers should use to prevent infection from the highly contagious disease caused by the novel coronavirus.
Instead of recommending that health-care workers use specialized masks known as N95 respirators, which filter out about 95 percent of airborne particles, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted new guidelines Tuesday that said “the supply chain of respirators cannot meet demand” and that looser fitting surgical face masks “are an acceptable alternative."
The more commonly worn surgical masks will limit - but not eliminate - the chance of inhaling large, infectious particles circulating near the face. Until Tuesday, the CDC had recommended that health-care workers interacting with coronavirus patients or suspected cases wear N95 respirators, along with gowns, gloves and eye protectors. The N95 filters must be custom-fitted and cost more than surgical masks. …
… The CDC guidance said the changes were prompted by the shortages. Surgical face masks will block the respiratory droplets produced by patients who cough or sneeze, which is the primary way the virus is spread.
The CDC is recommending that N95 respirators be reserved for protecting workers in the riskiest situations, where fine aerosol is likely to be generated. These include certain medical procedures like intubation …
… During the height of flu season over the course of four years, researchers studied flu-infection rates among health care workers at seven U.S. medical centers. Some workers were randomly assigned to wear N95 respirators and others surgical masks. The two groups showed no significant difference in flu infection rates, according to the study, which was published in September in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Source (Washington Post, March 10, 2020):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/face-mask-shortage-prompts-cdc-loosen-coronavirus-guidance
1 Like
Don’t trust their conclusion. Their methods are terrible. It’s a big difference between a definition and a conclusion. The definition of a tight fitting vs a loose mask is the difference. They came to the right conclusion but they never denied the direction the press lead. To me half truth is a lie and not in the best interest of public health. It is arrogance.
1 Like
So, I get the impression that you lacked faith in the CDC then, as well as now ? If so, then your reference to CDC documents being, “the Bible of every doctor in the US”, was written facetiously ? 
1 Like
I think she wants to be a sea urchin
2 Likes
1 Like
A doctor in this country will not go against the CDC. The CDC in at the top of the food chain along with the FDA. Act against either a doctor will loose his/her license to practice medicine.
Thus the Bible reference.
Often the FDA and CDC come to different opinion. The CDC is top dog between the two.
My trust is lost in how long it takes them to come to a decision when the obvious is staring them in the face. Their decisions are Paramount to the medical community. They move at a snail’s pace to come to any conclusion even when other countries have done studies that are accepted around the world. Take cigarettes for an example. The College of Surgeons came out that cigarettes cause cancer. It took the CDC over a decade to come to the same conclusion. Is that in the best interest of the American people? To me it was a political decision to wait as long as they did. It would have hurt a lot politicians campaign contributions in that decade. They let 480,000 people die each year during that decade. Is that the agency you want to put your trust in? The masks? People will wear one mask till it falls off their face. It’s human nature. They will touch it with their hands and use the same mask tomorrow. Hospital studies are one thing there disposable and free to employee’s. That’s not real life on the street.
2 Likes
State health officials in various states have been doing just that recently. Might want to update your rap.
I like your prose style, and get the socio-political for-profit corporate-defensive-medicine spinectomies.
OK, then. Now that I know you had, “tongue somewhat in cheek”, your statements make more sense.
It’s a sloppy propaganda mind-shuck. We’re all going to be exposed to SARS-Cov-2 (in due time).
As well, (properly fitted) N95s are quite hard to inspire through. Dangerous for “pulmonary/cardiac”.
Masks are worn to prevent us from touching our mouth and nose, and also to limit mucus/saliva spread.
That was from our dept of health’s psa.
2 Likes
In the case of a (needing to be tight-fitting) N95 mask (which have a form-able “nose area clamp”), there can be a tendency to end up touching one face (directly under one’s eyes) when one feels the tight seal formed around the nose (when initially adjusted) beginning to loosen or “drift” around one’s nose. Net result - one touches one’s face. The more that one worries about the seal, the harder it is to resist that.
3 Likes
Gotta call it like I see it @Pro_Vapes, that was a DUMBASS statement, and is only going to CONFUSE more people. I was UN-thrilled to see/hear that. Calling it like I see it.
1 Like
I have to agree again @Pro_Vapes. As this gets increasingly serious, I think the Don, needs to get out there, make a SHORT statement, THEN let the experts speak. NO interuptions, no BS, no interjecting.
5 Likes
That would be great - I doubt he’ll do that though 
5 Likes