“Cloth Masks aren’t very effective.”

[haw-key]

Yep

1918 we had no such thing as "elastic" and "spandex"

That means your masks were tied on with cotton ties, and the fit around your face would have been much less snug than with most anything you have today.

They also mainly used single layer stuff; CDC recommends multi-layer masks, in case you weren't aware.

I see you’ve adopted the dumb as hell Walensky ‘CDC’ terminology rather than the normal ‘the CDC’ used by everyone else. Her use of this smacks of arrogance as her insistence on it seems to suggest that everyone’s rides terminology is wrong. Not surprised you’ve picked up on it.

 

[haw-key]

What, you quoting the guy who literally stated that masks will buy you an extra 5-10 minutes in some conditions?

Were you unaware how elastic can hold masks around your face for better coverage? It's literally how nearly all medical masks are made nowadays, and an integral part of an N95 construction.

You guys are bafflingly stupid.

‘Literally’

You’d think you’d have moved on from that word after the beat down I gave you for it.

 

[hawkland14]

“WCCO radio announced that “Coronavirus expert Dr. Osterholm questions guidelines on cloth masks, says they don’t stand up to virus’ air assault”, quoting Osterholm as saying “Cloth masks, I think… have little impact, if any.” In another WCCO appearance he stated that “the Minneapolis mask mandate could do more harm than good”. The Cape Charles Mirror stated “You realize, the stupid masks you wear to the store don’t do anything, right”, quoting Osterholm: “If you want to wear a cloth mask, use it. Know that I don’t believe, or none of my colleagues, that this is going to have a major positive impact.”

Can’t wait for Riley to come in here and tell us what Osterholm actually meant with this quote.

 

[Joes Place]

No one is denying that they might buy you 5 minutes out of an hour-and-a-half.

Again: the guidance is to NOT congregate in indoor settings for extended periods.
Masks don't "fix" the problem. They are ONE TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX.

If you want into a store for 10-15 minutes to pick something up w/o a mask, you WILL be infected with Delta if anyone in the store has it (more than likely). If you BOTH are wearing masks, you will REDUCE that risk.

The entire point is to use masks to REDUCE the R0 of the virus. Every infection you eliminate can slow the spread. Substantially. You reduce ONE infection in that store and instead of infecting 3 people, you infect 2, you've made a major impact on transmission. It is quite literally how R0 works over generations of infection.

 

[Joes Place]

The masks merely delay the inevitable.

THIS IS ENTIRELY THE POINT.

So that you DON'T end up with full hospitals like several areas of the country are currently experiencing. We went over this last year. Do you have the short term memory of Dory the Fish here?

 

[Joes Place]

‘Literally’

You’d think you’d have moved on from that word after the beat down I gave you for it.

Make another "prediction" for us, bro.

That last one was a whopper.

 

[Joes Place]

Fantastic post.

Your hospital requires facemasks indoors, because they KNOW they help limit the spread.
Yet, here you are, helping spread disinformation. And you're too big a pussy to stand up for "what you believe" and tell them you won't wear one anymore because they are all "political theater".

Be a man. U go tell those bean-counters that you know the science "better".

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Again: the guidance is to NOT congregate in indoor settings for extended periods.
Masks don't "fix" the problem. They are ONE TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX.

If you want into a store for 10-15 minutes to pick something up w/o a mask, you WILL be infected with Delta if anyone in the store has it (more than likely). If you BOTH are wearing masks, you will REDUCE that risk.

The entire point is to use masks to REDUCE the R0 of the virus. Every infection you eliminate can slow the spread. Substantially. You reduce ONE infection in that store and instead of infecting 3 people, you infect 2, you've made a major impact on transmission. It is quite literally how R0 works over generations of infection.

Again dude, you have moved so far off your original stance it is laughable.

 

[RileyHawk]

“WCCO radio announced that “Coronavirus expert Dr. Osterholm questions guidelines on cloth masks, says they don’t stand up to virus’ air assault”, quoting Osterholm as saying “Cloth masks, I think… have little impact, if any.” In another WCCO appearance he stated that “the Minneapolis mask mandate could do more harm than good”. The Cape Charles Mirror stated “You realize, the stupid masks you wear to the store don’t do anything, right”, quoting Osterholm: “If you want to wear a cloth mask, use it. Know that I don’t believe, or none of my colleagues, that this is going to have a major positive impact.”

Yawn - same bullshit, different post.

 

[Joes Place]

Again dude, you have moved so far off your original stance it is laughable.

No; that's been the position all along.

Seatbelts won't likely save you in a 100+ mph head on collision. But seatbelts plus airbags might. Airbags, alone, won't keep you safely inside the vehicle in a major crash, and ejection from the vehicle is what kills most people not wearing them.

Masks aren't any different. Just like "only relying on your air bags and antilock brakes" in your car.

They are one of several mitigations to slow the spread. If you're playing the Straw Man that "masks alone don't do much", no one is arguing this. Masks w/o the other mitigations are NOT going to be very effective - particularly in long-term indoor exposures where viral levels will become very high (and why N95 masks are the only thing that will protect healthcare workers treating Covid patients in a Covid ICU ward).

Again: a grade school child could understand this concept. It's simply amazing how many adults cannot.

 

[shank hawk]

This is a new avenue for Joe and might be the funniest yet.
It’s the elastic that’s making the masks so effective huh? 😂

What is at arguably THE greatest invention of mankind’s in the past 500 years? Elastics! (which was actually invented 100 years before the Spanish Flu, but let’s not digress).

Theater is the perfect word to describe this phenomenon. A plastic sombrero from Señor Frog’s will do as much to stop a virus as 99.9% of the masks people wear out in public.

 

[RileyHawk]

Can’t wait for Riley to come in here and tell us what Osterholm actually meant with this quote.

What he's very clearly said all along - masks work. Cloth masks are not as good as N95 which is not as good as the vaccine. His whole effort is to remind people that masks alone are not enough, particularly cloth masks. He has made clear that he is a mask proponent. Others of you are trying to say there is absolutely no good with cloth masks and that is not true - Osterholm agrees with this. Then you guys try to extend this to say masks are worthless which is absurd and even more contrary to what Osterholm has said.

You and the other idiots arguing against masks are wrong and you're too ignorant and stubborn to realize even the expert you cite says you're wrong. That's on you guys.

 

[Joes Place]

Yawn - same bullshit, different post.

None of these idiots know ANYTHING about what constituted a "mask" during the 1918 panedmic.

"Unfortunately, Wu’s construction advice was forgotten or ignored by the time of the 1918 flu pandemic. During that time, most people were using very loose fabric, like cheesecloth."​

and

Osterholm has already recognized and highlighted the importance of distancing, despite a lack of randomized controlled trial evidence. And yet if all that mattered really was the aerosol particles that Osterholm is so focused on, distancing would be of little value, since those particles can remain in the air for hours and can wander all around a building. In practice, however, we see that nearly all spreading occurs within a couple of meters of a patient (except in cases such as singing and yelling, where droplets are ejected much further), and the droplets hang around for about 10 minutes. The same observations about real world cases that support the importance of distancing also support the importance of mask use. In fact, the two interventions make an excellent pairing: mask use decreases the radius of the droplet cloud, making distancing more effective.​

Correcting the Record: CIDRAP and Masks - #Masks4All

By: Jeremy Howard, Distinguished Data Scientist, University of San Francisco, and Vincent Rajkumar, Editor in Chief, Blood Cancer Journal Today, it is widely accepted by the public health and scientific community that two of the most effective tools we have to stop the spread of COVID-19 are...

masks4all.co

And multivariate analysis linked mask use to lower mortality and significantly reduced spread.

Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks (Update August 4, 2020)

Purpose To determine sources of variation between countries in per-capita mortality from COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus). Methods Potential predictors of per-capita coronavirus-related mortality in 200 countries by May 9, 2020 were examined, including age, sex, obesity prevalence...

www.medrxiv.org

Masks: Early Adoption

The World Health Organization initially advised against widespread mask wearing by the public, as did the United States CDC.1,48 The WHO reversed course and recommended masks in public on June 5, 2020.49​

​

Despite these initial recommendations, a number of countries did favor mask wear by the public early in their outbreak, and such countries experienced low coronavirus-related mortality (Table 2, Table A1, Figure 1).50-68,S1-S301 It is likely that in Mongolia and Laos, both of which reported no coronavirus-related mortality by May 9, the public began wearing masks before any cases were confirmed in their countries (Table 2). We identified 22 additional countries with recommendations or cultural norms favoring mask-wearing by the public within 20 days of the estimated onset of the country’s outbreak:1 including (beginning with those favoring masks earliest in the course of their outbreak): Japan, the Philippines, Macau, Hong Kong, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Vietnam, Malaysia, Bhutan, Venezuela, Taiwan, Slovakia, St. Kitts and Nevis, South Korea, Indonesia, Brunei, Grenada, Mozambique, Uzbekistan, Thailand, and Malawi (Table 2). The average mortality by May 9 for these 24 early mask-wearing countries was 1.5 per million (SD 2.0). Twenty of the 24 were lower-mortality countries (p=0.001).​

Today, the CIDRAP web site still makes the claim that “sweeping mask recommendations… will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission”. Correcting the record at this point will require an unambiguous, public statement, that these earlier claims were not based on scientific evidence, that they were wrong, and that mask use is a very important tool to combat the spread of COVID-19.

Over 100 prominent academics call for mask requirements - #Masks4All

masks4all.co

 

[Joes Place]

What is at arguably THE greatest invention of mankind’s in the past 500 years? Elastics!

Yep
Polymer science has indeed been one of the bigger inventions of the 20th century.

It's also resulted in a massive pollution problem around the world, but that is a separate topic, altogether.

 

[shank hawk]

“If you want into a store for 10-15 minutes to pick something up w/o a mask, you WILL be infected with Delta if anyone in the store has it..”

Literally one of THE dumbest statements ever made on HROT

 

[Joes Place]

“If you want into a store for 10-15 minutes to pick something up w/o a mask, you WILL be infected with Delta if anyone in the store has it..”

Literally one of THE dumbest statements ever made on HROT

It's precisely what epidemiologists are telling people.

One example was IIRC in a hotel in Singapore (?) where they contract traced and people were quarantining. One family had Delta and a person across the hall was negative, but became positive during quarantine. They had all the security camera footage, and identified that infection occurred when someone from the infected room had left the room to get ice; the uninfected person left their room within minutes of that and spend about 30s in the same corridor, and became infected.

That's been posted on here, several months ago, if you'd like to find it, but it was one (very well documented) anecdotal example of how infectious Delta is. And I do not recall any of them wore masks during their quarantine periods.

 

[hawkland14]

What he's very clearly said all along - masks work. Cloth masks are not as good as N95 which is not as good as the vaccine. His whole effort is to remind people that masks alone are not enough, particularly cloth masks. He has made clear that he is a mask proponent. Others of you are trying to say there is absolutely no good with cloth masks and that is not true - Osterholm agrees with this. Then you guys try to extend this to say masks are worthless which is absurd and even more contrary to what Osterholm has said.

You and the other idiots arguing against masks are wrong and you're too ignorant and stubborn to realize even the expert you cite says you're wrong. That's on you guys.

Osterholm said cloth masks aren’t very effective if effective at all(did you not read the quote?) and your takeaway is that he thinks cloth masks work? Blind partisanship is one heck of a disease.

 

[hawkland14]

“If you want into a store for 10-15 minutes to pick something up w/o a mask, you WILL be infected with Delta if anyone in the store has it..”

Literally one of THE dumbest statements ever made on HROT

Disagree

That would be when @Joes Place said or believed the case fatality rate for children was 6%.

 

[Finance85]

What he's very clearly said all along - masks work. Cloth masks are not as good as N95 which is not as good as the vaccine. His whole effort is to remind people that masks alone are not enough, particularly cloth masks. He has made clear that he is a mask proponent. Others of you are trying to say there is absolutely no good with cloth masks and that is not true - Osterholm agrees with this. Then you guys try to extend this to say masks are worthless which is absurd and even more contrary to what Osterholm has said.

You and the other idiots arguing against masks are wrong and you're too ignorant and stubborn to realize even the expert you cite says you're wrong. That's on you guys.

He's not a cloth mask proponent; he's an N95 mask proponent. There's a difference. A big difference.

 

[RileyHawk]

Osterholm said cloth masks aren’t very effective if effective at all(did you not read the quote?) and your takeaway is that he thinks cloth masks work? Blind partisanship is one heck of a disease.

Osterholm has said time and again that cloth masks provide limited effectiveness and we should not count on them to protect us from the virus. That is correct. What he has not said is cloth masks offer NO protection - that is false. Again, for the umpteenth time, Osterholm wants people to use N95 masks and get the vaccine. He is an advocate of wearing masks, even cloth masks because they offer some limited protection.

You guys are grasping at straws, continually.

 

[RileyHawk]

He's not a cloth mask proponent; he's an N95 mask proponent. There's a difference. A big difference.

He is a proponent of masks, even cloth if that's all you have. They offer protection, just not nearly as good as N95. It's all very clear yet you guys want to try to twist it into something it's not.

Bottom line is there are people trying to use Osterholm's statements as a reason not to wear masks. That is completely absurd - if they are using him as their expert they should be advocating and donning N95 masks instead of "masks don't work".

 

[Joes Place]

Osterholm said MANY cloth masks aren’t very effective if effective at all(did you not read the quote?) and your takeaway is that he thinks cloth masks work? Blind partisanship is one heck of a disease.

Not ALL

SOME
Which means SOME ARE effective, and there is data which bears this out.

Meanwhile, you and your idiot buddies are trying to compare today's multi-layer cloth masks to single-layer cheesecloth used in 1918 as a "comparison" and claim "they are all the same".

It's simply an astounding array of stupidity on your part. Carry on.

 

[Joes Place]

Disagree

That would be when @Joes Place said or believed the case fatality rate for children was 6%.

It was never "6%". And I do not recall the erroneous information on CDC's demographics page ever showing any numbers that high.

 

[Finance85]

He is a proponent of masks, even cloth if that's all you have. They offer protection, just not nearly as good as N95. It's all very clear yet you guys want to try to twist it into something it's not.

Bottom line is there are people trying to use Osterholm's statements as a reason not to wear masks. That is completely absurd - if they are using him as their expert they should be advocating and donning N95 masks instead of "masks don't work".

It's very clear you want to twist the words so your arrogant self won't have to concede, even a little but, that you're mistaken.

 

[Joes Place]

It's very clear you want to twist the words

This is EXPLICITLY what your buddies have done since the beginning of the thread.

His (over-generalized) statement was that "many" masks are not very effective. This is TRUE.
But "many" ARE effective. He did not say "MOST". He did not say "ALL".

Yet, that is PRECISELY what your anti-mask-brigade is attempting to claim.

 

[strummingram]

This is EXPLICITLY what your buddies have done since the beginning of the thread.

His (over-generalized) statement was that "many" masks are not very effective. This is TRUE.
But "many" ARE effective. He did not say "MOST". He did not say "ALL".

Yet, that is PRECISELY what your anti-mask-brigade is attempting to claim.

Calm down... have some mineral water.

 

[RileyHawk]

It's very clear you want to twist the words so your arrogant self won't have to concede, even a little but, that you're mistaken.

This is from ****ing Briebart (I feel slimy just typing that) which is right up your alley.

During a Monday appearance on CNN’s “Inside Politics,” director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota and former adviser to President Joe Biden’s transition team Dr. Michael Osterholm addressed the “confusion” surrounding how different states and local governments are handling the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

Osterholm argued against the use of cloth face coverings as means of mitigating the spread of COVID-19. He emphasized the effectiveness of N-95 respirators, which he said “would do a lot” for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated in preventing the spread.



“First of all, we’re in a very unfortunate situation. We’ve really brought this country to a point of confusion, which really misses the main point that we should be focusing on vaccine, vaccine and vaccine,” Osterholm lamented. “You know, I wish we could get rid of the term ‘masking’ because, in fact, it implies anything you put in front of your face works. And if I could just add a nuance to that, which hopefully doesn’t add more confusion, is we know today that many of the face cloth coverings that people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out. Either you’re breathing out, or you’re breathing in. And in fact, if you’re in the Upper Midwest right now, anybody who is wearing a face cloth covering can tell you they can smell all the smoke that we’re still getting.”

He continued, “We need to talk about better masking. We need to talk about N-95 respirators, which would do a lot for both people who are not yet vaccinated or not previously infected, protecting them, as well as keeping others who might become infected having been vaccinated from breathing out the virus. So I think one of the things right now is we’ve just got to get a better handle on what does protect people and what doesn’t.”

THIS is what he is saying and is exactly what Joe and I have been saying.

 

[Finance85]

This is EXPLICITLY what your buddies have done since the beginning of the thread.

His (over-generalized) statement was that "many" masks are not very effective. This is TRUE.
But "many" ARE effective. He did not say "MOST". He did not say "ALL".

Yet, that is PRECISELY what your anti-mask-brigade is attempting to claim.

You frequently change your interpretation of the word 'many', depending on how it fits your narrative.

Your opinion no longer matters. You move the goal post so much that only Riley and a couple others fap to your posts. Everyone else is on to your game.

 

[RileyHawk]

You frequently change your interpretation of the word 'many', depending on how it fits your narrative.

Your opinion no longer matters. You move the goal post so much that only Riley and a couple others fap to your posts. Everyone else is on to your game.

You're a hack.

 

[Joes Place]

You frequently change your interpretation of the word 'many'

It is INDEED an ambiguous word, which is WHY his quote is mostly meaningless.

The data, on the other hand, clearly point to masks being a reasonably effective mitigation, particularly when used in conjunction with other mitigations. This has been stated for you and others in this thread at least a dozen times now.

How long until that sinks in for you?

 

[Finance85]

You're a hack.

LOL. Coming from you, that's a compliment.

 

[Joes Place]

Calm down... have some mineral water.

Translation: "Oh, shit. I think I was wrong here."

 

[at4iowa]

What is at arguably THE greatest invention of mankind’s in the past 500 years? Elastics! (which was actually invented 100 years before the Spanish Flu, but let’s not digress).

Theater is the perfect word to describe this phenomenon. A plastic sombrero from Señor Frog’s will do as much to stop a virus as 99.9% of the masks people wear out in public.

Cool. Now do vaccines. Are they effective? What do the statistics say? Vaccinations work. Vaccinations are safe. Vaccinations are the only way out of this mess. You like to agree with science when it comes to other things, why can't you accept the fact that science and damn near every scientist in the world is supporting getting the vaccine?

 

[hawkland14]

It was never "6%". And I do not recall the erroneous information on CDC's demographics page ever showing any numbers that high.

Joe you started an entire thread called, “Covid-19 is killing children at an astounding rate.”

Covid-19 is killing children at an astounding rate

Posted in other threads, but figured this should be front and center. Unless CDC has posted data in error, the demographics site indicates a 6% Case Fatality Rate for those 0-4 years old. It seems this is now only being understood, based on a late-developing syndrome in children that occurs...

iowa.forums.rivals.com

 

[at4iowa]

This is from ****ing Briebart (I feel slimy just typing that) which is right up your alley.

During a Monday appearance on CNN’s “Inside Politics,” director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota and former adviser to President Joe Biden’s transition team Dr. Michael Osterholm addressed the “confusion” surrounding how different states and local governments are handling the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

Osterholm argued against the use of cloth face coverings as means of mitigating the spread of COVID-19. He emphasized the effectiveness of N-95 respirators, which he said “would do a lot” for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated in preventing the spread.



“First of all, we’re in a very unfortunate situation. We’ve really brought this country to a point of confusion, which really misses the main point that we should be focusing on vaccine, vaccine and vaccine,” Osterholm lamented. “You know, I wish we could get rid of the term ‘masking’ because, in fact, it implies anything you put in front of your face works. And if I could just add a nuance to that, which hopefully doesn’t add more confusion, is we know today that many of the face cloth coverings that people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out. Either you’re breathing out, or you’re breathing in. And in fact, if you’re in the Upper Midwest right now, anybody who is wearing a face cloth covering can tell you they can smell all the smoke that we’re still getting.”

He continued, “We need to talk about better masking. We need to talk about N-95 respirators, which would do a lot for both people who are not yet vaccinated or not previously infected, protecting them, as well as keeping others who might become infected having been vaccinated from breathing out the virus. So I think one of the things right now is we’ve just got to get a better handle on what does protect people and what doesn’t.”

THIS is what he is saying and is exactly what Joe and I have been saying.

If you read what you posted, but did not highlight, it also said "Osterholm argued against the use of cloth face coverings as means of mitigating the spread of COVID-19.".

As I mentioned many posts ago, you are right and so are the people arguing against you. You are saying that even if cloth masks suck, they are still better than nothing. This may be technically correct, but practically, cloth masks are pretty much worthless. I (and Osterholm) think cloth masks are weak sauce. If you are serious about masking, use an effective mask. But we all know that won't happen. It takes a lot of time and money to get properly fitted for an N95 mask. We would be lucky to get 1% of our population to do that.

Using the seat belt analogy, we found that seatbelts around the waist (cloth masks) are pretty crappy, so we developed something much better. If we all drove with a 5 point harness, helmets and body armor (a fitted N95 respirator), deaths and injuries would be much lower, but who is going to do that? Anyone? So, we have pretty much settled on the fact that if your old car only has a lap belt, go ahead and wear it, but it isn't nearly as good as a 5 point harness and helmet. If you get in 30 accidents with a lap belt, you are probably gonna die or get seriously injured. That's what COVID is right now. Without using the best prevention methods possible, you are probably gonna get it. So if you are serious about COVID, get the vaccine. Forget about masks, get the damn vaccine.

 

[haw-key]

THIS IS ENTIRELY THE POINT.

So that you DON'T end up with full hospitals like several areas of the country are currently experiencing. We went over this last year. Do you have the short term memory of Dory the Fish here?

My hospital isnt even close to full. The number of people at risk for hospitalization now is dwindlingly smaller by the day. Is it zero? No but the chance of Iowa getting overwhelmed with COVID now is.

 

[Joes Place]

Joe you started an entire thread called, “Covid-19 is killing children at an astounding rate.”

Covid-19 is killing children at an astounding rate

Posted in other threads, but figured this should be front and center. Unless CDC has posted data in error, the demographics site indicates a 6% Case Fatality Rate for those 0-4 years old. It seems this is now only being understood, based on a late-developing syndrome in children that occurs...

iowa.forums.rivals.com

And, as I'd pointed out to you: CDCs demographics page AT THAT TIME indicated EXACTLY that.

It took them 3-4 weeks BEFORE it was corrected on their page. I noted several times in that thread, that their data looked odd, and I qualified my statement based upon the presumption their data WAS correct. Go read the posts where I made that qualification "if this is correct".

I believe I'd even posted screencaps that showed the eventually corrected numbers - other posters likewise check them, themselves.

So, if you want to blame me for some "software error" that CDC had on their site, fine.
But that thread was based upon posted numbers. Not "speculation"

 

[Joes Place]

My hospital isnt even close to full.

"It's not happening to me, so it cannot possibly be happening anywhere else"

That didn't work out so well for you last year. Yet, here you are again, with the same nonsense.

 

[haw-key]

Your hospital requires facemasks indoors, because they KNOW they help limit the spread.
Yet, here you are, helping spread disinformation. And you're too big a pussy to stand up for "what you believe" and tell them you won't wear one anymore because they are all "political theater".

Be a man. U go tell those bean-counters that you know the science "better".

Of course I won't because I need to work. But do I think they are necessary? Not if I am vaccinated and taking cared of someone that has an intact immune system.

We cant mask forever. It as simple as that. You should state the truth. You are for masking forever. When can we stop masking Joe?

(I don't think that when managing someone that has immune compromise. I think that we both should mask in that case)

The nuance to the difference isnt worth explaining to you. Think about it.

 

[haw-key]

"It's not happening to me, so it cannot possibly be happening anywhere else"

That didn't work out so well for you last year. Yet, here you are again, with the same nonsense.

How didnt it work out so well?