'More people may die,' Biden says, if Trump blocks cooperation on virus planning

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

 

 

The study in Nature out of UC Davis is interesting. What they seem to be saying is N95, KN95 (the Chinese version of N95), and surgical masks do a good job at blocking most particles that the wearers exhale when talking or coughing. Thus greatly reducing the prospect of the mask wearer spreading the virus.

 

But they're more hesitant on the subject of cotton material masks (which is what the WHO and CDC have been recommending for the general public), raising the possibility (if I understand them right) that tiny cotton fiber materials breaking free from the cloth masks via exhaling could potentially carry the virus.  That's a potential angle I don't recall being broached before...

 

Unfortunately, because Trump never exercised his powers under the DPA (Defense Production Act) in a substantial way to significantly increase the country's potential supply of N95 masks, cotton and other fabric masks are pretty much the only ones available to the public in the U.S. these days, while medical staff still don't have enough N95 type masks, even now after all these many months.

 

 

Quote

 

September 4, 2020

Nurses ask feds to invoke Defense Production Act for N95 masks; survey finds ‘unacceptable’ reuse levels

The American Nurses Association has asked the White House to invoke the Defense Production Act for N95 masks after a nationwide survey found that one in three nurses remain short on supplies and more than half are being asked to reuse devices meant for single use. 

 

 

https://www.mcknights.com/news/clinical-news/nurses-ask-feds-to-invoke-defense-production-act-for-n95-masks-survey-finds-unacceptable-reuse-levels/

 

[Virt]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

B.S. There's already been reports about this study as you well know. And apparently the results are controversial. 3 journals have refused to publish it. The authors claim that's because the results are, well, controversial. Given that the results are controversial, it's pretty clear what they're going to show.

 

Let's see what the study shows.

If it's legit it should be published even if it's controversial.

 

Ask yourself why 3 journals refused to publish it.

If they could prove the study to be wrong, why didn't they do so in the first place.

They had all the data available.

 

 

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

Let's see what the study shows.

If it's legit it should be published even if it's controversial.

 

Ask yourself why 3 journals refused to publish it.

If they could prove the study to be wrong, why didn't they do so in the first place.

They had all the data available.

 

 

You don't seem to understand how scientific journals work. Researchers submit their studies to a journal. Scientists associated with the journal determine if the study's data met the scientific standards that would qualify it for publication in the journal. That's what's known as peer review. If it doesn't meet certain research standards, they just don't publish it. It doesn't even make any sense to ask the journal to prove the study  is wrong. How would the journal do that? It's not a research institute. And even if it had the backing of a research institute, why would it be their responsibility to prove the study wrong? It was rejected. Are they supposed to research every study they reject?  Maybe eventually, somewhere, the study will be published. At that time other researchers can chime in to examine the study and see if its findings are valid.

[Virt]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You don't seem to understand how scientific journals work. Researchers submit their studies to a journal. Scientists associated with the journal determine if the study's data met the scientific standards that would qualify it for publication in the journal. That's what's known as peer review. If it doesn't meet certain research standards, they just don't publish it. It doesn't even make any sense to ask the journal to prove the study  is wrong. How would the journal do that? It's not a research institute. And even if it had the backing of a research institute, why would it be their responsibility to prove the study wrong? It was rejected. Are they supposed to research every study they reject?  Maybe eventually, somewhere, the study will be published. At that time other researchers can chime in to examine the study and see if its findings are valid.

 

Point taken ????

 

Maybe i should rephrase it.

Could it be those journals were afraid of sticking their hands into that unpopular hornets nest called masks?

 

No matter what the study says, i still think it's important not to fall into a box that blindly follows WHO or the one where people refuse to wear a mask.

The truth is not always black and white.

 

I can see situations where it makes sense to wear a mask, but personally i think it's totally overkill making it mandatory all over the world.

 

Peace....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

 

I can see situations where it makes sense to wear a mask, but personally i think it's totally overkill making it mandatory all over the world.

 

Peace....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because viruses don't cross borders?

[n00dle]

On 11/17/2020 at 4:51 AM, Jingthing said:

Correction:

More people will die.

What is Mr. Trump thinking? 

He knows he's leaving. 

He should be thinking of his legacy now.

He's been the worst president in American history (in my opinion) but even in that context, he has had some good accomplishments.

One of them is in the news right now. His leadership on speeding up vaccine research and development.

But now he wants to throw ice water on that by refusing to be an adult and cooperating with his successor?

Horrible!

Why even feign surprise, id be astonished if he werent being a <deleted>.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, n00dle said:

Why even feign surprise, id be astonished if he werent being a <deleted>.

I'm not surprised at all.

 

 

[Virt]

21 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because viruses don't cross borders?

 Off course they do, but does that justify masks all over?

 

Does it makes sense to wear a mask in a village in a Thailand where noone had covid 19 so far? 

 

Does it make sense to wear a mask if you're the only one in the bus in the morning? 

 

Does it make sense that people use cloth masks that filters no vira, or they reuse single use masks for days and days? 

 

Social distancing and hygiene is far better. 

We practically had no outbreak of flu in Denmark earlier this year and that was due to social distancing and hygiene. Not masks because we didn't wear them at that time. 

 

Let's just agree that we have different opinions. 

Cheers and let's hope for a better 2022..... 

[Scott]

A post making unsubstantiated assertions has been removed along with replies.  Continue and face a suspension.

 

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, Virt said:

 Off course they do, but does that justify masks all over?

 

Does it makes sense to wear a mask in a village in a Thailand where noone had covid 19 so far? 

 

Does it make sense to wear a mask if you're the only one in the bus in the morning? 

 

Does it make sense that people use cloth masks that filters no vira, or they reuse single use masks for days and days? 

 

Social distancing and hygiene is far better. 

We practically had no outbreak of flu in Denmark earlier this year and that was due to social distancing and hygiene. Not masks because we didn't wear them at that time. 

 

Let's just agree that we have different opinions. 

Cheers and let's hope for a better 2022..... 

And as I should have realized earlier, it's one thing to say that masks are of limited use in protecting the wearer. It's quite another to say that they don't protects others from wearer. The study in question only looks at the value of masks in protecting the wearer.

Actually, this study makes the case for wearing masks more compelling if masks don't do much or anything to protect one from the virus. After all, it's been a bedrock contentoin of those who refuse to wear masks that if you want to wear a mask that's your business. But they shouldn't be required to.

Edited November 18, 2020 by placeholder

[Jeffr2]

11 hours ago, Virt said:

 Off course they do, but does that justify masks all over?

 

Does it makes sense to wear a mask in a village in a Thailand where noone had covid 19 so far? 

 

Does it make sense to wear a mask if you're the only one in the bus in the morning? 

 

Does it make sense that people use cloth masks that filters no vira, or they reuse single use masks for days and days? 

 

Social distancing and hygiene is far better. 

We practically had no outbreak of flu in Denmark earlier this year and that was due to social distancing and hygiene. Not masks because we didn't wear them at that time. 

 

Let's just agree that we have different opinions. 

Cheers and let's hope for a better 2022..... 

Can you give us the source for your comments? I know of one group that's saying this. But only one out of the thousands that say the opposite.

 

As a surgeon said recently. Would you be ok with my entire surgical team to operate on you without masks? Right....

 

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/11/11/which-masks-work-best-coronavirus-cdc-guidance-todd-tsr-pkg-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/coronavirus/

[Stargeezr]

In the USA it is not a question of more people may die, as there are still over 1000 dying each day in the US.  I am looking forward to the day when that number will be lower.  If people social distance, wear masks when out in the public places. They also have to quit gathering in huge numbers, and of course with the freedom thing in their minds, there are a lot that just will not change their ways.

    In parts of Canada there is more restrictions on gathering of lots of people, I am in favour if seeing some bars get closed down, as there have been cases in my city where the crowds just do not get the fact that  it is a death sentence for some people who catch this virus.  I am glad that Canada is still not letting Americans into our country unless they have to come for a very valid reason. This policy will hopefully extend until at least the Spring or Summer of 2021.

   The USA will indeed have a very cold and dark Winter.  I am glad to hear the positive news of some vaccines that are going to be released by Spring, and sooner for the emergency cases.

Geezer

[onthedarkside]

A post with a link to a non-EN language website has been removed, along with several replies.