The Hidden Danger of Masks
By Allysia Finley, 8/4/20, Wall St. Journal

Face masks have become a cultural symbol. To resist them €œis nothing more than

selfish, libertarian nonsense masquerading as a comic-book defense of

freedom,€� Thomas Friedman of the NY Times proclaims. Yet the science is far

less certain than the moralism.

The question of how well masks prevent transmission & infection requires far

more study. The decision to wear a mask would seem to be cost-free, apart from

minor discomfort. But absolutism about masks & disregard for scientific

uncertainties may promote a false sense of security that encourages risky

behavior€”including massive political protests.

In February, the CDC recommended against wearing face masks & instead
urged Americans to €œtake everyday preventive actions€� like staying home
when sick and washing hands. These recommendations were guided by the govts

desire to conserve medical masks for health-care workers.

The CDC changed its recommendation in April based on lab tests showing that

cloth masks reduce the distance that large respiratory droplets travel after a

cough. Like the flu, Covid-19 is believed to be transmitted mainly thru these

large droplets.

Media figures & public-health officials have also observed that countries

where face-mask use is more prevalent have lower infections. In June, the New

York Times ran a story with the headline €œIs the Secret to Japans Virus

Success Right in Front of Its Face?€� Its answer: Yes. But this piece drew

conclusions based on mere correlations. According to a YouGov survey in late

June, face-mask use was higher in the U.S. (59%) than in countries with fewer

infections, including Taiwan (57%), France (54%), Canada (35%), Netherlands

(9%) & Denmark (2%). And Japan (77%) & Hong Kong (83%) have experienced recent

infection spikes.

A study in the Journal of the AMA this month reported that a universal mask

policy for health-care workers & patients at the Mass General Brigham hospital

system reduced Covid-19 infections. The positive test rate among health-care

workers peaked at 21.32% in March, declined to 14.65% after masks were

mandated for workers, & dropped further, to 11.46%, in late April after the

mask mandate extended to patients.

But these numbers roughly track the overall positive test rate in the state..

The study notes that the improvements €œcould be confounded by other

interventions inside & outside of the health care system, such as restrictions

on elective procedures, social distancing measures, & increased masking in

public spaces, which are limitations of this study.€�

The only way to ascertain the efficacy of face masks in the real world is to

do randomized trials. So far there have been only a dozen examining the

efficacy of masks in preventing respiratory illnesses, & conclusions have been

difficult to draw because of poor compliance by study participants. None of

the six trials published over the past decade found that masks alone had a

significant effect on the spread of the flu or similar illnesses in health-

care workers or the general population.

The only trial with reusable cloth masks suggested theyre ineffective. They

could even increase the risk. In the 2015 study, hospital workers in Vietnam

who were given cloth masks were 13 times as likely to develop flu-like

illnesses as those given surgical masks. Face masks are speculated to be more

useful in preventing Covid-19 because many infected people are asymptomatic..

But some 3/4 of flu cases are also asymptomatic, & most people who develop

symptoms are infectious for a couple of days first.

A new independent analysis of cloth masks efficacy on the CDC website notes

that the mask in the Vietnam trial was €œa locally manufactured, double-layered

cotton mask€�€”similar to what many Americans buy today€”& that higher infection

rates among wearers €œmay have been because the masks were not washed

frequently enough or because they became moist & contaminated.€�

€œCloth masks may give users a false sense of protection because of their

limited protection against acquiring infection,€� the researchers write.

€œTaking a mask off is a high-risk process because pathogens may be present on

the outer surface of the mask & may result in self-contamination during

removal.€�

This is an important caveat: Fiddling with masks can be more dangerous than

not wearing one at all. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that

€œelementary students should wear face coverings if the risk of touching their

mouth or nose is not greater than the benefit of reducing the spread of COVID

-19.€� But the point is lost amid simplistic moralizing about selfish

libertarians.

While mask mandates provide a comfort level that is needed to get people back

to work & resume economic activity, they may also induce a false sense of

security. In early April, as the Trump admin was debating whether to change

its guidance on masks, Deborah Birx warned that €œwe dont want
people to get an artificial sense of protection because theyre behind
a mask€� or €œsend a signal that we think a mask is equivalent€� to social

distancing & good hygiene.

Liberal politicians€”who railed against antilockdown protests in the spring€”

have dismissed concerns that leftist demos could spread infection, because

participants are wearing masks. But not all are, & many masks arent fitted

correctly. Protesters probably dont wash them regularly. And masks dont

eliminate the risk of contagion when large numbers of people are crowded for

long periods while talking loudly & breathing heavily.

Masks have benefits, but moralism can be harmful to public health.

Ms. Finley is a member of the Journals editorial board.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hid...ks-11596561689

"David P" wrote in message
...
The Hidden Danger of Masks

By Allysia Finley, 8/4/20, Wall St. Journal

quote

The question of how well masks prevent transmission & infection requires far

more study.

quote

Only by idiots. All masks consist of woven material. As virus particles will be trapped
by the vertical and horizontal threads of the weave but not by the air gaps in bewteen
the more closely woven the mask and the thicker the threads the more virus
particles wil be trapped. Although obviously the air gaps between the threads will
need to be sufficient to allow the passage of air and thus possibly virus particles;
hence the degree of compromise.

What doesn't require more study is the fact that there a lot of stupid people around who
apparently don't realsie they also breathe through their noses. And so they need to cover
those with the mask as well,


michael adams

.....

Nothing new here, indeed it seems only to be in America where its seen as
anything important to civil liberties. It is after all worth the benefit of
the doubt if it makes others feel better. One has to realise here that these
masks are not medical grade and are intended to slow down droplets exhaled.
The research is indeed sketchy and because you handle them could be seen as
counter productive. The fact is the sick cannot always stay in and tend to
work and shop till they drop, particularly in a stupid country like the usa
where they have not even acknowledged that healthcare free to all is a human
right and should be paid for by everyone. Its hardly a slippery slope to
communism or the whole of Europe would have been communist by now! So wake
up America, get real don't sweat the small stuff as they are want to say,
and let everyone contribute to the health of their nation.

Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"David P" wrote in message
...
The Hidden Danger of Masks
By Allysia Finley, 8/4/20, Wall St. Journal

Face masks have become a cultural symbol. To resist them ?ois nothing more
than

selfish, libertarian nonsense masquerading as a comic-book defense of

freedom,?� Thomas Friedman of the NY Times proclaims. Yet the science is
far

less certain than the moralism.

The question of how well masks prevent transmission & infection requires far

more study. The decision to wear a mask would seem to be cost-free, apart
from

minor discomfort. But absolutism about masks & disregard for scientific

uncertainties may promote a false sense of security that encourages risky

behavior?"including massive political protests.

In February, the CDC recommended against wearing face masks & instead
urged Americans to ?otake everyday preventive actions?� like staying home
when sick and washing hands. These recommendations were guided by the
govt?Ts

desire to conserve medical masks for health-care workers.

The CDC changed its recommendation in April based on lab tests showing that

cloth masks reduce the distance that large respiratory droplets travel after
a

cough. Like the flu, Covid-19 is believed to be transmitted mainly thru
these

large droplets.

Media figures & public-health officials have also observed that countries

where face-mask use is more prevalent have lower infections. In June, the
New

York Times ran a story with the headline ?oIs the Secret to Japan?Ts Virus

Success Right in Front of Its Face??� Its answer: Yes. But this piece drew

conclusions based on mere correlations. According to a YouGov survey in late

June, face-mask use was higher in the U.S. (59%) than in countries with
fewer

infections, including Taiwan (57%), France (54%), Canada (35%), Netherlands

(9%) & Denmark (2%). And Japan (77%) & Hong Kong (83%) have experienced
recent

infection spikes.

A study in the Journal of the AMA this month reported that a universal mask

policy for health-care workers & patients at the Mass General Brigham
hospital

system reduced Covid-19 infections. The positive test rate among health-care

workers peaked at 21.32% in March, declined to 14.65% after masks were

mandated for workers, & dropped further, to 11.46%, in late April after the

mask mandate extended to patients.

But these numbers roughly track the overall positive test rate in the state.

The study notes that the improvements ?ocould be confounded by other

interventions inside & outside of the health care system, such as
restrictions

on elective procedures, social distancing measures, & increased masking in

public spaces, which are limitations of this study.?�

The only way to ascertain the efficacy of face masks in the real world is to

do randomized trials. So far there have been only a dozen examining the

efficacy of masks in preventing respiratory illnesses, & conclusions have
been

difficult to draw because of poor compliance by study participants. None of

the six trials published over the past decade found that masks alone had a

significant effect on the spread of the flu or similar illnesses in health-

care workers or the general population.

The only trial with reusable cloth masks suggested they?Tre ineffective.
They

could even increase the risk. In the 2015 study, hospital workers in Vietnam

who were given cloth masks were 13 times as likely to develop flu-like

illnesses as those given surgical masks. Face masks are speculated to be
more

useful in preventing Covid-19 because many infected people are asymptomatic.

But some 3/4 of flu cases are also asymptomatic, & most people who develop

symptoms are infectious for a couple of days first.

A new independent analysis of cloth masks?T efficacy on the CDC website
notes

that the mask in the Vietnam trial was ?oa locally manufactured,
double-layered

cotton mask?�?"similar to what many Americans buy today?"& that higher
infection

rates among wearers ?omay have been because the masks were not washed

frequently enough or because they became moist & contaminated.?�

?oCloth masks may give users a false sense of protection because of their

limited protection against acquiring infection,?� the researchers write.

?oTaking a mask off is a high-risk process because pathogens may be present
on

the outer surface of the mask & may result in self-contamination during

removal.?�

This is an important caveat: Fiddling with masks can be more dangerous than

not wearing one at all. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that

?oelementary students should wear face coverings if the risk of touching
their

mouth or nose is not greater than the benefit of reducing the spread of
COVID

-19.?� But the point is lost amid simplistic moralizing about selfish

libertarians.

While mask mandates provide a comfort level that is needed to get people
back

to work & resume economic activity, they may also induce a false sense of

security. In early April, as the Trump admin was debating whether to change

its guidance on masks, Deborah Birx warned that ?owe don?Tt want
people to get an artificial sense of protection because they?Tre behind
a mask?� or ?osend a signal that we think a mask is equivalent?� to
social

distancing & good hygiene.

Liberal politicians?"who railed against antilockdown protests in the
spring?"

have dismissed concerns that leftist demos could spread infection, because

participants are wearing masks. But not all are, & many masks aren?Tt
fitted

correctly. Protesters probably don?Tt wash them regularly. And masks
don?Tt

eliminate the risk of contagion when large numbers of people are crowded for

long periods while talking loudly & breathing heavily.

Masks have benefits, but moralism can be harmful to public health.

Ms. Finley is a member of the Journal?Ts editorial board.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hid...ks-11596561689

On 08/08/2020 08:57, michael adams wrote:
"David P" wrote in message
...
The Hidden Danger of Masks

By Allysia Finley, 8/4/20, Wall St. Journal

quote

The question of how well masks prevent transmission & infection requires far

more study.

quote

Only by idiots. All masks consist of woven material. As virus particles will be trapped
by the vertical and horizontal threads of the weave but not by the air gaps in bewteen
the more closely woven the mask and the thicker the threads the more virus
particles wil be trapped. Although obviously the air gaps between the threads will
need to be sufficient to allow the passage of air and thus possibly virus particles;
hence the degree of compromise.

What doesn't require more study is the fact that there a lot of stupid people around who
apparently don't realsie they also breathe through their noses. And so they need to cover
those with the mask as well,


michael adams

....



It doesn't have to trap the virus, it has to trap the mucus the virus is
embedded in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneeze...ile:Sneeze.JPG

"Pent" wrote in message ...
On 08/08/2020 08:57, michael adams wrote:
"David P" wrote in message
...
The Hidden Danger of Masks

By Allysia Finley, 8/4/20, Wall St. Journal

quote

The question of how well masks prevent transmission & infection requires far

more study.

quote

Only by idiots. All masks consist of woven material. As virus particles will be
trapped
by the vertical and horizontal threads of the weave but not by the air gaps in bewteen
the more closely woven the mask and the thicker the threads the more virus
particles wil be trapped. Although obviously the air gaps between the threads will
need to be sufficient to allow the passage of air and thus possibly virus particles;
hence the degree of compromise.

What doesn't require more study is the fact that there a lot of stupid people around
who
apparently don't realsie they also breathe through their noses. And so they need to
cover
those with the mask as well,


michael adams

....



It doesn't have to trap the virus, it has to trap the mucus the virus is embedded in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneeze...ile:Sneeze.JPG

The virus can be transmitted via airborne aerosol. As can all respiratory
viruses apparently. Just how long it can remain airborne is apparently still
a matter of conjecture even after more than a half century of battling
respiratory viruses.


michael adams

....

Erratum:for "half a century" read "century"

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Pent" wrote in message ...
On 08/08/2020 08:57, michael adams wrote:
"David P" wrote in message
...
The Hidden Danger of Masks

By Allysia Finley, 8/4/20, Wall St. Journal

quote

The question of how well masks prevent transmission & infection requires far

more study.

quote

Only by idiots. All masks consist of woven material. As virus particles will be
trapped
by the vertical and horizontal threads of the weave but not by the air gaps in
bewteen
the more closely woven the mask and the thicker the threads the more virus
particles wil be trapped. Although obviously the air gaps between the threads will
need to be sufficient to allow the passage of air and thus possibly virus particles;
hence the degree of compromise.

What doesn't require more study is the fact that there a lot of stupid people around
who
apparently don't realsie they also breathe through their noses. And so they need to
cover
those with the mask as well,


michael adams

....



It doesn't have to trap the virus, it has to trap the mucus the virus is embedded in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneeze...ile:Sneeze.JPG

The virus can be transmitted via airborne aerosol. As can all respiratory
viruses apparently. Just how long it can remain airborne is apparently still
a matter of conjecture even after more than a half century of battling
respiratory viruses.


michael adams

...

On 08/08/2020 13:12, Pent wrote:
On 08/08/2020 08:57, michael adams wrote:
"David P" wrote in message
...
The Hidden Danger of Masks
By Allysia Finley, 8/4/20, Wall St. Journal

quote

The question of how well masks prevent transmission & infection
requires far

more study.

quote

Only by idiots. All masks consist of woven material. As virus
particles will be trapped
by the vertical and horizontal threads of the weave but not by the air
gaps in bewteen
the more closely woven the mask and the thicker the threads the more
virus
particles wil be trapped. Although obviously the air gaps between the
threads will
need to be sufficient to allow the passage of air and thus possibly
virus particles;
hence the degree of compromise.

What doesn't require more study is the fact that there a lot of stupid
people around who
apparently don't realsie they also breathe through their noses. And so
they need to cover
those with the mask as well,

It doesn't have to trap the virus, it has to trap the mucus the virus is
embedded in.

The mucus dries; the virus particles fly off the front of the mask.

--
Max Demian

On 08/08/2020 10:48, Brian-Gaff (bed 2) wrote:

Nothing new here, indeed it seems only to be in America where its seen as
anything important to civil liberties. It is after all worth the benefit of
the doubt if it makes others feel better.

Is that the best you can do? We should do anything that "makes others
feel better," regardless of the utility?

One has to realise here that these
masks are not medical grade and are intended to slow down droplets exhaled.
The research is indeed sketchy and because you handle them could be seen as
counter productive.

I think you'll find that the research is non-existent. Just vague talk
about droplets and aerosols. Nothing resembling real-life experiments.

--
Max Demian

Max Demian wrote:
On 08/08/2020 10:48, Brian-Gaff (bed 2) wrote:

Nothing new here, indeed it seems only to be in America where its seen as
anything important to civil liberties. It is after all worth the
benefit of
the doubt if it makes others feel better.

Is that the best you can do? We should do anything that "makes others
feel better," regardless of the utility?

One has to realise here that these
masks are not medical grade and are intended to slow down droplets
exhaled.
The research is indeed sketchy and because you handle them could be
seen as
counter productive.

I think you'll find that the research is non-existent. Just vague talk
about droplets and aerosols. Nothing resembling real-life experiments.


There have been recent articles about real-life experience.

There is a Chinese report about spread on the transit system,
how close people were sitting to one another and so on.
People with masks. People with non-N95 masks. There is a picture
about 2/3rds down the page, showing what the passengers on the
G-Train look like. Their mask. The seat size. There's no information
about ventilation scheme for the train.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...iest-1.5048895

There's something about confined spaces and low air velocities
that doesn't seem to help in situations like this. Some
social events, virtually everyone gets it, and you would
suspect the ventilation is non-existent. A lot of static air.

For example, our old church hall had nothing in the way of ventilation.
I couldn't tell you how the heating worked. Don't remember seeing
any vents, not even the big floor vents used with the older
heating systems. I would not want to go to a social event
there today, even wearing an N95. And especially not eating
a meal. Even with six foot spacing between seats.

It's just not a "physics student" topic. You can't measure
with a ruler and be guaranteed of anything. There are rules
of thumb. That is all.

One of the reasons it isn't spreading here at the moment,
is the number of people with it is relatively small. But
that changes every time groups of people get careless.
Like 5000 people who showed up at a beach here one day,
with pictures showing apparent ignorance of spacing. There
did not seem to be a spike from that, as no article
has been written as a followup about it.

Paul

On 08/08/2020 14:21, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/08/2020 10:48, Brian-Gaff (bed 2) wrote:

Nothing new here, indeed it seems only to be in America where its seen as
anything important to civil liberties.Â* It is after all worth the
benefit of
the doubt if it makes others feel better.

Is that the best you can do? We should do anything that "makes others
feel better," regardless of the utility?

One has to realise here that these
masks are not medical grade and are intended to slow down droplets
exhaled.
The research is indeed sketchy and because you handle them could be
seen as
counter productive.

I think you'll find that the research is non-existent. Just vague talk
about droplets and aerosols. Nothing resembling real-life experiments.


Dwarfs are apparently happy that the Christmas pantos are
cancelled.
Don't know what they are worried about, another study said
people over 6 ft tall were more at risk.

"Max Demian" wrote in message
.. .
:


I think you'll find that the research is non-existent. Just vague talk about droplets
and aerosols. Nothing resembling real-life experiments.

Or maybe there's been plenty of research only the results all remain classified,

A while back somewhere the question arose as to how people sometimes
confused the Common Cold Research Unit at Harnham Down, Wiltshire, with
Porton Down, the former" Biological and Chemical Warfare Research Establishment
also in Wiltshire. Both establishments being totally separate *of course*,

The image many people have of the CCRU is of students taking a fortnight off
to spend them in huts *presumably* testing possible cures for colds - and
failing. A typically British excercise,

However in order to conduct such tests its necessarty for subjects to be
infected with colds in the first place. Now if someone were developing
biological weapons, then the necessary saturation of say airborne virus
aerosol that would be required to infect someone, and the behaviour of such
aerosols might be among the first things you'd want to find out about. And
obviously such information would be useful to anyone else seeking to develop
biological weapons as well. Hence its remaining classified. Same with a lot
of other such information about the behaviour of viruses.

The reason the CCRU was closed down was maybe not because they gave up trying
to find a cure, which was never its actual function in first place but because
they found out all they needed to know. Hence the air of "studied ignorance"
around the whole topic. Although clearly repeatedly washing your hands is
really important for some reason. That one slipped out somehow, or is maybe
deliberate misinformation.


michael adams

....

In article , michael adams
wrote:

"Max Demian" wrote in message
.. .
:


I think you'll find that the research is non-existent. Just vague talk
about droplets and aerosols. Nothing resembling real-life experiments.

Or maybe there's been plenty of research only the results all remain
classified,

A while back somewhere the question arose as to how people sometimes
confused the Common Cold Research Unit at Harnham Down, Wiltshire, with
Porton Down, the former" Biological and Chemical Warfare Research
Establishment also in Wiltshire. Both establishments being totally
separate *of course*,

The image many people have of the CCRU is of students taking a fortnight
off to spend them in huts *presumably* testing possible cures for colds -
and failing. A typically British excercise,

However in order to conduct such tests its necessarty for subjects to be
infected with colds in the first place. Now if someone were developing
biological weapons, then the necessary saturation of say airborne virus
aerosol that would be required to infect someone, and the behaviour of
such aerosols might be among the first things you'd want to find out
about. And obviously such information would be useful to anyone else
seeking to develop biological weapons as well. Hence its remaining
classified. Same with a lot of other such information about the behaviour
of viruses.

The reason the CCRU was closed down was maybe not because they gave up
trying to find a cure, which was never its actual function in first place
but because they found out all they needed to know. Hence the air of
"studied ignorance" around the whole topic. Although clearly repeatedly
washing your hands is really important for some reason. That one slipped
out somehow, or is maybe deliberate misinformation.

Like 'Eat carrots to improve your night vision'.


michael adams

...

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , michael adams
wrote:

Although clearly repeatedly
washing your hands is really important for some reason. That one slipped
out somehow, or is maybe deliberate misinformation.

Like 'Eat carrots to improve your night vision'.

Indeed. Cat's Eyes Cunningham. Deceived Gerry about radar (allegedly)
while persuading small boys to munch their way through a glut of
health giving carrots (presumably).


michael adams

....

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 08/08/2020 13:12, Pent wrote:
On 08/08/2020 08:57, michael adams wrote:
"David P" wrote in message
...
The Hidden Danger of Masks
By Allysia Finley, 8/4/20, Wall St. Journal

quote

The question of how well masks prevent transmission & infection requires
far

more study.

quote

Only by idiots. All masks consist of woven material. As virus particles
will be trapped
by the vertical and horizontal threads of the weave but not by the air
gaps in bewteen
the more closely woven the mask and the thicker the threads the more
virus
particles wil be trapped. Although obviously the air gaps between the
threads will
need to be sufficient to allow the passage of air and thus possibly
virus particles;
hence the degree of compromise.

What doesn't require more study is the fact that there a lot of stupid
people around who
apparently don't realsie they also breathe through their noses. And so
they need to cover
those with the mask as well,

It doesn't have to trap the virus, it has to trap the mucus the virus is
embedded in.

The mucus dries;

Yes.

the virus particles fly off the front of the mask.

Unlikely with proper 3 layer masks.

"Max Demian" wrote in message
.. .
On 08/08/2020 10:48, Brian-Gaff (bed 2) wrote:

Nothing new here, indeed it seems only to be in America where its seen as
anything important to civil liberties. It is after all worth the benefit
of
the doubt if it makes others feel better.

Is that the best you can do? We should do anything that "makes others feel
better," regardless of the utility?

One has to realise here that these
masks are not medical grade and are intended to slow down droplets
exhaled.
The research is indeed sketchy and because you handle them could be seen
as
counter productive.

I think you'll find that the research is non-existent.

You'd be wrong.

Just vague talk about droplets and aerosols. Nothing resembling real-life
experiments.

Wrong again.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 07:17:37 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 07:20:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

charles wrote:
In article , michael adams

Although clearly repeatedly washing your hands is really
important for some reason. That one slipped
out somehow, or is maybe deliberate misinformation.

Like 'Eat carrots to improve your night vision'.

michael adams

There are people dying because of secondary conditions,
in the ICU.

Before COVID came along, doctors and nurses were
constantly washing their hands, in the hopes of
controlling CDIF and MRSA. And any other conditions
for which few antibiotics remain that are effective.

Some of the people dying with COVID written on the
death certificate, it's actually a secondary infection
that killed them. The presence of COVID made it a whole
lot harder to treat both at the same time.

Part of the standard procedure now, if you present
with COVID at the hospital, is to deliver antibiotics
to you, whether you need them or not. I've already
read one article about this, complaining that
it's "bad for business" and we're going to pay a
price for this practice, a year or two from now.
Some of the mostly-drug-resistance pests are
going to come back with a vengeance.

Washing your hands, is just part of the package
deal. It's cheap, and maybe one fewer person dies
from a secondary infection as a result. Doctors
don't want or need your secondary infection in
their hospital.

Doctors are taking a big ask, by prescribing antibiotics
to everyone who shows up with COVID. We might easily
burn up the last bits of antibiotic resistance by doing
this, so some other conditions that used to be treatable,
after the COVID subsides, there'll be outbreaks
of the others unleashed by the abuse of antibiotics.

Believe it or not, the doctor doesn't want you at
the hospital. They don't need the business. I was
talking to my respirologist by phone, he's not in
Emergency or anything, and he said "I'm sick of COVID"
and he said that months ago. I'm sure he's got plenty
of consults out of this. To phone me, that's his "quiet
day" when he does out-calling. Before COVID he still
had a quiet day, when he was doing followups and
summaries for patients. A respirologist never
lacks for work either, even at the best of times.

They want people at the hospital who are "generally healthy",
and washing your hands should already be part of your
behavior. Like after handling money at the grocery store.
Wash your hands before putting the groceries away.

Washing your hands is "a broad spectrum treatment", with
zero cost. It does not degrade the ability to wash
your hands in future and for it to have an effect.
The things that we wash our hands for, have not
evolved a shell totally resistant to soap. Whereas
hand sanitizer, of the four orders of magnitude
reduction in organisms that gives us, one order of
magnitude has already been removed by the development
of resistance to sanitizer. Sanitizer isn't "dead",
it still works, but they're gnawing away at it. I
saw a report on that, before the COVID era.

Today, if you've been handling someone known to be
carrying something nasty, give the hand sanitizer
a couple minutes to "work", before you go touching
other **** :-/ Sanitizer used to be instant death,
now, it's not.

Paul

On 08/08/2020 8:57, michael adams wrote:
"David P" wrote in message
...
The Hidden Danger of Masks

By Allysia Finley, 8/4/20, Wall St. Journal

quote

The question of how well masks prevent transmission & infection requires far

more study.

quote

Only by idiots. All masks consist of woven material. As virus particles will be trapped
by the vertical and horizontal threads of the weave but not by the air gaps in bewteen
the more closely woven the mask and the thicker the threads the more virus
particles wil be trapped. Although obviously the air gaps between the threads will
need to be sufficient to allow the passage of air and thus possibly virus particles;
hence the degree of compromise.

What doesn't require more study is the fact that there a lot of stupid people around who
apparently don't realsie they also breathe through their noses. And so they need to cover
those with the mask as well,


michael adams

....


And of course, there's the lacrimal glands.

We have to do what we think is common sense in reducing spread during
this time of not knowing how it would effect us otherwise.

Most recent deaths are attributed to Covid when it is detected in the
blood(?)or respiratory system. Covid could simply be 'the straw that
broke the camel's back'?

I do hear that otherwise healthy people have lost lives to it, so it's
not a simple fix. This is the history of all living things.

The truth is, for the body to inoculate against it, you have to have it,
or be given it first. There is a passive way for teh body to inoculate
and that is through ingesting the creature that has dealt with it, which
includes plants. The syringe you get isn't a cure', it's supposedly, a
'safe' dose of Covid. Avoiding Covid may be useful if it can actually be
eliminated entirely.

It might help to look into the types of food that bolster the enzymes in
the protective saliva and mucus's.


Ray.