This Thread Blows - C19 and beyond

MMuller said:
Wife just snoped this and says article untrue. Is this an actual Gov't study?
Click to expand...
Snoped what? The article posted before from a scientific study or my comment?

My comment is based on the fact that there has been no appreciable amount of transfer from outdoor contact unless it's extended face to face or indoor is part of the outdoor. Such as an outdoor party and then people hang out near the bathroom indoors.

If you can show me something saying otherwise from a study or group of study, I'm happy to change my view.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Outdoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Viruses: A Systematic Review - PubMed

Existing evidence supports the wide-held belief that risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is lower outdoors but there are significant gaps in our understanding of specific pathways.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
MMuller said:
Wife just snoped this and says article untrue. Is this an actual Gov't study?
Click to expand...

Snopes is great for urban legends, not bad (tho biased) for political claims. They have no business refuting published studies, and from what I saw, they don't reference this one at all.

Anywho, the studies I have seen show that masks help (better than nothing) but they don't stop transmission. Vaccines are the only way out.
 
Understood. Study says from Nov 2020. Have there been any updates on the report. Who knows what in any of this really. We're all sorta lab rats at this point.
 
JPark said:
The NIH very quietly posted the completed Stanford Study which concludes that mask usage does not prevent person to person transmission.
Even medical grade masks.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
Yea, this is an opinion piece released by a exercise physiologist working at the palo alto VA which is run by Stanford; it's not a Stanford study. Published in a throw away journal appropriately called medical HYPOTHESIS, lol. His potential harms are based on studies with n95 masks which the public isn't using and aren't fitted for. And his argument is based on influenza data where they were looking for the efficacy of masks in households where there was a sick relative, and masks didn't work because people didn't comply with usage.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
 
Last edited:
Mahnken said:
Yea, this is an opinion piece released by a exercise physiologist working at the palo alto VA which is run by Stanford; it's not a Stanford study. Published in a throw away journal appropriately called medical HYPOTHESIS, lol. His potential harms are based on studies with n95 masks which the public isn't using and aren't fitted for. And his argument is based on influenza data where they were looking for the efficacy of masks in households where there was a sick relative, and masks didn't work because people didn't comply with usage.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
Click to expand...
It's not on a throwaway journal, it's on an official government website now. NCBI/NIH
I'll give you the potential harms were a little speculative, but it did say it was potential.
Isn't it fact that the virus is hundreds of times smaller than the fabric of most masks people wear? Meaning it just goes through the mask.
 
There is always the chance that the paper fits the gatekeeper’s agenda.

I thought the mask concept was to reduce velocity/projection?
Close proximity in a closed space for an extended amount of time? Mask isn’t going to help??
 
  • Like
Reactions: don
I would like to see the data from the clinic of that abstract, which was a hypothesis, not facts.

A criticism on that abstract:

"This is a list of generally discredited hypotheses that have been tested and disproved," said Benjamin Neuman, biology professor at Texas A&M University and chief viologist of the university’s Global Health Research Complex.

"This seems to be a piece of deceptive writing from what appears to be a non-expert. It isn't science."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom