ajf87

And all of those hospital deaths from making patients with confirmed or suspected respiratory infections wear surgical masks, usually with underlying health issues. I worked at a level 1 trauma center and people in our waiting room with coughs who were forced to wear masks (before COVID-19) would drop like flies!

FlyBitcoin

So far no transmission from the two hairdressers in Missouri to clients. Mandated masks for both in the workplace.
At the time of this quote, no exposure was shorter than 9 days in the past...

https://www.springfieldmo.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=6894
https://health.springfieldmo.gov/Civ....aspx?AID=6814

FlyBitcoin

Support for mask use December 1918.
And we still need proof? And it still took another 10-20 years before masks were omnipresent in OR's.

747FC

Summary and Results of New Study on Face Masks, Physical Distancing and Eye Protection. Bottom Line is Last Paragragh:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...142-9/fulltext

"We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047."

Findings

"Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings."

Interpretation

"The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance."

...

“Our comprehensive systematic review provides the best available information on three simple and common interventions to combat the immediate threat of COVID-19, while new evidence on pharmacological treatments, vaccines, and other personal protective strategies is being generated. Physical distancing of at least 1 m is strongly associated with protection, but distances of up to 2 m might be more effective. Although direct evidence is limited, the optimum use of face masks, in particular N95 or similar respirators in health-care settings and 12–16-layer cotton or surgical masks in the community, could depend on contextual factors; action is needed at all levels to address the paucity of better evidence. Eye protection might provide additional benefits. Globally collaborative and well conducted studies, including randomised trials, of different personal protective strategies are needed regardless of the challenges, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence could be considered to inform interim guidance.“

LonghornDXB

What you say is an assumption, that mask wearing would have led to a zero death rate soon...… how did Finland with such a low rate of mask wearing, manage to have so few deaths?

FlyBitcoin

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-by-age-group/
Death rate most related to average age of infected individuals.
NYC, Spain, Italy had the oldest average case ages.
Germany, Finland lower
Singapore the lowest (average age in the 30's)

Masks can't make you younger, so look at case rates, not death rates for that.
Although they will reduce viral load which gives your immune system a little bit of a head start if you do come in contact with some virus.

boerne

Most posters in this thread take masks and all the other things seriously. So I will say it again, you can get this systemically if you get a decent viral load in the eyes like this study suggests. In my opinion, wear some sort of eye shield even if it is just sun glasses. And truth, I have almost certainly gotten a viral infection through eye exposure. In fact I have symptoms of that in my left eye right now as I am typing this, from 14 years ago.

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/32323475-post429.html

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/32290665-post372.html

And this last response to posts about the lack of data concerning entry through the eyes. Lots of links there. enjoy

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/32321165-post419.html

This is what I will wear when I fly next month. They are very comfortable for long periods. This is what I wear in the hospital making rounds when not in my office. You can reuse them, just wipe them off. Or you can throw them away.

WilcoRoger

I don't have the source to quote now, but in April the median age of corona victims in Finland was 82. I don't know how it developed in May.

FlyBitcoin

Median age of cases means lower mortality RATE, but has no impact on the average age the victims. It just means that there will be fewer victims.

FlyBitcoin

Lancet infographic

ryman554

So, let's assume that all of the above are correct.

1. Social distancing ~80% reduction in transmission
2. Wearing masks ~80% reduction in transmission
3. Wearing glasses ~60% reduction in transmission

Let's be really really conservative and say it's more like 50%/50%/25%.

Doing these three things (only) reduces probability of transmission from (1) to (<0.2).
Doing the first two things alone reduces probability of transmission from (1) to (0.25).

If R0 is anything less than 5, then we become less than 1 and problem goes away.
Doing only the first 2, if R0 is anything less than 4, we become less than 1 and problem goes away.

Heck, if the masks really do reduce transmission by 80% all by themselves, then all you need is that and problem goes away. No wonder Japan and their sardine packed trains didn't spread COVID like wildfire.

How hard is this?

nk15

Is this the exact product you have (or is this just an example)? It does have a some negative reviews but it looks like it offers good coverage...

WilcoRoger

I‘m sorry, I just don’t follow your train of thought. If 50% of the people who died were over 82 (median) it certainly has an impact on average age, IMO

747FC

After taking numerous graduate-level stats classes, I’m struggling to see how a statistical measure (median) has any effect anything.

FlyBitcoin

I meant "mean". The post I was referring to said "median" and I was so fixated on it I repeated it

You are 10x more likely to die if you get this at age 75 vs age 55.
Country A has 6,000 cases with an average age of 75 and will likely have 500 fatalities.
Country B has 6,000 cases with an average age of 55 and will likely have 50 fatalities.

Now lets remove the middle part....
Country A has 6,000 cases and 500 fatalities.
Country B has 6,000 cases and 50 fatalities. "This country doesn't mandate masks therefore masks don't work."

So cherry picking a country that keeps the virus away from elderly and has a very low incidence of disease will have a low mortality rate regardless of mask use if there exists a divergence of average case age between the countries.