Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

All things Rugby
C69
Posts: 41464
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by C69 »

Mog The Almighty wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 1:19 pm
Frodder wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:15 am
C69 wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:04 am
iarmhiman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:18 pm The current vaccines are showing reduced efficacy against infection from variants but still successful against severe disease.


It's going the same way influenza did
Really?
Please explain...
A seasonal disease controlled by vaccines?
Triggered. How dare anyone compare it to some other respiratory infection with markedly similar symptoms when we all know its more like a mix between the bubonic plague and the zombie apocalypse.
The symptoms are not markedly similar, the signs and sequlae are very different radiologically and in treatment.
Especially ventilatory and haemodynamic strategies
as well as pharmacologically.
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

C69 wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 1:34 pm
Mog The Almighty wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 1:19 pm
Frodder wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:15 am
C69 wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:04 am
iarmhiman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:18 pm The current vaccines are showing reduced efficacy against infection from variants but still successful against severe disease.


It's going the same way influenza did
Really?
Please explain...
A seasonal disease controlled by vaccines?
Triggered. How dare anyone compare it to some other respiratory infection with markedly similar symptoms when we all know its more like a mix between the bubonic plague and the zombie apocalypse.
The symptoms are not markedly similar, the signs and sequlae are very different radiologically and in treatment.
Especially ventilatory and haemodynamic strategies
as well as pharmacologically.

Look at it using big words. :lol:
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 40052
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Duff Paddy »

America hits 100million fully vaccinated.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

If you didn’t like the last lot here are some more

These are peer reviewed and I have quoted the relevant section for you.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 9/fulltext
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).
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.13 ... 2020.00818
Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21 or more days after state face mask orders were signed, respectively.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2776536
prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the efficacy of community mask wearing to reduce the spread of respiratory infections was controversial because there were no solid relevant data to support their use. During the pandemic, the scientific evidence has increased. Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers’ exposure to infection.
https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/ar ... 20-00430-5
However, the use of MNC seems to be linked to relevant protection during close contact scenarios by limiting pathogen-containing aerosol and liquid droplet dissemination.
User avatar
Pat the Ex Mat
Posts: 6420
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Pat the Ex Mat »

Farva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:55 pm If you didn’t like the last lot here are some more

These are peer reviewed and I have quoted the relevant section for you.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 9/fulltext
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).
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.13 ... 2020.00818
Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21 or more days after state face mask orders were signed, respectively.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2776536
prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the efficacy of community mask wearing to reduce the spread of respiratory infections was controversial because there were no solid relevant data to support their use. During the pandemic, the scientific evidence has increased. Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers’ exposure to infection.
https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/ar ... 20-00430-5
However, the use of MNC seems to be linked to relevant protection during close contact scenarios by limiting pathogen-containing aerosol and liquid droplet dissemination.
You are tilting at Windmills mate, no matter how Noble the ideal
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

It’s not Bimboman that matters. It’s others that read him saying that there is no evidence of mask wearing working that then believe it.
It’s how misinformation spreads.
User avatar
Pat the Ex Mat
Posts: 6420
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Pat the Ex Mat »

C'mon, PR is a closed-ecosystem, who reads Bimbot and believes him? :lol: :lol:
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Farva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 2:38 am It’s not Bimboman that matters. It’s others that read him saying that there is no evidence of mask wearing working that then believe it.
It’s how misinformation spreads.


There’s no evidence that masks work in reducing infection rate, if anything the US state by state evidence says the slight opposite.


The “misinformation “ is yours, your desperation for it to be true is startling but even one of Australia’s ambassadors as noted the country isn’t reacting rationally.

You seem to forget that for 4 months of last year all our senior scientists advised masks made little or no difference to transmission of Corona virus’s, then suddenly they did. Nothing literally nothing you’ve linked is a study that says different, lose correlation and journalistic nonsense isn’t science.

Oh, and nothing there is a “peer reviewed “ study that’s a lie.
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

“Seems to be linked”

“Low certainty “
There is also a relationship between increased adherence to mask use, specifically, and effectiveness of reducing transmission to mask wearers: In one randomized study of influenza transmission in infected households in Australia, transmission risk for mask wearers was lower with greater adherence.10 Further, the evidence is mixed from randomized studies on types of masks and risk for influenza-like illness transmission to mask wearers; for example, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis comparing N-95 respirators versus surgical masks found a statistically insignificant decline in influenza risk with N-95 respirators.11
We now know from the only actual study done the mask wearer isn’t protected ... guess work over science
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:11 am
Farva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 2:38 am It’s not Bimboman that matters. It’s others that read him saying that there is no evidence of mask wearing working that then believe it.
It’s how misinformation spreads.


There’s no evidence that masks work in reducing infection rate, if anything the US state by state evidence says the slight opposite.


The “misinformation “ is yours, your desperation for it to be true is startling but even one of Australia’s ambassadors as noted the country isn’t reacting rationally.

You seem to forget that for 4 months of last year all our senior scientists advised masks made little or no difference to transmission of Corona virus’s, then suddenly they did. Nothing literally nothing you’ve linked is a study that says different, lose correlation and journalistic nonsense isn’t science.

Oh, and nothing there is a “peer reviewed “ study that’s a lie.
Literally all of those posts are from respected journals. To be published they need to be peer reviewed. What are you on about?

And the reason that the recommendations at the start to not to wear masks was concern about availability. They were needed in hospitals before they were worn in supermarkets.

And as for stating that they work, I even posted the words in the paper that showed that.

You don’t want to believe it? Fine. You need to be happy to be put aside the flat earthers then.
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Literally all of those posts are from respected journals. To be published they need to be peer reviewed. What are you on about?

And the reason that the recommendations at the start to not to wear masks was concern about availability. They were needed in hospitals before they were worn in supermarkets.

So no actual new or peer reviewed studies, just “respected journalists”.

And the logic of “they all lied for a good reason then but are telling the truth now” is a f**king embarrassment of an opinion.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:24 am “Seems to be linked”

“Low certainty “
There is also a relationship between increased adherence to mask use, specifically, and effectiveness of reducing transmission to mask wearers: In one randomized study of influenza transmission in infected households in Australia, transmission risk for mask wearers was lower with greater adherence.10 Further, the evidence is mixed from randomized studies on types of masks and risk for influenza-like illness transmission to mask wearers; for example, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis comparing N-95 respirators versus surgical masks found a statistically insignificant decline in influenza risk with N-95 respirators.11
We now know from the only actual study done the mask wearer isn’t protected ... guess work over science
The study you posted was limited. It wasn’t wrong, just limited and doesn’t have the outcomes you think it does.
I posted a BMJ article multiple times that explains what is wrong.
It only looked at protecting the people wearing the mask, not others.
The group wearing masks only complied something like 45%.
There were multiple other issues.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:48 am
Literally all of those posts are from respected journals. To be published they need to be peer reviewed. What are you on about?

And the reason that the recommendations at the start to not to wear masks was concern about availability. They were needed in hospitals before they were worn in supermarkets.

So no actual new or peer reviewed studies, just “respected journalists”.

And the logic of “they all lied for a good reason then but are telling the truth now” is a f**king embarrassment of an opinion.
I have no idea what messaging your government was giving you. What I posted is the message we were getting in Australia from day 1.

I posted 4 peer reviewed studies. I know they were peer reviewed because they were in respected journals. To get in a journal, the journal will have you left paper peer reviewed.
Each of them find masks helped.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

This might help you understand the peer review process

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 21132
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Enzedder »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:24 am “Seems to be linked”

“Low certainty “
There is also a relationship between increased adherence to mask use, specifically, and effectiveness of reducing transmission to mask wearers: In one randomized study of influenza transmission in infected households in Australia, transmission risk for mask wearers was lower with greater adherence.10 Further, the evidence is mixed from randomized studies on types of masks and risk for influenza-like illness transmission to mask wearers; for example, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis comparing N-95 respirators versus surgical masks found a statistically insignificant decline in influenza risk with N-95 respirators.11
We now know from the only actual study done the mask wearer isn’t protected ... guess work over science
You'll be happy to tell your surgeon that if you have the misfortune to need one?
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 21132
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Enzedder »

Darwin's Law came too late for this one - I suspect he has already bred

Image
User avatar
JB1981
Posts: 7443
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Location: NZ

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by JB1981 »

^ Anti-vax and wearing the mask incorrectly. It was bound to happen.
La soule
Posts: 9828
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by La soule »

I see Bimbo is also an utter moron on the COVID discussion.

No shame nor self awareness.

It is a good thing no one takes him seriously here as his message on wearing masks is actually dangerous.
User avatar
Clouseau
Posts: 1050
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clouseau »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:48 am So no actual new or peer reviewed studies, just “respected journalists”.
Respected journals, not "journalists".
You might not respect them, but these articles or papers are submitted, peer reviewed, edited how many times necessary and then published, that's how it works. You cannot say that the publishing process isn't thorough.

Or in PR parlance : proof that they are not peer reviewed or GTFO.
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Clouseau wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 9:13 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:48 am So no actual new or peer reviewed studies, just “respected journalists”.
Respected journals, not "journalists".
You might not respect them, but these articles or papers are submitted, peer reviewed, edited how many times necessary and then published, that's how it works. You cannot say that the publishing process isn't thorough.

Or in PR parlance : proof that they are not peer reviewed or GTFO.


Yeah, the Lancet and it’s editors have never been wrong, :lol:
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Enzedder wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 8:22 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:24 am “Seems to be linked”

“Low certainty “
There is also a relationship between increased adherence to mask use, specifically, and effectiveness of reducing transmission to mask wearers: In one randomized study of influenza transmission in infected households in Australia, transmission risk for mask wearers was lower with greater adherence.10 Further, the evidence is mixed from randomized studies on types of masks and risk for influenza-like illness transmission to mask wearers; for example, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis comparing N-95 respirators versus surgical masks found a statistically insignificant decline in influenza risk with N-95 respirators.11
We now know from the only actual study done the mask wearer isn’t protected ... guess work over science
You'll be happy to tell your surgeon that if you have the misfortune to need one?

Yes, surgeons wear masks because of viruses......
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Farva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:52 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:48 am
Literally all of those posts are from respected journals. To be published they need to be peer reviewed. What are you on about?

And the reason that the recommendations at the start to not to wear masks was concern about availability. They were needed in hospitals before they were worn in supermarkets.

So no actual new or peer reviewed studies, just “respected journalists”.

And the logic of “they all lied for a good reason then but are telling the truth now” is a f**king embarrassment of an opinion.
I have no idea what messaging your government was giving you. What I posted is the message we were getting in Australia from day 1.

I posted 4 peer reviewed studies. I know they were peer reviewed because they were in respected journals. To get in a journal, the journal will have you left paper peer reviewed.
Each of them find masks helped.

They’re not peer reviewed “studies” stop lying.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:05 am
Farva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:52 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:48 am
Literally all of those posts are from respected journals. To be published they need to be peer reviewed. What are you on about?

And the reason that the recommendations at the start to not to wear masks was concern about availability. They were needed in hospitals before they were worn in supermarkets.

So no actual new or peer reviewed studies, just “respected journalists”.

And the logic of “they all lied for a good reason then but are telling the truth now” is a f**king embarrassment of an opinion.
I have no idea what messaging your government was giving you. What I posted is the message we were getting in Australia from day 1.

I posted 4 peer reviewed studies. I know they were peer reviewed because they were in respected journals. To get in a journal, the journal will have you left paper peer reviewed.
Each of them find masks helped.

They’re not peer reviewed “studies” stop lying.
Each of these papers are published by respected journals - the Lancet, BMC, JAMA, etc. the only way they would be published is after a peer review process.
I don’t know what else I can say to convince you. You seem to want to challenge the very peer review process.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:04 am
Clouseau wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 9:13 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:48 am So no actual new or peer reviewed studies, just “respected journalists”.
Respected journals, not "journalists".
You might not respect them, but these articles or papers are submitted, peer reviewed, edited how many times necessary and then published, that's how it works. You cannot say that the publishing process isn't thorough.

Or in PR parlance : proof that they are not peer reviewed or GTFO.


Yeah, the Lancet and it’s editors have never been wrong, :lol:
That is the very scientific method, being proved wrong.
You publish a study that fits data. As more data comes in you change your position.
A great example is that Danish study you posted.
ovalball
Posts: 13038
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by ovalball »

Farva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:15 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:04 am
Clouseau wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 9:13 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:48 am So no actual new or peer reviewed studies, just “respected journalists”.
Respected journals, not "journalists".
You might not respect them, but these articles or papers are submitted, peer reviewed, edited how many times necessary and then published, that's how it works. You cannot say that the publishing process isn't thorough.

Or in PR parlance : proof that they are not peer reviewed or GTFO.


Yeah, the Lancet and it’s editors have never been wrong, :lol:
That is the very scientific method, being proved wrong.
You publish a study that fits data. As more data comes in you change your position.
A great example is that Danish study you posted.
Just put the utter tit on ignore - he's got absolutely no idea what he's talking about - arguing with him is the oxygen he lives for.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 42322
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Farva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:14 am You seem to want to challenge the very peer review process.
i see youve met bimbo :lol:
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Farva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:14 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:05 am
Farva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:52 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:48 am
Literally all of those posts are from respected journals. To be published they need to be peer reviewed. What are you on about?

And the reason that the recommendations at the start to not to wear masks was concern about availability. They were needed in hospitals before they were worn in supermarkets.

So no actual new or peer reviewed studies, just “respected journalists”.

And the logic of “they all lied for a good reason then but are telling the truth now” is a f**king embarrassment of an opinion.
I have no idea what messaging your government was giving you. What I posted is the message we were getting in Australia from day 1.

I posted 4 peer reviewed studies. I know they were peer reviewed because they were in respected journals. To get in a journal, the journal will have you left paper peer reviewed.
Each of them find masks helped.

They’re not peer reviewed “studies” stop lying.
Each of these papers are published by respected journals - the Lancet, BMC, JAMA, etc. the only way they would be published is after a peer review process.
I don’t know what else I can say to convince you. You seem to want to challenge the very peer review process.

I’m not challenging that at all, another misrepresentation because you don’t want to explain the difference between an article and an actual study.

The only science last year from scientists discovered masks didn’t protect the wearer. You of course keep trying to discredit that.
ovalball
Posts: 13038
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by ovalball »

Anonymous 1 wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:37 am
Farva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:14 am You seem to want to challenge the very peer review process.
i see youve met bimbo :lol:
:lol:
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 40052
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Duff Paddy »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:05 am
Enzedder wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 8:22 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:24 am “Seems to be linked”

“Low certainty “
There is also a relationship between increased adherence to mask use, specifically, and effectiveness of reducing transmission to mask wearers: In one randomized study of influenza transmission in infected households in Australia, transmission risk for mask wearers was lower with greater adherence.10 Further, the evidence is mixed from randomized studies on types of masks and risk for influenza-like illness transmission to mask wearers; for example, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis comparing N-95 respirators versus surgical masks found a statistically insignificant decline in influenza risk with N-95 respirators.11
We now know from the only actual study done the mask wearer isn’t protected ... guess work over science
You'll be happy to tell your surgeon that if you have the misfortune to need one?

Yes, surgeons wear masks because of viruses......
Yes of course they do. Universal precautions came into existence after the HIV crisis in the 80’s.
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Duff Paddy wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:04 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:05 am
Enzedder wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 8:22 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:24 am “Seems to be linked”

“Low certainty “
There is also a relationship between increased adherence to mask use, specifically, and effectiveness of reducing transmission to mask wearers: In one randomized study of influenza transmission in infected households in Australia, transmission risk for mask wearers was lower with greater adherence.10 Further, the evidence is mixed from randomized studies on types of masks and risk for influenza-like illness transmission to mask wearers; for example, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis comparing N-95 respirators versus surgical masks found a statistically insignificant decline in influenza risk with N-95 respirators.11
We now know from the only actual study done the mask wearer isn’t protected ... guess work over science
You'll be happy to tell your surgeon that if you have the misfortune to need one?

Yes, surgeons wear masks because of viruses......
Yes of course they do. Universal precautions came into existence after the HIV crisis in the 80’s.


Another massive shoot and miss there Duff. The mask is stopping large solids and blood getting to the surgeons orifices, the actual covid virus is somewhat smaller than blood.

You might want to read the protocol at some point btw.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

Water droplets, the method the virus uses to be transported, are larger than the gaps in a surgical mask, and the numbers that escape the mask are severely reduced, through a cloth mask.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 40052
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Duff Paddy »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:09 pm
Duff Paddy wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:04 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:05 am
Enzedder wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 8:22 am
bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:24 am “Seems to be linked”

“Low certainty “



We now know from the only actual study done the mask wearer isn’t protected ... guess work over science
You'll be happy to tell your surgeon that if you have the misfortune to need one?

Yes, surgeons wear masks because of viruses......
Yes of course they do. Universal precautions came into existence after the HIV crisis in the 80’s.


Another massive shoot and miss there Duff. The mask is stopping large solids and blood getting to the surgeons orifices, the actual covid virus is somewhat smaller than blood.

You might want to read the protocol at some point btw.
It’s bodily fluids not “large solids” you clown
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 40052
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Duff Paddy »

Jump on Google there Bimbo and become an expert on stuff you didn’t know existed 5 minutes ago
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Farva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:13 pm Water droplets, the method the virus uses to be transported, are larger than the gaps in a surgical mask, and the numbers that escape the mask are severely reduced, through a cloth mask.

Some water droplets are. Most are not. Nothing is severely reduced with a cloth mask.


Claiming that a cloth mask “catches” anything other than water vapour is madness.
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Duff Paddy wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:18 pm Jump on Google there Bimbo and become an expert on stuff you didn’t know existed 5 minutes ago

“wE’Ve hAd MasKS sincE AIDS” :lol:
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 40052
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Duff Paddy »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:20 pm
Duff Paddy wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:18 pm Jump on Google there Bimbo and become an expert on stuff you didn’t know existed 5 minutes ago

“wE’Ve hAd MasKS sincE AIDS” :lol:
Great comeback champ.
User avatar
AND-y
Posts: 16776
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by AND-y »

You're posting like a 12 year old again bimbo. That alt caps thing, it aint making the other person look silly you know?
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 18213
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:19 pm
Farva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:13 pm Water droplets, the method the virus uses to be transported, are larger than the gaps in a surgical mask, and the numbers that escape the mask are severely reduced, through a cloth mask.

Some water droplets are. Most are not. Nothing is severely reduced with a cloth mask.


Claiming that a cloth mask “catches” anything other than water vapour is madness.
This peer reviewed article doesn’t agree with you

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7277485/
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 13183
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Mog The Almighty »

C69 wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 1:34 pm
Mog The Almighty wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 1:19 pm
Frodder wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:15 am
C69 wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:04 am
iarmhiman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:18 pm The current vaccines are showing reduced efficacy against infection from variants but still successful against severe disease.


It's going the same way influenza did
Really?
Please explain...
A seasonal disease controlled by vaccines?
Triggered. How dare anyone compare it to some other respiratory infection with markedly similar symptoms when we all know its more like a mix between the bubonic plague and the zombie apocalypse.
The symptoms are not markedly similar, the signs and sequlae are very different radiologically and in treatment.
Especially ventilatory and haemodynamic strategies
as well as pharmacologically.
:lol:
User avatar
Clouseau
Posts: 1050
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clouseau »

bimboman wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 10:43 am[...] you don’t want to explain the difference between an article and an actual study.
What is the difference ?

And do you have proof that the links posted by Farva weren't peer reviewed ?

Two simple questions (which I'm positive you don't have answers to).

Cheers.
Post Reply