Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

sorry ... but no

July 17, 2021 03:04PM
Quote
Ekern55
What it boils down to is your data comes from zn. It’s your child. We all love our own opinions.

The Bucky pub forum is loaded with articles going back months on this, and that includes summaries of research.

There are many here who read it all and know this.

So far I quoted the Mayo clinic. You don't acknowledge that but instead pretend you can make it about the poster (always a weak gambit). This is not an opinion--my claim is that national and international medical consensus (all based on various kinds of research) indicates that mask wearing is effective in exactly the ways my last post said it was.

You may have an opinion that that is NOT the medical consensus, but that would be false. It is demontrably true that yes that IS the medical consensus. If you want to argue with that you would have to demonstrate it is NOT the medical consensus. but that would be doomed to failure, because it IS.

Here's more and it's easy to find it. I will stop at 13 links and toss in an article. There's of course hundreds more. Today's additions do not repeat any of the many dozens of similar links and articles already posted starting months ago in the Bucky pub forum.

If you were actually interested you could find this material yourself. Just google search the phrase "are masks effective against covid-19" and then read only bits that have a strong link to the medical community.

Harvard medical: [www.health.harvard.edu]
Johns Hopkins: [www.jhsph.edu]
Mayo Clinic: [www.mayoclinic.org]
UC San Francisco epidemiologists: [www.ucsf.edu]
National Academy of Sciences: [www.pnas.org]
Science Magazine: [science.sciencemag.org]
WebMD: [www.webmd.com]
Infection Control Today: [www.infectioncontroltoday.com]
MIT medical: [medical.mit.edu]
NC Dept of Health and Human Services: [covid19.ncdhhs.gov]
CDC: [www.cdc.gov]
Healthline: [www.healthline.com]
Medical Life Sciences: [www.news-medical.net]

Quote

. [www.mpg.de]

Face masks effectively limit Sars-CoV-2 transmission
New study shows how face masks reduce the effective reproduction number of Covid-19, and why their efficacy varies between different environments under virus-limited and virus-rich conditions


'Don't forget the mask' - although most people nowadays follow this advice, professionals express different opinions about the effectiveness of face masks. An international team led by researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany, has now used observational data and model calculations to answer open questions. The study shows under which conditions and in which way masks actually reduce individual and population-average risks of being infected with Covid-19 and help mitigate the coronavirus pandemic. In most environments and situations, even simple surgical masks effectively reduce the transmission of Sars-CoV-2 and the effective reproduction number for Covid-19. In environments with potentially high airborne virus concentrations such as medical settings and densely occupied indoor spaces, however, masks with higher filtration efficiency (N95/FFP2) should be used and combined with other protective measures such as intensive ventilation.

Face masks are among the most simple, easy-to-use, and effective measures against the airborne transmission of infectious respiratory diseases, but their usefulness against Covid-19 is still under debate. Some earlier investigations found that masks were apparently not effective under certain conditions. Others found high efficacies, but a conclusive explanation for the apparent contradictions and inconsistencies had not been given.

Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, the Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, and the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin together with partners from China and the USA used observational data and a novel quantitative model of airborne virus exposure to elucidate how the efficacy of face masks depends on characteristic regimes of airborne virus concentration.

In most situations, even simple surgical masks are effective
“For the airborne transmission of Sars-CoV-2, we find that usually just a minor fraction of exhaled respiratory particles contains viruses. Most environments and contacts are under virus-limited conditions, where face masks, including simple surgical masks, have a high efficacy in preventing the spread of Covid-19”, explains Yafang Cheng, the head of a Minerva Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. “Our study provides a detailed and novel mechanistic understanding of population-average mask efficacy, which explains why regions with a higher percentage of the population wearing masks have better control of the pandemic.”

In virus-rich indoor environments with high infection probability, however, more advanced masks (N95/FFP2) and other protective equipment are required to prevent airborne transmission. The strong dependence of mask efficacy on airborne virus concentration highlights the importance of combining masks with other protective measures such as ventilation and distancing to keep the infection probability low.

“The combination of high-efficiency masks with other protective measures is particularly important for hospitals, medical centers, and other indoor environments, where high risk patients may encounter high virus concentrations”, says Christian Witt, head of the Research Area Pneumology at the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. “Masks will remain an important protective measure against Sars-Cov-2 infection - even for vaccinated persons, especially when the protection provided by vaccination decreases over time.”

The approach can be used to assess protection against more infectious mutants
“Our approach and results of relating the effectiveness of protective measures to the infection probability and basic reproduction number are applicable to a wide range of respiratory viruses and diseases, including coronaviruses, rhinoviruses, and influenza. They can also be used to assess the efficacy of masks and other preventive measures against new and more infectious mutants of Sars-CoV-2.” says Hang Su, research group leader at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. “Our investigations also show that aerosol transmission does not necessarily lead to very high reproduction numbers as observed for measles, and that relatively low reproduction numbers do not rule out airborne transmission.”

Moreover, the study demonstrates how important high compliance and correct use of masks are to ensure their effectiveness in reducing the reproduction number of Covid-19. To reduce the reproduction number from roughly 3 as originally observed to below 1, at least 60 to 70 percent compliance would be required for surgical masks (about 40 percent for N95/FFP2 masks). Higher rates of compliance would be required for more infectious variants of Sars-CoV-2, which re-emphasizes that masks should be combined with other protective measures like ventilation and distancing for efficient reduction of infection probabilities and reproduction numbers.

“Our study explains quantitatively why and how face masks are highly effective in virus-limited environments and less effective in virus-rich environments – both at the individual and the population average level related to observed infection rates and effective reproduction numbers. This has not been achieved before and is essential to overcome inconclusive earlier results, arguments, and discussions. We are confident, that the mechanistic insights and quantitative results gained in our study constitute a scientific breakthrough that will help to settle the ongoing debate about the usefulness of masks and promote efficient mitigation of the Covid pandemic,” summarizes Ulrich Pöschl, director of the Multiphase Chemistry Department at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry.







....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2021 03:11PM by zn.
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

  Hmm---SoFi is indoors, right?

JimYoungblood53743July 15, 2021 12:50PM

  Don't think so

IowaRam355July 15, 2021 12:57PM

  So, if season started now, no masks?

JimYoungblood53358July 15, 2021 01:09PM

  Re: So, if season started now, no masks?

AlbaNY_Ram284July 16, 2021 06:25AM

  I'll be there in mid August....

RAMbler152July 16, 2021 08:41AM

  Re: ... and I anxiously await your report!!

AlbaNY_Ram161July 16, 2021 12:41PM

  Re: ... and I anxiously await your report!!

oldschoolramfan154July 16, 2021 01:06PM

  Re: Temp was perfect and air flow could be felt throughout the entire day.

oldschoolramfan223July 16, 2021 01:05PM

  Re: Temp was perfect and air flow could be felt throughout the entire day.

RAMbler144July 16, 2021 01:21PM

  It's both, but not sure how regulators view it...

HornsUpRamily!470July 15, 2021 01:25PM

  Me, either

JimYoungblood53229July 15, 2021 01:53PM

  Re: Me, either

IowaRam308July 15, 2021 02:00PM

  Whatever it takes to safely have a season

JimYoungblood53369July 15, 2021 03:11PM

  Look at that!

PHDram191July 15, 2021 03:52PM

  Re: Whatever it takes to safely have a season

Anonymous User579July 15, 2021 04:35PM

  Unless it's a N95 mask......

NewMexicoRam219July 15, 2021 05:07PM

  Yup..

sstrams367July 15, 2021 05:29PM

  Makes me wonder...

Ram Fan Teacher457July 16, 2021 08:55AM

  Politics is a funny game

NewMexicoRam169July 16, 2021 12:34PM

  Re: Makes me wonder...

Rampage2K-150July 16, 2021 05:04PM

  Re: Makes me wonder...

zn143July 16, 2021 08:17PM

  Re: Unless it's a N95 mask......

AlbaNY_Ram467July 16, 2021 12:43PM

  Re: Unless it's a N95 mask......

Ekern55222July 16, 2021 07:23PM

  Re: Unless it's a N95 mask......

alyoshamucci361July 16, 2021 07:05PM

  which as we have discusssed...is not true

zn177July 16, 2021 08:15PM

  Re: which as we have discusssed...is not true

Ekern55168July 16, 2021 08:57PM

  Yep. Of course what you quote is true.

RockRam148July 17, 2021 03:50AM

  Re: Yep. Of course what you quote is true.

Ekern55248July 17, 2021 02:34PM

  Re: which as we have discusssed...is not true

AlbaNY_Ram278July 17, 2021 03:59AM

  Re: which as we have discusssed...is not true

zn238July 17, 2021 05:20AM

  Re: which as we have discusssed...is not true

Ekern55240July 17, 2021 02:29PM

  sorry ... but no

zn187July 17, 2021 03:04PM

  Re: sorry ... but no

canadaram147July 19, 2021 04:55AM

  Re: Unless it's a N95 mask......

Rams43238July 17, 2021 04:16AM

  Lite Beer from Miller is less filling but tastes like CRAP!!!

Ramgator193July 19, 2021 05:09AM

  Goodness--all this was aout was SoFi

JimYoungblood53143July 17, 2021 04:27PM