Reply to 85% vaccine rate isn’t good enough

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "85% vaccine rate isn’t good enough "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Masks are useless.  A chain limo fence trying to keep bee’s out of your yard….and w omicron, the bee can’t even sting…[/quote]

No they aren't and plenty of studies to prove it.[/quote]

Please cite one study that involved people in a real life setting.  I’ll wait.[/quote]

https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-masking-covid-19-cluster-randomized-trial-bangladesh
with explanation from one of the authors here: https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1433036923610742789
"We conducted an intervention that increased mask-wearing by 29 percentage points using the techniques described [in the paper]. With this 29 percentage point increase in mask-wearing, we saw a 9% drop in serologically confirmed COVID. The reduction was larger in villages where we (randomly) used surgical masks than those where we used cloth masks; in surgical mask villages, we saw a 12% reduction in COVID overall and a 35% reduction among those aged 60+. Since severe morbidity and mortality are concentrated among the elderly, this suggests that community-wide masking can be an extremely effective tool to combat COVID. If going from 13/100 to 42/100 people wearing masks leads to reductions of the magnitudes above, near universal mask-wearing (as is possible with enforced mandates in some areas) might lead to substantially larger reductions. As noted, we find especially convincing evidence that surgical masks are effective. Cloth masks reduce COVID symptoms, but the effect we find on symptomatic infections (confirmed via blood tests) is driven by surgical masks. Cloth masks are likely better than nothing, but surgical masks or masks with higher filtration efficiency should be preferred to cloth masks where available."

And a lab study of different types of masks: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02786826.2020.1862409
"We used a cough aerosol simulator with a pliable skin headform to propel small aerosol particles (0 to 7 µm) into different face coverings. An N95 respirator blocked 99% (standard deviation (SD) 0.3%) of the cough aerosol, a medical grade procedure mask blocked 59% (SD 6.9%), a 3-ply cotton cloth face mask blocked 51% (SD 7.7%), and a polyester neck gaiter blocked 47% (SD 7.5%) as a single layer and 60% (SD 7.2%) when folded into a double layer. In contrast, the face shield blocked 2% (SD 15.3%) of the cough aerosol."[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics