Defending The Canceled Mask Paper; Gain-Of-Lethality Confirmed?; Time We Quit These Updates? -- Coronavirus Update LXXII
NOTHING MORTAL GOES FOREVER
Should we quit these updates? I know I've grown sick of them. Are you? Maybe replace them with articles when warranted, such as what our dear rulers attempt vaccination passports and the like.
Or should we go for a little while longer? One week? Two? Push to C?
Let me know in the comments.
OREGONE
Item: Oregon Will Require Proof of Vaccine for Maskless Entry Into Businesses, Work, Church .
That piece is short on details. Our master race of rulers have clearly not thought this through. Having to carry papers everywhere and everywhen---think about it---to prove your moral worth will either turn into an instant boondoggle or overt tyranny. Quickly.
CULT OF THE MASK
So they canceled the paper "Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis" by Vainshelboim, which we summarized a while back. The cancellation itself is hilarious. Like everything else these days, it's fake and gay.
The editor (admitting the article was peer reviewed properly) said, without offering any proof or citing any sources, "A broader review of existing scientific evidence clearly shows that approved masks with correct certification, and worn in compliance with guidelines, are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission."
Such as in the Danish Mask study, which puts the lie to that statement?
Editor said, "The manuscript misquotes and selectively cites published papers. References #16, 17, 25 and 26 are all misquoted". Perhaps, but the editor does say how, or what the misstatements were, or how wrong, if at all, Vainshelboim's extracts were. Let's look at these.
References 16 and 17, anyway, said nothing about masks. V's summary of those two papers was this: "It fact, the current standard of care practice for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is breathing 100% oxygen".
And, "The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)". Reference 17 (from Feb 2020) indeed said, "Diameter varied from about 60 to 140 nm. Virus particles had quite distinctive spikes, about 9 to 12 nm, and gave virions the appearance of a solar corona."
Now you could claim V was saying these papers themselves said masks are ineffective, which they didn't, or you could spank him for putting the citation at the wrong place, which is only at the end of the second sentence. In any case, V was right: the coronadoom seeps right through masks.
Reference 25 (Apr 2020) is about masks. Their abstract said:
However, there is limited knowledge available on the performance of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks. Importantly, there is a need to evaluate filtration efficiencies as a function of aerosol particulate sizes in the 10 nm to 10 ?m range, which is particularly relevant for respiratory virus transmission. We have carried out these studies for several common fabrics including cotton, silk, chiffon, flannel, various synthetics, and their combinations. Although the filtration efficiencies for various fabrics when a single layer was used ranged from 5 to 80% and 5 to 95% for particle sizes of < 300 nm and > 300 nm, respectively, the efficiencies improved when multiple layers were used and when using a specific combination of different fabrics.
V said, among other things while citing this paper, "With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists". So V was only guilty of not fully putting in all the caveats. He got the basics right, though.
Reference 26 is also about masks. Their weak-as-water discovery was (my emphasis): "Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets."
V said of this study, "The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect...) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people."
This is a correct reading of the evidence, though it's true V did not quote the paper fully, which concluded (again, in the weakest way): "Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals."
The editor also, without citing any sources or offering any proof whatsoever, and further not recognizing the irony, said, "Table 1. Physiological and Psychological Effects of Wearing Facemask and Their Potential Health Consequences, generated by the author. All data in the table is unverified, and there are several speculative statements."
Which is a far cry from saying they are wrong results.
Lastly, the editor said, "The author submitted that he is currently affiliated to Stanford University, and VA Palo Alto Health Care System. However, both institutions have confirmed that Dr Vainshelboim ended his connection with them in 2016."
To which all we can say it, who knows. Let's wait and hear V's side of the story. What V claimed in the paper was "Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States". Maybe he still had admitting privileges there, or whatever. Plus, take it from me, it's next to impossible to submit a paper without putting some kind of "affiliation". It's always a required field. (Yours Truly has no affiliation whatsoever. Perhaps try the Briggs Institute for Advanced Briggsology?)
In any case, it's ticky tacky, and a poor excuse for canceling the paper.
Here, as a contrast, is a poor excuse for publishing a paper. Authors first say:
Compared to N95/FFP2 respirators which have very low particle penetration rates (around ~5%), surgical and similar masks exhibit higher and more variable penetration rates (around ~30-70%) (2, 3). Given the large number of particles emitted upon respiration and especially upon sneezing or coughing (4), the number of respiratory particles that may penetrate masks is substantial, which is one of the main reasons leading to doubts about their efficacy in preventing infections. Moreover, randomized clinical trials show inconsistent or inconclusive results, with some studies reporting only a marginal benefit or no effect of mask use (5, 6).
To get around the direct evidence of uselessness, which is not palatable, the authors next invoke a probability model. (And what do we know of models, dear readers?) This hypothetical model shows what the observational evidence could not, that masks work. In the model.
Wait, did somebody say cult? NYT: "They’re vaccinated and keeping their masks on, maybe forever." And: People Aren’t ‘Addicted’ to Wearing Masks, They’re Traumatized.
GAIN-OF-LETHALITY
WSJ: "Report says researchers went to hospital in November 2019, shortly before confirmed outbreak; adds to calls for probe of whether virus escaped lab". Et cetera.
I mention that I didn't see anybody defending these gain-of-lethality studies.
OUTDOOR TRANSMISSION
https://twitter.com/NicoleArbour/status/1396554232120152069
The cop does indeed hand out a ticket for the terrible crime of---ladies, avert your eyes---shaking hands in pubic.
Although experts and bureaucrats forgot that outdoor transmission, especially in the sunshine, is minuscule. Or pretend to. Infections aren't passing outdoors, but somehow when the word of this got out, it was garbled. Even the New York Times had to take people to task on this egregious error:
When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidelines last month for mask wearing, it announced that "less than 10 percent" of Covid-19 transmission was occurring outdoors. Media organizations repeated the statistic, and it quickly became a standard description of the frequency of outdoor transmission.
That benchmark "seems to be a huge exaggeration," as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told [the NYT reporter]. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation. Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year.
BOOK
Website of similar name: price of panic.
THE NUMBERS
Sources: CDC State data (source), CDC official toll number one, number two (the old weekly file, now suspect). Causes of death (source). Deaths by age. Covid & flu. WHO flu tracker. All current as of Monday night.
Daily tests (in very light color; the blue line is 7-day running mean, which should be ignored, since it's a model and not the data) from Johns Hopkins.
Ignore the blue line. It's a model, not the data. Tests went down again this week. Still not low enough.
Remember how Experts told us---promised us---of the coming Texas & Florida apocalypse when they ended their mask mandates?
Changed this to add California (harsh lockdowns, mask mandates) and Nebraska (freedom). NE looks worse, but it's a small sample effect. Smaller samples are always more variable. In total, NE had 116 attributed coronadoom deaths per 100,000, which is the best, and Michigan had 202 per 100,000, which is the worst by far. MI probably had the harshest overall lockdowns and mask mandates, and still hasn't completely stopped panicking.
I ask again: how did deaths drop in MI in summer and then increase later? Go outside and look up for the answer.
The other states are in between these numbers, and all very similar. There is just now evidence mask mandates and lockdowns work, and much to indicate the cause only harm.
CDC weekly ALL CAUSE death counts, or the Perspective Plot, from late 2009 until now. The late drop off is late counting: it takes up to eight weeks to get all data.
The black line is deaths of any kind. The red is COVID. The blue line is flu+pneumonia (it's the pneumonia that kills most flu patients). The blue is estimated starting mid year 2020 because CDC stopped separate reporting on flu. The suspicion is some flu and pneumonia deaths are being attributed to COVID.
Here is the CDC deaths "involving" COVID.
Attributed coronadoom deaths are now as low as they were when the panic really got going back in April 2020. The sun and the great outdoors are working their yearly magic.
Here is another way to look at all deaths, the week-of-the-year all-cause deaths.
THIS IS KEY.
Green line is 2021, red is 2020. The dotted line are all cause deaths minus COVID. That means the 2020 deaths that look out of place (above the mass of other lines but below the dotted line) are likely deaths caused by the panic.
Again, been saying this for weeks, but even accounting for late counting, 2021 deaths are at or BELOW where'd we expect them. Yes, people really do die of things other than COVID.
Yes, really. Here's proof:
Heart disease and cancer killing far more people now. No panic over heart attacks or cancers. Which is strange, since in UK alone 300,000 had to skip their cancer checks during the panic.
Notice the spike in heart disease deaths at the start of the panic. Likely iatrogenic. Panic kills. Also notice the doom was only the top killer in winter time, and briefly at start of panic.
Flu is still missing. Though this is the time of year, in the northern hemisphere, where we expect to be low (but not zero). Here is the WHO's global flu tracker:
Flu is still gone the whole world over. For almost a full year now. Yes. A year without flu. Astonishing.
They will say the lockdowns caused flu, but not COVID, to disappear. No, sir. This argument forgets the many places that never locked down or had mask mandates, and which also had no flu. Like Japan, Florida etc.
About masks in more depth, see this article and this one and especially this one. Leave the Cult of the Mask.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here