Poll: Masks and Face Shields

[Bootstrap]

To see the references for the footnotes, look to the main article:

Universal use of face masks for success against COVID-19: evidence and implications for prevention policies

The reason public health experts give us these recommendations is simple: it's the consensus of medical experts who have reviewed the available studies.

Well were is the data supporting face coverings? I've posted WHO data before showing the effectiveness of a piece of cloth.

Follow references from the link above to get to the data. I gave the summary of findings with links so that people could find the data.

So far, there has been little discussion of what I posted or the evidence behind it. But I think this literature review is a great place to start if you want to know what the medical research community can generally agree on at this point.

I think most of the guidelines are inspired by this. It's easy enough to drill down and read the individual articles and learn about the data behind the studies. It just takes time.

[Bootstrap]

Yes, if we had strong evidence that masks work, I would use them. A reasonable standard for masks is that just as much evidence needs to be shown as some public health experts are demanding be shown for using HCQ to treat or prevent coronavirus. I think an equivalent standard for both HCQ and masks is reasonable.

I think the medical research community is good at setting a clear standard and using it the same way for various things that are being tested. I think most people are much worse at this than they are.

You can use the same standard for vaccines and drugs. You have to test facemasks a little differently - there isn't really a good "placebo", since both the researcher and the wearer know if someone is wearing a mask. The best you can do is compare different kinds of masks, compare with and without a mask, etc.

If you want to see a bunch of studies that have done that, I have provided some starting points. So far, I suspect that some people who are dismissing these studies have not read them, and some probably don't have much background in this kind of research and how it is done. Might be good to start by thoroughly understanding the testing that has been done and the research design before questioning the motives of the people who did it.

[Bootstrap]

Send the list to the "River City Reader." I am sure they would be glad to look at them.

If the "River City Reader" does not already know these studies, that says something. I mean, when you research a question like this, don't you usually start from literature reviews that the medical research community would trust?

Why doesn't the "River City Reader" know about these studies? Why are they waiting for their readers to mail them in? Strange way to do a literature review. I think I'll stick with the National Institutes of Health.

[Bootstrap]

One of my complaints with articles like the above is that they fail to acknowledge there could be any problems with widespread mask wearing, and they seem to take a position that permanently wearing face masks is somehow more virtuous than not. There is not enough evidence right now to mandate that the human race permanently wear face masks from now on, and there is plenty of evidence of harm that comes to social interactions (particularly young children) from never seeing people's faces, particularly stranger's faces.

This is not a permanent thing. Obviously, we can't live like this forever. Eventually, we will have good enough widespread testing and good enough vaccines, and eventually most viruses like this become less deadly.

The Bible doesn't teach us that it is virtuous to wear face masks, nor does it teach us that we can determine who is a good and a bad person by whether or not they are wearing a face mask. A system of morality based upon mask-wearing is a bankrupt system indeed, and it should be rejected outright for what it is.

If scientists are right, then the decisions we make about facemasks may save lives or cost lives. If they are right, wouldn't you agree that biblical values might tell us what to decide?

And there are certainly lots of people who believe that the decisions you make about facemasks may threaten their health or even their lives. Perhaps biblical values would guide us in that situation too?

[Fidelio]

But given the corona thing is no worse than a bad flu season, are we going to cover our faces every flu season now? And why don't they quit the charade already? The facts are out and they don't support the draconian measures that were foisted upon the world.

[Szdfan]

But given the corona thing is no worse than a bad flu season, are we going to cover our faces every flu season now? And why don't they quit the charade already? The facts are out and they don't support the draconian measures that were foisted upon the world.

The flu kills between 12,000 and 61,000 in the US a year. So far, COVID has killed 183,000 and that may be an undercount. I honestly don’t understand how you compare COVID to a bad flu season.

[Josh]

But given the corona thing is no worse than a bad flu season, are we going to cover our faces every flu season now? And why don't they quit the charade already? The facts are out and they don't support the draconian measures that were foisted upon the world.

The flu kills between 12,000 and 61,000 in the US a year. So far, COVID has killed 183,000 and that may be an undercount. I honestly don’t understand how you compare COVID to a bad flu season.

The CDC just revised that figure down to 6% of the original count due to covid. The rest are due to comorbidities.

[Ernie]

But given the corona thing is no worse than a bad flu season, are we going to cover our faces every flu season now? And why don't they quit the charade already? The facts are out and they don't support the draconian measures that were foisted upon the world.

The flu kills between 12,000 and 61,000 in the US a year. So far, COVID has killed 183,000 and that may be an undercount. I honestly don’t understand how you compare COVID to a bad flu season.

The CDC just revised that figure down to 6% of the original count due to covid. The rest are due to comorbidities.

Couldn't the same be done with the flu?

[Josh]

The flu kills between 12,000 and 61,000 in the US a year. So far, COVID has killed 183,000 and that may be an undercount. I honestly don’t understand how you compare COVID to a bad flu season.

The CDC just revised that figure down to 6% of the original count due to covid. The rest are due to comorbidities.

Couldn't the same be done with the flu?

Nobody's currently engaging in a panic that we had 183k deaths due to flu.

The same things keep killing people that killed people last year: obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, leading to deaths from heart attacks. COVID-19 seems to aggravate this.

Blaming COVID-19 for these deaths is about as sensible as blaming McDonald's for deaths from obesity.

[Ernie]

The same things keep killing people that killed people last year: obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, leading to deaths from heart attacks. COVID-19 seems to aggravate this.

Does flu aggravate these problems as well? And what if so, what is put on the death certificate?