A little perspective from some experts on mechanisms of spread: https://youtu.be/Cio3rh6ta3w
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:53 PM Karl Wittnebel <atypical...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes as previously mentioned, the evidence is not super high quality. But > neither is the evidence suggesting they do not work. Unfortunately we are > not given the luxury of debating the point in the absence of an epidemic. > So decisions need to be made without perfect information. > > We can all speculate on why certain countries did better than others; > clearly there were large differences in how quickly the first cases were > introduced and how many introductions there were before the disease was > detected in each place, as we have seen within our borders from region to > region. > > Medication wise, so far steroids and remdesivir, among people requiring > oxygen or ventilators, are the only therapies with good supportive data > behind them. We are using both routinely. We lack proven effective > treatments for less symptomatic people to prevent them from becoming ill. > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 6:02 AM Meade Dillon via Mercedes < > mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Karl, I took a quick look at the first three on your list. The >> first discusses the fluid flow of droplets from coughing and sneezing, and >> yes that is pretty much common sense that if one is coughing / sneezing >> then wearing a mask is a good thing. No argument there. Even better, do >> what has always been recommended >> by medical professionals: Stay home when you are sick! >> >> The second paper relies on a lot of assumptions and estimates and (here we >> go again) models to reach their conclusions. We all know how dishonest >> researchers can manipulate the models (see global warming) to get the >> results we want. No thanks. >> >> The third paper is not yet peer reviewed but strongly recommends that >> countries that had their populations wear masks saw a large decrease in >> the >> infection rate. However some countries that did not impose mask wearing >> also did not suffer high infection rates. Hmmm, that is a curious bit of >> data, what could be going on there? My guess: this paper does not account >> for differences in medical treatment regimens (use of HCQ and Budesonide >> and other treatments). I like this paper, but I think they need to re-run >> their models and take into account the factor of medical treatment. This >> one has promise for actually producing good science to support mask >> wearing >> (to be determined yet), and I like that they also take into account border >> closings (86% decrease in mortality rate when international travel was >> restricted) and testing / tracing (did not significantly reduce mortality >> rate). Obesity and an older population are also major factors in an >> increased mortality rate. >> >> So, are masks effective? I think they are, they certainly can reduce the >> infection rate. How effective, and how much liberty do we give away in >> the >> interest of reducing the risk of living? I'd much rather that our elected >> representatives focus on providing the public with reliable information on >> individual actions that will reduce the infection rate, promoting good >> hygiene practices, and making possible the medical treatments that are >> safe >> and effective. The use of bad models and the confusing and contradictory >> advice from "experts" has severely damaged the public's faith in >> government. Personally, if I become ill with this disease, I'll ask my >> doctor about HCQ and Budesonide as treatment options. Until then, life is >> worth living so let's get on with it. >> ------------- >> Max >> Charleston SC >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:05 PM Karl Wittnebel via Mercedes < >> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: >> >> > I think the imposition to liberty here is very minimal. It's not like >> they >> > are bringing back the Stamp Act, or requiring vaccination. It's like >> > wearing a seatbelt or something. I will be happy not to wear the masks >> but >> > we have some work to do as a society to get there. >> > >> > I can see how people with little direct exposure to this illness might >> > think the risk is minimal. We are seeing these sorts of attitudes change >> > with increased disease prevalence in affected areas e.g. Texas. >> > >> > To Don's point, until the prevalence in your immediate area is below >> about >> > 1.5%, it's probably a good idea to do what you can. I have five people >> in >> > house right now with it. One is a 43yo RN with a 7yo daughter who tested >> > positive a few days ago and was toughing it out at home but could not >> > breathe well so came in satting 82%. She is doing OK on a few liters of >> > oxygen. Three are guys in their 50s and 60s with no predisposing >> > conditions. Two of them were intubated for about a month and still >> cannot >> > tell you the name of the building they are in. They will stage extended >> > recoveries but unclear if they will regain previous functional levels. >> One >> > of them had several strokes and will be permanently severely disabled. >> My >> > colleague in house this weekend rounded on 9. We have about 80 total in >> > hospital, 60 confirmed, 20 suspected. >> > >> > There are plenty of papers out there for anyone interested in masks. >> This >> > list is a good start: >> > >> > >> > >> https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1m-o_9N9Yq3cq7toP1-nZKtAHTIQ-Nqeqaj866sycl6w/mobilebasic >> > >> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 5:41 PM Max Dillon via Mercedes < >> > mercedes@okiebenz.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________ >> http://www.okiebenz.com >> >> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ >> >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com >> >> _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
