Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Karl Wittnebel via Mercedes]

Yeah we recently drove to South Dakota and back and by the end of 2800
miles of driving and camping in 116 degree weather we had a pretty good
drill for how to get through a gas station, tank up, get snacks, use
toilets and fuel pumps without getting or hopefully giving anyone covid 19.
More of a process than I had thought about.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 10:04 AM G Mann via Mercedes 
wrote:

> The whole issue of masks, wearing them, or not wearing them, falls IMHO in
> the same category as carring a condom in your wallet all the way through
> highschool... The chances of actually putting it to use were slim to
> impossible, but, for 4 years, you carried one anyway.. just in case.
>
> I wear a mask, "just in case it might give me some edge of protection. I
> also wear wrap around clear safety glasses as eye protection, since a known
> infection vector is the eye tissue, and, where I am to be in possible
> contact with anything touched by the unwashed public, 7 mil thick Nitrile
> gloves [the tough and thick kind for mechanical work so they hold up.
>
> When I return home, I dispose of the gloves, wash my hands and face, rinse
> the nasal passages and use mouthwash... then do a wipedown of the door
> knobs, the vehicle [any place I came in contact with it after possible
> exposure, ie, steering wheel, shift lever, turn lever, door controls,, etc
> etc etc... using cleaning wipes.
>
> So far, no corona symptoms... is it a pain to do all that, sure... but
> then, it was a pain to suit up and arm up in the military... I did it
> anyway... glad I did..
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 7:22 AM Karl Wittnebel via Mercedes <
> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 
> > 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 

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[G Mann via Mercedes]

The whole issue of masks, wearing them, or not wearing them, falls IMHO in
the same category as carring a condom in your wallet all the way through
highschool... The chances of actually putting it to use were slim to
impossible, but, for 4 years, you carried one anyway.. just in case.

I wear a mask, "just in case it might give me some edge of protection. I
also wear wrap around clear safety glasses as eye protection, since a known
infection vector is the eye tissue, and, where I am to be in possible
contact with anything touched by the unwashed public, 7 mil thick Nitrile
gloves [the tough and thick kind for mechanical work so they hold up.

When I return home, I dispose of the gloves, wash my hands and face, rinse
the nasal passages and use mouthwash... then do a wipedown of the door
knobs, the vehicle [any place I came in contact with it after possible
exposure, ie, steering wheel, shift lever, turn lever, door controls,, etc
etc etc... using cleaning wipes.

So far, no corona symptoms... is it a pain to do all that, sure... but
then, it was a pain to suit up and arm up in the military... I did it
anyway... glad I did..

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 7:22 AM Karl Wittnebel via Mercedes <
mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:

> 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 
> 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
> 

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Karl Wittnebel via Mercedes]

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 
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 

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Karl Wittnebel via Mercedes]

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 

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Karl Wittnebel via Mercedes]

I'm pretty sure the people who bled and died for the country would be
insulted by having the magnitude of their sacrifice equated to the
suffering imposed by wearing a facemask.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 11:18 PM fmiser via Mercedes 
wrote:

> > Karl wrote:
>
> > I think the imposition to liberty here is very minimal.
>
> I think imposition to liberty and freedom is NOT minimal.
>
> It is so easy and simple to give up a liberty, especially when a
> bully is demanding it "or else"
>
> But it usually requires a fight with bloodshed to get them back!
>
> And what of the folks who fought, bled, lost everything, or died
> to provide the freedoms we do enjoy?  Do we toss their
> contribution in the rubbish heap?  And for what?  Fortunately for
> all of us, there have been many, many people who have gone before
> us that decided there are things MORE VALUABLE than life.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Jim Cathey via Mercedes]

If one coins a pithy saying, especially if it's embryonic, one could
learn and expand from and on it oneself, just as we all do.

-- Jim


___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Allan Streib via Mercedes]

The vast, vast majority of people wear pants because it's a
long-established worldwide social convention of modesty to cover one's
genitals. Not because the law requires them to do so. Those laws merely
recognized that convention and desired behavior, they didn't create
it. Doesn't seem relevant to the mask debate to me.

OK Don via Mercedes  writes:

> The government mandates that you wear pants. I don't hear anyone (except a
> few nudists) complaining or fighting about that. Pants do very little to
> insure the safety of the population, unlike masks in the midst of a
> pandemic. No one ever died from seeing someone else's genitals. People do
> die from breathing other's virii. The "right" to wear or not wear what you
> want was lost long ago. Give it a break.
>

___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Allan Streib via Mercedes]

That's quite an Orwellian interpretation of Franklin's words. They mean
the opposite of what they say.

Franklin used that saying more than once, and it's probably best to
consider the wider context to to get a sense of what he meant by those
words.

In remarks on a 1775 conference which attempted to resolve disputes
between the colonies and the Crown, he's clearly talking about the
choice between submitting to the rule of Parliament, or going to war.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/484

https://franklinpapers.org/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=21=497b


OK Don via Mercedes  writes:

> Thanks, Jim, for sharing that. It is a good read. I think the gist of it is:
>
> The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to
> have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, "those
> who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>
> It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in
> the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the
> opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the
> opposite than to the thing that people think it means.
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:52 AM Jim Cathey via Mercedes <
> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither.
>>
>> The quote should include the word "essential", IIRC.  So I looked it up,
>> and it made for an interesting (short) read:
>>
>>
>> https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
>> <
>> https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
>> >
>>
>> -- Jim
>>
>

___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Mitch Haley via Mercedes]

On Mon, July 20, 2020 1:52 pm, G Mann via Mercedes wrote:\
> By choice I wear a mask, and sometimes gloves.. I have a handy belt pouch
>  that has two compartments, one for masks, one for gloves... Why? because
> the closer I get to humanity, the further I want to be away from it.. even
> before the "plandemic" ... Why change now, it works for me.

Do you take off the infected masks/gloves and discard them, or do you
carry them around on your belt?

When I was doing the glove thing, I'd put my purchases in the trunk and
throw the gloves in the trunk too. Wash my hands as soon as I got home.

___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Mitch Haley via Mercedes]

What's "prevalence" defined as, current cases divided by current population?

In Michigan, we have a population over 10MM, and total (known) cases,
current and past, of 73M. Throw in the untested probables, and we've had
just over 80M.

So, as far as we know, 0.7-0.8% of us had or have it. (but it could be
argued that we don't know much, because deaths are 8% of known cases)
If 20% of total cases are current cases, we're still over 0.1%.

Would that make my state, outside of known hotspots, not worth worrying
about?

On Sun, July 19, 2020 11:04 pm, Karl Wittnebel via Mercedes wrote:

> 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.


___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Max Dillon via Mercedes]

Another one of my favorites:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to
pause and reflect." Mark Twain

Max Dillon
Charleston SC

Jul 20, 2020 12:48:01 PM OK Don via Mercedes :

> Thanks, Jim, for sharing that. It is a good read. I think the gist of it is:
> 
> The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to
> have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, "those
> who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> 
> It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in
> the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the
> opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the
> opposite than to the thing that people think it means.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:52 AM Jim Cathey via Mercedes <
> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Yes, those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither.
>> 
>> The quote should include the word "essential", IIRC.  So I looked it up,
>> and it made for an interesting (short) read:
>> 
>> https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
>> <
>> https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
>>> 
>> -- Jim
>> 
> -- 
> OK Don
> 
> "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to
> pause and reflect." Mark Twain
> 
> “Basic research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I am doing.”  Wernher
> Von Braun
> 2013 F150, 18 mpg
> 2017 Subaru Legacy, 30 mpg
> 1957 C182A, 12 mpg - but at 150 mph!
> ___
> 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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[G Mann via Mercedes]

Pants.

The sign at the restaurant said: No shirt , no shoes, no service

So, I took off my pants and went in :

By choice I wear a mask, and sometimes gloves.. I have a handy belt pouch
that has two compartments, one for masks, one for gloves...
Why? because the closer I get to humanity, the further I want to be away
from it.. even before the "plandemic" ... Why change now, it works for me.


On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:39 AM OK Don via Mercedes 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 1:18 AM fmiser via Mercedes  >
> wrote:
>
> > I think imposition to liberty and freedom is NOT minimal.
> >
> > It is so easy and simple to give up a liberty, especially when a
> > bully is demanding it "or else"
> >
> > But it usually requires a fight with bloodshed to get them back!
> >
> > And what of the folks who fought, bled, lost everything, or died
> > to provide the freedoms we do enjoy?  Do we toss their
> > contribution in the rubbish heap?  And for what?  Fortunately for
> > all of us, there have been many, many people who have gone before
> > us that decided there are things MORE VALUABLE than life.
> >
>
> The government mandates that you wear pants. I don't hear anyone (except a
> few nudists) complaining or fighting about that. Pants do very little to
> insure the safety of the population, unlike masks in the midst of a
> pandemic. No one ever died from seeing someone else's genitals. People do
> die from breathing other's virii. The "right" to wear or not wear what you
> want was lost long ago. Give it a break.
>
> --
> OK Don
>
> "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to
> pause and reflect." Mark Twain
>
> “Basic research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I am doing.”
> Wernher
> Von Braun
> 2013 F150, 18 mpg
> 2017 Subaru Legacy, 30 mpg
> 1957 C182A, 12 mpg - but at 150 mph!
> ___
> 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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[OK Don via Mercedes]

Thanks, Jim, for sharing that. It is a good read. I think the gist of it is:

The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to
have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, "those
who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in
the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the
opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the
opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:52 AM Jim Cathey via Mercedes <
mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:

> > Yes, those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither.
>
> The quote should include the word "essential", IIRC.  So I looked it up,
> and it made for an interesting (short) read:
>
>
> https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
> <
> https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
> >
>
> -- Jim
>


-- 
OK Don

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to
pause and reflect." Mark Twain

“Basic research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I am doing.”  Wernher
Von Braun
2013 F150, 18 mpg
2017 Subaru Legacy, 30 mpg
1957 C182A, 12 mpg - but at 150 mph!
___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[OK Don via Mercedes]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 1:18 AM fmiser via Mercedes 
wrote:

> I think imposition to liberty and freedom is NOT minimal.
>
> It is so easy and simple to give up a liberty, especially when a
> bully is demanding it "or else"
>
> But it usually requires a fight with bloodshed to get them back!
>
> And what of the folks who fought, bled, lost everything, or died
> to provide the freedoms we do enjoy?  Do we toss their
> contribution in the rubbish heap?  And for what?  Fortunately for
> all of us, there have been many, many people who have gone before
> us that decided there are things MORE VALUABLE than life.
>

The government mandates that you wear pants. I don't hear anyone (except a
few nudists) complaining or fighting about that. Pants do very little to
insure the safety of the population, unlike masks in the midst of a
pandemic. No one ever died from seeing someone else's genitals. People do
die from breathing other's virii. The "right" to wear or not wear what you
want was lost long ago. Give it a break.

-- 
OK Don

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to
pause and reflect." Mark Twain

“Basic research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I am doing.”  Wernher
Von Braun
2013 F150, 18 mpg
2017 Subaru Legacy, 30 mpg
1957 C182A, 12 mpg - but at 150 mph!
___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Mitch Haley via Mercedes]

FIFY, at least in my neck of the woods.
Mitch.

On Mon, July 20, 2020 9:30 am, Curt Raymond via Mercedes wrote:
> Your odds of BRING TESTED FOR infection have risen rapidly over the last
month...
> -Curt
>


___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Curt Raymond via Mercedes]

 I agree on letting it run its course but disagree on flattening the curve, 
there are several states right now, including Florida, California and Texas 
where things have gotten out of control and hospitals are full to the danger 
point.
Flattening the curve means we keep hospitals just under full capacity so we 
"get it over with" without overwhelming our healthcare system. Here in the 
northeast there isn't a curve really at all, just a more or less flat line. We 
could probably do with loosening restrictions a little. The "big three" 
probably need more restrictions (or smarter people)...
-Curt

On Monday, July 20, 2020, 7:46:24 AM EDT, Meade Dillon via Mercedes 
 wrote:  
 
 Yes, those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither.  If masks
are so effective, why didn't they use them in prisons and jails and keep
all those criminals locked up?  Might not have such a shocking rise in
violent crimes in our major cities if they kept the criminals locked up.

If I were in a high risk group, I'd be very diligent about social
distancing, wearing an N95 mask when indoors in a public, and practicing
great hygiene (hand sanitizer, frequent hand washing, using the
disinfecting wipes).  Perhaps I'd even wear disposable gloves in stores and
businesses.  That would allow all those without my concerns to go on with
life, and build up the herd immunity.

We've flattened the curve, the virus is going to spread no matter what we
do.  In my opinion, the faster we let it run its course and get to herd
immunity, the better off we will all be and life can return to normal.
-
Max
Charleston SC
___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Curt Raymond via Mercedes]

 Your odds of infection have risen rapidly over the last month...
-Curt

On Sunday, July 19, 2020, 8:41:48 PM EDT, Max Dillon via Mercedes 
 wrote:  
 
 How low do the odds of infection need to be for you Don?
In my state, about 1 out of 200 people are infected, if I assume there are ten 
people infected for every one person that tests positive.  This study says that 
odds are greater than 50% that person will not be shedding viruses, but if they 
are shedding viruses, then prolonged contact is probably required for infection 
to occur.

Give me Liberty, or give me COVID-19!

Max Dillon
Charleston SC

Jul 19, 2020 8:18:11 PM OK Don via Mercedes :

> Why do you think that you are better qualified to determine findings from
> their study? They concluded: " Our results indicate that surgical face
> masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza
> viruses from symptomatic individuals. "
> 
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:36 PM Meade Dillon via Mercedes <
> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
> 
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
>> 
>> Read the whole study at least through the Discussion, don't stop at the
>> abstract.
>> 
>> "Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill individuals to
>> prevent onward transmission (source control)4
>> ,8
>> . Surgical face
>> masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound infection
>> and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures,
>> and were later adopted to protect healthcare workers against acquiring
>> infection from their patients. However, most of the existing evidence on
>> the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro
>> experiments with nonbiological particles9
>> ,10
>> , which may
>> not
>> be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is little
>> information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses
>> and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections8
>> , and most
>> research has focused on influenza11
>> ,12
>> .
>> 
>> Here we aimed to explore the importance of respiratory droplet and aerosol
>> routes of transmission with a particular focus on coronaviruses, influenza
>> viruses and rhinoviruses, by quantifying the amount of respiratory virus in
>> exhaled breath of participants with medically attended ARIs and determining
>> the potential efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory virus
>> transmission."
>> 
>> Key parts from the Discussion:
>> 
>> " Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the
>> majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did
>> not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols, whereas for
>> rhinovirus we detected virus in aerosols in 19 of 34 (56%) participants
>> (compared to 4 of 10 (40%) for coronavirus and 8 of 23 (35%) for
>> influenza). For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and
>> aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low (Fig. 1
>> ). Given the high
>> collection efficiency of the G-II (ref. 19
>> ) and given
>> that each exhaled breath collection was conducted for 30 min, this might
>> imply that prolonged close contact would be required for transmission to
>> occur, even if transmission was primarily via aerosols, as has been
>> described for rhinovirus colds."
>> 
>> " The major limitation of our study was the large proportion of
>> participants with undetectable viral shedding in exhaled breath for each of
>> the viruses studied. We could have increased the sampling duration beyond
>> 30 min to increase the viral shedding being captured, at the cost of
>> acceptability in some participants. An alternative approach would be to
>> invite participants to perform forced coughs during exhaled breath
>> collection12 .
>> However, it was the aim of our present study to focus on recovering
>> respiratory virus in exhaled breath in a real-life situation and we
>> expected that some individuals during an acute respiratory illness would
>> not cough much or at all."
>> 
>> Here in South Carolina, we have about 2000 new cases reported.  Let's say
>> for each person with a positive case, there's another 10 that are infected,
>> so perhaps there are 20,000 people out there in South Carolina with Wuhan
>> Red Death (WRD).  State population is about 5,000,000 which means that
>> about 

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Meade Dillon via Mercedes]

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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Kaleb Striplin via Mercedes]

High risk folks should by all means stay home, mask up, or whatever. It’s real 
simple to figure out if masks will work or not. What is the size of the virus? 
What side filtration to these mask provide? What about the homemade cloth mask? 
What about bandannas? 

How do we know masks are not the reason for it spreading? People continually 
touch things, touch the mask, nasty things get trapped in the mask which you 
then put on your face and breathe in. How many of you here have worn a mask for 
8 or more hours straight without removing it? Last week I did twice and both 
times this cause running nose, sneezing, when I took it off I coughed and 
sneezed for an hour straight driving home. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 19, 2020, at 8:35 PM, OK Don via Mercedes  
> wrote:
> 
> I understand the odds, but they are at this point in time, and your odds
> get worse every time those 10 infect 3.8 more people. Without masks it only
> gets worse. It's not just your chance of being infected, it's the odds that
> you are spreading it even if you never feel symptoms. I happen to be in a
> higher risk group, and don't appreciate those who are only thinking of
> themselves.
> 
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:41 PM Max Dillon via Mercedes <
>> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
>> 
>> How low do the odds of infection need to be for you Don?
>> In my state, about 1 out of 200 people are infected, if I assume there are
>> ten people infected for every one person that tests positive.  This study
>> says that odds are greater than 50% that person will not be shedding
>> viruses, but if they are shedding viruses, then prolonged contact is
>> probably required for infection to occur.
>> 
>> Give me Liberty, or give me COVID-19!
>> 
>> Max Dillon
>> Charleston SC
>> 
>> Jul 19, 2020 8:18:11 PM OK Don via Mercedes :
>> 
>>> Why do you think that you are better qualified to determine findings from
>>> their study? They concluded: " Our results indicate that surgical face
>>> masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza
>>> viruses from symptomatic individuals. "
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:36 PM Meade Dillon via Mercedes <
>>> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
>>> 
 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
 
 Read the whole study at least through the Discussion, don't stop at the
 abstract.
 
 "Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill
>> individuals to
 prevent onward transmission (source control)4
 ,8
 . Surgical
>> face
 masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound
>> infection
 and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures,
 and were later adopted to protect healthcare workers against acquiring
 infection from their patients. However, most of the existing evidence on
 the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro
 experiments with nonbiological particles9
 ,10
 , which may
 not
 be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is
>> little
 information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory
>> viruses
 and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory
>> infections8
 , and most
 research has focused on influenza11
 ,12
 .
 
 Here we aimed to explore the importance of respiratory droplet and
>> aerosol
 routes of transmission with a particular focus on coronaviruses,
>> influenza
 viruses and rhinoviruses, by quantifying the amount of respiratory
>> virus in
 exhaled breath of participants with medically attended ARIs and
>> determining
 the potential efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory
>> virus
 transmission."
 
 Key parts from the Discussion:
 
 " Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the
 majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection
>> did
 not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols, whereas
>> for
 rhinovirus we detected virus in aerosols in 19 of 34 (56%) participants
 (compared to 4 of 10 (40%) for coronavirus and 8 of 23 (35%) for
 influenza). For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and
 aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low (Fig. 1
 ). Given the
>> high
 collection efficiency of the G-II (ref. 19
 ) and given
 that each exhaled breath 

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Kaleb Striplin via Mercedes]

Why were we not wearing masks last year for the TB outbreak? 1.8 billion 
infected, 10 million ill and 1.5 million deaths. Why is this coronavirus that 
most people have to be tested for to know they even have it causing mass panic, 
economic disaster etc?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 19, 2020, at 7:41 PM, Max Dillon via Mercedes  
> wrote:
> 
> How low do the odds of infection need to be for you Don?
> In my state, about 1 out of 200 people are infected, if I assume there are 
> ten people infected for every one person that tests positive.  This study 
> says that odds are greater than 50% that person will not be shedding viruses, 
> but if they are shedding viruses, then prolonged contact is probably required 
> for infection to occur.
> 
> Give me Liberty, or give me COVID-19!
> 
> Max Dillon
> Charleston SC
> 
> Jul 19, 2020 8:18:11 PM OK Don via Mercedes :
> 
>> Why do you think that you are better qualified to determine findings from
>> their study? They concluded: " Our results indicate that surgical face
>> masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza
>> viruses from symptomatic individuals. "
>> 
>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:36 PM Meade Dillon via Mercedes <
>>> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
>>> 
>>> Read the whole study at least through the Discussion, don't stop at the
>>> abstract.
>>> 
>>> "Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill individuals to
>>> prevent onward transmission (source control)4
>>> ,8
>>> . Surgical face
>>> masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound infection
>>> and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures,
>>> and were later adopted to protect healthcare workers against acquiring
>>> infection from their patients. However, most of the existing evidence on
>>> the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro
>>> experiments with nonbiological particles9
>>> ,10
>>> , which may
>>> not
>>> be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is little
>>> information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses
>>> and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections8
>>> , and most
>>> research has focused on influenza11
>>> ,12
>>> .
>>> 
>>> Here we aimed to explore the importance of respiratory droplet and aerosol
>>> routes of transmission with a particular focus on coronaviruses, influenza
>>> viruses and rhinoviruses, by quantifying the amount of respiratory virus in
>>> exhaled breath of participants with medically attended ARIs and determining
>>> the potential efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory virus
>>> transmission."
>>> 
>>> Key parts from the Discussion:
>>> 
>>> " Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the
>>> majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did
>>> not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols, whereas for
>>> rhinovirus we detected virus in aerosols in 19 of 34 (56%) participants
>>> (compared to 4 of 10 (40%) for coronavirus and 8 of 23 (35%) for
>>> influenza). For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and
>>> aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low (Fig. 1
>>> ). Given the high
>>> collection efficiency of the G-II (ref. 19
>>> ) and given
>>> that each exhaled breath collection was conducted for 30 min, this might
>>> imply that prolonged close contact would be required for transmission to
>>> occur, even if transmission was primarily via aerosols, as has been
>>> described for rhinovirus colds."
>>> 
>>> " The major limitation of our study was the large proportion of
>>> participants with undetectable viral shedding in exhaled breath for each of
>>> the viruses studied. We could have increased the sampling duration beyond
>>> 30 min to increase the viral shedding being captured, at the cost of
>>> acceptability in some participants. An alternative approach would be to
>>> invite participants to perform forced coughs during exhaled breath
>>> collection12 .
>>> However, it was the aim of our present study to focus on recovering
>>> respiratory virus in exhaled breath in a real-life situation and we
>>> expected that some individuals during an acute respiratory illness would
>>> not cough much or at all."
>>> 
>>> Here in South 

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Jim Cathey via Mercedes]

> Yes, those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither.

The quote should include the word "essential", IIRC.  So I looked it up,
and it made for an interesting (short) read:

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
 


-- Jim

___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Meade Dillon via Mercedes]

Yes, those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither.  If masks
are so effective, why didn't they use them in prisons and jails and keep
all those criminals locked up?  Might not have such a shocking rise in
violent crimes in our major cities if they kept the criminals locked up.

If I were in a high risk group, I'd be very diligent about social
distancing, wearing an N95 mask when indoors in a public, and practicing
great hygiene (hand sanitizer, frequent hand washing, using the
disinfecting wipes).  Perhaps I'd even wear disposable gloves in stores and
businesses.  That would allow all those without my concerns to go on with
life, and build up the herd immunity.

We've flattened the curve, the virus is going to spread no matter what we
do.  In my opinion, the faster we let it run its course and get to herd
immunity, the better off we will all be and life can return to normal.
-
Max
Charleston SC
___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[fmiser via Mercedes]

> Karl wrote:

> I think the imposition to liberty here is very minimal.

I think imposition to liberty and freedom is NOT minimal.

It is so easy and simple to give up a liberty, especially when a
bully is demanding it "or else"

But it usually requires a fight with bloodshed to get them back!

And what of the folks who fought, bled, lost everything, or died
to provide the freedoms we do enjoy?  Do we toss their
contribution in the rubbish heap?  And for what?  Fortunately for
all of us, there have been many, many people who have gone before
us that decided there are things MORE VALUABLE than life.

___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Karl Wittnebel via Mercedes]

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 
wrote:

> How low do the odds of infection need to be for you Don?
> In my state, about 1 out of 200 people are infected, if I assume there are
> ten people infected for every one person that tests positive.  This study
> says that odds are greater than 50% that person will not be shedding
> viruses, but if they are shedding viruses, then prolonged contact is
> probably required for infection to occur.
>
> Give me Liberty, or give me COVID-19!
>
> Max Dillon
> Charleston SC
>
> Jul 19, 2020 8:18:11 PM OK Don via Mercedes :
>
> > Why do you think that you are better qualified to determine findings from
> > their study? They concluded: " Our results indicate that surgical face
> > masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza
> > viruses from symptomatic individuals. "
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:36 PM Meade Dillon via Mercedes <
> > mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
> >
> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
> >>
> >> Read the whole study at least through the Discussion, don't stop at the
> >> abstract.
> >>
> >> "Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill
> individuals to
> >> prevent onward transmission (source control)4
> >> ,8
> >> . Surgical
> face
> >> masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound
> infection
> >> and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures,
> >> and were later adopted to protect healthcare workers against acquiring
> >> infection from their patients. However, most of the existing evidence on
> >> the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro
> >> experiments with nonbiological particles9
> >> ,10
> >> , which may
> >> not
> >> be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is
> little
> >> information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory
> viruses
> >> and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory
> infections8
> >> , and most
> >> research has focused on influenza11
> >> ,12
> >> .
> >>
> >> Here we aimed to explore the importance of respiratory droplet and
> aerosol
> >> routes of transmission with a particular focus on coronaviruses,
> influenza
> >> viruses and rhinoviruses, by quantifying the amount of respiratory
> virus in
> >> exhaled breath of participants with medically attended ARIs and
> determining
> >> the potential efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory
> virus
> >> transmission."
> >>
> >> Key parts from the Discussion:
> >>
> >> " Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the
> >> majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection
> did
> >> not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols, whereas
> for
> >> rhinovirus we detected virus in aerosols in 19 of 34 (56%) participants
> >> (compared to 4 of 10 (40%) for coronavirus and 8 of 23 (35%) for
> >> influenza). For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and
> >> aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low 

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[OK Don via Mercedes]

I understand the odds, but they are at this point in time, and your odds
get worse every time those 10 infect 3.8 more people. Without masks it only
gets worse. It's not just your chance of being infected, it's the odds that
you are spreading it even if you never feel symptoms. I happen to be in a
higher risk group, and don't appreciate those who are only thinking of
themselves.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:41 PM Max Dillon via Mercedes <
mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:

> How low do the odds of infection need to be for you Don?
> In my state, about 1 out of 200 people are infected, if I assume there are
> ten people infected for every one person that tests positive.  This study
> says that odds are greater than 50% that person will not be shedding
> viruses, but if they are shedding viruses, then prolonged contact is
> probably required for infection to occur.
>
> Give me Liberty, or give me COVID-19!
>
> Max Dillon
> Charleston SC
>
> Jul 19, 2020 8:18:11 PM OK Don via Mercedes :
>
> > Why do you think that you are better qualified to determine findings from
> > their study? They concluded: " Our results indicate that surgical face
> > masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza
> > viruses from symptomatic individuals. "
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:36 PM Meade Dillon via Mercedes <
> > mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
> >
> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
> >>
> >> Read the whole study at least through the Discussion, don't stop at the
> >> abstract.
> >>
> >> "Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill
> individuals to
> >> prevent onward transmission (source control)4
> >> ,8
> >> . Surgical
> face
> >> masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound
> infection
> >> and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures,
> >> and were later adopted to protect healthcare workers against acquiring
> >> infection from their patients. However, most of the existing evidence on
> >> the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro
> >> experiments with nonbiological particles9
> >> ,10
> >> , which may
> >> not
> >> be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is
> little
> >> information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory
> viruses
> >> and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory
> infections8
> >> , and most
> >> research has focused on influenza11
> >> ,12
> >> .
> >>
> >> Here we aimed to explore the importance of respiratory droplet and
> aerosol
> >> routes of transmission with a particular focus on coronaviruses,
> influenza
> >> viruses and rhinoviruses, by quantifying the amount of respiratory
> virus in
> >> exhaled breath of participants with medically attended ARIs and
> determining
> >> the potential efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory
> virus
> >> transmission."
> >>
> >> Key parts from the Discussion:
> >>
> >> " Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the
> >> majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection
> did
> >> not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols, whereas
> for
> >> rhinovirus we detected virus in aerosols in 19 of 34 (56%) participants
> >> (compared to 4 of 10 (40%) for coronavirus and 8 of 23 (35%) for
> >> influenza). For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and
> >> aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low (Fig. 1
> >> ). Given the
> high
> >> collection efficiency of the G-II (ref. 19
> >> ) and given
> >> that each exhaled breath collection was conducted for 30 min, this might
> >> imply that prolonged close contact would be required for transmission to
> >> occur, even if transmission was primarily via aerosols, as has been
> >> described for rhinovirus colds."
> >>
> >> " The major limitation of our study was the large proportion of
> >> participants with undetectable viral shedding in exhaled breath for
> each of
> >> the viruses studied. We could have increased the sampling duration
> beyond
> >> 30 min to increase the viral shedding being captured, at the cost of
> >> acceptability in some participants. An alternative approach would be to
> >> invite participants to perform forced coughs during exhaled breath
> >> collection12 <
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2#ref-CR12>.
> >> However, it was the aim of our present study to focus on recovering
> >> 

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Max Dillon via Mercedes]

How low do the odds of infection need to be for you Don?
In my state, about 1 out of 200 people are infected, if I assume there are ten 
people infected for every one person that tests positive.  This study says that 
odds are greater than 50% that person will not be shedding viruses, but if they 
are shedding viruses, then prolonged contact is probably required for infection 
to occur.

Give me Liberty, or give me COVID-19!

Max Dillon
Charleston SC

Jul 19, 2020 8:18:11 PM OK Don via Mercedes :

> Why do you think that you are better qualified to determine findings from
> their study? They concluded: " Our results indicate that surgical face
> masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza
> viruses from symptomatic individuals. "
> 
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:36 PM Meade Dillon via Mercedes <
> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
> 
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
>> 
>> Read the whole study at least through the Discussion, don't stop at the
>> abstract.
>> 
>> "Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill individuals to
>> prevent onward transmission (source control)4
>> ,8
>> . Surgical face
>> masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound infection
>> and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures,
>> and were later adopted to protect healthcare workers against acquiring
>> infection from their patients. However, most of the existing evidence on
>> the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro
>> experiments with nonbiological particles9
>> ,10
>> , which may
>> not
>> be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is little
>> information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses
>> and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections8
>> , and most
>> research has focused on influenza11
>> ,12
>> .
>> 
>> Here we aimed to explore the importance of respiratory droplet and aerosol
>> routes of transmission with a particular focus on coronaviruses, influenza
>> viruses and rhinoviruses, by quantifying the amount of respiratory virus in
>> exhaled breath of participants with medically attended ARIs and determining
>> the potential efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory virus
>> transmission."
>> 
>> Key parts from the Discussion:
>> 
>> " Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the
>> majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did
>> not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols, whereas for
>> rhinovirus we detected virus in aerosols in 19 of 34 (56%) participants
>> (compared to 4 of 10 (40%) for coronavirus and 8 of 23 (35%) for
>> influenza). For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and
>> aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low (Fig. 1
>> ). Given the high
>> collection efficiency of the G-II (ref. 19
>> ) and given
>> that each exhaled breath collection was conducted for 30 min, this might
>> imply that prolonged close contact would be required for transmission to
>> occur, even if transmission was primarily via aerosols, as has been
>> described for rhinovirus colds."
>> 
>> " The major limitation of our study was the large proportion of
>> participants with undetectable viral shedding in exhaled breath for each of
>> the viruses studied. We could have increased the sampling duration beyond
>> 30 min to increase the viral shedding being captured, at the cost of
>> acceptability in some participants. An alternative approach would be to
>> invite participants to perform forced coughs during exhaled breath
>> collection12 .
>> However, it was the aim of our present study to focus on recovering
>> respiratory virus in exhaled breath in a real-life situation and we
>> expected that some individuals during an acute respiratory illness would
>> not cough much or at all."
>> 
>> Here in South Carolina, we have about 2000 new cases reported.  Let's say
>> for each person with a positive case, there's another 10 that are infected,
>> so perhaps there are 20,000 people out there in South Carolina with Wuhan
>> Red Death (WRD).  State population is about 5,000,000 which means that
>> about 0.4% of the population MIGHT be walking around with WRD.  So if I go
>> to Costco, and there are about 200 people in the store, maybe one of them
>> is 

Re: [MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[OK Don via Mercedes]

Why do you think that you are better qualified to determine findings from
their study? They concluded: " Our results indicate that surgical face
masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza
viruses from symptomatic individuals. "

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:36 PM Meade Dillon via Mercedes <
mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:

> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
>
> Read the whole study at least through the Discussion, don't stop at the
> abstract.
>
> "Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill individuals to
> prevent onward transmission (source control)4
> ,8
> . Surgical face
> masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound infection
> and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures,
> and were later adopted to protect healthcare workers against acquiring
> infection from their patients. However, most of the existing evidence on
> the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro
> experiments with nonbiological particles9
> ,10
> , which may
> not
> be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is little
> information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses
> and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections8
> , and most
> research has focused on influenza11
> ,12
> .
>
> Here we aimed to explore the importance of respiratory droplet and aerosol
> routes of transmission with a particular focus on coronaviruses, influenza
> viruses and rhinoviruses, by quantifying the amount of respiratory virus in
> exhaled breath of participants with medically attended ARIs and determining
> the potential efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory virus
> transmission."
>
> Key parts from the Discussion:
>
> " Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the
> majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did
> not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols, whereas for
> rhinovirus we detected virus in aerosols in 19 of 34 (56%) participants
> (compared to 4 of 10 (40%) for coronavirus and 8 of 23 (35%) for
> influenza). For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and
> aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low (Fig. 1
> ). Given the high
> collection efficiency of the G-II (ref. 19
> ) and given
> that each exhaled breath collection was conducted for 30 min, this might
> imply that prolonged close contact would be required for transmission to
> occur, even if transmission was primarily via aerosols, as has been
> described for rhinovirus colds."
>
> " The major limitation of our study was the large proportion of
> participants with undetectable viral shedding in exhaled breath for each of
> the viruses studied. We could have increased the sampling duration beyond
> 30 min to increase the viral shedding being captured, at the cost of
> acceptability in some participants. An alternative approach would be to
> invite participants to perform forced coughs during exhaled breath
> collection12 .
> However, it was the aim of our present study to focus on recovering
> respiratory virus in exhaled breath in a real-life situation and we
> expected that some individuals during an acute respiratory illness would
> not cough much or at all."
>
> Here in South Carolina, we have about 2000 new cases reported.  Let's say
> for each person with a positive case, there's another 10 that are infected,
> so perhaps there are 20,000 people out there in South Carolina with Wuhan
> Red Death (WRD).  State population is about 5,000,000 which means that
> about 0.4% of the population MIGHT be walking around with WRD.  So if I go
> to Costco, and there are about 200 people in the store, maybe one of them
> is infected.
>
> I'm about 50, in good health with none of the health conditions that
> "experts" think might make me more likely to get seriously ill or die from
> this, so I'm not too worried.  If there is one person that is sick, and for
> 30 minutes of them breathing next to me there's about a 6 in 10 chance that
> they aren't expelling any virii in their breath, and they don't cough on
> me, then neither they nor I really need a mask, right?  I don't stay next
> to anyone for 30 minutes in any store that I go to, generally I'm in and
> out in 30 minutes or less.
> -
> Max
> 

[MBZ] OT Study: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

[Meade Dillon via Mercedes]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2

Read the whole study at least through the Discussion, don't stop at the
abstract.

"Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill individuals to
prevent onward transmission (source control)4
,8
. Surgical face
masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound infection
and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures,
and were later adopted to protect healthcare workers against acquiring
infection from their patients. However, most of the existing evidence on
the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro
experiments with nonbiological particles9
,10
, which may not
be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is little
information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses
and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections8
, and most
research has focused on influenza11
,12
.

Here we aimed to explore the importance of respiratory droplet and aerosol
routes of transmission with a particular focus on coronaviruses, influenza
viruses and rhinoviruses, by quantifying the amount of respiratory virus in
exhaled breath of participants with medically attended ARIs and determining
the potential efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory virus
transmission."

Key parts from the Discussion:

" Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the
majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did
not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols, whereas for
rhinovirus we detected virus in aerosols in 19 of 34 (56%) participants
(compared to 4 of 10 (40%) for coronavirus and 8 of 23 (35%) for
influenza). For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and
aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low (Fig. 1
). Given the high
collection efficiency of the G-II (ref. 19
) and given
that each exhaled breath collection was conducted for 30 min, this might
imply that prolonged close contact would be required for transmission to
occur, even if transmission was primarily via aerosols, as has been
described for rhinovirus colds."

" The major limitation of our study was the large proportion of
participants with undetectable viral shedding in exhaled breath for each of
the viruses studied. We could have increased the sampling duration beyond
30 min to increase the viral shedding being captured, at the cost of
acceptability in some participants. An alternative approach would be to
invite participants to perform forced coughs during exhaled breath
collection12 .
However, it was the aim of our present study to focus on recovering
respiratory virus in exhaled breath in a real-life situation and we
expected that some individuals during an acute respiratory illness would
not cough much or at all."

Here in South Carolina, we have about 2000 new cases reported.  Let's say
for each person with a positive case, there's another 10 that are infected,
so perhaps there are 20,000 people out there in South Carolina with Wuhan
Red Death (WRD).  State population is about 5,000,000 which means that
about 0.4% of the population MIGHT be walking around with WRD.  So if I go
to Costco, and there are about 200 people in the store, maybe one of them
is infected.

I'm about 50, in good health with none of the health conditions that
"experts" think might make me more likely to get seriously ill or die from
this, so I'm not too worried.  If there is one person that is sick, and for
30 minutes of them breathing next to me there's about a 6 in 10 chance that
they aren't expelling any virii in their breath, and they don't cough on
me, then neither they nor I really need a mask, right?  I don't stay next
to anyone for 30 minutes in any store that I go to, generally I'm in and
out in 30 minutes or less.
-
Max
Charleston SC
___
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