Maggie's Farm

Quite so.
 
David Foster: Chesterton never said don't tear down a fence. He said don't tear it down before understanding why it was built.

Chesterton is making a statement about the value of conservatism, but conservatism also recognizes that some change is inevitable and sometimes desirable. It's just that change often has unintended consequences, so one should be cautious about ill-thought or radical change.

No. That is not the goal of the Global Methane Pledge.

The "top epidemiologist", Michael Osterholm, recommends N95 masks. Oh, and vaccination, of course.

JustMe: Can we sue Micheal if we follow his advice and still get covid?

No, because he doesn't guarantee that a mask provides 100% protection.

JustMe: Either masks work or they do not.

A silly case of black-and-white thinking. Seat belts save lives, but they don't save every life.

JustMe: OK can we sue him if it fails to give 90% protection?

Did he say masks provide 90% protection? Did he guarantee anything, or did he just give his professional opinion as a disease specialist. It's a matter of probabilities.

This all misses the point, of course. The original article was trying to falsely suggest that Osterholm was rejecting masks entirely.

JustMe: If I was a "expert" and I came out and declared that eating raw eggs would cure cancer would that be OK?

Well, you should start with the nature of an appeal to authority.



JustMe: I mean, is there no responsibility what so ever for experts making these kinds of statements?

In the medical sciences, specialists are held to professional standards. In your hypothetical, your crackpot may be subject to professional sanctions, depending on the particulars.

JustMe: Show some proof

There are two typical modes of transmission of respiratory viruses: droplets and aerosols. Droplets, such as from coughing, can contain large numbers of viruses, but quickly drop out of the air. Masks and social distancing are very good at stopping droplets. Aerosols contain very few viruses, but can linger in the air for hours. In poorly ventilated and crowded venues, such as taverns or households, aerosols can saturate the air with viruses. In well-ventilated spaces, such as outdoors, aerosol concentration may be low.

Masking reduces the amount of aerosols only somewhat. The result is that in crowded places, masking probably won't help. You're going to be exposed. In well-ventilated areas where people keep their distance, masks probably won't help because you may not receive enough viruses to cause infection anyway. However, in many places where people find themselves, such as grocery and department stores, masks can help by reducing the amount of aerosols that accumulate in the air.

This helps explain why different studies give different results. If someone in your household has a respiratory illness, you may be exposed whether you wear a mask or not. You should isolate to protect people outside your household.

See Cheng et al., Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, Science 2021.

JustMe: So... in 1000 words or more you have essentially said masks don't work

In 400 words, we explained, but you apparently didn't understand, that masks offer some protection, but not perfect protection. See Cheng et al., Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, Science 2021.

JustMe: If 100 people wear the masks during a pandemic and 100 people don't wear the masks what is the expected infection rate for both groups?

It will depend on the environment, natural immunity, vaccination status, plus chance.

JustMe: THAT would be the real test but I suspect what this "expert" is actually saying isn't this at all. I think he is saying that instead of inhaling 1000 times more virus than you require to become infected without a mask that with the mask you "only" inhale 100 times as much virous as is required to become infected.

That is incorrect. Aerosols contain very few or no viruses. They have to be concentrated before they can cause infection.

JustMe: So therefore the masks offer "some protection" BUT will not prevent you from becoming infected.

What the study finds is that masking will reduce the probability of infection in many areas people commonly frequent.

JustMe: And for it to qualify as an aerosol that implies it has body fluids and the body fluids of course would contain the virus.

The vast majority of aerosol particles do not contain viruses. Direct measurements have found that 30 minute samples of exhaled air contained a mean value of 53 coronaviruses. See Leung et al., Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks, Nature Medicine 2020.

JustMe: But we just went through a nationwide dystopian struggle session with masks and distancing which proved beyond any doubt that masking had no measurable positive effect.

It's weird that masking during a pandemic would be considered dystopian. Mask resistance is one reason why it wasn't as effective as it could have been. In any case, many studies have shown the efficacy of masking. Cheng et al. helps explain why studies have had such disparate results.

As for "concentrated", the quantification is provided in the study.

JustMe: BUT, we were specifically talking about what the mask would encounter on the exhale or inhale or did you forget.

You had said that the fact that "Aerosols contain very few or no viruses" was "ridiculous and contradictory." In fact, the concentration of viruses in respiratory aerosols is very low.

JustMe: The problem is (and I know you know this) is the masks have to stop 100% or they do not work.

You are still engaging in black-and-white thinking. If you reduce the risk of infection, then that is a significant benefit. It also slows community spread.

JustMe: In the prevention of infection the mask works like a leaking condom.

Seat belts don't offer perfect protection. Yet, they they save thousands of lives every year.

Condoms have been used for centuries, though they offered only partial protection against pregnancy or disease. (Famously, Casanova would inflate a condom before use to check for leaks.) Nor do modern condoms offer perfect protection (98% with perfect use, 87% with typical use). So, per your black-and-white thinking, they are useless.

Here's a schematic view from the study.