CDC Finally Admits Cloth Masks Were Always Political Theater

[Cow Poke]

The actual history is that the transition was as follows:

1) during the earliest phases community transmission was negligible. The chances of catching the virus outside a medical setting was very low, but there was a ppe shortage for those in hospitals, so the general public was encourage NOT to buy up supplies of n95 masks.

2) studies were done to investigate just what lesser masks could do if worn by a large percentage of the public. It was also understood that at the time the majority transmission was occurring in large droplets. it was thought at the time the virus had not yet evolved the capacity to survive outside a droplet and airborne. those studies showed a significant reduction in droplet expulsion, which meant that if a large proportion of the public wore surgical or even cloth masks in public, it could help reduce community spread.

3) over time the virus evolved more effective ways of spreading, gradually reducing the effectiveness of lesser quality masks. Now we have omicron, which is so contagious that anything less than a multi-ply surgical mask doesn't provide sufficient filtration to be statistically significant.

If it were not for the continued sarcastic and ignorant propagation of the sort of nonsense represented by many of the comments in this thread and the article that prompted it, we would all have been so much better off. Mask resistance and ignorant bickering and complaining as the guidance changed to match the changing environment has killed many people.

I was about to compliment you on your clear, concise, well-reasoned response --- then I got to that last paragraph where you just can't help letting your true self shine through.

[Sparko]

since respiratory droplets containing the virus can enter through mucous membranes like your eyes, unless you are also wearing goggles, no mask can fully protect you.

[Gondwanaland]

since respiratory droplets containing the virus can enter through mucous membranes like your eyes, unless you are also wearing goggles, no mask can fully protect you.

True but we also know covid also travels in extremely fine aerosols which are even smaller than droplets, so beyond just eyes, etc., most masks aren't doing anything.

[Bill the Cat]

https://www.wbrc.com/2022/01/16/infe...ne-eventually/

Infectious disease experts are now warning that COVID-19 will likely infect almost everyone at some point.

For Alabama, transmission of COVID-19 is high across the entire state, meaning its really easy to catch right now.

The state’s percent positivity rate is at more than 41 percent ,and state health leaders said it’s supposed to be less than five percent.

Infectious disease expert Dr. David Kimberlin said this variant is spreading faster than he has ever seen. It’s about eight times more contagious than the original COVID strain

[Machinist]

. style.JPG

[Mountain Man]

True but we also know covid also travels in extremely fine aerosols which are even smaller than droplets, so beyond just eyes, etc., most masks aren't doing anything.

And that is exactly what studies have shown for years, that masks do little to stop viruses. It was considered "settled science" until recently when those in power started using masks to mark those who are easily cowed by the government.

[oxmixmudd]

True but we also know covid also travels in extremely fine aerosols which are even smaller than droplets, so beyond just eyes, etc., most masks aren't doing anything.

Simply not true. Nurses and doctors working in covid units wear n95 masks because they protect them from the virus.

I'm really amazed at the cynicism and lack of knowledge on display here. Who would have thought so many people would be so petty as to allow the fact masks are uncomfortable or inconvenient to result in them embracing overt falsehoods just so they could justify not wearing them.

[Stoic]

since respiratory droplets containing the virus can enter through mucous membranes like your eyes, unless you are also wearing goggles, no mask can fully protect you.

I doubt that viral particles are being expelled from your eyes to infect other people, though.

No one ever said that masks can "fully protect" anyone. All they have ever been claimed to do is reduce the chance of transmission. (And they do a much better job of preventing you from infecting others than they do of preventing others from infecting you.)

I think everyone here would realize that "provide the least protection" is not synonymous with "provide no protection" if there wasn't an idiot at The Federalist confirming their biases by telling them otherwise. On the same page where the CDC says "loosely woven cloth products provide the least protection", they also say that "any mask is better than no mask". Twice.

[oxmixmudd]

I was about to compliment you on your clear, concise, well-reasoned response --- then I got to that last paragraph where you just can't help letting your true self shine through.

I agree - except wrt 'true nature'. you confuse wanting to wake people to the danger of the wrong ideas they have embraced with wanting to be hurtful or destructive.

however, it is becoming clear that to be effective I need to find ways of drawing attention to the danger of the misinformation that are not themselves counter productive,, that do not lend themselves to being interpreted as direct attacks on the reader. In technical terms I'm not directly attacking individuals, but that is not how my words are being perceived.

[oxmixmudd]

I doubt that viral particles are being expelled from your eyes to infect other people, though.

No one ever said that masks can "fully protect" anyone. All they have ever been claimed to do is reduce the chance of transmission. (And they do a much better job of preventing you from infecting others than they do of preventing others from infecting you.)

I think everyone here would realize that "provide the least protection" is not synonymous with "provide no protection" if there wasn't an idiot at The Federalist confirming their biases by telling them otherwise. On the same page where the CDC says "loosely woven cloth products provide the least protection", they also say that "any mask is better than no mask". Twice.

Exactly. The N95 designation means the mask meets a certain effectiveness, one that is generally sufficient to prevent viral spread most of the time. It is not a promise that if you wear one no virus particles will make it through.

[oxmixmudd]

And magic rocks keep bears out of your house. How do you know they're working? Because your don't see any bears.

This reminds me as a kind of anti- correllary to Clark's third law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

It appears the reverse is true here. A science base explanation you don't understand is here dismissed as the equivalent of believing in magic.

[Sparko]

. style.JPG

plague-doctor-masks-for-sale-4.jpg

[Mountain Man]

I doubt that viral particles are being expelled from your eyes to infect other people, though.

No one ever said that masks can "fully protect" anyone. All they have ever been claimed to do is reduce the chance of transmission. (And they do a much better job of preventing you from infecting others than they do of preventing others from infecting you.)

I think everyone here would realize that "provide the least protection" is not synonymous with "provide no protection" if there wasn't an idiot at The Federalist confirming their biases by telling them otherwise. On the same page where the CDC says "loosely woven cloth products provide the least protection", they also say that "any mask is better than no mask". Twice.

When it comes to stopping large saliva droplets, that information is largely true, but when it comes to stopping viruses, masks offer little meaningful protection, and that is backed by scientific studies and was accepted as common knowledge by the medical community until very recently when the government started operating on the principle of "We must do something about the China flu. Wearing masks is something. Therefore, we must wear masks."

[Mountain Man]

This reminds me as a kind of anti- correllary to Clark's third law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

It appears the reverse is true here. A science base explanation you don't understand is here dismissed as the equivalent of believing in magic.

Actually, the corollary is "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

But I have to ask, did the analogy really go over your head? You implied that healthcare workers were meaningfully protected because they wore masks, but were they? I've not worn a mask in over a year, and I regularly interact with members of the public, and I've never contracted the China flu. For that matter, my own daughter tested positive and was symptomatic, but I never took any extra precautions around the house and still didn't contract it. I guess that means the magic rings I wear on a necklace are protecting me.

Bottom line: the dangers of the China flu, and the benefits of wearing masks have been greatly exaggerated. Good health and a strong immune system are your best defense against the China flu.

[Gondwanaland]

Simply not true.

EverythingbI stated is 100 percent factual.

Nurses and doctors working in covid units wear n95 masks because they protect them from the virus.

I'm really amazed at the cynicism and lack of knowledge on display here. Who would have thought so many people would be so petty as to allow the fact masks are uncomfortable or inconvenient to result in them embracing overt falsehoods just so they could justify not wearing them.

Interesting non sequitur. Funny, I never said a word about N95 masks, but do go have fun beating your strawman - I'm really amazed at your lack of reading.