dialamah

From the Lancet. TLDR: putting masks on patients can help protect healthcare workers from getting TB, influenza and Covid. Masks to prevent transmission from the wearer Although surgical masks offer little protection from inhaled agents, they have a role in protecting health-care workers when worn by patients. Placing surgical masks on patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis decreased transmission to guinea pigs by 56%, 138 and masking of patients with cystic fibrosis reduced P aeruginosa air contamination by 8%. 139 Surgical masks reduced the quantity of influenza viral RNA by 2·8 times in small particles and by 25 times in large ones. 45 More recently, surgical masks effectively reduced large droplets (>5 μm) of seasonal coronaviruses from three of ten patients to 0 of 11 (p=0·09) and small aerosols (<5 μm) from four of ten patients to 0 of 11 (p=0·04). 47 Similarly, surgical masks reduced droplets of influenza from six of 23 to one of 27 (p=0·04). However, the reduction in influenza small aerosols (<5 μm) was not significant. There is mounting evidence suggesting that the wearing of masks can reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in community and health-care settings.

As has been mentioned before, masks are not the only thing you should do, it's only an assist. This anti-mask campaign is stupid. You may as well tell people to not bother washing their hands, because even people who wash their hands get sick; same with social distancing. As a matter of fact, nothing is 100% foolproof, so why bother trying to reduce the spread at all? The lack of ability of anti-maskers to figure out that mitigation of risk is a valid objective, and is not the same as eliminating risk, is astounding.

Anti-maskers would lose in a landslide; only the moronic minority think masks are some kind of plot. Most people understand that masks help reduce the spread of Covid, that they aren't a cure or foolproof, and that its a small inconvenience to help protect "the vulnerable".

OMG. We have a vaccine on the way, mask wearing is a limited time effort. Kids aren't going to be traumatized by mask wearing for a few months; they'll be more traumatized by dead relatives. And toilet paper shortage = communism? How absolutely f#cking stupid can anti-maskers get?

Virtually everything you write about immigrants is full of assumptions about how they're lazy, desperate, criminal, opportunistic, cheaters, yada yada yada. Your own words define you. And the insults you use against women reveal your core misogyny.

That includes the children, born or raised in Canada, that you othered by saying that Canadian children are being raised to work under immigrant children. When stats tell us that X percentage of Canadians in an industry move to another country for better pay, they don't mention how many are from immigrant parents. A Singh is the same as a Smith in those stats. Its only people like you and Argus who assume that its the "Smiths" who leave, while the "Singhs" remain in Canada.

Second generation immigrants are Canadians, too. We've always raised children to work under other people's children; there's nothing at all unusual about that.

https://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/covid19real/real-review/how-well-do-cloth-masks-reduce-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-viral-particles/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-12/masks-can-reduce-covid-spread-by-40-german-study-suggests https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html Data regarding the “real-world” effectiveness of community masking are limited to observational and epidemiological studies. An investigation of a high-exposure event, in which 2 symptomatically ill hair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139 clients during an 8-day period, found that none of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection. The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as required by local ordinance and company policy at the time. In a study of 124 Beijing households with > 1 laboratory-confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, mask use by the index patient and family contacts before the index patient developed symptoms reduced secondary transmission within the households by 79%. A retrospective case-control study from Thailand documented that, among more than 1,000 persons interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations, those who reported having always worn a mask during high-risk exposures experienced a greater than 70% reduced risk of acquiring infection compared with persons who did not wear masks under these circumstances.34 A study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an environment notable for congregate living quarters and close working environments, found that use of face coverings on-board was associated with a 70% reduced risk. Investigations involving infected passengers aboard flights longer than 10 hours strongly suggest that masking prevented in-flight transmissions, as demonstrated by the absence of infection developing in other passengers and crew in the 14 days following exposure. Seven studies have confirmed the benefit of universal masking in community level analyses: in a unified hospital system, a German city, a U.S. state, a panel of 15 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., as well as both Canada and the U.S. nationally. Each analysis demonstrated that, following directives from organizational and political leadership for universal masking, new infections fell significantly. Two of these studies and an additional analysis of data from 200 countries that included the U.S. also demonstrated reductions in mortality. An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product.

People not following the guidelines is what makes the methods ineffective. If all the people - even the young healthy ones who hardly ever die even if they get sick - didn't think they were safe to party, go to weddings, birthday parties, house parties and street parties, we wouldn't have increasing cases. Henry imposed testrictions in Lower Mainland two weeks; cases stopped increasing. The rest of BC continued to increase - from 100% a day to 300% in different areas. So now the rest of BC gets the same restrictions. Politicians across Canada are begging people to take precautions, stay home, keep their contact circle small, keep distance, wear a mask. Politicians reiterate, week after week, that they do not want to lock down, that if people follow guidelines, there won't need to be a lockdown. But misinformers continue with their claims - its just a bad flu, 99% of people survive, hospitals aren't that full, that masks are ineffective and an assault on freedom, that we should be allowed to "do what we want" and - magnanimously from some "protect the vulnerable." If you don't want businesses shuttered, follow and support the public health guidelines and quit pretending you're some kind of expert that knows better than people who've trained all their life in epidemiology and pandemic control.

So does that mean if SCOTUS held up Biden's win, you'd accept it and stop claiming there was fraud?

That's not how their system works; SCOTUS is not likely to hear any of these cases, because most of them involve State Law and would be decided by the State Supreme Court. Even if one or two did make it to SCOTUS, it would be months down the road. And, even though Trump has done his best to stack SCOTUS in his favor, I've faith that these people would put the Constitution of the United States ahead of the wishes of a tin-pot dictator wannabe.

You don't have to love Biden/Harris to recognize who Trump is. There's no love lost between Argus and me, but he's absolutely right about Trump and his followers. Trump lost, and every time there's no proof of fraud, you guys insist even more people are in on some massive fraud. Its nothing short of bizarre. If/when you come back to your senses, you'll be extremely embarrassed - just like the men and women who send their life savings to some scammer overseas because "love".

Yes, we could always do better - that's part of being human. I work with 7 people on my team; we range in age from early 30s to early 60s. Of those 8 people, two are cancer survivors and are imunnocompromised, one is diabetic and smokes, and one has asthma. How do you suggest those 4 be "protected" while the others continue as normal? (And don't assume that it's the older ones who are most compromised, cause you'd be wrong.) In addition, one of the non-vulnerable people has parents who are extremely vulnerable - how would you protect her parents while still allowing her contact as she goes about her "normal life"? How would you manage just these 8 people to "protect the vulnerable" while "saving the economy"?

If you want to know what happens when minimal effort is made to control the virus, look at the States. Why would you wait till there's an actual crisis before doing something to mitigate it? Freedom doesn't actually mean we all get to do what we want, regardless of the effect it has on the rest of the society. That would be called "chaos", and would be unsustainable.

Who is going to staff these compounds? There's been a chronic shortage of health professionals even before Covid, but you think we've got enough to staff special covid hospitals? And why would you put the elderly with "the sick"? Are you trying to kill them off? "You isolate the people who are vulnerable" You don't even know who is vulnerable - more than you assume. Currently younger people are getting sick, younger people are ending up in hospital and, ultimately, some die - because they thought they were safer than "old people", thought they could carry on as "normal." Your "plan" would see billions spent to build "compounds", understaff them, add to understaffing in all health facilities, let the virus spread among younger people and overwhelm the hospitals with younger patients. That's a "dunderheaded" plan if there ever was one. And you know, we're not even "shut down" - asking people to stay home as much as possible and take precautions, and shutting down a few high risk businesses - that isn't "shutting down the whole country."

From a nurse in the Tricities. @oops, @taxme, @OftenWrong - she's talking to you.

Well, Oops, let me explain like you are five: Imagine a bathtub with the drain left open, and the tap running. If the tap is running faster than the drain, eventually the bathtub will fill up and then overflow. Only by turning the tap down can we prevent the tub from filling and overflowing. Right now, our hospitals are like that bathtub, the increasing infections are the tap and the people who recover or die are the drain. Dr. Henry is trying to slow that "tap" of increasing infections down so that the "tub" of our hospital beds do not become full or overflowing. Most people in BC understand and support that goal. Maybe you could too.

Yes, the US will pay $2 Billion (iirc) for the developed vaccine. That is not the same as providing money for its development.

The Democrats called for volunteers to do this, so yeah, I'm not surprised if these volunteers only called Democrats. In addition, voters themselves could track and cure their own ballots. I expect that your claim that poll workers only called Democrat voters is BS. Election officials were both democrat and republican and would be expected to carry out their duties in a bipartisan manner. Just because you can't imagine putting aside your own partisanship to ensure a fair election diesn't mean nobody can. And how dare Trump and his minions insult 10s of thousands of Americans by implying they lack respect for their own democratic institutions and are cheating en masse. You cultists get your panties in a bunch and cry big tears if someone mentions "White males" in anything but glowing terms, but happily claim and assume that Democrats are cheating by the thousands. If Republicans didn't mobilize volunteers to ensure Republican voters cured their ballots and Republican voters didn't try to cure their own ballots, that's on Republicans. Trying to blame somebody else for own failure doesn't mean it wasn't a fair election.

Those polls also say that immigrants believe its very important to accept and exhibit Canadian culture and values. One of those values is freedom to dress how one wishes.

Republicans had the opportunity; they didn't take it. That's on them.

Pffft. Politicing the seriousness of the virus and the efficacy of masks and shutdowns has resulted in 10s of thousands of deaths. You have no high ground here. Especially as giving credit where credit is due doesn't politicize anything; it just keeps Trump's lies in the forefront.

Or logic or common sense, far as I can tell.

Your cherry picking is ok, Marroc's is not. Anyway, this just proves what I've been saying for years - people take what they like from their holy books. You like the parts that describe Islam as warlike, misogynistic and barbaric. Others like the parts that describe Islam as peaceful, tolerant and loving.