The Science is Conclusive

[Actor]

Originally Posted by hcap

Hey bunky youn outdid yourself. Your articled is from Signs of the Times.

Signs of the Times is a monthly magazine originally published by Pacific Press, a Seventh-day Adventist publishing house. Signs presents articles that are considered to be helpful in assisting readers to live in modern society. The magazine focuses on life's-style issues, health articles and Christian devotional and other religious articles. From its historical roots, the magazine emphasizes the second coming of Christ to this earth and living such lives so as to be able to meet Jesus at His second coming.
.................................................. ...

Out of curiosity is this "study" reviewed by any scientific organizations. Ya know like those respected peer-reviewed journals, other than those waiting for the second coming?:ro lleyes:

Thanks for doing the research.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There are numerous medical authorities, outside of the article, who would find themselves in full agreement with its findings. You did notice that there are numerous medical organizations involved in the article, right?

This so-caalled study was not done by a medical professional. Rather asn ex-phisics professor with credibility issues.

Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. Rancourt is a recognized scientist but is more widely known for his confrontations with his former employer, the University of Ottawa, over issues involving his grade inflation and "academic squatting," the act of arbitrarily changing the topic of a course without departmental permission.[1][2]

Furthermore, he opines on "Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease, and why masks do not work"

Fine, but his editorialized conclusion is not unanimous. His "paper" is not an original research study, but a compilation of previous studies cherry picked to back fit his conclusion.

It is not conclusive nor unanimous. Far from it!

.........................................

Just how effective are masks at stopping coronavirus? Here's what new research says....June 16, 2020

https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief.../16/mask-covid

For instance, a study published Thursday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) found that requiring people to wear masks in epicenters of new coronavirus cases may have prevented tens of thousands of infections from the virus.

For the study, researchers examined how the new coronavirus is transmitted by reviewing infection trends in Wuhan, China; Italy; and New York City—all of which were early epicenters of the virus' transmission. The researchers also observed the precautions implicated to curb the virus' spread in those epicenters and compared the rates of coronavirus infection in Italy and New York City before and after rules regarding face masks and covering were put in place.
.................................................. .....
Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857
We have elucidated the transmission pathways of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by analyzing the trend and mitigation measures in the three epicenters. Our results show that the airborne transmission route is highly virulent and dominant for the spread of COVID-19. The mitigation measures are discernable from the trends of the pandemic. Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic. This protective measure significantly reduces the number of infections. Other mitigation measures, such as social distancing implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public. Our work also highlights the necessity that sound science is essential in decision-making for the current and future public health pandemics.
.................................................. ...................

Pleased Stay away from science and save us your monumental dribble.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

Thanks for doing the research.

Easy enough. I am used to fact-checking him.

As you notice in my latest post, there is much more to this charade box is so famous for, proclaiming "high and mighty" unsupported opinions.

[pandy]

Good article on masks, with the science before the scientists decided to change it to fit the narrative. The only masks that do any good are N95, which no one in the public wears. The virus is 0.125 micrometers and goes through cloth masks.


https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/?f...j9reomTlGIaZrA

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

This so-caalled study was not done by a medical professional. Rather asn ex-phisics professor with credibility issues.

Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. Rancourt is a recognized scientist but is more widely known for his confrontations with his former employer, the University of Ottawa, over issues involving his grade inflation and "academic squatting," the act of arbitrarily changing the topic of a course without departmental permission.[1][2]

Furthermore, he opines on "Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease, and why masks do not work"

Fine, but his editorialized conclusion is not unanimous. His "paper" is not an original research study, but a compilation of previous studies cherry picked to back fit his conclusion.

It is not conclusive nor unanimous. Far from it!

.........................................

Just how effective are masks at stopping coronavirus? Here's what new research says....June 16, 2020

https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief.../16/mask-covid

For instance, a study published Thursday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) found that requiring people to wear masks in epicenters of new coronavirus cases may have prevented tens of thousands of infections from the virus.

For the study, researchers examined how the new coronavirus is transmitted by reviewing infection trends in Wuhan, China; Italy; and New York City—all of which were early epicenters of the virus' transmission. The researchers also observed the precautions implicated to curb the virus' spread in those epicenters and compared the rates of coronavirus infection in Italy and New York City before and after rules regarding face masks and covering were put in place.
.................................................. .....
Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857
We have elucidated the transmission pathways of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by analyzing the trend and mitigation measures in the three epicenters. Our results show that the airborne transmission route is highly virulent and dominant for the spread of COVID-19. The mitigation measures are discernable from the trends of the pandemic. Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic. This protective measure significantly reduces the number of infections. Other mitigation measures, such as social distancing implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public. Our work also highlights the necessity that sound science is essential in decision-making for the current and future public health pandemics.
.................................................. ...................

Pleased Stay away from science and save us your monumental dribble.

emphasis mine

[b]WHERE IS THE PROOF!!!???

Pandy is dead on the mark in his post. In fact, very, very early on I posted essentially the same thing about the only real protection would be N95 masks. I questioned from the very beginning the ass-backwards idea that mask-wearing was to protect other people! In fact, it was your bud Actor who questioned my premise so I had to beam up to him twice what the N95 mask was all about, and that N95s arel about protecting the wearer, which is logically how it should be!

The mere fact that the public is told basically to wear any ol' face covering -- scarfs, handkerchiefs, bandannas, shirts, any ol' "medical" mask, etc. should tell any critical thinking person that mask mandates across the country are a total charade. "Sound science" indeed...

Also if masks are the critical mitigating determinant, then why is social distancing necessary?

Critical thought was never your strong suit.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by pandy

Good article on masks, with the science before the scientists decided to change it to fit the narrative. The only masks that do any good are N95, which no one in the public wears. The virus is 0.125 micrometers and goes through cloth masks.


https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/?f...j9reomTlGIaZrA

Which scientists changed which facts? Did you read the article I just posted from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? (PNAS)

Masks also protect unaffected individuals from the infected wearing them

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857

This protective measure significantly reduces the number of infections. Other mitigation measures, such as social distancing implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public. Our work also highlights the necessity that sound science is essential in decision-making for the current and future public health pandemics.

All facial coverings interfere with airborne droplets, and yes N95 respirators are by far the best in protecting someone FROM the virus, and originally when scientific organizations considered that, there was a huge shortage of those masks. No longer

Scientific recommendations change as new data is uncovered.

[davew]

HCAP, is the person running WHO a 'medical professional'?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

emphasis mine

[b]WHERE IS THE PROOF!!!???

Pandy is dead on the mark in his post. In fact, very, very early on I posted essentially the same thing about the only real protection would be N95 masks. I questioned from the very beginning the ass-backwards idea that mask-wearing was to protect other people! In fact, it was your bud Actor who questioned my premise so I had to beam up to him twice what the N95 mask was all about, and that N95s arel about protecting the wearer, which is logically how it should be! are superior, but the overall contagion number the Ro

The mere fact that the public is told basically to wear any ol' face covering -- scarfs, handkerchiefs, bandannas, shirts, any ol' "medical" mask, etc. should tell any critical thinking person that mask mandates across the country are a total charade. "Sound science" indeed...

Also if masks are the critical mitigating determinant, then why is social distancing necessary?

Critical thought was never your strong suit.

Where is the proof of your "paper" in the Christian 7th day Adventist mag?

There is such a thing as expertise, and since none of us are experts in the details of epidemiology, one must know who the experts are. Contrary to your claim that scientists are pulling a fast one on you, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is a pretty good source for expertise, a bit better than your ex physics professor cherry picking data in a non peer-reviewed publication.

Originally Posted by You

The mere fact that the public is told basically to wear any ol' face covering -- scarfs, handkerchiefs, bandannas, shirts, any ol' "medical" mask, etc. should tell any critical thinking person that mask mandates across the country are a total charade. "Sound science" indeed...

Also if masks are the critical mitigating determinant, then why is social distancing necessary? Please read the article I just posted.

From the CDC 3 days ago...

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...-guidance.html

Cloth face coverings are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the cloth face covering coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control.

Masks are only one of the measures needed to slow community spread, particularly in epicenters, and perhaps the least of a burden.

All facial coverings interfere with air droplets exhaled, sneezed and emitted by the wearer, reducing transference from the infected to the uninfected to varying degrees.

As we know, N95 are superior, but any lowering the Ro number (the contagion number), reduces community spread. Each mitigation measure is only part of what is needed to accomplish part of the task of slowing the contagion. Lock downs being the most effective, but the most extreme. In lieu of a vaccine, any mitigation reducing the spread should be used and masks the one that produce only an inconvenience.
.................................................. ..............................................
Agasin, from the PNAS article, study was done in the environment of epicenters.. If you like, the closest study to n on the ground "field test"

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857#sec-2

We quantified the effects of face covering by projecting the number of infections based on the data prior to implementing the use of face masks in Italy on April 6 and NYC on April 17 (Fig. 2A; see Methods). Such projections are reasonable considering the excellent linear correlation for the data prior to the onset of mandated face covering (Fig. 2 B and C and SI Appendix, Fig. S1). Our analysis indicates that face covering reduced the number of infections by over 78,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and by over 66,000 in NYC from April 17 to May 9. In addition, varying the correlation from 15 d to 30 d prior to the onset of the implementation reveals little difference in the projection for both places, because of the high correlation coefficients

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

Which scientists changed which facts? Did you read the article I just posted from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? (PNAS)

Masks also protect unaffected individuals from the infected wearing them

All facial coverings interfere with airborne droplets, and yes N95 respirators are by far the best in protecting someone FROM the virus, and originally when scientific organizations considered that, there was a huge shortage of those masks. No longer

Scientific recommendations change as new data is uncovered.

It's 2020. How can SCIENCE not know the SCIENCE behind masks and viruses?

If there is still debate on MASKS...

YouTube

[hcap]

Originally Posted by davew

HCAP, is the person running WHO a 'medical professional'?

You are refering to olds recommendations by WHO. WE are speaking of recent studies that supersede the older ones.

That is usually how science works, even if it doesn't get it right initially.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by hcap

Which scientists changed which facts? Did you read the article I just posted from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? (PNAS)

Masks also protect unaffected individuals from the infected wearing them

All facial coverings interfere with airborne droplets, and yes N95 respirators are by far the best in protecting someone FROM the virus, and originally when scientific organizations considered that, there was a huge shortage of those masks. No longer

Scientific recommendations change as new data is uncovered.

New data was not uncovered. Mask technology and science hasn’t changed in decades. Pre epidemic, both the CDC and SG discussed the limitations of masks, but once they found out it was a visual representation of control of the public at large, the “science” changed. Masks are nearly useless. Social distance and wash your hands and don’t touch your face. Masks are 4th.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

It's 2020. How can SCIENCE not know the SCIENCE behind masks and viruses?

If there is still debate on MASKS...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqnTcQJn-is

I am not denying they got it wrong originally.

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are refering to olds recommendations by WHO. WE are speaking of recent studies that supersede the older ones.

That is usually how science works, even if it doesn't get it right initially.

I should have been more specific for you. I was referring to a person not a 'study'. I am sorry you could not interpret my question. Does Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization qualify as a 'medical professional'? and if so, why?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by tucker6

New data was not uncovered. Mask technology and science hasn’t changed in decades. Pre epidemic, both the CDC and SG discussed the limitations of masks, but once they found out it was a visual representation of control of the public at large, the “science” changed. Masks are nearly useless. Social distance and wash your hands and don’t touch your face. Masks are 4th.

Did yo read the article from

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857#sec-2

Evidently The National Academy of Sciences, and the CDC gathered new data.

The new guidelines were devised after WHO officials reviewed information from researchers at Stanford and elsewhere about the ability of cloth masks to slow the spread of the disease. The revised recommendations more closely echo those of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which since early April has recommended cloth masks in public settings where social distancing is difficult to maintain.

Or are they all lying to you as well as boxcar?

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by davew

I should have been more specific for you. I was referring to a person not a 'study'. I am sorry you could not interpret my question. Does Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization qualify as a 'medical professional'? and if so, why?

Stop. You’re confusing him with facts.