Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At It

[alfablue]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Michael Osterholm from the University of Minnesota was on MSNBC today and basically told the public to stop kidding themselves about masks helping to protect them or others.

Based on what science? I've seen other papers that do say they help- and even at 50% efficiency, that's better than 0, especially when you are just trying to keep the exposure low enough to prevent it from getting bad in your body.

Need real science to back up that opinion vs what is out there right now.

Otherwise why would doctors need masks if they don't help?

[SJHovey]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Based on what science? I've seen other papers that do say they help- and even at 50% efficiency, that's better than 0, especially when you are just trying to keep the exposure low enough to prevent it from getting bad in your body.

Need real science to back up that opinion vs what is out there right now.

Otherwise why would doctors need masks if they don't help?

He didn't clarify in the clip that I saw, but I have to believe he is talking about the cheap paper masks everyone is wearing, or the homemade stuff. I have to believe that legit masks have some benefit, but you don't see a lot of people walking around with the top quality stuff.

Osterholm is a legit epidemiologist. He speaks candidly, and he is certainly no friend of Trump or the current administration. But he's been pretty up front from way back in February and March that there are really only two outcomes. We either get a vaccine or we develop herd immunity. He has also repeatedly said that we can have everyone stay at home for 18 months, but that is simply unrealistic in his opinion.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Michael Osterholm from the University of Minnesota was on MSNBC today and basically told the public to stop kidding themselves about masks helping to protect them or others.

Your post lacks context.

"If we don't lock things down until we have a vaccine and treat this as the threat it really is, the public needs to stop kidding themselves that masks will work long term."
is very different than
"Masks don't work!"

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Haven't seen the clip, but I wonder if he is talking about people taking the misguided interpretation that wearing a mask will prevent them from getting the virus vs. just reducing the chances and/or viral load?

[SJHovey]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Your post lacks context.

"If we don't lock things down until we have a vaccine and treat this as the threat it really is, the public needs to stop kidding themselves that masks will work long term."
is very different than
"Masks don't work!"

Didn't he go on to talk about that all of the evidence of mask use in 1918 showed no signs of any help, and that the use during this pandemic in China has not shown to be effective?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Haven't seen the clip, but I wonder if he is talking about people taking the misguided interpretation that wearing a mask will prevent them from getting the virus vs. just reducing the chances and/or viral load?

I think you're right.

There are a million variables with COVID. How much viral exposure have you had? That's a function of how much time you've spent in a room with the virus, how protected you are, etc.. Which are functions of how many people are infected, how much they're using source control, how much social distancing is enforced, etc.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Didn't he go on to talk about that all of the evidence of mask use in 1918 showed no signs of any help, and that the use during this pandemic in China has not shown to be effective?

No idea, but I concur with the following posts:

White House is recruiting doctors who agree with their reopen strategy

I trust osterholm, but some very recent peer review studies are saying they do help.

Based on what science? I've seen other papers that do say they help- and even at 50% efficiency, that's better than 0, especially when you are just trying to keep the exposure low enough to prevent it from getting bad in your body.

Need real science to back up that opinion vs what is out there right now.

Otherwise why would doctors need masks if they don't help?

A quick search through The Lancet and some of the larger journals show a mixed bag on masks. But one article in a journal I read (looking for the link) essentially boiled down to "We don't know sh--t because everything up to this point didn't study what was actually needing study, wasn't crafted properly, doesn't apply because of reasons X/Y/Z, or was faulty.

The big takeaway for me was most decent studies have really only looked at this in a healthcare setting (should nurses always wear masks). We've never had well-run studies that look into pandemic-setting, universal masking.

[SJHovey]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Michael Osterholm from the University of Minnesota was on MSNBC today and basically told the public to stop kidding themselves about masks helping to protect them or others.

Your post lacks context.

"If we don't lock things down until we have a vaccine and treat this as the threat it really is, the public needs to stop kidding themselves that masks will work long term."
is very different than
"Masks don't work!"

By the way, isn't that pretty much what I wrote? Yeah, I didn't recall that he said "long term" and in fact I'd have to go and track down a clip of it to see if in fact that he said that, but I'll believe you.

But in support of his statement he went on to reference the 1918 pandemic, and the extensive use by the Chinese with little effect, and I don't recall him saying anything favorable about the public wearing masks on a short term basis or otherwise during that piece.

[burd]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Given that opinion, I wonder what he thinks about relaxing social distancing in Mn.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

By the way, isn't that pretty much what I wrote? Yeah, I didn't recall that he said "long term" and in fact I'd have to go and track down a clip of it to see if in fact that he said that, but I'll believe you.

But in support of his statement he went on to reference the 1918 pandemic, and the extensive use by the Chinese with little effect, and I don't recall him saying anything favorable about the public wearing masks on a short term basis or otherwise during that piece.

This doesn't seem to be backed up by the research easily found in credible journals as recently as April and May.

I'm not sure I would really trust PPE testing data from 102 years ago. Imagine someone saying "Bulletproof vests in WWI shown to be ineffective, therefore modern vests aren't useful". You know what, I might still put that scrap piece of plate steel between me and a gun if I had a chance tomorrow.

I just have to imagine that discussions of PPE from 20 years after the concept of a virus was first discovered aren't great in comparison to today's understanding of modes of transmission and infection. Hell, the PCR reaction wasn't even invented until 1983; not testing, the reaction. 20 years is a lifetime when it comes to science. 100 years might as well be a billion.

[alfablue]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

He didn't clarify in the clip that I saw, but I have to believe he is talking about the cheap paper masks everyone is wearing, or the homemade stuff. I have to believe that legit masks have some benefit, but you don't see a lot of people walking around with the top quality stuff.

Osterholm is a legit epidemiologist. He speaks candidly, and he is certainly no friend of Trump or the current administration. But he's been pretty up front from way back in February and March that there are really only two outcomes. We either get a vaccine or we develop herd immunity. He has also repeatedly said that we can have everyone stay at home for 18 months, but that is simply unrealistic in his opinion.

Before I agree with him, he needs to produce data to show they are not effective. Again, there IS data showing they are. Including the home made cloth ones. When added to distancing, they add to effectiveness. Not a replacement for distancing- but I think an effective addition to those who think this is all BS.

And I'm not sure why he thinks everyone need to get it- again, the models are pretty clear that the percentages change with preventative measures in terms of what herd immunity means. Which makes sense when you look at antibody distribution when cases have dropped to almost zero- I have yet to see any data to suggest that more than 2% of the population has been exposed enough to have antibodies.

Data. Need it. I have no idea who he is, and regardless of what cred some of you give him, the fact that his advice is counter to data means he needs data to back up his opinion.

[SJHovey]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Given that opinion, I wonder what he thinks about relaxing social distancing in Mn.

I didn't see the whole interview, but if he commented on it, I suspect he'd say that that social distancing has some, but limited value. He seems to be of the opinion that with respect to this virus, nature will find a way.

I've had this debate here with others, and I'm not interested in reprising it because it serves no purpose except to get people upset, but I tend to think that short of just sticking everyone in a plastic bubble for six months, the virus is here and it has too many avenues to pursue at this point. Once enough people have had it, it'll be harder for the virus to find new hosts. But we aren't at that point yet.

Lock the oldsters and those at risk up in the plastic bubbles, because they are most likely to die.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Before I agree with him, he needs to produce data to show they are not effective. Again, there IS data showing they are. Including the home made cloth ones. When added to distancing, they add to effectiveness. Not a replacement for distancing- but I think an effective addition to those who think this is all BS.

And I'm not sure why he thinks everyone need to get it- again, the models are pretty clear that the percentages change with preventative measures in terms of what herd immunity means. Which makes sense when you look at antibody distribution when cases have dropped to almost zero- I have yet to see any data to suggest that more than 2% of the population has been exposed enough to have antibodies.

Data. Need it. I have no idea who he is, and regardless of what cred some of you give him, the fact that his advice is counter to data means he needs data to back up his opinion.

He's one of the nation's experts on this. My brother studied directly under him at the U. Osterholm is the real deal. It's why I'm very much of two minds on this.

I acknowledge he's the expert, but it just doesn't jive with fresh research studying this specific practice in context.

[SJHovey]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

This doesn't seem to be backed up by the research easily found in credible journals as recently as April and May.

I'm not sure I would really trust PPE testing data from 102 years ago. Imagine someone saying "Bulletproof vests in WWI shown to be ineffective, therefore modern vests aren't useful". You know what, I might still put that scrap piece of plate steel between me and a gun if I had a chance tomorrow.

I just have to imagine that discussions of PPE from 20 years after the concept of a virus was first discovered aren't great in comparison to today's understanding of modes of transmission and infection. Hell, the PCR reaction wasn't even invented until 1983; not testing, the reaction. 20 years is a lifetime when it comes to science. 100 years might as well be a billion.

That may be true, I don't know.

On the other hand, they were using paper and cloth masks in 1918, and that's pretty much what I see everyone using at the grocery store today.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

I didn't see the whole interview, but if he commented on it, I suspect he'd say that that social distancing has some, but limited value. He seems to be of the opinion that with respect to this virus, nature will find a way.

I've had this debate here with others, and I'm not interested in reprising it because it serves no purpose except to get people upset, but I tend to think that short of just sticking everyone in a plastic bubble for six months, the virus is here and it has too many avenues to pursue at this point. Once enough people have had it, it'll be harder for the virus to find new hosts. But we aren't at that point yet.

Lock the oldsters and those at risk up in the plastic bubbles, because they are most likely to die.

We don't know anything about any acquired immunity. And we won't until we start doing controlled research into people who are reinfected. And that's only going to be done in a completely uncontrolled environment with too many unknowns until we get enough people who have recovered to study.

We're also finding this virus does some pretty terrifying things to people with significant post-infection recovery. We're finding all sorts of things like increased risk of clotting and strokes. We're seeing new inflammatory syndromes start to surface. We don't know if this thing is like polio with a lifetime of complications or the flu where you have specific risk factors like Reye Syndrome.