# Letter to Dr Bonnie health minister of BC from dr Stephen Malthouse is a must read



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

Open Letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry from Dr. Stephen Malthouse - Easton Spectator


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Is that sound we don't hear crickets or cognitive dissonance? A Canadian doctor of 40 years' experience questions the Covid narrative and the response is - nothing. It should at least call for a little discussion. To get the ball rolling, I think she is right.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

By "she is right" we are talking about Dr. Bonnie. That letter was a lot of garbage. He should be ashamed of himself for writing it. Amazing that a person with his low level of IQ could obtain an MD. I guess if you study enough anything is possible. Good for him.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

1. There are valid criticisms and we have to carefully consider the costs of an extended lockdown vs the anticipated benefits.
2. Putting apparently false claims in the letter is a bad idea. "The epidemiological evidence clearly shows that the “pandemic” is over and no second wave will follow. The evidence has been available for at least 4-5 months and is irrefutable." The second wave was clearly ramping up when this letter was published. 
Even if the second wave isn't coming here, most people look at the data and from a simple analysis see a second wave. Stating the opposite, even if technically true, hurts your own credibility.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Haha...priceless reaction...crickets...(other than a poster calling the MD "low IQ").

The Doc is obviously not alone...many other medical professionals have similar views 

(https://usforthem.co.uk/open-letter-from-health-professionals-and-scientists-to-the-prime-minister 
and 
German Doctors Write Letter To Chancellor Merkel - Mark Taliano 
is just two of thousands) and have suffered criticism at the hands of political dolts and maskholes.

As for Dr Henry...she agrees with much this letter states but needs to console and pacify the terrified Lower Mainland sheep


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> Haha...priceless reaction...crickets...(other than a poster calling the MD "low IQ").
> 
> The Doc is obviously not alone...many other medical professionals have similar views and have suffered criticism at the hands of political dolts and maskholes.


Well, that's a common thing with Authoritarians, they question the authority, not the logic of the argument.

But if you're argument is "I'm a doctor and there is no second wave.." well I stopped reading at that point.
I don't automatically cede to authority, but if you're spouting crap, you're not worth listening to anyway.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

I doubt I'll get any opposing arguments because I'll end up hearing crickets, but let's get a few things out of the way before addressing some of the points:

1. This is a family practitioner, someone who has no expertise in infectious diseases, or research;
2. The above is obvious considering that he doesn't provide any evidence from actual medical papers. In fact when you dig into one that leads to a medical paper, it looks like it was never published, and I'm sure there's a reason for it;
3. Obviously this letter doesn't reflect reality since it's a month old.

But let's look at his arguments:

1. Pandemic is over and no second wave? Even at the time of the letter, cases were climbing higher than the first wave in B.C.: Experience
2. Sweden? from October to now, the number of infected has increased 50%. Total deaths are relatively low, but they are starting to increase. Sweden Coronavirus: 146,461 Cases and 6,022 Deaths - Worldometer
3. Definition of case. I'm fine with giving the point that because someone tests positive with the PCR procedure may not have the viral load to exhibit full-blown COVID; however, that doesn't negate the fact that the person encountered someone who carried the virus and this can be used as a way to track the spread.
4. Hospital bed occupancy. Possibly, but they've freed up more beds and created space in anticipation of a sudden surge. It would be pretty poor planning to go for 90+% utilization when you anticipate a surge that may require another 20% bed spaces. B.C.’s hospitals still have thousands of empty beds in case of COVID surge - Victoria News
5. He talks about children being psychological scarred and feeling shame about wearing masks... no evidence, just states it.

All in all, it is evident that regardless if he is a good family practitioner, he lacks any understanding of the situation.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> But let's look at his arguments:
> 
> 5. He talks about children being psychological scarred and feeling shame about wearing masks... no evidence, just states it.
> 
> All in all, it is evident that regardless if he is a good family practitioner, he lacks any understanding of the situation.


kids feel no shame for wearing masks, it's normal to them.
When they see people NOT wearing masks, they look curiously and wonder what's "wrong" with them.

Very well indoctrinated (threw that in for the conspiracy nuts)

As I explained to my kids.
1. Wearing a mask is a "low cost" endeavour.
2. Assuming COVID19 is around, it should help keep people safer, and we don't know if people have COVID19 or not.
3. Even if COVID19 is NOT around, it will make other people feel better, so it's a common courtesy.

If they see someone ranting, they simply conclude that person is at best misinformed and inconsiderate, which is forgivable.


----------



## potato69 (Mar 21, 2018)

This is a lot that is wrong in that article - here's one: Sweden ended up with almost exactly the same level of economic damage but sacrificed a lot of people to do that. I would argue - not even close to worth it.









Sweden’s grim Covid-19 result: More death and nearly equal economic damage


The outcome of Sweden’s controversial coronavirus stance has implications for other countries




www.irishtimes.com


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

potato69 said:


> This is a lot that is wrong in that article - here's one: Sweden ended up with almost exactly the same level of economic damage but sacrificed a lot of people to do that. I would argue - not even close
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Comment from Sweden | Armstrong Economics


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Sweden is getting a 2nd wave lately not unlike most of the legit world...~4k cases/day. The fact that they are not much different than other countries does put lock downs & masks under a dubious light.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

People like using Sweden as a case for no lock-down, but seem to ignore some of the realities:
1. Economic hit: If we use GDP growth in 2020 as an indicator, it looks like Sweden did better than Canada (-4.7% vs -7.1%), but Norway going to full lockdown had a -2.8% growth while even the USA had a -4.3%. So that doesn't look like a real winner indicator. Maybe use unemployment? Sweden did worse than Canada (slightly 9.0% vs 8.9%), with Norway at 5.3% and US at 7.9%. Not exactly a rousing argument for following Sweden, in fact, if we are going to pick a country, why not chose Norway which did the best of the four?
2. Cases/Death per capita: So if we're balancing economy vs infection and death per 100k, we have Sweden with 1438 cases and 59 vs Canada at 734 and 29. Norway had 477 and 5, while the US had 3,090 and 73.

Basically we have half the cases and deaths at the cost of -2.4% difference in GDP growth. I would think that would be a fair trade. 

The other thing is the fact that we have to consider other factors that are actually in Sweden's favour (while this is for the US, it is applicable to Canada):
1. Population density: You're going to have outbreaks in more densely populated centers. Stockholm is Sweden's largest city at 1.5M people and the second is Gothenburg near 600k. Compared to Canada, that would be the 4th and 10th largest cities. 
2. Household size: When you start having more people living together, you're going to have more transmission and a higher infection rate, 52% of Swedish households are one person, in Canada? 14%.
3. Pre-existing conditions: Canada has a higher obesity rate with 28.1% vs 13%.

All to say that trying to follow Sweden's model would make the situation significantly worse in Canada because they are already doing worse than we are, and they have certain factors in their favour.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> As I explained to my kids.
> 1. Wearing a mask is a "low cost" endeavour.
> 2. Assuming COVID19 is around, it should help keep people safer, and we don't know if people have COVID19 or not.
> 3. Even if COVID19 is NOT around, it will make other people feel better, so it's a common courtesy.
> ...


MrMatt all kids need to be taught how to hide under desks for when we are attacked with atomic bombs.
Mainstream media as well as some on this forum always cuts down the unmasked.

The real truth is

Order followers are misinformed & inconsiderate putting others @ risk.
Conditioning the masses
warning face mask required for entry,
warning vaccine required for entry,
warning implanted Certificate Of Vaccination ID required for entry

Wearing masks sends the message that the mask wearer is a sheep trusts in government turns off his mind & deprives his mind of oxygen. Order followers of dictators are still more dangerous then any virus.

They are locking up people that are not even sick, Wearing a mask shows the dictators you believe in their BS

Those that give up freedom & liberty for a bit of safety deserve neither safety or freedom. Remembrance day will soon be upon us, Will the order followers get the hint that those that follow order of dictators cause a lot more death then any virus. Again it will be those that do not follow orders that will have to put their life @ risk fighting for freedom.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I was amused yesterday, while delivering a sample to the lab in the Penticton hospital I noticed there was no mandatory mask requirements...of course I'm sure this hospital is a science denier while WalMart remains cutting edge.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Eder said:


> I was amused yesterday, while delivering a sample to the lab in the Penticton hospital I noticed there was no mandatory mask requirements...of course I'm sure this hospital is a science denier while WalMart remains cutting edge.


I guess they were not following the provincial guidelines for some reason. Maybe you should report them.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/masks-health-care-facilities-bc-now-mandatory-1.5793478


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

So far no one in this thread has criticized the good doctor's view on collateral damage. 
Also no one has opposed his view on Vitamin D.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Pluto said:


> Also no one has opposed his view on Vitamin D.


Not sure there is anything specific about vitamin D for covid. If people were not taking care of themselves before (proper nutrition / exercise) you think adding a single push for vitamin D is really going to help? Sure, it may help the companies making suppliments but that's about it. Most people had a vitamin D deficiency long before covid, don't really see that changing ...

On a side note, I'm a daily milk drinker so my vitamin D levels are taken care of for the winter months.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

other items the doctor mentioned are,
The median death rate related to covid 19 is age 85. 
The elderly don't respond to vaccines very well so they won't be helped much if at all by a vaccine. 
The death rate has not gone up proportional to increase in "cases" based on a "test" that generates more than 50% false positives. Death rate is close to zero now, so his claim there is no pandemic is based on that, not on "cases" based on a flawed test.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Spudd said:


> I guess they were not following the provincial guidelines for some reason. Maybe you should report them.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/masks-health-care-facilities-bc-now-mandatory-1.5793478


 ... and hard to believe that there is no mandatory mask requirements of the "public" for a "hospital" (in Canada). And for anyone to be a 'sheep' to those maskless/anti-maskers when visiting a healthcare facility.

Here's that hospital's website: Visitor information | COVID-19 | Interior Health
and it states the "requirements"



> What can you expect at an essential visit?


_Essential visitors are screened prior to every visit and must meet these requirements:_


_No sickness or symptoms of COVID-19_
_Not tested positive for COVID-19 or been in contact with a person infected with COVID-19 in the past 14 days._
_Perform hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette, and physical distancing, as instructed._
_*Take on and off any required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), as instructed.*_
_Go directly to the patient’s location and exit the site directly after the visit._
_*Please bring and wear a clean, non-medical face mask or covering in our facilities when unable to maintain a physical distance of two metres.*_
_If you need assistance or have concerns please contact the number listed on the Visitor Policy posted at hospital entrances._ [/QUOTE]


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

cainvest said:


> Most people had a vitamin D deficiency long before covid, don't really see that changing ...


That's the point. Not likely to change because it isn't given the credibility it should be given. Most Canadians are deficient in D from fall to spring. Plus it is cheap.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Add to above: It would seem residents around Penctition are non-chalant about Covid19.

Here in Ontario or specifically in Toronto, if you need to visit the hospital because you have an appointment, the patient needs to fill and submit a pre-screening form prior to the visit. Then at the door of the visiting hospital, submit to another questionnaire plus a temperature check. This is in addition to an automatic expected mask/ face covering.

For a lab test outside the hospital, same thing and more .. you would need to get a "PASS" sticker (ie. pass the screening) and then told to wait in line "outside" for your turn to be called into the facility. Be prepared for a 2 hours visit to get a simple blood test or don't bother going. And then there're those ignorants who think wearing a mask is too much to ask for.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Pluto said:


> other items the doctor mentioned are,
> The median death rate related to covid 19 is age 85.
> The elderly don't respond to vaccines very well so they won't be helped much if at all by a vaccine.
> The death rate has not gone up proportional to increase in "cases" based on a "test" that generates more than 50% false positives. Death rate is close to zero now, so his claim there is no pandemic is based on that, not on "cases" based on a flawed test.


These are all related. You are aware of the whole herd immunity right? Those who become vaccinated will reduce the chance of being infected and carriers of the disease. There are always some parts of the population who cannot be vaccinated: compromised immune system or whatnot, so they will always be susceptible to the disease. By insuring that the vast majority of the population can't spread the disease through immunity (either by vaccination or being exposed and surviving), the more vulnerable population is protected. This would reduce the chances of these outbreaks we see in long-term care homes.
The death rate not going up is obvious with increased testing. It's simple numbers. That plus the fact that it's spreading among the less vulnerable population will reduce the death rate. But the more it spreads, the likelier it will spread to those who are vulnerable.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Pluto said:


> That's the point. Not likely to change because it isn't given the credibility it should be given. Most Canadians are deficient in D from fall to spring. Plus it is cheap.


Not sure I understand what your point is but I'll take a stab at it ... You're saying they should include vitamin D suppliments on the covid prevention list for all people in Canada?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Not sure I understand what your point is but I'll take a stab at it ... You're saying they should include vitamin D suppliments on the covid prevention list for all people in Canada?


You should consider vitamin D supplements (they're just drops) for almost everyone as it has lots of impacts and many of us are deficient.
We actually add it to milk (one common need for vitamin D is calcium absorbtion)








How Can I Get All the Vitamin D That I Need?


Do you know whether you need a supplement? Find out.



bcdairy.ca




.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Add to above: It would seem residents around Penctition are non-chalant about Covid19.


Nothing nonchalant about physical distancing which is enforced. Non medical masks are as usual debatable whether it helps or actually hinders & until proper tests are done it is merely a placebo.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> You should consider vitamin D supplements (they're just drops) for almost everyone as it has lots of impacts and many of us are deficient.
> We actually add it to milk (one common need for vitamin D is calcium absorbtion)
> 
> 
> ...


Milk already has vitamin D added ... no need to add more unless you don't drink enough.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Milk already has vitamin D added ... no need to add more unless you don't drink enough.


If you drink milk.
Many people don't drink milk.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

cainvest said:


> Not sure I understand what your point is but I'll take a stab at it ... You're saying they should include vitamin D suppliments on the covid prevention list for all people in Canada?


Reportedly that is true. Vitamin D is required for proper functioning of the immune system.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

bgc_fan said:


> The death rate not going up is obvious with increased testing. It's simple numbers.


The death rate is not in relation to "cases" it is in relation to the entire population. hence measurement of death rate is independent of "cases".
Reportedly there is a 99.7% recovery rate. Not exactly the Bubonic plague with a 50% death rate.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Pluto said:


> The death rate is not in relation to "cases" it is in relation to the entire population. hence measurement of death rate is independent of "cases".
> Reportedly there is a 99.7% recovery rate. Not exactly the Bubonic plague with a 50% death rate.


Regardless, as I mentioned before, it's spreading more among the less vulnerable. My point is, if it keeps spreading, eventually it will hit the vulnerable population again and then we'll see an increase.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Pluto said:


> The death rate is not in relation to "cases" it is in relation to the entire population. hence measurement of death rate is independent of "cases".
> Reportedly there is a 99.7% recovery rate. Not exactly the Bubonic plague with a 50% death rate.


Also we didn't test as many people, plus we killed off a lot of the old people already.
The death by age data is terrifying for old people.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eder said:


> Nothing nonchalant about physical distancing which is enforced.


 ... so how do you do physical distancing (let alone enforce) in a hospital, especially when a doctor needs to "examine a patient physically?" Or how about the lab technician who needs to take your blood?



> Non medical masks are as usual debatable whether it helps or actually hinders & until proper tests


 ... how does it hinder from your POV? Asphyxiate the user? Or just the inconvenience to anti-maskers? The arrogant defiance mindset.



> are done it is merely a placebo.


 ... a placebo for whom? The user?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> The death by age data is terrifying for old people.


Its a valid concern. I'm concerned about flu, pneumonia, covid 19 and numerous other diseases many old people have when they die.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Yes placebo for users, they feel in control of a virus that is not controlled by masks ...non medical masks become full of everything a user touches or is exposed to & possibly cause more infections than prevent. 
The use of masks seem to encourage users to ignore physical distancing as well as convincing symptomatic individuals that they have no need to isolate as "the mask" will provide protection. See it every day.
Hope & a prayer.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eder said:


> *Yes placebo for users, *they feel in control of a virus that is not controlled by masks ...non medical masks become full of everything a user touches or is exposed to & possibly cause more infections than prevent.
> *The use of masks seem to encourage users to ignore physical distancing *as well as convincing symptomatic individuals that they have no need to isolate as "the mask" will provide protection. See it every day.
> Hope & a prayer.


 ... typical mentality of anti-maskers ... the world revolves only "me, myself & I". We're in about 11 months of a pandemic ... I digress.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Eder said:


> Yes placebo for users, they feel in control of a virus that is not controlled by masks ...non medical masks become full of everything a user touches or is exposed to & possibly cause more infections than prevent.
> The use of masks seem to encourage users to ignore physical distancing as well as convincing symptomatic individuals that they have no need to isolate as "the mask" will provide protection. See it every day.
> Hope & a prayer.


Are you saying that we would have less infections and less deaths if mask wearing was discontinued by the general public?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... typical mentality of anti-maskers ... the world revolves only "me, myself & I". We're in about 11 months of a pandemic ... I digress.


Although you didn't ask but just assumed...yes I wear a mask.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> Are you saying that we would have less infections and less deaths if mask wearing was discontinued by the general public?


Possibly the wearing & trust we put into the use of non medical masks aggravate Covid transmission. My point is until proper studies on the use of non medical masks vs Covid no one knows...we just hope. 

We do know that extended exposure to Covid (~15 minutes) does result in transmission...putting a virus trap like a mask over the nose seems to perfectly fit this bill.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Eder said:


> Possibly the wearing & trust we put into the use of non medical masks aggravate Covid transmission. My point is until proper studies on the use of non medical masks vs Covid no one knows...we just hope.
> 
> We do know that extended exposure to Covid (~15 minutes) does result in transmission...putting a virus trap like a mask over the nose seems to perfectly fit this bill.


It's a lot more then hope. There have been various studies that show the benefits of masks, but more importantly, the common sense behind them is what drives the movement, in my opinion. In every risk you indicated, in your original comment, all could be prevented by simply stopping, or reducing the amount of, virus from coming out of someone's nose or mouth. In other words, if touching something contaminated and then touching the outside of your mask and then breathing in enough of the virus to make you sick, happens that much, it all would be prevented if the unmasked person did not contaminate that surface to begin with.

I am not saying a large group of our citizen's could not benefit from a course on proper mask wearing and what mask is better then others, but I can assure you, if we simply remove them from our faces, and expose the viruses largest entry and exit points for human transmission, the infection numbers will rise dramatically and worse the ICUs and deaths will explode from what we are seeing today.

A mask does not guarantee the prevention of infection. It can, but it's best use is to dramatically reduce the amount of virus coming towards your nose and mouth. Possibly a deadly amount. This goes a long way to preventing infection and more importantly reducing the numbers of dangerous infections.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> A mask does guarantee the prevention of infection. It can, but it's best use is to dramatically reduce the amount of virus coming towards your nose and mouth. Possibly a deadly amount. This goes a long way to preventing infection and more importantly reducing the numbers of dangerous infections.


I think you meant to say "a mask *doesn't* guarantee the prevention of infection". Also a mask's best use for the general public is to stop outgoing virus transmission, not incoming.

It's interesting that MB has had manditory indoor mask usage for over two weeks now and our numbers are still climbing. Even before manditory masks, many were wearing them in stores around here for weeks prior. Obviously hard to quantify but it appears the role of masks is fair less significant than other actions for containment.

Now that they've restricted social interactions for most acitivities we'll see how this plays out.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> I think you meant to say "a mask *doesn't* guarantee the prevention of infection". Also a mask's best use for the general public is to stop outgoing virus transmission, not incoming.
> 
> It's interesting that MB has had manditory indoor mask usage for over two weeks now and our numbers are still climbing. Even before manditory masks, many were wearing them in stores around here for weeks prior. Obviously hard to quantify but it appears the role of masks is fair less significant than other actions for containment.
> 
> Now that they've restricted social interactions for most acitivities we'll see how this plays out.


Yes. Thanks. A mask doesn't guarantee protection from infection. It can only reduce the amount of virus coming at you to a much smaller amount, which in itself can be life saving.

No doubt. Putting the mask on the sick person is way more important, but as you know, we rarely know who the sick person is. They are usually at home self-isolating if they are aware of the problem.

I would argue that it would be extremely difficult to get infected if both parties were wearing a mask. I mean lets face it. The virus entry and exit doors are all covered up. I am not saying it can never happen but we have to admit, it puts quite the obstacle in the way of a virus trying to make its move, and isn't that what we are really trying to do. Wreck a viruses day. Of course 6 feet apart or more, is better, but if that cannot be maintained, masks are vital to everyone's protection.

Lastly, you have to keep in mind that the biggest factor towards the transmission of the virus are the past infections, themselves. No one will ever get infected if no one around them is infected. So when you see infection numbers rising rapidly, most any precautions can do in the beginning, is just change the angle of upward trajectory to what will appear to be an almost unnoticeable amount. In other words, yesterdays infections are probably causing more negative problems, then today's mask wearing can overcome, in a short time period. Give it more time and masks will help a lot. It's is just common sense.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Yes. Thanks. A mask doesn't guarantee protection from infection. It can only reduce the amount of virus coming at you to a much smaller amount, which in itself can be life saving.


A mask my reduce it but I'd rather not focus on tiny percentage gains myself.



OptsyEagle said:


> No doubt. Putting the mask on the sick person is way more important, but as you know, we rarely know who the sick person is. They are usually at home self-isolating if they are aware of the problem.
> 
> I would argue that it would be extremely difficult to get infected if both parties were wearing a mask. I mean lets face it. The virus entry and exit doors are all covered up. I am not saying it can never happen but we have to admit, it puts quite the obstacle in the way of a virus trying to make its move, and isn't that what we are really trying to do. Wreck a viruses day. Of course 6 feet apart or more, is better, but if that cannot be maintained, masks are vital to everyone's protection.


You may consider it extremely diffcult if both are wearing masks but I surely don't. The numbers support that everyone wearing a mask isn't having any real effect here so now they've gone to isolating people again.



OptsyEagle said:


> Lastly, you have to keep in mind that the biggest factor towards the transmission of the virus are the past infections, themselves. No one will ever get infected if no one around them is infected. So when you see infection numbers rising rapidly, most any precautions can do in the beginning, is just change the angle of upward trajectory to what will appear to be an almost unnoticeable amount. In other words, yesterdays infections are probably causing more negative problems, then today's mask wearing can overcome, in a short time period. Give it more time and masks will help a lot. It's is just common sense.


That's why they wait a couple of incubation periods to adjust their course of action. They clearly saw masks and slightly small group sizes were not working so they've moved to increase isolation protocols.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> A mask my reduce it but I'd rather not focus on tiny percentage gains myself.


Not sure where you got "tiny percentage gains" from my post but most cotton masks should stop over 80% of the virus coming towards your face. That is a life savings percentage for many. If everyone in the hospital with Covid-19, only received 20% of the initial dose of the virus that they actually received, most would not be in the hospital right now. For most of the deaths it could have saved their life. I have no doubt about that. For the ones that still take care of themselves and are now dead. All I can say is that they F'd up.



cainvest said:


> You may consider it extremely difficult if both are wearing masks but I surely don't. The numbers support that everyone wearing a mask isn't having any real effect here so now they've gone to isolating people again.
> 
> That's why they wait a couple of incubation periods to adjust their course of action. They clearly saw masks and slightly small group sizes were not working so they've moved to increase isolation protocols.


Why are you blaming all the infections on people wearing masks. No one wears a mask 24 hrs a day. If everyone in the world wore a mask 24 hrs a day, this pandemic would be over in a month. That I am sure of. No one knows precisely where each infection occurs, but the probabilities would say that there were no masks on the people who were infected, that currently are very, very sick. Perhaps a small number of infections happened during the time that an uninfected person wearing a mask was near an infected person NOT wearing a mask, for too long of period of time. Even then it would most likely be a benign infection where the infected person did not get very sick. Probably asymptomatic infections for the most who were infected with a mask. They just can't receive enough dangerous virus through their masks, during short (few minutes) interactions with others, to give them a dose their bodies cannot fight off. There will be exceptions but the majority of humans are quite capable of neutralizing C-19 in small doses.

The above is common sense. Not sure why everyone wants to dispute it. When I trained in a microbiology lab we always wore a mask. I am pretty sure we knew what we were dealing with and masks were no more comfortable back then, then they are today. We also wore safety goggles, and if you ever touched your face, the teacher always made a big scene about it. It was known as being stupid. I took that away with me outside the lab as well. We had other safety precautions but those were the main ones that everyone can use to protect themselves.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eder said:


> Although you didn't ask but just assumed...yes I wear a mask.


 ... I didn't ask because I know you had to wear a mask in the hospital as per my post #20 so your assumption there that I assumed you didn't is considered incorrect.

Now outside of the hospital is a different story - so what's the point of your posts stating that masks are not proven or more studies are needed???? How many more months of the pandemic to you need for this "study"? And your statement that the mask is a "placebo for the user"? I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realize that use of a mask is not for preventing self-infection but to not infect others ...ie. everyone keeps the germs to themselves or to help stop the spread of the "infection". So our hospitals won't be overloaded. We all need to do our part.

And that the use of masks is only one of the protocol to prevent an infection ... there're at least 2 others - social distancing and washing/sanitizing hands.

I can't imagine how life will be for those who complain about the minor inconvenience of these protocols ... imagine that Covid19 was truly "airborne" or had anthrax or Ebola abilities ... everyone will be locked down or the need to wear a haz-mat suit ... there's no opportunity to whine there about having to wear a non-surgical mask or more studies required. Geesh.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

No one is whining. I'm just pointing out that the use of non medical masks has not been clinically proven to aid in the prevention of Covid infection, we only hope it helps. I previously pointed to 2 clinical studies that concluded wearing masks to prevent spread of influenza virus was ineffective.

Putting so much faith in non medical masks does encourage poor behaviour and subsequent virus spread. Distancing, sanitizing and most importantly isolating with any symptom does work.

Anyway if it keeps society from blowing a fuse I will continue to wear a glorified dust mask till I get my vaccine even though its benefits are dubious.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> No one is whining. I'm just pointing out that the use of non medical masks has not been clinically proven to aid in the prevention of Covid infection, we only hope it helps. I previously pointed to 2 clinical studies that concluded wearing masks to prevent spread of influenza virus was ineffective.
> 
> Putting so much faith in non medical masks does encourage poor behaviour and subsequent virus spread. Distancing, sanitizing and most importantly isolating with any symptom does work.
> 
> Anyway if it keeps society from blowing a fuse I will continue to wear a glorified dust mask till I get my vaccine even though its benefits are dubious.


Define "clinically proven"
They've done testing on various designs of masks, and which ones are effective.








UBC researchers run tests to find best materials and styles for face masks


New research from UBC finds that lightweight cotton mask with dried baby-wipe filter combines good filter quality and breathability.




www.med.ubc.ca





By some measures you could argue that handwashing hasn't been clinically proven to aid in the prevention of COVID19 infection. 

We know that many designs of non-medical masks reduce material transmission. It's a very logical extrapolation that if you reduce the exposure to infectious material, you reduce the transmission of the infection.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Eder said:


> No one is whining. I'm just pointing out that the use of non medical masks has not been clinically proven to aid in the prevention of Covid infection, we only hope it helps. I previously pointed to 2 clinical studies that concluded wearing masks to prevent spread of influenza virus was ineffective.
> 
> Putting so much faith in non medical masks does encourage poor behaviour and subsequent virus spread. Distancing, sanitizing and most importantly isolating with any symptom does work.
> 
> Anyway if it keeps society from blowing a fuse I will continue to wear a glorified dust mask till I get my vaccine even though its benefits are dubious.


I could post studies that say the opposite but we would be right back to where we are now. Nitpicking studies and ending without agreement. So I am just going to go with more common sense. Use it or not.

As for putting faith in masks and creating bad behavior. I can't speak for others, but in all my posts I try to inform people that a mask cannot keep all the virus out. If you can breathe through it, a virus can get through it, as well. That is not its benefit. If you took 10,000 covid-19 viruses, all standing on top of each other, they can all pass through a hole only 1mm in diameter. That is the bad news. The good news is that the fibres that surround those holes, that are required to allow air for breathing, should capture 80% and most probably 90% of the virus that would otherwise go directing into your mouth and nose. You may still get infected (if what gets through is above your infective dose) but your response to the infection will be much, much, much more successful because you reduced the dose of your infection to something most bodies can fight off on their own. That is all a mask can do, but that is all you really need it to do.

I will put it another way. The less virus you have inside your body, the better off you will be. Hopefully we agree on that. It takes so many viruses to kill a cell. It takes so many dead cells to kill a person. The less virus, the less dead cells. Now, how can something that is in front of your nose and mouth, NOT stop something that is a solid (virus)? If you attempt to run the math and compare the amount of open area between the cotton fibres of a mask, to the amount of area taken up by the fibres themselves, you will find that the fibres will almost always make up over 80% of the area of that mask. If you cannot see through the mask, it is probably makes up more area then that. How can all the virus get through an area that is covered in cotton fibres by over 80% of its area? They can't. Most virus will get stopped.

This is common sense.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Why are you blaming all the infections on people wearing masks. No one wears a mask 24 hrs a day. If everyone in the world wore a mask 24 hrs a day, this pandemic would be over in a month. That I am sure of.


Not blaming masks themselves, they can and do help but only to a small degree. To suggest masks could be a 100% solution in a month, like you state above, is highly misleading, dangerous and obviously not true.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> Not blaming masks themselves, they can and do help but only to a small degree. To suggest masks could be a 100% solution in a month, like you state above, is highly misleading, dangerous and obviously not true.


and how do you know that? Why is it not true? 

I recall the director of the CDC claiming that he thought masks were better then most vaccines. That was about a month ago. It can be googled.

IMO depending on the vaccine, he would be right.

Listen, if someone reading these posts believes that from my enthusiasm for their benefits, that a mask can somehow allow you to come into close contact with others as often as you like and for as long as you like, while being fully protected, then you read what I have said, all wrong. Please read it again and think about it for a few minutes to understand how it actually works.

For the person wearing the mask, they will likely reduce the size of your infection to a manageable amount, unless you have some compromised health issue. If both the infected and not infected are wearing a mask, it will be very difficult to get infected, but still not impossible. Don't risk it. Stay away from people when you can. When you can't, protect yourself with a mask.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> I will put it another way. The less virus you have inside your body, the better off you will be. Hopefully we agree on that. It takes so many viruses to kill a cell. It takes so many dead cells to kill a person. The less virus, the less dead cells.


Sure, a higher initial viral load will make it harder for your body to fight the virus but also remember everyone's immune system is different. The virus replicates itself inside the body but taking over certain cells so if your body is slow to react, as generally is the case with older people, the virus will replicate rapidly and spread.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> Sure, a higher initial viral load will make it harder for your body to fight the virus but also remember everyone's immune system is different. The virus replicates itself inside the body but taking over certain cells so if your body is slow to react, as generally is the case with older people, the virus will replicate rapidly and spread.


Precisely. Now take both groups of people you talk about above. Those that are very healthy and those that are much less healthy. How do either of those groups benefit with higher initial doses of covid-19. Don't you think both of those groups would have been MUCH better off if the starting amount of virus, that will grow, was of a much smaller amount from the beginning.

20 x 10 always ends up being a smaller number then 2000 x 10, no matter how many times you multiply them both by 10. The starting number, or as I say, the size of the initial dose of infection will make a big difference to your body's ability to fight it off.

Your body has one army, that we call your immune system. It abilities will not change. If it goes against a smaller enemy it might win, if the enemy force is too large, it will lose. Isn't that common sense.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> and how do you know that? Why is it not true?


It's obvious by the number of cases increasing even after manditory masks are required for multiple incubation periods.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Face masks do seem to slightly decrease the risk of spreading respiratory infections outside the household setting. However, it is questionable whether an intervention that only impacts one in 24 people, and that only decreases the relative risk of infection by 17%, is having a big enough effect to noticeably slow the speed at which a highly infectious disease like covid-19 spreads through a population.

Rather than require that everyone wear a mask at all times when out in public, it might make more sense to restrict mask use to specific situations, for example when interacting with high risk groups in nursing homes (and in those situations to combine the masks with face shields to create a maximally impervious barrier), especially considering that for people below the age of 70 who are otherwise healthy, the risks connected with covid are tiny.









Do face masks stop respiratory infections?


There has been controversy over whether face masks decrease the spread of respiratory infections during the covid-19 pandemic. Here's what the science says.




sebastianrushworth.com






*Conclusion* This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. 









Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public


Objective To determine the effect of mask use on viral respiratory infection risk. Data sources MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Study selection Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in at least 1 published systematic review comparing the use of masks with a control group, either in...




www.cfp.ca





I guess we need to wait till Dec 1 for an actual clinical trial with results from McMaster U









Medical Masks vs N95 Respirators for COVID-19 - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov


Medical Masks vs N95 Respirators for COVID-19 - Full Text View.




clinicaltrials.gov


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> It abilities will not change. If it goes against a smaller enemy it might win, if the enemy force is too large, it will lose. Isn't that common sense.


Yes, common sense BUT the best is to not engage the enemy at all right?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> *Conclusion* This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From your first link
"However, in the 2 trials that most closely aligned with mask use in real-life community settings, there was a significant risk reduction in influenzalike illness "


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I couldn't find the actual reduction but as a whole in 11 trials this conclusion was reached.

Overall, the use of masks in the community did not reduce the risk of influenza, confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenzalike illness, or any clinical respiratory infection

Anyway I hate pasting boring links all over this thread so I'll stop here.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> It's obvious by the number of cases increasing even after mandatory masks are required for multiple incubation periods.


I don't like stating the obvious, because it can annoy people...but...the biggest contributor to the spreading of the virus, into the future, will always be the number of infections, in the community, right now. One cannot be infected unless someone else is infected. If current infections get out of control to any degree, pre-cautions like masks and social distancing measures will take a lot longer to get things under control. Mainly because not everyone uses them all the time and in the proper way. Obviously if everyone stayed away from everyone, full control would happen by next week. But as we know, that is not going to happen nor has it ever.

I think you are taking the above problem, about too many infections currently in the community and putting the blame of more infections on mask wearing not helping. That would be wrong.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> Yes, common sense BUT the best is to not engage the enemy at all right?


Of course, but once the enemy is inside you, you will be engaging it whether you like it or not. If that happens, you will thank your lucky stars that you significantly reduced the size of the enemy inside you. That is what is common sense here. Am I wrong?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I am going to end it here guys. I think my points have been made. I will just add one more very important precaution, for anyone that can see the common sense in the use of a mask.

When the mask successfully stops 80% or more of the deadly virus coming towards your mouth and nose, that can provide seriously valuable help in fighting off any infection you might receive from the smaller amount of virus that might make it through. OK. I have already said that, so here is my last point.

That 80%, or more, of virus, that your masked stopped is now currently living on the outside of your mask. Common sense again should be able to illustrate how dangerous this situation currently is for you. You really do not want to be breathing more of that virus into your body. Therefore, the last suggestion I want to make, if you want to maximize your protection, is that you* need to change the mask regularly *and of course refrain from touching it, if you can, and if you do touch it you need to sterilize your hands immediately. So, if you go into 3 stores tomorrow, wear 3 different masks. If you work all day with a mask on, change it at least 4 times throughout the day and the more the merrier.

Done. Good luck everyone.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> I don't like stating the obvious, because it can annoy people...but...the biggest contributor to the spreading of the virus, into the future, will always be the number of infections, in the community, right now. One cannot be infected unless someone else is infected. If current infections get out of control to any degree, pre-cautions like masks and social distancing measures will take a lot longer to get things under control. Mainly because not everyone uses them all the time and in the proper way. Obviously if everyone stayed away from everyone, full control would happen by next week. But as we know, that is not going to happen nor has it ever.
> 
> I think you are taking the above problem, about too many infections currently in the community and putting the blame of more infections on mask wearing not helping. That would be wrong.


The turn around time from infection rise to fall is pretty well known. Like you said, if everyone stayed away from everyone it would take a week to see it drop ... that's the point! So any method that has a significant impact on virus spread (like isolation) would show results in a week but most (all?) use 2 weeks. So in other words, if masks alone worked as well as you imply in a couple of weeks the numbers would drop even with a few percentage of people that didn't follow the rules.

I never said masks don't help, they do, so no direct blame on them *except *when people use masks to bypass separation rules when they don't need to. Like thinking you're safe talking to a contractor side by side when a simple solution to stay 2m (or more) apart is so easy to do. In any case my view is separation + decontamination far outweighs wearing a mask for protection for the general public.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> I never said masks don't help, they do, so no direct blame on them *except *when people use masks to bypass separation rules when they don't need to. Like thinking you're safe talking to a contractor side by side when a simple solution to stay 2m (or more) apart is so easy to do. In any case my view is separation + decontamination far outways wearing a mask for protection for the general public.


Fair enough. Stay away from others. In that point we are in full agreement.

My point relates to the fact that I would bet money that no one reading this forum has successfully been able to stay more then 6 feet away from everyone, for the last week. In everyone, I include household members who could not stay away from non-household members for that same week, as well.

Are you included in that group who successfully social distanced from everyone for the last week?

Assuming you are like the rest of us, when 6 feet cannot be maintained from others all the time, a mask is your best protection. I think I have already explained why. There is no decontamination that can happen when the virus moves from the mouth of the person who is only 2 feet away, directly into yours. That is where the largest dose infections occur, IMO. I am just trying to reduce the size of that deadly enemy, by wearing a mask, so that my body has a much better chance in fighting it.

Can we at least agree on that?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Fair enough. Stay away from others. In that point we are in full agreement.
> 
> My point relates to the fact that I would bet money that no one reading this forum has successfully been able to stay more then 6 feet away from everyone, for the last week. In everyone, I include household members who could not stay away from non-household members for that same week, as well.
> 
> Are you included in that group who successfully social distanced from everyone for the last week?


Yes I would be in that group for the last week! 

Only had two contacts (always greater 2m, outdoors, no common contact points). My last shopping trip went very well, nobody came within 2m of me. 

I will however say that the week before a store employee broke my 2m boundry for a second passing by me and I did one drive-thru (does that count?) for food.

Next week will be even easier, no shopping needed and we have zero social group sizes now. 



OptsyEagle said:


> Assuming you are like the rest of us, when 6 feet cannot be maintained from others all the time, a mask is your best protection. I think I have already explained why. There is no decontamination that can happen when the virus moves from the mouth of the person who is only 2 feet away, directly into yours. That is where the largest dose infections occur, IMO. I am just trying to reduce the size of that deadly enemy, by wearing a mask, so that my body has a much better chance in fighting it.
> 
> Can we at least agree on that?


Please do continue to wear a mask, no argument there. All I'm saying is, really, really think about if you need to break the 2m spacing. Don't just mask up and break the 2m spacing just because you think you're just as safe, you are not. 

On a side note, over two weeks now of manditory masks here, second highest day of new cases ... just something to think about ...


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

That's great. Keep up the social distancing.

Great discussion, by the way. I don't think anyone reading it can accuse us of not literally beating it to death. lol


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

OptsyEagle said:


> I don't think anyone reading it can accuse us of not literally beating it to death. lol


Yeah, beating every topic to death is the go-to end game at CMF.

ltr


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> That's great. Keep up the social distancing.
> 
> Great discussion, by the way. I don't think anyone reading it can accuse us of not literally beating it to death. lol


Definitely will keep the social distancing going as long as needed.

Yup ... good discussion. Sadly not enough data/information is availabe to the general public in pure scientific form without political or other bias injected into it.


----------



## Sean123 (Jan 11, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> 1. There are valid criticisms and we have to carefully consider the costs of an extended lockdown vs the anticipated benefits.
> 2. Putting apparently false claims in the letter is a bad idea. "The epidemiological evidence clearly shows that the “pandemic” is over and no second wave will follow. The evidence has been available for at least 4-5 months and is irrefutable." The second wave was clearly ramping up when this letter was published.
> Even if the second wave isn't coming here, most people look at the data and from a simple analysis see a second wave. Stating the opposite, even if technically true, hurts your own credibility.


I beg you to please explain why you think that a "second wave was clearly ramping up" and how the average person with no medical knowledge or experience can "from a simple analysis" form a scientifically fact-based conclusion of the data more accurately and reliably than a highly experienced medical doctor?
"Even if technically true, hurts your own credibility." I am still trying to wrap my head around that statement. How is the credibility of the government and media not under scrutiny after repeated, exposed and obvious mistakes, lies and mishandlings? 
We need open and free thought and discussion as well as government accountability here. Not finger pointing, irrational thinking and sensationalism of the simple facts and truths.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Sean123 said:


> I beg you to please explain why you think that a "second wave was clearly ramping up" and how the average person with no medical knowledge or experience can "from a simple analysis" form a scientifically fact-based conclusion of the data more accurately and reliably than a highly experienced medical doctor?
> "Even if technically true, hurts your own credibility." I am still trying to wrap my head around that statement. How is the credibility of the government and media not under scrutiny after repeated, exposed and obvious mistakes, lies and mishandlings?
> We need open and free thought and discussion as well as government accountability here. Not finger pointing, irrational thinking and sensationalism of the simple facts and truths.


That post was from November 9th. New cases were increasing every day, at higher numbers than in the Spring, it was obvious to me, and anyone who looked at the data we were in a second wave.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

AFAICT, the post was Nov where the source linked to published on Oct 24th and the letter itself was dated Oct 15th.

Definitely indications of a second wave and potentially suspect for the doctor to be assessing "no second wave" so early in the year ... but I've more questions for the person doing the post who had more time to notice the rising number of cases than the doctor.


Cheers


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> AFAICT, the post was Nov where the source linked to published on Oct 24th and the letter itself was dated Oct 15th.
> 
> Definitely indications of a second wave and potentially suspect for the doctor to be assessing "no second wave" so early in the year ... but I've more questions for the person doing the post who had more time to notice the rising number of cases than the doctor.
> 
> ...


Well the second wave was suspect in mid September, and pretty obvious by late September.


----------

