MassAggie97 said:

---

I'm not sure I would quote a retracted article, especially one where the sample size is n=4 and the authors don't understand the mechanics of their own experiment. If you are running a quantitative PCR and don't know what a LOD score is, you have no business running a qPCR.

---

But youtube experiments with even less scientific validity are A-OK.

Quote:

---

But youtube experiments with even less scientific validity are A-OK.

---

Actually, yes. Watch the video. There are several of them, and the experimental procedures are in plain sight, they are simple, and elegant. A qPCR assay where the scientists don't even know how qPCR works is fraught.

Sure the videos don't prove explicitly that masks stop single virus particles. However they prove fairly explicitly that masks stop spit from flying out of your face. They also prove that the spit contains bacteria cells (which in all fairness, is infinitely easier to culture on agar plates than viruses). There is no question that virus travels in human fluids, right? So what am I missing here?

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Examination of the literature revealed much of the published work on the matter to be quite dated and often studies had poorly elucidated methodologies. As a result, we recommend caution in extrapolating their findings to contemporary surgical practice. However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination. More rigorous contemporary research is needed to make a definitive comment on the effectiveness of surgical facemasks.

---

With regard to the first bolded sentence, "literature review" studies, or meta-analyses, are never a substitute for an actual controlled study. With regard to the 2nd bolded sentence, "lack of substantial evidence" from the literature is meaningless. There is probably "lack of substantial evidence" that spitting inside of a patient can spread disease, but that doesn't mean it is wise to spit into a patient. The fact that an overwhelming majority of surgeons choose to mask in the face of this study says it all.

Finally, there was a simple experiment done by a group on Facebook with masks and agar plates that was controlled, was pretty definitive, and took 1 day to carry out. You've probably seen it. Even better, it's been repeated several times now by different groups, using the same general experimental conditions, and getting the same result. That's experimental science.

Quote:

---

In the modern era, there has also been a scarcity of experimental evidence to support the effectiveness of facemasks in the prevention of surgical site infections.

---

I would argue that this "finding" lacks merit, because as stated, a majority of surgeons wear masks. How are you going to test the null hypothesis of "no effect" if you can't find a control group of non-mask wearers? The examples in that paper are non controlled, and their sample sizes are too small to have any merit.

---

TLDR: There is very little evidence that facemasks protect the patient or surgeon, and what evidence does exist is very outdated. Surgeons who wear facemasks are 50/50 when it comes to the focus on whether they are protecting themselves or their patients; and, roughly 1/5th wear them out of respect for tradition. Societal expectations and erring on the side of caution, in light of poor data, are two big reasons for wearing facemasks during surgery. Studies on 4,000 patients with masked versus unmasked surgeons are included in Table 1, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the two groups.

This is the final paragraph of my post, you may have missed the bolded sentence. Three studies were performed, two were quasi-randomized and the third was randomized. All three were controlled and included groups of both masked and non-masked surgeons.

Not to quibble but to say elective procedures have been canceled with the mask mandate is not accurate.

Hospitals can continue to perform elective procedures if they have the capacity to handle both the China-Corona-Virus (CCV) patients and conduct elective procedures. I believe the major hospital chains (Methodist, Memorial Herman, HCA, Texas Children's, etc.) have all said they are not in danger of exceeding their capacity.

Quote:

---

This is the final paragraph of my post, you may have missed the bolded sentence. Three studies were performed, two were quasi-randomized and the third was randomized. All three were controlled and included groups of both masked and non-masked surgeons.

---

You're correct, I did miss it because your post was too long.

I'll admit that's a larger sample group, and it is compelling. However I'd also state that in 1 of those 3 studies, the statistical power was just too low due to sample size issues (the first one). 30% infection rate in non-masked versus 0% in masked. The other two were admittedly large sample sizes with plenty of statistical power that found no difference. However the same study suggests that masks may have simply "been superseded by more modern strategies of infection control". Under that interpretation, it isn't that masks don't work, rather that they are insignificant compared to other measures of infection control, such as the "full body washes" and "clean vs. non-clean" classification method.

Matt Hooper said:

---

Not to quibble but to say elective procedures have been canceled with the mask mandate is not accurate.

Hospitals can continue to perform elective procedures if they have the capacity to handle both the China-Corona-Virus (CCV) patients and conduct elective procedures. I believe the major hospital chains (Methodist, Memorial Herman, HCA, Texas Children's, etc.) have all said they are not in danger of exceeding their capacity.

---

Correct, I could have worded that better. My point was, a few weeks ago COVID19 patients were using in the teens percentage of the ICU, leaving 80%+ available for elective procedures. COVID19 is now taking up 44% of ICU beds, as of 2 days ago. Obviously trending up.

ETFan said:

---

Matt Hooper said:

---

Not to quibble but to say elective procedures have been canceled with the mask mandate is not accurate.

Hospitals can continue to perform elective procedures if they have the capacity to handle both the China-Corona-Virus (CCV) patients and conduct elective procedures. I believe the major hospital chains (Methodist, Memorial Herman, HCA, Texas Children's, etc.) have all said they are not in danger of exceeding their capacity.

---

Correct, I could have worded that better. My point was, a few weeks ago COVID19 patients were using in the teens percentage of the ICU, leaving 80%+ available for elective procedures. COVID19 is now taking up 44% of ICU beds, as of 2 days ago. Obviously trending up.

---

Some of the increase is surely due to elective procedures being stopped again right?

Not even close

Deaths continue to plummet from pneumonia/flu/wuhan flu;

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the final paragraph of my post, you may have missed the bolded sentence. Three studies were performed, two were quasi-randomized and the third was randomized. All three were controlled and included groups of both masked and non-masked surgeons.

---

You're correct, I did miss it because your post was too long.

I'll admit that's a larger sample group, and it is compelling. However I'd also state that in 1 of those 3 studies, the statistical power was just too low due to sample size issues (the first one). 30% infection rate in non-masked versus 0% in masked. The other two were admittedly large sample sizes with plenty of statistical power that found no difference. However the same study suggests that masks may have simply "been superseded by more modern strategies of infection control". Under that interpretation, it isn't that masks don't work, rather that they are insignificant compared to other measures of infection control, such as the "full body washes" and "clean vs. non-clean" classification method.

---

Under that interpretation, it may also be that masks are not only insignificant, but may be totally unnecessary, due to modern strategies of infection control. It seems to leave the question open and up for debate.

Dead ass wrong again. I'm so surprised.

Quote:

---

Under that interpretation, it may also be that masks are not only insignificant, but may be totally unnecessary, due to modern strategies of infection control.........

---

....in an operating room.

Quote:

---

It seems to leave the question open and up for debate.

---

I guess, but again, a meta-data study that relies on a small handful of publications is very limited in how it can interpret. Science seems to be clear on the fact that bacteria and viruses travel in human spittle. If a mask prevents, say, 50% of spit from leaving a person's face, you've slowed spread by a proportionate amount. I don't know why there would even need to be a "study" about this at all, and I suspect one of the reasons there aren't many is because most doctors seem to think it's common sense.

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Under that interpretation, it may also be that masks are not only insignificant, but may be totally unnecessary, due to modern strategies of infection control.........

---

....in an operating room.

Quote:

---

It seems to leave the question open and up for debate.

---

I guess, but again, a meta-data study that relies on a small handful of publications is very limited in how it can interpret. Science seems to be clear on the fact that bacteria and viruses travel in human spittle. If a mask prevents, say, 50% of spit from leaving a person's face, you've slowed spread by a proportionate amount. I don't know why there would even need to be a "study" about this at all, and I suspect one of the reasons there aren't many is because most doctors seem to think it's common sense.

---

It would be an interesting "real world" experiment if one US state or even a sizable (200k+) US city or county could get near-100% mask wearing compliance in all indoor non-at-home settings for 4 weeks, and track and publish the CV19 results.

Of course, one can easily point out that these real world large scale experiments have already been done in several countries in Asia and the EU, and the results are already known.

In the end, though, none of that probably matters anymore here in the USA. Too many Americans have followed Trump's lead and concluded CV19 is a hoax, and they aren't gonna change their minds.

Quote:

---

Too many Americans have followed Trump's lead looked at the data and concluded CV19 is a hoax, and they lies aren't gonna change their minds.

---

Settle down people. Abbott's mask mandate bought us...........2 more weeks until Houston hospitals are overflowing with dead bodies. Long live King Abbott!

BenColderHere said:

---

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Under that interpretation, it may also be that masks are not only insignificant, but may be totally unnecessary, due to modern strategies of infection control.........

---

....in an operating room.

Quote:

---

It seems to leave the question open and up for debate.

---

I guess, but again, a meta-data study that relies on a small handful of publications is very limited in how it can interpret. Science seems to be clear on the fact that bacteria and viruses travel in human spittle. If a mask prevents, say, 50% of spit from leaving a person's face, you've slowed spread by a proportionate amount. I don't know why there would even need to be a "study" about this at all, and I suspect one of the reasons there aren't many is because most doctors seem to think it's common sense.

---

It would be an interesting "real world" experiment if one US state or even a sizable (200k+) US city or county could get near-100% mask wearing compliance in all indoor non-at-home settings for 4 weeks, and track and publish the CV19 results.

Of course, one can easily point out that these real world large scale experiments have already been done in several countries in Asia and the EU, and the results are already known.

In the end, though, none of that probably matters anymore here in the USA. Too many Americans have followed Trump's lead and concluded CV19 is a hoax, and they aren't gonna change their minds.

---

Lol really? Where has there been 100% mask wearing in Europe? You have any proof of that? Several of the countries don't even have mask mandates.

Did Beijing have 100% compliance with their mask mandate prior to shutting down the city because of a new spike?

It'd also be nice if we could have an experiment where an entire city was 100% complaint with all laws. Sadly utopias don't exist.

Are all the hospitals full yet? Come back and update the apocalypse, OP!

I feel like this chart just kills the "hosptials are going to be over run" crowd. Cases have been spiking for weeks and total ICU bed usage has barely moved.

SirLurksALot said:

---

I feel like this chart just kills the "hosptials are going to be over run" crowd. Cases have been spiking for weeks and total ICU bed usage has barely moved.

---

Nothing will ever kill this narrative for OP and the coronabros. They can hold on to "two more weeks" forever.

Oops
Too late

rab79 said:

---

---

So I have a 0.4% chance of dying from this, and that's assuming I actually get it?

Yeah let's go back to life

gougler08 said:

---

rab79 said:

---

---

So I have a 0.4% chance of dying from this, and that's assuming I actually get it?

Yeah let's go back to life

---

That's overall (including the elderly etc) if you both get it, and are symptomatic. At one point, the 'experts' thought most cases are asymptomatic, but like all claims about Wuhan flu, this has been rejected and made multiple times so I'm not sure.

Good point, I personally have a .05% chance of dying

Quote:

---

Deaths continue to plummet from pneumonia/flu/wuhan flu;

---

I don't think that's an accurate reading of the graphic. That graphic appears to be updating by week; in almost every case, there is a lag in reported deaths for official determination from health officials. The breadth of that wave as well as the height of the peak are likely to both adjust wider and higher in the coming weeks.

Also, this graphic seems to lay waste to the commonly repeated falsehood of "it's the same as the flu". COVID 19 seems to be more contagious than the flu, and of course there is no vaccine, which is why deaths from COVID now are double what could be expected from a normal flu season.

Gold Star ntxVol said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Matt Hooper said:

---

Not to quibble but to say elective procedures have been canceled with the mask mandate is not accurate.

Hospitals can continue to perform elective procedures if they have the capacity to handle both the China-Corona-Virus (CCV) patients and conduct elective procedures. I believe the major hospital chains (Methodist, Memorial Herman, HCA, Texas Children's, etc.) have all said they are not in danger of exceeding their capacity.

---

Correct, I could have worded that better. My point was, a few weeks ago COVID19 patients were using in the teens percentage of the ICU, leaving 80%+ available for elective procedures. COVID19 is now taking up 44% of ICU beds, as of 2 days ago. Obviously trending up.

---

That's only phase 1 ICU beds. They have a lot of additional capacity they can bring online if needed. This thing is still a LONG way from overflowing their capacity.

BTW, your two weeks will be up tomorrow, what then? This is yet another prediction gone wrong, I suppose you want another 2 weeks? Are you going to trot out a new model?

I have a friend who is a bar owner and he's losing his ass. What are YOU willing to do to help him and thousands others like him? He needs to open now. Your fear mongering is ruining people's livelyhood. You and your ilk are destroying this country.

It needs to stop, you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Stop being part of the problem...please.

---

You should probably take a breather if you're this worked up over my posting of facts straight from the TMC website. They put out the warnings, the two week overflow at current rates, warning, not me. THEY posted the percentages, and continue to do so. I simply pointed out that they have seen a significant increase in the number (percentage of ICU) patients. That's just pure facts. Yes, they have additional ICU (looks like 900 extra beds in phases 2 and 3 total), which they are now using 9% of, as of 2 days ago. They are flexing or cancelling elective procedures to make room, that's clear in the charts. If the cases and percent positive continue to trend down they'll be good. As it stands the percentage of COVID in the ICU continues to creep upward (that's a fact, don't attack me).

I haven't said f-all about bars, or shutdowns. I'm of the opinion that if people social distanced responsibly and wore masks we could keep things open. I'm not sure how my post got you so worked up, but that's your issue to resolve.

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Deaths continue to plummet from pneumonia/flu/wuhan flu;

---

I don't think that's an accurate reading of the graphic. That graphic appears to be updating by week; in almost every case, there is a lag in reported deaths for official determination from health officials. The breadth of that wave as well as the height of the peak are likely to both adjust wider and higher in the coming weeks.

Also, this graphic seems to lay waste to the commonly repeated falsehood of "it's the same as the flu". COVID 19 seems to be more contagious than the flu, and of course there is no vaccine, which is why deaths from COVID now are double what could be expected from a normal flu season.

---

The red peak is plummeting, as are flu deaths, it's a fact, because the summer is always lowest.

Your second paragraph/point is an attempt to enter a straw man argument I am not making, nor has the board generally made. Wuhan flu was not present in previous years and has added to deaths this year from pneumonia like illnesses, we all understand that, though I think the actual mortality is around the same as the regular flu for people who contract it. It's worse for the elderly though, as Cuomo's nursing home victims would attest if still alive. What is true is that total deaths are a far cry lower than all of the 'models' from March-April warning of millions of dead Americans.

Houston has peaked, as has Texas, likely. You can sell the panic still on the coronabro board, probably. OP was obviously factually wrong 2 weeks ago.

gougler08 said:

---

rab79 said:

---

---

So I have a 0.4% chance of dying from this, and that's assuming I actually get it?

Yeah let's go back to life

---

Assuming '08 is your class year, you actually have a .05% chance of dying on average. Assuming you don't have any major underlying conditions, it's going to be less.

They are not using any phase 2 beds according to the July 5th graphic I posted, not sure where you're getting that information.

As for jockeying elective procedures based on bed availability, that is nothing new. It happens every flu season. Yes, not normal for this time of year but still something they have experienced in the past.

The evidence to this point is becoming clearer everyday that this is not much more than another type of flu bug. Nothing suggests this is going to be any worse than the 2017-18 novel flu pandemic.

The fear mongering is getting old.

Gold Star ntxVol said:

---

They are not using any phase 2 beds according to the July 5th graphic I posted, not sure where you're getting that information.

As for jockeying elective procedures based on bed availability, that is nothing new. It happens every flu season. Yes, not normal for this time of year but still something they have experienced in the past.

The evidence to this point is becoming clearer everyday that this is not much more than another type of flu bug. Nothing suggests this is going to be any worse than the 2017-18 novel flu pandemic.

The fear mongering is getting old.

---

https://www.tmc.edu/coronavirus-updates/

From TMC, I'm getting all of my numbers from their website.

I don't really want to enter in to a side tangent about flu, but this has killed more than the 2017-18 flu, by 42k using the high end estimate for 17-18 deaths. So not sure what you're talking about. Also, a large chunk of flu capacity is already built in to our system. COVID isn't/wasn't yet.