SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Calm my friend. I was only addressing immunity which often decays over time.

Ok, to be precise, "plasma transfusions from recovered COVID-19 patients" which are believed to carry antibodies. As long as that "substance" is effective in treating COVID-19 patients, we know there is some immunity.

Agreed we'd prefer manufactured antibodies or a vaccine that induces antibody formation over harvesting antibodies from former COVID-19 patients. Just I'm reminded that at one time, slaughter houses provided the raw material to extract insulin.

We know the routes to effective treatments and vaccines. Just we don't want to repeat the initial polio vaccine disaster. You don't get a baby in a month by making nine women pregnant.

Bob Wilson

 

Just to clarify for @GasperG, I think @bisco comment was trying to say "according to most docs, there aren't any good medical reasons (to recommend someone to NOT wear a mask for a preexisting condition)" as a response to the comment by @John321

So, I think we are all in agreement that face masks are important precaution for preventing the spread of COVID-19. Of course, as you all know, this is a dramatic change in stance from earlier opinion by both WHO and CDC. But it is an evolving medical crisis, so changes in recommendation may be necessary.

That being said, if WHO, CDC, and top leaders of the US recommended face mask-wearing immediately after the start of the pandemic like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea did, would the spread in the US prevented or at the least diminished? That's a hard question to answer and no one can prove or disprove it at this point. I am just so puzzled why some Asian countries, maybe coincidental but, have customary to wear face mask are showing much better outcomes of the COVID-19 spreading.

CDC says U.S. could get coronavirus under control in one to two months if everyone wears a mask

 

agreed. you took it backwards. i was responding to the prior post, which stated 'unless there is a good medical reason'
i apologize for the confusion.

 

cnbc: 'according to yougov, only 38% of brits wear masks in public when they can't social distance.

except for public trans, where they are mandated, brits are worse than their american cousins. experts blame it on a lack of clear messaging from officials.

sounds familiar

 

Did the article show what % of Americans wear mask? How about Taiwan, Japan, South Korea?

 

i don't think it mentioned us numbers, but did quote quite a few other countries which had a much higher percentage. some were due to government mandates and laws.

 

South Korean expert Dr. Kim Woo-Ju, who was the head of that country's rapid response team for MERS, said that masks were proven to prevent respiratory infections before this pandemic began. There was a interview (below) on Asian Boss back in March that went viral on YouTube and was likely the impetus for mask wearing outside of Asia. He described how the virus attaches to ACE2 receptors in mucus membranes of the eyes, nose, mouth, and said that masks definitely worked. During the SARS outbreak, medical professionals were getting sick, and they didn't realize it at first (due to delay from infection to symptoms). But research showed that medical professionals who wore masks were significantly less likely to get infected. He went on to talk about Western countries not using masks and finding it quite odd, pointing out the WHO recommendations at the time, and the US Surgeon General saying not to wear masks. He said he disagreed, and speculated that the reason for those statements were to prevent the public from hoarding masks.

The Asian countries weren't guessing that masks work. They were way ahead of us due to their experience with SARS and MERS. Of course those studies that they relied on were out there for everyone to read, but Western countries seemed to want to re-do research before applying sensible measures. (Also applies to the CDC choosing not to do surveillance with test kits already available from other countries while they fumbled their test kit roll out.)

An Asian Boss video from 2017 asks Japanese people on the street why they wear masks. The first random guy responding said Japanese people started wearing masks 100 years ago, referring to the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu pandemic. Other people said that they wore them to not spread germs around, wore them more often during cold/flu season, or in close quarters on the train. When told that Westerners don't wear masks, some of them are surprised. One guy asked, "Even if they have a cold?" He was genuinely shocked: "Really?" It's clear that mask wearing in Asian countries is not merely "customary" or a cultural thing. Sounds to me like mask wearing and the reasons for doing it are probably taught in school health classes and by parents.

 

they must have hidden the research from the west, cause no one can find it.

 

Found some here. Just like the current pandemic is producing dozens of masks studies, there are lots of studies related to other respiratory illnesses that came before. I found endless pages of study links with an internet search of "masks infection control study", limiting the search to 2019 or earlier. You produce respiratory droplets in a wide range of sizes (large down to aerosol sizes) even when you aren't sick, so the droplet carrier is the same for most droplet spread respiratory illnesses. Therefore, much can be extrapolated to a new droplet spread respiratory illness.

2013: "In a case-control study conducted in Beijing to investigate the risk factors for community transmission among persons without known contact with SARS patients, it was found that consistent wearing of a mask outdoors was associated with a 70% risk reduction, compared to not wearing a mask, while consistently washing hands after returning home showed a smaller risk reduction."

Clinical management and infection control of SARS: Lessons learned - ScienceDirect

2008: "Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, in spite of imperfect fit and imperfect adherence, personal respirators providing most protection. Masks worn by patients may not offer as great a degree of protection against aerosol transmission."

Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population

 

the confusion comes in not differentiating wearing a mask to protect others v protecting yourself.

the who and cdc have consistently said that there 'may' be some protection for ones self, but have not offered any evidence.

(except when dr fauci said masks wouldn't help, to try and keep the supply for front liners)

 

Pitfalls in SARS-CoV-2 PCR diagnostics | bioRxiv

 

scienmag: 'the common drug heperin may act as a decoy for covid when patients first get sick.'

 

Covid-19 immunity could be far higher than antibody tests show, according to new SARS research — RT World News

 

Perhaps you might hunt down the original papers published in a peer reviewed medical or science journal?

The reason is often early comments in those sources correct errors. Just "RT" has a credibility problem: RT News (RT.Com) - Media Bias/Fact Check

Overall, we rate RT Questionable based on promoting pro-Russian propaganda, promotion of conspiracy theories, numerous failed fact checks and a lack of author transparency.​

Bob Wilson

 

there's so much noise around immunity, and so much we don't know. it' gonna take time. until then, everything is premature.

but as long as we're guessing, i suspect some people will have more immunity than others.

 

Same request, find credible medical or scientific journal articles.

Bob Wilson

 

there's lots of scientific/medical articles on line, but there are not (m)any that satisfy standards. most are complaining that the media is over reacting to preliminary findings.

i was reading one yesterday, describing the problem of immunizing the most vulnerable, because their immune systems don't respond like younger/healthier people due to a fatty thyrus, and reduced t cell production.
one reason for the super flu shot and adjuvents

 

Just wondering how credible the site mediabiasfactcheck.com is? It touts as "the most comprehensive media bias resource". But the bloat of ads turned me off. No way to block them with AdBlock, and to go Ads free cost $5/mo. We need fact check service for the fact check sites. Biases and incorrect information exist everywhere. Even the trusty medical and scientific journals are no exceptions.

 

Source: Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

Media Matters:

"The Russian government-backed RT has posted misleading climate videos on YouTube and has generally sown misinformation through its platform."​

Sorry, Putin propaganda holds no water.

Bob Wilson

 

OK, how credible is Wikipedia? I put Wiki on the very low end of trustworthiness.