Airline Pilot Central Forums - It's just the flu!

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- COVID19 (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/covid19/)

- - It's just the flu! (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/covid19/129019-its-just-flu.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffman (Post 3078663)

It really seems like you're trying to use politics to dismiss the actions that other countries have used, with success, at mitigating the virus instead of trying to learn from them. The fact of the matter is that 5.4 / million South Koreans have died from COVID19 whereas the US is at 361.5 / million. Demographics, lifestyle, etc play a role, but that doesn't explain away a disparity that big.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...n-inhabitants/

Also, I'm Independent, but if you're going to throw rocks at the Dems don't forget Trump had an indoor rally last night in Tulsa where masks were optional and he doesn't wear a mask on TV. People do follow him and if he shows contempt for masks, or the virus in general, they will to. Study after study shows that masks do help mitigate the virus and having a POTUS that was onboard would be much more helpful right now.

Study after study do not show masks help mitigate the virus. Recent numerical modelling shows they do, previous studies are a mixed bag. Would you believe recent numerical modelling and government directives? Do you think they are biased?

Regarding Trump -- not a hill I'm willing to die on, however there is no reason for healthy younger and middle age adults to be wearing masks. Their use is ridiculous -- nothing more than a placebo to make people feel more secure.

The average age of COVID death in NYC was 78 with a BMI of 32. On average, COVID killed senior citizens that were also obese. How many obese senior citizens does South Korea have?

Many states do not have mask mandates. The initial three to avoid mandated mask usage were Oklahoma, Iowa and Montana. Let me know how much COVID and COVID related illness and death they've had vs. the states that mandate mask usage, then we can have a "conversation".

Because a country has had "success" with COVID (depending on how you want to define it) doesn't mean it's because they "did something". Correlation is not causation. Demographics and lifestyle play a massive role with COVID related fatality, but it isn't politically correct to discuss it so it's brushed under the rug while we are recommended to wear thin pieces of cloth around our mouths to stop a virus. Ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiPeter (Post 3078654)

South Korea has a young and thin population. I believe they are the 2nd or 3rd least obese country in the world (after Japan and Vietnam) and their average age is 41. In South Korea do the politicians march in anti-police rallies while they keep schools, restaurants and parks closed? Probably not.

Using fatality rates from the US based on age and obesity, it's certainly possible South Koreans could be massively exposed to COVID and the outcome wouldn't be too different. In addition, there has been no massive outbreak in any Asian country, past exposure to other coronaviruses may play a roll in immunity.

Good leadership is something lacking in the United States, without a doubt. The political response to COVID-19 has been an economic and social disaster, however without taking into account overall health, demographics, and an entire list of other metrics I'm not sure how useful comparing one nation to another is regarding COVID-19 outcomes. Even the way countries count a positive viral diagnosis or COVID death varies significantly.

In the US the probability of death goes from almost zero for the age group under 30 to almost 5% for the age group above 75. Seniors are literally THOUSANDS of times more likely to die from COVID than the youth.

Regarding the drama, the overwhelming majority of Americans aren't significantly effected by COVID. The risks are well documented at this point. The disease is much less lethal than it was just a few months ago for reasons that don't seem to be understood or even acknowledged yet. I disagree the US response was "middle of the road", there has been immense damage done for a virus that isn't particularly harmful except to specific groups. Locking down people that are very unlikely to be significantly impacted, especially children, and the unemployment rate increasing significantly is a crime, in my opinion.

Taiwan has done great with COVID. But, it's an island with a young and healthy population probably exposed to more coronaviruses than the West has.

Why the elderly and obese in America aren't more protected and more cautious I have no idea. Why the rest of us were locked down and suffered I have no idea. Perhaps it goes to the need for "equality" in our culture and our psychological need to "be safe" when life is inherently filled with risk. But, we are so removed from our natural state our ability to assess risk is perverted, viruses don't effect people equally no matter what our politics are...unfortunately science and medicine can't be practiced well when they are directed by political motivations. The CDC is a political organization, I personally would view their recommendations with great skepticism for any health related issues. For example, the science of masks hasn't changed. Politics has and psychology has, but the science has not. Good science doesn't change in 2 months. Even in The Lancet the most recent (and best) mask study recommends masks but indicated the confidence was "low" that they are particularly effective.

There is a reason Asian Tiger Moms aren't featured in PrEP commercials to prevent HIV, but looking at the CDC webpages on the subject it would be impossible to figure out why.

I'm surprised people trust the government so much regarding medical advice when their track record has been horrible and they are clearly biased politically to the point of irrelevance.

What mask study are you referencing because there're tons of studies that indicate masks help significantly with respiratory illnesses:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-...cientists.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0612172200.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/

I could find more, these were literally just the first Google hits. After COVID19 people started researching masks heavily, which had never been done to that extent before because it's one of the few low-tech solutions that everybody has access to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffman (Post 3078671)

I'm sure you can find lots more. The 1st study is about hamsters, the 3rd study was about reducing COVID in "households". Yes, a mask can reduce respiratory virus in a house. Wearing it outside or at WalMart is a different matter.

Studies also showed COVID death wasn't reduced by steroid medication. For months the US NIH and WHO recommended MDs not give steroids. We now know that steroids reduce COVID death by 1/3rd.

Be careful what "studies" and "experts" you listen to.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.0020124

The above has been one of the most quoted and cited medical studies in the world. It's by John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist from Stanford. Worth a read, along with his other writings about COVID. By the way, I believe it was Prof. Ioannidis who *nailed* the iFR rate from COVID.

https://www.realclearscience.com/art...19_111427.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiPeter (Post 3078667)

Recent numerical modeling? You mean studies? If so, post them and tell me why that is enough to dismiss all the counter evidence. Previous studies are hardly a mixed bag. You'll have to search long and hard before you find anything that even casts significant doubt into the effectiveness of masks.

Also, what "bias" would a government be pushing by trying to get people to wear masks? It doesn't help facial recognition, they can't read your mind from a mask, what possible reason would the govt have for trying to encourage people to wear masks aside from limiting the spread of a respiratory illness during a pandemic?

Also, according to the latest data:
https://www.covidexitstrategy.org/
OK is not doing too good. IA is about the same and MT is doing much worse, but because it's so rural they've been socially distancing long before it was cool.

Where I'm annoyed is you've made a lot of big claims counter to everything I've read with no citations to back them up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiPeter (Post 3078673)

None of those articles have anything about masks, it's about not trusting existing studies. This looks like a silver bullet to dismiss anything that you don't like and believe anything that you do.

Ok. Good luck.

Well, you see, this one time someone was wrong ergo there’s no truth. To say otherwise is elitist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffman (Post 3078684)

Thanks

https://www.livescience.com/are-face...us-spread.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ct-on-covid-19

https://bgr.com/2020/04/13/coronavir...rgical-how-to/

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...sed-sound-data

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2020...virus-strategy

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422

“The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against covid-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffman (Post 3078680)

Oklahoma had one COVID death yesterday, Iowa zero and Montana zero. All those non-mask wearers seem to be doing fine as of now.

You can test plenty of people in their 20s and 30s and 40s for COVID and they can all come back positive, but that doesn’t mean much unless they walk into a nursing home and start coughing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiPeter (Post 3078746)

In fairness, the single biggest factor in ANY epidemic is population density, which is why one size fits all solutions are inherently ridiculous. Mandating the same rules for NYC (population density27,000/sq mile) and upstate NY (population density 780/sq mile) was inherently ridiculous. You CAN ONLY be grossly under protecting one or over protecting the other...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiPeter (Post 3078732)

Thank you for providing references.

https://www.livescience.com/are-face...us-spread.html
This article references a single study done in S. Korea using only 4 participants "The other [study] looked particularly at SARS-CoV-2 and found no effect of either surgical or fabric masks on reducing virus spread, but only had four participants and ... The researchers didn't look at distances beyond 7.8 inches to see if droplets didn't travel as far while people were wearing masks, Chu said."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ct-on-covid-19
Everything here is replying to this particular report:
https://rs-delve.github.io/reports/2...al-public.html
The scientists' issues seem to be with the methodology of that report in particular and lack of evidence. They don't address any of the studies that show masks favorably.

https://bgr.com/2020/04/13/coronavir...rgical-how-to/
This article pits this study, which shows that cloth masks are very effective against other coronaviruses:
https://bgr.com/2020/04/13/coronavir...rgical-how-to/
Against the aforementioned study in S. Korea where 4 participants coughed on petri dishes 7.8" away.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...sed-sound-data
This provided the most compelling data against masks, but it also seemed strongly biased. In the last paragraph it becomes evident why (at least to me):

"Ways to best protect health workers

We recommend that healthcare organizations follow US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance by moving first through conventional, then contingency, and finally crisis scenarios to optimize the supply of respirators. We recommend using the CDC's burn rate calculator to help identify areas to reduce N95 consumption and working down the CDC checklist for a strategic approach to extend N95 supply.

For readers who are disappointed in our recommendations to stop making cloth masks for themselves or healthcare workers, we recommend instead pitching in to locate N95 FFRs and other types of respirators for healthcare organizations. Encourage your local or state government to organize and reach out to industries to locate respirators not currently being used in the non-healthcare sector and coordinate donation efforts to frontline health workers.
Really buried in the article:
"There is some evidence that surgical masks can be effective at reducing overall particle emission from patients who have multidrug-resistant tuberculosis,36 cystic fibrosis,34 and influenza.33 The latter found surgical masks decreased emission of large particles (larger than 5 µm) by 25-fold and small particles by threefold from flu-infected patients.33 Sung37 found a 43% reduction in respiratory viral infections in stem-cell patients when everyone, including patients, visitors, and healthcare workers, wore surgical masks."

The citations at the bottom also provide some interesting reading. Basically, cloth masks and surgical masks are worthless at screening air coming in and going out, but we already knew that. The reason they're effective is because they limit the distance the virus travels from normal talking to about a foot (vs 6' without a mask). With a virus that has such a long incubation period, that's a very good thing in the general public.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2020...virus-strategy
This article quotes several studies showing that masks help significantly. The only study quoted that casts doubt is, once again, the same S. Korean study with 4 people coughing on a petri dish at 7.8'

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422
The article largely quotes older studies that display cloth and surgical masks do not effectively filter particles as small as viruses. This is not contested and widely known. The reason masks are supposed to be effective is because they reduce the distance of the aerosol plume. That could mean the difference between getting the virus from talking with someone whose infected and not.

Also from the same article:
"But Ian Jones, professor of virology at the University of Reading, said, “If an aerosol droplet hits the weave of the mask fabric rather than the hole it is clearly arrested. And lessening the aerosol dose chips away at the R0 [reproduction number] and helps to slow the epidemic . . . They are not a cure but they address the longer flatter epidemic curve everyone is trying to achieve.”

Once again, it seems the question is "would you prefer a cloth mask or a surgical mask?" Obviously a surgical mask. The scientists don't address any of the studies that speak favorably to masks (although it was published 7 Apr) and most of their supporting references show that the masks themselves don't filter out everything, which once again, we already knew.

This isn't enough to convince me masks are useless and all the studies favoring them are garbage. It's well known N95>surgical>cloth. Masks are supposed to limit the distance of the plume of infected aerosols, especially with asymptomatic people. Also, social distancing is a huge problem on airplanes and we need anything that can help mitigate that, especially when we're sitting at the gate fully loaded with the engines off and just PCA. The CDC and WHO said non N95 masks didn't work at the onset for a reason; that was the accepted belief by the entire medical community. But after COVID19 people started taking a good look at masks because we really don't have many other options (Home Depot won't have N95s for a looonnngg time). And yes, scientists change their minds frequently, but usually when presented with new, conflicting data. I've changed my mind on this once before and I might do it again if there's enough compelling data.