So much for "100 days"
04-30-2021, 03:13 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 166
So much for "100 days"
TSA extends mask mandate on planes to September
Like "15 days" before it, quickly and quietly forgotten.
Just 100 days to mask — not forever, just 100 days.
Don't worry though, I'm sure ALPA will release a statement blindly praising the decision and bragging about their own advocacy for it, despite never once polling the membership.
Like "15 days" before it, quickly and quietly forgotten.
Just 100 days to mask — not forever, just 100 days.
Don't worry though, I'm sure ALPA will release a statement blindly praising the decision and bragging about their own advocacy for it, despite never once polling the membership.
04-30-2021, 03:44 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Position: Pilot
Posts: 516
But, but, but...follow the science!
Except, the CDC admits there is no science to back up their policy.
Except, the CDC admits there is no science to back up their policy.
04-30-2021, 04:03 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Fairly local
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by AntiPeter;[url=tel:3228841
3228841[/url]]But, but, but...follow the science!
Except, the CDC admits there is no science to back up their policy.
Except, the CDC admits there is no science to back up their policy.
04-30-2021, 08:11 PM
#4
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,945
Originally Posted by Hrkdrivr
The attachment is too blurry to read.
04-30-2021, 09:41 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,107
Time for lawsuits and getting this to the most supreme of courts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
05-01-2021, 04:11 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Position: Pilot
Posts: 516
Sorry for the attachment quality. In a nutshell:
The letter is a recent response from the CDC regarding a Freedom of Information Act request. Someone went after the CDC to provide data supporting mask mandates and policies. They acknowledge that there are not randomized control trials that support efficacy of masks. They note only some research that says masks block particles, and even that is sketchy.
The letter is a recent response from the CDC regarding a Freedom of Information Act request. Someone went after the CDC to provide data supporting mask mandates and policies. They acknowledge that there are not randomized control trials that support efficacy of masks. They note only some research that says masks block particles, and even that is sketchy.
05-01-2021, 05:23 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
So who else picked up on this?
https://clashdaily.com/2021/04/cdc-r...s-a-must-read/
And the official CDC word on masks:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
However, there is a hyperbolic statement or possibly a failed citation in their article. They cite this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21503394/
“During the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in China, cotton masks were widely used by healthcare workers and the general public, and observational studies found them to be effective (8).“
Just one problem, the citation does not mention the general public.
Additionally this citation is an example of inflationary use of a single source by many organizations to support their positions on mask wearing for the prevention of COVID 19.
What is far more interesting is the actual recommendation for health care workers is the use of a respirator to filter or 100% of the viral material.
“The filtration, effectiveness, fit, and performance of cloth masks are inferior to those of medical masks and respirators. Cloth mask use should not be mandated for healthcare workers, who should as a priority be provided proper respiratory protection.”
Here is what they cite about the use of cloth masks:
”In 2015, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of cloth masks with that of medical masks and controls (standard practice) among healthcare workers in Vietnam (4). Rates of infection were consistently higher among those in the cloth mask group than in the medical mask and control groups.”
Summary of all the info:
Masks may provide some protection if worn, cleaned and removed correctly. Failure to do so provides little, if any, protection to the wearer of infection and may actually increase their risk of infection.
Which brings us back full circle, mask wearing may actually increase the risk of infection to the wearer. However, it will reduce the vapor distance of the wearer to those close to them.
Read all the info for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
https://clashdaily.com/2021/04/cdc-r...s-a-must-read/
And the official CDC word on masks:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
However, there is a hyperbolic statement or possibly a failed citation in their article. They cite this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21503394/
“During the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in China, cotton masks were widely used by healthcare workers and the general public, and observational studies found them to be effective (8).“
Just one problem, the citation does not mention the general public.
Additionally this citation is an example of inflationary use of a single source by many organizations to support their positions on mask wearing for the prevention of COVID 19.
What is far more interesting is the actual recommendation for health care workers is the use of a respirator to filter or 100% of the viral material.
“The filtration, effectiveness, fit, and performance of cloth masks are inferior to those of medical masks and respirators. Cloth mask use should not be mandated for healthcare workers, who should as a priority be provided proper respiratory protection.”
Here is what they cite about the use of cloth masks:
”In 2015, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of cloth masks with that of medical masks and controls (standard practice) among healthcare workers in Vietnam (4). Rates of infection were consistently higher among those in the cloth mask group than in the medical mask and control groups.”
Summary of all the info:
Masks may provide some protection if worn, cleaned and removed correctly. Failure to do so provides little, if any, protection to the wearer of infection and may actually increase their risk of infection.
Which brings us back full circle, mask wearing may actually increase the risk of infection to the wearer. However, it will reduce the vapor distance of the wearer to those close to them.
Read all the info for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
05-01-2021, 06:36 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
For those of us of a certain cohort, the WSJ (paywall, perhaps) has a great essay comparing 1957 to 2020. We were a much more resilient society then.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-m...=hp_listc_pos3
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-m...=hp_listc_pos3
05-01-2021, 07:37 AM
#9
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2020
Position: Gummed
Posts: 1,060
Lower pcr ct threshold from cdc
As I have stated since the start of this plandemic - the cycle threshold value for the PCR test was too high. It would detect a nano fragment of any virus related to a coronavirus, flu or any of the other 69 closely related viruses that shared a remote relation with a coronavirus (see common cold).
Prior to the experimental drug rollout PCR cycles were running >35. Most labs running 38-42.
Now, after the rollout, the CDC issues "new" guidance to labs to run <28 cycles. hmmmmmmmmmm
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-1...estigation.pdf
So, like I said, they falsely cranked the positive "case" numbers to fear porn you by running the cycles way too high. It would pop a positive on a nano particle of virus from 4 years ago. Lowering the cycles does the opposite. We should have followed the initial guidance of the test maker that the PCR test should not be run at more than 25 cycles. But what does he know? He's dead now anyway.
Don't believe what they tell you - it is all contrived and by design. Luckily some states are seeing thru the BS and moving out on their own.
Unfortunately the damage is done.
Prior to the experimental drug rollout PCR cycles were running >35. Most labs running 38-42.
Now, after the rollout, the CDC issues "new" guidance to labs to run <28 cycles. hmmmmmmmmmm
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-1...estigation.pdf
So, like I said, they falsely cranked the positive "case" numbers to fear porn you by running the cycles way too high. It would pop a positive on a nano particle of virus from 4 years ago. Lowering the cycles does the opposite. We should have followed the initial guidance of the test maker that the PCR test should not be run at more than 25 cycles. But what does he know? He's dead now anyway.
Don't believe what they tell you - it is all contrived and by design. Luckily some states are seeing thru the BS and moving out on their own.
Unfortunately the damage is done.
05-01-2021, 08:59 AM
#10
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Pilot
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by Phins2right
As I have stated since the start of this plandemic - the cycle threshold value for the PCR test was too high. It would detect a nano fragment of any virus related to a coronavirus, flu or any of the other 69 closely related viruses that shared a remote relation with a coronavirus (see common cold).
Prior to the experimental drug rollout PCR cycles were running >35. Most labs running 38-42.
Now, after the rollout, the CDC issues "new" guidance to labs to run <28 cycles. hmmmmmmmmmm
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-1...estigation.pdf
So, like I said, they falsely cranked the positive "case" numbers to fear porn you by running the cycles way too high. It would pop a positive on a nano particle of virus from 4 years ago. Lowering the cycles does the opposite. We should have followed the initial guidance of the test maker that the PCR test should not be run at more than 25 cycles. But what does he know? He's dead now anyway.
Don't believe what they tell you - it is all contrived and by design. Luckily some states are seeing thru the BS and moving out on their own.
Unfortunately the damage is done.
Prior to the experimental drug rollout PCR cycles were running >35. Most labs running 38-42.
Now, after the rollout, the CDC issues "new" guidance to labs to run <28 cycles. hmmmmmmmmmm
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-1...estigation.pdf
So, like I said, they falsely cranked the positive "case" numbers to fear porn you by running the cycles way too high. It would pop a positive on a nano particle of virus from 4 years ago. Lowering the cycles does the opposite. We should have followed the initial guidance of the test maker that the PCR test should not be run at more than 25 cycles. But what does he know? He's dead now anyway.
Don't believe what they tell you - it is all contrived and by design. Luckily some states are seeing thru the BS and moving out on their own.
Unfortunately the damage is done.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
