Polis to mandate masks across the state

[roberth]

This has been a political exercise from the start.

The WHO/CDC mixed politics and their assessment together at the behest of the ChiComs, as opposed to an unbiased assessment without outside interference like they're supposed to do.

No one knows the truth, well maybe the ChiComs know the truth but they're not telling.

We're going to have to ride it out and put up with the political fear-mongering while we ride it out.

One thing should be obvious to all of us. CO state gov't doesn't give a damn about the citizens, they say they do but their actions betray their words.

[roberth]

From the New England Journal of Medicine:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

[Rucker61]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#534512772748

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...=featured_home

The masks aren't to protect the wearer, but to reduce the amount of spray and droplets that a possibly asymptomatic wearer is producing.

[roberth]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#534512772748

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...=featured_home

The masks aren't to protect the wearer, but to reduce the amount of spray and droplets that a possibly asymptomatic wearer is producing.

Part of the human respiratory function is to expel germs and crap through our oral and nasal passages. The mask blocks this expulsion, trapping the germs so the masked person can breathe them in again.

Not just sneezing and coughing, but normal breathing expels things.

So now what?

[Rucker61]

Part of the human respiratory function is to expel germs and crap through our oral and nasal passages. The mask blocks this expulsion, trapping the germs so the masked person can breathe them in again.

Not just sneezing and coughing, but normal breathing expels things.

So now what?

So you're worried about the germs already in your body going back in to your body?

[MrPrena]

Governor of entire earth said "obey"

[FoxtArt]

As long as things are open and people are able to work, then wearing a mask will be only a minimal bother.

Valid point - or e.g., stated another way, if we can avoid wholesale closures of restaurants and other small businesses, then it is a minimal bother.

I don't care if you wear a mask or not. I'm a big boy and can choose where to go and who to see.

But this constant misinterpreting what masks are for is getting really, really annoying.

I get it, you don't like being told to wear one. But when you post stuff that completely misses the point, you come across as, how shall I say, ignorant.

O2

+1. I really don't have a position on the mandate tbh. To an extent, there is validity in both sides of the argument. But the individuals in the anti-mask crowd that point to these things for their basis are similar to flat earthers that point to their "indisputable evidence we live on a dinner plate, see this MS Paint graphic here....". There are great arguments that are made by some anti-mask advocates; legal, freedom, regional, blanket, etc., but "the viruses are smaller than the weaves" or "masks don't work" is not one of them, any more than "PROOF - the horizon is flat, we're on a plate" is.

N95 is about 3nm, the virus is around 1NM. So it's not "800 viruses" holding hands, it's 2. And respiratory viral pathogens transmit primary in micro-droplets of water that are inordinately larger than the "weave". Any individual ones that filter through a mask are essentially irrelevant, as there is no pathogen that has a minimum viral load of 1. I'm not sure anyone knows the viral load of this pathogen specifically, but it's most certainly in the order of several hundred to more likely several thousand; meaning you can breath individual viruses all day through your mask and you'll never get sick, but you breath one micro-droplet of water that someone exhaled straight into your lungs, your f$#ked.

That said; I'm not here taking a position that anyone should be forced to wear a mask. Just for the love of Fannie Mays; please stop spreading dis-information. To those that say "there's zero evidence" you're clearly ignoring everything you disagree with, because there is. There's certainly a small smattering of studies that support the anti-mask argument, but they are overshadowed by the evidence in the other direction as well as demographic information from other countries (e.g. Japan). If masks cause such problems, why have the Japanese successfully worn them as a society for years? Why is perhaps one of the highest density cities suffering the lowest per capita infection rates (with a much earlier onset to our own). Why does the US marine base at Okinawa have far more infections per capita than the rest of the island? Etc. etc.

Again, I'm not advocating that people be forced to wear masks at this time. Likewise, while it's an inconvenience, there's far bigger issues across the country that I'm not planting a flag on it either, as there's decent arguments to advance it as well.

Of all the problems in this country, being required to wear a facial covering in public in an attempt to reduced the spread of sickness during a pandemic is the least of my concerns.

I am not sure why everybody is so indignant about it, both right and left. Pick another hill to die on.

Is it perfect?- No.
....

I swear some people believe if they wear a bandanna over their face today to go shopping at Walmart, that the .gov will be at their house tomorrow to collect their guns...

+1. Out of all the symbols of "resistance" to choose, the flag was planted on a hill of pettiness, and a lot of political capital is being put through a meat grinder of futility on this issue.

[CS1983]

So you're worried about the germs already in your body going back in to your body?

Yes, because they are expelled for a reason: to keep total load down..

While ill-fitting masks let in pollutants, mask that fit too tightly can also be problematic. A person wearing any kind of mask faces breathing resistance as air filters through the device, making the wearer work harder to inhale than he would without the mask. This can have several adverse physiological effects when the mask is worn for long periods of time. Moreover, carbon dioxide that is exhaled can get trapped in the chamber of the mask the re-enter the body each time the mask user inhales. This delivers less oxygen into the body than when the person is not wearing a mask.

“It can lead to oxygen shortage, suffocation, respiration trouble, and heart attacks,” said Dr D Saha, scientist and additional director at the Central Pollution Control Board.

He pointed out that masks are a potential source of bacteria and viruses. “The moisture from exhalation inside the mask, when in constant contact with the 37 degrees Celsius warm human body, becomes ideal place for virus and bacteria to thrive,” he said. This could result in the growth of microbes on masks and aid the spread of airborne diseases like influenza.

https://scroll.in/pulse/860276/no-go...health-effects

This quote was from an article more concerned with pollution-based mask wearing, but the content still stands insofar as what we are seeing, and the reality of masks causing problems. Oh, and the referenced statement from Sacramento County? That was scrubbed from the Sacramento website.

"The Sacramento County Public Health Officer does not recommend use of N95 respirator masks for the general public," read a confusing statement issued this week.

We talked to a doctor to parse the oddly conflicting public health statements.

"I'm recommending it for my patients, said Dr. Fred Herkowitz who specializes in treating pulmonary disease in Oakland. "For people with lung disease (the N95 mask) is still better than anything out there."

He points out what other health workers point out, "The situation is we tell all people that we give an N95 mask to that if they have trouble breathing because the mask is tight then they shouldn't wear it. But that's different than saying they shouldn't be worn."

Sacramento County said, "N95 respirator can make it more difficult for the wearer to breathe due to carbon dioxide buildup, which reduces the intake of oxygen, increased breathing rates and heart rates." The bottom line is, if you have lung disease, ask your doctor.

Sacramento County also argued that "Risks of N95 respirator use outside of fire zones outweigh benefits: Most people will not contact their healthcare provider before using the N95 respirator; N95 use may lead to increased heart rate, respiratory rate, work of breathing, CO2 buildup inicro-ambient air, potentially posing risk to sensitive populations; May encourage outdoor activity which could worsen exposure."

https://www.sfgate.com/california-wi...r-13399569.php

I'd argue that masks indoors encourages complacency, if the risk is as much as "they" say. Especially when people are wearing masks which are insufficient to stop all but large droplets (which would fall down, and might even tend towards becoming aerosols when forced through the "filter" of the largely porous "masks" (repurposed tshirts basically).

Oh, here's the scrub:

Server Error in '/' Application.
The resource cannot be found.
Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.

Requested URL: /news/latest-news/Documents/N95 Respirator Mask Recommendations.pdf

https://www.saccounty.net/news/lates...dations.pdf%20

N95

Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers, and this needs to be taken into consideration in guidelines for respirator use. The benefits of using N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4647822/

And while the study was focused on pregnant women, I'd argue those same effects will be felt by everyone -- especially the obese, those with breathing problems already, and other health ailments. Not to mention the psychological issues associated with feeling like you are on the cusp of being unable to breathe for hours upon hours in the day.

An actual infectious diseases expert. more at the link:

As New Brunswick continues to reopen for business, the use of masks is being strongly recommended by the government when physical distancing cannot be maintained.

Dr. Jennifer Russell, New Brunswick's chief medical officer of health, said anyone who cannot keep an effective physical distance during COVID-19 should wear a mask. Some exceptions include children under two and people who can't wear a mask because of breathing troubles.

But Dr. Colin Furness, an infection control epidemiologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, says wearing a mask can be dangerous. That is if the wrong mask is worn, it's worn incorrectly or people have incorrect expectations when wearing it.

"The worst one is wearing one for too long," he said, noting masks can collect bacteria and other viruses.

Furness said he wonders why this information isn't being shared when there is evidence about it.
Study points to dangers

He said a study in a U.K. medical journal showed health-care workers who wore cloth masks all day while working were 13 times more likely to get a respiratory illness when compared to the standard practice of only wearing a mask when necessary.

Those who wore a paper or procedure mask were twice as likely to get some type of respiratory infection if they wore it all day. The N95 masks were only worn when required during the study and no staff were affected.

"This shouldn't surprise us," Furness said. "A mask, you're breathing on it all day long creating all this wonderful space for bacteria to multiply, and once they get to a certain quantity you start inhaling them."

He said drug-resistant bacteria could be worse than COVID-19 for some people.

Furness said if a person has to wear a cloth mask, it should be made of heavy cotton fabric. The wearer should time how long they have it on.

"I will only wear it for two hours total wearing time," Furness said.
That's an arbitrary number Furness has chosen, but he said a published study indicates four hours is too long. He boils his masks after two hours of use.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...asks-1.5560578

So these folks/experts, studies, in combination with my own experience in wearing a variety of masks for everything from CNBC to dust, paint, and now this manufactured fearmongering bullshit, I'm not wearing one. The death rate, if it's even accurate, doesn't mandate a risk mitigation policy of effecitvely forcing ourselves to decrease oxygen, increase bacteria and viruses, and provide a false sense of security.

Masks are like some secretary thinking she can visit hunkyrussians.ru and be ok cus she has an un-updated, unlicensed version of McAfee with an expired trial on her computer.

[Gman]

Just got an alert on my cell phone that his majesty, the guv, has mandated a state-wide mask order.

[FoxtArt]

Bastards sent an "amber alert" for mandatory mask usage

Opinions of individual "experts" or politicians aren't any substitute for science. Again, there's a society on earth that has worn masks on a day to day basis for years, and none of those concerns have ever seemed to come to fruition.

I think the better argument is not one of "masks don't work" it's one of striking a balance. Or in other words, this is a disease with a high asymptomatic ratio and a fatality ratio of slightly less than one half of one percent. Blanket mandates don't factor in individual concerns and issues, and don't factor uneven risk into equations. Targeted mandates (in some cases, more extreme, but highly targeted) are probably far more effective. Then, the balance also has to enter the equation with any of these mandates; our government needs to be realistically estimating costs to education, mental health, suicides, and economic loss, and strike a reasonable balance.