What if the government got it wrong on masks again?

Secondly, I would not be surprised that the Delta variant was seeded in India by China. One goal of China is to break India back up into it’s original territories.
China sees Anglo and American power as being illegitimate, and and had no right to rearrange the world China lives in. Their goal is to take Asia back to the 1400’s when China was at its height.
Less than lethal viruses are a dream come true.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

 

Thank you for your patience, I apologize for being unclear

 

Read the comments in the paper and you might learn something. The study was flawed and gave a misleading conclusion.

The study even states "This leads in turn to impairments attributable to hypercapnia" yet they did not measure CO2 concentration in the blood

And finally, regarding all the concerns of the letter, the editor of Jama wrote "We are reviewing and evaluating the many comments and concerns about this study and are asking the authors to respond and provide additional information"

Or were you referring to :
"Odd that according to many anti-maskers the masks are useless at stopping the virus, a bit like using a chain link fence to catch flies, but suddenly the mask is able to stop gas molecules hundreds/thousands of times smaller than the virus."
Are you one of those anti-maskers who believe that too?

 

Did you even bother to read the study or do you just accept what ever you read as fact?

It's odd that there are hundreds of millions of children that have been wearing a mask in class rooms for many hours a day with no ill effects yet according to that study just 3 minutes or so wearing a mask is enough to conclude "This leads in turn to impairments attributable to hypercapnia"

The study also concluded "This carbon dioxide mixes with fresh air and elevates the carbon dioxide content of inhaled air under the mask, and this was more pronounced in this study for younger children." How could they measure the CO2 inhaled with a machine that takes about a minute to measure the concentration?

And little doubt you would have even bothered to see which equipment they used so just for you, here it is:
https://www.gemscientific.co.uk/geotech-g100-0-20-co2-incubator-analyser-p143

 

Sorry, I must have misunderstood the question. I support wearing masks

 

The comments in the study are made by ignorant people. I’m going to address the first comment here because it’s made by a blatantly ignorant individual.

The first comment is critical of the device used to measure CO2. He states the T90 interval as the basis for his criticism. But the design of the study makes the T90 interval and respiration rate of subjects irrelevant. The device used is capable of taking an accurate reading of each sample delivered to it every 20 seconds or less. Usually much less.

The device is supplied with sample gas via tubing and a pump. During the sampling of exhaled gas, the pump is run only during the exhalation phase of the respiratory cycle so the only gas reaching the sampling device is exhaled gas. Likewise, when sampling inhaled gas the pump is run only during the inhalation phase resulting in the exact same gas reaching the device as reaches the lungs of the subject. When both exhaled and inhaled gas is being measured the pump runs continuously during both inhalation and exhalation phases of respiration.

The time period for measuring was 2-3 minutes for each of three measurements—inhaled and exhaled gas combined, inhaled gas only, and exhaled gas only. So we know the device can make an accurate reading every 20 seconds or less. This means for each experimental run of 2-3 minutes (for each of the three gasses—inhaled only, exhaled only, and both combined) there were at least 6 accurate readings of the exact gas concentrations the subject was delivering to and expelling from the lungs.

The study detailed methods says concentrations were logged every 15 seconds so we know the T90 interval of the device is better than the official spec sheet. This means there were more than 6 accurate readings on average per experimental run.

So the criticism of the study based on T90 interval and respiratory rate is from either an idiot who doesn’t understand the design of the study and how this device works, or he’s a liar. For his criticism to be valid the study would have had to have been designed to measure the CO2 level in each individual inhalation and exhalation concurrently which was not the case. Again, he either didn’t read the study (which makes him a moron) or he’s intentionally misleading you. Either way he is 100% incorrect.

The study correctly measured the CO2 levels of the exact same gasses entering and exiting the lungs. Period.

So now we know you have not read the study or as the other poster says you aren’t capable of digesting it. And apparently the same goes for the critic of the study—he didn’t read it or he/she (don’t care) is a complete moron.

I am the only PF member who is not anti mask. Your comment is as silly as the anti masker’s one about chain link fence. Go blow out a candle 12 inches from your face maskless. Then try it wearing an N95 mask. Note the difference. Then ponder for a while if the mask isn’t impeding the exchange of gas molecules why you observe a difference. LOL. You guys.

 

Exhaled air is around 38,000 ppm CO2. The quoted acceptable level of CO2 is the level for the whole classroom, not the air at 1.5cm distance from the nose. So to claim that the CO2 level was 6 times the acceptable level is a nonsense comparison. Of course the immediate air next to a child's mouth will have higher CO2 concentration. Scaremongering nonsense

LOL. Your reading comprehension sucks! It's not me saying that a mask does not hinder gas molecules! The anti-maskers claim that a mask has no effect in stopping a virus yet in the same breath say that the mask stops air molecules. Even a paper tissue will hinder the passage of air. Not long ago you were defending the posters of a pathetic video of a so called doctor blowing cigarette smoke through a mask as if that was evidence that a mask will not hinder the passage of the virus

 

From a health perspective we are concerned with the CO2 concentration of air being inhaled by the child. Masked, the air they were inhaling was 6 times higher in CO2 than German gov. safe standards. Period. This is not a death sentence (obviously) but it is a valid health concern. Neither you or the quacks in the comment section understand anything about the study of you wouldn’t have brought up the specs of the device used to measure CO2 concentrations.

If we agree masks hinder the passage of both virus and gas molecules that’s great news! That means you agree there is a health risk from increased CO2 concentrations in air inhaled by masked kids. Or is breathing high levels of CO2 not a risk and the German Gov. is off base with their standards?

I’m not sure what defense you are referring to as you seem incapable of figuring out the quote function of PF, but any post of mine would be based on empirical evidence either way. They always are. I base my defense of anyone on evidence. I’ve even defended notorious science denying quacks like the Orange Man and the Bleached Erect Leg Hair Man when they have been correct!

If you were correct I’d defend you! All I’m interested in is correct information.

 

From the USA actually. Aberdeen, South Dakota to be specific.

 

And yet the ACA remains nearly entirely intact.

 

The vax rate for my city is 39%. The vax rate for adults, however, is 51%. So far, Delta isn't here, but it is in my state, so it is just a matter of time. I mostly still mask, though not 100% and I had the jabs. I make that decision based on the likelyhood I will be in close contact with people. Some places I just do it at the doors and the registers, some door to door, and some not at all.

 

Stated in article "A level of 0.2% by volume or 2000 ppm is the limit for closed rooms according to the German Federal Environmental Office, and everything beyond this level is unacceptable.". That is the limit for the whole room, not 0.5cm from a child's nose. CO2 distribution across the whole room is not constant. Exhaled air is 4% CO2, is that level unacceptable! Obviously the air surrounding a child, masked or unmasked, will have a higher CO2 level than the closed room average level. A child under those stressful test conditions is not a real life test - 6 of the children had to stop being in the study because they could not cope with the stress

The claim that the CO2 level was 6 times the acceptable level is a nonsense comparison quoted for scare mongering; let me know when there is evidence of "irreversible brain damage" (post 17) and I will reconsider my views. Where are the blood CO2 measured levels in that study for them to conclude that hypercapnia is a risk? - the study states that they measured the blood gas levels and breathing rates but I could not find them

 

You say that like you believe the President has the power to issue such an executive order.
Does said order execute existing legislation?
Does said order fall under any of the powers granted to the President under Article II of the constitution?
If the answers, above, are "no", why do you think the USSC will uphold said order?

 

We are completely unconcerned with the concentrations in the room. We are concerned with the CO2 concentration of the air being drawn into the lungs. This is what was measured in this study—the exact same air tested was the same air being inhaled by the subjects. It was 6 times higher in CO2 than what is recommended to be inhaled by the German government. These are facts. Nobody cares that you are hung up on room concentrations or where tubing feeding the measuring device was positioned. The air tested is the same air breathed by the children. The study was designed to test that and it did. Neither you or the online critics read or understand the study design.

Test subjects are excluded often in many trials. And the fact these kids were excluded is good evidence the ethics statement in the study design was followed. That’s a plus. We would not want the results skewed by unduly stressed kids.

This study made no claims about irreversible brain damage. I’m not interested in strawman arguments. I’ve never addressed anything but this study.

The data in the data library seems to be data relevant to the published study. I would like to see blood gas data as well but breathing rates and pulse rates are well reported. Also missing from the data library is thorax expansion and facial temperature data, both mentioned in the study design. It’s not uncommon for studies to “shrink” their scope for one reason or another.

The published study does not directly address hypercapnia. The mention is based on the fact hypercapnia can be a result of breathing air with excessive CO2 concentration. And on complaints of kids wearing masks at school etc. that match common side effects of hypercapnia. That’s why it’s in the discussion section, not the results section.

I’m working on answers to the omission of thorax and blood gas data.

 

The early comment where this study is measuring CO2 levels for breathing is putting these children to a big bag and re-breathing the same air.

If a person is exhaling his air through a mask, only a tiny portion of the air in a mask back in on his next inhale.

This "study" is a jok, and after the JAMA gets the replies to the questions, this "study" will be one more ridiculous anti-mask failure.

 

Do you really think its a question of power and Constitutionality anymore? Presidents do what they want, federal judges rule based on their feefees, even the SCOTUS is too scared to take up meaty cases. So given that its all falling apart anyways the least this crappy President could do is force crappy Governors like MoRon DeathSantis to act in the public's interest and keep COVID testing/reporting/recording going.

 

Can you point to the big bag in the study design or protocol? I’d be interested to read that.

 

Inherent to this question is a concession of the point I made.

 

The type of mask that seem to be popular probably doesn't do anything outside of catching saliva that would have otherwise been projected in a sneeze or a cough.

I think it was just a way to help people feel safer going out and about so that the entire economy didn't grind to a halt.

But wearing a mask to keep the covid virus out and it's kind of like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out.

 

It isn't "nearly entirely intact." The public mandate was neutered. It's now voluntary. The penalty / tax for not participating has been eliminated.

 

The individual, the "Cadillac tax", and 2 other tax mechanisms (IIRC) were repealed. 906 pages through 10 titles remain effective aka nearly entirely intact.

 

The public mandate was repealed. Period. That completely neutered the ACA.

 

I am very to hear to what "questions" required JAMA has needed to for evaluation of this "study".

But one parameter of this "study" is there standard that the distance from the mask to the nostril is SIX Tenths of an INCH! (1.5 cm!)

That is an sizable distance for a face mask. Since we can assume this anti-masker friendly "study", I think that kind of distance can be assumed entirely distance on the sides onto the cheeks and down to the bottom of the chin.

That is a sizeable cubic area of volume of air which increases the rebreathing of exhaust air compared to actual masks which are close or touching to the mouth and nose, and the cheek and the lower chin would be much closer than .6" in all the mask area.

In fact, it is very common with children to be chewing on the mask, actually with mask.

When exhalation occurs in normal masks, large proportions of the stale will be forced out of area the child's mouth and nose, and thus when inhaling a large proportion of the room air will be fresh air from the room ambient CO2 and O2.

This why I consider ths "study" is describing a "bag around the child's air space", which would allow more stale air to be re-breathed.

Of course, in reality even if children had a "air bag", children will usually be moving around their heads and mouth, etc, which will exchange stale air with fresh room air even if someone want to have a sizeable air bag face cover.

This is a silly and poorly designed "study" designed to please anti-maskers. I suspect there will be the JAMA will have considerations like that. Children are not at risk of "brain damage" from masks, or even more than any usual sleepiness than no masks schools.

 

Logic would dictate that exposure to viral load would be determinant to getting sick with COVID 19, the higher to load exposure, the higher the risk of getting sick or severely sick. Masks will always mitigate exposure load but practicality & preference are considerations. The government's message of mask wearing or not has been quite inconsistence to the point of confusion.