Dozens of Mississippi lawmakers have Coronavirus after weeks of refusing to wear masks......

[mango]

More idiots learning the hard way.....

<cite class="el-editorial-source"></cite>

If you've been in contact with your state lawmaker in Mississippi, you may want to get a coronavirus test.About one in six state lawmakers have tested positive for the coronavirus, according to Dr. Thomas Dobbs of the Mississippi Health Department.


For weeks, politicians flouted mask recommendations inside the state Capitol. Twenty-six state legislators have now tested positive for Covid-19, including Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann and State House Speaker Philip Gunn. Neither man wore a mask at a bill signing at the governor's mansion last week.






https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/us/mississippi-coronavirus-legislature-trnd/index.html

 

[michael777]

Someone should put a muzzle on you Mango Tard

 

[Wins2day]

What are you going to do when they stop reporting on coronavirus ? That's the question...I can't wait till this BS stops, I'm going to celebrate the end of Corona year when It happens.

 

[tar_heel_in_sc]

I'm further right-leaning than most, even here. That said, IMO a lot of people are being way too dismissive of the Chinese bio-weapon. I don't like what I've been reading from some first hand accounts of those who've had/still have effects from it. Yes the death rate is very low, but I'm concerned about the long-term outlook/quality of life for those who've had it.

 

[Willie99]

8% to 16% of the population is supposed to test positive, this is not news

When there are 30,000,000 to 60,000,000 asymptomatic Americans walking the streets, it proves the virus is not as deadly as the assholes think

Positive test results only help prove this fact

Manholes are spoonfed and clueless, don't be a Manhole

 

[JavyBaez9]

Oh no, hope they get through the sniffles.

 

[azbob]

Headline from the future...twelve members of the legislature have the flu. Same difference without those pesky shutdowns.

 

[THawk+]

Hey fruit cup masks have nothing to do with it

Masks do not prevent spread of virus

If you were not a moron and did actual research instead of watch tv or read websites that have agendas you would actually learn something

but you are a moron or manhole as Willie says

You are what Stalin and communists call "useful idiot" a person who supports them without knowing anything

To add all of them will survive and be fine...

 

[X-Files]

Masks do not prevent spread of virus

If you were not a moron and did actual research instead of watch tv or read websites that have agendas you would actually learn something

Speaking of research:

And for a more recently dated source, full of scientific evidence for mask usage, see the quoted material below:

Besides it being obviously common sense, there's tons of evidence that mask wearing reduces infections and deaths by C-19. For example:


"Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review


Jeremy Howarda,c,1 , Austin Huangb , Zhiyuan Lik , Zeynep Tufekcim, Zdimal Vladimire , Helene-Mari van der Westhuizenf,g , Arne von Delfto,g , Amy Pricen , Lex Fridmand , Lei-Han Tangi,j , Viola Tangl , Gregory L. Watsonh , Christina E. Baxs , Reshama Shaikhq , Frederik Questierr , Danny Hernandezp , Larry F. Chun , Christina M. Ramirezh , and Anne W. Rimoint


a fast.ai, 101 Howard St, San Francisco, CA 94105, US; bWarren Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, 222 Richmond St, Providence, RI 02903; cData Institute, University of San Francisco, 101 Howard St, San Francisco, CA 94105, US; dDepartment of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139; e Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals, Czech Academy of Sciences, Rozvojová 135, CZ-165 02 Praha 6, Czech Republic; fDepartment of Primary Health Care Sciences, Woodstock Road, University of Oxford, OX2 6GG, United Kingdom; gTB Proof, Cape Town, South Africa; hDepartment of Biostatistics, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E Young Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90095; iDepartment of Physics, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR, China; jComplex Systems Division, Beijing Computational Science Research Center, Haidian, Beijing 100193, China; kCenter for Quantitative Biology, Peking University, Haidian, Beijing 100871, China; lDepartment of Information Systems, Business Statistics and Operations Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China; mUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; nSchool of Medicine Anesthesia Informatics and Media (AIM) Lab, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Grant S268C, Stanford, CA 94305; oSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory, 7925, South Africa; pOpenAI, 3180 18th St, San Francisco, CA 94110; qData Umbrella, 345 West 145th St, New York, NY 10031; rVrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium; sUniversity of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104; tDepartment of Epidemiology, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E Young Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90095


This manuscript was compiled on April 10, 2020...


The science around the use of masks by the general public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly...


The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces the transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected droplets in both
laboratory and clinical contexts...


"3. Filtering Capability of Masks


...Multiple studies show the filtration effects of cloth masks relative to surgical masks. Particle sizes for speech are on the order of 1 µm (20) while typical definitions of droplet size are 5 µm-10 µm (5). Generally available household materials had between a 49% and 86% filtration rate for 0.02 µm exhaled particles whereas surgical masks filtered 89% of those particles (21). In a laboratory setting, household materials had 3% to 60% filtration rate for particles in the relevant size range, finding them comparable to some surgical masks (22). In another laboratory setup, a tea cloth mask was found to filter 60% ofparticles between 0.02 µm to 1 µm, where surgical masks filtered 75% (23). Dato et al (2006) (24), note that "quality commercial masks are not always accessible." They designed and tested a mask made from heavyweight T-shirts, finding that it "offered substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showed good fit with minimal leakage".Although cloth and surgical masks are primarily targeted towards droplet particles, some evidence suggests they may have a partial effect in reducing viral aerosol shedding (25).


When considering the relevance of these studies of ingress, it’s important to note that they are likely to substantially underestimate effectiveness of masks for
source control. When someone is breathing, speaking, or coughing, only a tiny amount of what is coming out of their mouths is already in aerosol form. Nearly all of what is being emitted is droplets. Many of these droplets will then evaporate and turn into aerosolized particles that are 3 to 5-fold smaller. The point of wearing a mask as source control is largely to stop this process from occurring, since big droplets dehydrate to smaller aerosol particles that can float for longer in air (26).


Anfinrud et al (6) used laser light-scattering to sensitively detect droplet emission while speaking. Their analysis showed that virtually no droplets were "expelled" with a homemade mask consisting of a washcloth attached with two rubber bands around the head, while significant levels were expelled without a mask. The authors stated that "wearing any kind of cloth mouth cover in public by every person, as well as strict adherence to distancing and handwashing, could significantly decrease the transmission rate and thereby contain the pandemic until a vaccine becomes available."


An important focus of analysis for public mask wearing is droplet source control. This refers to the effectiveness of blocking droplets from an infectious person, particularly during speech, when droplets are expelled at a lower pressure and are not small enough to squeeze through the weave of a cotton mask. Many recommended cloth mask designs also include a layer of paper towel or coffee filter, which could increase filter effectiveness for PPE, but does not appear to be necessary for blocking droplet emission (6, 27, 28).


In summary, there is laboratory-based evidence that household masks have some filtration capacity in the relevant droplet size range, as well some efficacy in
blocking droplets and particles from the wearer (26). That is, these masks help people keep their droplets to themselves.


4. Mask Efficacy Studies


Although no randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the use of masks as source control for SARS-CoV-2 has been published, a number of studies have attempted to indirectly estimate the efficacy of masks. Overall, an evidence review (29) finds "moderate certainty evidence shows that the use of handwashing plus masks probably reduces the spread of respiratory viruses."


The most relevant paper (30), with important implications for public mask wearing during the COVID-19 outbreak, is one that compares the efficacy of surgical masks for source control for seasonal coronavirus, influenza, and rhinovirus. With ten participants, the masks were effective at blocking coronavirus droplets of all sizes for every subject. However, masks were far less effective at blocking rhinovirus droplets of any size, or of blocking small influenza droplets. The results suggest that masks may have a significant role in source control for the current coronavirus outbreak. The study did not use COVID-19 patients, and it is not yet known whether seasonal coronavirus behaves the same as SARS-CoV-2; however, they are of the same genus, so similar behavior is likely.


Another relevant (but under-powered, with n=4) study (31) found that a cotton mask blocked 96% (reported as 1.5 log units or about a 36-fold decrease) of viral load on average, at eight inches away from a cough from a patient infected with COVID-19. If this is replicated in larger studies it would be an important result, because it has been shown (32) that "every 10-fold increase in viral load results in 26% more patient deaths" from "acute infections caused by highly pathogenic viruses".


A comparison of homemade and surgical masks for bacterial and viral aerosols (21) observed that "the median-fit factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask." Research focused on aerosol exposure has found all types of masks are at least somewhat effective at protecting the wearer. Van der Sande et al (33) found that "all types of masks reduced aerosol exposure, relatively stable over time, unaffected by duration of wear or type of activity", and concluded that "any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, despite imperfect fit and imperfect adherence". Overall however, analysis of particle filtration is likely to underestimate the effectiveness of masks, since the fraction of particles that are emitted as aerosol (vs. droplet) is quite small (26). Analysis of seasonal coronavirus compared to rhinovirus (30) suggests that filtration of COVID-19 may be much more effective, especially for source control.


The importance of using masks for health care workers has been observed (34) in three Chinese hospitals where, in each hospital, medical staff wearing masks (mainly in quarantine areas) had no COVID-19 infections, despite being around COVID-19 patients far more often, whilst other medical staff had 10 or more infections in each of the three hospitals.


Masks seem to be effective for source control in the controlled setting of an airplane. One case report (35) describes a man who flew from China to Toronto and then tested positive for COVID-19. He was wearing a mask during the flight. The 25 people closest to him on plane/flight attendants were tested and all were negative. Nobody has been reported from that flight as getting COVID-19. Another case study involving a masked influenza patient on an airplane (36) found that
"wearing a face mask was associated with a decreased risk for influenza acquisition during this long-duration flight".


Guideline development for health worker personal protective equipment have focused on whether surgical masks or N95 respirators should be recommended. Most of the research in this area focuses on influenza. At this point, it is not known to what extent findings from influenza studies apply to COVID-19 filtration. Wilkes et al (37) found that "filtration performance of pleated hydrophobic membrane filters was demonstrated to be markedly greater than that of electrostatic filters." However, even substantial differences in materials and construction do not seem to impact the transmission of droplet-borne viruses in practice, such as a metaanalysis of N95 respirators compared to surgical masks (38) that found "the use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratoryconfirmed influenza." Johnson et al (39) showed that "surgical and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the spread of PCR-detectable influenza". Radonovich et al (40) found in an outpatient setting that "use of N95 respirators, compared with medical masks... resulted in no significant difference in the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza."


One of the most frequently mentioned papers evaluating the benefits and harms of cloth masks have been by MacIntyre et al (41). Findings have been
misinterpreted, and therefore justify detailed discussion here. The authors "caution against the use of cloth masks" for healthcare professionals compared
to the use of surgical masks and regular procedures, based on an analysis of transmission in hospitals in Hanoi. We emphasize the setting of the study - health workers using masks to protect themselves against infection. The study compared a "surgical mask" group which received 2 new masks per day, to a "cloth mask" group that received 5 masks for the entire 4week period and were required to wear the masks all day, to a "control group" which used masks in compliance with existing hospital protocols, which the authors describe as a "very high level of mask use". It is important to note that the authors did not have a "no mask" control group because it was deemed "unethical to ask participants to not wear a mask." The study does not inform policy pertaining to public mask wearing as compared to the absence of masks in a community setting, since there is not a "no mask" group. The results of the study show that the group with a regular supply of new surgical masks each day had significantly lower infection of rhinovirus than the group that wore a limited supply of cloth masks. This paper lends support to the use of clean, surgical masks by medical staff in hospital settings to avoid rhinovirus infection by the wearer, and is consistent with other studies that show cloth masks provide poor filtration for rhinovirus (30). Its implementation does not inform the effect of using cloth masks versus not using masks in a community setting for source control of SARS-CoV-2, which is of the same genus as seasonal coronavirus, which has been found to be effectively filtered by cloth masks in a source control setting (30).


A. Studies of Impact on Community Transmission.


When evaluating the available evidence for the impact of masks on community transmission, it is critical to clarify the setting of the research study (health care facility or community), the respiratory illness being evaluated and what reference standard was used (no mask or surgical mask). There are no RCTs that have been done to evaluate the impact of masks on community transmission during a coronavirus pandemic. While there is some evidence from influenza outbreaks, the current global pandemic poses a unique challenge. A review (42) of 67 studies including randomized controlled trials and observational studies found that simple and lowcost interventions would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. The review recommended that "the following effective interventions should be implemented, preferably in a combined fashion, to reduce transmission of viral respiratory disease: 1. frequent handwashing with or without adjunct antiseptics; 2. barrier measures such as gloves, gowns, and masks with filtration apparatus; and 3. suspicion diagnosis with the isolation of likely cases". However, it cautioned that routine longterm implementation of some measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic."


http://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

 

[X-Files]

 

[MAGAking1]

 

[HarryCaray]

Why do you feel the need to post this in multiple threads?
First off it's bullshit. Relying on a loose fitting woven cloth mask protect you from a .1 micron virus is not the same as hoping someone doesn't urinate on your leg. Secondly it's widely available all over social media, so why do you so badly want us all to see it here again? People come here for original content and thoughts.

 

[Willie99]

Why do you feel the need to post this in multiple threads?
First off it's bullshit. Relying on a loose fitting woven cloth mask protect you from a .1 micron virus is not the same as hoping someone doesn't urinate on your leg. Secondly it's widely available all over social media, so why do you so badly want us all to see it here again? People come here for original content and thoughts.

Does he know that he's telling us wearing masks DOESN'T protect the person wearing the mask? I doubt it, he's an X-Hole

Imagine arguing everyone should wear a mask and then telling them wearing a mask doesn't protect them?

That's what makes them special

They just can't think

 

[THawk+]

Speaking of research:

Anecdotal to be perfectly honest. I can show you dozens of studies that say the contrary on top of talking with people who actually know
what they are talking about.

I have not read the whole thing but seeing how it came from all academics I will say it should not be trusted without being vetted
for how they did the research. You see academic will skew how they do research for a certain outcome so they can get more funding..

You see I know you did not review how they did their research, I know you do not read or do any research at all. Just see a headline and post something
I will say it is dubious at best

Also. I can almost guarantee you have not one clue on how bad it is for someone who is healthy to be wearing a mask for long periods of time let alone short periods

I know you have no clue on any of that