• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The Last Covid-19 Megathread v. Hopefully...

Buzz Lightbeer said:
They got away relatively scot free from the first variants, while the US and every European country were getting hammered at the time.
The meme is outdated. June 2020..

It wasn't because of the masks. Europeans were walking around with masks everywhere and were constantly in lockdown
Click to expand...
I'd like to see a legitimate comparison between Japanese mask usage and mandates vs EU before I have an opinion on that.

Wearing masks in Japan/Asia was traditional well before covid.

If masks are useless then I guess a billion people have been idiots well before covid.
 
“Masks in operating rooms do not change post-op infection rates. To my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses. ”



    • Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1157412/

    • Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7379387/




    • Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2766345/








    • In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1853618/




    • A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11512642/




    • Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11760479/




    • Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11510307/




    • Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20524498/




    • Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21068655/




    • Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575920/




    • Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24532167/




    • Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25294675/




    • Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25187588/




    • Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26085560/




















 
Mr. Krinkle said:
hey smart guy, read those studies i just posted for you
Click to expand...
None of those studies demonstrated that wearing masks doesn't reduce infection rate, only that it doesn't prevent it. Just going off what they say in the title without the paywall barrier.

Also, none of the conclusions or data is available, all behind a pay wall. What you linked does not prove or say anything.

No way to tell if any of this is peer reviewed or scrutinized.

If you have access to these studies, please link them, I'd love to read this.

Also important to note anyone or their dog could upload these "studies".

There is data via this website that you call a lie because you think it's government lies... but all these studies are legit to you without even looking at them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Krinkle said:
hey smart guy, read those studies i just posted for you
Click to expand...
hey polite guy, those are some compelling studies you've provided. thanks.

just would like to point out (not as major proof or anything, but thought provoking nonetheless)... the second one, the ha'eri and wiley, they apparently did a follow up where the masks were worn with a hood that covered/ sealed the edges of the mask (a practice that does not appear to have been widely adopted, even to this day) :

"Before 10 further operations, human albumin microspheres were applied to the masks worn as described above. The microspheres were applied in the same manner as in the previous experiments. At the termination of the operations, we were unable to find the microspheres in the wound irrigates in any of the 10 experiments. This demonstrated the advantage of wearing face masks beneath the headgear as described above, rather than in the conventional way."

(edit)

i'd also like to point out, for posterity, that i've been for a couple years holding the position that it is a proper, well- fitted mask that we should be wearing... and not just any fucking neck gaitor or single layer tiny cotton mask; i have been making sure my edges are sealed for quite some time now, even before i was getting n95s and was wearing a simple two- layer cloth mask.

(nuther edit)

maybe we should be wearing these more often for surgeries:

HC-H01-Hoodie-Cover-1200x1200-HC-PPE-570x570.jpg
 
Last edited:
The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals
Click to expand...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and measures to prevent them - PubMed

Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
Electrum1 said:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and measures to prevent them - PubMed

Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
Important to note this is a suggestive commentary on other studies and not one in itself. It does not give any data or actual numbers beyond what is already publicly available.

I think its imperative to keep all of this in perspective. The vaccine probably does lower the immune system to a small degree... so does drinking alcohol, smoking meth, stress, sleep deprivation, poor diet and innumerable other things.

It mentions 4 cases of a disease which MAY have been exacerbated by the vaccine.... 4 cases.

All of that needs to be weighed against risk of severe covid and death, which the commentary does not do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fire&Water said:
Is that your reddit lullaby?
Click to expand...
No, I don't obsess about unvaccinated deaths the way you people clearly obsess over vaccinated deaths or side effects.

I've got better things to do with my time. You aren't even vaccinated yet love to spend so much mental energy on people who are.

Kinda weird... I don't even think about covid or vaccines other than these threads on BL.
 
Electrum1 said:
The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals
Click to expand...
afaik, it's been pretty well known that infection can infer better and longer lasting immunity than does being vaccinated (correct me if i'm wrong about that), and the best immunity is hybrid immunity (infection + vaccination)...

the problem is YOU'VE GOT TO GAMBLE ON COVID-19 AND ITS MANY POTENTIAL SERIOUS HEALTH outcomes to get there.
 
nepalnt21 said:
and the best immunity is hybrid immunity (infection + vaccination)...
Click to expand...
Idk man, I'm pretty sure it's one or the other. Taking a shot specifically targeted for older variants isn't going to give as robust immunity as natural infection from my understanding
nepalnt21 said:
the problem is YOU'VE GOT TO GAMBLE ON COVID-19 AND ITS MANY POTENTIAL SERIOUS HEALTH outcomes to get there.
Click to expand...
The newer omicron variants are mild compared to alpha tho. People catching covid now, even for the first time appear to get over it like a cold. If your immune system is wrecked and a mess you could have problems I'd imagine. Or if you're old obese and diabetic or something. Those people are obviously at risk of complications. Healthy people shouldn't need to get a shot
 
I'll say again before I bow out of this depressing thread again... the vaccines made sense when it was alpha and delta. Omicron is a different disease. The vaccine does not appear to prevent catching it, getting sick from it, or transmitting it. So there is no reason to be pushing everyone to get it anymore. If you want to get it, go for it. I got boosted, if I could go back, I wouldn't have, especially since I got it about 45 days after getting boosted. It just looks like a money grab to me now, they made all the vaccines, and they have to sell them. I was calling people idiots for not getting vaccinated back in 2020... I'm not anymore. The risk to reward ratio has flipped, unless you're particularly vulnerable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top