One CDC report just released says that mask mandates actually have very little effect in preventing the spread.
That is not the conclusion of the report, specially because decreases on growth rates are much more important than if they were decreases on final numbers and have a negligible negative effect on public health. Anything you can do for free that helps should be promoted even if it doesn't solve completely the problem.
Community mitigation measures can help reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In this study, mask mandates were associated with reductions in COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days, whereas allowing on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with increases in COVID-19 case and death growth rates after 40 days. With the emergence of more transmissible COVID-19 variants, community mitigation measures are increasingly important as part of a larger strategy to decrease exposure to and reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (3,4). Community mitigation policies, such as state-issued mask mandates and prohibition of on-premises restaurant dining, have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially if implemented with other public health strategies (1,10).
It is also important to differentiate between "mask mandates" and "mask use" because they are not the same thing. If a community uses masks independently of mandates (as in Japan) even a huge reduction of transmission because of the use of the masks would not support the mandate (because people would wear them anyway).
brainwashed people don’t scare me, because I have something called freedom and free choice
That is not a problem as long as you can accept the consequences of your decisions, people everyday use their right to be anti-social, jerks, unhygienic, etc. every day and live with the consequences without having to endlessly repeat they are doing it.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Academia is not immune to the Peter principle.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
But I do admit that it is interesting that it has not been reported anywhere.....
This is again the same mistake I already corrected for the other user, qRT-PCR for the detection of infection has no problem and protocols designed for large number of cycles can still be specific to the point of having less than one false positive per every 1000 tests.
Your video talks about NOT infection but risk of transmission, for which very low number of virus being shed can still be detected but do not mean the person can transmit the disease.
So no, Fauci is NOT talking about false positives because of high cycles, he is talking about perfectly fine true positive results for infection, just that this patient may not be considered automatically infectious for others.
He remains highly respected. He is being attacked by the big pharma-funded lap dogs, which includes the big pharma-funded MSM. He has demonstrated that those who attack him are funded by big pharma and he has won court cases against them. Sorry to burst your bubble.
No, he is not.
He is not attacked by big pharma nor the MSM, he is validly attacked by his peers for unethical and unprofessional research activities that put in danger the health of many patients and that have already been proved, he has not won the disciplinary case against him put forward by fellow scientist that discovered how he falsified and fabricated information to profit from the results of his studies.
You presented not a single professional organization opinion about the PCR being not reliable, this clearly indicates who is the one that is against the scientific consensus, the only thing you brought is a basic misunderstanding of two very different purposes for the PCR test. It is very easy to find references of organization officially recognizing the test as accurate
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Many highly respected experts such as Fauci are telling us that we must be concerned with the Ct, and anything above 35 is likely a false positive.
Reference for this, because it has not been reported anywhere.
Raoult is not a respected scientist any more, actually facing a disciplinary meeting for unethical human research and falsification/fabrication of results that put in danger countless numbers of patients, a quick review of the french press and the declaration of the scientific community in France is enough to confirm he is not considered a good scientist any more.
Even the WHO recommended they reduce the Ct to avoid false positives.
That is false, and heavily reported as such by many sources, including the own WHO.
The real recommendation is that laboratories using commercial kits follow the guidelines from the manufactures without modifying any of the parameters in order to have the lowest possible number of false negatives and positives.
McGill is a great school, but all you provided is an unnecessarily wordy article from their Office for Science and Society by some guy with a Masters. And that is supposed to represent the “scientific consensus”?!!!!
That is the thing, the author is not the one that originates the information, and it is not against the consensus of science, if you think this is not what scientific and medical organizations think about the PCR test you can begin by providing official statements from those organizations (better if they are international) or accept it simply is.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
People with covid or those treating covid patients should wear a mask, but masks for the general population has little effect. If it makes you feel less scared go ahead and wear one. Everyone can gather without masks, whether vaccinated or not.
Terribly sorry, but if a nameless person without any data to base his comments contradict the experts It is still much more rational to follow the advice of those experts and ignore the opposite.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
That doctor is highly unethical, the PCR test doesn't indicate whether there's an active infection or not and it can just show you had it before or even a false positive. Same with SoftBank selling tests with a CT value of 40(!), 97+% it won't be an active infection.
Nothing of what you describe is unethical, a PCR test completely indicated an infection except on very exceptional cases (false positives are in the range of 1 out of every 1000 tests).
CT values are irrelevant for the appearance of false positives, because there are many fail-safe mechanisms integrated in the reaction that make simple to eliminate amplification that is not specific for COVID and not include it as a positive. The scientific consensus is that PCR tests for detection of cases of infection (which is the purpose here) are extremely reliable, both sensitive and specific.
- Some people claim, wrongly, that the PCR test for the coronavirus is useless because the so-called Ct values are too high and the test is picking up things that are not the coronavirus
- The PCR tests for the coronavirus that have been internally validated by public health agencies are actually very reliable
- Scientists cannot declare any result above a certain Ct value to be unreliable because Ct values are somewhat relative and must be interpreted by taking into account a variety of factors
Portuguese courts have even ordered PCR tests be no longer used as the sole basis for quarantine
PCR tests are perfectly valid for detection of infection, quarantine is a completely different thing that involves the possibility of transmitting the disease. Trying to present these two different things as equivalent is misleading and wrong.
Same with SoftBank selling tests with a CT value of 40(!), 97+% it won't be an active infection.
Any source that can prove this? (As in scientifically testing controls and coming out with this number). It is terribly simple to systematically eliminate the very few false positives from a test, even in a population that is mainly not infected. Just by including two times the sample in the reaction the possibility of both becoming a false positive in the usual protocol becomes one in a million, putting it 3 times becomes one in a billion, for 4,500 the cost of running each sample in double or triple is not a problem.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
It is sad when a function that the government could easily put in motion with a minimum cost has to be shouldered by the population, specially because those that pay are actually thinking about their social responsibility and acting in the benefit of the society.
Experts have repeatedly said that Japan needs to test more people in order to have a much better grasp of the pandemic, so the number of cases can be reduced more effectively and quickly, Japan has been fortunate in avoiding the same situation of other countries, but with a more appropriate number of tests and tracing being done it could have been even free of the most difficult measures that have been put forward.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
At this point your have a better chance of getting some adverse reactions from the Mrna shot than even getting covid-19, a flu that has an extremely low death rate.
Any source of this? I mean for any adverse reaction above slight fever and pain of course, most people would be much more worried about a visit to the ICU from the infection than getting chills from a vaccine.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Indeed, it is completely irrational to not increase one's vitamin D levels and to immediately treat infected people with safe and effective medicines
Above normal levels? not at all, no benefit has been demonstrated for it so it is just superstition and irrational adherence to a person that keeps people doing it, not science.
You have never provided a source for the supposed success above every other place in the world, if you cannot demonstrate this it is safe to discard it as something that is not real. Once more just an irrational belief without a basis in reality.
Also, if you think you are more capable of diagnosis patients that the professionals you can prove that and demonstrate them wrong with evidence, else their opinion simply is much more worth of trust than yours.
Not if you follow the same standards for covid deaths and vaccine deaths.
Also completely false, if you compare the incidence of problems in the population with and without the variable (be it immunization or COVID) the results remain opposite, vaccines have no elevation of risk above the normal population, COVID on the other hand is a huge risk, even for young people. The same standard proves vaccines as safe and COVID as lethal.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
The government plans to provide the two doses for all 4.8 million medical workers fighting the pandemic in Japan by mid-May.
At the rates vaccination is being done until now it is completely impossible to achieve this goal.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
An article from 2 months ago? why not from January last year? the data on safety and efficacy for the approved vaccines is already available for anybody that wants to see them, and there is no problem detected for neither thing. The good thing about science is that the findings are valid even if people have irrational fears about them. People do not want to vaccinate because they are unable to understand that the risk is lower? its their freedom to be irrational, that does not change the fact that vaccines have demonstrated to be safer than risking the natural infection.
There is not a single professional association of health workers or scientists that have made a declaration against the safety and efficacy of the vaccines in the whole world, small number of people can be wrong, it happens for everything (specially if you have to use old news from when the information was not so easily available) that does not make the scientific data different.
There are many who are provaccines, but just do not see the need for vaccines against Covid19.
People can be irrational, not seeing the point in reducing risk is one of those times. There is no data that have proved less than 1% death rates from identified infected people, and even if the numbers were that low (something impossible, since in the US the over 500,000 deaths would mean there are between 500 million and a billion americans infected...) The lethality rate from the vaccine is much lower, so much that it has not been found to be different from the non-vaccinated population. This is a claim that is terribly easy to prove false.
Absolutely agreed. No long term data? ZERO studies on pregnant women and children? No thank you.
I have already corrected on this but it can be copy-pasted as many times as you put this non-problem. Women and children are NOT to be vaccinated, so there is no need to have studies on them. And since COVID already demonstrated long term and even permanent effects on health the vaccine is still safer in the long term, and it will be until it is related to those problems that COVID already caused.
If you are unable to provide scientific reports and have to rely on videos to "prove" scientific facts that is already a very strong sign the scientific consensus contradicts you.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
Just read about one case yesterday and now a 2nd case of anaphylaxis in Japan may put a damper on the things once it hits the news.
The same as the daily occurrence of anaphylaxis in Japan make people do not eat anything, or have surgeries or take antibiotics? no, that is not rational. This is still in the expected incidence and the expected result of immunizing large number of people.
There is no reason to even think people uninfected could be counted as a COVID patient, that is only an excuse antivaxxer propaganda likes to use to avoid accepting that COVID is a very lethal disease so it can actually kill people when an outbreak happens in vulnerable population before their vaccinations had time to improve their chances.
People with immune problems (like asthma) know they have to be careful not only when trying new drugs but also when using new cosmetics, foods, supplements, etc. This is not something that only happens with vaccines.
One very positive thing is that the people that are irrationally against vaccines are running out of actual unexpected problems that supposedly were going to happen to everybody because of the vaccines and have to try and blow out of proportion the expected exceptional cases that are easily treated, this is a very clear proof of the safety of vaccines.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
Answer: No, unfortunately not. It reduces some symptoms (cough and headache). 3 shots will not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, adverse events or death.
Not preventing infection is not a problem, that is part of the expected function of the vaccine, and by this time it has been scientifically proved the approved vaccines do reduce the rates of hospitalization, adverse events and death (because death do not happen the same for all patients independently of symptoms). It has also become clear the vaccines also reduce transmission, so the whole argument has been proved false.
Trials can be made to prove things indirectly, you don't need to compare deaths to be able to say the intervention prevents them, it is as easy as to see that the complications and heavily symptomatic patients are reduced, once again because those are the patients that end up as fatalities. The criticism can only apply if an asymptomatic patient and a patient in the ICU have the same risk of dying of COVID, this is obviously not the case.
The wiser choice is of course do what represents less risk, the vaccine is without a doubt the less risky option for any patient for which is indicated.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
But if you look into the infection fatality ratios instead of cases you realize the data paints a different story.
No it does not. It is still the same, specially because your own reference authors recognize their study is very limited and likely to over-estimate cases and under-estimate deaths. It is not honest to completely skip this part of the report.
First, the potential for response bias remains. Second, imperfections in tests have the potential for false-positives, which may bias estimated infections upward. Separately, use of confirmed COVID-19 deaths may undercount the true number of deaths; both issues might result in lower IFRs. Third, because children and non–state tax filers were excluded, our estimates may lack generalizability to persons who were not studied. Fourth, we could not account for disease severity among random-sample participants with positive test results. Although participants represented persons with less severe illness, some with positive test results may have later died of COVID-19, resulting in a potential underestimation of the IFR. However, accounting for right-censoring bias also might overestimate the IFR, because we cannot distinguish deaths among persons we randomly tested from those among patients who were hospitalized during the testing period. Race and ethnicity data for confirmed COVID-19 deaths may have been inaccurate, thus biasing these IFR estimates. Lastly, IFR is a population-based measure and should be interpreted cautiously as a measure of individual risk.
Then take a look at US Government VAERS Data (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) to see what possible negative adverse reactions are associated with COVID19 Vaccines:
And as usual it is extremely dishonest to present only half of the information and pretend non vaccinated people do not have the same problems at approximately the same rates, which means there is no elevation of the risks because of the vaccine. That is like saying that if one vaccinated person got a prize in the lottery it would mean the vaccine increases your luck.
Why is it that you always omit this absolutely necessary part of the information? is it because it proves your point as false? vaccine important side effects ABOVE what happens in the non-vaccinated population are nowhere near as high as the problems and complications from COVID, even in studies that directly accept to be underreporting deaths and over reporting cases.
"Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us"
Yes they do, because deaths do not happen randomly to people infected independently of how sick they are, the trials are not designed to directly collect information on deaths as a primary outcome, because that would mean letting thousands of people die without a vaccine just because of this artificial and primitive requirement. Instead they are designed to assess the difference in heavy symptomatology and complications, because people having those are the ones that die with much more frequency than those with aysmptomatic or mildly symptomatic infections. It is perfectly valid and correct to assume a vaccine that makes people have a less important disease after infection have a much lesser risk of death. Unless you can prove that asymptomatic people die as easily from the infection than those that end up in the ICU.
It is very telling that every time one of your arguments is proven false you immediately abandon it without even trying to defend them, almost as if you knew they were invalid from before you commented them.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
What flu? Influenza has now magically disappeared in Japan and in the US (have not checked other countries). We are no longer scared of the flu.
No magic involved at all, just social distancing and hygienic measures proven to work against the infectious respiratory diseases, it is no coincidence that the same measures that are able to control COVID have an even greater effect in infections that are less likely to be transmitted. This is no mystery and was expected by the professionals long before it was observed.
Masks before 2020 were not even close to the universal adoption that have been observed in Japan, much less overseas. And masks are not the only measures that have been put in place, both as a government and personal level.
Children are being turned out of school at the slightest fever, people refrain from talking in the train, people restaurants, etc. have now a limit of people that can enter and a distance between them is required, those are not enough to stop completely the COVID pandemic, but for a virus with a weaker transmission ability the effects are multiplied. Asymptomatic transmission of influenza is not as important for COVID, so with this difference you can clearly understand why it is so important that everybody (not only symptomatic people) have to be tested, and if positive isolated in order to stop the spreading of COVID. This is why is also completely false that the WHO recommended testing only symptomatic people.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Which is why there is a rush to push vaccines. Have you noticed the entire focus is to push COVID vaccines onto the population as the only solution with ZERO other alternatives?
That is completely misleading, vaccines are simply the easiest and safest measure (proved by science) to solve the problems by the pandemic, not the only one. By assuming a negligible risk you can gradually reduce the huge economic and social cost of the measures needed to avoid unnecessary deaths and long term problems caused by COVID. Treatments and medical preventive measures are also being researched and promoted, from dietary supplementation to dirt cheap but effective drugs like dexamethasone.
These injections which they claim 89%-95% effectiveness...for what?: Reduced cough / headache only if you get infected but will put some people out for 1-2 days (2nd one is worse) and now they want a 3rd shot
Reference, the opposite is now being discussed openly and a single shot evaluated to ease the scarcity of vaccines. Until now there is zero evidence for the increase of efficacy with at 3rd shot of the vaccine, which is the minimum that anybody can use as a valid argument to recommend it. One thing is to say this is inside of the possibilities, another completely different is to show it actually makes a difference.
Plus you have risk of negative adverse reactions (Japan just had their first anaphylactic shock with Pfizer COVID vaccine - what happened in the US & UK is happening here too)
The risk of negative adverse reactions is much lower than the risk from the natural infection, specially when people with propensity for allergies are actively put into the list of valid medical exceptions.
In Japan there are over 300 episodes of anaphylaxis a year, that does not mean that foods, antibiotics or surgeries should be stopped to avoid it, it just mean this has to be considered and taking care of, as it is being done.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
There are many other options that volunteers could be dedicating their time and money to, things that are much better organized, without scandals, well received by the general public and that do not have to increase the risk of the pandemic on the population.
If the main motive is altruism it is not hard to find something to do, even if the main purpose is to have fun while helping at something the games seems like a very poor option.
8 ( +10 / -2 )
You disagree with me but agree with me?
No, your quote makes it perfectly clear that the only way to protect vulnerable people is to reduce to a minimum the spreading on the general population, which is exactly the opposite of what you propose. Calling a "solution" simple AND wrong is not agreeing with you, it means your solution is not a solution at all.
Fact, vaccinated people spread the virus.
According to science do it in a lesser degree, which is an expected extra positive effect of vaccination, so together with all other hygienic and social distancing measures can be said to have a strong effect preventing the spreading of the disease, this is the only way found to efficiently prevent spreading to vulnerable population.
Fact, old and sick people have serious infections, young people have mild or asymptotic experiences.
Generally only, young people also can have heavy infections and even die. Also young people infected with mild or asymptomatic infection are a very effective way to spread the infection to people that will die from it.
Such thinking is being banned on social media, even by accredited virologists, doctors, researchers etc.
A reference? how about anybody that has data to prove it? the usual people brought here are people found guilty of lying for personal profit or that went all the way in in their beliefs of woo and anti-scientific conspiracies.
google South Korea deaths...
This actually prove the contrary, after millions were immunized and people had serious troubles at the same rates than unvaccinated people fear mongering tried to make it as if the deaths only happened to vaccinated people until it was proved false, the vaccine was proved to not increase any important risk for the people vaccinated.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
Of course it's not "normal" and now Pfizer and Moderna want 3 shots annually (like the disappearing influenza virus - which are magically being reclassified as by CDC as COVID
This is completely false, why repeat things you know to be mistaken, in order to have a discussion people should only use things known to be true, not the opposite, people may think you want to mislead them on purpose. Try to find a reference that prove this, you will find nothing, that should be clear enough to let you know it is not true.
while still telling you that you need to mask and social distance for the rest of 2021 and maybe next year
This was the position from the beginning, which is why authorities and experts made a huge effort to change the concept of "after COVID to "with COVID", getting surprised for something that has been said for almost a year by now is not a valid argument.
And your "scientific consensus" puts herd immunity happening this summer. There is a lot to look forward to now that's been announced. People may realize that you won't need to inject after all.
Sure, prove it. Put references to professional organizations saying so, specially for Japan.
The important point, is that scientific consensus do not consist on one person here and there saying it, specially if they are out of their field of expertise, it means the vast majority of the related organizations share this opinion, Find the WHO, CDC, etc. saying this and you could prove it is the consensus, not before.
You still may disagree but thank goodness WHO guidance continues to push PCR cycles downward (45 down to 30 but 17 would be preferable). All of a sudden cases are dropping even before the public started getting the jab.
This is a completely false argument that I already disproved to you, so much that you could not refute it. I can easily copy-paste the link where you were proven wrong again.
A very important point is that the vast majority of the positive tests come at cycles lower than 25, reducing the number of cycles to any point above this would have no significant effect on the number of positives.
So the reduction of actual cases is completely unrelated, and well explained by higher adherence to social distancing measures, end of the end of year spreader events, change of seasons and fortunately the beginning of vaccinations.
Why do you repeat a point that has been already proven false to you? repeating it do not make it more true.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
Every virus changes all the time, typically getting weaker as it moves through the population. That is why every virus epidemic in history has always faded out.
While killing a huge lot of people doing it. Modern epidemics are controlled with heavy use of medical and other interventions in order to prevent this from happening, SARS did not became weaker but was cut short thanks to these interventions based on the best possible understanding of the infection that was available at the time.
That is the nature of science and the reason why the slogan that there is one scientific dogma that one must not criticize is totally misguided.
It is fortunate then that the slogan of the scientist community is very different, more like "to change the current consensus you need more and better data proving the contrary than what originated this consensus"
2 ( +5 / -3 )
This of course requires a reference that proves it, a personal opinion simply have no weight.
It is very easy to find out medical and scientific professionals debunking this mistaken idea as wrong, the vulnerable population has no realistic way to be protected while the pandemic is rampant, no matter how much people with interests different from the public health want to repeat it.
Yeah, like the vaccines, which they as continually pushing on us and which may end up causing more harm than good.
There is no scientific or medical association in the world that thinks this scenario as even possible, the infection has demonstrated to be much more dangerous than what could ever happen realistically with the vaccines, fortunately the population is becoming aware of how this fear mongering argument is being proved false every day.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
What world do we live in where this is normal? Thank goodness the heads are saying "herd immunity" will arrive before summer this year.
A pandemic is not normal, so measures that have demonstrated an effect in reducing their importance are perfectly valid and positive. The scientific consensus puts herd immunity at a much later phase, even counting with a generalized vaccination as a condition, much more in Japan, where the incidence of infection is low and immunization even more.
A number of people have made comparisons between places with and without lockdowns and found no/little difference. And there is also Dr. John Ioannidis (epidemiologist) who concluded that lock downs have very little effect.
One, well designed studies have actually demonstrated the social distancing measures, including lockdowns have a deep effect reducing the spread of the pandemic and unnecessary hospitalization and deaths.
Not even one have ever suggested that what is done in Japan is unnecessary or ineffective.
Ioannidis has no longer the respect he once had because it became obvious he is receiving money to produce faulty research that was inconceivable for his old standards, making sloppy science with mistakes he once criticized heavily, It has become clear that at least with respect with COVID he is being paid to produce bad science in order to discredit lockdowns.
He is no longer a respected scientist because of this. Anybody that would think a conflict of interest as an automatic disqualifier for bad scientific studies would never try to use this very clear example as valid. Specially with studies based completely on comparing different countries, with very different situations as if each had the same need and effect of their lockdowns, even for a layman that should be an obvious fault of the design, even more for someone that made his career criticizing these kind of problems.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
elderly or sick, stay home.
young and healthy, live life.
paranoid, stay home.
coming from a foreign country, stay away.
It is well know that every problem have a simple solution, that is also completely wrong.
The scientific and medical community in general have debunked this "solution" as worthless because the frequency of spreading done by people without symptoms means that the only way to efficiently protect vulnerable people is to keep the rates of infection in the general population as low as possible.
Ignoring this do not make it disappear, "live life" is still a terribly bad advice.
4 ( +13 / -9 )
Oh look the scientists are acknowledging zero covid is impossible.
That is not what the article is talking about, they are acknowledging the same thing from the beginning, that there is always the possibility that COVID will remain endemic, not that this is the only possibility.
Of course the real argument has been to control the spreading as much as is realistically possible until there is a way to reduce the risk of unnecessary deaths, it has never been about eradicating the disease.
There is plenty of evidence of the efficacy of masks, as well as other hygienic and social distancing measures, paranoid would be the people that mistakenly believe recommending or even requiring effective measures to reduce the risk is some kind of attack on their human rights.
5 ( +8 / -3 )
I can't wait to get back in class for my university courses. Pretty much zero risk for me and the students anyway
Hopefully I won't needlessly be forced to wear a useless mask too
"Pretty much" is still a much higher amount of risk than, for example, vaccines. It also deeply indicates the person to be interested only on himself to completely disregard the risk that means to others to help in the spreading of the disease.
Also, scientifically has been proved than mask have a very important role in reducing the spread of the infection, considering them useless is a proven mistake.
2 ( +11 / -9 )
The economic damage is worse than the disease.Most people are not at risk, not enough to shut down economies.
This of course requires a reference that proves it, a personal opinion simply have no weight.
4 ( +7 / -3 )
There are two extra factors that were not mentioned in the article but have been raised by experts.
The first is that the appearance of variants is facilitated by widespread transmission in the general population, so the more people are vaccinated this process becomes much slower, specially important is to avoid infections in the people that have immunity problems, because it has been shown that their infections are much longer, and give much more opportunity to variants that can escape the immunity to appear.
The second is that the immunity that is effective against the virus is precisely against the protein that allows for infection on human cells, so the virus cannot mutate endlessly to escape, each mutation can make the infection more difficult, this means that hopefully once you are immune to a few of this variants the virus can simply run out of possible mutations.
4 ( +8 / -4 )
An ex-athlete is not exactly a good source for assurance, unless she can get an expert of long experience and professional achievements on a field related to the control of infectious diseases nothing she says holds any real weight. This is not a problem you can solve by throwing money at it.
Obviously if she cannot get anybody with real authority (and hopefully data) to vouch for that supposed security it is because it is not such a sure thing as she wants to present it.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Every tool has its uses, experience and ability are some of the best, but not infallible, so if you can get an AI to do a check and call for attention details so the doctor can have a second look it is only going to make things better, the only problem is to train the doctors in the use of the technology and not letting them become dependent on it.
That's why I always try and make hospital appointments either first thing in the morning, or first thing after lunch.
First thing after lunch is not really that good of a spot either, the "Alkaline tide" make many doctors not be at full 100% for an hour or so after eating.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Modeling is interesting, but it would have been much more with a demonstration the model can predict results in a laboratory setting (at least), that would have increased the impact factor a lot. Also it would be if they modeled the most sensible of the recommendations (the second layer used to increase the fit of the first non-woven mask) instead of the predictable less effective method of just increasing resistance without caring for the openings on the side.
But do we right now really need the high-end supercomputers to run to find a result? How come it is used for more urgent and significant projects to curb the ongoing pandemic?
How do you know it is not being used for other purposes? also, a supercomputer is not able to model from incomplete information, this kind of model is relatively easy to do because it involves mostly physical forces, but something with far less known variables requires a lot of work done first before getting meaningful results.
Its all about wearing a proper mask e.g KN95, N95 or something along those lines, and wearing it properly and tight.
The thing is that wearing N95 and equivalent is not easy, especially for long periods of time, so people can have better protection from something easier to wear constantly instead of struggling with a respirator lowering its efficacy with endless adjustments, removing it frequently, etc.
Also, people with any amount of facial hair would be wasting the respirators because even a stubble makes impossible to get a proper fit.
Not a scientist, but a question: Could the same ‘supercomputer’s be used to run simulations, if it is truly possible to safely usher athletes and support staff from planes into the airport terminals, then, into the buses; into the Olympic village’; and later, in and out of the different venues?
Theoretically yes, realistically no.
There is simply no way to evaluate and quantify all the unknown variables involved in the situation you are interested in simulate. Any model based on incomplete information would not be useful.
If anything the opposite would be easier, run a model with the proposed measures and the prove how even a tiny change (wind speed, face shape, style of body movement, etc.) could change completely the effect of those measures, making impossible to predict if they are going to be effective or not.
Yeah well, how about 3 masks? Or 5 masks? Infinite masks?
Law of diminishing results, there is a point where the disadvantages make the extra cost not justified. Double the cost in money and confort for an extra 30% efficacy? maybe yes, but for an extra 0.3%? not so much.
-4 ( +2 / -6 )