Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks
-
CNN is pushing an article HERE that attempts to change the "narrative" on masks.
It directly contradicts what the CDC has said (currently, still says) about the use of, efficacy of, and modality of wearing masks.
In summary, the CDC's guidance on mask-wearing is that it protects others more than it protects ourselves, as the mask "knocks down" our breath, and any respiratory "droplets" in the process. The mask reduces the "area" around us where our breath carries, while still allowing full oxygen and carbon-dioxide inhalation and exhalation (respectfully). To the CDC, it's about stopping the spread of those respiratory droplets, which is why cloth masks are just fine!
Now, here comes CNN - self-appointed lord and savior of all mankind - to say that no, cloth masks aren't good after all, despite what the CDC says. From the article:
Yet the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's most recent guidance on selecting, properly wearing, cleaning and storing face masks recommended people avoid N95 masks and instead choose masks with two or more layers of washable, breathable fabric -- which Wen called "a major mistake."
So now CNN - which has for many months been all "follow the science" has chosen to "pick and choose" the science they'll recommend - exactly what they claim the "other side" has been doing.
Some additional thoughts - admittedly unorganized...
- If the "goal" of the mask is to block nano-particles, then we need to start stocking up on military-style gas-masks!
- The CDC guidance is based on the idea that it's not about blocking particles so much as reducing their velocity... if they leave the mask and have no velocity, they fall to the ground (remember, the virus lives in these droplets, not "out on its own")...
- Since this virus is spread almost entirely by aerosol (respiratory), blocking the expiration of people's breath, along with keeping your distance - so those particles have a chance to fall - seems a reasonable approach!
- Even Drs and nurses will tell you: wearing a surgical mask all day is uncomfortable, but wearing an N95 mask (properly fitted) for hours on end is difficult, nearly unbearable!
- I'm all for requiring kids to wear masks in social places - including school - when those masks are simple, not overly restrictive, and meant to "block the spread."
- I'm totally against requiring kids to wear N95-style masks, esp if they're going to be required to "keep them fitted"... if medical professionals find this unbearable, what do you expect from our kids? They won't comply, and then you've lost all levels of protection!
- This kind of "editorial" change (vs. fact-based change) is going to confuse and anger a lot of people, and it will feed into the narrative of the anti-mask crowd... in other words, while wearing an N95 mask may be better after all, making this editorial change NOW is going to COST LIVES, not save them:
- People that have been iffy about masks all along, are going to stop wearing them... you're now telling them the mask they've been wearing is useless (the CDC says it is not!), and saying only an N95 mask - which is uncomfortable and expensive - is the ONLY way to go.... so they're STOP wearing the cloth or surgical masks (which HAVE been working, according to the CDC!) and give up...
- People who were already pro-mask were very likely already wearing N95 masks (well, KN95 is far more likely), so your editorial change won't be affecting their behavior at all!
I don't know yet what the background on this editorial change is - I don't see a political advantage for the Dems here - but there is something behind this -- and I do NOT believe it is pure benevolence on CNN's part... maybe a new sponsor makes KN95 masks?
For me, I'll continue to follow the CDC guidance and wear my rainbow-colored surgical mask when in public. I'm fully vaccinated, and while Omicron is scarily easily transmittable, I'm as protected as I can be (without adding natural immunity by getting COVID-19!)
-
@bi4smooth There are lots of issues swimming around here, perhaps foremost among them that CNN, like Fox News, is an entertainment channel whose goal is to draw audience that supports higher advertising revenue. The technology behind masks is too complicated for sound-bite television to convey: Even if it did so, audiences with microscopic attention spans would get confused and switch channels...the ultimate fail of at TV programme.
It has been indeed been demonstrated that, under laboratory conditions, a patch of N95 or other medical-grade filter material, will do a better job of filtering out nasties than a a couple of layers of cloth. Those demonstrations, though are only relevant if all exhalation goes through the material--think of tightly clamping a patch of that material around the end of a pipe--or the highly unlikely situation that a person wearing a mask of such material has it so tightly fitted to their face that there is no leakage path around the edges. Nobody's mask-wearing ever satisfies that condition. People often complain about their glasses fogging up whilst wearing a mask--that's due to water vapour-laden exhalation leaking from the top of their mask.
In real life, a primary benefit of a mask, whether cloth or medical grade, is to decelerate and diffuse exhaled breath. This will significantly reduce the spread of that breath to other people, especially if they are socially distanced by two metres. An N95 mask will be better than cloth, but only marginally so. A poorly-fitting but properly-worn cloth mask is still infinitely superior to no mask at all.
Two additional points in favour of an N95 mask:
-
The shape of an N95 mask is such that it's much less likely to slip down below the nose (and having an uncovered nose is the same as not wearing a mask at all). For careless people who let their cloth or light blue surgical masks slip down below their nose, an N95 mask would be of great benefit.
-
My discussion above addressed exhalation. Breathing, of course, also involves inhalation. An N95 mask is shaped in such a way that it will be pulled closer to the face during inhalation, thus drawing more air through the mask material and less from around the edges. A cheap cloth mask, especially a shapeless rectangle, will not do this, and much of the inhaled air will come from the loose sides of the mask rather than through the cloth--effectively eliminating the benefit of a mask
So, yes, an N95 mask is better than a cloth one...but not by much for most people. A well-fitting cloth mask is still very beneficial, and infinitely superior to wearing nothing at all (or wearing a mask incorrectly).
And now, a final slam at CNN: When I pulled up the link in the original post, I saw the following (snipped from the full page):
Note that while the headline--and article--essentially say "Wear a medical mask, not a cloth one," the image right below is a link to a video of Sanjay Gupta showing us how to make a shapeless cloth mask out of a bandana--something completely antithetical to the story content. It seems that the web designer who built the page didn't bother to read the story. We are not surprised. -
-
@bi4smooth
You forgot to mention that the CDC like CNN is a politically motivated organization and they both favor the Liberal point of view. Both pick and choice science facts that follow their political narrative. -
As is St Fauci, the WHO, and countless others.
In the UK, the 2 doctors that are the version of Fauci admitted lying about the numbers to force lockdowns. They set the criteria, then lied so the criteria was met.
-
@geobear40 said in Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks:
@bi4smooth
You forgot to mention that the CDC like CNN is a politically motivated organization and they both favor the Liberal point of view. Both pick and choice science facts that follow their political narrative.I disagree that the CDC is generally, innately, politically motivated.... indeed, until Trump tried to interfere with CDC published policies/findings in 2020, there were virtually NO claims of political agendas within that agency... NONE!
To be fair, Trump wasn't the first to apply politics to the CDC - prior congresses had prohibited, for example, the CDC to investigate tobacco, or guns, as a result of political lobbying... but those legislative "blocks" were far more transparent than Trump's lobbying within the CDC (through official WH channels) to "change the science" (in particular, about COVID)
That doesn't mean Biden hasn't followed Trump's lead and attempted to have an influence on them, either: Trump "broke the ice", and now that it's broken, it'll take a VERY LONG TIME for the CDC to truly regain its full credibility... and I agree that it's overall COVID-19 credibility is already damaged (but by the actions of the RIGHT, not of the LEFT).
BUT, that's why I suggested that the published (peer-reviewed) results from multiple countries health agencies be taken into accord... if most all of them agree (as they do about masks... at least until recently), then the science isn't likely tainted.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Not tainted does NOT mean unchanging! Our scientific understandings necessarily change over time, as we learn and discover more and new things!
Honestly, though - if you come back and claim that there is a world-wide conspiracy of liberals that control all of their health agencies, I will lose all faith that you can legitimately interpret scientific fact.
Not that my faith in you should be of any consequence to you, but.... just sayin'...
-
@bi4smooth
Have you read any of the papers that Dr. Atlas has explained the data from all over the world that directly contradict what Fauci and the CDC are claiming that they know what studies are true and which ones are outliers. How about you read the book "The Real Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health". Check out some of the 2000 footnotes which backup his premises.It never hurts to expand your knowledge and see that what you are being spoon feed by the MSM and the CDC is not the only Science. Science is hypothesize, test write a paper and have your peers review and challenge the results. None of Fauci and the CDC edicts are allowed to be peer reviewed or challenged in anyway.
-
@geobear40 said in Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks:
@bi4smooth
Have you read any of the papers that Dr. Atlas has explained the data from all over the world that directly contradict what Fauci and the CDC are claiming that they know what studies are true and which ones are outliers. How about you read the book "The Real Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health". Check out some of the 2000 footnotes which backup his premises.It never hurts to expand your knowledge and see that what you are being spoon feed by the MSM and the CDC is not the only Science. Science is hypothesize, test write a paper and have your peers review and challenge the results. None of Fauci and the CDC edicts are allowed to be peer reviewed or challenged in anyway.
Neither Dr. Fauci nor Bill Gates speak for, or are voices of the CDC.
Yours is a common misconception...
- Dr Fauci is (since 1984) the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the NIH, not the CDC) and (since the post was established in 2019) the Chief Medical Advisor to the President.
- Dr. Fauci does not speak for, nor does he represent, nor is he employed by the CDC. He works for (but is not the head of) the NIH.
- To use an analogy, to claim that Dr Fauci speaks for the CDC is equivalent to claiming that Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North spoke for the US Army during Iran-Contra in the 1980's... to wit: neither Dr. Fauci nor Lt. Col. North are the heads of their agencies, and neither are actually affiliated with the agency to which you are attributing their authority.
I have not attributed the CDC's current mask policy (in favor of using even cloth masks to slow the spread of COVID-19) to Dr. Fauci... because the documents and guidelines come from the CDC, not the NIH.
For the record:
- The current head of the US CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) is headed by Dr. Rochelle Walensky
- The current (acting) head of the US NIH (National Institutes of Health) is Dr. Lawrence Tabak (a Dentist, not an MD)
- Dr. Tabak is the "boss" of Dr. Fauci, as Dr. Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is a part of the NIH
- The US CDC and US NIH are separate and distinct agencies, 2 of the 11 separate agencies in the US Department of Health & Human Services:
Operating Divisions:
Administration for Children and Families
Administration for Community Living
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
So, long story short: demonize Dr Fauci all you like - he's not the CDC, and not affiliated with them in any way.
Demonize Bill Gates all you like - he's also not the CDC - just a rich guy using his considerable wealth to do things that HE THINKS will be good for humanity... you are free to disagree, but he has no more real influence on these things than Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, or the Koch brothers do! They're all just very VERY rich men, using their money they way they see fit... this is CAPITALISM - it comes with the territory! -
@bi4smooth
Read the book it may reinforce your views it may change them.Government doesn't happen in vacuum. They coordinate their messaging.
-
@geobear40 said in Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks:
@bi4smooth
Read the book it may reinforce your views it may change them.Government doesn't happen in vacuum. They coordinate their messaging.
I'm not suggesting that Dr Fauci is working in a vacuum, but I am saying that, as the Advisor to the President, he's often stating opinions that are his, and not necessarily those of the CDC or FDA (as I recall, Fauci was in favor of granting EUA for under 18 vaccinations long before the FDA actually granted such use... as a member of the NIH, he had no control or REAL influence on when the FDA finally granted that EUA extension!)
If you listen to Fauci's extended interviews, he's often candid about the early missteps he, Dr. Birx, the CDC, and the NIH took as COVID-19 first came on the scene. He does NOT claim to have always been right, but he does claim that he always spoke truthfully about what was known - at the time.
As a scientist myself (not in medical science), I can attest that "accepted facts" change as we learn more about things. (Remember: it was once "accepted fact" that the Sun & Planets revolved around the Earth!)... COVID-19 was (and still is, relatively speaking) NEW... which means there is a LOT of data yet to be analyzed... it would be downright stupid for us to think we've "figured this thing our" already! We know SOME about this disease, and certainly a LOT more than we knew in December, 2019! But there is a LOT we do NOT know yet... but we continue to test our assumptions, confirm (or disprove) our "accepted facts" (like the early "accepted fact" that COVID-19 was spread easily by shared contact on surfaces! That has been shown to be false: COVID-19 is now believed to be almost exclusively spread by aerosol respiration! BUT! If more facts - more data - comes to light that also disproves THAT, we'll need to rethink yet again! But, in the meantime, that's what we think of as fact, so that is what we base our plans, suggestions, and rules upon...)
-
@bi4smooth said in Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks:
COVID-19 was (and still is, relatively speaking) NEW... which means there is a LOT of data yet to be analyzed... it would be downright stupid for us to think we've "figured this thing our" already! We know SOME about this disease, and certainly a LOT more than we knew in December, 2019! But there is a LOT we do NOT know yet... but we continue to test our assumptions, confirm (or disprove) our "accepted facts" (like the early "accepted fact" that COVID-19 was spread easily by shared contact on surfaces! That has been shown to be false: COVID-19 is now believed to be almost exclusively spread by aerosol respiration! BUT! If more facts - more data - comes to light that also disproves THAT, we'll need to rethink yet again! But, in the meantime, that's what we think of as fact, so that is what we base our plans, suggestions, and rules upon...)
SARS-COV-2 is not new is has been around in one from or another for a very long time. It's the study of which caused the current pandemic.
There are hundreds of studies around the world that provide us a wealth of knowledge. The currents edicts have no data to back them up.
Where are the studies and data that Fauci and his cohorts are basing there claims on?
Show the data don't just say it exists and that it supports their claims.
-
@geobear40 said in Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks:
SARS-COV-2 is not new is has been around in one from or another for a very long time. It's the study of which caused the current pandemic.
Sorry, but you are mistaken (you are so often wrong, we should give you a sash and tiara: Miss Taken!):
- COVID-19 is new in the human population, ca. 2019 - thus, it's name.
- COVID-19 is a coronavirus, which may (being generous) be what you're referring to - which, like Influenze, and the "common" cold virus are also... so, yes coronaviruses have been around a very long time.
- COVID-19 has many unique characteristics: different from other coronaviruses - like it's rate of infection from even minor exposure (greatly exacerbated by this new Omicron strain), or its LACK of an ability to transfer/survive on surfaces, and thus its reliance on respiratory aeration as a vector of transmission... but also on its DEADLY effects on the human respiratory system - far more lethal than other coronaviruses.
Your statement that COVID-19 may have been released into the population as a result of studying coronaviruses - even this particular virus (or, at least the one that was going 'round the world in early 2020!) - is nothing but a theory. One that has been neither proven nor disproven. As such, it is a possible theory... but honestly, at this point, is that the point? Does it matter? 800,000+ lives in the US alone, and you mostly want to point fingers? Really? To what purpose or end? How will blame - properly OR improperly applied - save additional lives?
There are hundreds of studies around the world that provide us a wealth of knowledge. The currents edicts have no data to back them up.
Actually, by now, I'm pretty sure there have been THOUSANDS of studies done on COVID-19... some have turned up new "findings" (like its aerosol respriation vector of transmission), others have just disproved oddball theories (like hydroxychloroquine as a miracle treatment for the disease)... But, if you think we "know enough" after less than 2-years study - even if every Scientist on the planet had studied nothing else - you're hubris and naivete are on bold display.... there is MUCH we do not know yet, and with new variants coming like they have been, there are more new questions than new answers!
Where are the studies and data that Fauci and his cohorts are basing there claims on?
I'm not shocked that the CDC's data isn't being detailed in the media, but the studies and papers are being published - and peer reviewed!
But I think you, and your ilk, give (or attribute to) Dr. Fauci far more power than he actually has, and as a result you parse his every word and every opinion as-if it were one of these study results! In many of these interviews where you demand to see the data, he's being asked for his opinion, not for the data that backs that opinion!
Show the data don't just say it exists and that it supports their claims.
Again, you seem to think that when Dr. Fauci says something like "in my mind" that he's quoting from a study vs. stating an opinion... likewise, you conflate his opinions with official CDC, FDA, or even NIH policy!
And mostly you do this to "shoot the messenger"...
-
Honestly, this was known since mid 2020. There was a study that came out last year that found for the alpha variant, cloth masks were 10% effective, surgical 12%, and n95 around 50% effective. Note that this is for the original covid variant and omicron is way more transmissible which renders cloth & surgical masks useless.
CNN trying to change the narrative is just for political purposes IMO. They are trying to make the democrats seem more moderate than they actually are just in time for midterms and I'm sure they will magically change their opinion afterwards.
-
@orhaqi123
I think you have the right idea. The MSM is trying to pull the party away from the Progressive side and more to the Moderate.The MSM is the propaganda arm of the party and the lunatics' making the policy can't hear anything in their Liberal echo chamber.
Liberals still think Americans support them.
