Of Chicks and Men--Marek's Virus Vs. China Virus

a reply to: nonspecific

I don't think you're understanding the point I was making.

Mareks vaccine works, it keeps the chickens alive, no doubt. But it resulted in strains of mareks that killed nearly all unvaccinated chickens when they were exposed to vaccinated populations. That's the science in 2015. Then in 2020 the science suddenly says, "no,no,no the unvaccinated chickens are just fine, in fact they survive better because the vaccinated chickens!"

Fancy that, we have vaccines now that act just like the mareks vaccine. What wonderful timing to find out that the mareks situation is so much better than we thought.

Anything can be a conspiracy if you want it to be.

Look long and hard enough and you can always find a link from one thing to another.



a reply to: Dfairlite

a reply to: Dfairlite

So your argument is that people should just die rather than be saved by a vaccine? Never mind the logistics which allowed vaccinated chickens to create mutations don't exist with the covid vaccine.

The only reason Marek's got more mutations was because the chickens were being kept alive, the vaccine resulted in infections lasting longer.

Covid vaccine decreases infection times, lowers serious infections as well. The only thing the vaccine does which could encourage mutations is keep people alive who would die. So you must be arguing they should just die.

a reply to: Dfairlite

It's well documented and known face masks are all you need for many viruses, such as influenza. N95 use for virus is pretty uncommon, very few require an N95. Any virus that only requires droplet protections will be blocked by a face mask.

A randomized controlled trial in Canada found no significant differences in protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza infection associated with the use of surgical masks or N95 masks among nurses [absolute risk difference −0·73%, 95% confidence interval (CI) −8·8 to 7·3] with 24% of nurses in the surgical mask arm having laboratory-confirmed infection during an influenza season [8].

If airborne transmission were important, it would be less likely that surgical masks will lead to reductions in infectiousness or protection against infection, if worn by ill or uninfected people, respectively. The primary argument against airborne transmission is as much one of absence of evidence as evidence of absence. While there are documented examples of long-distance airborne transmission of other pathogens including varicella zoster virus and Mycobacterium tuberculosis

www.cambridge.org... 4D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

Here's another study.
jamanetwork.com...

Face masks protect as well as an N95 for many virus, because they require droplets that are big enough to be caught my the mask, and they can't survive on anything small enough to bypass the mask.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

LOL. Your evidence that masks work is testing two different masks against each other with neither having good results?

This has to be a joke.

Lest I be accused of not supporting my argument:

masks
Don't
Work
Against
Viruses

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That's an ethics discussion. If you can save yourself at the expense of others in the future becoming slaves, should you save yourself?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Maybe your interpretation of my data was similar to yours, way off the mark.

This is what YOUR study says.

we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection

Transmission of acute respiratory infections occurs primarily by contact and droplet routes, and accordingly, the use of a surgical mask, eye protection, gown and gloves should be considered appropriate personal protective equipment when providing routine care for a patient with a transmissible acute respiratory infection

N95 and surgical masks offer the same protection, that's what YOUR study says.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes, my studies definitely show there was no difference between n95 and surgical masks in preventing spread of viruses. No dispute here. But that's not the point I was making, this was:

"Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use."

"Two other cross-sectional studies found no evidence for a protective effect of face masks against infection"

" controlled trialsThree of the randomised trials were hospital-based studies,4–6and five were conducted in community settings.7–11Two ofthese studies compared N95 respirators (designed to sealtightly to the wearer’s face and filter out very small particlesor aerosols that may contain viruses) and surgical masks(used to block large droplets from coming into contact withthe wearer’s mouth or nose) amongst healthcare workers... Although the remaining five trials found no significant differences between control and intervention groups
"

“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

It's also worth noting that there was absolutely no data on forcing non symptomatic people to wear face masks when around other non symptomatic people. Because it's an asinine suggestion and obviously you can't prevent an infection where none exists to begin with.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh, and let's not forget this gem of a study about mask mandates that found:

"Case growth was not significantly different between mandate and non-mandate states at low or high transmission rates, and surges were equivocal."

Mask mandates were a failure. Masks in general are ineffective at preventing viral spread, especially in a community setting. The purpose of masks in a surgical setting is to prevent bacterial infection, which they do well, but not viral infection (that's what the other sterilization procedures help with). This is all consistent with the physical attributes of masks, viruses, and bacteria.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Masks do nothing for Covid. Covid is able to travel and survive on particles far smaller than face masks can protect against. Will they block some of the particles? Yes. Does that matter a whole lot when only 300 virions are needed to cause infection, basically no in almost every circumstance.

Covid =/= all virus

Face masks protect against most virus. RSV, influenza, it's all nurses and doctors use, and we are with them all day long in and out of the room and we don't get ill except for the rare instances where PPE is improperly removed causing self innoculation.

a reply to: Metallicus

Open and challenging debate and discussion are what in part define the scientific method.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I've been to the doctor many, many times for viral infections. Never once (until covid) has the doctor, nurse, or PA worn a mask in the room with me, nor have they requested I wear one. The only place I have been asked to wear a mask when sick is the hospital labor/delivery, NICU, and mother/baby wards.