Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Wuhan Virus Watch: New England Journal of Medicine – Wearing mask outside health care facilities offers little protection

Wuhan Virus Watch: New England Journal of Medicine – Wearing mask outside health care facilities offers little protection

No major increase’ in coronavirus in 21 re-opened states. Denmark & Finland report no increase in virus after schools re-opened. Leading scientist urges faster exit from UK’s lockdown. The lack of evidence lockdowns actually worked is a world scandal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA9CC-OfBV8

Today’s update will start with new information related to the touchstone of the latest spate of coronavirus policies: “Wearing masks is critical in reducing spread.”

The New England Journal of Medicine has published an article stating that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little protection from infection and assesses their true value as anxiety alleviation.

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients.

…It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis.

ABC report finds ‘no major increases’ in coronavirus in 21 re-opened states

It appears that projections about cases of coronavirus “spiking” after reopening were another failed pandemic prediction.

The nearly two dozen states that have begun re-opening their economies in recent weeks have had “no major increases” in coronavirus infections, hospitalizations and deaths, according to a recent report by ABC.

The network “looked at the first 21 states to ease restrictions” to determine whether the loosening of lockdown measures had cause the virus to spread faster in those locations. Among the surveyed states were Colorado, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota and Texas.

“Analyzing seven-day averages, there were no major increases in hospitalizations, deaths or percentage of people testing positive in any of the 21 states,” the network said.

Denmark, Finland say they saw no increase in coronavirus after schools re-opened

Hopefully, this news will persuade American school officials to reopen fully for the fall, if not sooner.

The Nordic countries of Denmark and Finland are reporting no increase in the spread of coronavirus since opening their respective schools, further suggesting that children are less likely to be sickened by COVID-19 and spread the virus.

Denmark began sending its children back to school on April 15, just over a month after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen issued an extensive nationwide lockdown. They were kept spaced apart in classrooms and on playgrounds, while sanitation measures such as hand-washing stations and deep-cleaning procedures were put into place.

Similar measures were put into place in Finland to keep children from congregating in large groups. The country’s education minister, Li Andersson, predicted that reopening schools would “have a minimal impact on the pandemic, but grand benefits for children.”

Leading scientist urges faster exit from UK’s lockdown

The science is settled: End the lockdowns sooner rather than later.

A prominent Oxford epidemiologist has reportedly called for a more rapid exit from Britain’s lockdown, saying the coronavirus pandemic is “on its way out” of Britain after infecting as much as half the population.

Professor Sunetra Gupta says there would be a “strong possibility” that pubs, nightclubs and restaurants in Britain could reopen without serious risk from Covid-19.

The professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford said the UK had most likely erred on the side of over-reaction in its handling of the crisis, suggesting imposing the lockdown itself was one such misstep.

The lack of evidence lockdowns actually worked is a world scandal

Sherelle Jacobs, a British journalist for the Telegraph, has analyzed the response and concludes there is a lack of evidence the lockdowns worked.

…This is a scandal so overwhelming that there is only one good place to start: the evidence as it stands. In accordance with pro-lockdown theory, if stay at home orders worked, you might have expected to see daily deaths spike 3-4 weeks after such measures were implemented. (Studies estimate Covid has a symptom-free incubation period of rougly five days, and fatalities typically die 2-3 weeks after showing symptoms.) But, in Britain, infections may have peaked a week before lockdown, according to Prof Carl Heneghan of Oxford University, with daily deaths in hospitals plateauing a fortnight after it was introduced. We are not an anomaly: peak dates across Europe also seem to confound the official theory.

Don’t just take my word for it. A University of the East Anglia study posits that Europe’s “stay-at-home policies” were not effective. A JP Morgan investigation suggests the virus “likely has its own dynamics” which are “unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures”. But such insights have failed to induce even the vaguest quiver of serious mainstream debate.

Nobel prize-winning bio-physicist Michael Levitt has fared little better, despite his valiant one-man effort to expose the inconvenient truth about Covid numbers. He has claimed, sensationally, that the modelling that justified lockdown made the fatally incorrect assumption that Covid-19’s spread is continuously exponential. In fact, his research has found an uncanny pattern across numerous countries whereby the virus grows exponentially for two weeks, before slowing seemingly irrespective of lockdown and social distancing measures.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Somebody is going to be distressed that their ritual narrative has been punctured. Next will be the 6 ft thing–outside of healthcare facilities. That will leave flat surfaces as the final fall back ritual.

    MarkS in reply to Whitewall. | May 31, 2020 at 5:24 pm

    Would that somebody be Dr Fauci?

      Fauci is a rat.

        CapeBuffalo in reply to TheFineReport.com. | June 1, 2020 at 12:23 pm

        I respectfully disagree, Fauci is not a rat in the sense that he is bad or conniving but he is in the sense that he has a limited view of the world. Most doctors and especially researchers have a tunnel vision that only see their limited view.

          Milhouse in reply to CapeBuffalo. | June 1, 2020 at 7:34 pm

          Yes, exactly. And he openly admits this. He regularly says that he’s only giving his perspective as a research scientist, and that decision-makers can’t just go by what he says, they need to take other perspectives into account as well.

    Edward in reply to Whitewall. | June 1, 2020 at 9:20 am

    I thought there was an announcement a week or so ago that the limited viability of the virus on surfaces was determined to be an unlikely way to “catch” the Wuhan ChiCom Flu.

Until the end of March you could argue it was prudent because we DIDN’T KNOW especially with China’s and WHO’s lies.

We did know it killed people in nursing homes. FL locked them down as well as a 40k city of elderly. Few cases in the former, none in the latter. NY, NJ, MI, PA forced theirs to take in patients and became Death states (Cuomo’s abortion comments echo).

We quickly figured out if you had medical problems or were elderly, you had a higher risk.

There was an infrastructure problem – leaving the schools open would not kill any kids, but when they returned home they would give it to Granny who is on oxygen and …

That could have been fixed too, move the vulnerable to off the beaten path resort towns and lock them down. (Around here, Cooke City, MT would be ideal). Then let the rest of us go about our business.

Instead the Big Apple is having a core melt-down. South Dakota had 800 in the meat packing hotspot, but zero deaths from those.

The looney lockdowns continue and are being extended. Day ???, Michigan held hostage!

Now that the fiscal position of the states (see pension funding) has suffered a fatal blow, we will see what happens.

An excellent fisking of the NEJM article:

Nicest comment in the Fisking:

That’s not a “study”. As it’s conspicuously labeled “Perspectives”, it’s sheer OPINION.

https://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2020/05/five-blind-mice.html

    tphillip in reply to Ray - SoCa. | May 31, 2020 at 5:32 pm

    “axe grinding jackholes”.

    Sounds more like the “fiskers” than the original article.

    Got anything that can actually show the article is inaccurate that doesn’t use vulgarities to do it? People’s time is worth more than this “jackhole” of a blog post.

    Joe-dallas in reply to Ray - SoCa. | May 31, 2020 at 5:36 pm

    you and racon report are grossly misinterpreting the article.

    The basic premise is that maskw provide miniscule additional reduction in risk of transmission in environments where the risk of transmission is low. In environments where the risk of transmission is moderate to high, then the mask does provide significant reduction in the risk of transmission.

    The vast majority of environments have a low risk of transmission.

    Your critisism of the article is based on something that wasnt said in the article.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Joe-dallas. | May 31, 2020 at 8:13 pm

      The problem is a low risk environment can invisibly become a high risk environment very quickly.

        Barry in reply to healthguyfsu. | May 31, 2020 at 11:44 pm

        Examples?

        Everyone went to the grocery stores. Grocery stores were not experiencing death and destruction.

          ultraskeptic in reply to Barry. | June 1, 2020 at 8:55 am

          Example? Drumpf assured us that Italy’s wild pandemic casualties were irrelevant to us, since we weren’t exposed or at risk.

          healthguyfsu in reply to Barry. | June 1, 2020 at 2:45 pm

          A low risk environment is one where there is a low chance of breathing the same air as a virus shedder (symptomatic or asymptomatic).

          Low risk becomes high risk when you are in the vicinty of a viral shedder, especially when you don’t know it.

          That’s why it’s a good idea to wear a mask as a precaution. It’s like a seat belt. Statistically, you can go a long time, perhaps even your whole life, without ever needing it. However, that one unpredictable event

          FWIW, I support the right to not wear one. I also support the right of individual businesses to require them (just not the government). To analogize this to the 2A…you have the right to keep and bear arms, but a business establishment has the right to tell you to keep and bear somewhere else.

    J. Maccabee in reply to Ray - SoCa. | June 2, 2020 at 11:07 am

    1) It’s early, yet. 2) People who survive COVID-19 disease may have some immunity–for a short time. 3) I don’t give a horse’s patoot about the medical opinion of “Sherelle Jacobs, a British journalist for the Telegraph.” 4) The “theoretical professor” Sunetra Gupta says there would be a “strong possibility” that English pubs could reopen faster. If they did, and Prof. G enjoyed a pint, got infected with COVID-19 virus and died, he’d be 100% wrong, and not in theory–but only as to himself as a statistic. Personally, I’d rather wear a mask when around others, even in a pub, if all the other patrons did so, and if we kept our distance from one another and could figure out how to drink safely without risking killing one another. I don’t like beer through a straw or the odds of Gupta’s “possibility” Sippy cups? But is the risk of death worth a plate of bangers and mash?

“axe grinding jackholes”.

Sounds more like the “fiskers” than the original article.

Got anything that can actually show the article is inaccurate that doesn’t use vulgarities to do it? People’s time is worth more than this “jackhole” of a blog post.

In a Wedensday manuscript detailing how high-risk COVID-19 patients should be treated, Risch notes that the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and the antibiotic azithromycin (AZ) “has been widely misrepresented in both clinical reportsand public media,” and that “Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy.”

Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multi comorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users, of which estimated mortality is <20%,9/100,000users, compared to the 10,000 Americans now dying each week. These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe. – Dr. Harvey Risch

    Joe-dallas in reply to alaskabob. | May 31, 2020 at 5:40 pm

    Curious how a drug that is prescribed for long term / multi year use with patients for lupus , malaria prevention and treatment, etc suddenly became very dangerous & needing to be banned for any and all uses?

      Joe-dallas in reply to Joe-dallas. | May 31, 2020 at 5:41 pm

      and possibly an immediate death trap for the users – musta been TDS

      beagleEar in reply to Joe-dallas. | May 31, 2020 at 6:23 pm

      1 Dosage.
      2. If you’re on it chronically, you have to get checked out periodically. Some people have to discontinue the med. The risks are pretty well understood, and as they can be managed very well.
      If it did work for this virus, that would be terrific. But considering that it’s targeted to a parasite, not a virus, and it depresses your immune function somewhat (that’s also its benefit at certain times) it’s not too surprising that he doesn’t work as a treatment for Wuhan virus. There were some early promising reports, but on closer inspection they turn out to be either flawed or retrospective studies. That’s science; lots of coal, occasional gold.

        healthguyfsu in reply to beagleEar. | May 31, 2020 at 8:28 pm

        1. Slight immune suppression can be useful as the non-specific immune response to the virus is a big part of the respiratory complications leading to pneumonia and possible asphyxia. It reduces cytokine release, which is an inflammatory immunity signal.

        2. The drug is not targeted to any particular micro-organism. It was not created in a lab to specifically attack the malaria parasite. It was discovered that it works well against malaria, which has a unique spread pattern among parasites. There’s some evidence that this does work well in some cases against the virus, which also has a unique spread pattern among viruses. The theory behind mechanism of action has nothing to do with killing the virus but affecting its spread by altering a natural process of cell destruction known as autophagy (which leads to shedding and multiplication of viral COVID particles when the damaged body cell is being destroyed). The jury is still out on it, but the drug has mechanistic merit that has nothing to do with the parasite/virus discrepancy.

        The addition of azithromycin (an antibiotic) is a but puzzling to me, but there is some evidence that Zithromax inhibits or slows replication of some of the most virulent strains on earth (like Zika and Ebola). No one really knows why, though, because the classical mechanism is interference with bacterial protein synthesis. It does this by binding only to bacterial ribosomes (protein makers), which are different from our own. Viruses don’t have ribosomes and must hijack ours for gene expression. Therefore, if azithromycin does anything, then it does not work by the classical mechanism. The Zithromax may only help by removing opportunistic, immunogenic bacteria that otherwise cause the immune system to divide its more limited and specific, useful resources (think antibodies, lymphocytes, immunization, etc.) while also dealing with the viral load of COVID.

        Edward in reply to beagleEar. | June 1, 2020 at 9:34 am

        Those medical researchers who present evidence that the combination Oxychloroquine and Azithromycin (plus added zinc in some usage) works all note that it does not work, or works poorly for most of those who’s disease had progressed to a severe point requiring ventilator use after hospitalization. So the much touted VA “study”, which had the combination administered to those closer to death than not was a “study” designed to show the combo as a failure. It is most definitely not recommended as something to try after all else fails.

        It simply is not at all accurate to say it does not work.

      OH Deplorable in reply to Joe-dallas. | May 31, 2020 at 10:12 pm

      It only became dangerous when President Trump was reported to be using it. It was another lame attempt to discredit the man for ANYTHING. If the man found a cure for cancer, the Democrats would find fault because of all the doctors he’d just put out of work.

    beagleEar in reply to alaskabob. | May 31, 2020 at 6:18 pm

    As more data comes out about a CQ, it looks less and less useful. The president has stopped taking it, probably because it doesn’t work.

      beagleEar in reply to beagleEar. | May 31, 2020 at 6:19 pm

      Eh, HCQ. No edit function.

      DaveGinOly in reply to beagleEar. | May 31, 2020 at 11:38 pm

      DJT was taking it as a prophylactic. He took it during what should have been the height of the pandemic. He could only “stop taking it because it didn’t work” if he had had the WuFlu and found the treatment ineffective. That is not what happened. The fact is he didn’t get it, and it can’t be said whether or not the drug contributed to that outcome. Such is the nature of prophylactics-they prevent outcomes, so their value is difficult to determine in many instances. Only when they don’t prevent an illness can you know definitively that a prophylactic regimen doesn’t work. Again, this is not what happened with regard to DJT.

      Barry in reply to beagleEar. | May 31, 2020 at 11:49 pm

      “The president has stopped taking it, probably because it doesn’t work.”

      Uh huh. Maybe he quit taking it because it did work and he no longer feels the need.

      You are continuously misrepresenting the Trump cure. There are 3 parts including the zinc and those that have taken all 3 in the right proportions have had good results. All the studies that show anything else are simply fraudulent.

        CaptTee in reply to Barry. | June 1, 2020 at 1:36 pm

        I always “stop taking prescription medicine” when the bottle is empty, unless I have a refill.

      amwick in reply to beagleEar. | June 1, 2020 at 7:42 am

      I have a friend that took it.. and yes it does work. Anecdotal evidence, but that anecdote is living and breathing now.

      Milhouse in reply to beagleEar. | June 1, 2020 at 7:48 am

      He didn’t “stop”, he finished. At least according to his own explanation, which in the absence of anything to contradict it I think we have to at least tentatively take at face value, he was originally prescribed it for a fixed course and he finished that course.

      And it “became dangerous” long before he started taking it; as soon as he promoted Dr Zelenko’s success with it, it became this awful thing that was going to Kill Us All™, if the virus didn’t do so first.

This scam left the reservation as soon as the same fascists and their useful hollywood idiots were caught screaming for masks told looters to go out an assemble.

The WooHoo Flu b.s. is over. Go about your life. And NEVER submit to that scam again.

China was behind the spread of the flu, and in league with the left in this country. MASSIVE treason is being committed in our country, at the highest levels of government, education and in business. China’s acts themselves were acts of war.

Today is May 31, 2020. Anyone want to take bets on when AG Barr-Boehner gets around to doing something about it?

If a mask is only 95% effective, two masks is 99.75% effective. So it’s nice is everybody wears them where direct reinfection might apply.

If you get the reinfection rate to less than 1.0 (the average infected person infects less than one other person), then the disease dies out on its own, herd immunity or not.

    beagleEar in reply to rhhardin. | May 31, 2020 at 6:24 pm

    It’ll never die out entirely, the thing is all around the world. But in terms of things to be afraid of, it’s low on the list, far less than riots for instance. The panic reaction to it has been worse than the virus itself

Ann in L.A. | May 31, 2020 at 9:01 pm

What will Twitter do? Haven’t they banned any contrary talk re masks?

    Edward in reply to Ann in L.A.. | June 1, 2020 at 9:39 am

    Who cares what the twits on twitter will do with their twittercrap? If enough of us refuse to use twitter, perhaps those alleging to be journalists will start writing columns, reports and articles again and stop cutting and pasting twittercrap and calling it a column, report or article.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 31, 2020 at 10:39 pm

Wonder if these are infused with any new virus?

$900,000 in counterfeit US currency all in $1 dollar bills in a commercial rail shipment from China found in International Falls, MN

https://www.ifallsjournal.com/news/public_safety/cbp-seizes-900-000-in-counterfeit-bills/article_1890384a-6aa2-569f-9322-961baf6648a3.html

    Unlikely. Viruses don’t travel well without either being in a host or in controlled conditions. Freight shipments lacking controlled conditions are notorious for exposing their contents to wide variations in environmental conditions.

    Good grief. Years ago smart counterfeiters often didn’t bother with anything less than a $20.00 as the cost of production and distribution overcame the profit at lower denominations. And the ChiComs can make money on $1.00 USD? Guess that’s what slave labor can do for you.

If you try to read the Sherelle Jacobs story it’s already in a web archive even though it was written on the 28th. Also when you click the link it gives an error that you lost WiFi and you have to click retry for it to be read. Seems like someone doesn’t want that article read.

    Milhouse in reply to scaulen. | June 1, 2020 at 7:51 am

    Um, it’s in the web archive because just about everything is. The reason it’s linked directly to the archive rather than to the original page is because the original is paywalled.

So, I have a bandanna around my neck.
If I want to go to Fred Meyers, I can pull it up over nose to make them feel better…
I have 3M half-masks at work that are real.
They really filter, and they do not leak.
I shoot paint. I can’t even smell the stuff when in mask.
The ones everywhere… are junk.

VaGentleman | June 1, 2020 at 4:15 am

Does anyone know what the filtering efficiency of cotton is? We are told to make masks out of old shirts to keep us safe, but no one tells us what are good materials to use. Compared to an N95 mask, how safe are we? I can’t find any info; does anyone have a link?

    Joe-dallas in reply to VaGentleman. | June 1, 2020 at 8:07 am

    “Does anyone know what the filtering efficiency of cotton is? ”

    Probably equivalent to keeping mosquitos out using a chain link fence

    txvet2 in reply to VaGentleman. | June 1, 2020 at 5:17 pm

    At least as effective as a crocheted mask – which means that they’re only for symbolic value, not actual protection. For me, the depressing thing is that the more masks are demonstrated to be ineffective for the general public, the more people I see wearing them.

on the nejm article….

Editor’s Note: This article was published on April 1, 2020, at NEJM.org.

so fairly old, not saying its wrong just newer studies would help more.
but that date…..just gonna cause issues LOL

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend