In science, observations drive conclusion.
In politics, conclusions drive observations.
A thread about masks. This is not advice not to wear a mask. It is simply sharing information. Share it before twitter censors it. (1/X)
Nobody wants unnecessary deaths. Wearing a face covering isn’t that hard to do, so what’s the big deal? Why are we so divided? (2/X)
For one, it’s hard to know who to trust. Many officials wear masks when they think the cameras are on them but then take them off when they think the cameras are off. Dr. Fauci has been caught doing this multiple times. (3/X)
Chicago mayor and the media were all caught taking off their masks and violating social distancing as soon as their press conference ended and they thought the cameras were off. (4/X)
Some politicians and health officials are so desperate to make people believe in masks that they doctor up charts to make their case, even when their own data actually undermines them. It's no wonder people lose trust in some health officials. (5/X) wsj.com/articles/kansa…
So what is the actual science behind masks? Let’s look at some of the hard research and perhaps Twitter won’t censor me for sharing scientific studies. (6/X)
The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford summarized six international studies which “showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers." cebm.net/covid-19/maski… (7/X)
Oxford went on to say that “that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks”.
Warning that this has “left the field wide open for the play of opinions, radical views and political influence.” (8/X)
A study of healthcare workers in over 1600 hospitals showed that cloth masks only filtered out 3% of particles. bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e0…. (9/X)
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated “[W]earing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection” and that “[T]he desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
There are many other credible studies reaching similar conclusions. Here are just a few to explore:
Studies do show masks can help in the case of direct respiratory droplets… which would matter if somebody is coughing, breathing, or sneezing directly on you (confined spaced). But do not help in aerosols, where two people are just in the same area. (12/X)nature.com/articles/s4159…
And what about real world situations? The evidence simply isn’t compelling that masks meaningfully help, and certainly not when wearing them outdoors. (13/X)
The same can be seen when comparing cases among states. With and without mask mandates, Texas and Georgia followed a nearly identical development. (14/X)
For those more interested in comparing deaths than cases, we again don't see a pattern of masks meaningfully helping (15/X):
As we have seen, there were many studies showing universal wearing of masks lacked medical efficacy. That is probably why prior to covid, the standard recommendation was for healthy people not to wear masks in a pandemic. So what changed? It wasn’t a new study. (16/X)
What changed, in my opinion, is that governments scared the crap out of people and they needed a way to back peddle without admitting their lockdowns were a mistake.
Just wear any old piece of cloth on your face and you will magically be ok to go out shopping. (17/X)
A common sense test: put your mask on w/your hand an inch in front of it. Now blow out as hard as you can. How much air do you feel on your hand? Probably little to none, because much of the air you breath goes out the path of least resistance, through the top and sides. (18/X)
Masks work well when they're sealed and have a real filter. I know this from the military. Otherwise they may only protect against someone breathing directly on you. With an unsealed mask, you may be breathing air 2" to the left of your mouth instead of 2" in front of it.
If masks were really important, the gov't would be conducting all sorts of tests on which masks are most effective. The FDA would be making recommendations on which to use.
There is none of that. Just put anything on. Perhaps because it's more psychological than medical. (20/X)
Our nation has more important things to debate than masks. So this is not advice not to wear a mask. It's just information.
Imagine how many more lives we could help by focusing our resources and efforts on our leading causes of death and on society's biggest problems. (21/21)
(22/21) Bonus: Video that visually shows how air actually travels in and around a mask when you breath.
It doesn't mean you shouldn't wear a mask, but this 2 min video can at least make everyone a little more informed.
- My company, Stress-Free Auto Care, banked exclusively with SVB, but we're not big tech
- All ~60 employees work in auto repair shops
- We have shops in CA and are opening our first shop in TX
- SVB is not all about big tech, it's also about small businesses across the country🧵
On Friday I had less than two hours from the time that I learned of trouble at SVB to when I couldn't even log in.
I moved quickly, but many of Thursday's transfers still sit pending, even while SVB's own employee bonuses cleared on Friday.
You may be wondering why an auto repair shop banked with SVB.
I happened to have grown up in Silicon Valley. I've used SVB for my previous businesses. They loaned my prior business money and I paid it all back.
SVB was considered the "big and safe" bank for startups.
The fact that governments and medical institutions were catastrophically wrong about covid and our response to it will eventually surface. It may take generations, but it will happen.
"If the importance of aerosol transmission had been accepted early, we would have been told from the beginning that it was much safer outdoors"
"And we would have been less obsessed with cleaning surfaces. Our mitigations would have been much more effective, sparing us a great deal of suffering and anxiety."
I just did a deep dive into the FDA Pfizer vaccine document. This immediately jumped out:
Placebo Group
- Participants 18,325
- "Severe cases": 3
Vaccine Group
- Participants 18,198
- "Severe cases": 1
No deaths in either group. It's a difference of 3 to 1 out of 36523 people!
Here is the source document for anyone who wants to go through it themselves: fda.gov/media/144245/d…
So if just ONE severe placebo participant would have been a vaccine participant, the vaccine would have had zero efficacy in preventing severe cases? Those are some crazy stats.
To be clear, I am not anti-vaccine. I've taken many vaccines and I believe they can be a medical miracle. I think the data speaks to the reality of how few people <70 actually get severely sick from covid, and how difficult it is to get statistical significance with such numbers.
Odds of death from an actual covid infection if you are under 50 is somewhere between odds of death by sunstroke and electrocution/radiation.
You won't hear this from the mainstream media, but the numbers are based on the CDC and National Safety Council, and easy to calculate.
And yes, odds of death for the elderly and at-risk is higher.... this is why our policies which try to prevent the healthy from being exposed has only shifts more of the burden to the elderly, and is therefore sadly responsible for more overall deaths.
To put in perspective, somebody under 50 is 3x more likely to die in their life by choking on their own food than by covid-19 and that's if you're infected.
It doesn't mean nobody under 50 can die, and every case is a tragedy, but it does mean we should keep it in perspective.
1/ Let’s take a journey to where “science” got us in 2020.
Santa Clara County (CA) was the first in the US to lockdown. They "followed the science" with perhaps the longest lockdown in the world. Gyms never opened. Indoor dining *never* opened. How did that work out?
2/ Connecticut is the home of Yale and many intellectuals, so surely they followed the science.
Except now they have the highest per capita case count in the country. What about all those masks, lockdowns, and the all mighty #science?
3/ Surely progressive Massachusetts, home to Harvard, MIT, and so many esteemed scientists would follow the science.
They used #science to require people to wear masks even if miles away from others in Nov. No schools, closed businesses, and a curfew. Surely that would work?