That's how you do it. That's how you debate!

Thanks again for your replies –

“If we agree that a person may be infectious and not realize it, then redirecting their exhalation up, sideways, and down, away from you rather than at you, should lower the concentration of virus you inhale.”

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Again, this is droplet transmitted virus, so most infections don’t occur through inhalation. Most occur by getting a droplet on your hands and then you rub your nose, eye or mouth. But even if you think it is inhalation, redirection is just redirection. If the virus is airborne, like TB, measles virus and varicella-zoster virus, redirection doesn’t change anything in the room, even theoretically.

“A mask is similar to distancing, in that by redirecting and dispersing the plume of exhaled droplets and aerosols, it allows for dilution of the virus in the air, including the air you inhale, thereby reducing the risk of an infection.”

“Decreasing the dose of virus you inhale should reduce the risk of your becoming infected, I doubt you would disagree with that.”

How does that occur with re-direction? Again, with droplet, most infections occur not through inhalation, but with hand to mouth, so to speak. With airborne, the airborne virus concentration is not affected by having it go around a mask close to your face, as those particles stay airborne. If you re-direct smoke from your mouth, that wouldn’t help second hand smokers, would it? No, of course not.

“If I led you to believe I was discussing that the size of dose correlates with the severity of the clinical disease, I apologize.”

You led me to believe that because that was the main point of one of the references you provided. The authors put forward this theory of theirs, which goes against my understanding of viral pathology and the data I am familiar with. I haven’t heard LD50 used in virology, ever. You may not believe inoculum matters, but those authors did for some unknown reason.

“Question: Do you believe that maintaining physical (“social”) distance is an effective method of reducing the transmission of the virus?”

First, I hate clichés. This virus is transmitted from person to person by via fomites, often after they land on inanimate objects. After landing, these droplets remain infectious for some period of time, a day or 2 maybe. So, if you the only person on an island, you’re not going to get it.

So, the theory of social distancing and viral respiratory infections is decades old. Many researchers feel “colds” occur more in the winter not from the cold, but from the crowding of people inside. In good weather, people are spread out more. In bad, they gather around each other more. Of course, the other human coronaviruses, which cause the common cold, are in this group. People playing softball, golf or tennis are less likely, goes the theory, to transmit these viruses than those playing cards, mahjong (I really don't know what that is) or ping-pong.

I am not sure what your question is. The more and the further you separate people, yes, the less a virus like this is transmitted. The question is how long can you keep this up? If it is just til November 3rd, then, I guess, fine.

As for this pandemic, social distancing in several states delayed their first wave. But they still got their first wave. And, so far, the virus has come and then is gone, for the most part. It is still out there in Jersey. But someone just turned off the tap in early May and we have no idea why. We have one Covid pt in house (meaning in the hospital now). In early April, I think we had over 70. As mentioned, many people in Jersey stopped social distancing a long time ago, months ago. Maybe there will 12 waves, I don’t know. But if there is to be a second wave, why hasn’t it occurred already?

“removing them [masks] from the infection control program without good data to the contrary is not prudent.”

That’s again, reverse logic. You don’t want masks to be studied “without good data to the contrary”? Seriously, so we shouldn’t have studied shaving people before surgery then, right? That was a mistake, according to your logic. There were no great data saying shaving the hair from people before surgery was really bad for the patients. Still, there were no data saying it helped. As I assume you know and chose not to address, someone studied this practice and proved it did not reduce post-operative infections, but increased them somewhat.

I guess we are going around in circles. I have pointed out repeatedly that there are not good data. You have failed to produce any good data, because, of course, they don’t exist. Still, you are saying that the data are so good, we shouldn’t even study masks. As for agreement of “experts”, you mean those same people who published the Surgisphere data in Lancet and NEJM? Those unbiased experts?

Again, I am saying just study the intervention. If we are conceding that Medicine and Science be handed over to opinion without data, then we are in deep trouble. The experts also agreed and for decades they agreed that shaving skin before surgery decreased infections. I don’t have much use for experts who don’t use data and rely upon data.

You say there are no serious side effects. How do you know the rate of serious side effects? What are these masks doing to the psychology of young children? How many child shrinks are going to even evaluate that serious question in this partisan environment?

What are they doing to social interactions? I hear stories more and more of aggressive interactions between strangers in parking lots and super markets. Arguments over masks between strangers are frequent.

BTW, how do people date? You have fallen for the big mistake of opinion oriented Medicine. It works well, because we say so and there are no serious side effects, because we haven’t and won’t look for them. That's the great thing about not studying an intervention, you can make the side effect rate too and pretend it's zero.

Again, how long are you mandating wearing them? What is your threshold for stopping? Of course, since masks haven’t been studied, you cannot answer that. But in Jersey and NYC, Covid rates have plummeted. When can we stop wearing masks? Is only after Biden wins?

This isn’t science. It isn’t even close to science. This is Star Chamber stuff. I am saddened that so many, seemingly rational people have given up their ability to decide for themselves and, instead, like sheep, tow the party line. This is politics leading science, not science leading a nation. Theodoric of York would be proud and, soon, blood letting will be back.