COVID-19
We all want this crisis to end. Read this. Then find a mask and put it on when you go out in public
This is article is abridged for your convenience.
Public use of masks to control the coronavirus pandemic
(Originally published March 29 by Longrich Paleo Lab)
Nicholas R. Longrich, PhD
Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom
The Longrich Paleontology Lab is part of the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath. We use fossils to understand large-scale evolutionary change in organisms and ecosystems.
The US and UK governments, as well as the World Health Organization, currently advise against the use of masks by the public to fight the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic (1). But could they be wrong?
The governments of China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Viet Nam, Czechia, Slovakia, Bosnia and Taiwan all recommend that the public wear masks to slow the spread of the coronavirus. In some countries, like Japan, masks aren’t officially recommended, but are still widely used by the public. Many countries treat masks as a strategic resource. China has ramped up production of facemasks, converting Foxconn factories that once made iPhones to make face masks. Taiwan has also ramped up the production of facemasks, prohibited their export, and implemented price controls and rationing. It’s hard to see how both approaches could be right. Increasingly, advice against the use of face masks has been questioned (1) (2) (3), including by the head of China’s CDC (4). Austria has recently moved to make mask wearing in public obligatory, and in the United States, the CDC is now debating their use.
Common sense, scientific studies, but perhaps most of all the success of countries using masks to fight the coronavirus suggest that masks may make a difference. There are fewer scientific studies available to guide decision making than we might like, and the evidence is not always clear-cut. However, decision-making in a crisis requires that decisions be made in the absence of perfect clarity. What is clear is that the exponential mathematics of pandemics mean that even if masks are of limited benefit in reducing infection rates, masks could make a large difference over time, potentially slowing the pace of the pandemic, limiting its spread, saving lives, and finally, letting countries to restart the economies that their people depend on for their livelihoods.
Figure produced by Johns Hopkins University using data from Worldometers on March 29.
Masks protect you from others, others from you
It seems sensible to assume that any barrier between two people’s airways reduces the chance of an air-borne virus being transmitted between them. Masks worn by infected people catch some fraction of virus-laden respiratory droplets that are released by breathing and coughing. Perhaps just as important, breathing through a mask slows and deflects air as it is exhaled, potentially reducing the distance that viral droplets travel as aerosols.
Meanwhile, masks worn by uninfected people catch a fraction of the virus they’d otherwise inhale. If both infected and uninfected people wear masks, then these effects multiply. For example, hypothetically, if an infected person’s mask reduces the amount of virus spread by 75%, and the uninfected person’s mask reduces it by another 75%, then the total reduction of the virus spread is 94%.
It’s still possible that this reduction isn’t enough to prevent infection. However, masks could still protect people— because dosage matters. Lower dosing of virus means infection takes longer to build up, giving the immune system time to mount a response.
The immune system fights viruses, like a farmer trying to remove weeds from his field. How difficult those weeds will be to control depends on how many seeds there are. 1000 seeds in a field might not be a challenge, but 1,000,000 or 100 million make weeding far more difficult. In the same way, even when masks fail to prevent infection, by lowering the initial dose of virus they could conceivably make the difference between mild symptoms and a severe illness requiring hospitalization, or even leading to death.
Models suggest masks could work to control pandemics
Of course, it’s possible that masks might have only limited benefit in stopping the spread of COVID-19— for any number of reasons. Masks might provide limited protection, because they are less effective than suggested by some studies, because people misuse them, because of shortages of effective masks like surgical masks and N-95s— or all of these.
But to understand how they could still make a difference, we have to consider masks in the context of small reductions in viral transmission rates. Consider how epidemics grow— exponentially. Allowed to spread unchecked, one case of Covid-19 becomes 2.5 (assuming for this model an R0 of 2.5), each case causing 2.5 more, and so on. Over the course of 15 reproductive cycles, each taking 7 days, or about 3 months in total, one case becomes 2.5 x 2.5 x 25… or 2.5^15 = 931,323 cases (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. A simple model showing exponential growth in an uncontained outbreak over time (generation time = 7 days, R0 = 2.5) and with small reductions in the reproductive rate R.
Now, let’s suppose widespread use of masks cuts the growth rate by just 10%. Each person now infects 2.25 others, who infect 2.25 others, and so on. Over 15 cycles, 2.25^15 = 191,751 cases. An 80% reduction. Understanding this exponential growth explains how the virus caught the world by surprise even as the pandemic was monitored in real time. Exponential growth just doesn’t make sense, until you do the numbers, and even, they’re still hard to believe. But another counterintuitive aspect of exponential growth is that small decreases in the exponent greatly slow growth. A 10% increase in the exponent can have a massive effect, but even a limited intervention, with a 10% decrease over time, pays large dividends (Fig. 1).
These are very, very simple models. But sophisticated modeling also shows large scale use of masks could slow, even stop pandemics. A 2010 study found that above a certain threshold, widespread use of effective masks can reduce the reproductive number (R) of an influenza virus below 1, and the pandemic stops (25). If face masks were highly effective (well-designed, used properly and consistently), then public use of masks could stop a flu pandemic if used by just 50% of people. If masks were less effective, more than half the population would have to wear them to stop the pandemic. If masks were highly ineffective, they could flatten the curve of the epidemic, but wouldn’t stop it (25). We don’t know which model is most accurate. But does it even matter? In the context of the current pandemic, any of these scenarios would be a huge win.
Real world experience suggests masks work in pandemics
The most compelling evidence of the potential effectiveness of masks in the fight against COVID-19 comes from their use in the real world. Places that have controlled their coronavirus epidemics most effectively – China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, Kuwait, Czechia, Slovakia, Japan- use masks (Fig. 2). Aside from China, which was the epicenter of the pandemic and so played catchup in developing and implementing its strategy, virtually all of the worst outbreaks are in Western countries that officially advise against mask use, and where there is little culture or practice of mask wearing.
Figure 2. Western countries (US, Canada, Australia, UK, Western Europe) versus countries and territories using masks as part of official government or in practice policy (China, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, Kuwait, Slovakia, Czech Republic, in blues and greens). Countries with official or unofficial policies of mask usage have controlled the outbreak far better than those without. Note that Austria currently uses masks but has only revised its official policy recently.
Places like China, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Kuwait, Czechia and Singapore differ greatly in political organization, ranging from communism to democracies, and also in their level of economic development and population density. And strikingly, these countries also differ in their suppression strategies. China implemented a lockdown of Wuhan, shut down industry nationwide, implemented temperature checks and social distancing, tested extensively— and employed masks. Korea responded with an aggressive testing and contact tracing—and masks. Japan has done far less extensive testing than Korea, but shut down schools and large gatherings— and used masks. The pandemic management strategies used by these countries far more diverse than has been appreciated. Arguably one of the few things all these successes share is widespread wearing of masks. And on the other hand, one common factor shared by the pandemic suppression strategies of the US, Canada, the UK and Europe is the decision to discourage the use of masks by the public. This evidence doesn’t prove, but it does very strongly hint that masks are a critical part of these country’s suppression strategies. And by watching countries like Austria that have recently revised their policies, we can test this idea.
What kind of mask? Surgical masks as good as N95s; are improvised masks better than nothing?
Would cloth masks work? Research into the effectiveness of cloth masks is limited (34). Existing research shows homemade masks are- unsurprisingly- inferior to surgical masks. However, they appear to be better than nothing. One laboratory study found homemade masks were half as effective as surgical masks in filtering particles (35). Another study found homemade masks made from various materials stopped virus aerosols, but less well than surgical masks (36). A surgical mask stopped 90% of viral aerosol particles, a dish towel, 72%, linen, 62%, and a cotton T-shirt, 51% (36).
Conclusions
Strong scientific evidence and rational arguments exist for the widespread, public use of facemasks. The principle behind facemasks- they reduce the amount of virus exhaled by infected people, and inhaled by uninfected- suggest they should be a primary tool in combating any respiratory virus. Scientific research, including experimental studies, retrospective studies of the SARS epidemic, hospital studies of COVID-19, and modeling studies, all suggests masks are likely to be effective in controlling the pandemic. Most importantly, the experience of countries using masks against SARS and the current coronavirus pandemic imply that they are effective when used by the public. However, modeling studies and the real-world experience of countries like China and South Korea suggests that neither masks, nor anything else, provides a magic bullet against a pandemic. So strategies should not rely on any single intervention, but rather a wide range of interventions, potentially including masks. Further research and open debate on the effectiveness of masks and other strategies are urgently needed.
Flames GM Brad Treliving does what he can to be ready for NHL reboot
From LifeSiteNews
Data from Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program shows that to date, only 138 of the 2,233 claims have been approved by a medical board for a payout.
Canada’s program for those injured by the COVID vaccines, which the federal government still insists are safe, has only paid out 6 percent of the claims made.
A look at the data from the nation’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) shows that to date, only 138 of the 2,233 claims made to the program have been approved by a medical board for payout.
Some 2,069 claims have had an “administrative review completed” with 1,825 being deemed “admissible,” but remain in the process of “being depersonalized and prepared to move forward to a preliminary medical review.” Some 620 claims have been assessed by the Medical Review Board but are still under review.
Total payouts so far stand around $11.2 million, with the number of people filing claims to the program growing steadily.
LifeSiteNews recently reported that the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recently tabled 2024 budget earmarked an extra $36 million for the program.
Some people who were successful in getting payouts from VISP have said that the compensation awarded was insufficient considering the injuries sustained from the COVID shots.
As reported by LifeSiteNews last year, 42-year-old Ross Wightman from British Columbia launched a lawsuit against AstraZeneca, the federal government of Canada, the government of his province, and the pharmacy at which he was injected after receiving what he considers inadequate compensation from VISP.
He was one of the first citizens in Canada to receive federal financial compensation due to a COVID vaccine injury under VISP. Wightman received the AstraZeneca shot in April 2021 and shortly after became totally paralyzed. He was subsequently diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome.
Whitman was given a one-time payout of $250,000 and about $90,000 per year in income replacement, but noted, as per a recent True North report, that he does not even know if those dollar amounts “would ease the pain.”
“Given the extent of the permanent life-changing injuries, a couple hundred thousand dollars isn’t much, that’s for sure,” he said.
All Canadian provinces except Quebec are covered by VISP, who has its own vaccine compensation program that also appears to be slow at paying out to applicants.
Yesterday, LifeSiteNews reported about a 30-year-old Quebec man who developed a severe skin condition after taking Moderna’s mRNA experimental COVID-19 shot. He still has not heard anything from the provincial government regarding compensation through its vaccine injury program despite the debilitating nature of his condition.
Despite the need for a federal program to address those injured by the vaccines once mandated by the Trudeau government, Health Canada still says “[I]t’s safe to receive a COVID-19 vaccine following infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. Vaccination is very important, even if you’ve had COVID-19.”
The federal government is also continuing to purchase COVID jabs despite the fact the government’s own data shows that most Canadians are flat-out refusing a COVID booster injection.
Indeed, records show the federal government has spent approximately $9.9 million on social media advertising to promote the
From LifeSiteNews
Utah and Florida passed laws intended to prevent the WHO from overriding states’ authority on matters of public health policy, and Louisiana and Oklahoma have legislation set to take effect soon pending final votes.
Two states have passed laws – and two states have bills pending – intended to prevent the World Health Organization (WHO) from overriding states’ authority on matters of public health policy.
Utah and Florida passed laws and Louisiana and Oklahoma have legislation set to take effect soon pending final votes. Several other states are considering similar bills.
The WHO member states will convene next month at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, to vote on two proposals – the so-called “pandemic accord” or “pandemic treaty,” and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) – that would give the WHO sweeping new pandemic powers.
The Biden administration supports the two WHO proposals, but opposition is growing at the state level.
Proponents of the WHO’s proposals say they are vital for preparing humanity against the “next pandemic,” perhaps caused by a yet-unknown “Disease X.”
But the bills passed by state legislatures reflect frequently voiced criticisms that the WHO’s proposals imperil national sovereignty, medical and bodily sovereignty and personal liberties, and may lead to global vaccine mandates.
Critics also argue the WHO proposals may open the door to global digital “health passports” and global censorship targeting alleged “misinformation.”
Such criticisms are behind state legislative initiatives to oppose the WHO, on the basis that states’ rights are protected under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Under the 10th Amendment, all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Such powers, critics say, include public health policy.
Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender:
It is encouraging to see states like Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Utah pass resolutions to clarify that the WHO has no power to determine health policy in their states. Historically, health has been the purview of state and local government, not the U.S. federal government.
There is no legitimate constitutional basis for the federal government to outsource health decision-making on pandemics to an international body. As state legislatures become aware of the WHO’s agenda, they are pushing back to assert their autonomy – and this is welcome.
Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender that, contrary to arguments that the drafters of the constitution could not foresee future public health needs, vaccines, doctors, and medicine were all in existence at the time the 10th Amendment was written. They were “deliberately left out,” she said.
READ: Thousands of protesters rally in Tokyo against proposed WHO pandemic treaty
This has implications for the federal government’s efforts in support of the WHO’s proposals, according to Nass. “The government doesn’t have the authority to give the WHO powers for which it lacks authority,” she said.
Tennessee state Rep. Bud Hulsey (R-Sullivan County) told The Epoch Times, “We’re almost to a place in this country that the federal government has trampled on the sovereignty of states for so long that in peoples’ minds, they have no options.”
“It’s like whatever the federal government says is the supreme law of the land, and it’s not. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land,” he added.
Utah, Florida laws passed
On January 31, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed Senate Bill 57, the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” into law. It does not mention the WHO, but prohibits “enforcement of a federal directive within the state by government officers if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty.”
In May 2023, Florida passed Senate Bill 252 (SB 252), a bill for “Protection from Discrimination Based on Health Care Choices.” Among other clauses, it prohibits businesses and public entities from requiring proof of vaccination or prophylaxis for the purposes of employment, receipt of services, or gaining entry to such entities.
According to Section 3 of SB 252:
A governmental entity as defined… or an educational institution… may not adopt, implement, or enforce an international health organization’s public health policies or guidelines unless authorized to do so under state law, rule, or executive order issued by the Governor.
Nass told The Defender that Florida’s legislation offers a back door through which the state can implement WHO policies because it allows a state law, rule, or executive order by the governor to override the bill. According to Nass, efforts to strengthen the bill have been unsuccessful.
SB 252 was one of four bills Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed in May 2023 in support of medical freedom. The other bills were House Bill 1387, banning gain-of-function research, Senate Bill 1580, protecting physicians’ freedom of speech, and Senate Bill 238, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of people’s medical choices.
Louisiana, Oklahoma also push back against the WHO
The Louisiana Senate on March 26 voted unanimously to pass Senate Law No. 133, barring the WHO, United Nations (U.N.) and World Economic Forum from wielding influence over the state.
According to the legislation:
No rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or implemented by the state of Louisiana or any agency, department, board, commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish, municipality, or any other political entity.
The bill is now pending Louisiana House of Representatives approval and if passed, is set to take effect August 1.
On April 24, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 426 (SB 426), which states, “The World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma.”
READ: Lawmakers, conservatives blast WHO plan for ‘global governance’ on future pandemics
According to the bill:
Any mandates, recommendations, instructions, communications or guidance issued by the World Health Organization, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum shall not be used in this state as a basis for action, nor to direct, order or otherwise impose, contrary to the constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma any requirements whatsoever, including those for masks, vaccines or medical testing, or gather any public or private information about the state’s citizens or residents, and shall have no force or effect in the State of Oklahoma.
According to Door to Freedom, the bill was first introduced last year and unanimously passed the Senate. An amended version will return to the Senate for a new vote, and if passed, the law will take effect June 1.
Legislative push continues in states where bills opposing the WHO failed
Legislative initiatives opposing the WHO in other states have so far been unsuccessful.
In Tennessee, lawmakers proposed three bills opposing the WHO, but “none of them made it over the finish line,” said Bernadette Pajer of the CHD Tennessee Chapter.
“Many Tennessee legislators are concerned about the WHO and three of them filed resolutions to protect our sovereignty,” Pajer said. “Our legislature runs on a biennium, and this was the second year, so those three bills have died. But I do expect new ones will be filed next session.”
The proposed bills were:
- House Joint Resolution 820(HJR 820), passed in the Tennessee House of Representatives. The bill called on the federal government to “end taxpayer funding” of the WHO and reject the WHO’s two proposals.
- House Joint Resolution 1359(HJR 1359) stalled in the Delayed Bills Committee. It proposed that “neither the World Health Organization, United Nations, nor the World Economic Forum shall have any jurisdiction or power within the State of Tennessee.”
- Senate Joint Resolution 1135(SJR 1135) opposed “the United States’ participation in the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response Accord (PPPRA) and urges the Biden Administration to withdraw our nation from the PPPRA.”
Amy Miller, a registered lobbyist for Reform Pharma, told The Defender she “supported these resolutions, especially HJR 1359. She said the bill “went to a committee where the sponsor didn’t think it would come out since a unanimous vote was needed and one of the three members was a Democrat.”
Tennessee’s HJR 820 came the closest to being enacted. According to Nass, this bill was “flawed,” as it “did not assert state sovereignty or the 10th Amendment.”
Another Tennessee bill, House Bill 2795 and Senate Bill 2775, “establishes processes by which the general assembly [of the state of Tennessee] may nullify an unconstitutional federal statute, regulation, agency order, or executive order.”
According to The Epoch Times, this would give Tennessee residents “the right to demand that state legislators vote on whether or not to enforce regulations or executive orders that violate citizens’ rights under the federal or state constitutions.” The bill is tabled for “summer study” in the Senate.
In May 2023, Tennessee passed legislation opposing “net zero” proposals and the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals – which have been connected to “green” policies and the implementation of digital ID for newborn babies and for which the U.N. has set a target date of 2030 for implementation.
According to The Epoch Times, “Maine state Rep. Heidi Sampson attempted to get a ‘joint order’ passed in support of personal autonomy and against compliance with the WHO agreements, but it garnered little interest in the Democrat supermajority legislature.”
In Alabama, the Senate passed House Joint Resolution 113 opposing the WHO. The bill was reported out of committee but, according to Nass, it stalled.
Other states where similar legislation was proposed in the 2024 session or is pending include Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wyoming.
Recent Supreme Court ruling may curtail federal government’s powers
While opponents of the WHO’s proposed “pandemic agreement” and IHR amendments point to the states’ rights provision of the 10th Amendment, others argue that a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council allowed federal agencies to assert more authority to make laws.
The tide may be turning, however. According to The Epoch Times, “The current Supreme Court has taken some steps to rein in the administrative state, including the landmark decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, ruling that federal agencies can’t assume powers that Congress didn’t explicitly give them.”
Nass said that even in states where lawmakers have not yet proposed bills to oppose the WHO, citizens can take action, by contacting the office of their state governor, who can issue an executive order, or their attorney general, who can issue a legal opinion.
Door to Freedom has also developed a model resolution that state legislative bodies can use as the basis for their own legislation.
“It’s important for people to realize that if the federal government imposes something on the people, the people can go through their state’s powers to overturn it,” Nass said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Alberta rejects unconstitutional cap on plastic production
UN plastics plans are unscientific and unrealistic
“The Numbers Favour Our Side”
Alberta official reveals ‘almost all’ wildfires in province this year have been started by humans
-
Education4 hours agoSupport a young reader through the Tim Hortons Smile Cookie campaign
-
Economy2 days agoYoung Canadians are putting off having a family due to rising cost of living, survey finds
-
Automotive1 day agoVehicle monitoring software could soon use ‘kill switch’ under the guise of ‘safety’
-
Alberta2 days agoOfficial statement from Premier Danielle Smith and Energy Minister Brian Jean on the start-up of the Trans Mountain Pipeline
-
Business1 day agoWhen politicians gamble, taxpayers lose
-
Addictions1 day agoCity of Toronto asks Trudeau gov’t to decriminalize hard drugs despite policy’s failure in BC
-
Alberta2 days agoProtecting the right to vote for Canadian citizens: Minister McIver
-
Environment2 days agoClimate Alarmists Want To Fight The Sun. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?