Fauci: Double Masks make sense!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

What's confusing?
After telling the general population "Everyone must wear a surgical mask because they save lives," the CDC is now telling the general population, in the above document, not to wear a surgical mask, but to wear a double gaiter. Since I'm having so much trouble understanding, and you both are having such an easy time of it, please show me the scientific evidence that wearing a double-gaiter saves as many lives as a surgical mask, when worn by the general population?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
After telling the general population "You must wear a surgical mask because they save lives," they are now telling the general population, in the above document, not to wear a surgical mask, but to wear a double gater. Since I'm having so much trouble understanding, and you both are having such an easy time of it, please show me the scientific evidence that wearing a double-gater saves as many lives as a surgical mask, when worn by the general population?

Really? You think that what they said boils down to "don't wear surgical masks--wear double gaiters"? Do you really believe that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Really? You think that what they said boils down to "don't wear surgical masks--wear double gaiters"? Do you really believe that?
Does the CDC document tell the general population not to wear surgical masks? Yes, or no.
Does the CDC document tell the general population that wearing a "folded over or double gaiter" is an acceptable alternative? Yes, or no?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Does the CDC document tell the general population not to wear surgical masks? Yes, or no.
Does the CDC document tell the general population that wearing a "folded over or double gaiter" is an acceptable alternative? Yes, or no?

So you don't actually believe it, you're just cherry-picking things to support a specific view. Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So you don't actually believe it, you're just cherry-picking things to support a specific view. Got it.
I'm not cherry picking. I posted the entire link about a half dozen times (and just did again). The document clearly says, "DO NOT choose ... surgical masks" in the unacceptable column, and lists wearing a "gaiter with two layers, or fold it to make two layers" as an acceptable alternative.

cdcgaiter.GIF
 
I'm not cherry picking. I posted the entire link about a half dozen times (and just did again). The document clearly says, "DO NOT choose ... surgical masks" in the unacceptable column, and lists wearing a "gaiter with two layers, or fold it to make two layers" as an acceptable alternative.

View attachment 328941

Come on man. You're clearly pushing a specific point of view. You literally called it buffoonery and then painted the whole document as "don't wear surgical masks--wear double-gaiters." You're not being intellectually honest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
I'm not cherry picking. I posted the entire link about a half dozen times (and just did again). The document clearly says, "DO NOT choose ... surgical masks" in the unacceptable column, and lists wearing a "gaiter with two layers, or fold it to make two layers" as an acceptable alternative.

View attachment 328941
The document isn’t confusing.
I'm not cherry picking. I posted the entire link about a half dozen times (and just did again). The document clearly says, "DO NOT choose ... surgical masks" in the unacceptable column, and lists wearing a "gaiter with two layers, or fold it to make two layers" as an acceptable alternative.

View attachment 328941
As noted above, you’re arguing in bad faith. The document you’re using to support your view is clear and understandable. It feels like the argument you’re trying to make is “this is nonsense that the recommendations changed from universal surgical mask use to what’s on this poster.” 1) If there was a time when the CDC was recommending universal surgical mask use for the general population, I straight up missed that. And I’m talking official CDC recommendations for universal use, not some a one off about surgical masks being more effective than home made fabric masks. 2) Where’s your data that universal surgical mask use is the best implementable policy the government should be pursuing? What do you see as the downsides of advocating for a position that is currently logistically impossible?

P.S. Anyone want to wager on whether he addresses any of the issues I just brought up in a thoughtful and substantive way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Are 2 layer surgical masks a) a thing and b) easily available?
I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out why no one cares that the CDC is recommending to the general population to wear inferior, non-surgical masks with less layers.
 
Do you agree with the CDC's current recommendation to the general population not to wear surgical masks?

I don't think there is a ton of evidence. But looking at what data there is, I don't think it shows that a medical grade mask is significantly better than a commercially available mask with two layers. Since the public isn't going to be in a healthcare setting and should be socially distancing anyway, I'm not sure what issue you have with recommending they wear vinyl/cloth masks.

In this study in JAMA, they looked at FFE in different types of masks, and your ear loop medical masks performed worse than cloth or nylon masks, and surgical masks with ties in the back performed about the same as two-layered nylon masks.

So yeah, I think it's fine.
 
I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out why no one cares that the CDC is recommending to the general population to wear inferior, non-surgical masks with less layers.
Who says no one cares? Most of us just understand the reasoning behind the recommendations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't think there is a ton of evidence. But looking at what data there is, I don't think it shows that a medical grade mask is significantly better than a commercially available mask with two layers. Since the public isn't going to be in a healthcare setting and should be socially distancing anyway, I'm not sure what issue you have with recommending they wear vinyl/cloth masks.

In this study in JAMA, they looked at FFE in different types of masks, and your ear loop medical masks performed worse than cloth or nylon masks, and surgical masks with ties in the back performed about the same as two-layered nylon masks.

So yeah, I think it's fine.
Its worth noting that this article used a cardinal health procedure mask which is ASTM level 1. Surgical masks are ASTM level 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
The document isn’t confusing.

As noted above, you’re arguing in bad faith. The document you’re using to support your view is clear and understandable. It feels like the argument you’re trying to make is “this is nonsense that the recommendations changed from universal surgical mask use to what’s on this poster.” 1) If there was a time when the CDC was recommending universal surgical mask use for the general population, I straight up missed that. And I’m talking official CDC recommendations for universal use, not some a one off about surgical masks being more effective than home made fabric masks. 2) Where’s your data that universal surgical mask use is the best implementable policy the government should be pursuing? What do you see as the downsides of advocating for a position that is currently logistically impossible?

P.S. Anyone want to wager on whether he addresses any of the issues I just brought up in a thoughtful and substantive way?
According to Lancet, there is some (but not a lot of) population-level evidence that masks prevent COVID-19 transmission. According to at least one study out of Australian, in Thorax, the more layers your mask has, the lower the transmission. Yet our CDC does not recommend our population wear the most protective face covering. Instead they recommend clearly worse alternatives. After a year and trillions of dollars of emergency COVID spending worldwide, and sending multiple cash-stimulus checks to people which they can spend on whatever they want, we should have enough of, and be recommending, the good stuff. A year into this, it seems like recommending people wear the best and making sure it's available, seems like a better approach than continuing to recommend inferior alternatives, and using the excuse that "COVID is new."
 
Last edited:
According to Lancet, there is some (but not a lot of) population-level evidence that masks prevent COVID-19 transmission. According to at least one study out of Australian, in Thorax, the more layers your mask has, the lower the transmission. Yet our CDC does not recommend our population wear the most protective face covering. Instead they recommend clearly worse alternatives. After a year and trillions of dollars of emergency COVID spending worldwide, and sending multiple cash-stimulus checks to people which they can spend on whatever they want, we should have enough of, and be recommending, the good stuff. Recommending people wear the best and making sure it's available, seems like a better approach than continuing to recommend inferior alternatives, and using the excuse that "COVID is new" a year into this.
And there's the key. For whatever reason, we don't have a huge supply of good quality surgical masks. Given that, what would you have the CDC do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
According to Lancet, there is some (but not a lot of) population-level evidence that masks prevent COVID-19 transmission. According to at least one study out of Australian, in Thorax, the more layers your mask has, the lower the transmission. Yet our CDC does not recommend our population wear the most protective face covering. Instead they recommend clearly worse alternatives. After a year and trillions of dollars of emergency COVID spending worldwide, and sending multiple cash-stimulus checks to people which they can spend on whatever they want, we should have enough of, and be recommending, the good stuff. A year into this, it seems like recommending people wear the best and making sure it's available, seems like a better approach than continuing to recommend inferior alternatives, and using the excuse that "COVID is new."
That was a lot of posts and bad faith assertions to get to your actual argument. We had a federal administration dedicated to not fighting the pandemic in a realistic way and so we haven’t mobilized our manufacturing in the way we needed to. It’s an F’ing crime that we as a society don’t have access to surgical masks and continuous ads/social media postings advocating how to wear masks properly. But given that we don’t, advocating that people where the most effective masks that aren’t medical grade seems reasonable, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Fauci: "Wearing two condoms just makes sense."
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Well going on to year 2 it's getting kind of nuts with masks everywhere.....I see everyone walking by themselves with masks outdoors because they are so terrified. We really need to ratchet things back, and start returning to normal. The new virus is endemic, and we have to figure out how to carry on normal life with it around like we do for other diseases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Look, mask don't work.

I caught covid over the summer despite social distancing, staying at home when not working, washing my hands, and wearing a respirator that I cleaned with the meticulousness of the uncircumcised.

I tested positive, I tested antibody positive, and now don't mask up at all. The reality is that if Covid penetrated my Death Star level of defenses this summer, no gaiter, cloth mask, surgical mask, or even N95 is going to stop this thing.

Oh, and I know that I didn't get it sitting around at home with the family, they had it a week after I did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Look, mask don't work.

I caught covid over the summer despite social distancing, staying at home when not working, washing my hands, and wearing a respirator that I cleaned with the meticulousness of the uncircumcised.

I tested positive, I tested antibody positive, and now don't mask up at all. The reality is that if Covid penetrated my Death Star level of defenses this summer, no gaiter, cloth mask, surgical mask, or even N95 is going to stop this thing.

Oh, and I know that I didn't get it sitting around at home with the family, they had it a week after I did.
It may not prevent you from getting it, but I think it does lessen the chances. For this reason, I will continue to wear PPE. Plus, I have a feeling a variant will emerge soon enough that will evade previous immunity including vaccine immunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The conditioned fall-in-line-no-matter-what types on this thread are truly disturbing. 2 masks better than 1?!?!? Seriously, why stop at 2? Are 3 better than 2? Are 4 better than 3? Are 17 better than just 12? For so called "scientists" you all are reacting quite unscientific.

Point me to the RCCT showing 2 masks display a clear and obvious benefit to 1 mask. Hint: those studies don't exist. While you're at it, point me to the RCCT showing masks do anything at all. Hint: the 2 most robust studies we have show little to no benefit.

And yet, we've fallen into the dystopian reality where all must shut up and do what you're told otherwise you somehow lack compassion for others. It would be laughable if it weren't so dang sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
And yet, we've fallen into the dystopian reality where all must shut up and do what you're told otherwise you somehow lack compassion for others. It would be laughable if it weren't so dang sad.

That's fine. Just agree to pay your entire health care bill when you seek medical care for COVID and not have taxpayers pay for it. Including emergency care. And also agree that doctors and the ER won't treat you unless you pay upfront the costs for treating COVID.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's fine. Just agree to pay your entire health care bill when you seek medical care for COVID and not have taxpayers pay for it. Including emergency care. And also agree that doctors and the ER won't treat you unless you pay upfront the costs for treating COVID.
The odds of me needing to seek medical care for COVID, let alone emergency care, are ridiculously low. But again, I can tell that science doesn't mean much in these parts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
That's fine. Just agree to pay your entire health care bill when you seek medical care for COVID and not have taxpayers pay for it. Including emergency care. And also agree that doctors and the ER won't treat you unless you pay upfront the costs for treating COVID.
Would you recommend we do the same thing for other people who only have themselves to blame for many of their medical issues and/or acute issues?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The odds of me needing to seek medical care for COVID, let alone emergency care, are ridiculously low. But again, I can tell that science doesn't mean much in these parts.
Generalizing that you are smarter or more scientific than other folks around here isn't a good way to put Dale Carnegie strategies into practice.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
The conditioned fall-in-line-no-matter-what types on this thread are truly disturbing. 2 masks better than 1?!?!? Seriously, why stop at 2? Are 3 better than 2? Are 4 better than 3? Are 17 better than just 12? For so called "scientists" you all are reacting quite unscientific.

Point me to the RCCT showing 2 masks display a clear and obvious benefit to 1 mask. Hint: those studies don't exist. While you're at it, point me to the RCCT showing masks do anything at all. Hint: the 2 most robust studies we have show little to no benefit.

And yet, we've fallen into the dystopian reality where all must shut up and do what you're told otherwise you somehow lack compassion for others. It would be laughable if it weren't so dang sad.
Disturbing, dystopian, laughable, dang sad. Lots of appeals to pathos for a "scientist".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Generalizing that you are smarter or more scientific than other folks around here isn't a good way to put Dale Carnegie strategies into practice.
I'm willing to be proven wrong. Just waiting on someone to drop that research showing 2 masks > 1 mask in a clinical setting. Or even, 1 mask > no mask in a clinical setting.

Of course, I'll be waiting forever as such research doesn't exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
That's fine. Just agree to pay your entire health care bill when you seek medical care for COVID and not have taxpayers pay for it. Including emergency care. And also agree that doctors and the ER won't treat you unless you pay upfront the costs for treating COVID.

Does this logic only apply to Covid patients or does it also apply to non-vegan STEMI patients who need a Cath lab? How about obese diabetics in the ICU? Or HIV positive patients who have led a promiscuous lifestyle and now need antiretroviral therapy? IV drug users with a variety of ailments?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Does this logic only apply to Covid patients or does it also apply to non-vegan STEMI patients who need a Cath lab? How about obese diabetics in the ICU? Or HIV positive patients who have led a promiscuous lifestyle and now need antiretroviral therapy? IV drug users with a variety of ailments?
Depends on whether the patient is a victim of implicit bias /s
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Does this logic only apply to Covid patients or does it also apply to non-vegan STEMI patients who need a Cath lab? How about obese diabetics in the ICU? Or HIV positive patients who have led a promiscuous lifestyle and now need antiretroviral therapy? IV drug users with a variety of ailments?

Arguably the diabetic who refuses to lose weight or control their blood sugars is at higher risk than the mask-denier who gets COVID. Yet we still cover their health costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The conditioned fall-in-line-no-matter-what types on this thread are truly disturbing. 2 masks better than 1?!?!? Seriously, why stop at 2? Are 3 better than 2? Are 4 better than 3? Are 17 better than just 12? For so called "scientists" you all are reacting quite unscientific.

Point me to the RCCT showing 2 masks display a clear and obvious benefit to 1 mask. Hint: those studies don't exist. While you're at it, point me to the RCCT showing masks do anything at all. Hint: the 2 most robust studies we have show little to no benefit.

And yet, we've fallen into the dystopian reality where all must shut up and do what you're told otherwise you somehow lack compassion for others. It would be laughable if it weren't so dang sad.

I wonder why The covid vaccine may be related to ITP. Hopefully it isn’t a worsening trend
 

I wonder why The covid vaccine may be related to ITP. Hopefully it isn’t a worsening trend
I didn't read the article, because it's behind a paywall.

However, the prevalence of ITP is about 10 in 100,000. Therefore, 100 cases of ITP will pop up in every 1,000,000 people at any given point in time, with no special precipitating event needed.

If 1,000,000 people get the COVID vaccine and 10 end up with ITP, is that evidence the vaccine caused the ITP?

No, it's not. In fact, it's evidence of the opposite. The rate is no greater than pre-COVID vaccine.

So, is the COVID vaccine causing ITP?

I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. You have to compare the baseline prevalence to the prevalence post-COVID vaccine. It's still being looked at. I could be wrong, but I'd bet a ham sandwich it's not from the vaccine.

It seems very similar to when a rare disease pops up and people start immediately blaming whatever happened before it. "It's rare, so it must be caused by the ____(insert scapegoat such as vaccine, breast implants, high-voltage power lines, cell phone radio waves or other bogeyman du jour)____." It scares people. It causes discussion. It gets attention. And when the article comes out a year later saying, "Not causal," that gets no attention, because it's boring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
If the Moderna vaccine is ~95% effective at preventing COVID, doesn't that make the odds of two vaccinated people transmitting COVID to one another 1 in 400? The logic of still needing masks once we have the vaccine is crazy. Even if one vaccinated person is around another random unvaccinated person the odds of getting COVID are less than 1 in 100. Both of those are assuming close contact needed for spread.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If the Moderna vaccine is ~95% effective at preventing COVID, doesn't that make the odds of two vaccinated people transmitting COVID to one another 1 in 400? The logic of still needing masks once we have the vaccine is crazy. Even if one vaccinated person is around another random unvaccinated person the odds of getting COVID are less than 1 in 100. Both of those are assuming close contact needed for spread.
I'm actually looking forward to making my patients who have refused vaccination wear masks long past everyone who has gotten their vaccine.

But yes, at a certain point of vaccination The masks need to go away. I think the idea that we might still be wearing them in September is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If the Moderna vaccine is ~95% effective at preventing COVID, doesn't that make the odds of two vaccinated people transmitting COVID to one another 1 in 400? The logic of still needing masks once we have the vaccine is crazy. Even if one vaccinated person is around another random unvaccinated person the odds of getting COVID are less than 1 in 100.

I'm actually looking forward to making my patients who have refused vaccination wear masks long past everyone who has gotten their vaccine.

But yes, at a certain point of vaccination The masks need to go away. I think the idea that we might still be wearing them in September is ridiculous.
There's already a big drop in cases (as predicted), so at what point can we stop the insanity? We won't get to 70-80% vaccine penetration like Fauci wants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There's already a big drop in cases (as predicted), so at what point can we stop the insanity? We won't get to 70-80% vaccine penetration like Fauci wants.
If I were emperor, I'd support removing restrictions on gatherings/businesses first. If we don't get a meaningful rise in cases the first 1-2 months of that, then consider relaxing mask restrictions. If that doesn't cause a spike in cases, make masks optional and leave it up to the businesses to do whatever they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If I were emperor, I'd support removing restrictions on gatherings/businesses first. If we don't get a meaningful rise in cases the first 1-2 months of that, then consider relaxing mask restrictions. If that doesn't cause a spike in cases, make masks optional and leave it up to the businesses to do whatever they want.
I assume you just didn't include schools because it's so obvious, nut for me:

Get kids in school --> open businesses --> relax masking recs --> SPRING BREeeaAK!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
The CDC is now saying that if you receive both doses of the vaccine, you don't have to quarantine following an exposure as long as the following conditions are met:
  • Are fully vaccinated (i.e., ≥2 weeks following receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series, or ≥2 weeks following receipt of one dose of a single-dose vaccine)
  • Are within 3 months following receipt of the last dose in the series
  • Have remained asymptomatic since the current COVID-19 exposure
My question is about the bolded second bullet. Is this the CDC saying that the vaccines are only effective for 3 months following the second dose?
 
The CDC is now saying that if you receive both doses of the vaccine, you don't have to quarantine following an exposure as long as the following conditions are met:
  • Are fully vaccinated (i.e., ≥2 weeks following receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series, or ≥2 weeks following receipt of one dose of a single-dose vaccine)
  • Are within 3 months following receipt of the last dose in the series
  • Have remained asymptomatic since the current COVID-19 exposure
My question is about the bolded second bullet. Is this the CDC saying that the vaccines are only effective for 3 months following the second dose?
Probably more that we don't have data extending beyond 3 months. But I'm sure others will construe it however they want to...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I assume you just didn't include schools because it's so obvious, nut for me:

Get kids in school --> open businesses --> relax masking recs --> SPRING BREeeaAK!
Schools in my area are offering 5 days a week in person learning already (there's a virtual option for those who want it).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The CDC is now saying that if you receive both doses of the vaccine, you don't have to quarantine following an exposure as long as the following conditions are met:
  • Are fully vaccinated (i.e., ≥2 weeks following receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series, or ≥2 weeks following receipt of one dose of a single-dose vaccine)
  • Are within 3 months following receipt of the last dose in the series
  • Have remained asymptomatic since the current COVID-19 exposure
My question is about the bolded second bullet. Is this the CDC saying that the vaccines are only effective for 3 months following the second dose?
Will likely be extending when they have more data proving immunity lasting greater than 3 months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If I were emperor, I'd support removing restrictions on gatherings/businesses first. If we don't get a meaningful rise in cases the first 1-2 months of that, then consider relaxing mask restrictions. If that doesn't cause a spike in cases, make masks optional and leave it up to the businesses to do whatever they want.
A reasonable, if overly cautious approach. Unfortunately the people making decisions are anything but reasonable these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Top