I'm confused, why can't those 500 million tests be mailed to the pharmacies where people can buy them? Is it a rationing issue?

I'm confused, why can't those 500 million tests be mailed to the pharmacies where people can buy them? Is it a rationing issue? ~ NicoleK at December 28, 2021 8:13 AM

The issue is that Biden's a big government bureaucrat. He doesn't think in terms of markets providing things, but in terms of government providing them. Making them available to for pharmacies to purchase in bulk and then sell to customers probably never occurred to the Bidenites.

Remember back when Trump proposed distributing vaccines through pharmacies, like CVS et al, and the Democrats lost it complaining that not everyone could easily get to a "corporate" pharmacy, therefore any, and all, distribution should be through government agencies? Same thing.

Cheap, widely available, and probably not very accurate? The dirty little secret of this whole politicized pandemics, is that the tests are damn near useless.

Isab Says:

"The dirty little secret of this whole politicized pandemics, is that the tests are damn near useless."

We have more than 800 thousand dead Americans at this point.. this isn't "politicized"... that is called news or current events.

In any event, the medical community finds the test useful. That you believe they are useless suggests that you do not know how to properly use them.

It is no different than the crowd who believes masks are useless and promptly wears them under their chin. In that configuration they are indeed useless, just like pants are "useless" if you always walk around with them around your ankles.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=full&urlTitle=/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013705.pub2&doi=10.1002/14651858.CD013705.pub2&type=cdsr&contentLanguage=

Test accuracy

"How Big Government Makes The COVID Crisis Worse"

To start with, funding the creation of the virus was a big mistake. Destroying the credibility of the CDC and the NIAID, useless mask mandates, backing the sales hype about vaccine effectiveness, suppressing alternative treatments to extend the EAU, lying and dissembling in Congressional hearings, these should also be on the list.
Other than helping move 9 billion doses of a sketchy product, what have they done right?

Assuming the tests are accurate: Is 500 million enough?
Over 300 million people live here, but people will want/need to be tested more than once over the next few months.
Two of my kids and my husband have already had more than one test, I’ve had one, and we just gave the last one we had to my in-laws. Cold/flu season has just started. Where I live, it’s also *Cedar season.
* What we call a “cedar” is actually a type of juniper, and their pollen makes more one of the most unimaginably awful allergy seasons you can imagine.

Isab,

It sure would be nice if the link you provided didn't lead to a blank webpage.

Irrespective of your broken link, here is some information on test accuracy:

https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/home-covid-tests

"Antigen tests are still fairly accurate, particularly when someone is experiencing symptoms and their viral load is very high. However, they can be less accurate when someone has a lower viral load, such as in someone without symptoms. This could lead to false negative test results. You could have a false negative result if, for example, you test yourself too soon after you’ve been exposed to someone with COVID-19, or if you test when you have no symptoms."

"While these tests aren’t 100% accurate, a negative result strongly suggests that you’re not contagious at that particular time."

So... unlike your characterization the tests are not in fact useless.

If you get a positive result on an antigen test you can have high confidence that you have contracted COVID.

If you get a negative result and you feel quite sick you can have high confidence that you have something other than COVID.

If you get a negative result and are asymptomatic you can have high confidence that even if you just acquired COVID that you are not presently contagious.

In all 3 cases you have obtained useful information.

https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-150-comparative-studies-and-articles-on-mask-ineffectiveness-and-harms/

Masks

Isab,

So you're not even going to address the fact that your earlier link didn't show anything because it was broken?

You're also not even going to address the actual information I provided demonstrating the utility of the antigen tests?

You're just going to keep marching on with your bullshit despite all of the times you are demonstrably wrong?

I still remember you asserting with the utmost confidence that all of this would be over by April of 2020.

How did that prediction work out?... we're currently approaching 1 million dead US citizens.

You know nothing and it doesn't seem to matter how many times you are proven wrong your confidence never wavers.

As for masks, those are also effective when worn properly.

That is why medical professionals use them to avoid contracting disease.

If you wear them under your nose or are constantly rubbing or scratching them while also touching your eyes and other mucus membranes the masks will not help.

This is why medical professionals don't have lunch with their masks off in the middle of the ICU.

That is why medical professionals use them to avoid contracting disease. ~ Artemis at December 28, 2021 3:56 PM

Just to clarify a few things about masks and medical professionals.

Medical professionals generally wear N95 masks, not simple cloth masks. The masks you buy in the store or on Amazon are not usually N95 masks. Masks sold as dust protection for workers are generally not N95 masks. In fact, if your mask does not say it's N95, it likely isn't. So, don't go operating on people or strolling through the ICU in a store-bought cloth pandemic mask.

In fact, the public is discouraged from buying and wearing N95s during this pandemic in order to keep them available for medical professionals. The AMA notes, "It is important to note that surgical masks and N95 masks that are meant for health professionals should not be used. This is because surgical masks and respirators are critical supplies needed for physicians and other health professionals to prevent supply shortages, says the CDC."

So, what about that cloth mask you bought on Amazon? Different cloth masks have different levels of effectiveness. EPA researchers "found that the effectiveness of the masks varied widely: a three-layer knitted cotton mask blocked an average of 26.5 percent of particles in the chamber, while a washed, two-layer woven nylon mask with a filter insert and metal nose bridge blocked 79 percent of particles on average. Other masks scored somewhere in between."

In conclusion, while cloth masks are not "useless," their effectiveness varies with the fit, cloth type, and the wearing habits of the user. In short, get the best kind you can and make sure to wear it properly or it will be, in effect, "useless."

As they say... a slice of Swiss cheese has holes, but a block does not.

Conan Says:

"Medical professionals generally wear N95 masks, not simple cloth masks. The masks you buy in the store or on Amazon are not usually N95 masks."

The distinction between cloth and N95 masks is a reasonable one.

Incidentally, Isab makes no distinction when she implies that masks are ineffective.

As for what I use, I purchase and wear N95 masks from 3M.

"In conclusion, while cloth masks are not "useless," their effectiveness varies with the fit, cloth type, and the wearing habits of the user. In short, get the best kind you can and make sure to wear it properly or it will be, in effect, "useless.""

The same exact commentary would apply to the usage of condoms for pregnancy prevention.

The effectiveness of condoms also varies with the fit, material type, and the wearing habits of the user.

It is therefore just as reasonable to insist that condoms are "useless" if you are not wearing one properly.

In this way the utility is directed by the user... not by the product.

Use a mask improperly and it will not help prevent disease exposure... use a condom improperly and it will not help prevent pregnancy.

In any case, the mask you are wearing is better than the mask you aren't wearing.

"In any case, the mask you are wearing is better than the mask you aren't wearing."

Yes and no, human nature changes things. Adding in something changes the way people behave. Safety features tend to make people behave less safely trusting the feature will save them.
You have a mask that's only 50% effective but think it's 100% effective. you have a cough. Could just be an allergy or a cold. You now consider going to the concert wearing a mask since you believe masks are so effective. while if you didn't believe that you may have stayed home.

In any case, the mask you are wearing is better than the mask you aren't wearing. ~ NicoleK at December 29, 2021 3:23 AM

Likely true, but there are side effects to wearing a mask, some less than beneficial.

Wearing a mask tends to force one to breathe through one's mouth, especially if the wire bridge over the nose pinches ons's nose shut. That negates or reduces the beneficial effects of nose hairs and nasal mucus in trapping harmful airborne particles. If you wear glasses, you know that exhalation escaping upward can fog your glasses, so punching the wire bridge is necessary to see where you're going.

Wearing a mask traps some of the person's exhaled carbon dioxide, forcing the mask wearer to breathe it back in, further diluting the oxygen mixture one gets from breathing the natural atmosphere.

Wearing a mask also tends to obscure facial gestures - smiles, etc - making non-verbal communication more difficult. Masks tend to obscure faces, making facial recognition and identification of criminals in the act of committing a crime more difficult.

Do the drawbacks of these side effects negate the benefits of wearing a mask? I think not, but I'm not a biologist, so I can't expound in depth on the short- and long-term effects of mask wearing.

I do think we should strive to get the country (and world) de-masked as soon as possible. I think we'd all benefit from that, both physically and psychologically.

========================================

By the way, here is an interesting article from The Economist on FFP2 masks. These are similar to American N95 and Chinese KN95 masks in protection levels.

"FFP2 masks filter at least 94% of all aerosols, including airborne viruses such as covid-19. America’s N95 and China’s KN95 masks provide similar levels of protection."

"A study published in December by the Max Planck Institute, a German research organisation, found well-fitting FFP2 masks reduced the risk of infection with covid-19 to 0.1%. Cloth or medical masks, on the other hand, merely disrupt the airflow of the speaker and trap the largest aerosol particles in their woven material. Their efficacy varies wildly depending on the design and fabric used: tight-fitting, multi-layered masks made from dense materials are much more effective than single-layer linen masks."

American health officials have asked that we, the public, refrain from purchasing and stockpiling N95 masks, leaving them available for medical personnel, who face a much greater exposure risk than the public does. I have one N95 left over from the kit I was issued when I joined a FEMA-sponsored light search and rescue team a few years ago, but have been using multi-layer nylon masks during the pandemic.

"In Britain and America officials say health-care workers should have prioritised access to FFP2 masks."

I'm not sure if the supply concern is still valid, as China has ramped up production of its KN95 masks, making them widely available.

"ultimately, it traces back to Biden administration"

Is this new in the last 12 months? However one feels about the current administration it's not very helpful to blame them for being unable to stop the inertia of this behemoth beast that we have assembled over decades.

My degrees and early career work were in toxicology. It was not uncommon to have to repeat studies - and dose several thousand more rats - over minor changes in formulations or something. Meta-studies were never acceptable. That was 5 Presidents ago. I don't think this regulatory conservatism is anything new.

Conan Says:

"Wearing a mask traps some of the person's exhaled carbon dioxide, forcing the mask wearer to breathe it back in, further diluting the oxygen mixture one gets from breathing the natural atmosphere."

A mask is not a plastic bag Conan.

You are in no danger of suffocation or "dilution of oxygen" from masks.

Please stop spreading false and dangerous information.

Conan,

Please read in detail... if you need a scholarly source they are easy to find as well:

www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201103/dont-believe-the-myth-face-masks-dont-lower-oxygen-levels#1

"No, Face Masks Don't Lower Oxygen Levels"

As a further point, please consider how many breaths it takes for you to inflate a balloon.

For a healthy person with normal lung capacity one breath is sufficient.

If your mask is not inflating as a balloon would then you can be rest assured that the carbon dioxide is mixing with the atmosphere.

That a mask is designed to trap virus particles on the order of a micron does nothing to inhibit gas transfer of oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules that are orders of magnitude smaller.

The Brownstone resource is heavily cherrypicked and some of the old citations contained therein have been corrected, amended and clarified so that the selected quotes in the roundup at the link are no longer relevant.

Even with that cherrypicking, the Brownstone resource supports what mask advocates have long been saying: Fit matters. Material matters. Masks do a better job of preventing spewed particles in mucous and spittle from a contagious person from infecting others than they do of protecting YOU yourself from the virus if most people around you aren't masked. Data are still limited. And! Properly worn masks are often uncomfortable (duh).

Oh yeah, and that it's hard to measure whether transmission is reduced with mass mask-wearing in the real world (ie, not in a lab).

Typing too fast -- correction:

* "the research cited in the Brownstone resource supports what..."

You are in no danger of suffocation or "dilution of oxygen" from masks. ~ Artemis at December 29, 2021 11:41 AM

Learn to read, Artie. And stop making up other people's arguments. I never said anyone wearing a mask was in danger of suffocation.

Conan,

Cut the shit, I'm clearly making fun of you... this is what you said:

"Wearing a mask traps some of the person's exhaled carbon dioxide, forcing the mask wearer to breathe it back in, further diluting the oxygen mixture one gets from breathing the natural atmosphere."

Where exactly did you learn this nonsense?

You really believe that a mask designed to trap particles on the order of a micron is trapping gas molecules that are ~1000 fold smaller?

This is not a minor conceptual error.

You might as well be complaining that being in doors "traps" some of a persons exhaled carbon dioxide as compared to being out in the open atmosphere.

Your claim is just as ridiculous.

Masks are a tool to prevent the spread of disease in the same way that seat belts are a tool to prevent injury in a car accident.

I feel like I am having a conversation with a moron who keeps talking about the problems of seat belts because they don't work if you buckle them and sit on top of them.

"Wearing a mask also tends to obscure facial gestures - smiles, etc - making non-verbal communication more difficult. "

Particularly harmful to young children who are learning/imitating what a smile or frown means. If they don't learn it now they may never learn it.

Joe J Says:

"Particularly harmful to young children who are learning/imitating what a smile or frown means. If they don't learn it now they may never learn it."

No one is advocating that people with young children should obscure their faces from their infants and toddlers.

As for caregivers in daycare situations, this can indeed be a challenge... but children under the age of 2 cannot really wear masks anyway so they would see the facial expressions of the other children around them (human beings naturally express emotion, smiles and frowns are rather innate and not really a learned behavior).

Learning language can be a trickier issue. Speech pathologists that I know often use clear face shields and/or masks with plastic see-through sections to try and thread this needle.

The same can be done in daycare environments as well.

They can be purchased for less than 4 dollars per mask... this doesn't exactly break the bank.

This is a solved problem for corner cases where seeing mouth movements is particularly important.

None of this is really that difficult.

...this is what you said: ~ Artemis at December 29, 2021 1:09 PM

I also went on to say, "Do the drawbacks of these side effects negate the benefits of wearing a mask? I think not...." I later expounded on my own mask wearing habits.

And this is what you replied, falsely attributing to me an argument I never made, "You are in no danger of suffocation ... from masks." You then cited a WebMD article on a study using pulse oximeters as proof.

I don't know if you know what a pulse oximeter is, but a delicate scientific instrument it is not. In fact, the FDA advises that "although pulse oximetry is useful for estimating blood oxygen levels, pulse oximeters have limitations and a risk of inaccuracy under certain circumstances that should be considered." Several factors can affect the accuracy of a pulse oximeter reading, such as poor circulation, skin pigmentation, skin thickness, skin temperature, current tobacco use, fingernail polish, and more.

Now, as for my questioning the long-term physical and psychological effects of mask wearing, the National Academy of Sciences attempted to study the effects of wearing masks and found, "The results indicate small but significant changes in cerebral hemodynamics while wearing a mask."

The NAS even studied different mask types and concluded there was no difference in their effects, "Small but significant changes in cerebral blood flow (CBF) and cerebral blood oxygen saturation (StO2) were detected for both mask types.... Changes in oxygen extraction fraction (OEF) and cerebral metabolism (CMRO2) ... were not statistically significant.... None of these changes were statistically significantly different between the two mask types."

One test result from the study was discarded because the probe was affected by air trapped within the mask, "EtCO2 showed a significant change but was discarded since the probe was affected by the air trapped within the mask." In case you don't know, Artie, EtCO2 stands for End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide, and tests for exhaled CO2.

Hmmm. "...trapped within the mask...." Sounds a lot like what I suggested, that a mask does not release all of the carbon dioxide a person exhales. Please note that, in suggesting that, I suggested nothing about suffocation, or even hypoxia; nothing about oxygen deprivation at all. That exaggeration was all you, Artie.

While changes in cerebral hemodynamics and oxygenation were observed in the NAS study and ascribed to mask wearing, they did not differ significantly from changes observed during other daily activities, "Our findings show that wearing a face mask leads to statistically significant changes in the cerebral hemodynamics and oxygenation (CBF and StO2) in healthy young subjects at rest, even for this first relatively short period of mask usage. However, the changes observed are minimal and are comparable to those typically observed during daily life."

The NAS study, however, admits its limitations, " Within the limitations of the study, we cannot claim any concerns for mask use during daily life activities for healthy, young individuals. In order to draw a stronger conclusion, the duration of mask wearing could have been longer (harder to disentangle its effects from other physiological variables such as fatigue), the study population should be more heterogeneous representing the society in general, and the sample sizes can be increased. Another limitation is the fact that the order of the masks was fixed, therefore one should be critical about the results regarding differences in the mask types and additional differences may be revealed in the future. The noticeable differences in variance of the time traces are related to the intersubject variability, which may be related to the fit of the mask, mask types, and the individual’s physiology."

Now, what about those "minimal" effects over a long period of time with extended mask usage? As I suggested before, we don't yet know what the long-term physical and psychological effects of extended mask wearing are.

Harmful long-term effects or not, I never argued that the protection offered by masks against COVID was in any way outweighed by any potential long-term effects of mask wearing; mostly because studies have not yet proven conclusively that there are, or are not, long-term effects from mask wearing. That I did was your assumption, you making up my argument.

A more comprehensive study than what is currently available will be necessary before rational people can blithely dismiss concerns about the long-term effects of mask wearing. But you go ahead and dismiss any such concerns as "false and dangerous information" all you want. You be you, Artie.

Conan Says:

"I also went on to say, "Do the drawbacks of these side effects negate the benefits of wearing a mask? I think not...." I later expounded on my own mask wearing habits."

None of this negates the issue of you spreading demonstrably false information.

The following statement you make is *not* a "drawback" of wearing a mask:

"Wearing a mask traps some of the person's exhaled carbon dioxide, forcing the mask wearer to breathe it back in, further diluting the oxygen mixture one gets from breathing the natural atmosphere."

The reason it is not a drawback is because it is a false and misleading claim.

Nothing about a mask forces the wearer to breath back in trapped carbon dioxide in any meaningful way.

Breathing in the comfort of your living room forces you to breath back in trapped carbon dioxide in the same way if all you mean is that there is some increased percentage chance that a particular molecule of CO2 that you breathed out is something you breath back in.

What is relevant is that when breathing through a mask, you still inhale air that is ~21% oxygen and ~79% nitrogen.

The PPM of CO2 that you breath when wearing a mask or not wearing a mask remains unchanged in any meaningful sense.

Conan,

Just to get to the heart of the matter.

You claimed that wearing a mask dilutes the level of oxygen that you breath as compared to breathing without a mask on.

The atmosphere is ~21% oxygen.

Please show me one study that suggests that breathing through a medical mask reduces this in any measurable or meaningful way from a physiological impact perspective.

Natural atmosphere has a CO2 level of ~400 PPM.

Incidentally, this level has increased more significantly over the course of your life from burning fossil fuels than from anything wearing a mask might cause.

If you are so very concerned about some potential miniscule increase of PPM of CO2 on the long term health and weel being of the population at large I should expect you to be all about green energy at this point and advocating against gas, oil, and coal.

Your perspective on masks seems to come into direct conflict with your historic perspective on fossil fuels.