J.C.MacSwell

Over 90% of deaths (from what I've read) in the Spanish Flu were from bacterial pneumonia. Interesting link for Covid 19 though. A possible solution by filtering cytokines to reduce over-reaction.

No? Here is a quote from the article I googled. It doesn't contradict what you are saying except your conclusion. (if I'm interpreting it correctly, the "lead to death" is by pneumonia ) "Many of the people dying from Covid-19 are succumbing to a form of pneumonia, which takes hold as the immune system is weakened from fighting the virus. This is something that it shares with Spanish flu... Doctors have described the Spanish flu as the “greatest medical holocaust in history”. It was not just the fact it killed so many, it was that so many of its victims were young and healthy. Normally, a healthy immune system can deal reasonably well with flu, but this version struck so quickly that it overwhelmed the immune system, causing a massive over-reaction known as a cytokine storm, flooding the lungs with fluid which became the perfect reservoir for secondary infections." https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200302-coronavirus-what-can-we-learn-from-the-spanish-flu In any case, thank God the Covid 19 has not been as devastating to our young people...(now if we can only get the little bleeps to stay isolated!)

I would over-react to Covid 19? Still have ragweed/hay fever allergies myself, but significantly less in the last 10 years. I seem to now react to other things now though not extremely. I also have noticeable inflammation much of the time, but get significantly less colds and flu since that started, and shake them fairly quickly when I do (anecdotal and could be just coincidence, plus half those years I've had flu shots...) I googled that and Spanish Flu came up. I knew most died from bacterial pneumonia. That's likely why?

Seasonal allergies kicking in...is this a good thing if exposed to the virus with the immune system on hyperdrive...a bad thing with the immune system distracted with the extra load...or could go either way?

Some do and some don't. The ones we generally use don't. We will be using full and half faced masks going forward (which we do anyway but now more so) as we donated most of our N95s (all without valves) to the local health authority, after they appealed to industry to "cough them up" (pardon the pun). Here is the valved type I wonder if everyone using the valved ones will realize they are intended for protection of the user only. They should still help protect others, but not nearly as much.

You feel I've made a straw man argument? I've simply replied to your generalizations, which are based, quite clearly, on one side of an argument. I've put no words in your mouth. Let me know where you feel I've exaggerated anything you've said. If I had said "you don't care about the lives lost from an economic collapse" that would certainly have been unfair.

It's not all or none though. If you want to focus on lives alone that's fair, but lives are on both sides of the equation. Shutting down makes sense to buy us time currently, and for some time going forward, but continuing it indefinitely will cost more lives than it can possibly save. At some points in some areas of the country it will become worthwhile cautiously opening things up, reducing some restrictions and going from there. This does need debate on both sides. Pretty easy to set aside some of Trump's "optimism", but not all arguments we don't agree with are in bad faith. That thinking is also quite prevalent in US politics today.

Very much on topic. We've been comparing DIY type masks to other alternatives as to effectiveness for foth the wearer and the general public, due to scarcity of N95, surgical, and other masks. A "coffee filter" mask may be better at reducing the spread of virus by the wearer than an N95 with a one way valve.

Should they make masks with one way valves, that only (mostly) filter on inhalation, illegal to wear in public? Or at least require the valves to be covered up?

The problem of course is human instinct and human nature. If only it were different... The problem gets exacerbated when some thinks they can ignore human nature and run an economy on "good intentions", usually leading to dictatorships or one party rule based on what someone feels is best for everyone. It also gets exacerbated by " winner take all" attitude, and trying to run an economy based on that. Trickle down capitalism, where the winners control an excessive share of the resources. It's not easy to strike a balance between reasonable incentive and equality of outcome. The median income per capita for the 7.8 billion of us is just under $3,000 USD/year, if anyone is wondering what side of things they might be on. (not sure what the average is but I would think just a little higher) It certainly would be lower without free enterprise, or for that matter it's ugly twin brother, capitalism.

I think most would generally agree, but not literally agree. Unless you live by taking no risks at all, none whatsoever, and wish to encourage everyone doing the same.

That could certainly be the most important factor in them revising the guideline, the most important benefit that was being overlooked, but they are now admitting the benefit can be to the mask user as well. (which of course gives further benefit going forward to everyone else) This is where I think we still disagree. If they are not taking more risks, just the ones they would take without a mask, I still think they are beneficial, and not insignificantly. My opinion, which remains unchanged, is that it is wrong to think that casual use will not have protective benefits, unless folks then take more risks, whether by thinking they are more protected than they are, or by mishandling the mask. That said, I also still believe they should not be worn when it is clear the risks are effectively nonexistent. Better to breathe fresh air unobstructed. Along the same line of thought there are times I would prefer a surgical mask, or other lesser protective mask, to a more restrictive N95. All that I think they would have understood from the start, if not for the emotional baggage of the mask shortage. At least they are heading in the right direction.

You certainly wouldn't expect the WHO, the CDC, or the US Surgeon General to have said that, would you? But you would be wrong.

As most of us probably suspected the CDC has changed their guidelines on masks and face coverings. Not that they would ever admit they were wrong, but it seems they've been pushed in the right direction "The CDC would not have gone this direction if not for the White House," the senior official told CNN. "We would have tried more to understand about asymptomatic transmission. We would have done more studies if we had more time." https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/03/health/us-coronavirus-friday/index.html So we've gone from N95 masks being of no benefit to the public, as they aren't capable of fitting them on and understanding proper protocols for wearing them, to admitting almost any face covering could have some limited benefit. Also. These face coverings can be more than splash shields or barriers. They still act as filters to some degree. They allow air through. The fibres still remove particles by diffusion, interception and impaction, just not nearly as effectively as an N95 (or better) mask. If you wear a face covering you can breath through, and do everything else properly including all the proper hygiene tactics and staying 6 feet from everyone, you will be safer than putting yourself in an identical situation without one...which still won't be 100% safe...but we never are.

Without clicking, I'm going to assume that's enough, targeted, to contaminate all 7 billion of us...but not contaminate the entire Earth enough to infect everyone. + 1 though for the snapshot, and especially for calling it sensational.