Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

COVID-19

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
    Meeting with the superintendent tomorrow about optional masking for students.
    Good luck. Hopefully common sense prevails.

    Comment


    • Well Pfizer is FDA approved now for 16 and above. 12-15 should get it early next year. I believe 2-11 will be granted EUA by October/November

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

        Good luck. Hopefully common sense prevails.
        Gamble, don't know if you can help me out on this, but worth a try. One of the things to come out of the meeting was that the physician that advises the Board of Trustees (who I think works for the county health department) is not convinced masks (other than N95s) are effective (or SHOWN to be effective) specifically for COVID.

        What is your take (if you feel you can offer one) on this idea? I'm assuming this is because COVID is so new there isn't a lot of research specifically on mask efficacy on it. I would also assume another potential critique would be what research does exist isn't experimental (little/no randomized controlled trials). I have read a couple meta-analyses in support of masks. They do point out these points, but ultimately conclude that what's out there on mask efficacy with a multitude of airborne viruses is enough to suggest wearing masks is a significant mitigation strategy for COVID.

        I'd appreciate any insight you can give. I'm expressing - in layman's terms - how I understand these topics, but I am no expert. I was told at the meeting that the medical community is split on masks. While I know some in that group do not accept that masks work well on COVID transmission, it was presented as if the split was much more 50/50 as opposed to a minority not recommending masking. Do you have any sense if that's accurate? Many thanks for any information/perspective that you can provide.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

          Gamble, don't know if you can help me out on this, but worth a try. One of the things to come out of the meeting was that the physician that advises the Board of Trustees (who I think works for the county health department) is not convinced masks (other than N95s) are effective (or SHOWN to be effective) specifically for COVID.

          What is your take (if you feel you can offer one) on this idea? I'm assuming this is because COVID is so new there isn't a lot of research specifically on mask efficacy on it. I would also assume another potential critique would be what research does exist isn't experimental (little/no randomized controlled trials). I have read a couple meta-analyses in support of masks. They do point out these points, but ultimately conclude that what's out there on mask efficacy with a multitude of airborne viruses is enough to suggest wearing masks is a significant mitigation strategy for COVID.

          I'd appreciate any insight you can give. I'm expressing - in layman's terms - how I understand these topics, but I am no expert. I was told at the meeting that the medical community is split on masks. While I know some in that group do not accept that masks work well on COVID transmission, it was presented as if the split was much more 50/50 as opposed to a minority not recommending masking. Do you have any sense if that's accurate? Many thanks for any information/perspective that you can provide.
          Sure I can help with gathering the data or papers. As for the medical community goes there is not a 50/50 split on it. IU health and IU the school of medicine are all blanketed by a mask policy.

          The overall guidance for the vast majority of health care professionals is that mask reduce risk of transmission.

          The main point I would tell the SI is that this opens up the school for litigation since the cdc recommendations are very clear on mitigation in schools where transmission is high.

          Give me a sec and I will look up the papers.

          From the CDC website. These are the papers they cite as evidence.
          https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sars-cov2.html
          Last edited by Gamble1; 08-23-2021, 03:08 PM.

          Comment


          • So from the CDC website this is what they cite in their Science Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of Covid-19

            https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sars-cov2.html
            1. Moghadas SM, Fitzpatrick MC, Sah P, et al. The implications of silent transmission for the control of COVID-19 outbreaks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Jul 28 2020;117(30):17513-17515. doi:10.1073/pnas.2008373117
            2. Johansson MA, Quandelacy TM, Kada S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms. JAMA Netw Open. Jan 4 2021;4(1):e2035057. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35057
            3. Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Law BF, Beezhold DH, Noti JD. Efficacy of face masks, neck gaiters and face shields for reducing the expulsion of simulated cough-generated aerosols. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2020; in press
            4. Fischer EP, Fischer MC, Grass D, Henrion I, Warren WS, Westman E. Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech. Sci Adv. Sep 2020;6(36)doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd3083
            5. Verma S, Dhanak M, Frankenfield J. Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets. Phys Fluids (1994). Jun 1 2020;32(6):061708. doi:10.1063/5.0016018
            6. Bahl P, Bhattacharjee S, de Silva C, Chughtai AA, Doolan C, MacIntyre CR. Face coverings and mask to minimise droplet dispersion and aerosolisation: a video case study. Thorax. Nov 2020;75(11):1024-1025. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215748
            7. Davies A, Thompson KA, Giri K, Kafatos G, Walker J, Bennett A. Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic? Disaster Med Public Health Prep. Aug 2013;7(4):413-8. doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.43
            8. Leung NHL, Chu DKW, Shiu EYC, et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nature medicine. Apr 03 2020;26(5):676-680. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2
            9. Bandiera L., Pavar G., Pisetta G., et al. Face coverings and respiratory tract droplet dispersion. medRxiv. 2020;doi:10.1101/2020.08.11.20145086
            10. Alsved M, Matamis A, Bohlin R, et al. Exhaled respiratory particles during singing and talking. Aerosol Science and Technology. 2020;54(11):1245-1248. doi:10.1080/02786826.2020.1812502
            11. Asadi S, Wexler AS, Cappa CD, Barreda S, Bouvier NM, Ristenpart WD. Aerosol emission and superemission during human speech increase with voice loudness. Sci Rep. Feb 20 2019;9(1):2348. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-38808-z
            12. Morawska L., Johnson GR, Ristovski ZD, et al. Size distribution and sites of origin of droplets expelled from the human respiratory tract during expiratory activities. Aerosol Sci. 2009;40(3):256-269.
            13. Abkarian M, Mendez S, Xue N, Yang F, Stone HA. Speech can produce jet-like transport relevant to asymptomatic spreading of virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Oct 13 2020;117(41):25237-25245. doi:10.1073/pnas.2012156117
            14. Ueki H, Furusawa Y, Iwatsuki-Horimoto K, et al. Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2. mSphere. Oct 21 2020;5(5)doi:10.1128/mSphere.00637-20
            15. Rodriguez-Palacios A, Cominelli F, Basson AR, Pizarro TT, Ilic S. Textile Masks and Surface Covers-A Spray Simulation Method and a “Universal Droplet Reduction Model” Against Respiratory Pandemics. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020;7:260. doi:10.3389/fmed.2020.00260
            16. Viola I.M., Peterson B., Pisetta G., et al. Face coverings, aerosol dispersion and mitigation of virus transmission risk. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720
            17. Rengasamy S, Eimer B, Shaffer RE. Simple respiratory protection–evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. Oct 2010;54(7):789-98. doi:10.1093/annhyg/meq044
            18. Konda A, Prakash A, Moss GA, Schmoldt M, Grant GD, Guha S. Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks. ACS nano. May 26 2020;14(5):6339-6347. doi:10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
            19. Long KD, Woodburn EV, Berg IC, Chen V, Scott WS. Measurement of filtration efficiencies of healthcare and consumer materials using modified respirator fit tester setup. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0240499. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.024049
            20. O’Kelly E, Pirog S, Ward J, Clarkson PJ. Ability of fabric face mask materials to filter ultrafine particles at coughing velocity. BMJ Open. Sep 22 2020;10(9):e039424. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039424
            21. Aydin O, Emon B, Cheng S, Hong L, Chamorro LP, Saif MTA. Performance of fabrics for home-made masks against the spread of COVID-19 through droplets: A quantitative mechanistic study. Extreme Mech Lett. Oct 2020;40:100924. doi:10.1016/j.eml.2020.100924
            22. Bhattacharjee S, Bahl P, Chughtai AA, MacIntyre CR. Last-resort strategies during mask shortages: optimal design features of cloth masks and decontamination of disposable masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open Respir Res. Sep 2020;7(1)doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000698
            23. Maurer L, Peris D, Kerl J, Guenther F, Koehler D, Dellweg D. Community Masks During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Filtration Efficacy and Air Resistance. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. Sep 23 2020;doi:10.1089/jamp.2020.1635
            24. Hill WC, Hull MS, MacCuspie RI. Testing of Commercial Masks and Respirators and Cotton Mask Insert Materials using SARS-CoV-2 Virion-Sized Particulates: Comparison of Ideal Aerosol Filtration Efficiency versus Fitted Filtration Efficiency. Nano Lett. Oct 14 2020;20(10):7642-7647. doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c03182
            25. Whiley H, Keerthirathne TP, Nisar MA, White MAF, Ross KE. Viral Filtration Efficiency of Fabric Masks Compared with Surgical and N95 Masks. Pathogens. Sep 17 2020;9(9)doi:10.3390/pathogens9090762
            26. Hao W, Parasch A, Williams S, et al. Filtration performances of non-medical materials as candidates for manufacturing facemasks and respirators. Int J Hyg Environ Health. Aug 2020;229:113582. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113582
            27. van der Sande M, Teunis P, Sabel R. Professional and home-made face masks reduce exposure to respiratory infections among the general population. PLoS One. Jul 9 2008;3(7):e2618. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002618
            28. Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. Jun 27 2020;395(10242):1973-1987. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9
            29. Clase CM, Fu EL, Ashur A, et al. Forgotten Technology in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Filtration Properties of Cloth and Cloth Masks-A Narrative Review. Mayo Clin Proc. Oct 2020;95(10):2204-2224. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.07.020
            30. Parlin AF, Stratton SM, Culley TM, Guerra PA. A laboratory-based study examining the properties of silk fabric to evaluate its potential as a protective barrier for personal protective equipment and as a functional material for face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0239531. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239531
            31. Rothamer DA, Sanders S, Reindl D, Bertram TH. Strategies to minimize SARS-CoV-2 transmission in classroom settings: Combined impacts of ventilation and mask effective filtration efficiency. medRxiv. 2021;
            32. Mueller AV, Eden MJ, Oakes JM, Bellini C, Fernandez LA. Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE. Matter. Sep 2 2020;3(3):950-962. doi:10.1016/j.matt.2020.07.006
            33. Clapp PW, Sickbert-Bennett EE, Samet JM, et al. Evaluation of Cloth Masks and Modified Procedure Masks as Personal Protective Equipment for the Public During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. Dec 10 2020;doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.8168
            34. Brooks JT, Beezhold DH, Noti JD, et al. Maximizing Fit for Cloth and Medical Procedure Masks to Improve Performance and Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Exposure. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;
            35. Sickbert-Bennett EE, Samet JM, Prince SE, et al. Fitted Filtration Efficiency of Double Masking During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Internal Medicine. April 16, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2033
            36. Hendrix MJ, Walde C, Findley K, Trotman R. Absence of Apparent Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from Two Stylists After Exposure at a Hair Salon with a Universal Face Covering Policy – Springfield, Missouri, May 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Jul 17 2020;69(28):930-932. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6928e2
            37. Wang Y, Tian H, Zhang L, et al. Reduction of secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in households by face mask use, disinfection and social distancing: a cohort study in Beijing, China. BMJ Glob Health. May 2020;5(5)doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002794
            38. Doung-Ngern P, Suphanchaimat R, Panjangampatthana A, et al. Case-Control Study of Use of Personal Protective Measures and Risk for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection, Thailand. Emerg Infect Dis. Sep 15 2020;26(11)doi:10.3201/eid2611.203003
            39. Payne DC, Smith-Jeffcoat SE, Nowak G, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Serologic Responses from a Sample of U.S. Navy Service Members – USS Theodore Roosevelt, April 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Jun 12 2020;69(23):714-721. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6923e4
            40. Schwartz KL, Murti M, Finkelstein M, et al. Lack of COVID-19 transmission on an international flight. Cmaj. Apr 14 2020;192(15):E410. doi:10.1503/cmaj.75015
            41. Freedman DO, Wilder-Smith A. In-flight Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a review of the attack rates and available data on the efficacy of face masks. J Travel Med. Sep 25 2020;doi:10.1093/jtm/taaa178
            42. Wang X, Ferro EG, Zhou G, Hashimoto D, Bhatt DL. Association Between Universal Masking in a Health Care System and SARS-CoV-2 Positivity Among Health Care Workers. JAMA. Jul 14 2020;doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12897
            43. Mitze T., Kosfeld R., Rode J., W?lde K. Face Masks Considerably Reduce COVID-19 Cases in Germany: A Synthetic Control Method Approach. 2020. ISSN: 2365-9793, DP No. 13319. http://ftp.iza.org/dp13319.pdf
            44. Gallaway MS, Rigler J, Robinson S, et al. Trends in COVID-19 Incidence After Implementation of Mitigation Measures – Arizona, January 22-August 7, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Oct 9 2020;69(40):1460-1463. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6940e3
            45. Van Dyke ME, Rogers TM, Pevzner E, et al. Trends in County-Level COVID-19 Incidence in Counties With and Without a Mask Mandate – Kansas, June 1-August 23, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Nov 27 2020;69(47):1777-1781. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6947e2
            46. Lyu W, Wehby GL. Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural Experiment Of State Mandates In The US. Health Aff (Millwood). Aug 2020;39(8):1419-1425. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
            47. Hatzius J, Struyven D, Rosenberg I. Face Masks and GDP. Updated June 29, 2020. Accessed July 8, 2020. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insight...s-and-gdp.html
            48. Karaivanov A., Lu S.E., Shigeoka H., Chen C., Pamplona S. Face Masks, Public Policies And Slowing The Spread Of Covid-19: Evidence from Canada. 2020. Working Paper 27891. http://www.nber.org/papers/w27891
            49. Joo H, Miller GF, Sunshine G, et al. Decline in COVID-19 Hospitalization Growth Rates Associated with Statewide Mask Mandates — 10 States, March–October 2020. MMWR. February 12, 2021 / 70(6);212–216
            50. Chernozhukov V, Kasahara H, Schrimpf P. Causal Impact of Masks, Policies, Behavior on Early Covid-19 Pandemic in the U.S. medRxiv. 2020;doi:10.1101/2020.05.27.20115139
            51. Guy GP, Jr., Lee FC, Sunshine G, et al. Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates – United States, March 1-December 31, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Mar 12 2021;70(10):350-354. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7010e3
            52. Leffler CT, Ing E, Lykins JD, Hogan MC, McKeown CA, Grzybowski A. Association of Country-wide Coronavirus Mortality with Demographics, Testing, Lockdowns, and Public Wearing of Masks. Am J Trop Med Hyg. Dec 2020;103(6):2400-2411. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.20-1015
            53. Rader B, White LF, Burns MR, et al. Mask-wearing and control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the USA: a cross-sectional study. The Lancet Digital Health. 2021/01/19/ 2021;doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30293-4
            54. Bundgaard H, Bundgaard JS, Raaschou-Pedersen DET, et al. Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med. Nov 18 2020;doi:10.7326/M20-6817
            55. MacIntyre CR, Seale H, Dung TC, et al. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. Apr 22 2015;5(4):e006577. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577
            56. MacIntyre CR, Dung TC, Chughtai AA, Seale H, Rahman B. Contamination and washing of cloth masks and risk of infection among hospital health workers in Vietnam: a post hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. Sep 28 2020;10(9):e042045. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042045
            57. Shein SL, Whitticar S, Mascho KK, Pace E, Speicher R, Deakins K. The effects of wearing facemasks on oxygenation and ventilation at rest and during physical activity. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0247414. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247414
            58. Chan NC, Li K, Hirsh J. Peripheral Oxygen Saturation in Older Persons Wearing Nonmedical Face Masks in Community Settings. JAMA. Dec 8 2020;324(22):2323-2324. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.21905
            59. Samannan R, Holt G, Calderon-Candelario R, Mirsaeidi M, Campos M. Effect of Face Masks on Gas Exchange in Healthy Persons and Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Ann Am Thorac Soc. Mar 2021;18(3):541-544. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.202007-812RL
            60. Mapelli M, Salvioni E, De Martino F, et al. “You can leave your mask on”: effects on cardiopulmonary parameters of different airway protection masks at rest and during maximal exercise. Eur Respir J. Mar 7 2021;doi:10.1183/13993003.04473-2020
            61. Roberge RJ, Kim JH, Benson SM. Absence of consequential changes in physiological, thermal and subjective responses from wearing a surgical mask. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. Apr 15 2012;181(1):29-35. doi:10.1016/j.resp.2012.01.010
            62. Epstein D, Korytny A, Isenberg Y, et al. Return to training in the COVID-19 era: The physiological effects of face masks during exercise. Scand J Med Sci Sports. Jan 2021;31(1):70-75. doi:10.1111/sms.13832
            63. Hopkins SR, Dominelli PB, Davis CK, et al. Face Masks and the Cardiorespiratory Response to Physical Activity in Health and Disease. Ann Am Thorac Soc. Mar 2021;18(3):399-407. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.202008-990CME
            64. Lubrano R, Bloise S, Testa A, et al. Assessment of Respiratory Function in Infants and Young Children Wearing Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. Mar 1 2021;4(3):e210414. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0414
            65. Person E, Lemercier C, Royer A, Reychler G. [Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance]. Rev Mal Respir. Mar 2018;35(3):264-268. Effet du port d’un masque de soins lors d’un test de marche de six minutes chez des sujets sains. doi:10.1016/j.rmr.2017.01.010

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

              Sure I can help with gathering the data or papers. As for the medical community goes there is not a 50/50 split on it. IU health and IU the school of medicine are all blanketed by a mask policy.

              The overall guidance for the vast majority of health care professionals is that mask reduce risk of transmission.

              The main point I would tell the SI is that this opens up the school for litigation since the cdc recommendations are very clear on mitigation in schools where transmission is high.

              Give me a sec and I will look up the papers.
              Thank you for the info! An additional question to be sure I didn't phrase a previous question incorrectly. You said the overall guideline for the vast majority of health professionals is that masks reduce risk of transmission. What I was actually asking was can you take a stab at characterizing the split of opinion amongst health professionals. Are there a lot of physicians, for example, that don't think, there's enough evidence to support mask efficacy to base the guidelines on? In other words, do you have any sense of the level of disagreement in the field on mask efficacy with COVID?
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • So this is one of the studies to bring up. Nature medicine is a respected journal.

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8238571/

                The overall concept is straight forward. They use multiple virus's to demonstrate mask efficacy. For coronavirus they are using a certain strain that is not Covid-19.

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...MC8238571/#SD3

                Comment


                • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

                  Thank you for the info! An additional question to be sure I didn't phrase a previous question incorrectly. You said the overall guideline for the vast majority of health professionals is that masks reduce risk of transmission. What I was actually asking was can you take a stab at characterizing the split of opinion amongst health professionals. Are there a lot of physicians, for example, that don't think, there's enough evidence to support mask efficacy to base the guidelines on? In other words, do you have any sense of the level of disagreement in the field on mask efficacy with COVID?
                  The way I would look at this is not based on physicians as a whole. All medical doctors are only qualified to insert their opinion in their area of expertise. Meaning they only have qualifications that allow them to practice their medical license with the authority that was given to them. So for example an ear noise and throat doctor has no training in open heart surgery or in orthopedics. It would be malpractice if he showed up and tried a surgery on a patient that needed a valve replacement.

                  It is the same in infectious disease and epidemiology which operates in the same vein. You can find many general practitioners that doubt mask work. You can not find many infectious disease and epidemiologist that doubt mask work. The people who make a living in studying infectious diseases and pandemics are backing face mask. For Riley that person is doctor John C. Christenson and for Riley and IU it is pretty clear that we are all in on mask.

                  IF you look at the American Academy of Pediatrics which represent 67,000 pediatricians they are recommending mask for children 2 and above.

                  The reality of public health officials is that they are a mix bag. For instance our state health commissioner is Kristina Box who is gynecologist and obstetrician. So they all are appointed but they only have an area that they practice in and maintain a license in. The point is you are fighting an up hill battle with the SI who refers to an MD. The point I would drive home is whether or not that medical advice the SI is relying on would hold up in court. I think there is plenty of evidence that any school district would be facing a substantial risk for lawsuits by not requiring mask. Let me put it another way if it was my kid and they got long covid that alters their quality of life I would sue a school district for not providing a safe environment for my child.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

                    The way I would look at this is not based on physicians as a whole. All medical doctors are only qualified to insert their opinion in their area of expertise. Meaning they only have qualifications that allow them to practice their medical license with the authority that was given to them. So for example an ear noise and throat doctor has no training in open heart surgery or in orthopedics. It would be malpractice if he showed up and tried a surgery on a patient that needed a valve replacement.

                    It is the same in infectious disease and epidemiology which operates in the same vein. You can find many general practitioners that doubt mask work. You can not find many infectious disease and epidemiologist that doubt mask work. The people who make a living in studying infectious diseases and pandemics are backing face mask. For Riley that person is doctor John C. Christenson and for Riley and IU it is pretty clear that we are all in on mask.

                    IF you look at the American Academy of Pediatrics which represent 67,000 pediatricians they are recommending mask for children 2 and above.

                    The reality of public health officials is that they are a mix bag. For instance our state health commissioner is Kristina Box who is gynecologist and obstetrician. So they all are appointed but they only have an area that they practice in and maintain a license in. The point is you are fighting an up hill battle with the SI who refers to an MD. The point I would drive home is whether or not that medical advice the SI is relying on would hold up in court. I think there is plenty of evidence that any school district would be facing a substantial risk for lawsuits by not requiring mask. Let me put it another way if it was my kid and they got long covid that alters their quality of life I would sue a school district for not providing a safe environment for my child.
                    Again, thanks for all this. I've seen the study in Nature Medicine as well as the mask endorsement of the AAOP. Will be utilizing that info. The other context/details you provide are also very helpful.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • If, for the sake of argument, you allow there's a 50/50 split with medical officials/doctors on masks... Why would anyone, open-minded, looking to mitigate risk(s), side with the 50% that says they are not effective so don't wear them?

                      If 50% of the doctors said cutting your non-dominant hand off was a good idea to fully learn to use your dominant hand, and 50% said that is crazy... At least siding with the 50% that says it's crazy leaves you with 2 working hands.

                      What does siding with the alleged 50% of doctors who say masks are ineffective gain anyone?
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

                        Again, thanks for all this. I've seen the study in Nature Medicine as well as the mask endorsement of the AAOP. Will be utilizing that info. The other context/details you provide are also very helpful.
                        Yeah I am not sure how much help this really is at the end of the day. From a scientific approach the problem is that a mask vs no mask study has to be funded and that would be through the NIH here in the US. The issue lies in the fact that this type of study flies in the face of ethics.

                        If the NIH believes that the methodology of such study doesn't warrant the risk to the participants or alternative methodology lowers that risk then the alternative will be used. It is that way with humans and even mice. In order to get authorization/money to do a randomized control study you have to show that no alternative can be used in the study to lower the risk to the participants.

                        This is why you do not see a big national study in the US. The alternative is the data being generated by the CDC and others showing in multiple settings where compliance can be measured that there is a difference in transmission.

                        What the SI or the doctor are suggesting is ethically immoral during a pandemic if the participants are kids. The only reason you see the vaccines being used with a control arm is that there is no alternative to measure the efficacy.

                        Finally I will reiterate this is not my field but this is what I think has gone on behind closed doors. This is also how the money and the ethics are weighed in the NIH. It's also why we do not get authorized/paid for generating the best possible study designs since they could quite literally take lives.

                        Last edited by Gamble1; 08-23-2021, 08:13 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post
                          Well Pfizer is FDA approved now for 16 and above. 12-15 should get it early next year. I believe 2-11 will be granted EUA by October/November
                          For the 2-11 EUA, do you know this, or are you just estimating? I'm not trying to be a jerk by asking. I haven't heard any definitive dates on that.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shags View Post

                            For the 2-11 EUA, do you know this, or are you just estimating? I'm not trying to be a jerk by asking. I haven't heard any definitive dates on that.
                            Fauci was on PBS basically saying a similar timeline for what it's worth.
                            • Dr. Anthony Fauci:

                              Well, let's start with the children who are younger than 12.

                              So, what you have is, we are already doing, together with the companies, what's called an age de-escalation and dose — a dose adjustment for younger children. And you do it from 11 to 9, from 9 to 6, from 6 to 2, and then from 6 months to 2 years.

                              The data have already been very actively collected. We will probably have enough data by the time we get to the early to mid-fall, and then they will be presented to the FDA. Then it becomes a regulatory decision, Judy, where you balance safety for children against the efficacy and the immunogenicity and all the other factors that go into it.

                              And the data will be there by the middle of the fall. The FDA will have to do what they do well, will have to make a risk/benefit analysis of whatever safety signals, which are good safety…

                            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dr...-johnson-shots

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shags View Post

                              For the 2-11 EUA, do you know this, or are you just estimating? I'm not trying to be a jerk by asking. I haven't heard any definitive dates on that.
                              Guessing based on when Pfizer/Moderna submitted data.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post
                                FDA Approval expected Monday. Wonder how long it will be until the mandates.
                                Took 3 minutes for the first mandate in NYC. Seen like 20 other places and now Disney. I wonder how long it will be till my job sends out the email

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X