Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday May 17 2020, @04:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the I'm-shocked,-shocked-I-say dept.

U.S. Government Proposed Manipulating CDC Guidelines to Avoid Mask Shortages: Whistleblower:

The U.S. government proposed manipulating information about whether N95 masks worked to fight the spread of coronavirus in the general public, according to Dr. Richard Bright, a whistleblower who testified publicly for the first time on Thursday. The deception was an effort to avoid shortages and keep masks available for U.S. health care workers, but likely had a ripple effect throughout the country, leaving many people to believe that all masks are useless or even harmful during a pandemic. Bright's testimony is the first confirmation from a high-ranking official that the U.S. government actively sought to distribute incorrect information about N95 masks during the covid-19 pandemic.

Dr. Bright told the House Subcommittee on Health on Thursday about his attempts to warn others in the Department of Health and Human Services about the pending shortage of masks in January and early February, just as the novel coronavirus was spreading outside of China. Bright said that officials at the meeting simply said they would change the recommendations put out by the CDC to discourage the general public from buying masks.

"I indicated we know there will be a critical shortage of these supplies. We need to do something to ramp up production," Dr. Bright, the former top vaccine specialist at HHS, said of a meeting with HHS officials on February 7.

"They indicated if we notice there is a shortage, that we will simply change the CDC guidelines to better inform people who should not be wearing those masks, so that would save those masks for our health care workers," Dr. Bright testified.

"My response was, 'I can not believe you can sit and say that with a straight face'," Bright said. "That was absurd."

[...] Dr. Bright's entire 6-hour testimony is available on YouTube, and it's quite damning.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Rich on Sunday May 17 2020, @07:52AM (5 children)

    by Rich (945) on Sunday May 17 2020, @07:52AM (#995279) Journal

    I found the single most interesting piece on the topic was the paper "An epidemiological investigation of 2019 novel coronavirus diseases through aerosol-borne transmission by public transport" by Kai-wei, Zheng et. al. (2020-03-05) English sum-up in the Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8094933/How-one-man-spread-coronavirus-NINE-people-bus.html [dailymail.co.uk] But: The journal Practical Preventive Medicine retracted the study on March 10 with no reason given.

    Key findings were:
    1.) Aerosolized infection happens intensely, and over large distance in closed rooms.
    2.) No one wearing a mask, however primitive, for self-protection got infected in the case described.
    I have no idea why the paper was retracted, but both its publishing and its retraction should been hell of a reason to research the matter.

    From what I gathered, the virus needs to be kept wet to survive, so it needs to be be bound to a wet aerosol droplet which is significantly larger, and many of those might well be within the filtering ability of even lesser fabrics than FFP2/3 (N95/99). I got the impression that most "official" information is roughly as valid as that of your average conspiracy theorist and that for a reasonable level of correctness you have to go to the scientific sources. We're very lucky in Germany to have Christian Drosten, who is a key researcher on the topic doing regular interviews. And of course the "masks don't protect the public" message was a straight lie, because they were caught with their pants down wrt the supply situation. (My personal conspiracy theory would be that they deliberately started the bog roll scarce, so the people would try to hamster those, rather than masks...)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Username on Sunday May 17 2020, @04:05PM (4 children)

    by Username (4557) on Sunday May 17 2020, @04:05PM (#995391)

    That doesn't sound right to me. I've been hearing everyone say humidity kills the virus, and if it moisture helps it survive, dry arid places would be safe.

    The best experiment I can think of, would be to put a bunch of people in a room together. Half with mask, Half without, then put in an off the shelf "teargas" grenade. Those who felt any burning would be infected. I don't see how aerosolized hotsauce would be that much different than aerosolized covid19.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Rich on Sunday May 17 2020, @05:05PM (1 child)

      by Rich (945) on Sunday May 17 2020, @05:05PM (#995407) Journal

      I'm as much armchair virologist as anyone here (and haven't even studied all of Prof. Drosten's "lectures" diligently). As I got it, the virus surface is fat-like, but it can dry out. Therefore detergents (tensids) instantly dissolve it, but other than that, it seems to prefer to be in a fluid. Drosten repeatedly discerned between "active virus" and "identifiable RNA", because dead virus RNA will PCR-test postive. I suggest you go for the source (deepl is a really good translator) and have a look for yourself. ;) I a recent session he estimated transfer at around 45% aerosol (breathing), 45% droplet (cough), 10% others (smear...), and said that surface transmission is rather unlikely. You'd be better off to ventilate well than to overdo washing your hands.

      • (Score: 2) by Username on Monday May 18 2020, @12:25AM

        by Username (4557) on Monday May 18 2020, @12:25AM (#995531)

        Sounds like a way to make a flu "vaccine" like approach. If they could use some body safe detergent to partially dissolve the virus, then inject into a patient to generate an autoimmune response to build up antibodies against it. Too bad that cannot be asked otherwise the media will say they're telling people to inject Lysol into their bodies.

        I wonder if this was retracted because it was faked, or because it contradicted the WHO or CDC position.

        I cannot find the talking point on either of their sites, but they are trying their best to link it to climate change which is clogging up the results for moisture or humidity and covid19. This is basically the talking point: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-humidity-may-affect-covid-19-outcome#How-dry-air-affects-immunity,-viral-spread [medicalnewstoday.com]

    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday May 17 2020, @05:51PM (1 child)

      by mhajicek (51) on Sunday May 17 2020, @05:51PM (#995417)

      The body is a wet environment. If moisture killed it, it couldn't infect us.

      • (Score: 2) by Username on Monday May 18 2020, @12:02AM

        by Username (4557) on Monday May 18 2020, @12:02AM (#995519)

        Hum. That does make a lot of sense to me. I know moisture does remove dust from the air, maybe there is a similar effect to spit launched or skin flaked virus projectiles. Maybe the virus itself lives on mites that exists on dust, or even can exist as a dust like particle. I know dandelion seeds and such will be killed off in a too we environment. Maybe in the covid19 lifecycle there is a similar airborne phase that's requires it to be dry.