Tariffs

[TimFox]

Yes, hand washing: waaaaay before "The Pandemic" I learned that one of the best ways to avoid getting sick was to simply wash your hands thoroughly.

Regarding masks: I remember wearing one, also way before COVID, on a plane flight. Why? Because it had been my experience that one of the best ways to get sick was to ride in an aluminum can with dozens of others in a shared confined air space.

I've had a couple nasty bugs from that - including covid itself (at least, my assumption, official timelines say 'no' by a few weeks, I say I've had the flu many times and it doesn't leave me unable to walk around the house for two weeks. A confirmed infection later down the line was identical in symptoms and progression, simply less severe.).

Simple surgical masks were never intended to protect the wearer but those around them (in their clinical application). Somehow the messaging got massively confused during the pandemic and many came away with the notion that they're for self protection, and this has led to a great deal of upset and distrust. My take on them was always it just isn't that bad to wear them, so grin invisibly and bear it. They were unlikely to make matters worse. The violent polarisation around them has done nothing beneficial.

My personal history:  when Chicago first started to re-open, the theaters, concerts, and opera were very strict on attendees.  The ushers would enforce masks indoors, and patrons had to show vaccination cards and photo IDs to verify the cards at entrance to the hall.  We got through that season (both theater, concerts, and opera) without illness, following our normal Covid vaccination.
The next year, this relaxed to expectations of courtesy on mask wearing.   Even though opera goers are “old enough to know better”, very few were courteous enough to wear masks.  Our next round of vaccination was complete, but before the rated time for full protection, and we promptly caught it after an opera performance.
We’re both retired and didn’t get out much, so I believe that was the infection, but of course I can’t prove it;  our Covid tests went positive immediately thereafter.

[Cyclotron]

Simple surgical masks were never intended to protect the wearer but those around them (in their clinical application). Somehow the messaging got massively confused during the pandemic and many came away with the notion that they're for self protection, and this has led to a great deal of upset and distrust. My take on them was always it just isn't that bad to wear them, so grin invisibly and bear it. They were unlikely to make matters worse. The violent polarisation around them has done nothing beneficial.

I like it, enlightened view. Though, I think some context should be added. N95 and the surgical versions are different but often conflated as the same by the layperson.
As you say, they are purpose built and any place that requires them also requires pretty significant training on their use.

Additionally though, they were not widely available during the pandemic in many areas of the world and the things that people wore over their faces served only as a potential placebo.
We tested many fabrics and technics in our lab back then and found them to possible cause more harm than good. People would often continue to wear the same masks and the populations of illness causing "germs" explodes in such a humid and warm environment. Even our tests of N95 and the surgical version showed that they were not significantly effective for sick people given the propensity to sneeze and adjust the masks as the illness increased discomfort. Not only that, but the overly saturated fabrics and the increased CO2 levels tested were worrisome.

One more, if you don't know how N95 masks work, it is an interesting read and directly correlary to this forum's name. Hint: "It's electric, boogie woogie, woogie."
https://physicsworld.com/a/the-physics-of-n95-masks-imaging-sensitive-corals-how-fermilabs-pip-ii-accelerator-will-work/

Our manufacturing systems used a coronal discharge system in the process and the masks coming directly off the line are so charged that you could wave your hand over them and they'd dance.
 

[armandine2]

...not that I've read any of the above [suspected bilge] - but, compared to the 2008 financial crisis, COVID had no further affect on my lack of theatre going practice

[tggzzz]

Conclusion: don't mandate masks. Focus on hand hygiene: washing and sanitiser.

There are, simplistically, two types of mask. N95 will filter the air and tend to reduce the chance of the wearer breathing in the airborne covid virus, and help other people because less virus is sprayed around. Yes, transmission is principally airborne with contact being of secondary importance.

Surgical masks tend to prevent the virus being sprayed around, which helps other people. They have much less effect on the air being inhaled, and are hence not very effective for the wearer.

Hence wearing surgical masks is more about politely being considerate of other peoples' health.

That's summed up by these cartoons

[Monkeh]

Simple surgical masks were never intended to protect the wearer but those around them (in their clinical application). Somehow the messaging got massively confused during the pandemic and many came away with the notion that they're for self protection, and this has led to a great deal of upset and distrust. My take on them was always it just isn't that bad to wear them, so grin invisibly and bear it. They were unlikely to make matters worse. The violent polarisation around them has done nothing beneficial.

I like it, enlightened view. Though, I think some context should be added. N95 and the surgical versions are different but often conflated as the same by the layperson.

Another element of confusion, indeed. I'm quite familiar with N95 type masks, or as we specifically refer to them, respirators. Over here FFP3 is the equivalent, and are of course intended for personal protection. The only ones you can wear for extended periods (CO2 levels you mentioned, and simply comfort due to moisture buildup and effort) are valved to allow ready exhalation, which makes them highly ineffective at preventing you from contaminating others. If I'm not mistaken (I may be - different standards) the surgical variety of the N95 would need to omit the valve for this reason, or it couldn't comply as both a respirator and a surgical mask.

Surgical masks are (at least here) what was more or less called for in public, with which I'm also familiar (lot of family in various medical fields). These are intended primarily for the control of bacterial transfer in clinical environments. I seem to recall efficacy against viruses being less than stellar but sufficiently beneficial to be worthwhile - there's an NHS study pre-pandemic after a flu epidemic here which I believe covers their effectiveness in both directions. I still have several boxes of the things..

Additionally though, they were not widely available during the pandemic in many areas of the world and the things that people wore over their faces served only as a potential placebo.
We tested many fabrics and technics in our lab back then and found them to possible cause more harm than good. People would often continue to wear the same masks and the populations of illness causing "germs" explodes in such a humid and warm environment. Even our tests of N95 and the surgical version showed that they were not significantly effective for sick people given the propensity to sneeze and adjust the masks as the illness increased discomfort. Not only that, but the overly saturated fabrics and the increased CO2 levels tested were worrisome.

Yes, supply of actually competent surgical masks was just about zero here for long periods - they're more than just a layer of fabric but a multilayered construction which provides for some degree of filtering, and of course they're intended to be single use.

As for the ill with sneezing and so forth, indeed, that's why people were strongly urged (and in fact at many points required, at least here) to self-isolate when infected. Controlling infection from very minorly symptomatic and asymptomatic cases was the intent, so far as I understand it, of mask mandates. Messaging was less than clear, sometimes contradictory, and never went into sufficient detail to explain these things to people without any experience of both PPE and infection control in clinical environments (and then very loosely extended into public). The polarisation since has made it all but impossible to clear the misconceptions up.

[Zero999]

Simple surgical masks were never intended to protect the wearer but those around them (in their clinical application). Somehow the messaging got massively confused during the pandemic and many came away with the notion that they're for self protection, and this has led to a great deal of upset and distrust. My take on them was always it just isn't that bad to wear them, so grin invisibly and bear it. They were unlikely to make matters worse. The violent polarisation around them has done nothing beneficial.

Yes, that was the reason behind the mandates. It was made quite clear to us and most people I knew thought the masks protected others, rather than the wearer.

The problem I have is there wasn't ever strong evidence to show surgical masks significantly reduced the risk of a sick person spreading it to others.

The mask mandates were a bad policy. Say they have only the slightest effect, yet people mistakenly believe if they wear one, it will significantly protect others, then they do things which they otherwise wouldn't do i.e. going to work sick, because they think it's fine, if they wear a mask. I do remember a colleague coming to work wearing a mask, because they tested positive. It didn't bother me, because I've already had it, although I've never tested positive, and I didn't get that sick.

Then there's all the trouble they caused: people getting fined or much worse, shot and beaten up for not wearing one, all the litter and damage to the environment and negative impacts on the deaf and those with autism.

[Cyclotron]

I think I failed to communicate this earlier. There are at least 4 common masks that were of interest during the pandemic.
N95 has two types. Surgical and standard. It is also more accurate to describe these as respirators.

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1839703O/surgical-n95-vs-standard-n95-which-to-consider.pdf

The other two types were ad-hoc masks and the paper "surgical" type mask that is the rectangular/square thing that most people associate with the medical industry.

[Cyclotron]

Conclusion: don't mandate masks. Focus on hand hygiene: washing and sanitiser.

There are, simplistically, two types of mask. N95 will filter the air and tend to reduce the chance of the wearer breathing in the airborne covid virus, and help other people because less virus is sprayed around. Yes, transmission is principally airborne with contact being of secondary importance.

Surgical masks tend to prevent the virus being sprayed around, which helps other people. They have much less effect on the air being inhaled, and are hence not very effective for the wearer.

Hence wearing surgical masks is more about politely being considerate of other peoples' health.

That's summed up by these cartoons

While I find these hilarious they are extraordinarily inaccurate. I'm not aware of any research that has shown any impact what-so-ever to respirator spread by using cloth or the paper "surgical" mask that's most common. I really wish I had the videos we did in the test chambers. There's no significant reduction in infected material released with these coverings.

I hope someone can show me some research the contract but I haven't seen it and that reminds me that I have looked as it has been a while since I was involved and "in the know".

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2023/09/09/smr-author-of-mask-study-on-effectiveness.cnn

Modified to include this link.  If you ever look around at videos, you'll see that the industry has test chambers and mannequin heads to test. I allowed my head (I've got a size 8 hat head) to be scanned and used for testing. I assume some likeness of me still sits in a test chamber wheezing away today. Just watch some of those high-speed videos and I think a person will come to a logical conclusion themselves.

[Monkeh]

I think I failed to communicate this earlier. There are at least 4 common masks that were of interest during the pandemic.
N95 has two types. Surgical and standard. It is also more accurate to describe these as respirators.

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1839703O/surgical-n95-vs-standard-n95-which-to-consider.pdf

The other two types were ad-hoc masks and the paper "surgical" type mask that is the rectangular/square thing that most people associate with the medical industry.

Indeed, I understood. Respirators of any sort really unnecessary for public mask mandates, surgical masks (of the non-respirator variety) being what was nominally intended for them (efficacy limited and supply even more so), and random bits of fabric strapped to your face being a crapshoot of extraordinarily questionable benefit and potentially even harm.

This may be of interest: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75902fe5274a545822c7da/Masks_and_Respirators_Science_Review.pdf

Notably, this is a significantly pre-covid review, so it's free from sociopolitical pressure in that regard.

A choice quote:

There is therefore some tentative evidence across community settings to suggest that facemasks may protect when interventions are administered early, when full adherence is achieved or when combined with other hygienic practices such as hand-washing.

[TimFox]

With respect to all of the above, don't forget that Covid-19, when it first hit the US, was not yet understood (as opposed to influenza, an old story).
Masking had been shown back in 1918 to be useful against influenza.
No proven cure had been found, and the vaccine was far from accomplished.
Meanwhile, the mortality due to Covid-19 was substantial:  back then, I did some quick math after finding that the normal death rate in Illinois was roughly 340 per day (population 12.7 million), but at worst that increased by over 100 per day.
Handwashing is a good thing:  since I was too embarrassed to sing Happy Birthday to time it, I recited the Apostles' Creed (plus a couple of lines from the Nicene Creed), since a bit of incantation couldn't hurt.
I had to follow all that washing with hand lotion, so it must have been enough.

I did my own graphical analysis, based on Illinois Department of Public Health data.  The near periodicity (very roughly 6 months) was striking, but was not discussed much at the time.
The graph was made during the pandemic.  The dots are individual days (weekends were not posted), and the solid line is a 7-day running average to even out the weekly variation in data collection.

[Zero999]

Conclusion: don't mandate masks. Focus on hand hygiene: washing and sanitiser.

There are, simplistically, two types of mask. N95 will filter the air and tend to reduce the chance of the wearer breathing in the airborne covid virus, and help other people because less virus is sprayed around. Yes, transmission is principally airborne with contact being of secondary importance.

Surgical masks tend to prevent the virus being sprayed around, which helps other people. They have much less effect on the air being inhaled, and are hence not very effective for the wearer.

Hence wearing surgical masks is more about politely being considerate of other peoples' health.

That's summed up by these cartoons

The different types of masks were dealt with in the Cochrane review I cited previously. Surgical and cloth masks were the type mandated by most jurisdictions, because they were supposed to protect others. The respirators and N95 types were discouraged.

I used to be on the other side of the argument; a few years ago I strongly advocated wearing masks and even did so myself before the mandates, but changed my view in light of new evidence. It was when I listened to doctors who opposed the mandates and I mean real doctors, not nutjobs, pick apart studies did my opinion change. This was difficult for me to do, because I would tend to stick to listening to those who supported mask mandates, because that's what I believed at the time, but I gradually became more interested in opposing views.

Looking back it didn't add up, the toing and froing and inconsistencies between the policies of different developed countries was a red flag. At one extreme, the US went as far as mandating masks for children as young as 2, then at the other there was Sweden who didn't recommend them at all and there was no correlation between more masks: less deaths.

With respect to all of the above, don't forget that Covid-19, when it first hit the US, was not yet understood (as opposed to influenza, an old story).
Masking had been shown back in 1918 to be useful against influenza.
No proven cure had been found, and the vaccine was far from accomplished.
Meanwhile, the mortality due to Covid-19 was substantial:  back then, I did some quick math after finding that the normal death rate in Illinois was roughly 300 per day (population 12.7 million), but at worst that increased by about 100 per day.
Handwashing is a good thing:  since I was too embarrassed to sing Happy Birthday to time it, I recited the Apostles' Creed (plus a couple of lines from the Nicene Creed), since a bit of incantation couldn't hurt.
I had to follow all that washing with hand lotion, so it must have been enough.

I did my own graphical analysis, based on Illinois Department of Public Health data.  The near periodicity (months scale) was striking, but was not discussed much at the time.
The graph was made during the pandemic.  The dots are individual days (weekends were not posted), and the solid line is a 7-day running average to even out the weekly variation in data collection.

The evidence from 1918 was hardly conclusive. There just wasn't the technology around back then to prove either way: no PCR tests for a start. All we have are associations which don't prove cause and effect.

Oddly enough I remember at the start the consensus was that masks were ineffective, then that changed a few months onwards.

Note that the death rate was widely over-estimated. Only the more serious cases were tested, leaving many undetected milder cases. Then there was the fact that many people listed on the death statistics, probably died from other underlying causes.

Caveat: I appreciate this is still a sensitive topic and I know people who have died from the virus or been severely harmed. My brother had two heart attacks at the age of only 36 which nearly killed him and his cardiologist thought were caused by the virus. Incidentally he wasn't vaccinated at the time, and was actually advised against getting vaccinated afterwards, since his doctor believed he had sufficient natural immunity to prevent such a severe disease again and the risk of myocarditis didn't outweigh the benefit for him. He did get the virus a second time and was fine, after a couple of days of bed rest. Of course his doctor's advice was unique to him. I doubt his doctor was anti-vax, just exercising his expert opinion.

I'm not meaning to minimise the severity, just stating it's often overlooked.

[Wallace Gasiewicz]

I do not think masking helped in 1918.    If you have some proof please share it.     Masking of any sort in the general public does not work to any measurable extent.    If you have a proper respirator program and fitted respirators, there is a good chance that that will work.  I do not think the public would cooperate in a respirator program though.     Multiple filter changes would be necessary in non exhaust respirators.    Aggravating and expensive.However a cough or a sneeze will defeat most respirators; especially the paper masks.       As far as I know, all "respiratory viruses" can be spread through touching contaminated surfaces.     Washing hands is a good idea.  There is no tariff on handwashing.   
The paper type respirators that are N 95 in my opinion are not very effective,  First they have to be fit tested, fit testing was not done.  The fit changes a lot when you move your face.
In Occupational Medicine the N 95 "surgical" or paper masks were marketed repeatedly by their manufacturers and not thought to be adequate by many professionals involved.  The paper N95 were supposed to save the company money, They are nowhere as effective as a real respirator in real life situations.      They are better than nothing probably unless you think that the moist filter around your nose is growing germs.

[Buriedcode]

I see certain members have steered the conversation to their pet subjects/conspiracy theories..  locking in 3 ..2..

[TimFox]

In the US, the 1918 flu hit just in time to be spread everywhere by the mobilization of the US army for WW I.
Quarantine was a well-established tradition from the days of smallpox, but different States and the feds responded differently to the new threat, producing a natural experiment.  As usual in a new war, the feds were counter-productive in their haste to ship soldiers abroad.
John M Barry revised his classic history The Great Influenza Penguin (2018), before Covid hit, for the centenary of the mis-named Spanish Flu of 1918 to 1920.  He concluded that masking a sick patient helps reduce transmission to others, but that the gauze masks in 1918 were inadequate.  His account of an ill-advised Liberty Loan parade in Philadelphia, followed by a huge civilian outbreak, is sobering.  St Louis had much better experience, but masking was probably much less important than restricting public gatherings.

[Cyclotron]

I see certain members have steered the conversation to their pet subjects/conspiracy theories..  locking in 3 ..2..

Masking is certainly political these days. That I agree with. Being a short term member of these sub-forums I apologize for any drama I may have caused.

I may have been the culprit for bringing up masks. I used to work for a manufacturing facility that had a line of N95s. I mentioned it through the lens of importing them from Chinam, their banning export during the pandemic, and my prior experience with the in power administration backing down from their initial proclamation for supporting local manufacturing by purchasing local made respirators to restore the national stock pile. They bought them from China.  (it was the Biden/Harris administration)

[Cyclotron]

In the US, the 1918 flu hit just in time to be spread everywhere by the mobilization of the US army for WW I.
Quarantine was a well-established tradition from the days of smallpox, but different States and the feds responded differently to the new threat, producing a natural experiment.  As usual in a new war, the feds were counter-productive in their haste to ship soldiers abroad.
John M Barry revised his classic history The Great Influenza Penguin (2018), before Covid hit, for the centenary of the mis-named Spanish Flu of 1918 to 1920.  He concluded that masking a sick patient helps reduce transmission to others, but that the gauze masks in 1918 were inadequate.  His account of an ill-advised Liberty Loan parade in Philadelphia, followed by a huge civilian outbreak, is sobering.  St Louis had much better experience, but masking was probably much less important than restricting public gatherings.

I have seen people reference the limited information about this post pandemic. I don't recall it being used or referenced as the reasons or even part of the reason for masking mandates during the pandemic. I fear its use afterward may be a bit of history washing but even then it doesn't really provide anywhere near what we would call today "scientific evidence". Given 1928 as the birth of antibiotics might be a good milepost to understand the limited knowledge of such things in the era of the flu outbreak.

[Andy Chee]

I do not think masking helped in 1918.    If you have some proof please share it.     Masking of any sort in the general public does not work to any measurable extent.    If you have a proper respirator program and fitted respirators, there is a good chance that that will work.  I do not think the public would cooperate in a respirator program though.

With the benefit of 21st century fluid dynamics modelling and high FPS cameras, we can now simulate (virtually and practically) sneezes and ascertain with greater probability the spread distance of coughs and sneezes.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7684680/pdf/PHFLE6-000032-115129_1.pdf



Proper respirators are NOT required.  In 1918 cloth masks would've been more than adequate to have a measurable reduction.

Please do not post assertions of "no measurable extent" without posting your own proof.  It makes you a hypocrite.

[EEVblog]

Update from DHL:

[Zero999]

I do not think masking helped in 1918.    If you have some proof please share it.     Masking of any sort in the general public does not work to any measurable extent.    If you have a proper respirator program and fitted respirators, there is a good chance that that will work.  I do not think the public would cooperate in a respirator program though.

With the benefit of 21st century fluid dynamics modelling and high FPS cameras, we can now simulate (virtually and practically) sneezes and ascertain with greater probability the spread distance of coughs and sneezes.

Proper respirators are NOT required.  In 1918 cloth masks would've been more than adequate to have a measurable reduction.

Please do not post assertions of "no measurable extent" without posting your own proof.  It makes you a hypocrite.

Please don't do the same. Simulations are not proof. There have been countless times when simulations have been used to model things in the field of medicine, yet haven't held up in real life. The most likely path of transmission is though tiny particles which are not impeded by cloth masks, rather than the larger droplets, which those calculations assume.

In this case it isn't possible to prove a negative, but there isn't strong enough evidence to prove it, so it's reasonably to assume negative.

Anyway that's the last I'll post of it, before I'll get a telling off from Dave.

[Cyclotron]

The termination of de minimis exceptions stings as a consumer. As a retailer in the US they likely are happy about it.

[tggzzz]

The termination of de minimis exceptions stings as a consumer. As a retailer in the US they likely are happy about it.

China's weaponisied the Treaty of Berne which established the General Postal Union, by subsidising postage to other countries. Conceivably - and one has to use that caveat with anything related to T'rump - the abolition of de minimis is a crude way of addressing that.

Easy way of avoiding it is for a Chinese (etc) company to set up a distribution centre in the US. Hence it is likely to be ineffective at on-shoring manufacturing.

It will, however, raise taxes that will probably be used to reduce the tax burden on the rich [sic].
It will also increase the number of "bullshit jobs" related to collecting the taxes.
Guess who will pay for that.

[Cyclotron]

I guess China and the US are still making progress, as they have both agreed to extend the pause for 90 more days.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg7jjkvzmkxo

I'm sure this delay will be characterized as TACO by some. If Trump and Jinping chicken out, is that TACO and JACO?

The data coming in for the US inflation numbers indicate things are stable and will likely lead to a lowering of interest rates.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c24zzj0y3mmo

The underlying rise in prices is likely due to tariffs. If so, we may have to wait for some time to see the actual results, given that the trade deals need to kick in and the negotiated tariffs are applied.

[TimFox]

It will be interesting to see the time-scale for the effects of tariff changes and interest rate adjustments.
Besides the ongoing negotiations that have not yet been settled, the earlier increase in imports to build inventories before the new rates is a further delay of the effects.
It all boils down to the effects of different possible changes.
1.  A tariff on an imported good obviously will increase the price to the consumer.  The duty paid to the US Treasury will, by itself, reduce the budget deficit, and that fiscal effect should be deflationary.
2.  Reducing the interest rate, by itself, is inflationary, which is why it is used in times of unemployment and low economic growth.
The devil is in the details, which is why this is a quantitative question, not governed by handwaving.  Politicians, in general, are better at waving hands than at evaluating quantitative data.

[vad]

The underlying rise in prices is likely due to tariffs. If so, we may have to wait for some time to see the actual results, given that the trade deals need to kick in and the negotiated tariffs are applied.

… and old stocks are depleted, and the distributors start pushing prices to retailers, and the retailers pass the price hikes on to consumers.

[vad]

The duty paid to the US Treasury will, by itself, reduce the budget deficit, and that fiscal effect should be deflationary.

Not necessarily true. In macroeconomics, reducing the budget deficit by cutting government spending is deflationary, because it removes demand from the economy. However, reducing the deficit solely by increasing revenue without cutting spending does not directly affect inflation. It can have indirect effects, such as raising the cost of imported goods, but not in the direct deflationary way you suggested.