bdearl41
Well-Known Member
I know right! Olaf is totally Swedish, not Norse.Ugh. Someone told me not to come look at this thread and they were right. It’s a toxic dump heap of misinformation. I should have listened.
I know right! Olaf is totally Swedish, not Norse.Ugh. Someone told me not to come look at this thread and they were right. It’s a toxic dump heap of misinformation. I should have listened.
yeah, it's terrible. Next thing they're going to tell me is that the Swedish Chef isn't speaking Swedish -- it's not even English! Oh, and he's not even from Sweden either. Not sure I can handle that kind of rejection.I know right! Olaf is totally Swedish, not Norse.
The study you linked involved adults wearing highly protective respirators.I agree. After doing some Doom Googling, I'm concerned about CO2 levels when children wear face masks. Most articles I've read give reassurance that the increase in levels aren't that significant, but to my mind this doesn't jive with studies showing that merely living "downwind" of a highway can decrease a student's test scores or that breathing in phytoncides (being around plants, essentially) can impact humans fairly substantially. It seems to me that humans are extremely sensitive to air quality in other situations that have been studied, I just don't see how upping carbon dioxide levels, even a small amount, for hours and hours a day can be casually dismissed as clearly having no effect.
On the other side, the risk of unknown side effects from Covid (like, as mentioned upthread, diabetes,) are of course horrible for parents to think about.
If there were a fairly clear consensus on the risks and benefits of masks for young children it would be different - right now I do think it really is the wild west when it comes to information on the topic. Everyone is winging it, to some degree, and parents have to do the best they can with available information.
Not only pre-omicron but they determined use of surgical masks made some improvement. From the article:
Since we are discussing the mask policy at WDW and they require a "face covering" and cloth is acceptable, their policy doesn't accomplish anything other than make some people "feel" safer. Pre-omicron you needed at least a surgical mask which they didn't require and now you need an N95 to make a significant difference.
Another JAMA study found fairly significant increases in CO2 levels of kids wearing masks. It was later retracted (after huge political backlash, so a bit sus) on technical issues but no evidence to the contrary has been solidly presented. We don’t really know how much CO2 kids are breathing in masks, which again, is worrisome, especially since other evidence indicates that humans are extremely sensitive to even very small changes in air quality.The study you linked involved adults wearing highly protective respirators.
I've never seen a child kitted out like that. If you are worried about CO2 levels for kids, you'd advocate for improvements to school facilities and ventilation systems. Classrooms crowded with more kids than they were designed for were already a ventilation problem before COVID existed. There is no evidence masks are causing health issues for kids.
I'm uncertain about the CO2 issues myself, and don't put much faith in what people say about it one way or another.Another JAMA study found fairly significant increases in CO2 levels of kids wearing masks. It was later retracted (after huge political backlash, so a bit sus) on technical issues but no evidence to the contrary has been solidly presented. We don’t really know how much CO2 kids are breathing in masks, which again, is worrisome, especially since other evidence indicates that humans are extremely sensitive to even very small changes in air quality.
I certainly think better air quality in classrooms overall is a great idea, especially as carbon levels may be increasing slowly with climate change, not sure what that has to do with my post though.
I read somwhere that it's the cow farts that will eventually kill us off.I agree. After doing some Doom Googling, I'm concerned about CO2 levels when children wear face masks. Most articles I've read give reassurance that the increase in levels aren't that significant, but to my mind this doesn't jive with studies showing that merely living "downwind" of a highway can decrease a student's test scores or that breathing in phytoncides (being around plants, essentially) can impact humans fairly substantially. It seems to me that humans are extremely sensitive to air quality in other situations that have been studied, I just don't see how upping carbon dioxide levels, even a small amount, for hours and hours a day can be casually dismissed as clearly having no effect.
On the other side, the risk of unknown side effects from Covid (like, as mentioned upthread, diabetes,) are of course horrible for parents to think about.
If there were a fairly clear consensus on the risks and benefits of masks for young children it would be different - right now I do think it really is the wild west when it comes to information on the topic. Everyone is winging it, to some degree, and parents have to do the best they can with available information.
Why this study was retracted was perhaps the ones that know better saw this study as a big conspiracy baloney and threw this in the trash where it belongs.Another JAMA study found fairly significant increases in CO2 levels of kids wearing masks. It was later retracted (after huge political backlash, so a bit sus) on technical issues but no evidence to the contrary has been solidly presented. We don’t really know how much CO2 kids are breathing in masks, which again, is worrisome, especially since other evidence indicates that humans are extremely sensitive to even very small changes in air quality.
I certainly think better air quality in classrooms overall is a great idea, especially as carbon levels may be increasing slowly with climate change, not sure what that has to do with my post though.
Then bad on a journal as well known as JAMA for publishing it in the first place. I mean it’s JAMA, this wasn’t published to Facebook or something.Why this study was retracted was perhaps the ones that know better saw this study as a big conspiracy baloney and threw this in the trash where it belongs.
Why? N95s are hard to find for kid/small adult faces. Wearing an adult size one on me is far worse than surgical. Which is what I wear. Plus they show that they do help. So why chuckle at people who have to mask when required and wear something good enough? I mean it's not like we had single layer of chiffon or something.I've been chuckling for about the past two years, every time I see a person wearing a mask that isn't an N95.
Umm, yeah hot garbageThen bad on a journal as well known as JAMA for publishing it in the first place. I mean it’s JAMA, this wasn’t published to Facebook or something.
Anyways, will put the link below so you can see the specific issues cited:
Notice of Retraction. Walach H, et al. Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial
A Notice of Retraction about the article “Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” by Walach H, et al, has been published.jamanetwork.com
Of course. It’s difficult to get a feel for how substantial this criticism is as a layperson though. Remember that ALL articles are subject to various criticisms, it’s not like those that aren’t retracted have zero issues. Criticism is of course a vital part of the review process.Umm, yeah hot garbage
\
Following publication, numerous scientific issues were raised regarding the study methodology, including concerns about the applicability of the device used for assessment of carbon dioxide levels in this study setting, and whether the measurements obtained accurately represented carbon dioxide content in inhaled air, as well as issues related to the validity of the study conclusions. In their invited responses to these and other concerns, the authors did not provide sufficiently convincing evidence to resolve these issues, as determined by editorial evaluation and additional scientific review. Given fundamental concerns about the study methodology, uncertainty regarding the validity of the findings and conclusions, and the potential public health implications, the editors have retracted this Research Letter.
Do you even read this stuff?
Don't be a sucker and fall for this garbage. Some unfortunately do.Then bad on a journal as well known as JAMA for publishing it in the first place. I mean it’s JAMA, this wasn’t published to Facebook or something.
Anyways, will put the link below so you can see the specific issues cited:
Notice of Retraction. Walach H, et al. Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial
A Notice of Retraction about the article “Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” by Walach H, et al, has been published.jamanetwork.com
As a layman you should defer to those with specialized knowledge to judge for you if you don't posses the capability to judge for yourself, they did and they have. Hot garbage rejected.Of course. It’s difficult to get a feel for how substantial this criticism is as a layperson though. Remember that ALL articles are subject to various criticisms, it’s not like those that aren’t retracted have zero issues. Criticism is of course a vital part of the review process.
At any rate, it would be much more comforting if there was a non retracted study that showed the opposite - no impact on CO2 levels. I haven’t seen such a study. So there’s this one that DID find high CO2 levels but had some technical issues, and no other available evidence. Not comforting.
Not “rejected”, retracted. Passed review by a prestigious journal to be published, and *then* retracted. Very different. If JAMA is publishing hot garbage that is also incredibly worrisome, just in a different way. Presumably, though, this study was well designed enough to pass the first round of muster by a prestigious journal. It was later retracted when Tucker Carlson started screaming about it and apparently it didn’t stand up to *additional* scrutiny. Fair enough. But that is not an AOK thumbs up for face masks on small children. It’s one study with design problems showing elevated CO2 levels and no further evidence available.As a layman you should defer to those with specialized knowledge to judge for you if you don't posses the capability to judge for yourself, they did and they have. Hot garbage rejected.
You are hoping for a straw to grasp to support your conclusion despite there being evidence showing it is poorly conceived. Let the experts expert.
Humans also don't do well when they get pneumonia.Another JAMA study found fairly significant increases in CO2 levels of kids wearing masks. It was later retracted (after huge political backlash, so a bit sus) on technical issues but no evidence to the contrary has been solidly presented. We don’t really know how much CO2 kids are breathing in masks, which again, is worrisome, especially since other evidence indicates that humans are extremely sensitive to even very small changes in air quality.
I certainly think better air quality in classrooms overall is a great idea, especially as carbon levels may be increasing slowly with climate change, not sure what that has to do with my post though.
*narrator* It does not, in fact, make a difference.You can go buy a oximeter and test if wearing a mask makes a notable difference.
CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Tiny increases may effect the climate but they won't effect air quality or breathing as long as the O2 concentration stays where it is.Another JAMA study found fairly significant increases in CO2 levels of kids wearing masks. It was later retracted (after huge political backlash, so a bit sus) on technical issues but no evidence to the contrary has been solidly presented. We don’t really know how much CO2 kids are breathing in masks, which again, is worrisome, especially since other evidence indicates that humans are extremely sensitive to even very small changes in air quality.
I certainly think better air quality in classrooms overall is a great idea, especially as carbon levels may be increasing slowly with climate change, not sure what that has to do with my post though.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.