And not without risk, either. We use it for sedation. Laryngospasm is no joke. ETA Emergence reactions aren't funny either.

My province is moving to restrict Moderna to those 25 and older. 24 and under will get Pfizer only. Citing increased myocarditis risk with Moderna in this age group (1/5000), compared to Pfizer (1/28 000).

Agree with PP. The workbooks aren't really workbooks. They are rather sets of extra problems.

Neutral means the author is trying to sell to the both creationist and secular market, by leaving out much of the actual science. There is nothing truly neutral about "neutral" science curricula. It's creation "science" in stealth mode. Yes. All of biology is evolution. Evolution is the foundational principle. Without evolution, it's all just stamp collecting (my own mangled, modernized adaptation of Rutherford's famous quote, haha). It comes up in just about every single biology It comes up in just about every single biology discussion with my kids. It's hard for me to imagine how it wouldn't. There had been loads of threads on this in the past, some of them very good. SEA and Panda Press have opinion posts about neutral science that explain from a secular POV all this better than I can. Evolution doesn't come up when discussing atoms. But Big Bang theory and deep time sure do (where did those atoms come from?) Evolution, Big Bang, age of the earth - these are Big Foundational Science topics that get left out in "neutral" science because of religious beliefs. That's unscientific.

I've never heard of them. I don't think they get much local press. This is their Facebook page. Ah, they seem to be associated with a provincial fringe politician who is, well, interesting - charged for breaking public health rules eight times, multiple racist and other insensitive tweets, sons tasered and charged with public intoxication after a refusal to mask incident in a bar etc. He was kicked out of the Conservative party for bad behaviour and now sits as an independent.

Both of my kids had a swollen axillary lymph node post vax. One kid after the first shot, the other kid after the second shot. Second kid's reaction was to announce, "Mom! I have the lump! My shot's working!!!

I wish. A large proportion of patients s are unmasked: dementia, intoxicated, dev delay, resp distress or just noncompliance Edited patients not pets, autocorrect is killing me today

Link to the full study. This was a study of mask wearing on a population level, not about individual protection. The usual story about media mis-applying study results; suggesting that individuals should wear surgical masks, implying individual benefit better than all alternative including respirators, is misleading and mis-applying the study results. Suggesting that populations should wear surgical masks is appropriate and consistent with the study results. @KSera You are right, that at the individual, a properly fitted respirator is better than a pleated procedural mask. Respirators weren't tested at the population level, (and probably aren't reasonable at the population level, because they are expensive and need to fit to achieve the benefit.) Edited to fix link

Sorry OP, I've gone quite off topic. To answer the original question: Yes, my all-vaxxed family is continuing to mask in all indoor spaces, even with others who are fully vaxxed. I was the lone masker at a private gathering of all-vaxxed individuals earlier this week. I ask that my family do the same. It's part of how we care for each other in our household.

That's the bottom line, yes. (That and what they've shown isn't a correctly surgical mask at all, which bugs me!) And that number for the "surgical mask" has come out of the air. They didn't test it, and don't provide any reference for where the number they quote has come from.

One more argument in favour of pleated disposable masks: From a public health point of view, they are just about perfect. Inexpensive - so inexpensive that organizations and businesses can afford to supply them to customers at the the door, easy and comfortable to wear, one size fits all, and they work.

(Edited: I've deleted the image (don't know if I can legally post the image) in my post and will link instead. The graphic I'm talking about shows several mask styles and quoted filtration numbers for them. Quotes 70% for surgical mask, and 99% for mask being sold by this company.) Misleading marketing example: 1) The pleated procedure mask pictured, labelled "surgical mask" is not a surgical mask. They don't know what the word "surgical mask" means 2) The pleated procedure mask pictured's fabric likely does have great filtration efficiency, likely >95% for particle greater than 0.1 micron. They are all melt-blown polypro. Most of them have 3 layers. (I've taken lots apart to find out for myself). I don't think they tested it - I asked directly and they chose not to answer that part of my query. Surgical masks definitely filter better than what they've quoted. Nelson Labs quotes standards for surgical masks and they are in the 95% or better range. 3) the product being sold (product to the far right of the graphic) was tested by testing just the filter fabric, not the device as worn. It is not an apples to apples comparison, and is super misleading. I was irritated about this enough to inquire to the company about the discrepancies. First response (don't know why it's formatting weird): Nelson Labs is one of the most well-established and credible 3rd party testers of non-medical masks, and they require all testing be done on the filter, and not the mask itself. The reason for this is that no non-medical mask can guarantee any percentage of filtration when worn, since so much of that depends on the fit of the mask on the face. But what can be very definitive and black and white is the filtration of the filter itself. I hope that helps to answer your questions. Second response: Most surgical masks that customers are wearing are non-medical surgical masks, and are percentages are based on that. The range for surgical mask filtration is quite high - but within the category of surgical masks, there are many grades, with most sold to non-medical personnel being "non-medical" which have a lower standard of filtration that we have shown in our chart. I hope that helps.

HM is a good mask. But its marketing is misleading, and I think dishonest.

You've just summarized my beef with the marketing strategies of Happy Mask, Enro, and other comparable masks.

Yes. My take on the issue: 1) If we formally acknowledge that covid is airborne and requires airborne precautions (like measles, TB, chickenpox), then we will have to meet airborne IPAC standards when caring for covid and suspected covid (anyone with fever or URI symptoms) patients. Which would be impossible. We have only 3 negative pressure rooms in our ED. I have many more times that number of fever/URI symptom patients in my department all the time, nevermind during covid waves. 2) pleated ear-loopers seem to actually work in healthcare setting to prevent covid transmission. We have real world data on that now. So there is no impetus for admins to spend $$ to up grade to N95 for this indication. 3) N95 are still a relatively scarce resource. We still import most of them. The first batch of Canadian made n95 weren't delivered until April 2021, and they only make the one style, which doesn't fit everyone. Before April, we relied entirely on import. And the USA had an export ban for a long time. So TPTB are very, very focussed on conservation of supply.

Here, one just sees that same kn95 from Costco fitting various people very badly.....

Nope. n95s are only for formal AGMP. We wish it were different.

The filtration of a surgical mask is comparable to an n95 - Submicron particulate filtration efficiency at 0.1 micron of 95-98%, depending on whether it's a level 1, 2 , 3 surgical mask. (See Government of Canada specs table for PPE). Surgical masks fabrics filter very, very well. The problem with surgical masks is the fit - they are sloppy*. One can partially fix this by wearing it properly: tie relatively tightly (or knot earloops), shape to face properly (pull fabric to tuck under chin, press nose wire to shape of face). Can further ix with a mask brace, or with a well fitting cloth mask over-top. I see n95's and kn95's and other reapirator-style masks being worn in the community that fit poorly (obvious gaps, or obviously too small or too big) that are definitely not better than a properly worn surgical mask. Gaps are gaps, and poor fit is poor fit. n95 is not magic! ETA Oh, autocorrect..... sloppy, not happy!

I hear this all the time. It simply isn't true. The entire Canadian healthcare system is a testament to that. We wear these at work, even when caring for covid patients. Worker covid rates are far lower that our community's, despite much higher exposure risk. "Surgical"* masks aren't perfect, and they are inferior to a fit-tested n95, but they do work. They certainly aren't useless. * "Surgical" in quotes, because what we we wear in emerge are pleated disposable ear-loop procedure masks, which are inferior to true surgical masks. True surgical masks have higher standards water-resistance/splash-resistance and generally have ties instead of earloops, for a more secure fit. But I think are using "surgical mask" in the generic sense here, not meaning formal surgical masks.

National Post article with more details. It looks like they pulled their denominator from a public database. And either pulled the wrong number, or pulled the number before the data on the database were complete. They didn't do the math wrong so much as use the wrong numbers to do the math. I don't think this was malicious. I think is was an honest mistake. The authors did state that their finding was surprising, "That our data should suggest a tenfold higher incidence seems surprising" and put in all the usual disclaimers for preliminary work. This sort of thing is what the preprint process is for, really. For scientists to share data in fast-moving fields, to critically appraise each other's work, and to catch mistakes before formal publication. I'm pretty sure that the authors are a bunch of cardiologists, not public health or epidemiology folks. The denominator they used (tens of thousands, instead of hundreds of thousands) might not have felt obviously wrong to them the way it would to the public health and epidemiology. It may have seemed like an appropriately big number. Don't get me wrong; it's a big mistake that should have been obvious to the authors. But is was an error, not the willful spreading of misinformation.

For sure better is better. No doubt that a fit-tested N95 provides better protection than a pleated medical mask. That said, good is still good too. I think people really do underestimate the value of a pleated mask. If you wear it properly - put it on, shape it (fully extend to wrap under chin, press nose-wire to fit face snugly), and leave it on.

Or even a just a pretty good mask, really. As I've mentioned many times before, Canadian HCW have been providing care in pleated disposable ear-loop masks, even for care fo covid patients, with N95 strictly reserved for AGMP,, and haven't been getting sick. They work. I and my colleagues are in the environment that Spryte was in everyday at work in a pleated ear-looper (plus safety glasses).

"An inaccurate Canadian study suggesting an extremely high rate of heart inflammation after COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted due to a major mathematical error — but not before it spread like wildfire on anti-vaccination websites and social media" Preprint (not peer reviewed) got the denominator wrong, and quoted a vaccine myocarditis risk of 1 in 1000 instead of 1 in 25 000. I think this study might have been discussed on this thread a few pages back? ETA: I love the term "zombie paper" for discredited papers that continue to circulate despite retraction. ETA: Retraction statement by the authors

The standard here for sick enough for admission to hospital but not sick enough for icu is remdesivir plus dexamethasone https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/sciencebrief/clinical-practice-guideline-summary-recommended-drugs-and-biologics-in-adult-patients-with-covid-19-2/

Here, masking in schools is compulsory starting in grade 1, province-wide. Some school boards have added mask mandates for kindy age also (my board has done this, as I think most have). The mask mandate for general public places is age 2 and up.