Wow, this seems like 4chan conspiracy theory becoming reality. Will the worm one turn out to be true too?
On a side note, what kind of idiot puts graphene in masks, when its so widely known that graphene is a carcinogen. How can this not be maliciously done.
We had similar drama with masks distributed in Belgium. They contain nanoparticles of silver. The government gave an official recommendation to stop wearing them.
I'm still wearing mine because I don't go out often enough for it to matter (and when I do, I'm usually on a bicycle where it's not required to wear one). But what a fucked up story. I really thought this would be the end of it: anti-maskers "won", are set for life with an argument on a silver platter now. With actual silver.
Surprisingly, though, that didn't happen. People have been pretty chill about it.
Geez... I bought masks in the street market here in Rotterdam (Netherlands), and now I'm worried. Thankfully, I only wear them a few minutes a day, when I go to public closed spaces.
Alternatively, mask arguments are ultimately emotional for one (both at this point?) side at some point and there is no overcoming emotion with logic or evidence.
There's a middle ground along the lines of we should keep wearing them in enclosed public spaces until a significant percentage of the population is vaccinated. But there are also significant contingents of anti-maskers on the one hand and you have to wear masks anywhere outside your home period on the other.
The arguments that both sides use to support their positions don’t recognize such a limitation, so why should the middle ground you propose be where we draw the line? People opposed to masks claim an infringement in their rights. People in favor of masks all the time claim it’s a small price to pay for the greater good.
As an aside, it’s interesting to view the masks in light of people’s opinions on Muslim countries’ head covering requirements for women. People against them say it’s an infringement on women’s rights. People for them say it’s a small price to pay for the greater good.
You're talking about the Muslim head covering requirement here, right? Because it seems to both protect from COVID and protect from whatever harm the Muslim countries think women showing a little skin will cause. Do you think that Western countries should also ban women from being outside without a head covering (for the greater good, of course)? If not, why not? If it is because it's an infringement on women's rights, why do their rights matter more than anyone else's?
Do you see how the whole thing has become emotional and why having the mask argument is a bit silly at this point?
>whatever harm the Muslim countries think women showing a little skin will cause
Is there really a case for that? I thought that was just something the authorities made up. In contrast, COVID is actually real. I would find it pretty surprising if they were offering justification for their cultural norms on a factual or material basis.
It's an interesting claim you make about the authorities making something up. Compare your views on COVID mask usage and the changing requirements/recommendations from the authorities (CDC, WHO, whatever your local health organization is) with Muslim countries' "made up" justifications. At least the Muslim countries are consistent.
Masks prevent aerosol transmission independently of whatever the official guidance happens to be today. That's a material, factual basis for wanting people to wear them - independent of whatever cultural norm different people happen to adopt around it. There isn't a corresponding basis for those cultural norms in Muslim countries, which are self-sustaining cultural norms with no material condition at their core.
Well it seems like you've shifted the goal posts now to me. The original conversation was about whether a certain government mandate (read: official guidance) is supportable by a "greater good" argument and now you've changed it to a question of whether or not it's supportable by (what you deem) a "material, factual" basis. In fact, you've tried to remove the government mandate part from the entire conversation!
I'm sure the Muslim countries think that their basis is just as material and factual as the COVID science. I don't know why you're arguing here: head coverings are de facto masks as long as they cover the face, you should be in favor of mandatory use. It aligns with your material, factual basis. You've yet to articulate a reason why a head covering mandate is a bridge too far. Keep in mind that men are more susceptible to COVID than women and so there may be an argument to be made that constraining women will help to protect the most vulnerable sex (men).
I say all this to emphasize that public policy debates are not so easy when both sides come to the table in bad faith and with an agenda.
That is not a middle ground. That is an extreme position.
Using a roughly tested vaccination which does not even stop the spread of the virus (from vaccinated people that is) widespread, sounds not like a good proposition.
Also lethality of COVID-19 turns out to be ~0.23%[0]. And while we know nothing of long-term effects of the new gene therapy vaccination, it already seems more deadly than COVID-19 short-term[1].
Maybe gene therapy vaccinations will be the future (that could be game changing), but this whole disaster really steals credibility.
Linking to the top level of VAERs and claiming it says something it doesn't is the issue. You also seem to misunderstand the mechanism of action of the various vaccines.
"You also seem to misunderstand the mechanism of action of the various vaccines."
> I did not say anything about the mechanism.
"Linking to the top level of VAERs and claiming it says something it doesn't is the issue."
> That is not what you said tho. You said I spread misinformation. I did point to top level because the links to the actual query are not working after a few days. Just query it for COVID-19 vaccines and sort it by events reported or pick death as symptom beforehand.
Result: 3.5% dead. There is no distinction made if it is coincidence (which is not made with COVID-19 as well) and it's not representative, given that elderly are vaccinated first. Average age of vaccination is 50 years afaik. It's even a pretty high lethality compared to COVID-19 lethality for an average age of 80 btw.
More than 90 million people have been administered the vaccines.
You are using the wrong denominator.
Deaths reported as adverse events aren't necessarily due to the vaccine (they may be reported simply because they happen after administration of the vaccine).
The vaccines do not gene edit (this is what 'gene therapy' implies).
Like I said, you are confused in multiple ways and should stop.
> I did not use a denominator. It was the CDC. Do you have a problem with their methodology?
"Deaths reported as adverse events aren't necessarily due to the vaccine (they may be reported simply because they happen after administration of the vaccine)."
> You repeated what I said, but omitted a part. This distinction is not made (and cannot be made most of the time) with COVID-19. It's therefore an equivalent comparison. Well, as long as you compare it to mortality rate on population rather than infected that is (0.23% is for infected).
"The vaccines do not gene edit (this is what 'gene therapy' implies)."
> I'm not even sure why you are so annoyed by gene therapy. It plays no part in my argument. If you don't like gene therapy, then call it new vaccination method X. It's weird how people are alarmed by the moniker "gene therapy", but do it anyway if you don't call it like that.
"Like I said, you are confused in multiple ways and should stop. "
> You said I spread misinformation while using CDC and WHO. That was clearly not correct. Direct your anger at my argument and not at me please; maybe you see the futility of your anger then.
They're manufactured in China, where quality control can be low to non-existent. My best guess is that somehow the batches got contaminated in the factory.
The current admin in Canada has spent the majority of the pandemic failing to vet companies properly, so this is very unsurprisingly to me.
> Radio-Canada has obtained documents showing Health Canada warned of the potential for "early pulmonary toxicity" from the SNN200642 masks which are made in China and sold and distributed by Métallifer, a Quebec-based manufacturer.
I wonder if the Quebec government tested the masks for things like this? Especially, considering:
> Back in December, the Quebec government revealed that masks it had been distributing for months to more than 15,000 daycares across the province did not meet safety standards, and daycare staff were ordered to stop using them.
> Between May and November, the ministry distributed 31.1 million MC9501 masks throughout the network to protect staff from COVID-19, but they were determined to be unfit for use.
What should they have tested for besides graphene? Is there some list of contaminants which you feel would be a minimum requirement for their testing, which includes graphene?
Moreover do you know what kinds of tests they actually did perform? Without knowing that, how can you judge whether the level of testing was adequate or not? Have you looked into the rate of contaminants being found on their competitors products? Etc.
Agree, with the caveat that specific testing for graphene is actually not trivial (it is fundamentally carbon). But functional safety testing, supplier surveys, etc can be put in place to catch this sort of issue upstream.
I was wondering if that will bubble over... it kinda looked like way too many videos were spreading on 4chan for it to be fake, but we'll see. Really odd with those videos and the "graphene strands" start wiggling - probably just graphene exposed to heat?
I expect things there to be faked. Anyone with credibility seen the videos care to comment?
When air moves around small fibers, they move. Look at literally any fibrous material under a microscope and you'll see this -- it's really cool to see exactly how small individual fibers in a thread are!
Yeah but the videos are more than just "air" - they don't move until applied moisture/heat then they move on their own without more. Kind of like those Japanese dishes with little flakes on them?
Some things move because they're alive. Some living things don't move. Some non-living things move, too.
Movement is not conclusive evidence of life. These videos - setting aside the legitimacy of 4chan for a moment - demonstrate "if you put the fiber in water, it moves", not "these fibers are alive".
There are some studies with carbon nanotubes and mesothelioma. Hard to say if graphene would have the same effect, but it seems plausible as CNTs are essentially graphene tubes.
Cheap bulk methods for graphene production will also create other modifications of carbon such as nanotubes. So even if Graphene should be harmless, it might be impure and therefore dangerous.
> On a side note, what kind of idiot puts graphene in masks, when its so widely known that graphene is a carcinogen. How can this not be maliciously done.
Any dead material with moisture or air exposed to it will cause it to move. Typical really!
/s
I poke because, I mean of course we're considering those things. I am not trying to peddle conspiracy theories. I want to fundamentally know why; generalizations don't help here.
It's absurd really. Thankfully I'm hearing others with similar introspections. I was feeling quite crazy. Maybe we'll come out of this okay by being curious.
Yeah I like to remain optimistic, IMO that is the only way to stay sane.
It's just funny how total opposite realities can coexist. I get a NYT daily email which makes it sound like everything is okay, vaccines are working great, etc, then I can spend 10 minutes reading `/r/conspiracy` and it really throws you upside down. Not to say that everything said there is true (I know most of it is likely bs), but I enjoy seeing the total opposites ends of the spectrum.
This is quite literally the myth involving ham or pork and soda pop. Of course in that case the "worms" were just the fat moving and solidifying from the carbonation. This time it is someone, apparently for the first time, discovering that wickable* fibers found in masks tend to move about when liquid is absorbing into or evaporating from them. Of course these fibers are in a lot of other places, including your winter clothing and anything else absorbent you might happen to wear.
Someone in another response pointed out the Japanese dishes with dry bonito flakes that move around in animate style when subjected to steam. It's exactly the same thing.
* Wickable might not be a real word. I mean "able to wick" as any absorbant fiber can.
If the photo is accurate, I can't imagine anyone seriously using those masks !
If I got a box of masks that looked like it was previously worn by a chimney-sweep, I would either return them to the seller or dispose of them. They look filthy !
When you enter a medical institution here, the security make you exchange your current mask for a new one they give you. If you refuse, they don't let you in and you miss your appointment so its not like you get a "choice" about taking them. Anyways that's my story of how I got exposed, hooray!
Kaiser has this policy when getting an in person test. I have n95s so I simply put the disposable blue thing over my main one. (another needed story I think at least some are counterfeit)
My medical facility let me put on the surgical mask over the N95 (the guy handing them out actually suggested it when I was obviously hesitant to exchange). It's at least worth a try next time - double masking, FTW?
For those downvoting without comment: huh, really?
A surgical mask provides demonstrably worse protection vs N95, and doubling them up adds a bit to the protection of both the wearer and the surrounding people, as well as complying with their rule, which allows double masking.
Also, according to the article, "some daycare educators had been suspicious of these grey and blue masks for a while because they felt like they were swallowing cat hair while wearing them."
People must have been ordered to wear them; who would wear these by choice?
The government didn't force anyone to use these masks in particular, they were just given for free. Hospitals sometimes forced you to use their own masks when entering the premise but even private hospitals did that on their own, but in daycares and schools these just happened to be free so people use them to save money.
Let me just say, it's nice to see a sane comment every once in a while. The world seems to have gone completely off the deep end and is throwing itself at the mercy of petty authoritarian bureaucrats.
Well, at the moment that hardly seems relevant since the arms governments worldwide have are SO radically powerful as to completely imbalance the relationship. Not merely physical are their weapons either.
No, people weren't ordered to wear them. Daycare educators are largely independent of the government beyond inspections every few months and heavy subsidies.
The masks were given for free, and there is a mask mandate. Daycares used free government provided masks instead of their own to save money.
No one will be held accountable here, but there really should be consequences to this level of sloppiness. Since these were resold by a third-party, it means that someone looked at this without any kind of health background and said "That one has graphene in it! The seller said it was better so it must be true.", bought it, and then FORCED educators to wear them.
Graphene has a potential to be the asbestos of our era.
Damaged strands can be inhaled in same way and end up in your lungs. I have never looked into that and only glanced at papers on the impact of inhalation of graphene. It seems like graphene will build up in the lungs but not shred them like the asbestos does.
Still its a new material I would be cautious of using it.
We haven't even fully borne out the research for plastic polymers breaking down and getting into lungs. I have all but conceded to a drastically increased likelihood of cancer in my lifetime thanks to how flippant we are with particulates.
> Patrick Baillargeon, who is charge of purchasing Quebec's laboratory supplies, warns in a letter that Health Canada has not received any data to support the safety and efficacy of face masks containing graphene particles and therefore considers the risks associated with these medical devices unacceptable.
This makes it sound like the graphene is there on purpose?
Yes, it is. I work in a university and we were given these masks. The inside is dark grey instead of white, and it even advertises on the box that they are made with graphene.
I have worn them for long periods and so have many of my colleagues. I have not felt any throat scratching as described in the news, however.
> Some daycare educators had been suspicious of these grey and blue masks for a while because they felt like they were swallowing cat hair while wearing them, Radio-Canada has learned.
Really? If they were this bad, why the hell did they let people keep using them?? By now we all know how wearing a mask is supposed to feel, that sensation alone should have been enough to at least pause distribution.
I'm willing to bet someone thought that because of how extremely fine graphene is, it would be even better than activated charcoal for filtering tiny particles. That of course ignores that it is a super-fine particle of the kind you should be filtering instead.
It all reminds me of how coal miners used to purposely inhale McIntyre Powder, which was pulverized aluminum, to protect their lungs, only to end up with different medical problems.
Unflatteringly, this also happened in Canada. Apparently we never learn.
> Some daycare educators had been suspicious of these grey and blue masks for a while because they felt like they were swallowing cat hair while wearing them, Radio-Canada has learned.
Fwiw, no one I know that used them felt anything, even an asthmatic. Which doesn't make it any less dangerous, but yeah if everyone felt that way it would be even worse to take so long to act.
I had no idea graphene could be used in products like this. I always thought it was expensive and fragile, could only be made in small quantities, and that there were no cheap and efficient and ways to mass produce it?
That said, I don't see what it would do to the issue. It wasn't hidden that there was graphene in the mask or anything, at least to the importer, that's why they were reported by a citizen that knew the dangers of graphene.
I think it allows locality of decision making. So imagine if your state/provincial government had authority to set tighter regulations on these goods, or physically inspect facilities, or whatever else. They may not have the same reach or ability to control manufacturing elsewhere. Likewise, some other jurisdiction might decide this is NOT important to regulate or invest their time/resources on, and if so, that would be their choice.
The government ordered their goods. The presence of graphene wasn't a secret at least to the importer, and at least the box I saw advertised the presence of graphene.
Why not just inspect the finished product like we could do with imports?
I'm not against domestic manufacturing and in fact I think many governments should be creating more incentives for domestic manufacturing for economic reasons. Insisting on domestic manufacturing in this context has hints of Sinophobia.
On a side note, what kind of idiot puts graphene in masks, when its so widely known that graphene is a carcinogen. How can this not be maliciously done.