It’s unclear why Japan has a relatively low infection rate and a comparatively small number of deaths due to COVID-19. Abe has faced criticism for taking little action to curb the virus’ spread as many other nations implemented stringent lockdowns.
“Just by looking at death numbers, you can say Japan was successful,” Mikihito Tanaka, a professor at Waseda University specializing in science communication, and a member of a public group of experts on the novel virus, told Bloomberg. “But even experts don’t know the reason.”
Newsweek Japan Ends Coronavirus Emergency With 850 Deaths and No Lockdown
Alexanders' Blog 
ONE FLU OVER JAPAN
Japan Ends Coronavirus Emergency With 850 Deaths from Flu and No Lockdown
An estimated 1.24 million people, mainly in southwestern and western Japan, caught influenza in the first week of January, up from around 1.01 million the previous week, a state-run institute said Tuesday.
The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare said the season’s peak is expected run from late January to February and called on the public to wear masks or cover their mouths with a handkerchief so as not to spread flu through sneezing or coughing.
The figure was calculated by the National Institute of Infectious Diseases based on the number of patients reported by some 5,000 clinics across the country.
The average number of patients per medical institution stood at 16.31, according to the tally.
By prefecture, Miyazaki had the highest number of flu patients per institution with 34.17, followed by Okinawa with 31.76, Oita with 28.93, Fukuoka with 28.14 and Nagasaki with 26.04. They are all in southwestern or southern regions of the country.
The most common form of the viruses detected in the last five weeks was the new type-A influenza that caused a pandemic in 2009, according to the institute.
A delay in flu vaccine production this season has caused a shortage. But the health ministry has said the necessary amount of vaccine can be secured by restricting people aged 13 and above to taking only a single shot.
If infected, elderly people are likely to develop severe symptoms, and children could suffer from acute encephalitis in rare cases. Washing hands, disinfecting with alcohol, maintaining high humidity and refraining from going to crowded places are said to be effective precautionary measures.
As many as 646,000 people die globally from seasonal influenza each year, U.S. health officials said in December, a rise from earlier assessments of the disease’s death toll.
Global death rates from seasonal influenza are likely between 291,000 and 646,000 people each year, depending on the severity of the circulating flu strain, they said.
FAUCHI ON WEARING MASKS
[video src="https://video.parler.com/sG/lM/sGlMXSN65XH3_small.mp4" /]
Months into the coronavirus pandemic, leaders have tried to enforce mandatory social distancing and mask wearing through a mixture of fines, snitching and public shaming.
The mercurial Dr. Anthony Fauci, who seems to have changed his position on every detail about COVID19, including the utility of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (which even he says may not be the answer), said that said that masks only made people feel better but were pretty much pointless.
Fast forward to now, and Fauci says changed his tune:
From Town Hall:
“We were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply,” Fauci told The Street.
But – and this is a huge BUT – the public health community (and the medical community) do not wear cloth masks. They wear surgical masks, or, in some cases, N95 masks – for 15-20 minutes at a time. From something like COVID19, they wear LAYERS of masks and faceshield.
CDC recommends cloth masks, not surgical masks, not N95. Cloth masks. Actually, Cloth “face coverings“.
Fauci, CDC, and HHS in general have offered nothing but a whirlwind of vague, imprecise and unclear positions. It makes one wonder…
What is very clear (#ScienceSays) that cloth masks do not prevent transmission of viruses. In fact, they may increase transmission. The new excuse? They are supposed to prevent droplet transmission. Fine. But what about the narrative that Coronavirus is airborne? Here, hundreds of scientists say that coronavirus is airborne (Reuters).
It’s almost as if Fauci does not really care what the reality is, or that he is content to allow social strife, mutual distrust to foment among the public until he and Moderna fly in with the vaccine and save the world.
THE RISKS OF WEARING MASKS:
1. Cloth masks can increase, not decrease, the risk of infection (including from the Coronavirus).
• In this study, researchers found that people have 3x the risk of developing a respiratory illness if they wear a mask. In the first randomized clinical trial on the effects of cloth masks, scientists reported that “the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection”
• Additionally, Dr. Jenny Harries, UK’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer has warned that it was not a good idea for the public to wear facemasks as the virus can get trapped in the material and causes infection when the wearer breathes in.
• Wearing masks increases your CO2 blood oxygen level to unsafe levels.
• In a live online demonstration, Del Bigtree of the Highwire measured his son’s CO2 levels while wearing different types of masks. In the video, you can see the CO2 levels in this young man shoot past 5,000 ppm. Click here to watch the video or read the details here on The FedUp Democrat.
• Here, the Guardian reviews the risks of high carbon dioxide levels. https://bit.ly/GuardianRisksOfHighC02
• In 2018, California public health official Peter Beilenson released a statement advising people to not wear N95 masks because they carry the risk of forcing people to “rebreathe” their own CO2.
• As the temperatures increase, overheating while wearing a mask is a real risk. See this article.
• Here, an OSHA trainer and PPE expert explains the risks and ineffectiveness of long-term mask wearing.
THE FAUCI QUESTION:
What Else Are We Be Lied To About?
CDC represents a report from data from South Korea as supporting that children should not return to school, or worse: they should return to school and be forced to wear masks. In yesterday’s episode of Unbreaking Science, I predicted that no school room will filled with kids wearing masks all day.
Why?
In part because the CDC report actually shows that children aged 0 to 10 years old account for <1% of of all new cases of COVID19 – and kids aged 11 to 20 years old ALSO account for <1% of all new cases of COVID19. We’re even told that children will not likely be candidates for COVID19 vaccination because they have near zero risk of serious illness, death and do not transmit the virus.
Why are we burdening our children w/disrupted education – our entire next generation – when they are clearly not high-risk tranmitters, and they do not get sick?
There is no reason to expect mass masking to have any real effect. In a memo, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, reported that even in the best case, with medical masks which prevent 40 percent of infections, 200,000 people would have to wear them to prevent just one new infection per week. They concluded that the likely negative impacts outweighed any benefits “in the current epidemiological situation“.
This does not add up. None of it.
It’s beginning to look that the agenda is to hold parents hostage w/their kids being forced to either stay at home and home school/distance learning, or send their kids to school to wear masks all day.
Until Fauci gets his damned vaccine.
America, ask yourself.
Is CDC having us all wearing masks – cloth masks – to increase transmission so Fauci can get his damned vaccine?
Some of the links and facts in this article come from a collaborative effort known as Millions Against Mandates (mamm.org). Please consider joining.
BONUS – As usual, Del Bigtree and the Highwire Team was ahead of the curve weeks ago. Watch Del interview Denis Rancourt:
Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence.
Published: July 30, 2020; Updated: August 14, 2020
Share on: Twitter / Facebook
An overview of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks.
1. Studies on the effectiveness of face masks
So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
1. A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source)
2. A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medince found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)
3. A Covid-19 cross-country study by the University of East Anglia found that a mask requirement was of no benefit and could even increase the risk of infection. (Source)
4. An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). (Source)
5. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that cloth face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. (Source)
6. An April 2020 Cochrane review (preprint) found that face masks in the general population or health care workers didn’t reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases. (Source)
7. An April 2020 review by the Norwich School of Medicine (preprint) found that “the evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks”, but supports the use of masks by “particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.” (Source)
8. A July 2020 study by Japanese researchers found that cloth masks “offer zero protection against coronavirus” due to their large pore size and generally poor fit. (Source)
9. A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)
Additional aspects
1. Japan, despite its widespread use of face masks, experienced its most recent influenza epidemic with more than 5 million people falling ill just one year ago, in January and February 2019. However, unlike SARS-2, the influenza virus is transmitted by children, too.
2. Many states that introduced mandatory face masks on public transport and in shops in spring or early summer, such as Hawaii, California, Argentina, Spain and Japan, still saw a strong increase in infections from July onwards, indicating a low effectiveness of mask policies.
3. There is increasing evidence that the SARS-2 coronavirus is transmitted, at least in certain indoor settings, not only by droplets but also by smaller aerosols. However, due to their large pore size and poor fit, cloth masks cannot filter out aerosols (see video analysis).
4. The WHO admitted to the BBC that its June 2020 mask policy update was due not to new evidence but “political lobbying”: “We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny.” (D. Cohen, BBC Medical Corresponent)
5. Contrary to common belief, studies in hospitals found that the wearing of a medical mask by surgeons during operations didn’t reduce post-operative bacterial wound infections in patients.
6. In children, the risk of Covid-19 disease and transmission is very low – much lower than for influenza – and face masks for children are therefore, in general, not indicated.
7. During the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic, the use of cloth face masks among the general population was widespread and in some places mandatory, but they made no difference.
Hawaii: Masks and infections (Source: YW)
Dr. Theodore Noel explaining the facemask aerosol issue:
2. Studies claiming face masks are effective
Some recent studies argued that cloth face masks are indeed effective against the new coronavirus and could at least prevent the infection of other people. However, most of these studies suffer from poor methodology and sometimes show the opposite of what they claim.
Typically, these studies ignore the effect of other measures, the natural development of infection numbers, changes in test activity, or they compare countries with very different conditions.
An overview:
1. A German study claimed that the introduction of compulsory masks in German cities had led to a decrease in infections. But the data does not support this: in some cities there was no change, in others a decrease, in others an increase in infections (see graph below). The city of Jena was an ‘exception’ only because it simultaneously introduced the strictest quarantine rules in Germany, but the study did not mention this.
2. A study in the journal PNAS claimed that masks had led to a decrease in infections in three global hotspots (including New York City). But the study did not take into account the natural decrease in infections and other simultaneous measures. The study was so flawed that over 40 scientists recommended that the study be withdrawn.
3. A US study claimed that mandatory masks had led to a decrease in infections in 15 states. The study did not take into account that the incidence of infection was already declining in most states at that time. A comparison with other states was not made.
4. A Canadian study claimed that countries with mandatory masks had fewer deaths than countries without mandatory masks. But the study compared African, Latin American, Asian and Eastern European countries with very different infection rates and population structures.
5. A much-cited meta-study in the journal Lancet claimed that masks “could” lead to a reduction in the risk of infection, but the studies considered mainly medical masks in a hospital setting, not cloth masks in a community setting, and the strength of the evidence was reported as “low”.
Mandatory masks in German cities: no relevant impact. (IZA 2020)
3. Risks associated with face masks
Wearing masks for a prolonged period of time is not harmless, as the following evidence shows:
1. The WHO warns of various “side effects” such as difficulty breathing and skin rashes.
2. Tests conducted by the University Hospital of Leipzig in Germany have shown that face masks significantly reduce the resilience and performance of healthy persons.
3. A German psychological study with about 1000 participants found “severe psychosocial consequences” due to the introduction of mandatory face masks in Germany.
4. The Hamburg Environmental Institute warned of the inhalation of chlorine compounds in polyester masks as well as problems in connection with face mask disposal.
5. The European rapid alert system RAPEX has already recalled 70 mask models because they did not meet EU quality standards and could lead to “serious risks”.
6. In China, two boys who had to wear a mask during sports classes fainted and died.
7. In the US, a car driver wearing an N95 (FFP2) mask fainted and crashed into a pole.
Conclusion
Cloth face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this proposition. If the SARS-2 virus is indeed transmitted via aerosols, at least indoors, cloth masks are unlikely to be protective.
LikeLike