Coronovirus IV

[chipbennett]

I hate lily pads. When you're rowing through a swamp biome in your nicely crafted rowboat, they clog up your inventory as you run over them. And there's really nothing you can do with them. Unless you're on foot. They do help you be able to parkour across the water in the swamp. Or, I guess you could use them to craft structures on the surface of the water. Or, I guess you could use them to make a path to walk across water from one point to another. Okay. Nevermind. I just talked myself into liking lily pads. Kinda.

Is that you, Steve? I hear lily pads are like Kryptonite to Herobrine.

 

[jamil]

Practically speaking, is there a difference between not breathing at all, and one's breath not being present because one's person is prohibited from being present?

Ultimately, though, the point I think you're trying to make is correct: there is a line somewhere. Obviously, intentionally trying to contaminate someone with what you reasonably believe to be infected bodily fluids (e.g. through intentionally coughing, sneezing, hard-breathing, etc. on that person with the knowledge and intent to effect said contamination) is a violation of that other person's rights.

The other end of that spectrum is someone who is not symptomatic, who has no reason to believe he is infected, not intentionally projecting his bodily fluids upon another person but is instead merely occupying proximal, public space with that person.

Whether it is their intent or not, some of the people decrying the end of stay-at-home orders come across as implying that the latter example is as heinous as the former. And it is that implication to which people are reacting.



And it is important to remember that there is an already-established mechanism for dealing with people while respecting their right to due process: court-ordered quarantine. The CDC can go to court and get a federal quarantine order against specific persons, with specific evidence of infection. I believe the states have similar processes at the state level. I am not aware of anyone taking issue with such mechanisms while following due process.



And that remaining ambiguity should indicate why it is critical that we err on the side of respecting due process rights, and the presumption of a) not being infected, and b) innocence with respect to intent to cause harm.

I do not understand how anyone who claims to espouse libertarian (dusty88 or anyone else) viewpoints could argue for state control taking precedence over due process rights in response to such ambiguity.

1) Yes, there is a practical difference between not breathing at all and one's breath not being present because one's person is prohibit from being present. You can breathe at home. I'm not saying that's the proper remedy. But you did ask for the practical difference. Maybe you didn't mean "practical".

2) About the other end of the spectrum, that's a fairly extreme view as well, which I pointed out. Where I place the line is that this is a societal problem. A collective problem, because no one knows if they have it until they have some kind of indication. People can spread it while being asymptomatic. So that kinda requires a moral response to take that into account. Alright so what is the proper moral response? I think the right end of the spectrum isn't it. And the left end is absurd. I'd say take reasonable precautions while out in public. Keep your distance. Wash/disinfect your hands often. Maybe wear a mask indoors in public spaces where there are a lot of people, like grocery stores. Try to mind your distance. You have a right to breathe, but you also have a personal responsibility to take measures to prevent the spread to someone who is vulnerable. Not showing symptoms doesn't mean the same behavior before all of this is as moral as now.

3) It may be that people on the right are merely reacting to the absurd part of the left. But the way it's oversimplified is further right than reality allows. Just say what's real. All of it. Even the parts of what's real that the other side got right. Because they got some stuff right. They just think about it to an absurd level. Don't make the same mistake in the opposite direction. This isn't a binary proposition. Reality is more linear than that.

4) This isn't really an issue of due process. Well, it is to the extent that some states have taken the absurd left point of view. And I still think that whichever way you think about it depends on which viewpoint you see it from. Which leads to the next point.

5) Non-aggression/least harm is a libertarian principle. Libertarians, at least the big L libertarians, not just the "libertarian because legal weed" libertarians, believe that the only power government is justified in wielding is to prevent harm. So for those people whose viewpoint makes them believe that not observing social distancing guidelines is causing people harm, they will believe that government has the justified authority to use force. So I think from what dusty88's described beliefs about this is consistent with that--that not social distancing is causing harm. So therefore the government is justified in using force to stop the harm. I have no doubt that if that belief changed, so would the justification. I don't believe there is a conflict of principle there. You both believe different things about the outcomes, so that may make the appearance of belief seem incongruent.

 

[jamil]

Is that you, Steve? I hear lily pads are like Kryptonite to Herobrine.

Oh. there is no such thing as Herobrine. That's just a myth. And no. I'm not some plain old steve. I have the Darth Vader skinpack, which is slightly utterly a waste of time when I'm wearing my appropriately enchanted diamond armor, which is almost all the time.

 

[Phase2]

You will not be allowed to discuss and learn about subjects that Google doesn't approve of. Google's motto has evolved: [STRIKE]Don't [/STRIKE]Be Evil.

MedCram has had an excellent, long-running YouTube series on the Wuhan coronavirus. It comes from a strictly medical perspective to talk about the disease and what is known about symptoms, how it acts, possible treatments, etc. They stay far away from political considerations and the series is up to 73 episodes.

That hasn't stopped YouTube (aka Google) from applying political-based censorship to their videos. Unfortunately, the Hydroxychloroquine treatments which are a humanitarian concern are now being censored for political reasons. Their most recent video discussed a study reviewing the effects of using Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin alone versus using them with zinc for early treatment/avoidance of the virus. The study showed a strong benefit to adding zinc to the mix which is interesting because that is what the early doctor's anecdotal evidence stated and what recent studies have left out.

Well, it appears that sharing that information is not to be tolerated. I watched that last video, but it appears to have now been "removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines". In fact, I scrolled back through the playlist and it looks like all of their videos that prominently mentioned Hydroxychloroquine have been deleted. This from a site looking to simply explain the developing medical science related to the Wuhan Coronavirus.

From their Twitter feed:

Yes, apparently, YouTube's computers are pulling videos that address certain topics or medications even if they simply provide analysis of pre-prints or peer-reviewed journals. This video and all other COVID-19 videos are available free on our website:

 

[jamil]

Rep inbound. This, exactly. I still am somewhat unsure what rights are conflicting here. Multiple people being generally out in public does not pose an inherent conflict of any actual, personal rights or individual liberties.

The right to pursue gainful employment, to participate in commerce, to maintain physical health through spending time outdoors and mental health through maintaining human connection - these are all extensions of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and rights that we all share, and that do not inherently conflict because of the existence of a virus.

If the claim is that those rights "conflict" with other rights, such as the "right" to be in public without risking exposure to a virus - i.e. the right to be free from risk, or the fear of the consequences of that risk - then my response is that neither the freedom from risk nor the freedom from fear is a "right" in the first place, and therefore, no conflict of personal rights exists at all.

I still think that's an overly simple way of looking at it. The part that's missing is the part where people can spread a potentially fatal disease without knowing it, and without ever having symptoms themselves, and how the impact could affect people who are far removed from you. And that involves the least harm principle. I don't think that the proper level of thinking is to say that government should keep us locked down. I think the proper level of thinking is in terms of the morality of behavior. Yes. You should be free to take the risks you think are necessary to pursue your life's goals, but also while doing so, many of us are putting other people at risk without knowing it. Any evaluation of the level of depth that we should be thinking about this should consider that point. And it doesn't seem to me that the people furthest right on this issue are doing that.

I think it is a personal responsibility of each person who puts themselves out in public to take reasonable precautions proportional to the risks of causing harm. So given the moral implications, it's important to judge accurately what that risk of causing harm is. A lot of you guys are acting like the risk is near zero, and the facts just don't seem to bear that out. Since it's become so political and so biased, and so many people on both sides have agendas, it's hard enough to know what all the facts are on both sides. But we certainly will not have a fully thought out belief if we have a hard preference for just our own perspective.

 

[T.Lex]

Numbers update:

Overall, things seem to be tracking well. Society seems to be opening up relatively smoothly. Hospital capacity is strong, while starting to do non-emergency procedures. Certain locales might have issues, but this does seem solidly in the range of "so far, so good." The reported mortality rate remains in the (high) 5% range, and has been there for weeks. And, the date-to-double continues to increase.

IHME modeling, last updated on the 12th, is over-estimating deaths. Their min range is higher than the actual reported. So, their next iteration will probably drop the total death estimate.

A couple problem numbers to watch. A pattern has developed that every report for Sunday has been low. Sometimes dramatically low, compared to the average or compared to the Friday/Monday numbers. Yesterday's reported death toll was actually higher than the prior Sunday. No way to tell if that's a reporting aberration or bodes an uptick in deaths. Speaking of reporting aberrations, the black box of data known as "critical" patient totals had been decreasing, but increased over the weekend. Literally no way to know if that's an actual increase or just a reporting increase, because we don't really know what data feeds into it. Assuming all of the data sources are constant and consistent, that means an increase might be on the way.

Oh and chip, I thought about it over the weekend, but feel compelled to address the "speculation" thing. In the absence of actual facts regarding over- or under-reporting of deaths, our only option is to take the numbers at face value (while criticizing the lack of accuracy). That's been my point the whole time. I don't speculate about under-reporting and make policy comments based on that. You assumed over-reporting and did make policy comments. I believe that's a mistake, and subject to confirmation bias.

My only "speculation" is looking at the reported numbers and attempting to glean patterns or forecasts from them.

When I've extrapolated things like actualCases from reportedCases, it has been in response to apparent ignorance about how prevalent this virus might be or how dangerous it actually is. And, I've been explicit in how I've calculated it.

That's a long way around to say that, while we can both doubt the accuracy of the reported numbers, they are - in the public realm - all we have to go by.

 

[chipbennett]

1) Yes, there is a practical difference between not breathing at all and one's breath not being present because one's person is prohibit from being present. You can breathe at home. I'm not saying that's the proper remedy. But you did ask for the practical difference. Maybe you didn't mean "practical".

No, I did mean "practical", though I was less than articulate. What I was trying to say (I think) was that a) from the perspective of the public place, there is no difference, but b) from the perspective of the person being prohibited, the difference is considerable.

2) About the other end of the spectrum, that's a fairly extreme view as well, which I pointed out. Where I place the line is that this is a societal problem. A collective problem, because no one knows if they have it until they have some kind of indication. People can spread it while being asymptomatic. So that kinda requires a moral response to take that into account. Alright so what is the proper moral response? I think the right end of the spectrum isn't it. And the left end is absurd. I'd say take reasonable precautions while out in public. Keep your distance. Wash/disinfect your hands often. Maybe wear a mask indoors in public spaces where there are a lot of people, like grocery stores. Try to mind your distance. You have a right to breathe, but you also have a personal responsibility to take measures to prevent the spread to someone who is vulnerable. Not showing symptoms doesn't mean the same behavior before all of this is as moral as now.

We agree on personal and moral responsibility. So did our founders:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

I know but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively. He who says I will be a rouge when I act in company with a hundred others, but an honest man when I act alone, will be believed in former assertion, but not in the latter... if the morality of one man produces a just line of conduct in him, acting individually, why should not the morality of one hundred men produce a just line of conduct in them, acting together?

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.

Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

The diminution of public virtue is usually attended with that of public happiness, and the public liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals.

3) It may be that people on the right are merely reacting to the absurd part of the left. But the way it's oversimplified is further right than reality allows. Just say what's real. All of it. Even the parts of what's real that the other side got right. Because they got some stuff right. They just think about it to an absurd level. Don't make the same mistake in the opposite direction. This isn't a binary proposition. Reality is more linear than that.

Personal responsibility and morality aren't the issue. The issue is the role of government in mandating behaviors.

4) This isn't really an issue of due process. Well, it is to the extent that some states have taken the absurd left point of view. And I still think that whichever way you think about it depends on which viewpoint you see it from. Which leads to the next point.

Oh, it is absolutely an issue of due process. Government forcing businesses closed is a violation of due process. Government forcing people to "stay at home" is a violation of due process. Every single EO issued by a governor is a violation of due process. It is the same with the inherent violations of first amendment-protected rights of religious exercise and assembly for redress of grievances, the inherent violations of second amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms by halting licensing (itself an inherent violation), or imposing mask laws that conflict with carry laws, effectively making lawful carry a felony.

They are, by definition, violations of constitutionally protected rights. Now, is there a question regarding whether, under strict scrutiny, such violations are justified? Perhaps. But let's not pretend that they are not violations.

5) Non-aggression/least harm is a libertarian principle. Libertarians, at least the big L libertarians, not just the "libertarian because legal weed" libertarians, believe that the only power government is justified in wielding is to prevent harm. So for those people whose viewpoint makes them believe that not observing social distancing guidelines is causing people harm, they will believe that government has the justified authority to use force. So I think from what dusty88's described beliefs about this is consistent with that--that not social distancing is causing harm. So therefore the government is justified in using force to stop the harm. I have no doubt that if that belief changed, so would the justification. I don't believe there is a conflict of principle there. You both believe different things about the outcomes, so that may make the appearance of belief seem incongruent.

That principle of least harm cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. Government action itself causes harm. I don't think this context is in any way misunderstood, much less disputed, by anyone. The harm caused by government action is empirical. The harm caused by government inaction is theoretical.

 

[dusty88]

You will not be allowed to discuss and learn about subjects that Google doesn't approve of. Google's motto has evolved: [STRIKE]Don't [/STRIKE]Be Evil.

MedCram has had an excellent, long-running YouTube series on the Wuhan coronavirus. It comes from a strictly medical perspective to talk about the disease and what is known about symptoms, how it acts, possible treatments, etc. They stay far away from political considerations and the series is up to 73 episodes.

That hasn't stopped YouTube (aka Google) from applying political-based censorship to their videos. Unfortunately, the Hydroxychloroquine treatments which are a humanitarian concern are now being censored for political reasons. Their most recent video discussed a study reviewing the effects of using Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin alone versus using them with zinc for early treatment/avoidance of the virus. The study showed a strong benefit to adding zinc to the mix which is interesting because that is what the early doctor's anecdotal evidence stated and what recent studies have left out.

Well, it appears that sharing that information is not to be tolerated. I watched that last video, but it appears to have now been "removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines". In fact, I scrolled back through the playlist and it looks like all of their videos that prominently mentioned Hydroxychloroquine have been deleted. This from a site looking to simply explain the developing medical science related to the Wuhan Coronavirus.

From their Twitter feed:

Thanks! I had updated my "watch list" last night. When I woke up and saw a "removed" video in my feed I wondered what conspiracy video I had accidentally saved. Never imagined it was MedCram

I support the right of a private company to limit what information is produced. I suspect they are doing it with rapid keyword searches and certainly not with medically-educated people. Removing a MedCram video will have the result of indirectly supporting the conspiracy videos.

 

[chipbennett]

I still think that's an overly simple way of looking at it. The part that's missing is the part where people can spread a potentially fatal disease without knowing it, and without ever having symptoms themselves, and how the impact could affect people who are far removed from you. And that involves the least harm principle.

The least-harm principle has to account for the absolute ambiguity around actual risk, and therefore, actual harm. You are advocating for a reductio ad absurdum of the least-harm principle to "if it saves even one life...", which leads to government action that always violates both the least-harm principle and individual liberty in general.

I don't think that the proper level of thinking is to say that government should keep us locked down. I think the proper level of thinking is in terms of the morality of behavior. Yes. You should be free to take the risks you think are necessary to pursue your life's goals, but also while doing so, many of us are putting other people at risk without knowing it. Any evaluation of the level of depth that we should be thinking about this should consider that point. And it doesn't seem to me that the people furthest right on this issue are doing that.

Most of the arguments from the right that I see are focused not around personal responsibility, actions, and behaviors; but rather on the appropriateness of government to compel those actions and behaviors.

Mask-wearing is a perfect example.

I think it is a personal responsibility of each person who puts themselves out in public to take reasonable precautions proportional to the risks of causing harm.

Agreed. And yet:

So given the moral implications, it's important to judge accurately what that risk of causing harm is. A lot of you guys are acting like the risk is near zero, and the facts just don't seem to bear that out.

When people actually quantify the risk of causing harm, by pointing out actual infection, hospitalization, and death rates, what is the response from those who believe in government compulsion of individual behavior?

All too often, it seems that those in favor of government compulsion want to argue from their degree of fear of harm, rather than from the degree of actual risk of harm.

Since it's become so political and so biased, and so many people on both sides have agendas, it's hard enough to know what all the facts are on both sides. But we certainly will not have a fully thought out belief if we have a hard preference for just our own perspective.

You have my rapt attention if we're having a risk management discussion. I live in risk management. It's my bag, baby.

Risk is a function of three things: a) severity of harm, b) likelihood of occurrence, and c) probability of detection. Risk mitigation should address all three, and should be commensurate with the assessment of each.

All three can, and should, be part of the Covid response discussion.

 

[chipbennett]

Thanks! I had updated my "watch list" last night. When I woke up and saw a "removed" video in my feed I wondered what conspiracy video I had accidentally saved. Never imagined it was MedCram

I support the right of a private company to limit what information is produced. I suspect they are doing it with rapid keyword searches and certainly not with medically-educated people. Removing a MedCram video will have the result of indirectly supporting the conspiracy videos.

Then they should not be claiming protection as a platform. They are an editorial publication, if they are curating and censoring published information.

 

[actaeon277]

Then they should not be claiming protection as a platform. They are an editorial publication, if they are curating and censoring published information.

This.
They can't have it both ways.

 

[actaeon277]

Acting like the risk is near zero....


Well, since I have to worry about falls, being crushed, amputated, electrocuted, being gassed to death, then getting home by getting into a metal box and travel mere inches from other metal boxes traveling at high rates of speed, Yes, I'd say the risk is near zero compared to everything else.

 

[T.Lex]

Risk is a function of three things: a) severity of harm, b) likelihood of occurrence, and c) probability of detection. Risk mitigation should address all three, and should be commensurate with the assessment of each.

All three can, and should, be part of the Covid response discussion.

Common ground.

 

[Phase2]

Thanks! I had updated my "watch list" last night. When I woke up and saw a "removed" video in my feed I wondered what conspiracy video I had accidentally saved. Never imagined it was MedCram

I support the right of a private company to limit what information is produced. I suspect they are doing it with rapid keyword searches and certainly not with medically-educated people. Removing a MedCram video will have the result of indirectly supporting the conspiracy videos.

MedCram isn't conspiring on anything. Google is conspiring to prevent you learning truthful information. Think long and hard about why you are supporting that.

 

[jamil]

No, I did mean "practical", though I was less than articulate. What I was trying to say (I think) was that a) from the perspective of the public place, there is no difference, but b) from the perspective of the person being prohibited, the difference is considerable.



We agree on personal and moral responsibility. So did our founders:



















Personal responsibility and morality aren't the issue. The issue is the role of government in mandating behaviors.



Oh, it is absolutely an issue of due process. Government forcing businesses closed is a violation of due process. Government forcing people to "stay at home" is a violation of due process. Every single EO issued by a governor is a violation of due process. It is the same with the inherent violations of first amendment-protected rights of religious exercise and assembly for redress of grievances, the inherent violations of second amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms by halting licensing (itself an inherent violation), or imposing mask laws that conflict with carry laws, effectively making lawful carry a felony.

They are, by definition, violations of constitutionally protected rights. Now, is there a question regarding whether, under strict scrutiny, such violations are justified? Perhaps. But let's not pretend that they are not violations.



That principle of least harm cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. Government action itself causes harm. I don't think this context is in any way misunderstood, much less disputed, by anyone. The harm caused by government action is empirical. The harm caused by government inaction is theoretical.

I don't disagree with the application of morality. To the extent that it's subjective, morality is a matter of personal conscience. It's only in the realm of objective morality that a state has a justification to impose moral laws. Given the great divide on this question, I have no doubt that the morality of social distancing is at least a little subjective. Reasonable people can disagree on harm done.

So as far as those quotes go, I agree with the principles. However, what did those people do when it became practical? Yellow fever, small pox, and so on? But it's not a federal issue really. The state governments' are issuing these stay at home orders. Our state constitution gives the governor authority in emergency situations.

I think you could reasonably argue whether this is one of those emergency situations, but it would be difficult to argue that it's against the state constitution, and I think it would be difficult to argue that the state constitution violates the federal constitution. I don't think the right argument is against whether the state has the authority to shut down the economy. That point is moot. They did it. The most reasoned argument would be whether this situation rises to the level of a state emergency which would justify the Governor's emergency power granted to him by the State constitution and the duly approved laws that he's already used.

 

[drillsgt]

My risk management philosophy is that i've been working from home since mid-march, there hasn't been anywhere to go so my chance of having it is negligible, many at the places I do go are wearing masks so i'm protected from them and continue to not wear a mask. If a business I choose to go to has that requirement then I have a mask for the whole their rules thing.

 

[nonobaddog]

The Wisconsin "stay-at-home" order was struck down by their state supreme court as overreaching their authority.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't disagree with the application of morality. To the extent that it's subjective, morality is a matter of personal conscience. It's only in the realm of objective morality that a state has a justification to impose moral laws. Given the great divide on this question, I have no doubt that the morality of social distancing is at least a little subjective. Reasonable people can disagree on harm done.

I agree. And that reasonable people can disagree on harm done (not to mention, disagree on affect of government restriction of constitutionally protected rights to mitigate that harm), then I would argue that any such government action cannot meet the standard of strict scrutiny used to justify otherwise unconstitutional government action.

So as far as those quotes go, I agree with the principles. However, what did those people do when it became practical? Yellow fever, small pox, and so on?

Those people quarantined the sick. They didn't lock down society at-large.

But it's not a federal issue really. The state governments' are issuing these stay at home orders. Our state constitution gives the governor authority in emergency situations.

That authority still exists within both the constraints of the federal constitution and elsewhere in the Indiana constitution, and that authority cannot be used to subvert constitutionally protected rights.

I think you could reasonably argue whether this is one of those emergency situations, but it would be difficult to argue that it's against the state constitution, and I think it would be difficult to argue that the state constitution violates the federal constitution. I don't think the right argument is against whether the state has the authority to shut down the economy. That point is moot. They did it. The most reasoned argument would be whether this situation rises to the level of a state emergency which would justify the Governor's emergency power granted to him by the State constitution and the duly approved laws that he's already used.

Right. Hough and I have discussed this. I contend that state statutes authorizing governor emergency powers do not, and were not intended to, give the governor authority to enact emergency orders that restrict the rights of all persons everywhere, bounded by nothing more than the state lines. I further contend that, even if those state statutes were so construed, then they would be unconstitutional when used in such an over-broad manner.

I also don't think the point is moot. I am greatly concerned by the precedent that has been set.

 

[Ingomike]

Going for a run with a mask. Maybe not such a good idea. I saw a study that said long term mask wearing can cause low oxygen. And “long term“ was several hours. Don’t remember exactly. I generally wear a N95 mask when I go grocery shopping. Since I try to do shopping for a few weeks, it takes a long time. Not several hours but I’ve been in the store for at least an hour and change. It usually drains me and sometimes I get headaches. So the other day, I didn’t wear the mask because reasons, and when I was done I felt fine. No fatigue, no headache. I dunno. I think there might be something to that.

Okay. So exercising outdoors wearing a mask? Why? First, you’re probably not getting the air you need while doing aerobic exercise because it’s harder to breathe with it on. But outdoors, especially where it’s a lot easier to socially distance yourself front other people, it’s just really unlikely you’re gonna spread disease that way. I see someone wearing a mask while jogging alone, no one anywhere near them, and I just wonder why?

I posted this last week but you may have missed this.

They found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia).

It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

 

[drillsgt]

I posted this last week but you may have missed this.

I spent quite awhile today looking at this mask issue because of something I saw over the weekend. Much like the research on the efficacy of masks in general, the hypoxia and hypercapnia is hit or miss. Like you posted there were instances found of increased CO2 with the N95's but I doubt you'd see it in any significant way with these crappy cloth masks.