Author Topic: Coronavirus news  (Read 686876 times)

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12446
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5670 on: December 03, 2021, 08:09:18 AM »
I had a minor surgery yesterday at Sanford Bemidji.The computer monitor in my prep/recovery room flashed different announcements. One of them was COVID cases hospitalized in Sanford-Minnesota.

Out of 219 cases, 205 were unvaccinated. Out of 64 of those patients in ICU, 55 were unvaccinated. 59 of the patients in ICU were on ventilators, all unvaccinated.

It was a changing, updated chart. When I left a couple of hours later, the number of COVID hospitalized in Sanford-Minnesota was 175.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15097
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5671 on: December 03, 2021, 09:12:16 AM »
Well, since the huge huge majority of hospitalized persons sick with Covid were unvaccinated, and only a tiny percentage were vaccinated,  I guess that’s proof that, at least in Minnesota, vaccines don’t work so why bother. (ALERT! That sentence was intended to be over the top on the sarcasm scale.)
Retired ELCA Pastor. Parishes in Iowa, Nw York and New Jersey. LCA and LWF staff. Former journalist. Now retired, living in Minneapolis.

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4337
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5672 on: December 03, 2021, 09:14:03 AM »
And what is Dr. Fauci running for? His job, his income, his status in government is secure. What money is he getting for this? Agreed that he is likely to do a book, but so what?
What money feeds into efforts to mitigate the virus? If drug companies make money from their research and development and production of the vaccines, isn't that our supposedly beloved capitalism? (Supported, in this case, by government benefits.)
the vaccines work. The boosters work. Masking helps.
What is to be gained by undermining these things?
An acquaintance who shall remain nameless cruelly suggests that we ought to leave the anti-vaxxers, the virus deniers, the anti-shutdown people alone. Let them remain un-jabbed, let them deride the severity of the virus, let them to unmasked to massive parties. So who will get sick and perhaps die? Not people voting the way my cruel acquaintance and I vote.

I've been hearing a lot about this book, "The Real Anthony Fauci", by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that apparently answers many of your questions.  I have not read it but only have heard "about" it from reviews.

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4337
    • View Profile

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5674 on: December 03, 2021, 01:18:14 PM »
I note that the criticism from some of actual data and science is that we're attacking the experts.  If the data and science don't support the experts, what makes them experts?  Perhaps that certain people believe them?  Perhaps because politics?

RayToy

  • ALPB Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5675 on: December 04, 2021, 10:37:44 AM »
  I recently viewed the following podcast, and I found it thought provoking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_uAwsVn10Y

     The interviewee, Peter Kingsnorth, posits that there exists a Hegelian struggle between a Thesis side (those in favor of mandates, lockdowns, and the like) and an Antithesis side (those against said measures), and that this struggle to find Synthesis has gone down the wrong path.  The struggle has become a faux battle of quoting duel experts, whose papers we really don't understand because most of us are not scientists.

    Instead, we need to examine our societal moral settings.  Here the podcast thought ends and my thoughts begin.

    There are two questions we need to ask ourselves.

1-Is there an ultimate good that must be pursued at all costs, or are there competing goods that need to be balanced against each other?

2-Is there an ultimate evil that must be avoided at all costs, or are there competing evils that must be balanced against each other?

    I originally had a third question, “Are there any mitigating factors?”, but that merely clarifies whether one is in the first part of the question, or the second part.

   Now, an accusation I hear both in the outside world as well as in this forum is the charge by the Thesis proponents that the Antithesis side does not take CoVid seriously.  I find this question problematic because “seriousness” seems to be defined as a binary condition (you are either serious or you are not) whereas I think that “seriousness” exists along a spectrum.  Of course, the fact that I see “seriousness” as a spectrum indicates that I am personally in the second half of the questions.

     Getting back to our settings, the most pro-Thesis side possible would answer the questions in this fashion.

1-The ultimate good is zero CoVid infection with zero CoVid spread.

2-The ultimate evil is CoVid infection.

     This particular formation has ramifications. Under this schema, death by any other means than CoVid is a preferable outcome to a non fatal CoVid infection. Going straight to Defcon 5, under these moral settings, it is morally defensible to automatically euthanize a non-vaccinated person who is hospitalized for CoVid. Now, I already hear the protests.  “That would never happen here! People would never go for that, and who would do the euthanizing?” To that I reply, there is an important distinction between not supporting genocide because it is wrong, and not supporting genocide because it is not practical. The former questions the moral settings, while the latter can change their mind if efficiency can be assured..

    So, what should our societal settings be?

Ray
Deacon Raymond Toy, OSSD

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44904
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5676 on: December 04, 2021, 11:54:49 AM »
  I recently viewed the following podcast, and I found it thought provoking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_uAwsVn10Y

     The interviewee, Peter Kingsnorth, posits that there exists a Hegelian struggle between a Thesis side (those in favor of mandates, lockdowns, and the like) and an Antithesis side (those against said measures), and that this struggle to find Synthesis has gone down the wrong path.  The struggle has become a faux battle of quoting duel experts, whose papers we really don't understand because most of us are not scientists.

    Instead, we need to examine our societal moral settings.  Here the podcast thought ends and my thoughts begin.

    There are two questions we need to ask ourselves.

1-Is there an ultimate good that must be pursued at all costs, or are there competing goods that need to be balanced against each other?

2-Is there an ultimate evil that must be avoided at all costs, or are there competing evils that must be balanced against each other?

    I originally had a third question, “Are there any mitigating factors?”, but that merely clarifies whether one is in the first part of the question, or the second part.

   Now, an accusation I hear both in the outside world as well as in this forum is the charge by the Thesis proponents that the Antithesis side does not take CoVid seriously.  I find this question problematic because “seriousness” seems to be defined as a binary condition (you are either serious or you are not) whereas I think that “seriousness” exists along a spectrum.  Of course, the fact that I see “seriousness” as a spectrum indicates that I am personally in the second half of the questions.

     Getting back to our settings, the most pro-Thesis side possible would answer the questions in this fashion.

1-The ultimate good is zero CoVid infection with zero CoVid spread.

2-The ultimate evil is CoVid infection.

     This particular formation has ramifications. Under this schema, death by any other means than CoVid is a preferable outcome to a non fatal CoVid infection. Going straight to Defcon 5, under these moral settings, it is morally defensible to automatically euthanize a non-vaccinated person who is hospitalized for CoVid. Now, I already hear the protests.  “That would never happen here! People would never go for that, and who would do the euthanizing?” To that I reply, there is an important distinction between not supporting genocide because it is wrong, and not supporting genocide because it is not practical. The former questions the moral settings, while the latter can change their mind if efficiency can be assured..

    So, what should our societal settings be?

Ray


I see the boldfaced comment slightly differently: it seems that the anti-folks don't take stopping the spread of the virus seriously. Vaccination has shown to be the most effective way of reducing the spread of the virus. Mask-wearing and social distancing also helps.

"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Randy Bosch

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5677 on: December 04, 2021, 12:05:35 PM »
  I recently viewed the following podcast, and I found it thought provoking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_uAwsVn10Y

     The interviewee, Peter Kingsnorth, posits that there exists a Hegelian struggle between a Thesis side (those in favor of mandates, lockdowns, and the like) and an Antithesis side (those against said measures), and that this struggle to find Synthesis has gone down the wrong path.  The struggle has become a faux battle of quoting duel experts, whose papers we really don't understand because most of us are not scientists.

    Instead, we need to examine our societal moral settings.  Here the podcast thought ends and my thoughts begin.

    There are two questions we need to ask ourselves.

1-Is there an ultimate good that must be pursued at all costs, or are there competing goods that need to be balanced against each other?

2-Is there an ultimate evil that must be avoided at all costs, or are there competing evils that must be balanced against each other?

    I originally had a third question, “Are there any mitigating factors?”, but that merely clarifies whether one is in the first part of the question, or the second part.

   Now, an accusation I hear both in the outside world as well as in this forum is the charge by the Thesis proponents that the Antithesis side does not take CoVid seriously.  I find this question problematic because “seriousness” seems to be defined as a binary condition (you are either serious or you are not) whereas I think that “seriousness” exists along a spectrum.  Of course, the fact that I see “seriousness” as a spectrum indicates that I am personally in the second half of the questions.

     Getting back to our settings, the most pro-Thesis side possible would answer the questions in this fashion.

1-The ultimate good is zero CoVid infection with zero CoVid spread.

2-The ultimate evil is CoVid infection.

     This particular formation has ramifications. Under this schema, death by any other means than CoVid is a preferable outcome to a non fatal CoVid infection. Going straight to Defcon 5, under these moral settings, it is morally defensible to automatically euthanize a non-vaccinated person who is hospitalized for CoVid. Now, I already hear the protests.  “That would never happen here! People would never go for that, and who would do the euthanizing?” To that I reply, there is an important distinction between not supporting genocide because it is wrong, and not supporting genocide because it is not practical. The former questions the moral settings, while the latter can change their mind if efficiency can be assured..

    So, what should our societal settings be?

Ray

Thanks, Ray.

An excellent and balanced viewpoint by Paul Kingsnorth (as is usual for him).  You don't need to agree with his personal response, but his analysis of how we so rapidly got to where we are, and are rapidly moving toward authoritarianism, is worthy of discussion.

He also wrote on his blog https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-moment-part-one , which isn't a straight transcript and not an interview format, but rather a more conscious rendition of what he sees.

"So, what should our social settings be?"... I think it starts with getting off societal battlelines and threats and actually discussing this apocalypse.

J. Thomas Shelley

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4340
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5678 on: December 04, 2021, 12:19:51 PM »
Today the Orthodox Church celebrates the Feasts of St. Barbara the Great Martyr and John of Damascus.

The Oikos from Orthros seems particularly relevant in these troubled times:

Quote

Let us come together and worthily honor Barbara, who was wed to Christ through martyrdom, so that by her prayers we may be delivered from deadly plague, famine, earthquake and calamity, and may live our lives in peace, and so that we may be counted worthy to walk in the light along with all the Saints who have pleased God from the beginning of time, and so that we may worthily sing: "O Savior, You have magnified Your mercies to those who faithfully confess: I worship only the one God in Trinity."

Greek Orthodox Deacon -Ecumenical Patriarchate
Ordained to the Holy Diaconate Mary of Egypt Sunday A.D. 2022

Baptized, Confirmed, and Ordained United Methodist.
Served as a Lutheran Pastor October 31, 1989 - October 31, 2014.
Charter member of the first chapter of the Society of the Holy Trinity.

Randy Bosch

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5679 on: December 04, 2021, 12:36:33 PM »
  I recently viewed the following podcast, and I found it thought provoking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_uAwsVn10Y

     The interviewee, Peter Kingsnorth, posits that there exists a Hegelian struggle between a Thesis side (those in favor of mandates, lockdowns, and the like) and an Antithesis side (those against said measures), and that this struggle to find Synthesis has gone down the wrong path.  The struggle has become a faux battle of quoting duel experts, whose papers we really don't understand because most of us are not scientists.

    Instead, we need to examine our societal moral settings.  Here the podcast thought ends and my thoughts begin.

    There are two questions we need to ask ourselves.

1-Is there an ultimate good that must be pursued at all costs, or are there competing goods that need to be balanced against each other?

2-Is there an ultimate evil that must be avoided at all costs, or are there competing evils that must be balanced against each other?

    I originally had a third question, “Are there any mitigating factors?”, but that merely clarifies whether one is in the first part of the question, or the second part.

   Now, an accusation I hear both in the outside world as well as in this forum is the charge by the Thesis proponents that the Antithesis side does not take CoVid seriously.  I find this question problematic because “seriousness” seems to be defined as a binary condition (you are either serious or you are not) whereas I think that “seriousness” exists along a spectrum.  Of course, the fact that I see “seriousness” as a spectrum indicates that I am personally in the second half of the questions.

     Getting back to our settings, the most pro-Thesis side possible would answer the questions in this fashion.

1-The ultimate good is zero CoVid infection with zero CoVid spread.

2-The ultimate evil is CoVid infection.

     This particular formation has ramifications. Under this schema, death by any other means than CoVid is a preferable outcome to a non fatal CoVid infection. Going straight to Defcon 5, under these moral settings, it is morally defensible to automatically euthanize a non-vaccinated person who is hospitalized for CoVid. Now, I already hear the protests.  “That would never happen here! People would never go for that, and who would do the euthanizing?” To that I reply, there is an important distinction between not supporting genocide because it is wrong, and not supporting genocide because it is not practical. The former questions the moral settings, while the latter can change their mind if efficiency can be assured..

    So, what should our societal settings be?

Ray


I see the boldfaced comment slightly differently: it seems that the anti-folks don't take stopping the spread of the virus seriously. Vaccination has shown to be the most effective way of reducing the spread of the virus. Mask-wearing and social distancing also helps.

Kingsnorth is putting forth the condition of society, culture, and governance, today.  He discusses how we got here in the context of the vehicle of COVID and the responses to it, which he sees as having split society far more than the cultural wars or secular versus religious wars ever had done.  He is concerned about understanding how we moved from a modern, liberal, even progressive society to one where COVID had provided (or seen as many to have required) authoritarian controls which, perhaps even like the Patriot Act, have not been very well thought out (unexplored territory leads to expeditions like that), mutate to react to on-the-ground realities and political fictions (WMD anyone?), and then simply never go away.

Hearing what he said or reading what he wrote ( https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-moment-part-one ),
would help you get to the root of the discussion: what happened to liberal society and where is it going - with the COVID Wars having provided the opportunity to radically change society.  Ireland, Austria, and Australia are litmus tests for governance that even removes vaccinated, masked people off to detention; that has closed food establishments to even the vaccinated because science is now saying that being vaccinated is great and likely necessary, but probably doesn't stop you from infecting others - even the vaccinated. 

He is asking, "How do you want to live?".  Please listen to it or read it.

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5680 on: December 04, 2021, 12:47:08 PM »
  I recently viewed the following podcast, and I found it thought provoking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_uAwsVn10Y

     The interviewee, Peter Kingsnorth, posits that there exists a Hegelian struggle between a Thesis side (those in favor of mandates, lockdowns, and the like) and an Antithesis side (those against said measures), and that this struggle to find Synthesis has gone down the wrong path.  The struggle has become a faux battle of quoting duel experts, whose papers we really don't understand because most of us are not scientists.

    Instead, we need to examine our societal moral settings.  Here the podcast thought ends and my thoughts begin.

    There are two questions we need to ask ourselves.

1-Is there an ultimate good that must be pursued at all costs, or are there competing goods that need to be balanced against each other?

2-Is there an ultimate evil that must be avoided at all costs, or are there competing evils that must be balanced against each other?

    I originally had a third question, “Are there any mitigating factors?”, but that merely clarifies whether one is in the first part of the question, or the second part.

   Now, an accusation I hear both in the outside world as well as in this forum is the charge by the Thesis proponents that the Antithesis side does not take CoVid seriously.  I find this question problematic because “seriousness” seems to be defined as a binary condition (you are either serious or you are not) whereas I think that “seriousness” exists along a spectrum.  Of course, the fact that I see “seriousness” as a spectrum indicates that I am personally in the second half of the questions.

     Getting back to our settings, the most pro-Thesis side possible would answer the questions in this fashion.

1-The ultimate good is zero CoVid infection with zero CoVid spread.

2-The ultimate evil is CoVid infection.

     This particular formation has ramifications. Under this schema, death by any other means than CoVid is a preferable outcome to a non fatal CoVid infection. Going straight to Defcon 5, under these moral settings, it is morally defensible to automatically euthanize a non-vaccinated person who is hospitalized for CoVid. Now, I already hear the protests.  “That would never happen here! People would never go for that, and who would do the euthanizing?” To that I reply, there is an important distinction between not supporting genocide because it is wrong, and not supporting genocide because it is not practical. The former questions the moral settings, while the latter can change their mind if efficiency can be assured..

    So, what should our societal settings be?

Ray

I see the boldfaced comment slightly differently: it seems that the anti-folks don't take stopping the spread of the virus seriously. Vaccination has shown to be the most effective way of reducing the spread of the virus. Mask-wearing and social distancing also helps.

You see wrongly.  There are antithesis folks who do take COVID seriously.  However, we also see "stopping the spread of the virus" as impossible.  I am vaccinated (three times!).  I do not generally wear masks - because the science shows that cloth masks (most of what are available) don't make a difference.  I do take part in social distancing (I rarely go to stores and I work from home).

The difference between the thesis and the anti-thesis side is that the thesis side seems willing to impose anything in order to stop the spread - they're willing to kill the patient in order to save them - while the anti-thesis side wants to weigh the benefits and costs.

John_Hannah

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5724
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5681 on: December 04, 2021, 12:56:07 PM »
Today the Orthodox Church celebrates the Feasts of St. Barbara the Great Martyr and John of Damascus.

The Oikos from Orthros seems particularly relevant in these troubled times:

Quote

Let us come together and worthily honor Barbara, who was wed to Christ through martyrdom, so that by her prayers we may be delivered from deadly plague, famine, earthquake and calamity, and may live our lives in peace, and so that we may be counted worthy to walk in the light along with all the Saints who have pleased God from the beginning of time, and so that we may worthily sing: "O Savior, You have magnified Your mercies to those who faithfully confess: I worship only the one God in Trinity."


St. Barbara has long been the patroness of artillery. "Fire" is the dubious connection. December 4 is observed in many artillery circles and a "St. Barbara Medal" given to those who serve the artillery with distinction. (I was given one after four assignments with artillery.)   ;D

Peace, JOHN
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5682 on: December 04, 2021, 01:58:02 PM »
And then there are the fraudsters who seek to take advantage of the COVID panic:
The social media posts started in May: photos and videos of smiling people, mostly women, drinking Mason jars of black liquid, slathering black paste on their faces and feet, or dipping babies and dogs in tubs of the black water. They tagged the posts #BOO and linked to a website that sold a product called Black Oxygen Organics.

I now include in the term "fraudsters" those who continue to push cloth masks that are now known to be ineffective.  Many of them believe they are doing the right thing, especially given that the CDC was pushing cloth masks.  Not as wrong as the BOO leader, but still wrong.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44904
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5683 on: December 04, 2021, 02:52:19 PM »
And then there are the fraudsters who seek to take advantage of the COVID panic:
The social media posts started in May: photos and videos of smiling people, mostly women, drinking Mason jars of black liquid, slathering black paste on their faces and feet, or dipping babies and dogs in tubs of the black water. They tagged the posts #BOO and linked to a website that sold a product called Black Oxygen Organics.

I now include in the term "fraudsters" those who continue to push cloth masks that are now known to be ineffective.  Many of them believe they are doing the right thing, especially given that the CDC was pushing cloth masks.  Not as wrong as the BOO leader, but still wrong.


WebMD disagrees with you. https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-face-masks#1


Cloth masks help prevent the spread. The one's my wife has made have three layers.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #5684 on: December 04, 2021, 03:42:19 PM »
And then there are the fraudsters who seek to take advantage of the COVID panic:
The social media posts started in May: photos and videos of smiling people, mostly women, drinking Mason jars of black liquid, slathering black paste on their faces and feet, or dipping babies and dogs in tubs of the black water. They tagged the posts #BOO and linked to a website that sold a product called Black Oxygen Organics.

I now include in the term "fraudsters" those who continue to push cloth masks that are now known to be ineffective.  Many of them believe they are doing the right thing, especially given that the CDC was pushing cloth masks.  Not as wrong as the BOO leader, but still wrong.

WebMD disagrees with you. https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-face-masks#1

Cloth masks help prevent the spread. The one's my wife has made have three layers.

The webmd article cites no epidemiological data.  The closest it comes to data is discussing the particle sizes that various mask materials can filter out.  The guidance provided by the article has little or no value when compared to guidance based on actual epidemiological data.

The largest epidemiological mask study disagrees with you and webmd.  The study data indicates that cloth masks have no statistically significant effect, while surgical masks do.  If you wear masks, it would be better to follow the science and wear one that actually works.

Largest study of its kind finds face masks reduce COVID-19
Wearing face masks, particularly surgical masks, is truly effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 in community settings, finds a new study led by researchers from Yale University, Stanford Medical School, the University of California, Berkeley, and the nonprofit Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA).

Figure 1 on page 23 of the study shows interesting data for the control, cloth mask intervention, and surgical mask intervention villages.
  • Cloth mask villages show a 5% relative reduction (p = .540).A p-value of .540 means this is not statistically significant.
  • Surgical mask villages show an 11.2% relative reduction (p = .043).This one IS statistically significant.
More information from the study is quoted below:
WHO COVID-19 Symptoms In Figure 2 and Tables A9 and A8, we report results from the
same specifications with WHO-defined COVID-19 symptomatic status as the outcome.
We find clear evidence that the intervention reduced symptoms: we estimate a reduction of
11.9% (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.88 [0.83,0.93]; control group prevalence = 8.59%; treatment
group prevalence = 7.60%). Additionally, when we look separately by cloth and surgical masks,
we find that the intervention led to a reduction in COVID-like symptoms under either mask type
(p = 0.000 for surgical, p = 0.048 for cloth), but the effect size in surgical mask villages was
30-80% larger depending on the specification. In Table A10, we run the same specifications using
the smaller sample used in our symptomatic seroprevalence regression (i.e. those who consented
to give blood). In this sample we continue to find an effect overall and an effect for surgical masks,
but see no effect for cloth masks.Symptoms are reduced in villages with cloth or surgical masks but blood tests show no effect for cloth masks.  People could be convinced that they are protected by cloth masks and thereby report fewer symptoms.  Blood tests are not much affected by beliefs, so they're more likely to be real.

You need to read the coverage REALLY closely as most of it doesn't differentiate between cloth masks and surgical masks.  That is there, just not obvious.