"Malingering is the purposeful production of falsely or grossly exaggerated physical and/or psychological symptoms with the goal of receiving a reward. This reward may include money, an insurance settlement, drugs, release from incarceration, or the avoidance of punishment, work, jury duty, the military, or some other kind of service." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/malingering

Some important details are missing here. the reduction was ONLY significant for the group that wore the masks the longest: 3-4 hours. For other groups, the difference was not significant. It's also important to understand what the word 'significant' means in research studies. Statistical significance indicates a difference based on some preset criteria, but it does not in any way imply the MAGNITUDE (or severity) of that difference. Bottom line, good to consider this, but be very cautious of making overreaching claims, as the author of this newsletter article has.

First, this study was from 1989 and did not involve coronavirus. It had to do with a 'MOUSE HEPATITIS VIRUS STRAIN.' So we're already starting off with an iffy claim that should make anyone who understands the importance of reading citations to make sure they claim they are attached to is actually well-founded.

In this article's 'defense,' they did not technically state which virus they were talking about, lol (not).

First off, one should not attack and insult anyone. Can we all agree on that? And take personal responsibility for actually aligning our actions with that? Unfortunately, there has also been a lot of attacking and insulting (insert dismissive 'sheeple' insult) from those in both polarities.. Let's substitute science for attacks and insults, shall we? Or do we really want to continue on in the current caustic world of our own creation?

The second part of this sentence is not a very good justification for the first part's statement, however, due to all of the points brought to the readers' attention above.

this article has to do with hypoxia found in tumor cells, NOT hypoxia related to breathing air with lower amounts of oxygen than recommended. Two very different conditions.

this study had to do with induced colon cancer in white mice. Not natural conditions, and not humans (though results still are important to consider- just be careful with what you can claim from them).

many nuances in this article that are important to consider. The experiment was conducted by injecting stuff into the footpads of mice and measuring after 72 hours. The focus is more about the mice's ABILITY TO ADAPT to hypoxia.

Also, follow-up studies have added further clarification and discredited some of the claims in this article.

to be clear, 'these findings' (the ones listed above) never mention immunity. So, poorly written at best. Immunity information follows, and we'll address that next.

read on...

would be helpful to at least have one citation here

N95 masks are very different than cloth masks, as dependable sources have consistently acknowledged

hmmm....read on and let's actually examine if this claim is very accurate.

How could they be? And how would that even be appropriate? Novel viruses call for recommendations based on that particular virus.

simply not true. Early studies are exactly why the guidelines have evolved.

this is a key phrase also. And how could we know who was infected? We didn't understand 'silent carriers' early on, for one thing. For another, testing has been extremely limited.

This primarily relates to N95 masks. Sadly, the primary reason behind this seems to be an effort to preserve the supply of N95 masks for health care workers, not because N95 masks are ineffective. The lack of transparency around the rationale for this past guidance is dismaying. A secondary reason relates to the fact that the virus particles are smaller than the weave on typical cloth face masks. But along the lines of 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good,' cloth masks do provide some protection- especially for those around the wearer.

This is contradictory and circular, isn't it? Shouldn't it say '...that the sample mean would be greater than the population mean'? Or...?? What do they mean by 'observed value'? Ah, I think I get it. It is comparing THIS sample mean, with OTHER POTENTIAL sample means?

this is SO confusingly worded.And inaccurate, I believe. Z.TEST returns the probability that the sample mean is greater than the POPULATION mean and the likelihood that this difference is due to chance (vs. a true difference in the group as compared to the population). So you can really think of this as a RIGHT-TAILED TEST. To run a left-tailed test, you must subtract the result of Z.TEST from 1. I believe that to be true. Anyone want to chime in on this?

$525/year after free trial? And up? EEK

do we know that a certified social worker really understands the requirements for the role, as defined by ESA cert and counseling standards? Until PESB stops differentiating between social worker role, school counselor role, etc., I'm not sure that we can claim it would be an appropriate placement/field experience. (unless a different mentor was assigned???)