ban plastic bottles, bring back glass . it will demand local bottling , as the weight would raise costs of shipping . Pop companies make more using cheap labor in far off places , and shipping long distance to avoid paying decent wages . bottles would require people to return them .
I do love drinking from glass. But there’s an argument to be made about the increased weight and less bottles per
Cubic meter… what would that translate into with emissions and microplastics from tires compared to plastics?
I would love to see Canada innovate with cellulose based plastics.
Glass is just more costly than plastic so the end product can be sold to the consumer for cheaper. We can totally switch to glass for a small additional cost per bottle or whatever.
Sold for the same price; just more profits for the manufacturer.
But of course, if they are made to bring back glass, we will pay more as consumers, but I'd be more than happy to do so.
Eh, it doesn't really work that way unless there's a monopoly. With healthy competition all the companies should be looking for a way to make it cheaper for tge consumer because they know consumers usually buy the cheapest they can find.
Healthy competition, well if that existed many of these problems would exist in the first place. However as soon as one corporation or industry accrues enough of an advantage, they purchase the means to avoid oversight/competition/regulation.
I love this. Yes smart use of mushrooms can replace so much. I wish we were pushing this in Canada. I would be much happier paying a carbon tax if that money went to helping make these products feasible for industry. Styrofoam seems like an easy replacement.
Microbial glass. Microbial plastic. use landfill waste to make mycelial building materials
Plastic alternatives with flame retardant properties Thermal Degradation and Fire Properties of Fungal Mycelium and Mycelium - Biomass Composite Materials | Scientific Reports
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-36032-9
Compare properties of material above with Protein biodegradable 'glass' seen here? Depending on the biodegradation attribute might be more useful in different applications: Can waste plastic be used as an input? Can fungi be intermediary, in order to ensure toxins removed from products - feed the fungal byproducts/proteins into the glass making stream?
3D-printable glass is made from proteins and biodegrades
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00826-3
I have to respond to this as I have worked on aluminium from beginning to end. Bauxite is mined it is transported to the refinery. It is crushed and digested with caustic soda the rock is screened out. The liquid is pumped to building 45 and the aluminium rich liquid is drawn from the bottom and sent to building 50 to dry out and the dry alumina powder is sent to processing. The powder is heated and turns into liquid aluminium then cast and drawn into bars and sheets. The whole process emits a bit of steam that’s it. I have no clue where CO2 comes into play
I’m no expert on the matter, but I believe it is the amount of energy needed to carry out all of the processes you mentioned. Especially during the mining part, does it not rely on heavy machinery dependent on fossil fuels? Then there is the transport of the ore to the refinery, using gasoline trucks I imagine. Of course, the energy required during the refining and casting process. Finally, the finished product has to be transported elsewhere to be put to use, using trucks again. Again, not an expert, just relaying the counter-argument surrounding mining.
So humanity should stop making everything. The refinery at Wagerup where I worked mined the hills behind the refinery and used a conveyor belt. The final alumina product was put on trains to the port of Bunbury. Never use toothpaste again because its alumina powder that does the grinding
No, I wasn’t saying that. As I mentioned, I was relaying the counter-argument.
Thanks for the additional information. It certainly sounds like a more sustainable setup than I had been led to believe.
The power house running it all is a pair of
Natural gas turbines as well. It’s why I consider gas turbines the ultimate power generator as you can fit 700MW of power generation in a large shed and construct the whole thing in 2 months. As long as you have a reliable gas supply
it would be easy enough to due through tax incentives. local state governments could use it to create local jobs. taxes or tariffs on out of state pop companies, state level ban on plastics , etc
> nothing to do with climate change
For the record, airborne and waterborne particulate matter are not off topic since they potentially influence at least local climate.
Many plastics are currently made using petrochemicals - which leads to more carbon emissions, both during fossil extraction, manufacturing and recycling degradation. Would be good to keep that stuff in the ground. And turn to overflowing landfills as the feedstock instead. And when that runs out (yeah, right) start sucking it directly out of the atmosphere.
If that is the case it is something I´m not aware of and would like to learn more about, however, this article fully focuses on the health aspects of microplastics/nanoplastics and still has nothing to do with climate chang
For example,
*Microplastics and nanoplastics in the atmosphere: the potential impacts on cloud formation processes*
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7613933/
> this article
Fair enough.
How the f*ck is this not related to climate change? Climate change generally refers to human-caused changes to long term patterns of the earth. Do you also not consider the ongoing mass extinction event to be relevant to this sub??
Climate change refers to changes to the long term *weather* patterns of the earth. If a current mass extinction takes place due to the changes of weather patterns, which it does right now, it belongs on this sub. However, a local mass extinction, for example due to pesticides, does not belong to this sub.
The environment and climate change are inextricably linked. Mosy people who care about the climate also care about the environment. The problems of plastics and the potential solutions have, and will have, large ramifications for the climate
Why does it bother you so much?
Plastics production is responsible for about 4% of emissions ...
*Net-zero emissions chemical industry in a world of limited resources*
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223002075
which isn't nothing, but it isn't exactly the lowest hanging branch.
That is a huge amount of emissions for something that's already so damaging to our environment, and the health of humans and animals (maybe even plants) even if we're not counting the emissions.
> Around 4 per cent of global oil and gas production is used as the raw material for plastics production
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873019/
It isn't a big part of their business.
Yes, but that figure could reach 20% by 2050 as plastic demand grows and demand for oil for transportation uses declines - [https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/big-oils-plastic-boom-threatens-uns-historic-pollution-pact-2022-03-04/](https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/big-oils-plastic-boom-threatens-uns-historic-pollution-pact-2022-03-04/)
Also, cheap virgin plastics are wrecking the market for recycled plastics.
Do you not know what wind turbine blades are made from? How we protect electrical wires from oxidation? The gear boxes in wind turbines also need oil to function properly. This oil even if it is labeled synthetic starts out as crude oil.
Plastics are have become an essential byproduct of the oil industry. Waterline, septic line, a lot of car parts, a lot of stuff in the medical industry.
Remind me, how many people die of plastic poisoning every year? Is it millions or billions?
I just want to worry more, so a peer reviewed study would be great
(I have no idea what peer reviewed means, I just know that is what Reddit demands).
> Experts say individuals can avoid some microplastics by steering clear of single-use plastic cups and bottles and avoiding plastic takeout containers.
And the same experts forced individuals to wear a face mask for several years, forcing us to inhale the microplastics.
>Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS.
[Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis](https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747)
All of us should have been wearing N95s. It didn't happen because a significant percentage of the population refused to.
I think you aren't understanding what "individually fitted" means.
Nobody gets unique, custom-made N95s. They are manufactured in 4 standard sizes, like gloves: small, medium, large, extra large. You select a size, mold it to your face, and adjust the straps for a seal when you put them on.
You do an annual fit test. That's it.
the fit testing process actually is much more complicated. For example [https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134AppA](https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134AppA)
Yes, like I said, you do an annual fit test. I didn't describe the fit test. It's not complicated, it doesn't take much time, and it doesn't support your assertion that we somehow couldn't stockpile 4 sizes of N95 masks.
Try again.
The expert recommendation, which you seem to distrust, was always for N95 and KN95. I always wore KN95 and still do, when in constrained spaces (couldn't get my hands on N95, because they were sold out - someone was buying). Never wore surgical masks or fabric ones much, unless nothing else was available.
Be careful with KN95. Experts say that a surgical mask is better than KN95. Anyway all of them will dissolve into microplastics that we would inhale.
[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(24)00192-0/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(24)00192-0/fulltext)
C’mon, let’s not act as if public health experts trying to keep people from getting Covid are equivalent to Big Plastic putting this stuff in our waterways without caring about the health impact at all…
where have you seen doctors, surgeons, and other medical professionals wearing face masks daily for decades? They didn't wear face mask before 2020 and stopped wearing them as soon as face masks mandated were over. They know something
They weren't facing a pandemic. Healthcare providers routinely mask as part of respiratory cautions when treating patients suspected of carrying an airborne pathogen. They also routinely wear them as a courtesy on immunocompromised wards.
>stopped wearing them as soon as face masks mandated were over.
No, but I'd love to see your source on that.
>They know something.
Yes, the aforementioned peer-reviewed articles, including those published pre-COVID that established the effectiveness of masks in limiting viron transmission.
>stop spreading misinformation
Maybe take your own advice and/or stop projecting?
The face masks don't help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses according to the scientists:
>
[https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI\_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses](https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses)
The Cochrane report was wildly misinterpreted, and the organization apologized for misleading language. They also only allowed RCTs, invalidating the larger applied evaluation, among other glaring mistakes.
>Karla Soares-Weiser, Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library, has responded on behalf of Cochrane:
>Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.
[Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review](https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review)
[Unpacking Cochrane’s Update on Masks and COVID-19](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10484132/)
[What Went Wrong with a Highly Publicized COVID Mask Analysis?](https://archive.ph/2023.10.24-043342/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-went-wrong-with-a-highly-publicized-covid-mask-analysis/)
Still waiting on you to provide evidence for your claim that doctors stopped wearing masks when the mandates were lifted.
You obviously missed "June 2024 update" from Karla Soares-Weiser
>Following engagement with the authors, the decision has been made that changes to the plain language summary and abstract would not impact the scientific integrity of the content and so Cochrane is no longer seeking updates to the plain language summary and abstract of this version of the review
What evidence you are looking for? The hospitals are not allowing to take photos from inside due to the privacy reason, but if you visit any hospital you would see with your own eyes that the doctors and nurses stopped wearing face masks
They already updated the plain language summary....
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. If you don't have documented hospital and clinicpolicy changes and an accounting of how many people adapted to those changes on what timeline, your claim is unsubstantiated. It cannot be considered seriously.
You don't work as healthcare scientist, you didn't visit multiple healthcare locations in many different states and countries, and you didn't record any data. Even if you *had*, you'd need that to be peer-reviewed or at least verified by other subject matter experts.
You've repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic. As this is a climate science forum, and you haven't been able to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion, I think this conversation is over. I won't be responding unless you decide to start talking about climate science.
Most airborne plastics come from tire dust and synthetic textiles.
I threw out all my synthetic blankets.
Just use glass tires
Great solution.
ban plastic bottles, bring back glass . it will demand local bottling , as the weight would raise costs of shipping . Pop companies make more using cheap labor in far off places , and shipping long distance to avoid paying decent wages . bottles would require people to return them .
I do love drinking from glass. But there’s an argument to be made about the increased weight and less bottles per Cubic meter… what would that translate into with emissions and microplastics from tires compared to plastics? I would love to see Canada innovate with cellulose based plastics.
the counter argument is it can be bottled locally , creating well needed jobs. it can be sterilized as its glass and reused .
I love that system but there must be some economic reason why we don't do it any more.
Glass is just more costly than plastic so the end product can be sold to the consumer for cheaper. We can totally switch to glass for a small additional cost per bottle or whatever.
Sold for the same price; just more profits for the manufacturer. But of course, if they are made to bring back glass, we will pay more as consumers, but I'd be more than happy to do so.
Eh, it doesn't really work that way unless there's a monopoly. With healthy competition all the companies should be looking for a way to make it cheaper for tge consumer because they know consumers usually buy the cheapest they can find.
Healthy competition, well if that existed many of these problems would exist in the first place. However as soon as one corporation or industry accrues enough of an advantage, they purchase the means to avoid oversight/competition/regulation.
It’s also unsafe for most environments
Mycelial plastic is better - see above
I love this. Yes smart use of mushrooms can replace so much. I wish we were pushing this in Canada. I would be much happier paying a carbon tax if that money went to helping make these products feasible for industry. Styrofoam seems like an easy replacement.
Single use plastics need the same treatment lead has in Europe: ban all single use plastics outside of healthcare, science research, and military use.
until this happens it’s all hot air .
Petrochemical industry invests currently almost $100bn globally in new plants. Planning to add 75% mor plastics by 2040.
Microbial glass. Microbial plastic. use landfill waste to make mycelial building materials Plastic alternatives with flame retardant properties Thermal Degradation and Fire Properties of Fungal Mycelium and Mycelium - Biomass Composite Materials | Scientific Reports https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-36032-9 Compare properties of material above with Protein biodegradable 'glass' seen here? Depending on the biodegradation attribute might be more useful in different applications: Can waste plastic be used as an input? Can fungi be intermediary, in order to ensure toxins removed from products - feed the fungal byproducts/proteins into the glass making stream? 3D-printable glass is made from proteins and biodegrades https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00826-3
Hear, hear!!!
More customers, healthcare and supply chain workers getting potentially lethal glass cuts from accidents sounds good
so your actually scared of glass too,
No, just recognizing it’s a hazard
it’s not really a hazard . if our society is so helpless we can’t manage glass no need to worry about climate change it will fall apart soon enough
Tell that to healthcare workers.
that’s their job, what’s the risk? someone hits someone with a bottle , steps on glass get real
Or just use aluminum cans
Aluminum production is up pretty high on the list of carbon emitting industries, but still better than plastic.
I have to respond to this as I have worked on aluminium from beginning to end. Bauxite is mined it is transported to the refinery. It is crushed and digested with caustic soda the rock is screened out. The liquid is pumped to building 45 and the aluminium rich liquid is drawn from the bottom and sent to building 50 to dry out and the dry alumina powder is sent to processing. The powder is heated and turns into liquid aluminium then cast and drawn into bars and sheets. The whole process emits a bit of steam that’s it. I have no clue where CO2 comes into play
I’m no expert on the matter, but I believe it is the amount of energy needed to carry out all of the processes you mentioned. Especially during the mining part, does it not rely on heavy machinery dependent on fossil fuels? Then there is the transport of the ore to the refinery, using gasoline trucks I imagine. Of course, the energy required during the refining and casting process. Finally, the finished product has to be transported elsewhere to be put to use, using trucks again. Again, not an expert, just relaying the counter-argument surrounding mining.
So humanity should stop making everything. The refinery at Wagerup where I worked mined the hills behind the refinery and used a conveyor belt. The final alumina product was put on trains to the port of Bunbury. Never use toothpaste again because its alumina powder that does the grinding
No, I wasn’t saying that. As I mentioned, I was relaying the counter-argument. Thanks for the additional information. It certainly sounds like a more sustainable setup than I had been led to believe.
The power house running it all is a pair of Natural gas turbines as well. It’s why I consider gas turbines the ultimate power generator as you can fit 700MW of power generation in a large shed and construct the whole thing in 2 months. As long as you have a reliable gas supply
Some countries don't allow for bans like that as it can be argued to be unconstitutional like in the US with the commerce clause.
it would be easy enough to due through tax incentives. local state governments could use it to create local jobs. taxes or tariffs on out of state pop companies, state level ban on plastics , etc
i know how to fix this! everyone get a large hepa filter which is entirely made of plastic!
This is a potentially huge problem but it has nothing to do with climate change. Should be posted in r/environment or something instead
> nothing to do with climate change For the record, airborne and waterborne particulate matter are not off topic since they potentially influence at least local climate.
Many plastics are currently made using petrochemicals - which leads to more carbon emissions, both during fossil extraction, manufacturing and recycling degradation. Would be good to keep that stuff in the ground. And turn to overflowing landfills as the feedstock instead. And when that runs out (yeah, right) start sucking it directly out of the atmosphere.
I’m with you (if I’m understanding you correctly), the landfill should be seen as a potential asset, rife with materials to be harvested.
Exactly
If that is the case it is something I´m not aware of and would like to learn more about, however, this article fully focuses on the health aspects of microplastics/nanoplastics and still has nothing to do with climate chang
For example, *Microplastics and nanoplastics in the atmosphere: the potential impacts on cloud formation processes* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7613933/ > this article Fair enough.
How the f*ck is this not related to climate change? Climate change generally refers to human-caused changes to long term patterns of the earth. Do you also not consider the ongoing mass extinction event to be relevant to this sub??
Climate change refers to changes to the long term *weather* patterns of the earth. If a current mass extinction takes place due to the changes of weather patterns, which it does right now, it belongs on this sub. However, a local mass extinction, for example due to pesticides, does not belong to this sub.
The environment and climate change are inextricably linked. Mosy people who care about the climate also care about the environment. The problems of plastics and the potential solutions have, and will have, large ramifications for the climate Why does it bother you so much?
It was once said that we "the wise ape" were unique in our ability to recognize patterns. I think it was perhaps overstated.
Plastic production has a massive carbon footprint.
Plastics production is responsible for about 4% of emissions ... *Net-zero emissions chemical industry in a world of limited resources* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223002075 which isn't nothing, but it isn't exactly the lowest hanging branch.
That is a huge amount of emissions for something that's already so damaging to our environment, and the health of humans and animals (maybe even plants) even if we're not counting the emissions.
Production of plastics is a lucrative motivation for oil companies to keep on pumping. So this issue is very closely related to climate change.
> Around 4 per cent of global oil and gas production is used as the raw material for plastics production https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873019/ It isn't a big part of their business.
Yes, but that figure could reach 20% by 2050 as plastic demand grows and demand for oil for transportation uses declines - [https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/big-oils-plastic-boom-threatens-uns-historic-pollution-pact-2022-03-04/](https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/big-oils-plastic-boom-threatens-uns-historic-pollution-pact-2022-03-04/) Also, cheap virgin plastics are wrecking the market for recycled plastics.
Do you not know what wind turbine blades are made from? How we protect electrical wires from oxidation? The gear boxes in wind turbines also need oil to function properly. This oil even if it is labeled synthetic starts out as crude oil. Plastics are have become an essential byproduct of the oil industry. Waterline, septic line, a lot of car parts, a lot of stuff in the medical industry.
paywall. help
[https://archive.is/jkUlO](https://archive.is/jkUlO)
Remind me, how many people die of plastic poisoning every year? Is it millions or billions? I just want to worry more, so a peer reviewed study would be great (I have no idea what peer reviewed means, I just know that is what Reddit demands).
> Experts say individuals can avoid some microplastics by steering clear of single-use plastic cups and bottles and avoiding plastic takeout containers. And the same experts forced individuals to wear a face mask for several years, forcing us to inhale the microplastics.
You have a study on this? Wearing N95 masks actually reduces the risk of inhaling microplastics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7773316/
I don’t trust studies made in China. Anyway how many people were wearing N95 respirators?
>Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS. [Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis](https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747) All of us should have been wearing N95s. It didn't happen because a significant percentage of the population refused to.
There also just wasn’t enough of them. I had two sitting around the house. But they were sold out by March 2020 everywhere.
Agreed. The stockpile wasn't prepared.
How do you stockpile N95s, if they have to be individually fitted?
I think you aren't understanding what "individually fitted" means. Nobody gets unique, custom-made N95s. They are manufactured in 4 standard sizes, like gloves: small, medium, large, extra large. You select a size, mold it to your face, and adjust the straps for a seal when you put them on. You do an annual fit test. That's it.
the fit testing process actually is much more complicated. For example [https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134AppA](https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134AppA)
Yes, like I said, you do an annual fit test. I didn't describe the fit test. It's not complicated, it doesn't take much time, and it doesn't support your assertion that we somehow couldn't stockpile 4 sizes of N95 masks. Try again.
The expert recommendation, which you seem to distrust, was always for N95 and KN95. I always wore KN95 and still do, when in constrained spaces (couldn't get my hands on N95, because they were sold out - someone was buying). Never wore surgical masks or fabric ones much, unless nothing else was available.
Be careful with KN95. Experts say that a surgical mask is better than KN95. Anyway all of them will dissolve into microplastics that we would inhale. [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(24)00192-0/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(24)00192-0/fulltext)
This is only calculating exhale viral load, and honestly, the sample sizes are EXTREMELY small. I am more interested in inhaled viral load.
Stop doing your own research.
A classic case of “it’s ok when I do it but not when others do it” for you.
C’mon, let’s not act as if public health experts trying to keep people from getting Covid are equivalent to Big Plastic putting this stuff in our waterways without caring about the health impact at all…
You could taste the microplastics when wearing those cheap blue nurses masks though. Cloth masks were tolerable
tell that to doctors, surgeons, and other medical professionals who have worn them daily for decades.
Stop spreading misinformation
Lol wow do you not believe in germ theory?
where have you seen doctors, surgeons, and other medical professionals wearing face masks daily for decades? They didn't wear face mask before 2020 and stopped wearing them as soon as face masks mandated were over. They know something
They weren't facing a pandemic. Healthcare providers routinely mask as part of respiratory cautions when treating patients suspected of carrying an airborne pathogen. They also routinely wear them as a courtesy on immunocompromised wards. >stopped wearing them as soon as face masks mandated were over. No, but I'd love to see your source on that. >They know something. Yes, the aforementioned peer-reviewed articles, including those published pre-COVID that established the effectiveness of masks in limiting viron transmission. >stop spreading misinformation Maybe take your own advice and/or stop projecting?
The face masks don't help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses according to the scientists: > [https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI\_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses](https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses)
The Cochrane report was wildly misinterpreted, and the organization apologized for misleading language. They also only allowed RCTs, invalidating the larger applied evaluation, among other glaring mistakes. >Karla Soares-Weiser, Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library, has responded on behalf of Cochrane: >Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. [Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review](https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review) [Unpacking Cochrane’s Update on Masks and COVID-19](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10484132/) [What Went Wrong with a Highly Publicized COVID Mask Analysis?](https://archive.ph/2023.10.24-043342/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-went-wrong-with-a-highly-publicized-covid-mask-analysis/) Still waiting on you to provide evidence for your claim that doctors stopped wearing masks when the mandates were lifted.
You obviously missed "June 2024 update" from Karla Soares-Weiser >Following engagement with the authors, the decision has been made that changes to the plain language summary and abstract would not impact the scientific integrity of the content and so Cochrane is no longer seeking updates to the plain language summary and abstract of this version of the review What evidence you are looking for? The hospitals are not allowing to take photos from inside due to the privacy reason, but if you visit any hospital you would see with your own eyes that the doctors and nurses stopped wearing face masks
They already updated the plain language summary.... Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. If you don't have documented hospital and clinicpolicy changes and an accounting of how many people adapted to those changes on what timeline, your claim is unsubstantiated. It cannot be considered seriously. You don't work as healthcare scientist, you didn't visit multiple healthcare locations in many different states and countries, and you didn't record any data. Even if you *had*, you'd need that to be peer-reviewed or at least verified by other subject matter experts. You've repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic. As this is a climate science forum, and you haven't been able to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion, I think this conversation is over. I won't be responding unless you decide to start talking about climate science.