|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 4, 2021 15:26:46 GMT
Yep. Once out and floating in the air, it doesn't help. The 70% that is caught in the droplets that don't pass through the mask, though, drop the infection rate by 70%(shown by multiple studies in multiple countries) when infected people wear the masks. Cherry picking shit like that in an effort to look stupid is working for you. Those studies don't claim what you think they claim. I've looked at the actual double-blind peer-reviewed studies over the past 70+ years - they *all* show no difference when worn outside a clinical setting by people not trained in PPE use. Those drug store masks prevent large droplets from falling into a sterile surgical field. That's it. They don't prevent aerosolization of exhalate. A recent study stated: "Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when completely sealed." If an infected person is wearing a well fitted mask and is trained in it's use, it's fairly effective at preventing transmission - as shown by healthcare workers in clinical settings. Unfortunately, the general public is neither wearing well fitted masks, nor trained in the use of them as PPE. The studies claim EXACTLY what I think they claim. They claim that the infection rate drops by 70% if everyone is wearing a mask, because the infected are wearing masks. These are Covid 19 specific studies, not 70 year old bullshit that doesn't apply. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 4, 2021 16:36:59 GMT
Those studies don't claim what you think they claim. I've looked at the actual double-blind peer-reviewed studies over the past 70+ years - they *all* show no difference when worn outside a clinical setting by people not trained in PPE use. Those drug store masks prevent large droplets from falling into a sterile surgical field. That's it. They don't prevent aerosolization of exhalate. A recent study stated: "Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when completely sealed." If an infected person is wearing a well fitted mask and is trained in it's use, it's fairly effective at preventing transmission - as shown by healthcare workers in clinical settings. Unfortunately, the general public is neither wearing well fitted masks, nor trained in the use of them as PPE. The studies claim EXACTLY what I think they claim. They claim that the infection rate drops by 70% if everyone is wearing a mask, because the infected are wearing masks. These are Covid 19 specific studies, not 70 year old bullshit that doesn't apply. Yeah, because morons like you and kirinke are convinced that covid is a magical virus that behaves entirely differently than any other coronavirus (or RNA virus for that matter). Studies in viral transmission from decades ago aren't suddenly invalid because a new strain of a well-understood group of viruses suddenly shows up. Respiratory viruses are respiratory viruses, with similar transmission methods and similar preventative measures. Don't ever leave your house without a mask. Feel free to wrap your head in a plastic bubble. But the uneducated or those with ulterior motives don't get to dictate public policy - which has been happening all along with covid and finally those who know better are willing to call them on their bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 4, 2021 16:48:54 GMT
The studies claim EXACTLY what I think they claim. They claim that the infection rate drops by 70% if everyone is wearing a mask, because the infected are wearing masks. These are Covid 19 specific studies, not 70 year old bullshit that doesn't apply. Yeah, because morons like you and kirinke are convinced that covid is a magical virus that behaves entirely differently than any other coronavirus (or RNA virus for that matter). Studies in viral transmission from decades ago aren't suddenly invalid because a new strain of a well-understood group of viruses suddenly shows up. Respiratory viruses are respiratory viruses, with similar transmission methods and similar preventative measures. Don't ever leave your house without a mask. Feel free to wrap your head in a plastic bubble. But the uneducated or those with ulterior motives don't get to dictate public policy - which has been happening all along with covid and finally those who know better are willing to call them on their bullshit. The proof is in the facts. You can have a million outdated studies, but if you have a half dozen or more studies that all show(and they do) that there is 70% reduction in transmissibility when everyone wears a mask, then the facts are that there is a 70% reduction if you wear the fucking masks. The million outdated studies are irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 4, 2021 18:52:14 GMT
Yeah, because morons like you and kirinke are convinced that covid is a magical virus that behaves entirely differently than any other coronavirus (or RNA virus for that matter). Studies in viral transmission from decades ago aren't suddenly invalid because a new strain of a well-understood group of viruses suddenly shows up. Respiratory viruses are respiratory viruses, with similar transmission methods and similar preventative measures. Don't ever leave your house without a mask. Feel free to wrap your head in a plastic bubble. But the uneducated or those with ulterior motives don't get to dictate public policy - which has been happening all along with covid and finally those who know better are willing to call them on their bullshit. The proof is in the facts. You can have a million outdated studies, but if you have a half dozen or more studies that all show(and they do) that there is 70% reduction in transmissibility when everyone wears a mask, then the facts are that there is a 70% reduction if you wear the fucking masks. The million outdated studies are irrelevant. The proof sure is in the facts... Especially the unbiased new studies that confirm the "outdated" studies. swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/Just admit you're wrong - we'll all understand that you were duped like most of the world. Every single one of these studies in this link is clear in their conclusions: low to moderate probability of low to moderate effectiveness, with multiple caveats due to the lack of quality data for makes in the community setting. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 4, 2021 20:19:53 GMT
The proof is in the facts. You can have a million outdated studies, but if you have a half dozen or more studies that all show(and they do) that there is 70% reduction in transmissibility when everyone wears a mask, then the facts are that there is a 70% reduction if you wear the fucking masks. The million outdated studies are irrelevant. The proof sure is in the facts... Especially the unbiased new studies that confirm the "outdated" studies. swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/Just admit you're wrong - we'll all understand that you were duped like most of the world. Every single one of these studies in this link is clear in their conclusions: low to moderate probability of low to moderate effectiveness, with multiple caveats due to the lack of quality data for makes in the community setting. Fuck you're dumb. The first study quoted isn't about Covid. The second study quotes is a study on wearing a mask when nobody else is(ROFL). The third isn't about Covid. The fourth IS about Covid and recommends wearing a mask. The 5th was a big "Who the fuck knows." coupled with Denmark saying that if infections were already really low, masks won't do much, which is what the CDC is saying right now. The 6th wasn't about Covid, and said that they have low confidence in their own results. The 7th said it didn't have enough data to make a decision, which makes sense since it was from April of 2020. The 8th is from May 2020, so is also deficient on data, but said that masks don't offer protection from incoming virus when worn, but didn't offer much about the other way, probably because your dumb ass is picking studies from right after the pandemic started to rely on. The rest are old. Your "evidence" is either outdated or says to wear the fucking mask. LOL Read this, rather than relying on ancient "evidence" that overwhelmingly isn't Covid specific. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 4, 2021 21:12:05 GMT
The proof sure is in the facts... Especially the unbiased new studies that confirm the "outdated" studies. swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/Just admit you're wrong - we'll all understand that you were duped like most of the world. Every single one of these studies in this link is clear in their conclusions: low to moderate probability of low to moderate effectiveness, with multiple caveats due to the lack of quality data for makes in the community setting. Fuck you're dumb. The first study quoted isn't about Covid. The second study quotes is a study on wearing a mask when nobody else is(ROFL). The third isn't about Covid. The fourth IS about Covid and recommends wearing a mask. The 5th was a big "Who the fuck knows." coupled with Denmark saying that if infections were already really low, masks won't do much, which is what the CDC is saying right now. The 6th wasn't about Covid, and said that they have low confidence in their own results. The 7th said it didn't have enough data to make a decision, which makes sense since it was from April of 2020. The 8th is from May 2020, so is also deficient on data, but said that masks don't offer protection from incoming virus when worn, but didn't offer much about the other way, probably because your dumb ass is picking studies from right after the pandemic started to rely on. The rest are old. Your "evidence" is either outdated or says to wear the fucking mask. LOL Read this, rather than relying on ancient "evidence" that overwhelmingly isn't Covid specific. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.htmlWhat part of "this is a respiratory virus just like other respiratory viruses" don't you get? Unless the virus is vastly different in physical size, studies on masks for covid, flu, adenovirus, etc. are relevant in comparison to each other. This isn't a magical virus that can do things other respiratory viruses can't do. Scientific studies don't have to be covid-specific to be relevant. Add to your assertion that you're own sources are the one true way, they caveat things right up front: "Data regarding the “real-world” effectiveness of community masking are limited to observational and epidemiological studies." Translation for the science-impaired: our data is biased and we can't actually show any objective quality evidence from controlled double-blind study. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 4, 2021 21:18:29 GMT
Fuck you're dumb. The first study quoted isn't about Covid. The second study quotes is a study on wearing a mask when nobody else is(ROFL). The third isn't about Covid. The fourth IS about Covid and recommends wearing a mask. The 5th was a big "Who the fuck knows." coupled with Denmark saying that if infections were already really low, masks won't do much, which is what the CDC is saying right now. The 6th wasn't about Covid, and said that they have low confidence in their own results. The 7th said it didn't have enough data to make a decision, which makes sense since it was from April of 2020. The 8th is from May 2020, so is also deficient on data, but said that masks don't offer protection from incoming virus when worn, but didn't offer much about the other way, probably because your dumb ass is picking studies from right after the pandemic started to rely on. The rest are old. Your "evidence" is either outdated or says to wear the fucking mask. LOL Read this, rather than relying on ancient "evidence" that overwhelmingly isn't Covid specific. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.htmlWhat part of "this is a respiratory virus just like other respiratory viruses" don't you get? Unless the virus is vastly different in physical size, studies on masks for covid, flu, adenovirus, etc. are relevant in comparison to each other. This isn't a magical virus that can do things other respiratory viruses can't do. Scientific studies don't have to be covid-specific to be relevant. What part of the Covid specific studies show that you are wrong about this don't you understand? |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 4, 2021 21:53:07 GMT
What part of "this is a respiratory virus just like other respiratory viruses" don't you get? Unless the virus is vastly different in physical size, studies on masks for covid, flu, adenovirus, etc. are relevant in comparison to each other. This isn't a magical virus that can do things other respiratory viruses can't do. Scientific studies don't have to be covid-specific to be relevant. What part of the Covid specific studies show that you are wrong about this don't you understand? The part of them that is just plain bad science. I can't help your lack of proper education in science. I read the studies. I understand the conclusions drawn by the authors. But I also understand the limitations of their studies and what the statistics they may present actually show. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 4, 2021 22:20:11 GMT
What part of the Covid specific studies show that you are wrong about this don't you understand? The part of them that is just plain bad science. I can't help your lack of proper education in science. I read the studies. I understand the conclusions drawn by the authors. But I also understand the limitations of their studies and what the statistics they may present actually show. There's no bad science there. Just you fooling yourself into thinking there is in order for Covid to fit your world view, and it's pretty pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 5, 2021 0:44:50 GMT
3cat is down the rabbit hole pretty deep.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 5, 2021 22:33:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 9, 2021 2:24:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 9, 2021 11:18:22 GMT
Still doesn't mean it was intentionally released and I know you don't subscribe to that, but others do. Nor does it absolve Trump of his inaction and fuck-ups regarding Covid-19. He is still at fault for most of the mess in the US due to that poor response.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 9, 2021 12:23:44 GMT
Still doesn't mean it was intentionally released and I know you don't subscribe to that, but others do. Nor does it absolve Trump of his inaction and fuck-ups regarding Covid-19. He is still at fault for most of the mess in the US due to that poor response. You're an idiot and you keep proving it. Trump's "inaction?" You mean the stopping of travel from China to the US while leftist cunts called him a racist for doing so? You mean stopping European travelers when Italy was full of wuflu victims resulting from China happily sending their slave labor back to Italy after the lunar new year? Or the billions in emergency aid he asked Congress to approve? Or was it ramping up a program that got vaccines developed and delivered to the states in under a year when typical government efforts surrounding vaccines take a decade? Those inactions and missteps? The ones so awful that Burden-Kameltoe didn't do anything different when they took office? |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 9, 2021 12:58:47 GMT
Still doesn't mean it was intentionally released and I know you don't subscribe to that, but others do. Nor does it absolve Trump of his inaction and fuck-ups regarding Covid-19. He is still at fault for most of the mess in the US due to that poor response. You're an idiot and you keep proving it. Trump's "inaction?" You mean the stopping of travel from China to the US while leftist cunts called him a racist for doing so? You mean stopping European travelers when Italy was full of wuflu victims resulting from China happily sending their slave labor back to Italy after the lunar new year? Or the billions in emergency aid he asked Congress to approve? Or was it ramping up a program that got vaccines developed and delivered to the states in under a year when typical government efforts surrounding vaccines take a decade? Those inactions and missteps? The ones so awful that Burden-Kameltoe didn't do anything different when they took office? Yeah. Trump was a very odd dichotomy of doing things very right and doing things very wrong at the same time. He took many actions as you note to slow the virus from arriving in the U.S. and threw money at the problem which allowed a much faster vaccine, but at the same time he dismissed the virus left and right, and discouraged behaviors that would also slow down the virus in America. |
|
