The Science is Conclusive

[boxcar]

The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses

Comment: The following review of the scientific literature on wearing surgical and other facemasks as a means of preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and thus preventing contraction of 'Covid-19' was published a month ago. And absent some miraculous suspension of decades of hard science on the transmission of viruses, it's settled...

And here's the kicker:

Why there can never be an empirical test of a nationwide mask-wearing policy

As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results:

Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.
Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.
Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviours; see Wada (2012).
The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.
Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.
Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.
Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

https://www.sott.net/article/434796-The-Science-is-Conclusive-Masks-and-Respirators-do-NOT-Prevent-Transmission-of-Viruses

[davew]

yes, but they slow it down




similar to a chain link fence keeping out a mosquito

[boxcar]

yes, but they slow it down




similar to a chain link fence keeping out a mosquito

That's the plan. Prolong the "crisis". Keep the panic and hysteria elevated.

[Actor]

yes, but they slow it downThat's the way a parachute works. Don't jump out of a plane without one.

[hcap]

The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses

Comment: The following review of the scientific literature on wearing surgical and other facemasks as a means of preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and thus preventing contraction of 'Covid-19' was published a month ago. And absent some miraculous suspension of decades of hard science on the transmission of viruses, it's settled...


https://www.sott.net/article/434796-The-Science-is-Conclusive-Masks-and-Respirators-do-NOT-Prevent-Transmission-of-VirusesHey bunky youn outdid yourself. Your articled is from Signs of the Times. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signs_of_the_Times_(magazine))

Signs of the Times is a monthly magazine originally published by Pacific Press, a Seventh-day Adventist publishing house. Signs presents articles that are considered to be helpful in assisting readers to live in modern society. The magazine focuses on life's-style issues, health articles and Christian devotional and other religious articles. From its historical roots, the magazine emphasizes the second coming of Christ to this earth and living such lives so as to be able to meet Jesus at His second coming.
.................................................. ...

Out of curiosity is this "study" reviewed by any scientific organizations. Ya know like those respected peer-reviewed journals, other than those waiting for the second coming?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::ro lleyes:

[woodtoo]

Hey bunky youn outdid yourself. Your articled is from Signs of the Times. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signs_of_the_Times_(magazine))

Signs of the Times is a monthly magazine originally published by Pacific Press, a Seventh-day Adventist publishing house. Signs presents articles that are considered to be helpful in assisting readers to live in modern society. The magazine focuses on life's-style issues, health articles and Christian devotional and other religious articles. From its historical roots, the magazine emphasizes the second coming of Christ to this earth and living such lives so as to be able to meet Jesus at His second coming.
.................................................. ...

Out of curiosity is this "study" reviewed by any scientific organizations. Ya know like those respected peer-reviewed journals, other than those waiting for the second coming?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::ro lleyes:

If you dont back a study, any study, its probably true. right?
Of course.

[boxcar]

Hey bunky youn outdid yourself. Your articled is from Signs of the Times. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signs_of_the_Times_(magazine))

Signs of the Times is a monthly magazine originally published by Pacific Press, a Seventh-day Adventist publishing house. Signs presents articles that are considered to be helpful in assisting readers to live in modern society. The magazine focuses on life's-style issues, health articles and Christian devotional and other religious articles. From its historical roots, the magazine emphasizes the second coming of Christ to this earth and living such lives so as to be able to meet Jesus at His second coming.
.................................................. ...

Out of curiosity is this "study" reviewed by any scientific organizations. Ya know like those respected peer-reviewed journals, other than those waiting for the second coming?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::ro lleyes:

There are numerous medical authorities, outside of the article, who would find themselves in full agreement with its findings. You did notice that there are numerous medical organizations involved in the article, right? :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

That's the way a parachute works. Don't jump out of a plane without one.

Has anyone ever told you that you really suck at analogies!? Comparing a jump out of an airplane that ultimately affects no one but the jumper, who made the choice in the first place, to a virus that can affect many people unknowingly is like comparing the jumper who is virtually guaranteed a good outcome to mask-wearing virus victims who are not guaranteed a good outcome.

As stated previously, face coverings merely slow down the inevitable bad outcome; and it slows down herd immunity which is a good and natural remedy. Face coverings, then, hit us with a double whammy! :coffee:

[pandy]

People mask shaming folks, especially outdoors, is ridiculous. Every major scientific organization has been saying that masks don't stop a virus for many years. And, how could they stop something that's microscopically tiny? Silly. Now because the mainstream narrative fits, they suddenly say that masks work. Very hard to believe.

[46zilzal]

That's the way a parachute works. Don't jump out of a plane without one.

excellent comparison

[rastajenk]

Idiotic comparison...especially since dave's comment was quoted without the context.

[barahona44]

Don't know if this has happened to anyone else but in the middle of Boxcar's first post, one of those pop-up ads occured.It's for Masks by Lucy.com. Custom designs available! :D

[Greyfox]

That's the way a parachute works. Don't jump out of a plane without one.

You're jumping to a conclusion.
The guy without a chute is jumping to one too. ;)

[boxcar]

excellent comparison


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Frick obviously likes Frack.

[boxcar]

People mask shaming folks, especially outdoors, is ridiculous. Every major scientific organization has been saying that masks don't stop a virus for many years. And, how could they stop something that's microscopically tiny? Silly. Now because the mainstream narrative fits, they suddenly say that masks work. Very hard to believe.

Not only that: BUT ANY OL' FACE COVERING WILL WORK! :lol::lol:

[Actor]

Hey bunky youn outdid yourself. Your articled is from Signs of the Times. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signs_of_the_Times_(magazine))

Signs of the Times is a monthly magazine originally published by Pacific Press, a Seventh-day Adventist publishing house. Signs presents articles that are considered to be helpful in assisting readers to live in modern society. The magazine focuses on life's-style issues, health articles and Christian devotional and other religious articles. From its historical roots, the magazine emphasizes the second coming of Christ to this earth and living such lives so as to be able to meet Jesus at His second coming.
.................................................. ...

Out of curiosity is this "study" reviewed by any scientific organizations. Ya know like those respected peer-reviewed journals, other than those waiting for the second coming?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::ro lleyes:

Thanks for doing the research. :ThmbUp:

[hcap]

There are numerous medical authorities, outside of the article, who would find themselves in full agreement with its findings. You did notice that there are numerous medical organizations involved in the article, right? :rolleyes:This so-caalled study was not done by a medical professional. Rather asn ex-phisics professor with credibility issues.

Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. Rancourt is a recognized scientist but is more widely known for his confrontations with his former employer, the University of Ottawa, over issues involving his grade inflation and "academic squatting," the act of arbitrarily changing the topic of a course without departmental permission.[1][2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt)

Furthermore, he opines on "Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease, and why masks do not work"

Fine, but his editorialized conclusion is not unanimous. His "paper" is not an original research study, but a compilation of previous studies cherry picked to back fit his conclusion.

It is not conclusive nor unanimous. Far from it!

.........................................

Just how effective are masks at stopping coronavirus? Here's what new research says....June 16, 2020

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/06/16/mask-covid

For instance, a study published Thursday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) found that requiring people to wear masks in epicenters of new coronavirus cases may have prevented tens of thousands of infections from the virus.

For the study, researchers examined how the new coronavirus is transmitted by reviewing infection trends in Wuhan, China; Italy; and New York City—all of which were early epicenters of the virus' transmission. The researchers also observed the precautions implicated to curb the virus' spread in those epicenters and compared the rates of coronavirus infection in Italy and New York City before and after rules regarding face masks and covering were put in place.
.................................................. .....
Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857
We have elucidated the transmission pathways of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by analyzing the trend and mitigation measures in the three epicenters. Our results show that the airborne transmission route is highly virulent and dominant for the spread of COVID-19. The mitigation measures are discernable from the trends of the pandemic. Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic. This protective measure significantly reduces the number of infections. Other mitigation measures, such as social distancing implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public. Our work also highlights the necessity that sound science is essential in decision-making for the current and future public health pandemics.
.................................................. ...................

Pleased Stay away from science and save us your monumental dribble.

[hcap]

Thanks for doing the research. :ThmbUp:Easy enough. I am used to fact-checking him.

As you notice in my latest post, there is much more to this charade box is so famous for, proclaiming "high and mighty" unsupported opinions.

[pandy]

Good article on masks, with the science before the scientists decided to change it to fit the narrative. The only masks that do any good are N95, which no one in the public wears. The virus is 0.125 micrometers and goes through cloth masks.


https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/?fbclid=IwAR286xultE9B5fGNm2y63nypFGaWHfVDn8j6tGZz Ut9jcj9reomTlGIaZrA

[boxcar]

This so-caalled study was not done by a medical professional. Rather asn ex-phisics professor with credibility issues.

Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. Rancourt is a recognized scientist but is more widely known for his confrontations with his former employer, the University of Ottawa, over issues involving his grade inflation and "academic squatting," the act of arbitrarily changing the topic of a course without departmental permission.[1][2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt)

Furthermore, he opines on "Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease, and why masks do not work"

Fine, but his editorialized conclusion is not unanimous. His "paper" is not an original research study, but a compilation of previous studies cherry picked to back fit his conclusion.

It is not conclusive nor unanimous. Far from it!

.........................................

Just how effective are masks at stopping coronavirus? Here's what new research says....June 16, 2020

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/06/16/mask-covid

For instance, a study published Thursday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) found that requiring people to wear masks in epicenters of new coronavirus cases may have prevented tens of thousands of infections from the virus.

For the study, researchers examined how the new coronavirus is transmitted by reviewing infection trends in Wuhan, China; Italy; and New York City—all of which were early epicenters of the virus' transmission. The researchers also observed the precautions implicated to curb the virus' spread in those epicenters and compared the rates of coronavirus infection in Italy and New York City before and after rules regarding face masks and covering were put in place.
.................................................. .....
Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857
We have elucidated the transmission pathways of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by analyzing the trend and mitigation measures in the three epicenters. Our results show that the airborne transmission route is highly virulent and dominant for the spread of COVID-19. The mitigation measures are discernable from the trends of the pandemic. Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic. This protective measure significantly reduces the number of infections. Other mitigation measures, such as social distancing implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public. Our work also highlights the necessity that sound science is essential in decision-making for the current and future public health pandemics.
.................................................. ...................

Pleased Stay away from science and save us your monumental dribble. emphasis mine

[b]WHERE IS THE PROOF!!!???

Pandy is dead on the mark in his post. In fact, very, very early on I posted essentially the same thing about the only real protection would be N95 masks. I questioned from the very beginning the ass-backwards idea that mask-wearing was to protect other people! In fact, it was your bud Actor who questioned my premise so I had to beam up to him twice what the N95 mask was all about, and that N95s arel about protecting the wearer, which is logically how it should be!

The mere fact that the public is told basically to wear any ol' face covering -- scarfs, handkerchiefs, bandannas, shirts, any ol' "medical" mask, etc. should tell any critical thinking person that mask mandates across the country are a total charade. "Sound science" indeed...:rolleyes:

Also if masks are the critical mitigating determinant, then why is social distancing necessary?

Critical thought was never your strong suit.

[hcap]

Good article on masks, with the science before the scientists decided to change it to fit the narrative. The only masks that do any good are N95, which no one in the public wears. The virus is 0.125 micrometers and goes through cloth masks.


https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/?fbclid=IwAR286xultE9B5fGNm2y63nypFGaWHfVDn8j6tGZz Ut9jcj9reomTlGIaZrAWhich scientists changed which facts? Did you read the article I just posted from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? (PNAS)

Masks also protect unaffected individuals from the infected wearing them

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857

This protective measure significantly reduces the number of infections. Other mitigation measures, such as social distancing implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public. Our work also highlights the necessity that sound science is essential in decision-making for the current and future public health pandemics.
All facial coverings interfere with airborne droplets, and yes N95 respirators are by far the best in protecting someone FROM the virus, and originally when scientific organizations considered that, there was a huge shortage of those masks. No longer

Scientific recommendations change as new data is uncovered.

[davew]

HCAP, is the person running WHO a 'medical professional'?

[hcap]

emphasis mine

[b]WHERE IS THE PROOF!!!???

Pandy is dead on the mark in his post. In fact, very, very early on I posted essentially the same thing about the only real protection would be N95 masks. I questioned from the very beginning the ass-backwards idea that mask-wearing was to protect other people! In fact, it was your bud Actor who questioned my premise so I had to beam up to him twice what the N95 mask was all about, and that N95s arel about protecting the wearer, which is logically how it should be! are superior, but the overall contagion number the Ro

The mere fact that the public is told basically to wear any ol' face covering -- scarfs, handkerchiefs, bandannas, shirts, any ol' "medical" mask, etc. should tell any critical thinking person that mask mandates across the country are a total charade. "Sound science" indeed...:rolleyes:

Also if masks are the critical mitigating determinant, then why is social distancing necessary?

Critical thought was never your strong suit.Where is the proof of your "paper" in the Christian 7th day Adventist mag?

There is such a thing as expertise, and since none of us are experts in the details of epidemiology, one must know who the experts are. Contrary to your claim that scientists are pulling a fast one on you, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is a pretty good source for expertise, a bit better than your ex physics professor cherry picking data in a non peer-reviewed publication.

The mere fact that the public is told basically to wear any ol' face covering -- scarfs, handkerchiefs, bandannas, shirts, any ol' "medical" mask, etc. should tell any critical thinking person that mask mandates across the country are a total charade. "Sound science" indeed...:rolleyes:

Also if masks are the critical mitigating determinant, then why is social distancing necessary? Please read the article I just posted. From the CDC 3 days ago...

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

Cloth face coverings are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the cloth face covering coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control.

Masks are only one of the measures needed to slow community spread, particularly in epicenters, and perhaps the least of a burden.

All facial coverings interfere with air droplets exhaled, sneezed and emitted by the wearer, reducing transference from the infected to the uninfected to varying degrees.

As we know, N95 are superior, but any lowering the Ro number (the contagion number), reduces community spread. Each mitigation measure is only part of what is needed to accomplish part of the task of slowing the contagion. Lock downs being the most effective, but the most extreme. In lieu of a vaccine, any mitigation reducing the spread should be used and masks the one that produce only an inconvenience.
.................................................. ..............................................
Agasin, from the PNAS article, study was done in the environment of epicenters.. If you like, the closest study to n on the ground "field test"

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857#sec-2

We quantified (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857#sec-2) the effects of face covering by projecting the number of infections based on the data prior to implementing the use of face masks in Italy on April 6 and NYC on April 17 (Fig. 2A; see Methods). Such projections are reasonable considering the excellent linear correlation for the data prior to the onset of mandated face covering (Fig. 2 B and C and SI Appendix, Fig. S1). Our analysis indicates that face covering reduced the number of infections by over 78,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and by over 66,000 in NYC from April 17 to May 9. In addition, varying the correlation from 15 d to 30 d prior to the onset of the implementation reveals little difference in the projection for both places, because of the high correlation coefficients

[PaceAdvantage]

Which scientists changed which facts? Did you read the article I just posted from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? (PNAS)

Masks also protect unaffected individuals from the infected wearing them

All facial coverings interfere with airborne droplets, and yes N95 respirators are by far the best in protecting someone FROM the virus, and originally when scientific organizations considered that, there was a huge shortage of those masks. No longer

Scientific recommendations change as new data is uncovered.It's 2020. How can SCIENCE not know the SCIENCE behind masks and viruses?

If there is still debate on MASKS...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqnTcQJn-is

[hcap]

HCAP, is the person running WHO a 'medical professional'? You are refering to olds recommendations by WHO. WE are speaking of recent studies that supersede the older ones.

That is usually how science works, even if it doesn't get it right initially.

[tucker6]

Which scientists changed which facts? Did you read the article I just posted from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? (PNAS)

Masks also protect unaffected individuals from the infected wearing them

All facial coverings interfere with airborne droplets, and yes N95 respirators are by far the best in protecting someone FROM the virus, and originally when scientific organizations considered that, there was a huge shortage of those masks. No longer

Scientific recommendations change as new data is uncovered.
New data was not uncovered. Mask technology and science hasn’t changed in decades. Pre epidemic, both the CDC and SG discussed the limitations of masks, but once they found out it was a visual representation of control of the public at large, the “science” changed. Masks are nearly useless. Social distance and wash your hands and don’t touch your face. Masks are 4th.

[hcap]

It's 2020. How can SCIENCE not know the SCIENCE behind masks and viruses?

If there is still debate on MASKS...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqnTcQJn-isI am not denying they got it wrong originally.

[davew]

You are refering to olds recommendations by WHO. WE are speaking of recent studies that supersede the older ones.

That is usually how science works, even if it doesn't get it right initially.

I should have been more specific for you. I was referring to a person not a 'study'. I am sorry you could not interpret my question. Does Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization qualify as a 'medical professional'? and if so, why?

[hcap]

New data was not uncovered. Mask technology and science hasn’t changed in decades. Pre epidemic, both the CDC and SG discussed the limitations of masks, but once they found out it was a visual representation of control of the public at large, the “science” changed. Masks are nearly useless. Social distance and wash your hands and don’t touch your face. Masks are 4th.Did yo read the article from

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857#sec-2

Evidently The National Academy of Sciences, and the CDC gathered new data.

The new guidelines (https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/stanford-scientists-contribute-to-who-mask-guidelines.html) were devised after WHO officials reviewed information from researchers at Stanford and elsewhere about the ability of cloth masks to slow the spread of the disease. The revised recommendations more closely echo those of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which since early April has recommended cloth masks in public settings where social distancing is difficult to maintain.

Or are they all lying to you as well as boxcar?

[tucker6]

I should have been more specific for you. I was referring to a person not a 'study'. I am sorry you could not interpret my question. Does Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization qualify as a 'medical professional'? and if so, why?

Stop. You’re confusing him with facts.

[hcap]

I should have been more specific for you. I was referring to a person not a 'study'. I am sorry you could not interpret my question. Does Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization qualify as a 'medical professional'? and if so, why?I said You are referring to olds recommendations by WHO.

The new:

Coronavirus: Wear mask in public, WHO's new advice
https://www.euronews.com/2020/06/06/coronavirus-latest-wear-mask-in-public-who-s-new-advice

The World Health Organization (WHO) on Friday broadened its recommendations for the use of masks during the coronavirus pandemic.

It is now advising that in areas where the virus is spreading people should wear fabric masks when social distancing is not possible, such as on public transport and in shops.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said people over age 60 or with underlying medical conditions also should wear masks in situations where social distancing cannot be maintained.

[boxcar]

I said You are referring to olds recommendations by WHO.

The new:

Coronavirus: Wear mask in public, WHO's new advice
https://www.euronews.com/2020/06/06/coronavirus-latest-wear-mask-in-public-who-s-new-advice

The World Health Organization (WHO) on Friday broadened its recommendations for the use of masks during the coronavirus pandemic.

It is now advising that in areas where the virus is spreading people should wear fabric masks when social distancing is not possible, such as on public transport and in shops.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said people over age 60 or with underlying medical conditions also should wear masks in situations where social distancing cannot be maintained.

They have all waffled: The "experts" aren't so sure of anything: Fauci, CDC, WHO, etc. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

Where is the proof of your "paper" in the Christian 7th day Adventist mag?

There is such a thing as expertise, and since none of us are experts in the details of epidemiology, one must know who the experts are. Contrary to your claim that scientists are pulling a fast one on you, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is a pretty good source for expertise, a bit better than your ex physics professor cherry picking data in a non peer-reviewed publication.

From the CDC 3 days ago...



Masks are only one of the measures needed to slow community spread, particularly in epicenters, and perhaps the least of a burden.

All facial coverings interfere with air droplets exhaled, sneezed and emitted by the wearer, reducing transference from the infected to the uninfected to varying degrees.

As we know, N95 are superior, but any lowering the Ro number (the contagion number), reduces community spread. Each mitigation measure is only part of what is needed to accomplish part of the task of slowing the contagion. Lock downs being the most effective, but the most extreme. In lieu of a vaccine, any mitigation reducing the spread should be used and masks the one that produce only an inconvenience.
.................................................. ..............................................
Agasin, from the PNAS article, study was done in the environment of epicenters.. If you like, the closest study to n on the ground "field test"

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857#sec-2

We quantified (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857#sec-2) the effects of face covering by projecting the number of infections based on the data prior to implementing the use of face masks in Italy on April 6 and NYC on April 17 (Fig. 2A; see Methods). Such projections are reasonable considering the excellent linear correlation for the data prior to the onset of mandated face covering (Fig. 2 B and C and SI Appendix, Fig. S1). Our analysis indicates that face covering reduced the number of infections by over 78,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and by over 66,000 in NYC from April 17 to May 9. In addition, varying the correlation from 15 d to 30 d prior to the onset of the implementation reveals little difference in the projection for both places, because of the high correlation coefficients

Mr. Critical Thinker: Slowing does not = stopping the spread. I can drive to a destination at 40 mph or 60 mph or anywhere in between. The speed is not going to prevent me from finally getting to my destination. Only in a lunatic's world would slowing the spread so that the virus can linger for years be considered a successful strategy. :rolleyes:


https://fee.org/articles/new-study-casts-more-doubt-on-effectiveness-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-spread/

There is actually an abundance of research that suggests masks are not an effective method of preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, which is no doubt why the World Health Organization and some other countries do not recommend wearing masks.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

Wearing stupid masks to stop extremely tiny viruses is like erecting a chain a link fence in a yard to keep out bugs. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Good article on masks, with the science before the scientists decided to change it to fit the narrative. The only masks that do any good are N95, which no one in the public wears. The virus is 0.125 micrometers and goes through cloth masks.



Ironically, that is the exact same problem hcap has with his brain membrane...but things slip out! :headbanger:

[hcap]

New data was not uncovered. Mask technology and science hasn’t changed in decades. Pre epidemic, both the CDC and SG discussed the limitations of masks, but once they found out it was a visual representation of control of the public at large, the “science” changed. Masks are nearly useless. Social distance and wash your hands and don’t touch your face. Masks are 4th.Although analysis of causal relationship of the "mesh size" of mask material is correct in preventing intake of an extremely small viral material in breathing IN, which is why N95 finer mesh masks are superior in preventing intake, that same casual factor is insufficient in explaining how coarser mesh sizes prevent the transmission of that minute viral material in breathing OUT.

From a physics and engineering point of view, masks prevent the infected wearing masks from spreading covid-19 to the uninfected by this mechanism,..

The filtering out minute viral material exhaled SUSPENDED in large quantities of much larger size moisture and fluid droplets


Consequently IMO, studies that do not make that distinction are flawed.

Rapid diffusion (https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.201109-1702ED) of water (evaporation) occurs from the fluid lining the surfaces of the airways (e.g., bronchi), the airspaces (e.g., alveoli), and mouth into the expiratory flow. Exhaled water vapor remains in the gas phase until it is cooled and captured as droplets in the condenser.

When you exhale when it's cold outside, the water vapor in your breath condenses into lots of tiny droplets of liquid water and ice (solid water) that you can see in the air as a cloud, similar to fog.


The dispersal of viral particles in those droplets happens after those water droplets atomize into a fine mist and the viral particles separate out from the fine droplets on the microscopic scaled. The percentage of coronavirus in our exhalation is much greater those droplets than only the dry gases we exhale.

So, even a coarser weave or mesh of a cloth facial cover is able to interfere and catch those larger water and fluid droplets if that material intercept our breath's moisture right at it's source, next to our nose and mouth, before the viral particles have a chance to atomize in dry air on that microscopic scale.

[hcap]

Evidence for Effectiveness of Cloth Face Coverings..Updated July 16, 2020
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

Cloth face coverings are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets*** from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the cloth face covering coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control. This recommendation is based on what we know about the role respiratory droplets*** play in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, paired with emerging evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that shows cloth face coverings reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth. COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet), so the use of cloth face coverings is particularly important in settings where people are close to each other or where social distancing is difficult to maintain.


For those suspicions of the motives and competency of "experts"

COVID-19: How much protection do face masks offer?
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449


Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes, face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as frequent hand-washing and social distancing, help slow the spread of the virus.

So why weren't face masks recommended at the start of the pandemic? At that time, experts didn't know the extent to which people with COVID-19 could spread the virus before symptoms appeared. Nor was it known that some people have COVID-19 but don't have any symptoms. Both groups can unknowingly spread the virus to others.

These discoveries led public health groups to do an about-face on face masks. The World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now include face masks in their recommendations for slowing the spread of the virus. The CDC recommends cloth face masks for the public and not the surgical and N95 masks needed by health care providers

***Respiratory infections can be transmitted through droplets of different sizes: when the droplet particles are >5-10 μm in diameter they are referred to as respiratory droplets, and when then are <5μm in diameter, they are referred to as droplet nuclei.

According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets

[boxcar]

Evidence for Effectiveness of Cloth Face Coverings..Updated July 16, 2020
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

Cloth face coverings are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets*** from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the cloth face covering coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control. This recommendation is based on what we know about the role respiratory droplets*** play in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, paired with emerging evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that shows cloth face coverings reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth. COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet), so the use of cloth face coverings is particularly important in settings where people are close to each other or where social distancing is difficult to maintain.


For those suspicions of the motives and competency of "experts"

COVID-19: How much protection do face masks offer?
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449


Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes, face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as frequent hand-washing and social distancing, help slow the spread of the virus.

So why weren't face masks recommended at the start of the pandemic? At that time, experts didn't know the extent to which people with COVID-19 could spread the virus before symptoms appeared. Nor was it known that some people have COVID-19 but don't have any symptoms. Both groups can unknowingly spread the virus to others.

These discoveries led public health groups to do an about-face on face masks. The World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now include face masks in their recommendations for slowing the spread of the virus. The CDC recommends cloth face masks for the public and not the surgical and N95 masks needed by health care providers

***Respiratory infections can be transmitted through droplets of different sizes: when the droplet particles are >5-10 μm in diameter they are referred to as respiratory droplets, and when then are <5μm in diameter, they are referred to as droplet nuclei.

According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets

"Help slow", "help slow, "help slow". Again...slow doesn't equate to stop. Should we slow down the spread of the virus so that it takes 5 years to infect all the people it's going to infect and kill for that matter? How long do we want this virus to linger here in America? :rolleyes:

[hcap]

"Help slow", "help slow, "help slow". Again...slow doesn't equate to stop. Should we slow down the spread of the virus so that it takes 5 years to infect all the people it's going to infect and kill for that matter? How long do we want this virus to linger here in America? :rolleyes:
Please stop yammering and read about exponential growth of infectious diseases and what the R0 number (https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number)means.

Any significant "slowing" is also magnified exponentially, and tremendously reduces how many contract the disease, suffer and die.

Did you know vaccines also "slow" infectious disease contagiion, and are usually between 40% and 60% effective, not a cure? Should we stop producing vaccines since they don't STOP infectious diseases outright?

If you break a bone, maybe you should avoid a cast since it does not cure the break right away?:lol::lol::lol:
.................................................. ..................................
Exponential growth:

https://youtu.be/Kas0tIxDvrg

[tucker6]

Please stop yammering and read about exponential growth of infectious diseases and what the R0 number (https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number)means.

Any significant "slowing" is also magnified exponentially, and tremendously reduces how many contract the disease, suffer and die.

Did you know vaccines also "slow" infectious disease contagiion, and are usually between 40% and 60% effective, not a cure? Should we stop producing vaccines since they don't STOP infectious diseases outright?

If you break a bone, maybe you should avoid a cast since it does not mend the break right away?


Why do you not care about slowing abortions?

[boxcar]

Please stop yammering and read about exponential growth of infectious diseases and what the R0 number (https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number)means.

Any significant "slowing" is also magnified exponentially, and tremendously reduces how many contract the disease, suffer and die.

Did you know vaccines also "slow" infectious disease contagiion, and are usually between 40% and 60% effective, not a cure? Should we stop producing vaccines since they don't STOP infectious diseases outright?

If you break a bone, maybe you should avoid a cast since it does not mend the break right away?
.................................................. ..................................
Exponential growth:

https://youtu.be/Kas0tIxDvrg

It all begs the question. It needs to be PROVED that masks significantly slow the spread. No such proof exists!

P.S. You're another whose sworn enemies are analogies! Putting a cast on a break speeds up the healing process.

[davew]

It all begs the question. It needs to be PROVED that masks significantly slow the spread. No such proof exists!

P.S. You're another whose sworn enemies are analogies! Putting a cast on a break speeds up the healing process.

He can't even answer my question ->Does Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization qualify as a 'medical professional'? and if so, why?

I doubt if a scientific peer reviewed paper on masks for corona exist.

[hcap]

He can't even answer my question ->Does Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization qualify as a 'medical professional'? and if so, why?

I doubt if a scientific peer reviewed paper on masks for corona exist.I am not sure which one of you has the greater reading comprehensions disability.

I answered boxcar's question a number of times with the science and detailed facts, and you with the latest statement by WHO and it's Director.

Play among deluded bonkers selves.
Try not to make too much noise kiddies
:rolleyes:

[davew]

I am not sure which one of you has the greater reading comprehensions disability.

I answered boxcar's question a number of times with the science and detailed facts, and you with the latest statement by WHO and it's Director.

Play among deluded bonkers selves.
Try not to make too much noise kiddies
:rolleyes:

is that a yes or a no to the 'medical professional'?

[Actor]

P.S. You're another whose sworn enemies are analogies! Putting a cast on a break speeds up the healing process.No it does not. A cast merely immobilizes the broken limb so that it heals in the correct position. Ask an M.D.

[Actor]

I doubt if a scientific peer reviewed paper on masks for corona exist.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/21/880832213/yes-wearing-masks-helps-heres-why

"a meta-analysis of 172 studies that looked at various interventions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, SARS and MERS from an infected person to people close to them. The analysis, which was published in The Lancet on June 1, found that mask wearing significantly reduces the risk of viral transmission."

[davew]

is that npr's interpretation?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext#%20

[hcap]

is that npr's interpretation?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext#%20Did you read it? As I pointed out, the effectiveness of incoming viral filtration or the fineness of the mesh of the material used is not as critical in preventing viral particles from being exhaled. Does it make that distinction between inhaling in microscopic viral particles, where fine mesh size, N95 masks are needed, and exhaling out viral particles, where a coarser size mesh works quite well adjacent to the mouth and nose?

During exhalation bodily fluids are emitted in much larger "droplets" before the viral particles become suspended in the air, atomized or "aerosolized" away, into microscopic sized particles separate from the those bodily fluids.?

It is way easier to reduce community spread at the source, preventing gazillions of viruses from becoming airborne, than filtering and blocking them once atomized microscopically, all over the place.

[boxcar]

I am not sure which one of you has the greater reading comprehensions disability.

I answered boxcar's question a number of times with the science and detailed facts, and you with the latest statement by WHO and it's Director.

Play among deluded bonkers selves.
Try not to make too much noise kiddies
:rolleyes:

I have also posted many scientifically-based medical opinions about masks that differ significantly from the things you have posted.

But fear not! I want that you should know that I always comply with official mandates that require [generic] face coverings. In the model mask I wore today while shopping, I ventilated the mask by poking needle holes under the pleats. This of course makes for much easier breathing. Plus I can tie the mask so loosely around my face that virtually all my exhaled breath easily escapes under my chin.

But hey...no one can accuse me of not being a "team player". I comply fully with the letter of the ambiguous mask rule. :jump: :coffee:

[letswastemoney]

When people think through emotion, they don't think clearly. That's the only reason I could see for mask-wearers to be so aggressive in their stance.

It should be optional if you're not sick.

[hcap]

I have also posted many scientifically-based medical opinions about masks that differ significantly from the things you have posted........

But fear not! I want that you should know that I always comply with official mandates that require [generic] face coverings. In the model mask I wore today while shopping, I ventilated the mask by poking needle holes under the pleats. This of course makes for much easier breathing. Plus I can tie the mask so loosely around my face that virtually all my exhaled breath easily escapes under my chin.

But hey...no one can accuse me of not being a "team player". I comply fully with the letter of the ambiguous mask rule. :jump: :coffee:And I and others have posted opposite, more up to date scientific/medical opinions contrary to yours.

Specifically the crock you started off with, by a non-peer-reviews paper
in a seven day Adventist mag.:lol:

As I have given up discussig religion with you, I find you are just as unreasonable when it comes to epidemiology. How come no scientific evidence (in your own words preferably) contradicting what I have been writing about?

Specifically the different engineering requirements needed in preventing inhaling viral particles, infecting oneself, versus those engineering requirements in preventing exhaling viral particles infecting others?

[boxcar]

And I and others have posted opposite, more up to date scientific/medical opinions contrary to yours.

Specifically the crock you started off with, by a non-peer-reviews paper
in a seven day Adventist mag.:lol:

As I have given up discussig religion with you, I find you are just as unreasonable when it comes to epidemiology. How come no scientific evidence (in your own words preferably) contradicting what I have been writing about?

Specifically the different engineering requirements needed in preventing inhaling viral particles, infecting oneself, versus those engineering requirements in preventing exhaling viral particles infecting others?

Learn to read: There are plenty of medical professionals who disagree with your sources.

Now...go wear your visible symbol of fear and hysteria, so that you can feel good about yourself. :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

Now...go wear your visible symbol of fear and hysteria, so that you can feel good about yourself. :rolleyes:

That's EXACTLY what it is too. It's like a badge saying I'm one of you. Pod people. Lemmings.

[hcap]

Learn to read: There are plenty of medical professionals who disagree with your sources.

Now...go wear your visible symbol of fear and hysteria, so that you can feel good about yourself. :rolleyes:The most up to date do not.

And the ones you claim disagree, you and your buddies here, misunderstand the distinction between infecting yourself and infecting others. How come no mechanical engineering, scientific criticisms on what I posted? You have bragged repeatedly, you were as skilled as an architect, who learns his profession with years of education and experience, neither of which you insisted was needed.

You claimed to have invented a revolutionary remote controlled lawn mower, not realizing from your description of it, it would probably not work, and totally ignorant a 1/2 dozen, were already on the market.

Surely diagnosing what mesh size is needed in facial masks no big dealfor you? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Shirley not for you?

[hcap]

That's EXACTLY what it is too. It's like a badge saying I'm one of you. Pod people. Lemmings.I know boxcar is as skeptical about global warming as you are, and you both hate the left vehemently, but even you should be able to understand the mechanics of preventing the community spread of covid-19 by mask usage, assuming you do not go off on an irrelevant tangent.:rolleyes:

Boxcar may be a "fellow traveler", on the eroad to fascism, but be warned at times PA off topic make strange bedfellows:lol::lol::lol::lol:.

[boxcar]

The most up to date do not.

And the ones you claim disagree, you and your buddies here, misunderstand the distinction between infecting yourself and infecting others. How come no mechanical engineering, scientific criticisms on what I posted? You have bragged repeatedly, you were as skilled as an architect, who learns his profession with years of education and experience, neither of which you insisted was needed.

You claimed to have invented a revolutionary remote controlled lawn mower, not realizing from your description of it, it would probably not work, and totally ignorant a 1/2 dozen, were already on the market.

Surely diagnosing what mesh size is needed in facial masks no big dealfor you? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Shirley not for you?

Liar, I never claimed any such thing about a lawnmower.

Also, the "most up to date" proves nothing.

And here's newsflash for you: If "mesh size" for masks is so critically important, how come public health officials have kept this a big secret from the general public? Shirley, those specs would have been mandated. :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

The most up to date do not.

And the ones you claim disagree, you and your buddies here, misunderstand the distinction between infecting yourself and infecting others. How come no mechanical engineering, scientific criticisms on what I posted? You have bragged repeatedly, you were as skilled as an architect, who learns his profession with years of education and experience, neither of which you insisted was needed.

You claimed to have invented a revolutionary remote controlled lawn mower, not realizing from your description of it, it would probably not work, and totally ignorant a 1/2 dozen, were already on the market.

Surely diagnosing what mesh size is needed in facial masks no big dealfor you? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Shirley not for you?
The only real benefit I've seen to masks is that it limits the travel distance of droplets if a person coughs or sneezes. Otherwise, no huge benefit.

On the other hand, wearing a mask when you are not sick can lead to respiratory issues for some who have pulmonary issues.

There is no good reason to wear a mask if you are not sick. It can actually increase your risks for health problems.

[boxcar]

The only real benefit I've seen to masks is that it limits the travel distance of droplets if a person coughs or sneezes. Otherwise, no huge benefit.

On the other hand, wearing a mask when you are not sick can lead to respiratory issues for some who have pulmonary issues.

There is no good reason to wear a mask if you are not sick. It can actually increase your risks for health problems.

And...if people chose to wear N95 masks to protect themselves, they would be protected from coughs and sneezes by others. :coffee:

[hcap]

The only real benefit I've seen to masks is that it limits the travel distance of droplets if a person coughs or sneezes. Otherwise, no huge benefit.

On the other hand, wearing a mask when you are not sick can lead to respiratory issues for some who have pulmonary issues.

There is no good reason to wear a mask if you are not sick. It can actually increase your risks for health problems.That is the huge benefit. Most of the time those large droplets are the source of community spread.

Up to date from the CDC.......

Evidence for Effectiveness of Cloth Face Coverings
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

Cloth face coverings are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets*** from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the cloth face covering coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control. This recommendation is based on what we know about the role respiratory droplets*** play in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, paired with emerging evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that shows cloth face coverings reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth. COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet), so the use of cloth face coverings is particularly important in settings where people are close to each other or where social distancing is difficult to maintain.

(Respiratory infections can be transmitted through droplets of different sizes: when the droplet particles are >5-10 μm in diameter they are referred to as respiratory droplets, and when then are <5μm in diameter, they are referred to as droplet nuclei.]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/

According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets

[hcap]

And...if people chose to wear N95 masks to protect themselves, they would be protected from coughs and sneezes by others. :coffee::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::s leeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::s leeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::s leeping::sleeping:

[boxcar]

:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping: :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping: :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping: :sleeping:

Now, everyone knows by all your snoozies that I have scored a devastating strike against your stupid, illogical arguments. Shirely, by all those snooizes you're not telling us N95s wouldn't block out those much larger dastardly droplets foisted upon conscientious N95 wearers by others, are you? :rolleyes:

Also, I'm still waiting for your answer to my rebuttal about your alleged critical importance of "mesh size" to masks. If this is so super, critically important, why have public health officials failed to mandate mesh minimum size to the general public? Where is WHO on this issue? The CDC? The NIH? Why has no one mandated to the public specs on minimally acceptable mesh size? :coffee:

[davew]

Did you read it? As I pointed out, the effectiveness of incoming viral filtration or the fineness of the mesh of the material used is not as critical in preventing viral particles from being exhaled. Does it make that distinction between inhaling in microscopic viral particles, where fine mesh size, N95 masks are needed, and exhaling out viral particles, where a coarser size mesh works quite well adjacent to the mouth and nose?

During exhalation bodily fluids are emitted in much larger "droplets" before the viral particles become suspended in the air, atomized or "aerosolized" away, into microscopic sized particles separate from the those bodily fluids.?

It is way easier to reduce community spread at the source, preventing gazillions of viruses from becoming airborne, than filtering and blocking them once atomized microscopically, all over the place.

Yes I read it.

I do not feel -> found that mask wearing significantly reduces the risk of viral transmission."

is equal to what was written in the Lancet observational studies summary of other papers. They did say ->These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit.

and this -> Studies were all observational in nature; no randomised trials were identified of any interventions that directly addressed the included study populations.


hcap, being such a stickler for details, I thought you would have noticed the obvious descrepancy.

[jk3521]

The Prez had a very good Corona Virus briefing. The facts, just the facts.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/21/trump-warns-coronavirus-may-get-worse-before-it-gets-better/

[horses4courses]

Now advocating masks.
Is he lying?

God forbid......:eek:

[hcap]

Yes I read it.

I do not feel -> found that mask wearing significantly reduces the risk of viral transmission."

is equal to what was written in the Lancet observational studies summary of other papers. They did say ->These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit.

and this -> Studies were all observational in nature; no randomised trials were identified of any interventions that directly addressed the included study populations.


hcap, being such a stickler for details, I thought you would have noticed the obvious descrepancy.I asked you a more specific question. If I was not clear, let me rephrase it:

Did you read of any distinction made between how mask wearing prevents viral particles from being transmitted, on inhalation and exhalation?

[hcap]

Now, everyone knows by all your snoozies that I have scored a devastating strike against your stupid, illogical arguments. Shirely, by all those snooizes you're not telling us N95s wouldn't block out those much larger dastardly droplets foisted upon conscientious N95 wearers by others, are you? :rolleyes:

Also, I'm still waiting for your answer to my rebuttal about your alleged critical importance of "mesh size" to masks. If this is so super, critically important, why have public health officials failed to mandate mesh minimum size to the general public? Where is WHO on this issue? The CDC? The NIH? Why has no one mandated to the public specs on minimally acceptable mesh size? :coffee:Originally because the moron, did not address the huge shortage in N95 masks, and the continuing problems in acquiring or manufacturing them, until N95 masks are dirt cheap, and everyone can be given those masks we must use any effective method we can.

N95's are mostly saved for health care professionals and politicians and the well off who can afford them en masse.

Of course King Donal The False could easily change that. Be that as it may, please get your head around even coarser woven cloth masks, block a huge percentage of large fluid droplets exhaled by infected individuals. The major source of how the virus is transmitted.

Consequently, severely slowing community spread.

[boxcar]

Originally because the moron, did not address the huge shortage in N95 masks, and the continuing problems in acquiring or manufacturing them, until N95 masks are dirt cheap, and everyone can be given those masks we must use any effective method we can.

N95's are mostly saved for health care professionals and politicians and the well off who can afford them en masse.

Of course King Donal The False could easily change that. Be that as it may, please get your head around even coarser woven cloth masks, block a huge percentage of large fluid droplets exhaled by infected individuals. The major source of how the virus is transmitted.

Consequently, severely slowing community spread.

So, meanwhile the public gets ambiguous mandates to wear anything over their face, as long as it covers nose and mouth. Is this because "King Donal The False" ordered that ambiguity? :rolleyes: Well..since the mandates are so loosey goosey, my wife just ordered more mask material. We think cheese cloth should work just fine.

And the main reason N95s weren't mass-distributed is because they must be worn properly -- fitted perfectly over the wearer's face, otherwise the effectiveness of that mask would be sorely compromised. The vast majority of people would very likely resist getting bogged down in pretty technical mask-wearing instructions. So...the public health officials' answer to this: Just wear something on your face. It'll give you a great sense of [false] security. (Heck...it doesn't even do that since your safety is ultimately dependent on others wearing masks.) :rolleyes:

[hcap]

So, meanwhile the public gets ambiguous mandates to wear anything over their face, as long as it covers nose and mouth. Is this because "King Donal The False" ordered that ambiguity? :rolleyes: Well..since the mandates are so loosey goosey, my wife just ordered more mask material. We think cheese cloth should work just fine.

And the main reason N95s weren't mass-distributed is because they must be worn properly -- fitted perfectly over the wearer's face, otherwise the effectiveness of that mask would be sorely compromised. The vast majority of people would very likely resist getting bogged down in pretty technical mask-wearing instructions. So...the public health officials' answer to this: Just wear something on your face. It'll give you a great sense of [false] security. (Heck...it doesn't even do that since your safety is ultimately dependent on others wearing masks.) :rolleyes:You are still ignoring the distinction between protecting oneself and others. And why the engineering requirements are so very different.

Therefore this entire thread you started based on bullshit and the lack of understanding that distinction, is totally a crock. You should apologize for making a fool of yourself and wasting everyone's time:rolleyes:

[Tor Ekman]

I sport a full beard and I recall reading that masks, particularly the N-95 mask, cannot work as intended with the presence of a beard . . . so can the government mandate that I must shave???

[hcap]

I sport a full beard and I recall reading that masks, particularly the N-95 mask, cannot work as intended with the presence of a beard . . . so can the government mandate that I must shave???You evidently have not been paying attention Wearing a cloth mask may not protect you as a N95 would, but it will protect others if you are infected, and stop community spread dead in it's track.

[boxcar]

You evidently have not been paying attention Wearing a cloth mask may not protect you as a N95 would, but it will protect others if you are infected, and stop community spread dead in it's track.

Yeah, right.... :rolleyes: Talk about delusional brought on by drinking the Koolaid...

[boxcar]

You are still ignoring the distinction between protecting oneself and others. And why the engineering requirements are so very different.

Therefore this entire thread you started based on bullshit and the lack of understanding that distinction, is totally a crock. You should apologize for making a fool of yourself and wasting everyone's time:rolleyes:

Protecting oneself and others is by quarantining the covid-infected sick! It's always been that way.

[jk3521]

A real wise "ass" excuse for not wearing a mask...

https://nypost.com/2020/07/22/panera-karen-masks-dont-stop-covid-19-since-pants-dont-contain-farts/

[tucker6]

A real wise "ass" excuse for not wearing a mask...

https://nypost.com/2020/07/22/panera-karen-masks-dont-stop-covid-19-since-pants-dont-contain-farts/
Wonder why she was identified as a white woman. Skin color has nothing to do with the story. More racism from the left.

[boxcar]

Wonder why she was identified as a white woman. Skin color has nothing to do with the story. More racism from the left.

It was to infer that the woman was exercising her "white privilege".

[jk3521]

Wonder why she was identified as a white woman. Skin color has nothing to do with the story. More racism from the left.
From the N. Y. Post, not a liberal leaning tabloid.

According to the "urban dictionary " ,a "Karen" is described as a rude , obnoxious, and insufferable middle aged white woman. I have come upon more than a few "uppity" women of all races over my 70 something years.

[tucker6]

I have come upon more than a few "uppity" women of all races over my 70 something years.
you got that right!!

[rastajenk]

My facebook friends list is full of 'em . :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Yes I read it.


hcap, being such a stickler for details, I thought you would have noticed the obvious descrepancy.

hcap = JUNK science
hcap = hypocrisy

[Actor]

Originally because the moron, did not address the huge shortage in N95 masks, and the continuing problems in acquiring or manufacturing them, ...

https://www.lowes.com/pd/3M-2-Pack-Disposable-Sanding-and-Fiberglass-Valved-Safety-Mask/1002710118

[Actor]

I have also posted many scientifically-based medical opinions about masks that differ significantly from the things you have posted.One of them from Michael Behe? :lol:

[Actor]

Yeah, right.... :rolleyes: Talk about delusional brought on by drinking the Koolaid...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ8Zxu6ARrY

[boxcar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ8Zxu6ARrY

How politically incorrect was that dude in the vid!? He claims the virus kills "indiscriminately". I guess he didn't get the "science" memo that claims that virus is racist because it kills more blacks than whites. :coffee:

[boxcar]

One of them from Michael Behe? :lol:

He has infinitely more credibility than this guy:

BUSTED! Dr. Fauci caught not social distancing and not wearing a mask after failed first pitch, gets ‘caption this’ treatment and LOL

https://twitchy.com/sam-3930/2020/07/24/then-i-said-masks-work-lol-pic-of-dr-fauci-not-wearing-a-mask-and-not-social-distancing-after-failed-1st-pitch-gets-caption-this-treatment/

Proof-positive this hypocritical, lying snake-in-the-grass doesn't believe his own fear-mongering rhetoric.

[hcap]

How politically incorrect was that dude in the vid!? He claims the virus kills "indiscriminately". I guess he didn't get the "science" memo that claims that virus is racist because it kills more blacks than whites. :coffee:You, and the premise of this bullshit thread has been proven wrong.

[boxcar]

You, and the premise of this bullshit thread has been proven wrong.


Delusional much? :coffee: Even Fauci can't believe his own BS!

[Actor]

He has infinitely more credibility than this guy:Do you know who Behe is? If so do you know that he believes that astrology is a science?

[boxcar]

Do you know who Behe is? If so do you know that he believes that astrology is a science?

Do you know who Fauci is? If so, do you know he's a "scientific expert" in hypocrisy?

[boxcar]

Walmart, Home Depot and other retailers walk back face mask mandates, will serve maskless customers

https://www.theblaze.com/news/walmart-home-depot-mask-policy-stores?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20200726Trending-WalmartHomeDepotMasks&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Breaking%20News

Yes, indeed, the message is coming through loud and clear day by day. My wife and I have noticed how many people in stores lately have been walking around in half-masked mode -- mask over mouth but not over nose. :lol::lol: This was telling us that people are getting fed up with the charade.

[davew]

employee at Ralph's a little aggressive

https://www.insider.com/the-grocery-store-employee-was-suspended-for-face-mask-altercation-2020-7

[boxcar]

James Woods asks why we must wear face masks when protesters don’t: ‘Slobbering nincompoops’

https://noqreport.com/2020/07/27/james-woods-asks-why-we-must-wear-face-masks-when-protesters-dont-slobbering-nincompoops/

[porchy44]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ8Zxu6ARrY

Most all Churches I'm aware of are practicing social distancing in Church and wearing masks.

[boxcar]

No country for face masks: Nordics brush off mouth covers

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-country-face-masks-nordics-brush-off-mouth-095007454.html

All these months the Noridics have been going maskless!? How can there be any Noridc still alive!? :bang::bang:

[boxcar]

Yale epidemiologist: Dr. Fauci running 'misinformation campaign' against hydroxychloroquine

Accuses prominent doctor of harboring 'total anti-science viewpoint.'

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/yale-epidemiologist-accuses-fauci-running-disinformation-campaign

Who would have ever thought? :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

Could Face Masks Be Spreading the Coronavirus?

I used to wonder how the Salem Witch Trials could have happened. I don't anymore.

With the "Karens" (male and female) going hysterical in this viral panic, I clearly understand now why it's said, "if you think education is expensive, try ignorance." Ignorance, or maybe better put, a lack of knowledge, sets up the American people to be exploited by their own politicians and government officials. But, relative to a pathogen, it also sets them up to become disease transport agents via a mandated fomite: the face mask.

For those not familiar with the term "fomite," it's a non-biological object contaminated with a pathogen, making the article a source for spreading the pathogen. For me, this viral panic has made it evident that most people have no understanding of viruses, their life cycles, and how they propagate. The fear of the unknown is the outgrowth of this lack of knowledge. It leads people to take irrational actions that will spread a pathogen.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/could_face_masks_be_spreading_the_coronavirus.html

[PaceAdvantage]

Yale epidemiologist: Dr. Fauci running 'misinformation campaign' against hydroxychloroquine

Accuses prominent doctor of harboring 'total anti-science viewpoint.'

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/yale-epidemiologist-accuses-fauci-running-disinformation-campaign

Who would have ever thought? :rolleyes:Wow...a Yale epidemiologist....I would definitely listen to THAT person...YALE...and EPIDEMIOLOGIST....wowsa....

Can I get 46zilzal's and hcap's blessing on THIS ONE?

Surely they have ZERO QUALMS about YALE + EPIDEMIOLOGIST

[boxcar]

Wow...a Yale epidemiologist....I would definitely listen to THAT person...YALE...and EPIDEMIOLOGIST....wowsa....

Can I get 46zilzal's and hcap's blessing on THIS ONE?

Surely they have ZERO QUALMS about YALE + EPIDEMIOLOGIST

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Good luck with that!

[rastajenk]

To borrow from a Newsweek cover from about 12 years ago:

We Are All Epidemiologists Now.

[boxcar]

To borrow from a Newsweek cover from about 12 years ago:

We Are All Epidemiologists Now.

I have to say the learning curve has been fun. :D

[Tom]

hcap got hit on the head by a falling curve.

[boxcar]

hcap got hit on the head by a falling curve.

A fast curve at that...

[woodtoo]

A fast curve at that...

V-shaped....

[boxcar]

Netherlands Refuses To Mandate Face Masks; Sweden Says They Are ‘Pointless’

“There is no proven effectiveness”.

https://summit.news/2020/07/31/netherlands-refuses-to-mandate-face-masks-sweden-says-they-are-pointless/

[PaceAdvantage]

In Sweden, meanwhile, senior epidemiologist Anders Tegnell declared that there is “no point” in wearing masks in public.

“We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” Tegnell said.

Sweden, which has not even instituted a lock down at any time, appears to be seeing a downward trend in cases.

At the beginning of this week, Sweden announced just 398 new cases, down from 767 the week before and 2,530 one month ago.

“The curves go down, and the curves over the seriously ill begin to be very close to zero. As a whole, it is very positive,” Tegnell asserted.Remember when hcap was telling us what a DISASTER Sweden would turn out to be?

He'll never comment on them again (willingly)...

[boxcar]

Remember when hcap was telling us what a DISASTER Sweden would turn out to be?

He'll never comment on them again (willingly)...

It's a miracle any Swede is still alive. Those who ignore the Fascist Faucis of this world are supposedly doomed to die.

[boxcar]

Big Tech censorship of HCQ has Dr. David Samadi perturbed… and fighting back

The good doctor got suspended on Twitter, not for saying Hydroxychloroquine is the cure for COVID-19 but for simply saying it's a valid treatment to be considered.

https://noqreport.com/2020/07/30/big-tech-censorship-of-hcq-has-dr-david-samadi-perturbed-and-fighting-back/

Amazing how many medical experts Twitter must have on their payroll.

[clicknow]

Sweden is no success story. Their deaths per million is 568, on par with places like Peru and Italy, while Norway's is a mere............47.

Sweden's elderly population paid most of the price.

They haven't even benefitted economically, their economy is no better off than anyone elses, according to their main banks and other economic forecasters. As a matter of fact, it may be worse.

BTW, I have 2 friends in Norway. They said everyone is wearing masks, so I'll believe that "on the ground" report rather than some survey somebody did for whatever reason.

568 per million is a heck of a lot different that 47 per million.


Anyway, I remember Trump disagreeing with their approach:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/04/30/trump-says-sweden-paying-heavily-for-failure-to-lock-down-as-deaths-toll-rise-over-2500/#4ff405167ec3



https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1255825648448348161

[boxcar]

Sweden is no success story. Their deaths per million is 568, on par with places like Peru and Italy, while Norway's is a mere............47.

Sweden's elderly population paid most of the price.

They haven't even benefitted economically, their economy is no better off than anyone elses, according to their main banks and other economic forecasters. As a matter of fact, it may be worse.

BTW, I have 2 friends in Norway. They said everyone is wearing masks, so I'll believe that "on the ground" report rather than some survey somebody did for whatever reason.

568 per million is a heck of a lot different that 47 per million.


Anyway, I remember Trump disagreeing with their approach:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/04/30/trump-says-sweden-paying-heavily-for-failure-to-lock-down-as-deaths-toll-rise-over-2500/#4ff405167ec3



https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1255825648448348161

Stick to the story; for Trump has nothing to do with Sweden.

And Sweden has come a very long way since then...look at the date on the story!

At the beginning of this week, Sweden announced just 398 new cases, down from 767 the week before and 2,530 one month ago.

Looks like nature's way of herd immunity is doing its thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sweden is no success story. Their deaths per million is 568, on par with places like Peru and Italy, while Norway's is a mere............47.

Sweden's elderly population paid most of the price.

They haven't even benefitted economically, their economy is no better off than anyone elses, according to their main banks and other economic forecasters. As a matter of fact, it may be worse.

BTW, I have 2 friends in Norway. They said everyone is wearing masks, so I'll believe that "on the ground" report rather than some survey somebody did for whatever reason.

568 per million is a heck of a lot different that 47 per million.


Anyway, I remember Trump disagreeing with their approach:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/04/30/trump-says-sweden-paying-heavily-for-failure-to-lock-down-as-deaths-toll-rise-over-2500/#4ff405167ec3



https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1255825648448348161


You're quoting Trump back in APRIL?

How can you say Sweden isn't a success story?

Look at daily case rates! Which graph would YOU rather be for the last 30+ days?

http://www.paceadvantage.com/images/USA_SWEDEN_073120.jpg

[boxcar]

Sorry, Wearing Masks Is Anything but Harmless. Here are 5 Reasons Why

https://www.redstate.com/michael_thau/2020/07/31/sorry-no-masks-arent-harmless/

Pay attention to the top reason listed, Mr. Empty Suit:

1. Wearing masks prolongs the amount of time the virus stays around by slowing down its infection rate WITHOUT decreasing the number of people who ultimately have to get it before it fades away.

One assumption that most mask advocates (who aren’t being disingenuous) seem to be making is that after some fixed amount of time, like maybe a few months, voilà, the virus will just disappear regardless of how few people wind up catching it.

But that simply isn’t so.

Viruses don’t just lose their power to reproduce after a few months and vanish. It isn’t going away till a certain percentage of us have acquired immunity, either thru infection or the advent of a vaccine. The COVID virus will continue to cause problems until the number of infections reaches whatever its threshold for herd immunity or burnout is.

This same misconception was ubiquitous concerning social distancing. It was only ever supposed to slow down the rate of infection so our hospitals weren’t overrun. Lockdowns were never meant to prevent people from ultimately becoming infected. They were only supposed to make us get sick later rather than sooner.

As Dr. Lisa Maragakis, Senior Director of Infection Prevention at Johns Hopkins Medical School explained, flattening the curve means that “the same large number of patients arrived at the hospital at a slower rate. [emphasis mine]”

The same is true for wearing masks. The only reason for healthy young people to engage in either practice is if there’s a danger of running out of medical resources. In the absence of any such danger, all you’re doing is prolonging the amount of time til herd immunity or burnout and, hence, making sure the virus sticks around longer.

[boxcar]

Latest update on how horribly everything is going wrong in Sweden due to covid-19. How there are any Swedes still left standing is beyond me. :rolleyes:

Sweden, Which Never Had Lockdown, Sees COVID-19 Cases Plummet as Rest of Europe Suffers Spike

Amid fears over a potential second wave of the novel coronavirus across Europe, new infections in Sweden, where full lockdown measures were not implemented, have mostly declined since late June.

The number of new cases per 100,000 people in Sweden reported over the last 14 days since July 29 dropped by 54 percent from the figure reported over 14 days prior to then, according to the latest report Wednesday from the World Health Organization (WHO).

Meanwhile, other parts of Europe have reported large spikes in new cases over the same period, including Spain, France, Germany, Belgium and The Netherlands, which have seen increases between 40 and 200 percent over the last month, according to the latest WHO report Wednesday.

https://www.newsweek.com/sweden-which-never-had-lockdown-sees-covid-19-cases-plummet-rest-europe-suffers-spike-1521626

[clicknow]

You're quoting Trump back in APRIL?

How can you say Sweden isn't a success story?

Look at daily case rates! Which graph would YOU rather be for the last 30+ days?

http://www.paceadvantage.com/images/USA_SWEDEN_073120.jpg

So, let's just ignore their incredibly high deaths per million that it cost them.
How nice that you consider that a success because now you're only zero-ed in on "daily cases".


But again, Sweden's economic outlook is in the chitter. Their top analysts and banks say that, too. So all those deaths came at a huge cost, and they're not any better off economically. That's like burning thru your entire bankroll for a weekend, then a month later you start winning a few races, but your bank account is still in the red. :D.

You will see this into 2021 and 2022. When we start looking more carfully at how each nation is recuperating economically. :)

My opinion is Sweden is not a success story. You are welcome to think it is and disagree.

[clicknow]

You're quoting Trump back in APRIL?



Yes.

I quoted him to show that he did not, back in April, agree that Sweden's way was the right direction to go in.

And, so..... we didn't.

So, do you think we should have gone in that direction?

Now it's months later, and are you suggesting that we now try that direction, now that we have almost 5 million covid positives and almost 160,000 dead?


Or are you saying nobody here should be quoting or using anything Trump has said, historically, since the beginning of this pandemic? Didn't Trump say something about that fish tank drug he likes back in April? Why are you still quoting him about stuff he said back in April? :D

[davew]

You're quoting Trump back in APRIL?

How can you say Sweden isn't a success story?

Look at daily case rates! Which graph would YOU rather be for the last 30+ days?

http://www.paceadvantage.com/images/USA_SWEDEN_073120.jpg

I had to check populations to compare

sweden 10 million
usa 330 million

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes.

I quoted him to show that he did not, back in April, agree that Sweden's way was the right direction to go in.

And, so..... we didn't.

So, do you think we should have gone in that direction?

Now it's months later, and are you suggesting that we now try that direction, now that we have almost 5 million covid positives and almost 160,000 dead?


Or are you saying nobody here should be quoting or using anything Trump has said, historically, since the beginning of this pandemic? Didn't Trump say something about that fish tank drug he likes back in April? Why are you still quoting him about stuff he said back in April? :DYes, of course we should have gone in that direction.

All we did was delay the INEVITABLE. In the end, the numbers will be whatever they were going to be in the beginning....THE ONLY WAY to affect the numbers markedly would be to have an effective MEDICATION or VACCINE that will stop the virus. We don't have that (at least officially...hell...we wouldn't want all this to end until at least November 3, 2020).

So going Sweden's way was definitely a much better way to go...this is already starting to prove itself out undeniably.

[PaceAdvantage]

I had to check populations to compare

sweden 10 million
usa 330 millionWho's talking raw numbers? I'm talking slope of graph...why in the world would I want to be the USA right now when I can be Sweden?

Sweden is finished with COVID-19(84) for the most part. Their daily case numbers are back where they were when the virus first hit...our daily case numbers are making brand new highs almost every day....parabolic baby...

[fast4522]

Remember when hcap was telling us what a DISASTER Sweden would turn out to be?

He'll never comment on them again (willingly)...

Here is the thing, you both push narratives early as if we actually knew what we were dealing with. It makes no difference if it was a republican or a democrat President, going the way of Sweden's path guarantees a failed attempt for a second term period. In retrospect local government would have killed off a good 20% to 25 % of jobs anyway and shut things down anyway and crucifying a sitting President in the process. Look at how many elected officials have done everything that they could to be unconstitutional and in turn hurt everyone's liberty's. As the numbers come into the picture I remind myself that this is not the full picture and everyone is skewing numbers because of money. Although this crisis is not over I have no problem concluding that we as a country have learned nothing and the wrong people are dead from it. Sure now we look into how to protect seniors and war hero's in nursing homes after the bulk have already expired.

[PaceAdvantage]

Here is the thing, you both push narratives early as if we actually knew what we were dealing with. Sweden's path and numbers are infinitely more clear than the USA's. I say that with absolute certainty.

I would be absolutely SHOCKED if we see a parabolic-like spike in Sweden's daily case numbers like we saw in the USA these past few months.

[Actor]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/21/880832213/yes-wearing-masks-helps-heres-why

"a meta-analysis of 172 studies that looked at various interventions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, SARS and MERS from an infected person to people close to them. The analysis, which was published in The Lancet on June 1, found that mask wearing significantly reduces the risk of viral transmission."I must point out that the Lancet is the most respected medical journal in the world. The Lancet has concluded that mask wearing significantly reduces the risk of viral transmission. Therefore the science is indeed conclusive. Wear a mask when you out in public. There's a word for any doctor that advises otherwise, that word is "quack."

There's an old adage: Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever.

[davew]

Who's talking raw numbers? I'm talking slope of graph...why in the world would I want to be the USA right now when I can be Sweden?

Sweden is finished with COVID-19(84) for the most part. Their daily case numbers are back where they were when the virus first hit...our daily case numbers are making brand new highs almost every day....parabolic baby...

then you must love the daily new case chart of NY state

[hcap]

I must point out that the Lancet is the most respected medical journal in the world. The Lancet has concluded that mask wearing significantly reduces the risk of viral transmission. Therefore the science is indeed conclusive. Wear a mask when you out in public. There's a word for any doctor that advises otherwise, that word is "quack."

There's an old adage: Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever.Total waste of time HERE to try and make a distinction between expertise and crackpottery.

Been trying for months:rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

I like the Lancet. Especially when they publish studies on HCQ that later need to be retracted...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext

lulz

such a prestigious medical journal...tsk tsk tsk...that TDS nails everyone, doesn't it?

[hcap]

I like the Lancet. Especially when they publish studies on HCQ that later need to be retracted...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext

lulz

such a prestigious medical journal...tsk tsk tsk...that TDS nails everyone, doesn't it?Hey Luiz, what was retracted was a study that improperly raise SAFETY concerns by the author. Not retreating the conclusive multi-clinical peer-reviewed studies showing ZERO effectiveness.

That's how science works properly using the peer review process.Eroors are made and most of the time it is caught before an ineffective drug is hyped by the hysterical.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-major-covid-19-paper-that-raised-safety-concerns-about-malaria-drugs/

The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, on Thursday retracted an influential study that raised alarms about the safety of the experimental Covid-19 treatments chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine amid scrutiny of the data underlying the paper.

The retractions came at the request of the authors of the studies, published last month, who were not directly involved with the data collection and sources, the journals said.

...Meanwhile, on Wednesday, researchers reported the results of the first gold-standard clinical trial of hydroxycholoroquine in Covid-19, concluding that it did not prevent infections any better than placebo. Other clinical trials, including some looking at the drugs as treatments, are ongoing.

The Lancet study gained so much attention because it went further than other observational studies that had similarly found the drugs were not associated with improved outcomes for patients. The study, which was purportedly based on patient data from 671 hospitals on six continents, reported the drugs also corresponded to higher mortality.

[boxcar]

I must point out that the Lancet is the most respected medical journal in the world. The Lancet has concluded that mask wearing significantly reduces the risk of viral transmission. Therefore the science is indeed conclusive. Wear a mask when you out in public. There's a word for any doctor that advises otherwise, that word is "quack."

There's an old adage: Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever.

And into which camp do you fall?

Don't you know that Lancet also has a political agenda? The organization certainly isn't sympathetic toward Jews -- in fact, they might well be antisemites. :rolleyes:

The Lancet: A Biased and Shameful Medical Journal

https://www.algemeiner.com/2012/03/11/the-lancet-a-biased-and-shameful-medical-journal/

[PaceAdvantage]

MORE SWEDEN PLEASE:

https://twitter.com/aginnt/status/1289252988368949249

https://www.newsweek.com/sweden-which-never-had-lockdown-sees-covid-19-cases-plummet-rest-europe-suffers-spike-1521626

[PaceAdvantage]

MORE SWEDEN....NEED MORE SWEDEN!

https://twitter.com/pwyowell/status/1289199855093420032

[boxcar]

MORE SWEDEN....NEED MORE SWEDEN!

https://twitter.com/pwyowell/status/1289199855093420032

This can't be. Whatever runs counter to leftist propaganda has to be fake news.

[Redboard]

MORE SWEDEN PLEASE:
...


Herd immunity?

THE HERD IMMUNITY THRESHOLD (“HIT”) FOR COVID-19 IS BETWEEN 10-20%
June 25, 2020

Most people understand the basic concept of herd immunity and the math behind it. In the early days, some public health officials speculated that COVID-19’s HIT was 70%. Obviously, the difference between a HIT of 70% and a HIT of 10-20% is dramatic, and the lower the HIT, the quicker a virus will burn out as it loses the ability to infect more people, which is exactly what COVID-19 is doing everywhere, including the U.S..

New York is WELL PAST Herd Immunity Threshold (as is New Jersey), the southern states in the news are BELOW the implied HIT, while the U.S. overall is nearly there with 15%. This is why the death curve from the CDC (and NYC!) looks the way it looks: We are basically done with the virus, just like Sweden, and oh, Italy.

A respected team of infectious disease epidemiologists from the U.K. and U.S. have concluded: “Naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may place populations over the herd immunity threshold once as few as 10-20% of its individuals are immune.” Separate calculations of HITs ranging from ~18% to 43% — each substantially below the dogmatically asserted value of ~70% — have recently been reported.

Additional immune responses beyond the development of specific SARS-Cov2 “B-cell antibodies,” capable of lowering the HIT by preventing SARS-Cov2 infection and/or reducing COVID-19 disease severity, have been described. These include:

●The presence of cross-reactive non-COVID-19 human coronavirus antibodies, induced by coronaviruses responsible for 15%-30% of seasonal common colds, which might lessen COVID-19 disease severity.

●The presence of pre-existing immunity, mediated by other cells which circulate in the blood called “T-cells,” found in 34% of healthy Berlin, Germany, blood donors who had no evidence of specific “antibodies” to COVID-19/SARS-Cov2.

●The presence of such “T cells” detected in ~40%-60% of SARS-Cov2 unexposed healthy U.S. blood donors, also suggesting cross-reactive T-cell immunity between circulating “common cold” coronaviruses and SARS-Cov2.

●Evidence from healthy Singapore blood donors of T-cell-immunity conferred by prior infection with not only SARS-Cov1 — likely dating back to the 2002-03 outbreak — but also common cold-causing human coronaviruses and other “unknown coronaviruses, possibly of animal origin” in persons unexposed to either SARS-Cov1 or SARS-Cov2.

●Evidence that six of eight close household contacts of COVID-19 infected and recovered patients, who also developed mild symptoms but did not produce SARS-Cov2 antibodies, yet demonstrated specific T-cell immunity to SARS-Cov2. The investigators concluded: “Epidemiological data relying only on the detection of SARS-Cov2 antibodies may lead to substantial underestimation of prior exposure to the virus.”

The Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) published a 5/20/20 “best estimate” of the infection fatality ratio (IFR) for COVID-19 in the U.S. An IFR for any infectious disease is the number of fatal infections divided by the total of all infections, including asymptomatic infections. The CDC’s COVID-19 IFR for the U.S. ranged from 0.20%-0.27%, based upon asymptomatic infections composing an estimated 50% to 35% of total infections. This CDC estimate is consistent with its calculation of a 0.26% U.S. IFR for the 1957-58 H2N2 influenza A pandemic, despite an attempted vaccination program. Stanford Professor of Epidemiology John Ioannidis’ 5/19/20 analysis of COVID-19 IFRs from 12 large population studies that surveyed the presence of COVID-19 antibodies in blood, each with at least 500 sampled, found: 7/12 with a corrected IFR range of 0.06%-0.16%, like seasonal flu; 3/12 modestly higher, 0.25%-0.40%; and 2/12 modestly lower, 0.02%-0.03%.

THE HERD IMMUNITY THRESHOLD (“HIT”) FOR COVID-19 IS BETWEEN 10-20% (https://www.conservativereview.com/news/covid-19-herd-immunity-without-vaccination-teaching-modern-vaccine-dogma-old-tricks/)

[PaceAdvantage]

I am starting to believe the above.

Doctors at a well respected hospital here where I live in NY told a friend of mine recently that "COVID has basically disappeared from here...we aren't seeing anyone with the disease any longer...nobody is even coming in to be tested..."

[davew]

I am starting to believe the above.

Doctors at a well respected hospital here where I live in NY told a friend of mine recently that "COVID has basically disappeared from here...we aren't seeing anyone with the disease any longer...nobody is even coming in to be tested..."

so Cuomo was the best?

[Stevecsd2]

Redboard, thanks for your post on the HIT details. I think that gives us some hope that our problems will be reduced in a short term.

[Tom]

so Cuomo was the best?

HE killed off everyone left vulnerable in NY. :rolleyes: