Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy

From the source article:

The bottom line is that if you are not sick, you should not wear a face mask.

Aside from a panacea/fearmongering tool, wearing a facemask is not intended to protect the wearer, but to inhibit the vector of the virus that utilizes water droplets from sneezes and coughs.

a reply to: Boadicea

Hey, famotidine, that's new. Do they have the story behind that?

Ah, I skimmed through the related published article linked by EVMS. Seems like another one that is suggested may inhibit viral replication, not something that will actually keep the virus outside of the cell like HCQ, i.e. keep healthy cells healthy, a true prophylactic treatment (or more, as in the true prophylactic value in a treatment lies in its ability to prevent infection, not merely treat the infection after cells have been infected such as when you're using substances to inhibit viral replication).

a reply to: Gryphon66

Aside from a panacea/fearmongering tool...

I like how you phrased that. You're right.

...wearing a facemask is not intended to protect the wearer, but to inhibit the vector of the virus that utilizes water droplets from sneezes and coughs.

True -- wearing a face mask is to protect others from being infected with our cooties, it is not to protect us from being infected with others' cooties. Someone who is infected but asymptomatic will exhale some virus cells, thus possibly transmitting the virus; some who is symptomatic will be spewing many virus cells, and probably transmitting the virus.

Those who are symptomatic and spewing anything probably shouldn't be out and about at all, but if and when necessary to be out and about, face masks are necessary and appropriate.

There are also situations and circumstances where the risks of wearing a face mask are preferable to the risks of not wearing a face mask.

But there is a risk to wearing a face mask, and the risks and benefits need to be known in order for everyone to be able to make the best choices for themselves, their needs and their circumstances. Not just if to wear a face mask, but how to wear one when/if necessary and appropriate.

And we need to keep the end goal in mind: To slow the spread. Not to stop the spread. In order to gain herd immunity, we do need people to become infected and to produce antibodies and attain natural immunity. We do need those people willing to expose themselves and, yes, get sick, and get through it.

There is no good reason to demand face masks for all, all day every day. We can provide for the most vulnerable and accommodate their needs, while still allowing those so inclined to continue working and living and making the world go round. In fact, it's in everyone's best interests to do so.

a reply to: Boadicea

There are risks in wearing face masks.

There's even more risk in allowing our focus to be drawn to the masks, rather than the blatant abuse of the so-called police power we see in the US in the last few months.

Ever seen "police power" in the Constitution?

The purpose of the masks is not to protect the person wearing the mask but to protect other people.

If you are wearing a mask and sneeze, then some of the droplets are stopped by the mask.

Face Masks

In my area we are required to wear face masks when in stores. It's not a big deal, and if it helps reduce the spread of covid, then I'm all for it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

There are risks in wearing face masks.

There's even more risk in allowing our focus to be drawn to the masks, rather than the blatant abuse of the so-called police power we see in the US in the last few months.

Ever seen "police power" in the Constitution?

Your point is well taken, but I believe the two can go hand-in-hand. People are quite happy to embrace and cheer the police state when they think the police state is protecting them... The rise of the mini-tyrants.

Everyone needs to understand it's a double edged sword! That same police state can and will enforce standards that can and will harm them as well. Such as face masks.

And, of course, they also need to be able to minimize/mitigate their own risks in the process.

originally posted by: Wildbob77
The purpose of the masks is not to protect the person wearing the mask but to protect other people.

Yes, we know this, and it's been stated many many times.

In my area we are required to wear face masks when in stores. It's not a big deal, and if it helps reduce the spread of covid, then I'm all for it.

Yes, it is a big deal for MANY people, for all the reasons stated in the OP and in subsequent comments. If it's not a problem for you, great. That's awesome. But there is no virtue in minimizing, belittling or outright ignoring that it is a problem for other people.

Further, it is possible -- and far more practical -- to accommodate both those who want/need to conduct their business wearing masks, and those who do not want/need to wear masks and accept the risks. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and to allow adults to make the best decisions for themselves, based upon their own needs and circumstances.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Dr. Blaylock notes that there is no clinical evidence that the masks will protect us from any virus, much less this virus.

So this is a BS statement. There is a ton of proof that a mask reduces how much of your droplets escape and spread from you mouth and nose. Using words like "protect" and "prevents" kind of leads people away from what the masks really do, and why we need to wear them.

It's like saying social distancing doesn't do anything in reducing the spread.... Do you believe that too?

Outside of coughing the biggest spread is talking, and that is close to coughing in terms of liquid particles, so don't talk ever without a mask, good?

Wearing a mask reduces the spread of liquid particles during speech from the level of what coughing would create down to what normal breathing creates.

I don't think Dr. Blaylock is a scientist that has done any laser light-scattering experiments to make his claim, do you? Is he an expert on masks...lol

With these experiments during speech micro particles can travel up to 5m without a mask and 1.5m with one, so what ya think? The reality is 10 feet social distancing with a mask during speech is best, and anything less than that or not having a mask you will get the virus sooner than later when someone else talks to you and expels all their little virus full droplets right into your face....

a reply to: Xtrozero

Big big sigh...

Again, wearing a face mask protects others from our cooties. It does not protect us from others' cooties.

A mask will catch and retain cooties spewed by others, which are then inhaled by the person wearing the mask. This is not in dispute by experts.

The point of wearing a mask is so that we don't spew cooties into the air and infect other people. Those cooties are caught and retained by the mask.

a reply to: Boadicea

Further, it is possible -- and far more practical -- to accommodate both those who want/need to conduct their business wearing masks, and those who do not want/need to wear masks and accept the risks.

The ones not wearing masks are not excepting any risks. They are the ones risking others. They are potential Typhoid Mary's.

You gotta fight for your right to infect others. Maybe the Beastie Boys can record your anthem.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

You gotta fight for your right to infect others. Maybe the Beastie Boys can record your anthem.

We need ask these same mask deniers if they would just cough right into another person's face? That is basically what they are doing when they talk to a person....As I said talking with a mask at 10 feet is good protection, no mask and you better be across the room before any protection starts....

I am curious as to how many people that refuse to wear a face mask use a seat belt.

originally posted by: peck420
I am curious as to how many people that refuse to wear a face mask use a seat belt.

Or sneeze into their hand and just wipe it on someone else... I guess if they can not see the droplets that are full of the virus then they do not exist...lol

a reply to: Grimpachi

The ones not wearing masks are not excepting any risks. They are the ones risking others. They are potential Typhoid Mary's.

Au contraire. If appropriate accommodations for ALL were made, then everyone would have a choice between mask-only shopping, mask-optional shopping, and mask-free shopping; and this, of course, in addition to continued designated shopping hours for the vulnerable, curbside pickup, delivery, and whatever other creative and innovative ways folks come up with. And ideally, not just shopping, but conducting any and all necessary business.

Therefore, if I am shopping mask-free in the designated times, anyone and everyone there has chosen to accept that level of risk, and I have. It is mutual agreement and consent. No one is doing anything to anyone else. It's just free adults being free adults.

You gotta fight for your right to infect others. Maybe the Beastie Boys can record your anthem.

Nope. Not at all. First and foremost, you are assuming that everyone -- just everyone! -- is infected and contagious. That isn't going to happen.

But more important, it's not man vs man but man vs Mother Nature. In this case, we've decided to slow the spread, not stop the spread, and there is no hard and fast rules on how we do so, or how fast/slow we do so. We make the rules.

We need people to be exposed and contract the virus and gain antibodies and natural immunity for the sake of everyone. It's quite fair, reasonable, and effective to allow those willing to accept the risks and consequences to fill that need of their own free will. If you aren't that person, okay. You don't have to be.

While the risk-takers keep the world going round, we can make appropriate accommodations and take necessary and appropriate precautions for those most vulnerable, until herd immunity is attained and the world is a safer place for everyone.

a reply to: Xtrozero

We need ask these same mask deniers if they would just cough right into another person's face?

Mask deniers? Oh my! That's funny -- thank you.

No, us "mask deniers" aren't going to cough "right into another person's face." And it's ridiculous to suggest that because someone chooses not to take a certain precaution that they will take no precautions whatsoever. It was never cool to cough "right into another person's face" at any time.

That is basically what they are doing when they talk to a person....

Oh please. So pre-CoVid people didn't talk to each other they were "basically" coughing "right into another person's face."

Amazing we're still here to tell the tale... We all should have been dead a long time ago.

As I said talking with a mask at 10 feet is good protection, no mask and you better be across the room before any protection starts....

And people can decide for themselves what precautions and protections are best for themselves, their needs and their circumstances. If any are needed at all. Increasingly, people will be infected and recover and attain antibodies. They will not be a threat to anyone and no one will be a threat to them.

We need those people.

a reply to: Boadicea

Interestingly, in Georgia it is STILL against the law to wear a mask in public (OCGA 16-11-38) yet, our Governor and the Mayor of Atlanta DECIDED that that law was just not going to be enforced at their whim.

That is not representative democracy. That is a police state.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Interestingly, in Georgia it is STILL against the law to wear a mask in public (OCGA 16-11-38) yet, our Governor and the Mayor of Atlanta DECIDED that that law was just not going to be enforced at their whim.

That is not representative democracy. That is a police state.

Infuriating. I know the emergency declarations have made exercising other rights impossible in many states. In Michigan, it's made it nigh near impossible to gather signatures for a recall petition. Courts are closed indefinitely in some places. Protesters cannot get protest permits. It's been very effective in preventing anyone from exercising our rights to redress of our grievances.

Here is Arizona, the law makes wearing a mask during the commission of a crime an aggregating factor, but it's not a crime in and of itself. At least that's how I understand it.

a reply to: Boadicea

In Georgia, this was directed at the Ku Klux Klan, more or less.

No executive should be able to act outside the law.

The "police power" should be limited dramatically by a Constitutional amendment IF we are even going to pretend anymore that the Constitution has any teeth.

a reply to: Boadicea

We need people to be exposed and contract the virus and gain antibodies and natural immunity for the sake of everyone. It's quite fair, reasonable, and effective to allow those willing to accept the risks and consequences to fill that need of their own free will. If you aren't that person, okay. You don't have to be.

While the risk-takers keep the world going round, we can make appropriate accommodations and take necessary and appropriate precautions for those most vulnerable, until herd immunity is attained and the world is a safer place for everyone.

That part about having people contract the virus is straight out of the dirt eaters handbook. They are not being brave they are being stupid and they are risking everyone they come into contact with.

Wearing a mask is a selfless action to protect those around you from you. I understand that some people either can't understand that or simply don't care.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Stop. The combination of arrogance and gross ignorance in your comments is dangerous.

It's also quite insulting, as you intended it to be.

But most telling is that you are quite happy to put others in harm's way, with absolutely no regard for their best interests on any level, minimizing and belittling legitimate concerns.

All while hiding behind the barrel of a government gun to enforce your will on others.