I can blow a massive holes in the "must wear masks" montra

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
a reply to: Salander

As long as the virus is out there and can overwhelm the hospitals I’d think that every measure of protection is a good thing.

most hospitals were NOT OVERWHELMED during the first round... hell even at ground zero claims in NYC the hospital ship sent for that purpose ONLY SAW about 30 people TOTAL.. thats 30 TOTAL NOT ALL AT ONCE. with many other locations with convension centers, hospitals built/refurbished and clearling out all non essential people/proceedures not being used at all. along with almost all comming in at that time (and now) being treated like they are from "the walking dead" infected with full bio hazard protocol.. wasting resources and manpower .

A family member is a nurse and sees Covid patients on a daily basis. Most of them are not vaccinated. I don’t know if they also refused to wear a mask.

first how do you know if they are vaccinated or not? if she is claiming this then she is violating a whole lot of HIPPA laws.. in any case the disease has (except for known medical compromises to which ANY PATHOGEN could send them over the edge and bad luck) a 99.7 or greater survival.. with 80 percent recovering fine not knowing they had it... i could also point out that even the CDC on its website stated that only 6 percent of covid listed deaths were COVID CAUSED/ MAIN FACTOR.. that puts the year and a half death toll of 600,000 at roughly 35,000. about half of average common flu deaths

along with you ADMITTING you DONT KNOW IF THEY WORE A MASK OR NOT that your claim masks are effective moot. bad thing when you torpedo your own argument

When your health gets that bad and you end up in the hospital everybody regrets not getting the vaccine.

"everybody does"? you now speak for EVERYONE... wow when you go arrogant and rediculous claim you dont hold back do you


in short you not only are easily proven ranting you torpedo your own argument...

maybe want to read your post before hitting "replay" next time for content

scrounger

At this point it’s really just willful ignorance on your part.

I hope your ignorance will not do you any harm.

Cheers 👍🏾

originally posted by: mamabeth

Facts can be manipulated to fit into any agenda that suits any individual.

Yes, they really can, as is more than evident these days.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: scrounger
Give it up, everybody knows the text on the box is there for legal reasons.

Someone brought up condoms earlier, guess what, they also say they are not 100% effective on the box. Does that mean they don't do anything?

Because condoms are not 100 percent effective. And only work if properly worn,,

Using a condom correctly doesn't only mean putting it on right side out. You should also:

Check the expiration date (condoms can dry and crack if they're old).
Choose condoms made of latex, which is thought to be most effective in preventing STDs. If one of you has an allergy to latex, use polyurethane condoms instead.
Keep condoms away from heat and light, which can make them more likely to break.
Only use water-based lubricants with condoms. Shortening, lotion, petroleum jelly, or baby oil can break down the condom.
Open the condom packet with your hands, not your teeth, and open it carefully so you don't tear the condom.
Choose a condom with a reservoir tip to catch semen after ejaculation. Lightly pinch the top of the condom and place it at the top of your (or your partner's) penis. This gets rid of trapped air, which can cause a condom to burst.
Roll the condom down until it's completely rolled out — if it's inside out, throw it away and start over.
When you're done, you (or your partner) should withdraw while holding the condom at the base of the penis to prevent the condom from slipping off.
If a condom breaks or slips off and you are concerned about pregnancy, call your health care provider or pharmacist to discuss emergency contraception. And both partners should be tested for STDs.

kidshealth.org...

Like masks are only effective if they seal, worn correctly, don’t dislodge from activity, are changed out before being wetted with sweat/snot/slobber.

If cloth masks are effective, why the push to double mask? Which is stupid.

Would you double condom? Double gasket an oil filter? Double air filter your car? Double filter your ac/heating unit air handler?

I find it odd that for years it was repeated abstinence was not an effect means for birth control.

But now. Somehow we are to have the discipline to social distance (be abstinent from the most basic human interactions) and have it be effective. I guess there is a need for social nazis……

originally posted by: neutronflux
Like masks are only effective if they seal, worn correctly, don’t dislodge from activity, are changed out before being wetted with sweat/snot/slobber.

I think the term is fully effective, but since the theme is they still do something, well they still do something.

If cloth masks are effective, why the push to double mask? Which is stupid.

Don't ask me, I didn't push anything.

Would you double condom? Double gasket an oil filter? Double air filter your car? Double filter your ac/heating unit air handler?

Ah, the condom question.

You know they sell lambskin condoms, not really skin but intestine. Seems like some people are ok with buying something that isn't 100% STD proof. So, yeah, I don't know if it is the 40% in your previous post but it seems there is a market for something that works as an inferior barrier.

Honestly, it seems like some people would rather not use anything. Is that better?

a reply to: daskakik

Evidently masks don’t stop the spread of covid.

The reason latex condoms approach 100 percent birth control when used correctly is to the fact they seal, have an elastic band for sealing, stay a barrier when wetted, and most have a trip reservoir for holding sperm, and can be coated with spermicide.

Cheap face masks such as bandanas, cloth masks, procedure masks can never be reliable or effective because they don’t seal. They will never seal like an N-95 mask. They are ineffective when moist / wet with body fluids. Not made to trap and hold body fluids. Don’t stop coronavirus in aerosols.

Cheap face masks are the complete opposite of what makes trapping virus effective and reliable.

a reply to: daskakik

How would you like to wear a bulletproof vest that was only 40 effective at stopping bullets…. As in stopping only 40 percent of a 45 slug with each discharge. Think they would be very effective at decreasing shooting injuries and deaths.

Are we talking about 40 percent bullet proof or just a t-shirt?

I'll take that 40 percent every single time against zero percent.


a reply to: neutronflux

originally posted by: nonspecific
Are we talking about 40 percent bullet proof or just a t-shirt?

I'll take that 40 percent every single time against zero percent.


a reply to: neutronflux

Still not the same as effective. And giving people a false sense of protection is never good.

Wearing a cycle helmet may increase risk of injury, says new research
Paper presented at National Road Safety Conference in Telford
by SIMON_MACMICHAEL
TUE, NOV 12, 2019 23:58
93

road.cc...

originally posted by: neutronflux
How would you like to wear a bulletproof vest that was only 40 effective at stopping bullets…. As in stopping only 40 percent of a 45 slug with each discharge. Think they would be very effective at decreasing shooting injuries and deaths.

They make bulletproof vests in different levels so it would seem people having to wear them do choose vests that don't stop 100% of all bullets.

By the way that vest that is only 40% efficient is still doing something, which is all people have been saying about some masks. They are right.

a reply to: neutronflux

From your source.

“A significant number of findings suggest a higher accident/injury rate may result from helmet usage and there is strong evidence that helmeted cyclists suffer a higher rate of upper body limb injuries than non-wearers, suggesting a higher rate of falls than non-wearers.”

I notice they don't discuss brain injuries .. wonder why?

I see bulletproof vests are being discussed. We know they do not offer 100% protection. If you were likely to get into a gun fight, would you refuse it because it can't offer 100% protection, and choose 0 protection instead?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: neutronflux

From your source.

“A significant number of findings suggest a higher accident/injury rate may result from helmet usage and there is strong evidence that helmeted cyclists suffer a higher rate of upper body limb injuries than non-wearers, suggesting a higher rate of falls than non-wearers.”

I notice they don't discuss brain injuries .. wonder why?

I see bulletproof vests are being discussed. We know they do not offer 100% protection. If you were likely to get into a gun fight, would you refuse it because it can't offer 100% protection, and choose 0 protection instead?

a reply to: daskakik

Context of my example. Using an illustration to relate to masks and mask efficiency.

How would you like to wear a bulletproof vest that was only 40 effective at stopping bullets…. As in stopping only 40 percent of a 45 slug with each discharge. Think they would be very effective at decreasing shooting injuries and deaths.


I guess shotguns with buckshot would be a better example. Would you wear a vest that only stop 40 percent of buckshot, and has serious gaps that allowed buckshot to slip by unopposed. Not very effective at reducing injuries and fatalities.

The sad thing. If you really cared. You could wear a better mask than a cloth mask, or a cheap procedural mask. It’s called an N-95 without an exit valve. And you wouldn’t have to double mask to boot.

Your still not factoring in both aspects of masks with this circular analogy though.

You'd need a bullet proof vest forty percent effective and a muzzle on the gun that stopped 40 percent of the bullets impact.

You'd have around 65 percent less chance of death with that.

If that's not a good return for almost no cost, effort or infringement then it's got to he a sound bet right?



a reply to: neutronflux

originally posted by: nonspecific
Your still not factoring in both aspects of masks with this circular analogy though.

You'd need a bullet proof vest forty percent effective and a muzzle on the gun that stopped 40 percent of the bullets impact.

You'd have around 65 percent less chance of death with that.

If that's not a good return for almost no cost, effort or infringement then it's got to he a sound bet right?



a reply to: neutronflux

You

You'd have around 65 percent less chance of death with that.

Your still getting 35 percent of the buckshot that will lead to injury with every shot in my buckshot/vest example. Injuries that can lead to death in a number of ways, physically shock of the blast / injury, blood loss, brain injury, major damage to organs.

Your 65 percent stoppage of buckshot (virus is what is alluded to). Still leads to buckshot exposure with every shot that hits you (still leads to breathing in covid if the virus is present)

Infectious coronavirus can linger in the air, a new study

www.advisory.com...

Covid Delta variant is ‘in the air you breathe’: what you need to know about Sydney outbreak strain

www.theguardian.com...

After months of growing scientific evidence, the World Health Organization formally acknowledged the airborne spread of Covid in April. It can occur when viral particles remain “suspended in the air or travel farther than one metre”.
Laboratory studies have found particles of the virus can linger in the air in aerosolised form for up to 16 hours.
Respiratory aerosols accumulate in the same way that cigarette smoke accumulates

a reply to: neutronflux

I would prefer a vest that stopped 40% of bullets fired at me. Not sure why you wouldnt? A vest is a bad comparison to use.

This whole conversation is a total waste of time.

The only thing that will come of it is wear and tear on the keyboard.


a reply to: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: nonspecific
This whole conversation is a total waste of time.

The only thing that will come of it is wear and tear on the keyboard.


a reply to: OccamsRazor04

a reply to: nonspecific

But that’s the thing.

You can now get and wear an N-95 mask that will actually protect you. And is more effective of capturing what you expel For those around you.

The whole cloth double mask argument should be a moot point.

I’ll leave this for food for thought again.

The Delta Variant Will Drive A Steep Rise In U.S. COVID Deaths, A New Model Shows

www.npr.org...

Wow. Despite masks being available? With no listings in the article what factor masks may make.

It’s like they project these crazy high inflated projections

Then when the real numbers are way low, it’s “masks didn't prevent the spread but they helped”….

Remember when…

APRIL 21, 2020 3:05PM
How One Model Simulated 2.2 Million U.S. Deaths from COVID-19

www.cato.org...

A month later that 2.2 million estimate was still being used (without revealing the source) by President Trump and Doctors Fauci and Birx to imply that up to two million lives had been saved by state lockdowns and business closings and/or by federal travel bans.

But…. Same source

The key premise of 81% of the population being infected should have raised more alarms than it did. Even the deadly "Spanish Flu" (H1N1) pandemic of 1918-19 infected no more than 28% of the U.S. population. The next H1N1 "Swine Flu" pandemic in 2009-10, infected 20-24% of Americans.

To push the percentage infected up from 20-28% to an unprecedented 81% for COVID-19 required assuming the number of cases and/or deaths keeps doubling every three or four days for months (deaths were predicted to peak July 20). And that means assuming the estimated reproduction number (R0) of 2.4 remains high, and people keep mingling with different groups, until nearly everyone gets infected. Long before 8 out of 10 people became infected, however, a larger and larger percentage of the population would have recovered from the disease and become immune, so a smaller and smaller share would still remain susceptible

Now this is important

From above… “ To push the percentage infected up from 20-28% to an unprecedented 81% for COVID-19”

Now let’s use New York as example…

Study estimates nearly 1 in 4 New Yorkers had COVID-19 early in pandemic

www.ny1.com...

So. Even with unprecedented mask mandates, lockdowns, business closures, personnel protection equipment and techniques, hand sanitizer, and the technology to shop and work from home. New York fell into the usual percentage of expected infections within error of analysis.

Cheap masks had no statistical impact on the spread of covid.

An artificial projection and unrealistic model was created for the covid narrative in the USA that gave a lot of wiggle room for claiming what “worked”.

a reply to: CyberBuddha

The term "overwhelming the hospitals" sounds very much like a propaganda term, especially given the events of a year ago.

What we are in the middle of is a massive PsyOp.

Frightened masses are easy to manipulate.

originally posted by: neutronflux
The sad thing. If you really cared. You could wear a better mask than a cloth mask, or a cheap procedural mask. It’s called an N-95 without an exit valve. And you wouldn’t have to double mask to boot.

But nobody is arguing that N-95 masks without valves are not better.

I honestly don't know why you are still arguing even after saying repeatedly that even the inferior masks do something.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: neutronflux
The sad thing. If you really cared. You could wear a better mask than a cloth mask, or a cheap procedural mask. It’s called an N-95 without an exit valve. And you wouldn’t have to double mask to boot.

But nobody is arguing that N-95 masks without valves are not better.

I honestly don't know why you are still arguing even after saying repeatedly that even the inferior masks do something.

How do the inferior masks do anything effectively to be measured. How did they measurably have an impact on the number of people actually infected.

Its like saying removing some water with a hand sponge measurably change the depth of an ocean.


Cheap masks work how? And effective against airborne covid how????

Infectious coronavirus can linger in the air, a new study

www.advisory.com...

Covid Delta variant is ‘in the air you breathe’: what you need to know about Sydney outbreak strain

www.theguardian.com...

After months of growing scientific evidence, the World Health Organization formally acknowledged the airborne spread of Covid in April. It can occur when viral particles remain “suspended in the air or travel farther than one metre”.
Laboratory studies have found particles of the virus can linger in the air in aerosolised form for up to 16 hours.
Respiratory aerosols accumulate in the same way that cigarette smoke accumulates