CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/on ... mbers-bill
Temptation be gone bill
Like Rockie has said, people are dumb dumbs and we need government tell us what to do.
Here is where we are heading. Let's face the likely fact, this bill may save as many lives as mask policy. Who supports this? Who feels we don't need to be able to make choices.
I'm going to go on a whim here and say Rockie likely supports this. He has already expressed how dumb everyone is and people should not get to make personal choices.
Temptation be gone bill
Like Rockie has said, people are dumb dumbs and we need government tell us what to do.
Here is where we are heading. Let's face the likely fact, this bill may save as many lives as mask policy. Who supports this? Who feels we don't need to be able to make choices.
I'm going to go on a whim here and say Rockie likely supports this. He has already expressed how dumb everyone is and people should not get to make personal choices.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:38 pm
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
So what do you figure should be placed next to the cash register? Salads & granola?
Have you noticed 7-11 has applied to serve alcohol in their stores? That ought to put a few impaired drivers on the road, eh?
BTW, why do you care what Rockie thinks? He's one guy on an anonymous forum. Seems to me he has successfully gotten under your skin.
Have you noticed 7-11 has applied to serve alcohol in their stores? That ought to put a few impaired drivers on the road, eh?
BTW, why do you care what Rockie thinks? He's one guy on an anonymous forum. Seems to me he has successfully gotten under your skin.

Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
Definitely. I have lots of duhkha knowing people like Rockie walk among us. I find it fascinating and troubling at the same time.
Rockie where do you stand on this new bill. Should government help control our temptation? Are you consistent with your belief in saving lives? I can show you studies that junk food leads to health consequences and death if you need to see some science behind it. I'm almost certain obesity leads to more deaths than covid... Infact maybe a good portion of those covid deaths were people who were unhealthy to begin with. Could this bill kill two birds with one stone, make people more healthy so they don't need masks to survive covid.
Rockie where do you stand on this new bill. Should government help control our temptation? Are you consistent with your belief in saving lives? I can show you studies that junk food leads to health consequences and death if you need to see some science behind it. I'm almost certain obesity leads to more deaths than covid... Infact maybe a good portion of those covid deaths were people who were unhealthy to begin with. Could this bill kill two birds with one stone, make people more healthy so they don't need masks to survive covid.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
I'm not sure what you think I am saying.Rockie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:31 am I follow the science, which means I follow what scientists recommend. Unlike many here I do not think I know more about scientists respective fields than they do. I do not cherry pick single outlier studies that support my world view and present them as proof when consensus states the opposite. I do not cherry pick individual sentences or statistics within any study and present them as proof of my world view when the context of the study says the opposite. I do not take outlier studies as proof there is legitimate question of the consensus and make my own “risk assessment” when as you say, I don’t know more than they do.
As a non-scientist, are you trying to convince another non-scientist about science? (useless: see the diagram on the first page)
It sounds like you agree with me about scientists but still want to argue somehow.
"I follow what 99% of scientists recommend"
"I do not look at outlier studies"
Guess what.
These are Risk Management decisions. You didn't base anything on science at all.
Scientists don't just dismiss studies that present new information, based on them being outliers.
The 1% contrarian scientist is still smarter and more knowledgeable than you.
And if that is the last person you listen to, they would sound very convincing, because they know more than you.
It is guaranteed that none of us here get to see the current frontiers of science research from links in an Aviation forum.
It doesn't matter how good pilots are at googling things.
Randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of studies, doesn't exist on this subject yet.
Let's say they do that and prove that the 1% were right all along...( After all, copernicus, galileo and countless others were the 1% at some point...)
Since we arent scientists...what is the right decision? Given that we don't have access or the tools to understand.
It comes down to Risk Management.
It makes sense to go with the 99% rather than the 1%....even if they turn out to be wrong in the future.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
You’re not exactly proving you’re not dumb with your inability to distinguish between an infectious disease pandemic and junk food. Are you trying at all?
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
OneYonge. You exist in a slightly different reality where words must not have the same meaning as they do in this one. Do you know a good interpreter?
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
What's the difference Rockie? Fat obese people clog up our healthcare system that would be better used for the people who actually take care of themselves no? The choice of someone else to eat junk food could very well impact my life indirectly, just like someone who chooses to not wear a mask. Call a spade a spade! We need control and we need it now. How dare anyone be given choice and freedumbs? The idea of freedumbs and liberties is archaic, what we need is control, direction, robotic government structure that tells us what is okay and what is not okay.
In America you can go to war and die for your country at 18 but you can't buy beer... Dumb dumb.
In Canada courts ruled that a 14 year old can elect to have hormonal therapy and that a parent can't interfere with this. A 14 year old who can't drive, and can't drink, somehow is able to make decisions about hormone therapy and the father can be arrested for intervention on this...interesting how the government decides one can do something as drastic as hormone therapy but they aren't responsible enough to drive a car. Even more interesting the father has been removed as the parent and the government has taken over on the decision making process. Dumb dumb
https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/29/au ... -real-sex/
See what I'm distinguishing Rockie. You think us dumb dumbs need more government, and more rules. It doesn't matter what topic, just in general dumb dumbs need to be controlled. Whether is be a disease, obesity, transgender rights, alcohol... We need more government! I Imagine you are consistent and supportive of all laws that take away freedoms because us dumb dumbs are dangerous. Look at that dangerous father trying to parent their son who was born a daughter! Intervine! Give the hormones!
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
This is another example of a sentence that is meant to somehow argue without saying anything and just goes nowhere.
It's almost like you understood what I said but couldn't stand that you agree with it.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
Actually Montado if you want to try and kill yourself with junk food I couldn’t care less as long as you’re the only one affected. But you should, at last after over a year of this, look up the definition of “contagious”. The fact you still don’t know what that means does nothing to recommend your intelligence.
However, I agree with your sentiment regarding going to war for your country but being unable to buy a beer for another 3 years. Either US military are adults or the US recruits child soldiers.
However, I agree with your sentiment regarding going to war for your country but being unable to buy a beer for another 3 years. Either US military are adults or the US recruits child soldiers.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
Sorry, I can’t understand you.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
I'm not surprised. Carry on with your non-science rather politics debate with the other guy.
You tried to rope me in your mandate vs non-mandate debates and failed.
I don't care about that. That is politics, not science.
If there is a mandate, the leaders already made the risk management decision. (California)
If there isn't, then the individuals make the decisions. (Florida)
Comparing these politics to how to fly a plane fails to make a coherent point...is not "science". It is a terrible analogy with no relevance to anything.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
Which makes this statement even more puzzling.
You are a “flood the zone with bullshit” until the person next to you goes cross-eyed kind of guy. Say lots - say nothing. The kind of guy who tries to razzie dazzle the judge, who doesn’t buy a word of it and throws your ass in the slammer anyway. The kind of guy simple laws are made for.
Comply with the law, put on your mask, or pay the consequences. Very, very simple.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... YEFo2goUJM
From the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
From the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Efficacy of facemasks
The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25].
Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26]. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people [26]. This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase [27].
A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28]. A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29].
Another meta-analysis of 44 non-RCT studies (n = 25,697 participants) examining the potential risk reduction of facemasks against SARS, middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and COVID-19 transmissions [30]. The meta-analysis included four specific studies on COVID-19 transmission (5,929 participants, primarily health-care workers used N95 masks). Although the overall findings showed reduced risk of virus transmission with facemasks, the analysis had severe limitations to draw conclusions. One of the four COVID-19 studies had zero infected cases in both arms, and was excluded from meta-analytic calculation. Other two COVID-19 studies had unadjusted models, and were also excluded from the overall analysis. The meta-analytic results were based on only one COVID-19, one MERS and 8 SARS studies, resulting in high selection bias of the studies and contamination of the results between different viruses. Based on four COVID-19 studies, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate risk reduction of facemasks for COVID-19 transmission, where the authors reported that the results of meta-analysis have low certainty and are inconclusive [30].
In early publication the WHO stated that “facemasks are not required, as no evidence is available on its usefulness to protect non-sick persons” [14]. In the same publication, the WHO declared that “cloth (e.g. cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance” [14]. Conversely, in later publication the WHO stated that the usage of fabric-made facemasks (Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk) is a general community practice for “preventing the infected wearer transmitting the virus to others and/or to offer protection to the healthy wearer against infection (prevention)” [2]. The same publication further conflicted itself by stating that due to the lower filtration, breathability and overall performance of fabric facemasks, the usage of woven fabric mask such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for infected persons and not for prevention practice in asymptomatic individuals [2]. The Central for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made similar recommendation, stating that only symptomatic persons should consider wearing facemask, while for asymptomatic individuals this practice is not recommended [31]. Consistent with the CDC, clinical scientists from Departments of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology in Australia counsel against facemasks usage for health-care workers, arguing that there is no justification for such practice while normal caring relationship between patients and medical staff could be compromised [32]. Moreover, the WHO repeatedly announced that “at present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19) on the effectiveness face masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection of respiratory viruses, including COVID-19”[2]. Despite these controversies, the potential harms and risks of wearing facemasks were clearly acknowledged. These including self-contamination due to hand practice or non-replaced when the mask is wet, soiled or damaged, development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne and psychological discomfort. Vulnerable populations such as people with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, hearing problems, those living in hot and humid environments, children and patients with respiratory conditions are at significant health risk for complications and harm [2].
Physiological effects of wearing facemasks
Wearing facemask mechanically restricts breathing by increasing the resistance of air movement during both inhalation and exhalation process [12], [13]. Although, intermittent (several times a week) and repetitive (10–15 breaths for 2–4 sets) increase in respiration resistance may be adaptive for strengthening respiratory muscles [33], [34], prolonged and continues effect of wearing facemask is maladaptive and could be detrimental for health [11], [12], [13]. In normal conditions at the sea level, air contains 20.93% O2 and 0.03% CO2, providing partial pressures of 100 mmHg and 40 mmHg for these gases in the arterial blood, respectively. These gas concentrations significantly altered when breathing occurs through facemask. A trapped air remaining between the mouth, nose and the facemask is rebreathed repeatedly in and out of the body, containing low O2 and high CO2 concentrations, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia [35], [36], [11], [12], [13]. Severe hypoxemia may also provoke cardiopulmonary and neurological complications and is considered an important clinical sign in cardiopulmonary medicine [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Low oxygen content in the arterial blood can cause myocardial ischemia, serious arrhythmias, right or left ventricular dysfunction, dizziness, hypotension, syncope and pulmonary hypertension [43]. Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as result of using facemask can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Table 1 summarizes the physiological, psychological effects of wearing facemask and their potential long-term consequences for health.
Table 1
Physiological and Psychological Effects of Wearing Facemask and Their Potential Health Consequences.
Physiological Effects Psychological Effect Health Consequences
• Hypoxemia
• Hypercapnia
• Shortness of breath
• Increase lactate concentration
• Decline in pH levels
• Acidosis
• Toxicity
• Inflammation
• Self-contamination
• Increase in stress hormones level (adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol)
• Increased muscle tension
• Immunosuppression
• Activation of “fight or flight” stress response
• Chronic stress condition
• Fear
• Mood disturbances
• Insomnia
• Fatigue
• Compromised cognitive performance
• Increased predisposition for viral and infection illnesses
• Headaches
• Anxiety
• Depression
• Hypertension
• Cardiovascular disease
• Cancer
• Diabetes
• Alzheimer disease
• Exacerbation of existing conditions and diseases
• Accelerated aging process
• Health deterioration
• Premature mortality
In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germs components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly rebreathed back into the body, causing self-contamination. Breathing through facemasks also increases temperature and humidity in the space between the mouth and the mask, resulting a release of toxic particles from the mask’s materials [1], [2], [19], [26], [35], [36]. A systematic literature review estimated that aerosol contamination levels of facemasks including 13 to 202,549 different viruses [1]. Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression [1], [2], [19], [26], [35], [36].
A study on 39 patients with renal disease found that wearing N95 facemask during hemodialysis significantly reduced arterial partial oxygen pressure (from PaO2 101.7 to 92.7 mm Hg), increased respiratory rate (from 16.8 to 18.8 breaths/min), and increased the occurrence of chest discomfort and respiratory distress [35]. Respiratory Protection Standards from Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labor states that breathing air with O2 concentration below 19.5% is considered oxygen-deficiency, causing physiological and health adverse effects. These include increased breathing frequency, accelerated heartrate and cognitive impairments related to thinking and coordination [36]. A chronic state of mild hypoxia and hypercapnia has been shown as primarily mechanism for developing cognitive dysfunction based on animal studies and studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [44].
The adverse physiological effects were confirmed in a study of 53 surgeons where surgical facemask were used during a major operation. After 60 min of facemask wearing the oxygen saturation dropped by more than 1% and heart rate increased by approximately five beats/min [45]. Another study among 158 health-care workers using protective personal equipment primarily N95 facemasks reported that 81% (128 workers) developed new headaches during their work shifts as these become mandatory due to COVID-19 outbreak. For those who used the N95 facemask greater than 4 h per day, the likelihood for developing a headache during the work shift was approximately four times higher [Odds ratio = 3.91, 95% CI (1.35–11.31) p = 0.012], while 82.2% of the N95 wearers developed the headache already within ≤10 to 50 min [46].
With respect to cloth facemask, a RCT using four weeks follow up compared the effect of cloth facemask to medical masks and to no masks on the incidence of clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections among 1607 participants from 14 hospitals [19]. The results showed that there were no difference between wearing cloth masks, medical masks and no masks for incidence of clinical respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections. However, a large harmful effect with more than 13 times higher risk [Relative Risk = 13.25 95% CI (1.74 to 100.97) was observed for influenza-like illness among those who were wearing cloth masks [19]. The study concluded that cloth masks have significant health and safety issues including moisture retention, reuse, poor filtration and increased risk for infection, providing recommendation against the use of cloth masks [19].
Psychological effects of wearing facemasks
Psychologically, wearing facemask fundamentally has negative effects on the wearer and the nearby person. Basic human-to-human connectivity through face expression is compromised and self-identity is somewhat eliminated [47], [48], [49]. These dehumanizing movements partially delete the uniqueness and individuality of person who wearing the facemask as well as the connected person [49]. Social connections and relationships are basic human needs, which innately inherited in all people, whereas reduced human-to-human connections are associated with poor mental and physical health [50], [51]. Despite escalation in technology and globalization that would presumably foster social connections, scientific findings show that people are becoming increasingly more socially isolated, and the prevalence of loneliness is increasing in last few decades [50], [52]. Poor social connections are closely related to isolation and loneliness, considered significant health related risk factors [50], [51], [52], [53].
A meta-analysis of 91 studies of about 400,000 people showed a 13% increased morality risk among people with low compare to high contact frequency [53]. Another meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies (308,849 participants) found that poor social relationships was associated with 50% increased mortality risk. People who were socially isolated or fell lonely had 45% and 40% increased mortality risk, respectively. These findings were consistent across ages, sex, initial health status, cause of death and follow-up periods [52]. Importantly, the increased risk for mortality was found comparable to smoking and exceeding well-established risk factors such as obesity and physical inactivity [52]. An umbrella review of 40 systematic reviews including 10 meta-analyses demonstrated that compromised social relationships were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, depression, anxiety suicide, cancer and overall physical illness [51].
As described earlier, wearing facemasks causing hypoxic and hypercapnic state that constantly challenges the normal homeostasis, and activates “fight or flight” stress response, an important survival mechanism in the human body [11], [12], [13]. The acute stress response includes activation of nervous, endocrine, cardiovascular, and the immune systems [47], [54], [55], [56]. These include activation of the limbic part of the brain, release stress hormones (adrenalin, neuro-adrenalin and cortisol), changes in blood flow distribution (vasodilation of peripheral blood vessels and vasoconstriction of visceral blood vessels) and activation of the immune system response (secretion of macrophages and natural killer cells) [47], [48]. Encountering people who wearing facemasks activates innate stress-fear emotion, which is fundamental to all humans in danger or life threating situations, such as death or unknown, unpredictable outcome. While acute stress response (seconds to minutes) is adaptive reaction to challenges and part of the survival mechanism, chronic and prolonged state of stress-fear is maladaptive and has detrimental effects on physical and mental health. The repeatedly or continuously activated stress-fear response causes the body to operate on survival mode, having sustain increase in blood pressure, pro-inflammatory state and immunosuppression [47], [48].
Long-Term health consequences of wearing facemasks
Long-term practice of wearing facemasks has strong potential for devastating health consequences. Prolonged hypoxic-hypercapnic state compromises normal physiological and psychological balance, deteriorating health and promotes the developing and progression of existing chronic diseases [23], [38], [39], [43], [47], [48], [57], [11], [12], [13]. For instance, ischemic heart disease caused by hypoxic damage to the myocardium is the most common form of cardiovascular disease and is a number one cause of death worldwide (44% of all non-communicable diseases) with 17.9 million deaths occurred in 2016 [57]. Hypoxia also playing an important role in cancer burden [58]. Cellular hypoxia has strong mechanistic feature in promoting cancer initiation, progression, metastasis, predicting clinical outcomes and usually presents a poorer survival in patients with cancer. Most solid tumors present some degree of hypoxia, which is independent predictor of more aggressive disease, resistance to cancer therapies and poorer clinical outcomes [59], [60]. Worth note, cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with an estimate of more than 18 million new diagnosed cases and 9.6 million cancer-related deaths occurred in 2018 [61].
With respect to mental health, global estimates showing that COVID-19 will cause a catastrophe due to collateral psychological damage such as quarantine, lockdowns, unemployment, economic collapse, social isolation, violence and suicides [62], [63], [64]. Chronic stress along with hypoxic and hypercapnic conditions knocks the body out of balance, and can cause headaches, fatigue, stomach issues, muscle tension, mood disturbances, insomnia and accelerated aging [47], [48], [65], [66], [67]. This state suppressing the immune system to protect the body from viruses and bacteria, decreasing cognitive function, promoting the developing and exacerbating the major health issues including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer disease, rising anxiety and depression states, causes social isolation and loneliness and increasing the risk for prematurely mortality [47], [48], [51], [56], [66].
Conclusion
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
This is bordering on comical.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/baruch-vain ... m-5591b532
This is the author of the lengthy post above. I cannot find anything in his qualifications regarding infectious diseases. He’s an exercise physiologist and philosopher. Classic bullshit waiting for some sucker to eat, and rjguy is hungry.
Of course maybe it’s a different Baruch Vainshelboim.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/baruch-vain ... m-5591b532
This is the author of the lengthy post above. I cannot find anything in his qualifications regarding infectious diseases. He’s an exercise physiologist and philosopher. Classic bullshit waiting for some sucker to eat, and rjguy is hungry.
Of course maybe it’s a different Baruch Vainshelboim.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
Obviously the study is flawed... no mention of double masking, new rules are double mask and use triple layer with micro anti viral filter. People think mask don’t work because they are dumb dumb. I wear two condoms and only enter in the back door folks and I’ll tell ya what I have had zero accidents.Rockie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:05 pm This is bordering on comical.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/baruch-vain ... m-5591b532
This is the author of the lengthy post above. I cannot find anything in his qualifications regarding infectious diseases. He’s an exercise physiologist and philosopher. Classic bullshit waiting for some sucker to eat, and rjguy is hungry.
Of course maybe it’s a different Baruch Vainshelboim.
If only people could understand my science... if it works for preventing spreading kids, doubling up on masks will stop the virus! As soon as someone says double masking doesn’t work, I already got the “qadtripple” masking planned out. It’s 3, 4 layer masks all at once. The beauty is you can pull one mask up over your eyes, one over your nose and one over your mouth. The virus can enter from all these places so this idea will be very convincing because it’s very simple to explain 3 points of entry, 3 masks, 4 layers.
Ooopps gotta go... I soiled my diaper and it’s the 4th turd so it’s really full. But I haven’t had to use a washroom for 2 days so I have really limited my exposure... let me swap this thing out and I’ll come back and slam the keyboard some more with more science.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
Do you disagree with anything i said that you quoted?Rockie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:21 pm
Which makes this statement even more puzzling.
You are a “flood the zone with bullshit” until the person next to you goes cross-eyed kind of guy. Say lots - say nothing. The kind of guy who tries to razzie dazzle the judge, who doesn’t buy a word of it and throws your ass in the slammer anyway. The kind of guy simple laws are made for.
Comply with the law, put on your mask, or pay the consequences. Very, very simple.
My point about pilots flying planes, is that it isn’t remotely comparable to a civilian who knows nothing.
How about stop projecting. You are the one doing the thing that you think I am doing.
I agree with complying with the law. 100%. I didn’t say otherwise.
I’d even wear a mask without mandates if I think the situation calls for it. Lots of people still wear masks in Florida when there is no requirement.
The law is politics. It depends on which province, which state, which country.
You are regurgitating the tired “follow the science” talking points while demonstrating that you are merely just “following the politics”.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
There’s law that follows the science and law that doesn’t. Texas, Minnesota and South Dakota are examples that don’t, and I will be maintaining protection if I have reason to go there despite what the law allows.
That’s called following the science whether the law agrees or not. Laws in places with intelligent leadership stay very close to the science as Canada does. The law is not for people like me though, the law is for people too stupid to follow the science or too anti-social to conduct themselves with consideration for the people around them. If you do not fall into those categories good for you. There is not a problem. You just apparently really like to bullshit which is ok. But like the guy with 1000 reasons why he doesn’t have to do up his lap belt, eventually you have to choose door #1 or door #2 because people have limited time and patience for bullshit.
That’s called following the science whether the law agrees or not. Laws in places with intelligent leadership stay very close to the science as Canada does. The law is not for people like me though, the law is for people too stupid to follow the science or too anti-social to conduct themselves with consideration for the people around them. If you do not fall into those categories good for you. There is not a problem. You just apparently really like to bullshit which is ok. But like the guy with 1000 reasons why he doesn’t have to do up his lap belt, eventually you have to choose door #1 or door #2 because people have limited time and patience for bullshit.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
If you are too dumb to realize I'm on your side regarding the wearing of masks, then I don't know how else to spell it out for you.Rockie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:47 am There’s law that follows the science and law that doesn’t. Texas, Minnesota and South Dakota are examples that don’t, and I will be maintaining protection if I have reason to go there despite what the law allows.
That’s called following the science whether the law agrees or not.
None of us are "following the science". We can't possibly keep up with that.
There are plenty of smart scientists out there whose job it is to research and duke it out.
Googling for recently published studies isn't "Science". We are civilians. Wasn't it YOU that said Science is not about "Belief"? Absolutely 100% correct.
If a politician tells you to "follow the science", and then you do as you are told...do you believe you are "following the science"?
No, you are following the law.
As far as I know, the experts are 99% vs 1% on the matter.. So who is right?
answer: WE DON'T KNOW.
Because we are not experts. Are you going to argue against Scientists?
My decision to wear a mask is entirely based on RISK MANAGEMENT.
Which decision is better, go with 99% or with 1%? I'll go with the 99%.
If that Einstein 1% guy turns it around and the opinions shift to 50/50.....then our Risk Assessment changes..
This only matters when you have a choice.
If there are mask mandates, then the decision is out of our hands then it doesn't matter. That is Politics.
Politicians/Leaders have to take into account a lot more than just medical Science. Scientists do not dictate policy, that is not their job.
Last edited by OneYonge on Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
YES. Science is a tool, not a prescription for policy on COVID-19
If there is a law that tells you to wear a mask outdoor in a large open space.
Is that "following the science"? NO.
Would I still do it? YES. Yes I would.
The LAW is Politics.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
Try surrounding your position with a lot less irrelevant bullshit.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
Guys if spongebob can wear a mask, can’t we all just wear a mask. If we all wear a mask for two more weeks we can end this thing.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
This is is a tell... when someone is conflicted because they still want to disagree(but don't) somehow.
I rest my case.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:38 pm
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
Are Spongebob's eyes usually bloodshot? I think he has been drinking.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:32 am
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
When they are operating under their political hat, you better believe it.
Re: CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.
You just said we don’t disagree and I believe you. I’m just saying that it’s difficult to tell what your position is if someone has to dig through 5 pages of conflicting, irrelevant bullshit to get to it.