CDC release study on masks during covid. Efficacy is 0.5-1.9 percent.

[Rockie]

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.

I’m at a disadvantage Montado. I am vaguely aware what spongebob is but as we apparently have different TV viewing preferences I’m not getting the reference, and never will if I have any control over it.

[montado]

I’m sorry rockie. I should have thought to be inclusive of all generations here. Below is an image of your great grandfather who was a fine and Noble caveman who also wore a mask. It is said his decision to wear a mask was the only reason humanity exists today. Thank you rockie Sr.

My apologies for not being inclusive of the cave man generation, the Rockies. If the Rockies could wear masks... we can all wear masks!

8F5E0BB3-2270-4FCE-A5D6-666B187293B5.jpeg (41.65 KiB) Viewed 2122 times

And for those of you who are still kind of old but not quite as old as rockie. Jesus also wore a mask. You see it doesn’t matter where you fit in, we all fit in a mask!

013776D4-9805-4E72-8F2B-5A729E0023D6.jpeg (135.99 KiB) Viewed 2122 times

[Rockie]

Oh man, your intellect and creativeness is truly wasted on AvCanada Montado.

[OneYonge]

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.

It is literally on the first page, replying to the first guy. If you can't comprehend 1 sentence and a simple photo, I can't help you.

You had to get angry and make it about politics just because you could not process something you never heard of before.

I'll sum it up if you still could not comprehend. You can decide if you disagree or not:

First guy posted some study from some contrarian doctor....I said, that "expert" will have to convince the others, because none of us can argue with Scientists who challenge other Scientists.

We aren't qualified to decide who is right. We aren't qualified to dismiss experts.

[Rockie]

It is literally on the first page, replying to the first guy. If you can't comprehend 1 sentence and a simple photo, I can't help you.

You had to get angry and make it about politics just because you could not process something you never heard of before.

I'll sum it up if you still could not comprehend. You can decide if you disagree or not:

First guy posted some study from some contrarian doctor....I said, that "expert" will have to convince the others, because none of us can argue with Scientists who challenge other Scientists.

We aren't qualified to decide who is right. We aren't qualified to dismiss experts.

This was my first reply to you regarding the included statement and your graphic placing a tiny minority of scientists on the same footing as an overwhelming consensus of them. Perhaps you're the one who should learn how to read. We don't have to decide for ourselves which ones are right and as you say we aren't capable of doing that anyway. We go with the consensus just like the policy makers should. We don't do our own risk assessment on masks because that's already been done by people qualified to do that. Don't think about it OneYonge, just do what they say and don't confuse the issue as you spent the next 5 pages doing. How hard do you think it would be for policy makers to guage the success of a mitigation strategy if a significant number of morons doing their own "risk assessment" refuse to follow it?

Scientists themselves could not agree on it.

False statement akin to saying the 3% of scientists who still reject manmade climate change means there’s still a debate. There isn’t.

[OneYonge]

We don't have to decide for ourselves which ones are right and as you say we aren't capable of doing that anyway. We go with the consensus just like the policy makers should. We don't do our own risk assessment on masks because that's already been done by people qualified to do that.

I said we aren't capable of deciding the "winner", but we sure as hell are capable of making decisions.
If there are QUALIFIED experts who say the OPPOSITE....then you DO have a decision to make.

"Go with the consensus" is a decision. That in itself is Risk Management. And we agree on it.

Did you "follow the science" NO. You just did basic Risk Management. Not Science.

Dismiss those who challenge the consensus? NO, Im not qualified to do that.

Therefore: When you see experts smarter than you, who present new information....it is THEIR job to convince the others.
Science is not RELIGION. Science has a long history of getting "corrected" with new research.

Whenever you see folks posting contrarian research, just ask, "why can't they convince the 97% who say the opposite?"

I am helping you here and you don't even realize it. You attack me with dumb stuff instead.

Regarding policy? I could care less. I just follow the law. The leaders have a different job than the scientists. They have to consider MORE than just science. Scientists do not dictate public policy.

[Rockie]

I am helping you here and you don't even realize it. You attack me with dumb stuff instead.

Maybe it just took 6 pages for you to state your opinion simply and clearly. I agree with all of the above with one exception, I do care about policy. There are of course many other considerations that factor into it but it must first conform as closely as possible to the science. Texas, Minnesota and South Dakota have policies that do not which it seems unlikely you would follow.

[OneYonge]

Maybe it just took 6 pages for you to state your opinion simply and clearly.

Haha! This is a great way of saying you couldn't comprehend a sentence and photo and would rather argue for 6 pages.

You said I made a false statement, I responded to it. Im glad you now agree.

Have you noticed that guy you were arguing has not rebutted what I said? I did not get angry or dismiss his Scientist like you did.

I'm not interested in telling people what to do. Especially when they are primed to do the Opposite. I'm just an average person and not a leader. They have a very difficult job, I don't have all the info and don't have answers. I do know how to make choices by managing risks.

[Rockie]

You said scientists themselves could not agree which is a false statement, because like the climate change example it implies there is still a debate between scientists on this topic. There isn’t. My assertion in that regard stands and you just simply need to be clearer if that’s not what you meant. Who gives a rats ass if the guy you made the statement to didn’t respond? Is that supposed to give your statement proof of truth?

[OneYonge]

You said scientists themselves could not agree which is a false statement, because like the climate change example it implies there is still a debate between scientists on this topic. There isn’t.

How do you know that? Are you a Scientist? Do you have access to the latest research? No you do not.

Every week, there seems to be some new contrarian smart Scientist and some document that comes out that says the OPPOSITE.

What am I supposed to do, pretend it doesn't exist and that there is no "debate"? Are we going to argue with THAT guy? Do we dismiss the new information? We sure as hell aren't qualified to make that call. Unless you think you are some kind of expert?

Bringing up the climate stuff tells me that all you understand is Politics. Again, I don't care about one side or the other whenever Science gets Political. We've already elected leaders to handle that.

As civilians, our decisions are based on Risk Management.

It isn't my fault that you have reading comprehension. Look at you just contradicting yourself now, yet still trying to debate.

[Rockie]

You said scientists themselves could not agree which is a false statement, because like the climate change example it implies there is still a debate between scientists on this topic. There isn’t.

How do you know that? Are you a Scientist? Do you have access to the latest research? No you do not.

Every week, there seems to be some new contrarian smart Scientist and some document that comes out that says the OPPOSITE.

What am I supposed to do, pretend it doesn't exist and that there is no "debate"? Are we going to argue with THAT guy? Do we dismiss the new information? We sure as hell aren't qualified to make that call. Unless you think you are some kind of expert?

Bringing up the climate stuff tells me that all you understand is Politics. Again, I don't care about one side or the other whenever Science gets Political. We've already elected leaders to handle that.

As civilians, our decisions are based on Risk Management.

It isn't my fault that you have reading comprehension. Look at you just contradicting yourself now, yet still trying to debate.

There you go again flooding the zone with absolute bullshit. And you were doing so well there for a bit.

[OneYonge]

There you go again flooding the zone with absolute bullshit. And you were doing so well there for a bit.

It sounds like there is something you could not understand again. What's wrong with you?

Is this just how you respond when you couldn't find anything to disagree with but don't want to admit it?

You said "there is no debate". We can clearly see an Expert challenging other Experts. What the hell is that then?

Do you disagree? Or you want to just argue semantics over the meaning of the word "debate"?

About a year ago, the consensus on masks, was the Opposite. Folks like you YELLED the exact same argument, I'm remember it:

"There is no debate! 99% of experts agree that masks DONT work!" Guess what, other Scientists challenged those claims with new information, most of them changed their opinions eventually (i don't even know how many times). Scientists have always worked that way.

[Rockie]

Bullshit again. There has never been a consensus masks didn’t do what they’re intended to do. But remember when I mentioned 97 v 3 scientists on climate change and how some people think that equals a “debate” or some significant uncertainty in the scientific community? It doesn’t. Just like your childishly simplistic four square graphic showing scientist against scientist has any relationship with reality. It doesn’t.

Get serious and quit wasting my time.

[montado]

Science is different from values. You guys understand I’m not really debating science?

Science doesn’t tell you what is right, and what is wrong. Science tells you cause, and effect. When I see the science on mask efficacy, or more so I should clarify and say mandatory mask policy, I don’t value the investment.

Wearing masks definitely has saved some lives, and slowed some spread of covid. Science can prove that. I don’t think, however, that my values are so one dimensional to think that the limited efficacy wins me over to believe mandatory mask policy makes sense.

Mandatory mask policy has not ended the pandemic, and let’s face it even with 100 percent compliance it still doesn’t work, as masks are not worn In homes, and in covid saturated settings like hospitals masks are not effective enough to stop health care workers from contracting covid. So it’s clear that masks alone could never end the pandemic. They are definitely just one tool in the box and not magic.

I value freedom, which somehow the left, who enjoy the privilege of freedom that was faught for are so willing to give up. Saying “freedom is a value”, today makes one sound like a nut job as the pendulum swings further left. I value integrity, and truth from our leadership. I also value lives, including the lives that will carry on to rebuild when this is over, and those who lose their lives to this disease. I see masks as a way to divide us, I see them as a false sense of protection.

So even if we agree on the science... when rockie says nearly 3 million people have died, I check with my values, I look at the risk benefits, I look at what the science says about the cause and effect. And I can say with confidence I don’t value mandatory mask policy. Numbers mean nothing without context. When you look at the data, I can’t agree with many of the actions taken by our governments in managing the pandemic.

One thing we have heard very little from rockie is what his values are, by reading your post, it appears all he values is stopping covid spread and covid deaths. That’s kind of the mind of an expert, a very narrow view focused in on one aspect of life. Maybe you don’t see it rockie but the earth is still spinning, life is still going on. Even though covid is here, roads need to be paved, people need to work, people need family, people need to live, not just be alive. You must have more values besides the narrow view you present. And if you view is so narrow I can only imagine this is driven by fear. I hope if fear is your lens that you can soon overcome those challenges so you can expand to the other values you have in life.

[photofly]

That's a sensible post.

We give up a lot of freedoms in life: the freedom to drive as fast as you want. The freedom not to wear a seatbelt. the freedom not to pay taxes. The freedom to smoke indoors in public places.

I take your point that you've been asked to give up a bit of freedom by being told to wear a mask. Many people will do it willingly, and even among those who are unwilling, most don't think it's a big enough ask to make a fuss about. It's also not going to last forever.

Amongst some of the behaviours people have had to change this last year, masks are nothing.

[trey kule]

A46168D2-B350-47A8-9E07-EDDBB581680B.jpeg (554.95 KiB) Viewed 1751 times

[albertdesalvo]

A year into this thing and we're still arguing about a triviality like masks. They cost peanuts. When you enter somewhere they're mandated, you put one on. When you leave the area you take it off. It's that simple.

Or you can go on the internet and bitch and moan about essentially nothing.

[montado]

.

[montado]

A year into this thing and we're still arguing about a triviality like masks. They cost peanuts. When you enter somewhere they're mandated, you put one on. When you leave the area you take it off. It's that simple.

Or you can go on the internet and bitch and moan about essentially nothing.

If required to stop the spread of covid, would you wear a mask the rest of your life? Is it that simple for you? Genuinely curious because if you asked me a year ago where we would be today I definitely would have thought this would have blown by.

So if it’s that simple, could you commit to masking for life? No big deal right?

[OneYonge]

There has never been a consensus masks didn’t do what they’re intended to do. But remember when I mentioned 97 v 3 scientists on climate change and how some people think that equals a “debate” or some significant uncertainty in the scientific community?

"There is no debate"...exactly who told you that? You read that line somewhere and believed it.

Noone said that the 97/3 ratio is what constitutes a debate Rocky.

When an Expert presents new research that challenge the claims of other Experts. I say there is a debate.

The ratio of who agrees with who... is irrelevant to scientists. Only the evidence matters.

[albertdesalvo]

So if it’s that simple, could you commit to masking for life? No big deal right?

Here's how simple it is... I need some bread & milk, so I hop on my bicycle and pedal off to the store. At the front door of the store, I pull a mask out of my pocket and put it on. I go in the store, buy the bread & milk, and come back outside. I take off the mask, put it in my pocket, and pedal home.

Total time masked... less than 5 minutes. Do I find this onerous? Not at all. Could I do this indefinitely? Sure. It's about as difficult as putting on my socks in the morning, and I expect I'll be doing that for life.

EDIT: I'm not oblivious to the fact that the people working in the store have to wear the mask all day. For them it's a PITA. But they are front line workers who face the general public, and their risk is far above average. If I worked in the store, I'd be happy to wear the damn mask.

[OneYonge]

A year into this thing and we're still arguing about a triviality like masks.

What is worse is I even got roped into arguing about whether people are arguing about masks or not. It is absurd and I fell for it.

[Rockie]

Mandatory mask policy has not ended the pandemic, and let’s face it even with 100 percent compliance it still doesn’t work, as masks are not worn In homes, and in covid saturated settings like hospitals masks are not effective enough to stop health care workers from contracting covid.

Mandatory mask policy was never intended to end the pandemic and I don't know why you're still, after a year, confused about that. It slows the spread which helps save lives and keep the hospitals from collapsing under the weight of patients. Come on Montado.

when rockie says nearly 3 million people have died,

Rockie doesn't say. The WHO and many other credible sources who actually keep track of this stuff does.

I look at what the science says about the cause and effect. And I can say with confidence I don’t value mandatory mask policy. Numbers mean nothing without context.

2.7 million dead people isn't enough context for you?

One thing we have heard very little from rockie is what his values are, by reading your post, it appears all he values is stopping covid spread and covid deaths. That’s kind of the mind of an expert, a very narrow view focused in on one aspect of life. Maybe you don’t see it rockie but the earth is still spinning, life is still going on. Even though covid is here, roads need to be paved, people need to work, people need family, people need to live, not just be alive. You must have more values besides the narrow view you present. And if you view is so narrow I can only imagine this is driven by fear. I hope if fear is your lens that you can soon overcome those challenges so you can expand to the other values you have in life.

You don't know anything about me Montado. I have argued for the government to get off their ass and implement science based testing, tracing and other measures that will allow us to get moving again safely. I spend most of my time here though getting in front of morons who put us all at risk because they can't, or won't follow basic guidelines as if they knew better, or simply can't give up their freedom to breath without a mask on. Those people, of which you are one, need to be slapped down...hard. People like you contribute to the deaths with your idiocy and actually delay our exit out of this pandemic and the return to normal. If I were you I would worry less about my values and reassess yours.

[rjguy]

2.7 million dead due to lack of treatment. Only one to blame for the 2.7 million deaths are the government officials who are blocking & censoring treatment to push vaccination. Vaccine provides less than 1% benefit. Treatment provides 85% benefit towards reducing hospitalization/death. Seems cut and dry that the focus should be on treatment.

Great audio from Dr. McCullough talking about Covid-19 treatment. Worth listening to the entire interview. No one has published more on Covid. He has been published over 1000 times. Over 600 peer reviewed publications and he sees and cares for Covid patients everyday. Has the most frequently downloaded paper in the American Journal of Medicine. Rockie is this guy published and qualified enough times for you to take the time to listen to his interview?

https://m.soundcloud.com/user-themissio ... r-covid-19

[OneYonge]

Rockie is this guy published and qualified enough times for you to take the time to listen to his interview?

That boomer will dismiss it because he already made up his mind and he operates on beliefs.

However, It's on that doctor to convince the other experts. And it is their job to verify/debunk.

For us civilians, everything experts say sounds convincing. Including another doctor who might say the opposite.