Here's your Mask Protocol

[Zelen]

[dkabq]

That was even what St. Fauci was saying in his correspondence and on TV circa March 2020. Then magically masks became effective -- because SCIENCE!(tm).

[Zelen]

[dkabq]

Interesting that the "Required for Some Students" looks so different from the other two categories. And that on first blush the "Optional for All Students" and "Required for All Students" results look very similar. However, without a proper statistical analysis that accounts for all of the confounding variables you cannot take away much from the data.

[Mistwell]

Effectiveness vs some viruses is not the same as effectiveness vs all viruses. Covid has been found to transmit with larger particles than the flu for instance. And, those studies were testing receiving particles by the wearer, not spreading them.

But those two points have repeatedly been discussed in this very thread over and over again for nearly 2 years now but you guys willfully pretend you never heard any such thing and just keep repeating the same refuted point about those old studies about non-covid and about the wearers risk of receiving the virus rather than spreading it.

Almost like you're being intentionally dishonest at this point.

[Pat]

Effectiveness vs some viruses is not the same as effectiveness vs all viruses. Covid has been found to transmit with larger particles than the flu for instance. And, those studies were testing receiving particles by the wearer, not spreading them.

But those two points have repeatedly been discussed in this very thread over and over again for nearly 2 years now but you guys willfully pretend you never heard any such thing and just keep repeating the same refuted point about those old studies about non-covid and about the wearers risk of receiving the virus rather than spreading it.

Almost like you're being intentionally dishonest at this point.

I remember the last time we talked about this! It only a week or so ago, wasn't it? I challenged your meritless claims, like I've done endless times before. And you tried to duck out, just like you've done every other time. But when I pointed out you keep bringing up this claim but then vanish when challenged, you started by claiming you'd already covered it (you hadn't), then moved to trying to claim you'd already covered but I argued dishonestly (nope), and then you started calling me names, and began stalking me in other threads to call me names there as well.

The evidence suggests masks don't work. The only solid, large, randomized, peer-reviewed study on the efficacy of cloth masks in preventing covid-19 when worn by the general public (DANMASK), shows no statistical evidence that masks work. There are a number of much smaller and weaker studies that show mild evidence in favor (or no evidence), but they're very low on the tiers of evidence based medicine. There were a bunch of studies before covid-19 appeared that tried to measure the effectiveness of masks, but they mostly covered N95 masks or in a few cases surgical masks, and were exclusively conducted in clinical environments, so they provided no information at all on their effectiveness when worn by the general public during a respiratory disease pandemic. The last study worth noting is the Bangladesh study, which is a randomized trial, and one that's larger than the DANMASK study, and did conclude that masks helped. But when you linked it, a couple of us went through and noted a number of major methodological problems that call the study's conclusions into question, not to mention that the study itself doesn't even measure the effectiveness of masks. It only measures the effectiveness of campaigns promoting mask wearing, so the effects could be the result of other things, like more hand washing or social distancing, caused by a heightened awareness of the pandemic.

So yes, we've covered this again and again. But no, you've never supported your position.

[dkabq]

Effectiveness vs some viruses is not the same as effectiveness vs all viruses. Covid has been found to transmit with larger particles than the flu for instance. And, those studies were testing receiving particles by the wearer, not spreading them.

But those two points have repeatedly been discussed in this very thread over and over again for nearly 2 years now but you guys willfully pretend you never heard any such thing and just keep repeating the same refuted point about those old studies about non-covid and about the wearers risk of receiving the virus rather than spreading it.

Almost like you're being intentionally dishonest at this point.

My understanding was that, like influenza, covid was known to spread via "droplets" (i.e., aerosol particles that plate out rapidly due to gravitational settling). It was spread via "aerosols" (i.e., aerosol particles that plate out slowly due to gravitational settling) that was new. Moreover, according to the WHO, "COVID-19 and influenza and covid spread in similar ways.":

"COVID-19 and influenza spread in similar ways. Both COVID-19 and influenza are spread by droplets and aerosols when an infected person coughs, sneezes, speaks, sings or breathes. The droplets and aerosols can land in the eyes, nose or mouth of people who are nearby -- typically within 1 metre of the infected person, but sometimes even further away. People can also get infected with both COVID-19 and influenza by touching contaminated surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth without cleaning their hands."
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-similarities-and-differences-with-influenza

[dkabq]

Effectiveness vs some viruses is not the same as effectiveness vs all viruses. Covid has been found to transmit with larger particles than the flu for instance. And, those studies were testing receiving particles by the wearer, not spreading them.

But those two points have repeatedly been discussed in this very thread over and over again for nearly 2 years now but you guys willfully pretend you never heard any such thing and just keep repeating the same refuted point about those old studies about non-covid and about the wearers risk of receiving the virus rather than spreading it.

Almost like you're being intentionally dishonest at this point.

I remember the last time we talked about this! It only a week or so ago, wasn't it? I challenged your meritless claims, like I've done endless times before. And you tried to duck out, just like you've done every other time. But when I pointed out you keep bringing up this claim but then vanish when challenged, you started by claiming you'd already covered it (you hadn't), then moved to trying to claim you'd already covered but I argued dishonestly (nope), and then you started calling me names, and began stalking me in other threads to call me names there as well.

The evidence suggests masks don't work. The only solid, large, randomized, peer-reviewed study on the efficacy of cloth masks in preventing covid-19 when worn by the general public (DANMASK), shows no statistical evidence that masks work. There are a number of much smaller and weaker studies that show mild evidence in favor (or no evidence), but they're very low on the tiers of evidence based medicine. There were a bunch of studies before covid-19 appeared that tried to measure the effectiveness of masks, but they mostly covered N95 masks or in a few cases surgical masks, and were exclusively conducted in clinical environments, so they provided no information at all on their effectiveness when worn by the general public during a respiratory disease pandemic. The last study worth noting is the Bangladesh study, which is a randomized trial, and one that's larger than the DANMASK study, and did conclude that masks helped. But when you linked it, a couple of us went through and noted a number of major methodological problems that call the study's conclusions into question, not to mention that the study itself doesn't even measure the effectiveness of masks. It only measures the effectiveness of campaigns promoting mask wearing, so the effects could be the result of other things, like more hand washing or social distancing, caused by a heightened awareness of the pandemic.

So yes, we've covered this again and again. But no, you've never supported your position.

Can confirm. I have yet to see rebuttals to the specific points/questions that I have raised.

[Pat]

Effectiveness vs some viruses is not the same as effectiveness vs all viruses. Covid has been found to transmit with larger particles than the flu for instance. And, those studies were testing receiving particles by the wearer, not spreading them.

But those two points have repeatedly been discussed in this very thread over and over again for nearly 2 years now but you guys willfully pretend you never heard any such thing and just keep repeating the same refuted point about those old studies about non-covid and about the wearers risk of receiving the virus rather than spreading it.

Almost like you're being intentionally dishonest at this point.

My understanding was that, like influenza, covid was known to spread via "droplets" (i.e., aerosol particles that plate out rapidly due to gravitational settling). It was spread via "aerosols" (i.e., aerosol particles that plate out slowly due to gravitational settling) that was new. Moreover, according to the WHO, "COVID-19 and influenza and covid spread in similar ways.":

"COVID-19 and influenza spread in similar ways. Both COVID-19 and influenza are spread by droplets and aerosols when an infected person coughs, sneezes, speaks, sings or breathes. The droplets and aerosols can land in the eyes, nose or mouth of people who are nearby -- typically within 1 metre of the infected person, but sometimes even further away. People can also get infected with both COVID-19 and influenza by touching contaminated surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth without cleaning their hands."
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-similarities-and-differences-with-influenza

The assumption at the start of the pandemic was that covid-19 was primarily spread via large droplets. That's what led to the mask mandates, cleaning of common surfaces, hand washing, and so on. But it was always nonsense, and a minority of scientists and physicians were pointing that out from the start.

There was abundant evidence indicating that that primary mechanism for the spread of covid-19 wasn't large particles. One of the earliest examples, out of China before the disease was widely known to have spread elsewhere, was a person who was infected by a person who was sitting 40 feet in front of them, in a bus. This was well documented with surveillance cameras and widespread testing -- they never interacted or got any closer to each other, and there were no other possible sources of infection. There were also the studies, very early on, that showed that the virus could be detected, hours and days later, in the air in ventilation systems. Or, as superspreader events started being documented, the realization that almost none were happening outdoors, and when they did happen outdoors the number of people who were infected was a tiny fraction of comparable indoor events. None of these made sense with large droplets, which precipitate out of the air in just a few seconds, and shouldn't be significantly affected by being outdoors.

A large part of the problem is the scientific models about the spread of viral diseases were wrong. In 2019, they classified respiratory diseases as aerosolized and non-aerosolized, but in early 2020 they took a hard look at the models, and realized it's not that binary. Disease aren't simply aerosolized or not; instead, they fall along a spectrum. It's true that covid-19 is spread by large droplets, but the percentage of viral particles spread in that fashion is fairly small. Instead, it's highly aerosolized. Most of the viral load emitted by an infected person are contained in tiny particles.

This realization should have led to a radical change in the recommendations and mandates. They should have stopped emphasizing hand washing, regular cleaning of surfaces, plexiglass shields, masks, and so on. While some of those recommendations may have been still advisable because they're low impact and general good practice (like hand washing and cleaning of surfaces), they should have been deemphasized and the highly invasive or destructive ones (like mask wearing) should have been eliminated entirely.

Instead, they should have started strongly pushing ventilation. Open doors, open windows, good airflow within buildings, methods to process the air (airplane ventilation systems worked amazingly well -- zero superspreader events have happened on an airplane since the start of the pandemic), and so on. Because the tiny aerosolized particles that contain the bulk of the viral load emitted by infected persons remain airborne for hours and days. It's not the immediate projection of gooey stuff onto other people that spreads the disease, but the slow concentration of viral particles over time, which is accelerated by keeping your mouth open (this is why so many superspreader events involve talking or singing). And this only works in still air, which is why why there has been little to no spread in outdoor settings.

But they completely ignored this, and doubled down on their existing recommendations. Even when they finally officially recognized the highly aerosolized nature of the disease (the CDC didn't do this until April 2021), they still didn't change their recommendations.

[DocJones]

But they completely ignored this, and doubled down on their existing recommendations. Even when they finally officially recognized the highly aerosolized nature of the disease (the CDC didn't do this until April 2021), they still didn't change their recommendations.

I was right last year when I said masks don't work.
They are literally training burkhas.
Sheep.

If your old or sickly this is the only thing that will actually protect you:

Live in it... Otherwise you will get the wuhan flu eventually.
It ain't going away.

[Kiero]

A rag on your face is nothing more than a virtue signal. Signalling your bovine compliance with an edict that makes no sense.

[SHARK]

A rag on your face is nothing more than a virtue signal. Signalling your bovine compliance with an edict that makes no sense.

Greetings!

"Bovine compliance!" So true, Kiero!

Like I've told many of my friends, this whole Covid BS has shown us on constant display how many people in society are really spineless sheep, begging to be made slaves. They LOVE being slaves, ruled over by the strong Master, Kiero. I know it sounds incredible, especially in a theoretically enlightened, educated, advanced, modern democracies like ours, but the evidence is there, every day and night, right before our eyes. It's mind boggling.

I tell them, independent people, that believe in small and limited government, and maximized freedom--are a distinct minority, vastly outnumbered by room-temperature IQ cattle--BOVINES--as you say--throughout society. The Bovines will eagerly cast you and all of us on the slave docket, Kiero. You should be angry. We should all be angry, because it is these moron, weak people that will gladly see you crushed under the boot of tyranny.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Pat]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/15/world/italy-green-pass-covid-protests-intl/index.html

Even CNN is covering the protests as Italy tries to beat out Australia as the world's most repressive regime. Though, of course, it's the people protesting that they're being stripped of their basic rights who are being called fascists, not the government imposing the fascistic dictates:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/19/how-a-covid-pass-protest-sparked-a-debate-in-italy-on-its-fascist-past

[Pat]

The crazy kewpie doll serving as the evil overlord of Chicago, who wanted to defund all the police except the ones she sent to guard her home from the mutant monsters known as aggrieved voters, is calling out the Fraternal Order of Police cult for attempting to "induce an insurrection" in the ruins of her post-apocalyptic city, because about half the cops in the city are refusing to get the jab.

Hopefully, she'll crush all dissent with a fleet of unfeeling and unthinking death machines and thereby ensure her perpetual uncontested rule as the master of the windy rubble.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/10/18/chicago_mayor_lightfoot_fop_president_is_attempting_to_induce_an_insurrection_by_opposing_vaccine_mandate.html

[Shasarak]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/15/world/italy-green-pass-covid-protests-intl/index.html

Even CNN is covering the protests as Italy tries to beat out Australia as the world's most repressive regime. Though, of course, it's the people protesting that they're being stripped of their basic rights who are being called fascists, not the government imposing the fascistic dictates:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/19/how-a-covid-pass-protest-sparked-a-debate-in-italy-on-its-fascist-past

That could be a really good competition.

On the one hand you have the originators, the OP if you will, of Fascism and on the other hand you have an entire country populated by criminals and police.