Coronavirus

Originally posted by Newjak
@Broly I didn't respond because it's a variation of an illogical argument he's been using for awhile now.

I and other people have already pointed out the issues with it multiple times now.

1) Even if it is true and they are hypocrites it doesn't change the validity of what they are saying. In essence he is saying if they smoke they can't say smoking is bad for other people they see starting to smoke. Whether you think it makes them hypocrites or not doesn't change the soundness of the advice. :/

2) You can't ignore the contextual part where the majority of the protests were adhering or trying to adhere to CDC guidelines in some manner.

3) You can't ignore the contextual part where one group of people were protesting police brutality to people just wanting to feed Trump's ego.

1) It is true they are hypocrites. And my point is when politicians are hypocritical with these guidelines it isn't surprising that people are going to get fed up and start ignoring them.

2) It's not being ignored, but it doesn't negate the hypocrisy.

3) It wasn't just Trump rallies that got complained about. Anti-lockdown protests got the same treatment.

Originally posted by Artol
I’m not sure it needs a rebuttal, it’s not super surprising. As far as I can tell the suggestions of wearing masks are based on masks being effective in protecting others if you have the virus, not offering much if any protection for you. The study doesn’t really aim to address that.

Japan did a study on this and were forced to retract the study because it is actually unethical to study this outside of home mask wearing by self report.

What did Japan find? The virus was all over the mask: inside and outside. Ended up all over the rooms, as well. You can't put healthy people in the rooms during those studies. It's extremely unethical to do so as you could kill someone.

What we do have are random control trials for "home use" and selfreporting. What they found is that no masks work. None. N95s included. Meaning, if you father gets sick, your whole family will see no additional benefit to your father wearing the mask. The Dutch study I posted discusses this because there are retrospective studies done that conclude that wearing masks at home helped (which contradict the higher quality RCTs with lab confirmed VRIs).

Lord Sorgo still has the best statement about this whole mask debate.

To paraphrase him: masks might help but it shouldn't be mandated. That's where I stand. Don't mandate it but leave people alone who where masks. There is some good science out there that supports N95s being anywhere from not effective to 40% reduction in VRIs. That's anywhere from useless to highly useful. Pretty good. Still, save those for the vulnerable and medical workers. If you're younger than 55 and healthy, you don't need a mask if you're not sick.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah ppl need to learn the most important take away from masks and that is stop playing the with damn mask and touching shit.

Correct. 👆

I'd like to see a study that VERY closely follows people who where masks and immediately disqualify people who violate mask wearing protocols. Because the protocols are EXTREMELY strict and it is just not possible for people to follow them. I bet you masks really do work. But no one, including healthcare workers, are good enough to follow the protocols perfectly.

Originally posted by Newjak
@Broly I didn't respond because it's a variation of an illogical argument he's been using for awhile now.

I and other people have already pointed out the issues with it multiple times now.

1) Even if it is true and they are hypocrites it doesn't change the validity of what they are saying. In essence he is saying if they smoke they can't say smoking is bad for other people they see starting to smoke. Whether you think it makes them hypocrites or not doesn't change the soundness of the advice. :/

2) You can't ignore the contextual part where the majority of the protests were adhering or trying to adhere to CDC guidelines in some manner.

3) You can't ignore the contextual part where one group of people were protesting police brutality to people just wanting to feed Trump's ego.

Bingo!

eg My father was a life long smoker, at one point he smoked two packs a day(maybe more), but when I was a kid he would repeatedly tell me "don't ever smoke, it's an awful addiction", sometimes while he had a lite cigarette in his hand. His hypocrisy did not do away with his good advice and trying to look out for me some.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bingo!

eg My father was a life long smoker, at one point he smoked two packs a day, but when I was a kid he would repeatedly tell me "don't ever smoke, it's an awful addiction", often while he had a lite cigarette in his hand. His hypocrisy did not do away with his good advice and trying to look out for me some.

Bingo the democrats *are* being hypocrites. Agreed 👆

Originally posted by Newjak
That being said wearing masks does still help make it harder for people already infected to spread the virus.

Perhaps on a properly fitted N95, yes. But cloth masks and surgical masks? Very likely a strong 'no.'

Glycol particulates are larger than the aerosolized mucus and saliva, for example. This is what it looks like when you exhale in a properly fitted mask. As viewed from the front instead of the side view which is what the pro-mask people usually show you which is very dishonest as the airline industry discovered. Sit people 1.5 feet from each other on an airplane, even with masks, and people still get the virus. Why? The air goes out the sides of the masks, right into the same place that you inhale from: the side:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Perhaps on a properly fitted N95, yes. But cloth masks and surgical masks? Very likely a strong 'no.'

Glycol particulates are larger than the aerosolized mucus and saliva, for example. This is what it looks like when you exhale in a properly fitted mask. As viewed from the front instead of the side view which is what the pro-mask people usually show you which is very dishonest as the airline industry discovered. Sit people 1.5 feet from each other on an airplane, even with masks, and people still get the virus. Why? The air goes out the sides of the masks, right into the same place that you inhale from: the side:

But doesn't the data show this isn't the case if you have a virtuous cause?

It's true that if you inhale for as long as you can and then exhale it all out as hard as you can, it compromises what a mask can do. It's why doctors and nurses are told to breath normally while wearing them, as they're designed to work that way.

But don't let those facts get in the way of the gaslighting though Surt. As you were.

Corrected:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Japan did a study on this and were forced to retract the study because it is actually unethical to study this outside of home mask wearing by self report.

What did Japan find? The virus was all over the mask: inside and outside. Ended up all over the rooms, as well. You can't put healthy people in the rooms during those studies. It's extremely unethical to do so as you could kill someone.

What we do have are random control trials for "home use" and selfreporting. What they found is that no masks work. None. N95s included. Meaning, if your father gets sick, your whole family will see no additional benefit to your father wearing the mask. The Dutch study I posted discusses this because there are retrospective studies done that conclude that wearing masks at home helped which contradict the higher quality RCTs with lab confirmed VRIs that show that masks did not work during home-use situations.

Lord Sorgo still has the best statement about this whole mask debate.

To paraphrase him: masks might help but it shouldn't be mandated. That's where I stand. Don't mandate it but leave people alone who wear masks. There is some good science out there that supports N95s being anywhere from not effective to 40% reduction in VRIs. That's anywhere from useless to significantly useful. Pretty good. Still, save those for the vulnerable and medical workers. If you're younger than 55 and healthy, you don't need a mask if you're not sick.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Corrected:

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
As I remember though Sorgo got bored arguing with you and left the debate.

Not all facts are exciting, some can be boring.

Originally posted by Surtur
But doesn't the data show this isn't the case if you have a virtuous cause?

When I chimed in about this topic, months ago, I stated that it would not contribute to more cases because it's mostly young people getting out of the house and into the "world." Remember, that was the recommendation from epidemiologists: get the young people out of the house and outside so they can socially distance.

But now we have data that proves I was right:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/01/research-determines-protests-did-not-cause-spike-in-coronavirus-cases/?sh=1488e11e7dac

In the immediate aftermath of Floyd’s death, health officials expressed great concern that protesters, potentially yelling and shouting in very close proximity, would quickly spread the virus, which might lead to devastating outbreaks.

However, researchers found “no evidence that urban protests reignited Covid-19 case growth during the more than three weeks following protest onset.”

In fact, they determined that, based on cellphone data, “cities which had protests saw an increase in social distancing behavior for the overall population relative to cities that did not,” leading to “modest evidence of a small longer-run case growth decline.”

The study’s lead author, Dhaval Dave of Bentley University, said, “In many cities, the protests actually seemed to lead to a net increase in social distancing, as more people who did not protest decided to stay off the streets.”

The study used newly collected data from 315 of the largest U.S. cities and documents that protests took place in 281 of those cities.

The authors prereleased the paper last week, and it has not yet been peer-reviewed.

But don't tell this to the dadudemon hate-crew: I'm somehow still wrong even though I'm posting facts that might support their position. I'm still just a 'closeted Nazi Racist Trumper.' 🙂

Be ready to get told you are gaslighting.

Originally posted by Surtur
Be ready to get told you are gaslighting.

My body is ready.

pained

Eric Clapton records a new anti-lockdown song. Now the cancel culture is coming for him.

^^captain gaslight and his bumbling sidekick, hard at work 24/7. but where is the 3rd stooge?

meanwhile, in reality, we're closing in on 275k u.s. deaths as the infection and death rate are both accelerating.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
^^captain gaslight and his bumbling sidekick, hard at work 24/7. but where is the 3rd stooge?

meanwhile, in reality, we're closing in on 275k u.s. deaths as the infection and death rate are both accelerating.

Originally posted by Surtur
Be ready to get told you are gaslighting.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
^^captain gaslight and his bumbling sidekick, hard at work 24/7. but where is the 3rd stooge?

Someone predicted this. He must be a genius.

Originally posted by Surtur
Someone predicted this. He must be a genius.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
or a gaslighter or bumbling sidekick. 🙂

Nah, a genius.

🙂