Masks Are Essentially Worthless

[Archivist]

I just saw that the other day. When I was there it was in the upper 40's. I have no idea why it's dropped so much although it looks to me like they dropped a lot of their academics for practical lawyering. That may explain the drop.

I just looked up my school. We are currently ranked 62nd.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Except the most recent report from the CDC says otherwise. I believe it was posted earlier in the thread.

The same CDC that told us three months ago masks wouldn't protect us. They were telling the truth back then. Even The Netherlands has recently given up on masks, nothing that there's no scientific evidence they work.

 

[Archivist]

The same CDC that told us three months ago masks wouldn't protect us. They were telling the truth back then. Even The Netherlands has recently given up on masks, nothing that there's no scientific evidence they work.

Yes, the CDC did originally say masks didn’t work. COVID was new then. They’ve learned, which is why they are now recommending them.

The Netherlands? If you have done your research you know that 1) No other European countries are following their lead and 2) The mayors of the two largest Dutch cities are requiring them because the infection rate in those cities was rising.

Oh, and the Dutch once based their economy on tulip bulbs. Should we do that too?

 

[Redwingfan9]

Yes, the CDC did originally say masks didn’t work. COVID was new then. They’ve learned, which is why they are now recommending them.

The Netherlands? If you have done your research you know that 1) No other European countries are following their lead and 2) The mayors of the two largest Dutch cities are requiring them because the infection rate in those cities was rising.

Oh, and the Dutch once based their economy on tulip bulbs. Should we do that too?

You act like Coronavirus is some sort of new thing that no one has ever seen before. In fact, Coronaviruses are common and the cause of most common colds. There is no difference between this novel coronavirus and all of the other viruses that aren't stopped by useless cloth masks. The CDC is trying to make it look like they're doing something when in reality they're doing absolutely nothing. Government cannot stop the spread of viruses.

 

[Archivist]

You act like Coronavirus is some sort of new thing that no one has ever seen before.

Because this particular strain is new. We are talking about this strain, not other strains.

In fact, Coronaviruses are common and the cause of most common colds.

So now you are comparing a virus that has killed over 152,000 people to the common cold.

There is no difference between this novel coronavirus and all of the other viruses that aren't stopped by useless cloth masks.

Wrong.

The CDC is trying to make it look like they're doing something when in reality they're doing absolutely nothing.

Also wrong. Oh I forgot, you didn’t read their most recent report, that’s why you are putting your faith in what the Netherlands is doing. Good luck with that.

Government cannot stop the spread of viruses.

But wearing masks in unlicensed can slow the spread of the virus.

 

[Archivist]

You act like Coronavirus is some sort of new thing that no one has ever seen before. In fact, Coronaviruses are common and the cause of most common colds. There is no difference between this novel coronavirus and all of the other viruses that aren't stopped by useless cloth masks. The CDC is trying to make it look like they're doing something when in reality they're doing absolutely nothing. Government cannot stop the spread of viruses.

Still waiting for an explanation as to 1) why other European countries aren’t following the Dutch and 2) why the mayors of two Dutch cities have called for compulsory masks. You are very good at ignoring questions you don’t like.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Because this particular strain is new.



So now you are comparing a virus that has killed over 152,000 people to the common cold.



Wrong.



Also wrong. Oh I forgot, you didn’t read their most recent report, that’s why you are putting your faith in what the Netherlands is doing. Good luck with that.



But wearing masks in unlicensed can slow the spread of the virus.

Way to ignore context. This virus is no different in size or shape such that it would somehow be the only virus that couldn't get through a cloth mask.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Still waiting for an explanation as to 1) why other European countries aren’t following the Dutch and 2) why the mayors of two Dutch cities have called for compulsory masks. You are very good at ignoring questions you don’t like.

Considering that The Netherlands made their announcement yesterday, I'm not sure you should read anything into the fact that other countries haven't followed suit. As for Mayors, again this gets back to governments trying to make it look like they're doing something when they aren't. If mask mandates will shift focus away from the mayor, he's going to issue a mask mandate and declare he's done everything he can. It's basic machiavellian politics.

 

[Archivist]

Way to ignore context. This virus is no different in size or shape such that it would somehow be the only virus that couldn't get through a cloth mask.

It has been explained about how the masks works. I’m not going to repeat it. You have apparently ignored the explanation, just as you have ignored so much in this thread.

 

[Archivist]

Considering that The Netherlands made their announcement yesterday, I'm not sure you should read anything into the fact that other countries haven't followed suit.

Wrong. First, the announcement was made two days ago, not yesterday. Second, they only announced that are going to stop advising people to wear masks. Unlike other countries they were not required in the Netherlands except on public transit and airports (where they are still required). Larger European countries still require masks, never followed the Netherlands.

As for Mayors, again this gets back to governments trying to make it look like they're doing something when they aren't. If mask mandates will shift focus away from the mayor, he's going to issue a mask mandate and declare he's done everything he can. It's basic machiavellian politics.

Proof please? Evidence to back this claim?

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Thanks to you as well, for proving my point so quickly.

I noticed that you used a non Sequitur logical fallacy. That was your point?

Okay. Moving right along...

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I was bored, so I collected an assortment of flames and insults from this thread (unabridged). All of them came from the pro-mask side. I was trying to assess which side of the matter was more genuinely Christian. It's easy to think that "saving lives" is the most Christian position, while belying one's own position with the words used to defend it, "...for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." (Luke 6:45)

If the Deep State believed masks would increase their control over the populace they couldn't be more wrong, and are far more stupid than I thought.

Meaning, a person would have to be stupid to think that further isolating citizens from each other, psychologically as well as through physical social distancing, somehow makes organized revolt more unlikely. Incidentally, I disagree.

Why are people insisting they are harmful?---'Cause they believe some idiot who told them so and others who have no actual experience with them just making stupid statements---even doctors do that. ...To say that masks are totally ineffective is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

If that's the dumbest thing you ever hear, then you need to get out more. That masks are totally ineffective in the short run is doubtful, but the long run is a different matter. A slow-moving train still arrives at its destination.

There is also swine flu from a few years ago that led to idiots killing pigs out of fear.

People will cling to any remedy, no matter how worthless, when they're desperate. That doesn't make them idiots (It does, however, tend to make them call other people idiots for not doing the same).

Anyone who thinks masks are useless isn't using his brain.

Actually, anyone who thinks masks are useless isn't using your brain. I know that's hard to fathom, but it's the essence of every disagreement you've ever had.

Even via their own stupidity, whether it's doing 110 MPH down I4 (I say that because right outside my apartment is a deadly MVA on I4 and from the looks of the one vehicle it was going at a high rate of speed) or people not wearing masks.

That's a broad range, from flinging oneself down the freeway at a high rate of speed, to one's choice of outer garment.

---SE---

 

[chilehed]

I noticed that you used a non Sequitur logical fallacy

I illustrated the nature of someone else's illogical reasoning. That's not at all a non sequitur.

 

[chilehed]

Actually, anyone who thinks masks are useless isn't using your brain. I know that's hard to fathom, but it's the essence of every disagreement you've ever had.

This is a particularly spectacular example of absurd response. You guys just keep 'em coming.

 

[JSRG]

The notion that science has determined that masks are going to save us from Chinese Coronavirus (or any other disease) is utter tosh. Anyone telling you science is settled on any issue should raise a red flag. On masks, science isn't close to settled.

Sure, let's take a look at each of these articles, though this does feel awfully like a Gish Gallop.

The British Journal of Medicine says cloth masks are 97% useless. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

This was regarding hospital workers, not regular people; obviously the situations they are in is quite different. It should further be noted that the link has a more recent follow-up from the authors in which they say that even if (for hospital workers) cloth masks are not particularly effective, they are still better than not wearing a mask at all.

A study of the more serious 1918 flu pandemic showed masks useless. The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications

Firstly, the article is obviously quite out of date (it's from 1920!)... in fact, it's so old I am left wondering how similar the "gauze masks" it is discussing are to our modern cloth masks. But setting that aside, the study did not show masks to be useless. It noted they did have an effect. Its conclusion was that it did not have enough of an effect to warrant compulsory application. Whatever relevance it may have on the question of requiring people to wear masks, it does not support the claim that masks are useless.

Another study shows cloth masks useless compared to surgical masks. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

This is the exact same link as the first you gave.

Other studies show cloth masks useless compared to surgical masks, even the latter are questionable.

They include:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en

The point of this study appears not to be actual testing of the effectiveness of masks, but rather a discussion of how to make penetration tests (i.e. testing the efficiency of masks) better. But let's look at the penetration it gives on the nonwoven material used in the tests. There were two unwoven materials tested, "sample 1" being "Spunbond/Meltblown/Spunbond[SMS]-type" and "sample 2" being "Spunlace-type." The first gave fairly little protection, with about a 75-85% penetration rate for influenza, but the other only had 18-20%, which seems pretty good. I am not sure which types of masks correspond to which of these samples.

In any event, this really doesn't say much about the effectiveness of surgical masks, as that wasn't the purpose of the study and if you do insist on getting such a thing out of it, the answer would be "well, it depends on the material." It cannot be used as an indictment on masks in general.

Error - Cookies Turned Off
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf

This one does say that medical masks are inferior to N95 masks, but where do you get the idea that the medical masks are "useless" compared to them from?

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf

To read this article in full requires a subscription or a purchasing of the article, neither of which I am interested in doing just for the purpose of a message board discussion. However, even in the abstract it states "The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary." Non-scrubbed staff means those that aren't assisting closely enough with the surgery that the normal "scrubbing" is necessary. The test, therefore, seems to be the question of whether they need to wear masks in order to protect the patient when they are standing away from it, and it noted that from one meter away it didn't seem like they could. However, it also mentions that due to the forced ventilation, the air was moved away from the operating table--what of areas where that isn't the case? (this presumably was why it added the qualification of "with forced ventilation") And we're also talking about people from a meter--about 3 feet--away, not exactly close up.

Obviously some of this is supposition as I can only access the abstract, but the abstract certainly does not appear to back up your claim.

Simple Respiratory Protection—Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials Against 20–1000 nm Size Particles

This was a test for, if masks designed to stop bacteria are unavailable, how effective substitutes are. For example, it compares how good a T-shirt, sweatshirt, towel, or scarf is. Of course, the important thing here is not those, but the cloth masks. But note what it says here about the masks:

"The commercial cloth masks were advertised as pollution and allergen masks and did not make any claim as to their effectiveness for submicron-size particles."

So these aren't necessarily the masks we're looking for. Even if they are, it still does conclude they provided a "marginal" protection which is of course still something.

Masks are associated with oxygen deprivation and increased rates of infection according to these studies:

[Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance] - PubMed

This one is only an abstract, but it says nothing of oxygen deprivation; just that it increased dyspnea (labored breathing), which is sort of expected. Heck, exercising induces dyspnea more severe than what you'll get from walking around in a mask. But it says nothing about oxygen deprivation, which you made the claim for.

"Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil's sword?" - A physiological hypothesis - PubMed

Again, only an abstract. But this is just a declaration that it's a bad idea to exercise while wearing a face mask. It says nothing of face masks being worn under normal, non-exercising circumstances.

Healthcare personnel exposure in an emergency department during influenza season - PubMed

Yet again, only an abstract. But from the abstract, I don't see how this relates at all to anything, unless we're supposed to be taking the statement of "Filtering facepiece respirators may become contaminated with influenza when used during patient care" to be a statement of increased rate of infection. But how is it? If it is saying that the respirators could become infected... isn't that kind of the point? That any germs would end up on it instead of actually on you?

The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease - PubMed

Abstract only. This does discuss problems of lack of oxygen, but it's for wearing N95 masks (which are quite "heavy-duty" and usually not the masks worn by the general public) for hours on end.

Respiratory consequences of N95-type Mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers-a controlled clinical study - PubMed

Another abstract only so I can't fully examine the article to check on some questions that I have about its methodologies, but this is again about N95 masks, not the normal masks people wear.

A 2015 British study on surgical masks revealed masks don't really protect patient or surgeon very much. And that's in sterile settings. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery

Well, first off, this wasn't really a study, but a review of past studies. Essentially, it argues that past studies showing surgical masks as having been useful for preventing infection during surgery are outdated. It concludes, in fact:

"It is important not to construe an absence of evidence for effectiveness with evidence for the absence of effectiveness. While there is a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of facemasks, there is similarly a lack of evidence supporting their ineffectiveness."

Note more specifically this is referring to the specific case of facemasks during surgery, rather than "general" mask usage (whether by healthcare workers in a hospital or by regular people outside of the hospital). It's interesting you note "and that's in sterile settings" as if that makes the point stronger, but it actually would seem to do the opposite--in a sterile setting, there could be less reason to wear a mask due to there being far fewer germs around.

Finally, one New England Journal of Medicine editorial acknowledged the uselessness of masks but demanded universal masking nonetheless less for its placebo effect. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

Except on that very page you link to, there's a link to a follow-up clarifying some of the points that they think people misunderstood:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836

"We did state in the article that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces, not sustained interactions within closed environments. A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%. This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings. We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods."

(footnotes omitted)

So there you go. Not sure how useful this examination will be given we're over 15 pages in so I'm not sure how many people will actually see this post of mine, but maybe it will be of use for someone.

 

[ChristianK]

I always wondered, how do masks become 50% effective? You hear it, but it doesn't make sense.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Thank you, JSRG. That is the sort of detailed response I thought was required but I did not think it would be worth the work. We will see.

 

[LoricaLady]

The claims and demands have become increasingly hysterical and unreasonable. I read one doctor claim this virus will dominate the rest of our lives. That strikes me as completely unhinged. It is not reasonable to expect that people will hunker down in their homes, wearing masks when they dain to go out for years on end.

I have agreed with what you've said up to now. My personal opinion, from observation, though, is that most people will let themselves be fear mongered into wearing masks, practicing social distancing, losing their incomes to lock downs, and taking eugenicist Bill Gates horrible vaccine.

I did say earlier that Bill Gates said in the vid link I gave early on that his vaccine was "the final solution." But people will trust him. His billions have funded p.r. to make him look like a humanitarian and philanthropist, but that is the opposite of true as the vid shows.

So what if his family background is in eugenics? So what if he has very close ties to Planned Parenthood which is big on eugenics through killing babies in the womb - even in some states full term healthy babies? That doesn't mean anything. So what if, like the Nazis, he is into eugenics and talks about "the final solution". Just an odd coincidence. He's humanity's friend!

So what if Bill Gates talks about using vaccines to track and control the populace? He knows more about what's good for us than we do. Or so he wants you to think.

Anyone who wants to defend Gates to me is just defending eugenics in general, and slaughter of the unborn even sometimes of the fully born, babies and I can't take you seriously and will not even respond. When Gates isn't supporting Planned Parenthood's slaughter of the innocent, he is spending a lot of time just making sure babies don't get born in general - apparently especially to vulnerable blacks in Africa. Somehow he doesn't seem like he likes babies, or human beings, much. But trust him and take his "final solution" vaccine anyway if you like!

Most people will take that vaccine, not being able to list one ingredient in it, and not being able to tell diddly squat about how it's been supposedly scientifically tested.

The very sad truth is that people are thinking, I believe, "If I just wear a mask, and if I just practice social distancing and let the draconians take my livelihood away, and if I take that vaccine, all will return to normal."

But I'm sorry to say that personally I believe that is no way going to happen.

And no, I don't think Gates' vaccine will make people drop dead very soon after taking it. I agreed with the doctor created vid I linked along with the link of Gates. It's first purpose will be to change people's DNA in ways she describes. Then more sickness will come from the vaccine.

If you don't agree with what I've said. Fine. I leave you with your own opinion without comment. This post is for those who will, I believe, see the obvious.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I have agreed with what you've said up to now. My personal opinion, from observation, though, is that most people will let themselves be fear mongered into wearing masks, practicing social distancing, losing their incomes to lock downs, and taking eugenicist Bill Gates horrible vaccine.

I did say earlier that Bill Gates said in the vid link I gave early on that his vaccine was "the final solution." But people will trust him. His billions have funded p.r. to make him look like a humanitarian and philanthropist, but that is the opposite of true as the vid shows.

So what if his family background is in eugenics? So what if he has very close ties to Planned Parenthood which is big on eugenics through killing babies in the womb - even in some states full term healthy babies? That doesn't mean anything. So what if, like the Nazis, he wants "population control" and talks about "the final solution". Just an odd coincidence. He's humanity's friend!

So what if Bill Gates talks about using vaccines to track and control the populace? He knows more about what's good for us than we do. Or so he wants you to think.

Anyone who wants to defend Gates to me is just defending eugenics in general, and slaughter of the unborn even sometimes of the fully born, babies and I can't take you seriously and will not even respond. When Gates isn't supporting Planned Parenthood's slaughter of the innocent, he is spending a lot of time just making sure babies don't get born in general - apparently especially to vulnerable blacks in Africa. Somehow he doesn't seem like he like babies, or human beings, much. But trust him and take his "final solution" vaccine anyway if you like!

Most people will take that vaccine, not being able to list one ingredient in it, and not being able to tell diddly squat about how it's been supposedly scientifically tested.

The very sad truth is that people are thinking, I believe, "If I just wear a mask, and if I just practice social distancing and let the draconians take my livelihood away, and if I take that vaccine, all will return to normal."

But I'm sorry to say that personally I believe that is no way going to happen.

I'm no fan of Gates. That said, I will withhold judgment on a vaccine until one or more are out there. I'm not anti-vax but I'm not necessarily pro-vax either.

 

[LoricaLady]

I'm no fan of Gates. That said, I will withhold judgment on a vaccine until one or more are out there. I'm not anti-vax but I'm not necessarily pro-vax either.

Maybe see Dr. Suzanne Humphreys vids on vaccines. Maybe watch the doctor produced movie, now on You Tube, Vaxxed. Heart breaking. There you see the incredible corruption of Big Pharma. Why would anyone trust them? 100s of millions of lawsuits have been successfully won against pharmaceutical companies here and abroad due to damage from vaccines. Oh wait! This time they'll get it right. And we should believe that because....??

And guess what? Big Pharma was getting so many lawsuits due to their vaccines that they appealed to Congress. The result? You can't sue them anymore for damages!

Big Pharma and Bill Gates stand to make an incredible, unbelievable, fortune off of vaccinating the entire planet as much as they can. But money has nothing to do with it. Big Pharma and Bill Gates are just out to help humanity, not get more wealthy and get more control over us, right?

My doctor got a flu shot and was sick with the flu for 3 weeks. I was warned off of vaccines by a doctor over 20 years ago and have not taken one since. I have rarely gotten the flu or even a cold.

In January I happened to talk to a sales clerk who happened to mention that after she got a vaccination her arm became dysfunctional. Permanently.

No, I don't trust Bill Gates, I don't trust Big Pharma, I don't trust the brainwashing MSM, or the politicians and I pray people don't take that vaccine!