12 Mississippi children in ICU, 10 on ventilators

[rjs330]

Democrats are in charge so Romans 13 is no longer relevant. When Republicans are in charge, Romans 13 is on a level of importance as the first set of Ten Commandments. It’s so predictable you could set your watch to it.

You guys opposed Trump so hard that it makes this post seem rather silly.

The truth is, it's okay to speak your mind about what you believe ought or ought not to be. The Bible never says to shut up and be quiet. So you guys were just fine voicing your opinions about the Republican rule when they were in charge. And we are also just fine to speak out against the democrats when they are in charge. The verses in this scripture refer to placing yourself under the authority of the government. Which I think most people do. On both sides. We just all just whine a lot over what the government does.

A good healthy debate over ideas is okay. Where we are free to disobey the government is when they command things that are contrary to the commands of God. Like, what is happening in Canada to churches. Or what happened in California. I'd the government says we can't do this or that and that goes against what God says, then we are okay. If the government tells us we have to do something that is contrary to Gods word then we are not obligated to obey the government over God.

 

[rjs330]

Do you honestly expect me to believe that if they said”We have this vaccine, you can get it if you want, either way,” you would have gone out to get it along with everyone else Whois acting like they want COVID to kill more people?

That was a bit confusing.

 

[rjs330]

People have the freedom in this country to make their own healthcare decisions... So, it's not a "resistance" or a "rebellion" to look at the risk/benefit analysis of the vaccine/COVID based on facts (not hype) and make a decision for yourself, whether in the positive or in the negative.

And I'm glad we do still have that ability. Someday, we might not.

 

[98cwitr]

Do you honestly expect me to believe that if they said”We have this vaccine, you can get it if you want, either way,” you would have gone out to get it along with everyone else Whois acting like they want COVID to kill more people?

I think them going the "your body your choice" route would have made a lot of people less suspicious. I'm not going to speculate whether or not such a position would have increase or decreased the vaccination rate. I do know A LOT of folks who were waiting on a vaccine to take their masks off even prior to it being released.

I think a lot of people are looking at their our community and state data and aren't as scared of covid as the media is stating that people should be.

No one wants covid to kill people. To suggest people do is a gross misunderstanding at best, and complete libel at worst.

 

[Hammster]

I looked for the part of God's Word which says to be suspicious of "the authorities", but all I could find was Romans 13. Where does God instruct us to selectively mistrust/suspect earthly governmental authorities? What I read says that we are to obey and we are to accept governmental authority is "is the minister of God to thee for good" and that "they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

None of Romans 13 sounds anything like what you said.

As long as the government is acting according to biblical precepts, it is a minister. Otherwise, it’s not acting as a minister of God.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I think them going the "your body your choice" route would have made a lot of people less suspicious. I'm not going to speculate whether or not such a position would have increase or decreased the vaccination rate. I do know A LOT of folks who were waiting on a vaccine to take their masks off even prior to it being released.

I think a lot of people are looking at their our community and state data and aren't as scared of covid as the media is stating that people should be.

No one wants covid to kill people. To suggest people do is a gross misunderstanding at best, and complete libel at worst.

What actions by the government would have made you, @98cwitr more likely to get vaccinated?

I didn’t say they “wanted COVID to kill more people.” I said they are “acting like they want COVID to kill more people.” I’m not saying they want more people to die, I’m just saying that if they wanted more people to die, their actions would be very similar to what they are currently doing. If that upsets you, maybe I’m getting close to a nerve. Or maybe you simply misunderstood what I’m saying and it doesn’t bother you. I’m leaning toward the latter.

 

[probinson]

The harder authorities push the more others become suspicious. You'd think the pushers would realize this about human nature, but the truth is that a lot of people just do as they're told without questioning.

Exactly right.

The ACLU published a Pandemic Preparedness Plan in 2008. Some excerpts (emphasis added);

The lessons from history should be kept in mind whenever we are told by govern- ment officials that “tough,” liberty-limiting actions are needed to protect us from dangerous diseases. Specifically:

• Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities.

• On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work. Simply put, people do not want to contract smallpox, influenza or other dangerous diseases. They want positive government help in avoiding and treating disease. As long as public officials are working to help people rather than to punish them, people are likely to engage willingly in any and all efforts to keep their families and communities healthy.

• Minorities and other socially disadvantaged populations tend to bear the brunt of tough public health measures.

Specific pandemic flu plans have also been adopted by the federal government and nearly every state and locality. The plans are poorly coordinated and dangerously counter- productive. By assuming the “worst case” scenario, all of the plans rely heavily on a punitive approach and emphasize extreme measures such as quarantine and forced treatment. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Pandemic Influenza Plan posits a “containment strategy” that calls for massive uses of government force, for example to ban public gatherings, isolate symptomatic individuals, restrict the movement of individuals, or compel vaccination or treatment.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf​

It really is an interesting read to see how far removed from prior knowledge we've gotten. By taking a punitive stance, it's almost like this report from the ACLU was prophetic in nature, as we've seen distrust in public health grow to alarming levels.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

As long as the government is acting according to biblical precepts, it is a minister. Otherwise, it’s not acting as a minister of God.

So the Roman Government was acting according to Biblical precepts when Romans was written? Really???

Show me where in Romans 13 it says in any way that "as long as the government is acting according to biblical precepts, it is a minister.". From what I see, that condition is not placed on the government.

 

[DaisyDay]

Why the fixation with this variant? It's more contagious, not more deadly, meaning almost everyone will survive and a vast majority will have minor or no symptoms. Spooky.

Since it is not less deadly, being more contagious makes it more dangerous.

 

[probinson]

What actions by the government would have made you, @98cwitr more likely to get vaccinated?

I'm not 98cwitr, but I'll answer;

Truth. Honesty. Accurate reporting of data. Explanations of flip flops.

The public health response to the pandemic has been dreadful. It's almost as if public health officials were trying to see just how much they could make the public distrust them. From one day to the next, shifting recommendations with no explanation, data or evidence to support them.

I'll give you an example; 2 days ago, Dr. Fauci said in an interview there is "no doubt" that 3-year olds should be masked in daycare. But the WHO says that no one under the age of 5 should be masked at all. Specifically, the WHO's guidance says (emphasis in original);

In general, children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks. This advice is based on the safety and overall interest of the child and the capacity to appropriately use a mask with minimal assistance.
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Children and masks​

Hmm. Dr. Fauci said there is "no doubt" that 3-year olds should be wearing masks. The WHO says that those 5 and under should NOT be rehired to wear masks "based on the safety and overall interest of the child". This is a direct contradiction in public health recommendations.

Social distancing. Fauci and the CDC say 6 feet. The WHO says nearly half that distance is OK at 1 meter (3.2 feet). Which one is correct?

These are simple examples of recommendations not based on science, evidence or data. They're literally made up out of thin air, and there is no quality data to support any of it. Even worse, there IS high quality evidence (available prior to the pandemic) that shows masks ARE NOT effective at slowing the spread of the disease. The CDC themselves did a systematic review of 10 RCTs of masking. Their review said (emphasis added);

One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group.

The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies

None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group

Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures​

But don't take my word for it. Go read the studies for yourself. These aren't fringe, conspiracy sites. The systematic review referenced above was done by the CDC and published May 2020, right about the same time the CDC was telling everyone they needed to wear masks.

Now the answer I normally get for this is that science evolves. This is a true statement and simultaneously a distraction from the main point. Almost all of the studies of mask efficacy are observational, mechanistic and do not take into account behavioral science. They are literally at the lowest tier of the evidence pyramid, while RCTs and systematic reviews sit at the peak of the evidence pyramid. Why did public health discard decades of established, high quality science in favor of the lowest quality evidence available? Why did they completely disregard all pandemic preparedness plans and go with the great lockdown experiment of 2020?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Public health hasn't answered any of these questions. They expect we should just sit back, shut up and listen to them because they are the "experts" and they know better. But that's not how this works. These are valid questions that deserve answers. And since public health has taken the approach they have, there is a large population of people that now distrust them. Heck, even doctors and nurses have lost their trust in the CDC and the FDA;

Out of nearly 2,000 U.S. nurses surveyed on Medscape (WebMD's sister site for health care professionals) between May 25 and June 3, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased since the start of the pandemic, and 51% said their trust in the FDA has decreased. Similarly, out of nearly 450 U.S. doctors surveyed in the same time period, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased and 48% said their trust in the FDA has decreased.

Trust in CDC, FDA Took a Beating During Pandemic​

I know it would be more convenient if you could just write us all off as science/COVID deniers and other pejoratives, but if you really want to understand why vaccination uptake is so low, this is an excellent place to start.

 

[d taylor]

I am not on facebook but was able to screen capture this.

 

[Fantine]

Out of nearly 2,000 U.S. nurses surveyed on Medscape (WebMD's sister site for health care professionals) between May 25 and June 3, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased since the start of the pandemic, and 51% said their trust in the FDA has decreased. Similarly, out of nearly 450 U.S. doctors surveyed in the same time period, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased and 48% said their trust in the FDA has decreased.

Trust in CDC, FDA Took a Beating During Pandemic​

I know it would be more convenient if you could just write us all off as science/COVID deniers and other pejoratives, but if you really want to understand why vaccination uptake is so low, this is an excellent place to start.

Of course medical professionals have less faith in the CDC and FDA. Look who ran them for the first ten months of the pandemic. I am astonished we survived and just hope he will finally be brought to justice in at least one of four states, hopefully all of them.

When I look at how much worse our casualties were compared to countries with competent leaders I am immersed in sorrow. How could we have been so hoodwinked by corporate raiders trying to craft this into an economic problem instead of a medical one?

Our lives take precedence over corporate profits

 

[ironbjorn]

Of course medical professionals have less faith in the CDC and FDA. Look who ran them for the first ten months of the pandemic. I am astonished we survived and just hope he will finally be brought to justice in at least one of four states, hopefully all of them.

When I look at how much worse our casualties were compared to countries with competent leaders I am immersed in sorrow. How could we have been so hoodwinked by corporate raiders trying to craft this into an economic problem instead of a medical one?

Our lives take precedence over corporate profits

The same guy who wanted to close borders in January but was called a racist? Lolololol. 2 months later he was right.

 

[probinson]

Of course medical professionals have less faith in the CDC and FDA. Look who ran them for the first ten months of the pandemic.

Except the survey was done on June 9, 2021, 4 months after Dr. Walensky had taken over at the CDC. And still, fully 77% of doctors and nurses responded that they trusted the CDC less. I know it would be more convenient for you if you could blame Trump for everything, but the world is far more complex and nuanced than that.

Why would anyone distrust Dr. Walensky? Well let's just take a look at one prominent example.

On February 3, Dr. Walensky said;

“There is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told reporters during a White House news briefing on Covid-19.

“Vaccinations of teachers is not a prerequisite for safely reopening schools,” she added.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/cdc...fely-reopen-without-vaccinating-teachers.html​

Whoops! Dr. Walensky veered off the approved narrative script, and the Biden administration threw her under the bus because of it;

During a press briefing later Wednesday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki walked back Walensky’s comments, saying that they were not “official guidance” from the CDC.​

Wait! Did you catch that? The PRESS SECRETARY said that Dr. Walensky, Director of the CDC, was wrong, citing no evidence whatsoever and providing no explanation as to why. Despite pledging to "follow the science", they were now backtracking, even though Walensky had said that there is "increasing data". This is a key point not to be missed. It wasn't just Dr. Walensky's opinion or musings. It was based on DATA.

Nevertheless, Walensky got the message loud and clear that she had gone off the reservation and needed to be reigned back in, as evidenced by the CDC's school opening guidelines that had little resemblance to her prior comments about this "increasing data". Jake Tapper at CNN questioned her on this once the guidelines came out. Here you can watch her squirm and spin as Tapper calls her out on this blatant and unexplained flip-flop.

And there you have it. Contradicting advice from one day to the next with no explanation from our current CDC, having nothing at all to do with the Trump administration. Apparently the "increasing evidence" just vanished into thin air and we're supposed to pretend like she never said this.

 

[Hammster]

So the Roman Government was acting according to Biblical precepts when Romans was written? Really???

Show me where in Romans 13 it says in any way that "as long as the government is acting according to biblical precepts, it is a minister.". From what I see, that condition is not placed on the government.

Ministers of God do godly things. For your understanding to be correct, we should support every evil government in history. I’m sure that you don’t want to do that.

 

[probinson]

Concerning vaccinating children, here is an excellent article;

There is no need to rush to vaccinate children against covid-19—the vast majority stands little to benefit, and it is ethically dubious to pursue a hypothetical protection of adults while exposing children to harms, known and unknown. The risk/benefit consideration may be different in children at relatively higher risk of severe disease, such as those who are obese or immunocompromised. Otherwise, the focus should be on ensuring safe and effective vaccines are available for the adult populations which stand the most to benefit, especially those at high risk.

Covid-19 vaccines for children: hypothetical benefits to adults do not outweigh risks to children - The BMJ​

Here is yet another reason there is vaccine hesitancy. More and more data is emerging to show that vaccinating children simply does not make sense, yet the CDC and public health continue storming forward with their VACCINATE EVERYONE! policy with no consideration as to the risk/benefit analysis of children, nor taking into account immunity conferred by prior infection, nor recognizing that perhaps there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. Have you seen Fauci or anyone at the CDC talking about this, or are they too busy trying to figure out whether we should inject a third shot into people while vulnerable people all over the world don't even have access to one shot?

 

[whatbogsends]

Yes, one can state the numbers in many ways.

600,000 have died from COVID in the US. Fewer than 1,000 of those 600K were fully vaccinated.

It is a headline when ANYONE vaccinated dies. That is because this event is so rare.

As we see death numbers grow, each of the vaccinated will make their decisions. The media folk will decide how many unnecessary deaths is worthy of a news report.

I think you mean "It is a headline when ANYONE vaccinated dies (from Covid)". Vaccinated people die all the time.

Every time there's a post about someone dying shortly after getting the vaccine we are told that "people die all the time" and "there's no causal relationship".

What are the overall mortality rates for the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated? Not the mortality rates from Covid in those respective populations, but the overall mortality rates.

 

[whatbogsends]

I'm not 98cwitr, but I'll answer;

Truth. Honesty. Accurate reporting of data. Explanations of flip flops.

The public health response to the pandemic has been dreadful. It's almost as if public health officials were trying to see just how much they could make the public distrust them. From one day to the next, shifting recommendations with no explanation, data or evidence to support them.

I'll give you an example; 2 days ago, Dr. Fauci said in an interview there is "no doubt" that 3-year olds should be masked in daycare. But the WHO says that no one under the age of 5 should be masked at all. Specifically, the WHO's guidance says (emphasis in original);

In general, children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks. This advice is based on the safety and overall interest of the child and the capacity to appropriately use a mask with minimal assistance.
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Children and masks​

Hmm. Dr. Fauci said there is "no doubt" that 3-year olds should be wearing masks. The WHO says that those 5 and under should NOT be rehired to wear masks "based on the safety and overall interest of the child". This is a direct contradiction in public health recommendations.

Social distancing. Fauci and the CDC say 6 feet. The WHO says nearly half that distance is OK at 1 meter (3.2 feet). Which one is correct?

These are simple examples of recommendations not based on science, evidence or data. They're literally made up out of thin air, and there is no quality data to support any of it. Even worse, there IS high quality evidence (available prior to the pandemic) that shows masks ARE NOT effective at slowing the spread of the disease. The CDC themselves did a systematic review of 10 RCTs of masking. Their review said (emphasis added);

One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group.

The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies

None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group

Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures​

But don't take my word for it. Go read the studies for yourself. These aren't fringe, conspiracy sites. The systematic review referenced above was done by the CDC and published May 2020, right about the same time the CDC was telling everyone they needed to wear masks.

Now the answer I normally get for this is that science evolves. This is a true statement and simultaneously a distraction from the main point. Almost all of the studies of mask efficacy are observational, mechanistic and do not take into account behavioral science. They are literally at the lowest tier of the evidence pyramid, while RCTs and systematic reviews sit at the peak of the evidence pyramid. Why did public health discard decades of established, high quality science in favor of the lowest quality evidence available? Why did they completely disregard all pandemic preparedness plans and go with the great lockdown experiment of 2020?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Public health hasn't answered any of these questions. They expect we should just sit back, shut up and listen to them because they are the "experts" and they know better. But that's not how this works. These are valid questions that deserve answers. And since public health has taken the approach they have, there is a large population of people that now distrust them. Heck, even doctors and nurses have lost their trust in the CDC and the FDA;

Out of nearly 2,000 U.S. nurses surveyed on Medscape (WebMD's sister site for health care professionals) between May 25 and June 3, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased since the start of the pandemic, and 51% said their trust in the FDA has decreased. Similarly, out of nearly 450 U.S. doctors surveyed in the same time period, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased and 48% said their trust in the FDA has decreased.

Trust in CDC, FDA Took a Beating During Pandemic​

I know it would be more convenient if you could just write us all off as science/COVID deniers and other pejoratives, but if you really want to understand why vaccination uptake is so low, this is an excellent place to start.

While i disagree with you on the efficacy of masks (especially in certain, specific situations, such as brief, indoor environments), i overall agree that messaging and recommendations seemed arbitrary and often not science based. While obviously the science evolves, we would be given 2 diametrically opposed answers 24 hours apart and still be told that they're following the "science", when it was clear that it was simply a decision, and not a scientific revelation that caused the switch.

Moreover, what is especially unsettling is the crackdown of valid scientific opinion. Health care professionals being silenced on social media for not conforming to specific policy recommendations. Actual science allows for varied theories to be assessed, not a simple "most scientists say X" when that is really slang for "the CDC (or WHO) says X".

Certainly, there is an element seeking to promote disinformation, but when healthcare professionals are muzzled because they don't fall lock-step with the WHO, it's a problem. We should allow for discussion of policy and data, not be promoting a strict adherence to whatever the CDC and WHO decide.

 

[probinson]

While i disagree with you on the efficacy of masks (especially in certain, specific situations, such as brief, indoor environments),

I'd ask why you disagree with this. As shown above, there have been RCTs of masking done and then systematic reviews completed. The study I referenced spans RCTs of masking for over 75 years. The evidence we have to support masking is almost entirely observational and mechanistic, and is often cherry-picked.

For example, this study by the CDC concluded that mask wearing was credited for reduced number of infections in Kansas. But they excluded the time period when cases were skyrocketing. The study ran from June 1 to August 23, and was published on November 27. Let's see what that looks like with case counts in Kansas on a graph;

Look at that near vertical increase of cases, with masks! Not included in the study. Why not?

i overall agree that messaging and recommendations seemed arbitrary and often not science based. While obviously the science evolves, we would be given 2 diametrically opposed answers 24 hours apart and still be told that they're following the "science", when it was clear that it was simply a decision, and not a scientific revelation that caused the switch.

Absolutely agreed here.

Moreover, what is especially unsettling is the crackdown of valid scientific opinion. Health care professionals being silenced on social media for not conforming to specific policy recommendations. Actual science allows for varied theories to be assessed, not a simple "most scientists say X" when that is really slang for "the CDC (or WHO) says X".

Certainly, there is an element seeking to promote disinformation, but when healthcare professionals are muzzled because they don't fall lock-step with the WHO, it's a problem. We should allow for discussion of policy and data, not be promoting a strict adherence to whatever the CDC and WHO decide.

Bingo. If you've read any of my posts, you should know that I have a very sound, data-based argument. I use copious amounts of data and provide respected sources for my claims. I am not in any way attempting to promote disinformation. Yet this is an easy way for people to classify, marginalize and ignore the inconvenient facts and truths I post.

Dr. Vinay Prasad wrote an article on Stat addressing this issue that was excellent. He said;

When major decisions must be made amid high scientific uncertainty, as is the case with Covid-19, we can’t afford to silence or demonize professional colleagues with heterodox views. Even worse, we can’t allow questions of science, medicine, and public health to become captives of tribalized politics. Today, more than ever, we need vigorous academic debate.

Let's hear scientists with different Covid-19 views, not attack them - STAT​

Nowhere was this more prevalent than when Twitter suspended the account of Dr. Martin Kuldorff for suggesting that masking wasn't the boon everyone said it was. I'd like to point out that Dr. Martin Kuldorff is a respected scientist, epidemiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School. His works have been cited over 26,000 times according to Google Scholar. Yet Twitter decided that this highly respected professor and doctor was "promoting misinformation" and suspended his account. That should concern everyone.

 

[whatbogsends]

I'd ask why you disagree with this. As shown above, there have been RCTs of masking done and then systematic reviews completed. The study I referenced spans RCTs of masking for over 75 years. The evidence we have to support masking is almost entirely observational and mechanistic, and is often cherry-picked.

For example, this study by the CDC concluded that mask wearing was credited for reduced number of infections in Kansas. But they excluded the time period when cases were skyrocketing. The study ran from June 1 to August 23, and was published on November 27. Let's see what that looks like with case counts in Kansas on a graph;

View attachment 302358

Look at that near vertical increase of cases, with masks! Not included in the study. Why not?

Absolutely agreed here.

Bingo. If you've read any of my posts, you should know that I have a very sound, data-based argument. I use copious amounts of data and provide respected sources for my claims. I am not in any way attempting to promote disinformation. Yet this is an easy way for people to classify, marginalize and ignore the inconvenient facts and truths I post.

Dr. Vinay Prasad wrote an article on Stat addressing this issue that was excellent. He said;

When major decisions must be made amid high scientific uncertainty, as is the case with Covid-19, we can’t afford to silence or demonize professional colleagues with heterodox views. Even worse, we can’t allow questions of science, medicine, and public health to become captives of tribalized politics. Today, more than ever, we need vigorous academic debate.

Let's hear scientists with different Covid-19 views, not attack them - STAT​

Nowhere was this more prevalent than when Twitter suspended the account of Dr. Martin Kuldorff for suggesting that masking wasn't the boon everyone said it was. I'd like to point out that Dr. Martin Kuldorff is a respected scientist, epidemiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School. His works have been cited over 26,000 times according to Google Scholar. Yet Twitter decided that this highly respected professor and doctor was "promoting misinformation" and suspended his account. That should concern everyone.

Measuring the effects of a mask mandate, in of itself, isn't a scientific way to measure the efficacy of actually wearing a mask. Measurements of particles passing through the mask, etc. are needed to test the efficacy of masks. Your chart suggests mask mandates, in of themselves, don't yield results, and i'd agree with you.

I don't think wearing a mask will help much when worn for a long period in an environment with a moderate level of infectious material, for example. It does a limited job in filtering out the bad particles, but it might reduce one's viral load down, yielding less chance for infection/milder infection.

However, for situations in which everyone actually wears masks in an environment where people are only in said environment for short periods of time (such as going to the grocery store), the mask limits the spread of infectious material from any infected persons, and similarly limits direct exposure for mask wearers, yielding moderate protection for the entire population.

I don't see masks as a one-size-fits-all safety device, but common sense (and studies focusing on specific transmission of particles) show that masks did (and do) have a place in reducing the spread of infectious disease.

This is a bit off-topic, so i'll just leave it at that. If you disagree with my assessment, that's fine, but i'm not going to get more into it in this thread.