- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,439
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I just looked up my school. We are currently ranked 62nd.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.
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.Except the most recent report from the CDC says otherwise. I believe it was posted earlier in the thread.
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 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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
I noticed that you used a non Sequitur logical fallacy. That was your point?Thanks to you as well, for proving my point so quickly.
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.
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.
There is also swine flu from a few years ago that led to idiots killing pigs out of fear.
Anyone who thinks masks are useless isn't using his brain.
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.
Sure, let's take a look at each of these articles, though this does feel awfully like a Gish Gallop.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.
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.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
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.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
This is the exact same link as the first you gave.Another study shows cloth masks useless compared to surgical masks. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
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.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
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?
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.
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:
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.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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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: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
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: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
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.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'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.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.
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....??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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?