Masks can help you stop the virus

[JacksBratt]

I agree that they are not, but the problem is when you are going to more and more drastic measures to deal with the virus and not having a clue as to how effective they are would you and your wife have sex using an unknown method of protection to prevent pregnancy? I think almost everyone that was afraid of getting this virus would be convinced if it was proven a mask was 99% effective at stopping the virus but so far we have no such declaration only people saying they are effective along with distancing but no such figures suggesting if they are 20% effective without distancing and 80% with distancing or 50/50 or whatever. It is very possible distancing is more effective than most peoples masks out there and because masks protect the other person you have to assume based upon the protection of the crappiest mask of the person infected as your protection level if you don't distance properly. It is sort of like your wife trusting you to not wear a cheap condom that will easily tear vs taking a birth control pill or use an IUD or other methods. Typically people who want to avoid problems have to rely on themselves first and other second so if when you are around people you trust you may know they have "good" masks while in public you are taking your chances someone infected isn't essentially sneezing through a mask with the consistency of toilet paper at you.. or even on you.

I hear what you are saying. I think that masks are only affective for those who:

Are infected and don't want to spread their contaminated droplets in the air.
Are infected and don't touch their mask, putting the infected droplets on their hands and then touching something that others will touch.
Are infected and the mask actually stops the droplets from spreading.
Are infected and don't put the mask on their chin, over just their nose, over just their mouth.. on their forehead... etc.
Are infected and remove it properly, dispose of it properly, wash their hands and don't touch anything afterward.
Are infected and change masks every 4 hours or so.

For those that are not infected... it's a band aid solution in case you happen to be close to an infected person who releases droplets into the air and thus stops you from breathing them in .

It will not stop you from touching a contaminated surface and then touching your eye, nose, mouth etc.

Again, the right tool for the job and using the tool correctly..........is the only way.

 

[Archivist]

See globalist Henry Kissinger's comments about fighting the virus, about 13 minutes into the video.

Corona World Order: James Corbett

.

Henry K. does not have a medical degre, and I really have no use for a video from some right-wing nut job.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I hear what you are saying. I think that masks are only affective for those who:

Are infected and don't want to spread their contaminated droplets in the air.
Are infected and don't touch their mask, putting the infected droplets on their hands and then touching something that others will touch.
Are infected and the mask actually stops the droplets from spreading.
Are infected and don't put the mask on their chin, over just their nose, over just their mouth.. on their forehead... etc.
Are infected and remove it properly, dispose of it properly, wash their hands and don't touch anything afterward.
Are infected and change masks every 4 hours or so.

For those that are not infected... it's a band aid solution in case you happen to be close to an infected person who releases droplets into the air and thus stops you from breathing them in .

It will not stop you from touching a contaminated surface and then touching your eye, nose, mouth etc.

Again, the right tool for the job and using the tool correctly..........is the only way.

I've seen people discussing how you may be able to be infected through the eye of which masks don't cover and there has been nobody who is advocating standards of protection for us "cannon fodder" outside of the health industry where they get the best protection available and we have to fend for ourselves. If it is true we can get infected through the eye then how many have died getting infected through the eye that supposedly wearing eye protection could have halted it. This precludes self infection rather someone spewing into the air and it contacting your eyes somehow.
At times the backwards way this handling has been is sort of like there is too much crime so the sheriff locks himself up in the jail and tells everyone to wear heavy clothing to protect themselves from bullets.

 

[loveofourlord]

I am not impressed with this argument as one can take this to completion and castigate everyone on the planet as wicked for not masking since the day they were born because we all have been transmitting viruses and germs all our lives into the air and on surfaces and it is very likely someone has picked up our germs and suffered and died because of them. At what threshold of people dying from viruses and flus transform acceptable to wicked such that the H1N1 flu and the yearly flu and COVID 1-18 or whatever when we weren't wearing masks at all not wicked? Am I wicked when I have a normal flu and cough on someone and they die from the flu because I didn't wear a mask or is it only when someone tells me I must wear one or I'm wicked?

Nice bit of hyperbole, how about when there is a new disease with no vaccine and 70k+ people sick every day. How about when there is a disease that even those that surve often have permanite damage especially the young. How about when those that claim to be pro life show none of it when it's actually people they can help.

 

[JacksBratt]

I've seen people discussing how you may be able to be infected through the eye of which masks don't cover and there has been nobody who is advocating standards of protection for us "cannon fodder" outside of the health industry where they get the best protection available and we have to fend for ourselves. If it is true we can get infected through the eye then how many have died getting infected through the eye that supposedly wearing eye protection could have halted it. This precludes self infection rather someone spewing into the air and it contacting your eyes somehow.
At times the backwards way this handling has been is sort of like there is too much crime so the sheriff locks himself up in the jail and tells everyone to wear heavy clothing to protect themselves from bullets.

LOL... I never intended or believed that you could catch COVID by a projectile flying into your eye....

Funny thought, that.....

What I was talking about is touching a contaminated surface and then rubbing your eye with a contaminated finger....

But, thanks for that optic.

 

[loveofourlord]

Would someone who believes in evolution think that masks are a "good" thing? After all evolution is premised on survival of the fittest and diseases and bad mutations cull out the weak and masks protect the weak from the virus. I'm not saying that we should not protect the weak but at times I wonder if the enormous amount of money and effort spent on this virus would save a lot more lives both now and for years to come tackling other life threatening issues out there. When we add it all up and spend 5-10 trillion in the US on this virus and save a few million lives and could spend 2-5 trillion and have a cure for cancer perhaps and save hundreds of millions of lives.
Not that I'm proposing such to be done but I often feel like we are trying to drive a nail with a steam operated pile driver at times during this thing and even though we definitely hit the nail we wipe out everything around it.

descriptive not prescriptive, I shouldn't have to explain this to a adult, but apparently I do. And yet again, doesn't pro life mean all life is sacred, or is it only sacred when it isn't inconvient.

 

[ZNP]

Would someone who believes in evolution think that masks are a "good" thing? After all evolution is premised on survival of the fittest and diseases and bad mutations cull out the weak and masks protect the weak from the virus. I'm not saying that we should not protect the weak but at times I wonder if the enormous amount of money and effort spent on this virus would save a lot more lives both now and for years to come tackling other life threatening issues out there. When we add it all up and spend 5-10 trillion in the US on this virus and save a few million lives and could spend 2-5 trillion and have a cure for cancer perhaps and save hundreds of millions of lives.
Not that I'm proposing such to be done but I often feel like we are trying to drive a nail with a steam operated pile driver at times during this thing and even though we definitely hit the nail we wipe out everything around it.

Yes, that is what you are saying. You're saying that it is too expensive to protect the weak.

 

[ZNP]

I hear what you are saying. I think that masks are only affective for those who:

Are infected and don't want to spread their contaminated droplets in the air.
Are infected and don't touch their mask, putting the infected droplets on their hands and then touching something that others will touch.
Are infected and the mask actually stops the droplets from spreading.
Are infected and don't put the mask on their chin, over just their nose, over just their mouth.. on their forehead... etc.
Are infected and remove it properly, dispose of it properly, wash their hands and don't touch anything afterward.
Are infected and change masks every 4 hours or so.

For those that are not infected... it's a band aid solution in case you happen to be close to an infected person who releases droplets into the air and thus stops you from breathing them in .

It will not stop you from touching a contaminated surface and then touching your eye, nose, mouth etc.

Again, the right tool for the job and using the tool correctly..........is the only way.

You left off one other point. When you wear a mask you tend to speak much less, only when you have to, that is also a benefit.

 

[JacksBratt]

You left off one other point. When you wear a mask you tend to speak much less, only when you have to, that is also a benefit.

Some people speaking less... a blessing for all.. LOL

 

[Sophrosyne]

Nice bit of hyperbole, how about when there is a new disease with no vaccine and 70k+ people sick every day. How about when there is a disease that even those that surve often have permanite damage especially the young. How about when those that claim to be pro life show none of it when it's actually people they can help.

Ahh... so give me the figures of how many people I will save from permanent harm by wearing a mask when I am guaranteed according to you to be infected AND infect someone who will either get permanently damaged or die or will infect others who in turn will get damaged or die or they will or they will and in the end this 2% chance of damage will happen because I didn't wear a mask...... and because I am officially part of that 2% of wicked evil people by your own theory.. I'm pro life. I could say that it is quite possible that all the people who did die in past epidemics of diseases etc are the reason we are only at about 2% rates or a lot less so does "saving" these 2% help their the next 10 generations of their offspring that are probably going to also be in the next 2% raising it to 3-5% and 100 years later if a disease comes along 10-20% will die or worse? If we were to count ahead all those additional people who die because a person with weaker immune system lives that shouldn't and the numbers are greater then than a few lost now is that pro life to save people based upon a theory like you are doing here? All the masking is going to only be enforceable in public and most of the infections here are happening in private gatherings NOT those like me that are unmasked shopping. In other words mandatory masking may protect people from those folks but I live alone and have very few contacts with anyone who are also not overly social I don't go to large social gatherings I don't have any family that I come into contact but once every 6 months so when I go shopping and stay a distance from people.... I'm already infected.... yeah...... right.
I'm probably a safer person to be around than a random masked person.

 

[Sophrosyne]

LOL... I never intended or believed that you could catch COVID by a projectile flying into your eye....

Funny thought, that.....

What I was talking about is touching a contaminated surface and then rubbing your eye with a contaminated finger....

But, thanks for that optic.

I am just relating what I read in another debate somewhere. If you can infect yourself anywhere by rubbing it stands to reason that someone sneezing or coughing and get the virus on that area of your body it could become infected. Now I am clueless about the chance of infection as I am also clueless about the chance of infections in the mask vs non-mask vs distancing/non distancing vs combined etc. and probabilities of infection.
There is an overwhelmingly absence of factual information about this virus and transmission rates and masks and distancing so it is quite possible some genius that already is proven wrong about this mess overlooked the eye bit.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread has had a clean up. The flaming is not okay.​

 

[Sophrosyne]

Yes, that is what you are saying. You're saying that it is too expensive to protect the weak.

You cannot protect the weak from something you don't have. The premise behind mandatory masking requires people to think along the lines of "everyone is guilty of being infected" without proof and "everyone will infect others" without proof if they test positive and "everyone wearing masks" won't infect anyone else.
All this house of cards falls if only people get infected and infect others and then the blame game happens. Those who won't wear masks are automatically guilty of infecting people who die... thus not wearing a mask they are murderers and wicked and evil. What I have been learning is the people causing the problems when they don't wear masks they don't even try to avoid the chance of infection and they go to large private gatherings that no mask mandate can every stop from happening without perhaps a huge fine and a firing squad or something these kids will continue to do these things and out of these private things they then don a mask and go around infecting those with masks that get close but those without them stay at a distance and are unaffected because they don't have masks distancing is their only protection.
To put it bluntly I don't trust masks to keep infected people from infecting me with or without a mask if they are coughing and sneezing I'm away from them while those with masks.... I've seen it time and time again they are close enough at times to whisper to them because the masks gives them a false sense of safeness while no masks makes me think anything at all.

 

[loveofourlord]

Ahh... so give me the figures of how many people I will save from permanent harm by wearing a mask when I am guaranteed according to you to be infected AND infect someone who will either get permanently damaged or die or will infect others who in turn will get damaged or die or they will or they will and in the end this 2% chance of damage will happen because I didn't wear a mask...... and because I am officially part of that 2% of wicked evil people by your own theory.. I'm pro life. I could say that it is quite possible that all the people who did die in past epidemics of diseases etc are the reason we are only at about 2% rates or a lot less so does "saving" these 2% help their the next 10 generations of their offspring that are probably going to also be in the next 2% raising it to 3-5% and 100 years later if a disease comes along 10-20% will die or worse? If we were to count ahead all those additional people who die because a person with weaker immune system lives that shouldn't and the numbers are greater then than a few lost now is that pro life to save people based upon a theory like you are doing here? All the masking is going to only be enforceable in public and most of the infections here are happening in private gatherings NOT those like me that are unmasked shopping. In other words mandatory masking may protect people from those folks but I live alone and have very few contacts with anyone who are also not overly social I don't go to large social gatherings I don't have any family that I come into contact but once every 6 months so when I go shopping and stay a distance from people.... I'm already infected.... yeah...... right.
I'm probably a safer person to be around than a random masked person.

Congratdulations, you just pushed for eungenics :>

And thats not how diseases work.

 

[loveofourlord]

You cannot protect the weak from something you don't have. The premise behind mandatory masking requires people to think along the lines of "everyone is guilty of being infected" without proof and "everyone will infect others" without proof if they test positive and "everyone wearing masks" won't infect anyone else.
All this house of cards falls if only people get infected and infect others and then the blame game happens. Those who won't wear masks are automatically guilty of infecting people who die... thus not wearing a mask they are murderers and wicked and evil. What I have been learning is the people causing the problems when they don't wear masks they don't even try to avoid the chance of infection and they go to large private gatherings that no mask mandate can every stop from happening without perhaps a huge fine and a firing squad or something these kids will continue to do these things and out of these private things they then don a mask and go around infecting those with masks that get close but those without them stay at a distance and are unaffected because they don't have masks distancing is their only protection.
To put it bluntly I don't trust masks to keep infected people from infecting me with or without a mask if they are coughing and sneezing I'm away from them while those with masks.... I've seen it time and time again they are close enough at times to whisper to them because the masks gives them a false sense of safeness while no masks makes me think anything at all.

You cannot protect the weak from something you don't have. The premise behind mandatory masking requires people to think along the lines of "everyone is guilty of being infected" without proof and "everyone will infect others" without proof if they test positive and "everyone wearing masks" won't infect anyone else.
All this house of cards falls if only people get infected and infect others and then the blame game happens. Those who won't wear masks are automatically guilty of infecting people who die... thus not wearing a mask they are murderers and wicked and evil. What I have been learning is the people causing the problems when they don't wear masks they don't even try to avoid the chance of infection and they go to large private gatherings that no mask mandate can every stop from happening without perhaps a huge fine and a firing squad or something these kids will continue to do these things and out of these private things they then don a mask and go around infecting those with masks that get close but those without them stay at a distance and are unaffected because they don't have masks distancing is their only protection.
To put it bluntly I don't trust masks to keep infected people from infecting me with or without a mask if they are coughing and sneezing I'm away from them while those with masks.... I've seen it time and time again they are close enough at times to whisper to them because the masks gives them a false sense of safeness while no masks makes me think anything at all.

wow...I havn't seen this dumb argument for months, brings back memories, you do know that you can spread the disease asymptomaticly, wether your showing or not, there is no gaurantee you don't have the disease, and arn't spreading it.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Congratdulations, you just pushed for eungenics :>

And thats not how diseases work.

No, I didn't push for them at all, I just put forth an argument that life and death by numbers is sometimes meaningless and statistics about this virus doesn't preclude me not wearing a mask will injure or kill anyone at all, it more precludes that people will die not because of my not masking but because their immune system is not able to keep them alive. In other words if a person can die of the virus, as infectious as it is if I wore a mask someone else would sooner or later infect them and my "saving them" would be of no effect at all.
The 2% will remain at risk but trying to mask 300+ million people protect an unknown 2-3 million people by wearing masks which probably have a higher than 2% rate of infecting others wearing the mask is not going to be a solution to all of this in the end. If I have a 98% chance of not being hospitalized and a 99.5% chance of not dying of it is that a reason to mask everyone, shut down their businesses and torment people to get that 98% chance to 99% chance of surviving and 99.7% chance of not dying from this thing?
I don't see the improvement of odds of it all a reason to freak out over this thing.