1-50 of 138
LeopoldBloom · M
DeluxedEdition · 26-30, F
It protects blood and other fluids which is NOT MICROSCOPIC and is large enough to be viewed with the naked eye from going into his orifices. A virus is one of the smallest micro particles that can’t even be viewed with a compound microscope bc it’s too small. 😂 what’s your point here? @LeopoldBloom
LeopoldBloom · M
@DeluxedEdition Surgeons wear masks to keep from inadvertently breathing pathogens into the patient's body. I suppose it also protects the doctor from sprayed blood going into his mouth, but if that happens, a paper mask isn't going to help.
Evidence shows that wearing masks and social distancing reduce spread of the virus. And thanks to Mango Mussolini, wearing a mask also brands the person as a liberal. So that's the real reason why you people are against them. If Cheeto Benito had instead promoted masks as something every red-blooded American should wear to fight the China virus, you people wouldn't even take them off to eat.
Evidence shows that wearing masks and social distancing reduce spread of the virus. And thanks to Mango Mussolini, wearing a mask also brands the person as a liberal. So that's the real reason why you people are against them. If Cheeto Benito had instead promoted masks as something every red-blooded American should wear to fight the China virus, you people wouldn't even take them off to eat.
SW-User
@LeopoldBloom actually the science hasn't demonstrated that cloth masks are effective at all
DeluxedEdition · 26-30, F
It doesn’t. 🙄 you can take a can of hair spray and it will go right through the mask. You mean to tell me a droplet particle that I can see with my naked eye can pass through the mask and a microscopic virus spore (virus is one of the smallest micro particles known) the size of 0.06-0.12nm can’t? Use yalls fucking heads bro
View 29 more replies »
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@DeluxedEdition You want to know how masks are tested and if they work: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8084286/#!po=17.0635
Took me much longer to read the article than to find it. We have the world's knowledge at our fingertips and people still won't educate themselves.
Took me much longer to read the article than to find it. We have the world's knowledge at our fingertips and people still won't educate themselves.
SW-User
@Bushranger Sorry, but it takes more than one article to understand the issue of "masks" as they are currently used on a population level in every day life settings. You just sound arrogant.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@QuixoticSoul Seattle?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@sunsporter1649 Sporty, this is unusually retarded even for you.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@QuixoticSoul new york?
bijouxbroussard · F
QuietEd2019 · 31-35, M
@LvChris yeah a lot of cases in children recently sent back to schools, not to mention all the deaths
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
QuietEd2019 · 31-35, M
@LvChris I know the report of almost 100,000 children infected with coronavirus after being sent back to school. Was initially thinking you had mentioned deaths toll so knew that one was over 140,000
deadgerbil · 26-30, M
wackidywack · 26-30
@deadgerbil tell em gerby
deadgerbil · 26-30, M
@wackidywack people need to get a clue lol
Penny · 46-50, F
Researchers Create Test To Determine Which Masks Are Least Effective
Share
BY ALAA ELASSAR, CNN
AUGUST 8, 2020 AT 7:32 PM
A variety of masks were tested for their effectiveness by researchers at Duke University. (Credit: Duke Health)
(CNN) — Schools are reopening, amusement parks are welcoming back visitors, and outdoor dining is the new way to eat out. But despite the signs that life is returning back to normal, the coronavirus pandemic has gone nowhere.
That’s why a group of researchers at Duke University created a simple technique to analyze the effectiveness of various types of masks which have become a critical component in stopping the spread of the virus.
The quest began when a professor at Duke’s School of Medicine was assisting a local group buy masks in bulk to distribute to community members in need. The professor wanted to make sure the group purchased masks that were actually effective.
In the study published Friday, researchers with Duke’s physics department demonstrated the use of a simple method that uses a laser beam and cell phone to evaluate the efficiency of masks by studying the transmission of respiratory droplets during regular speech.
“We use a black box, a laser, and a camera,” Martin Fischer, one of the authors of the study, told CNN. “The laser beam is expanded vertically to form a thin sheet of light, which we shine through slits on the left and right of the box.”
In the front of the box is a hole where a speaker can talk into it. A cell phone camera is placed on the back of the box to record light that is scattered in all directions by the respiratory droplets that cut through the laser beam when they talk.
A simple computer algorithm then counts the droplets seen in the video.
Encouraging the use of effective masks
Public health experts have spent months emphasizing that masks are one of the most effective tools to help fight the pandemic, and many US states have now introduced some kind of mask requirement.
But when testing their effectiveness, researchers discovered that some masks are quite literally useless.
Researchers tested 14 commonly available masks including a professionally fitted N95 mask, usually reserved for health care workers. First the test was performed with a speaker talking without wearing a mask. Then they did it again while a speaker was wearing a mask. Each mask was tested 10 times.
The most effective mask was the fitted N95. Three-layer surgical masks and cotton masks, which many people have been making at home, also performed well.
Neck fleeces, also called gaiter masks and often used by runners, were the least effective. In fact, wearing a fleece mask resulted in a higher number of respiratory droplets because the material seemed to break down larger droplets into smaller particles that are more easily carried away with air.
Folded bandanas and knitted masks also performed poorly and did not offer much protection.
“We were extremely surprised to find that the number of particles measured with the fleece actually exceeded the number of particles measured without wearing any mask,” Fischer said. “We want to emphasize that we really encourage people to wear masks, but we want them to wear masks that actually work.”
While the setup of the test is quite simple — all that is required is a box, a laser for less than $200, one lens, and a cell phone camera — Fischer does not recommend people to set them up at home.
Unless a person is familiar with laser safety or has optic experience, mishandling powerful lasers can cause permanent eye damage. However, the researchers are hoping companies, museums and community outreach centers will set up the test to show people which masks are the most effective.
“This is a very powerful visual tool to raise awareness that a very simple masks, like these homemade cotton masks, do really well to stop the majority of these respiratory droplets,” Fischer said. “Companies and manufacturers can set this up and test their mask designs before producing them, which would also be very useful.”
https://ksltv.com/443037/researchers-create-test-to-determine-which-masks-are-least-effective/
Share
BY ALAA ELASSAR, CNN
AUGUST 8, 2020 AT 7:32 PM
A variety of masks were tested for their effectiveness by researchers at Duke University. (Credit: Duke Health)
(CNN) — Schools are reopening, amusement parks are welcoming back visitors, and outdoor dining is the new way to eat out. But despite the signs that life is returning back to normal, the coronavirus pandemic has gone nowhere.
That’s why a group of researchers at Duke University created a simple technique to analyze the effectiveness of various types of masks which have become a critical component in stopping the spread of the virus.
The quest began when a professor at Duke’s School of Medicine was assisting a local group buy masks in bulk to distribute to community members in need. The professor wanted to make sure the group purchased masks that were actually effective.
In the study published Friday, researchers with Duke’s physics department demonstrated the use of a simple method that uses a laser beam and cell phone to evaluate the efficiency of masks by studying the transmission of respiratory droplets during regular speech.
“We use a black box, a laser, and a camera,” Martin Fischer, one of the authors of the study, told CNN. “The laser beam is expanded vertically to form a thin sheet of light, which we shine through slits on the left and right of the box.”
In the front of the box is a hole where a speaker can talk into it. A cell phone camera is placed on the back of the box to record light that is scattered in all directions by the respiratory droplets that cut through the laser beam when they talk.
A simple computer algorithm then counts the droplets seen in the video.
Encouraging the use of effective masks
Public health experts have spent months emphasizing that masks are one of the most effective tools to help fight the pandemic, and many US states have now introduced some kind of mask requirement.
But when testing their effectiveness, researchers discovered that some masks are quite literally useless.
Researchers tested 14 commonly available masks including a professionally fitted N95 mask, usually reserved for health care workers. First the test was performed with a speaker talking without wearing a mask. Then they did it again while a speaker was wearing a mask. Each mask was tested 10 times.
The most effective mask was the fitted N95. Three-layer surgical masks and cotton masks, which many people have been making at home, also performed well.
Neck fleeces, also called gaiter masks and often used by runners, were the least effective. In fact, wearing a fleece mask resulted in a higher number of respiratory droplets because the material seemed to break down larger droplets into smaller particles that are more easily carried away with air.
Folded bandanas and knitted masks also performed poorly and did not offer much protection.
“We were extremely surprised to find that the number of particles measured with the fleece actually exceeded the number of particles measured without wearing any mask,” Fischer said. “We want to emphasize that we really encourage people to wear masks, but we want them to wear masks that actually work.”
While the setup of the test is quite simple — all that is required is a box, a laser for less than $200, one lens, and a cell phone camera — Fischer does not recommend people to set them up at home.
Unless a person is familiar with laser safety or has optic experience, mishandling powerful lasers can cause permanent eye damage. However, the researchers are hoping companies, museums and community outreach centers will set up the test to show people which masks are the most effective.
“This is a very powerful visual tool to raise awareness that a very simple masks, like these homemade cotton masks, do really well to stop the majority of these respiratory droplets,” Fischer said. “Companies and manufacturers can set this up and test their mask designs before producing them, which would also be very useful.”
https://ksltv.com/443037/researchers-create-test-to-determine-which-masks-are-least-effective/
Lhayezee · 26-30, F
Everyone washing their hands more often especially after being in shops would probably be more help (depends on size of the shop though).
Since they became compulsory here see far more people fiddling with them or wearing a mask just incorrectly. That's probably worse than not wearing one at all.
Since they became compulsory here see far more people fiddling with them or wearing a mask just incorrectly. That's probably worse than not wearing one at all.
Northwest · M
@Lhayezee
Right, so if you are infected, do not wear a mask, and sneeze, you're spreading it. If you wear a mask, it is contained within your mask. A mask is not about protecting you, it is about protecting others from you. If you cannot spread, then the R infection rate falls below 1 and when it is below one, community spread is not explosive.
Incorrect. Scanners do catch bombs.
However it certainly CAN be spread in water vapour by someone sneezing or coughing over you (though it may not be the most effective way for it to spread).
Right, so if you are infected, do not wear a mask, and sneeze, you're spreading it. If you wear a mask, it is contained within your mask. A mask is not about protecting you, it is about protecting others from you. If you cannot spread, then the R infection rate falls below 1 and when it is below one, community spread is not explosive.
Mask wearing though seems to be like getting luggage scanned at airport security - theoretically it might actually catch someone with a bomb but in practice it is there only to reassure people and/or annoy them a lot.
Incorrect. Scanners do catch bombs.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Northwest · M
@SW-User
Really? You thought I am copying your insult. I guess you missed the part where I told you that you cannot an argument, so you resort to insults.
Did you ever notice that insults never won an argument? I was sincerely telling you to fuck off, because you have no argument to make.
You had to copy my insult which shows just how unoriginal you are, how novel.
Really? You thought I am copying your insult. I guess you missed the part where I told you that you cannot an argument, so you resort to insults.
Did you ever notice that insults never won an argument? I was sincerely telling you to fuck off, because you have no argument to make.
SW-User
@Northwest Oh my fuck off to you was just as sincere, only more creative.
CheshireAzur · 36-40, F
@SevenTierCrazyCake Oh, look, a little piggy. Is it going to the market?
@CheshireAzur jesus, darlin', give it up! I'd say you're embarrassing yourself now. But you did that several replies ago. 😂
CheshireAzur · 36-40, F
@SevenTierCrazyCake Says the kettle to the pot.
deadgerbil · 26-30, M
@wackidywack they hold society back haha anti science, anti intellectual nonsense.
zerofuks2give · 41-45, M
Fallflower · 46-50, F
MrBrownstone · 46-50, M
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Just wear a face cloth to remove asbestos
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout not a good analogy at all. there certainly is a big difference between live viral particles and aerosols, droplets, etc.
plaguewatcher · M
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout great scene like this in the movie
The Andromeda Strain
very cool and scary movie
The Andromeda Strain
very cool and scary movie
Yulianna · 26-30, F
science supports masks as a barrier to passing on infection. the greatest value in masks is protecting others from your own possible infection. this is why everyone should wear one.
but they are only patt of the solution. cleanliness and distancing should also be maintained.
but they are only patt of the solution. cleanliness and distancing should also be maintained.
SW-User
@Yulianna actually the science has produced no clear evidence cloth masks are effective and you'd know that if you bothered to read the health guidance - which admits as much - but recommends wearing them anyway in case they are beneficial not because they are beneficial
dakotaviper · 56-60, M
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@dakotaviper Getting the probablitity down of being infected and getting complications, isn't the same thing as bringing the chance to 0.
It's kinda crazy, that people argue now a days that things aren't effective when the probability of failure isn't 0. As if between 100% and 0% there isn't a wide range of effectiveness to be gained, it's only good when it's 0. That's pretty much thinking like a true radical, and is also stupid as fuck.
It's kinda crazy, that people argue now a days that things aren't effective when the probability of failure isn't 0. As if between 100% and 0% there isn't a wide range of effectiveness to be gained, it's only good when it's 0. That's pretty much thinking like a true radical, and is also stupid as fuck.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CheshireAzur · 36-40, F
SW-User
@Yulianna cant help what? Creating strawmen?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
@Strictmentor I’m in a 1+ million person densely packed county in the USA. We took the restrictions and recommendations in stride.
100% mask usage. Some noses but not many. I’m fine with the few who use a bandana or whatever. I’d rather see 100% usage and a few subpar masks than no masks.
Considering how densely packed we are... we have kept things under control.
100% mask usage. Some noses but not many. I’m fine with the few who use a bandana or whatever. I’d rather see 100% usage and a few subpar masks than no masks.
Considering how densely packed we are... we have kept things under control.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
wackidywack · 26-30
33person · 26-30, M
The mask slows down the rate of droplets leaving your mouth as you speak, etc. This increases the likelihood of these droplets falling nearer you than they otherwise would. Thus, it can decrease somewhat decrease transmission of the virus, if one has it. That said, of course you can still transmit the virus with a mask on. The issue is whether it decreases the overall transmission of the virus.
The same is true, though to a different degree, of the vaccine. Statistics have shown, however, that even though the proportion of breakthrough cases is enormous, vaccinated people who contract the virus are much less often severely ill, hospitalized, or die from the virus. Of course, there are some people who are vaccinated and still become severely ill, hospitalized, or die from the virus. It's just a smaller proportion of them than unvaccinated people who contract the virus.
Statistics establish correlation, not causation. If one accepts that the vaccines were developed to protect against the virus (in exchange for profit, of course), then one may admit that the science supports getting vaccinated as a means of protection against the virus. If one does not accept that the vaccine was developed with the intent of protecting against the virus, then I cannot argue in favor of getting vaccinated from that premise.
Whether your premise is that the vaccine was developed with the true intent of protecting against the virus or not, you should have come to that premise by looking at the evidence. Be equally skeptical of the mainstream narrative and of counter-narratives, both of which may be motivated by something other than the evidence.
The same is true, though to a different degree, of the vaccine. Statistics have shown, however, that even though the proportion of breakthrough cases is enormous, vaccinated people who contract the virus are much less often severely ill, hospitalized, or die from the virus. Of course, there are some people who are vaccinated and still become severely ill, hospitalized, or die from the virus. It's just a smaller proportion of them than unvaccinated people who contract the virus.
Statistics establish correlation, not causation. If one accepts that the vaccines were developed to protect against the virus (in exchange for profit, of course), then one may admit that the science supports getting vaccinated as a means of protection against the virus. If one does not accept that the vaccine was developed with the intent of protecting against the virus, then I cannot argue in favor of getting vaccinated from that premise.
Whether your premise is that the vaccine was developed with the true intent of protecting against the virus or not, you should have come to that premise by looking at the evidence. Be equally skeptical of the mainstream narrative and of counter-narratives, both of which may be motivated by something other than the evidence.
Yulianna · 26-30, F
@SW-User make up your mind.
do you want to talk about scientific consensus or government advice?
or "most" government advice?
and then which government?
masks do not stop the spread of covid. when worn properly, they do restrict and slow the spread.
do you want to talk about scientific consensus or government advice?
or "most" government advice?
and then which government?
masks do not stop the spread of covid. when worn properly, they do restrict and slow the spread.
SW-User
@Yulianna Sorry, I thought you would understand the point that if there was a scientific consensus that cloth masks make a real world difference to the spread of coronovirus governments wouldn't be using the word "may"
I always overestimate people's intelligence
I always overestimate people's intelligence
TheSirfurryanimalWales · 61-69, M
@Yulianna here’s a question..if masks are effective how come infection rates in England-no masks required-and Scotland and Wales -masks required are basically the same?
Because here in the UK that rather proves to me they are/were a complete waste of time.
Along with Covid passes which do not prove you do not have Covid.
More and more people are finally realising this virus-with a greater than 99% recovery rate-gave governments the chance to indulge in a mass social control experiment.And measures are still being taken the world over which remove freedom of choice.
Even Plaid Cymru,who voted against the introduction of Covid Passes,voted in favour of extending their use.Inexplicable.
Because here in the UK that rather proves to me they are/were a complete waste of time.
Along with Covid passes which do not prove you do not have Covid.
More and more people are finally realising this virus-with a greater than 99% recovery rate-gave governments the chance to indulge in a mass social control experiment.And measures are still being taken the world over which remove freedom of choice.
Even Plaid Cymru,who voted against the introduction of Covid Passes,voted in favour of extending their use.Inexplicable.
plaguewatcher · M
I work in the field of epidemiology. I can assure you that tho no thing is 100% EVER
the masking does cut down on both you spreading things, and you getting things.
again nothing is ever perfect but a mask will have effect and if you need i acn link to you to many studies that show this.
here is one asset to try
[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y47t9qLc9I4]
the masking does cut down on both you spreading things, and you getting things.
again nothing is ever perfect but a mask will have effect and if you need i acn link to you to many studies that show this.
here is one asset to try
[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y47t9qLc9I4]
plaguewatcher · M
@SW-User or you can do the same math, making the masks say 2% not 50, and ti still betters your odds.
SW-User
@plaguewatcher True
SW-User
@plaguewatcher But the model is also that each interaction without a mask has a 100% chance of infection. Doesn't that elevate the benefit of masks compared to a real world scenario?
Jeffrey53 · 51-55, M
I think they should get rid of the mask mandate. People don’t wear mask properly now. I see lot of people just cover mouth now. I watched few sporting events there are lot of people in stands not wearing mask. What’s the point having the mandate if people don’t wear them properly or at all.
smiler2012 · 61-69
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@hippyjoe1955 You're not "keeping up with the latest science." You're doing something called "making shit up."
Aerosolized liquids don't pass through a mask. We've known this for over thirty years now. Do try to keep up.
You apparently don't know how this works. You actually have to disprove something before you get to call it misinformation. You don't get to just haughtily proclaim that something is wrong, and then when you're presented with proof that shows otherwise, ignore it and pretend you didn't see it.
Let me try explaining this as simply as I possibly can. Sick person have bad thing in body. When sick person breathe out, bad thing can go to other person and make them sick. If put thing over mouth and nose, bad thing can't get to other people.
Do you need me to draw pictures for you in crayon too?
Aerosolized liquids don't pass through a mask. We've known this for over thirty years now. Do try to keep up.
You apparently don't know how this works. You actually have to disprove something before you get to call it misinformation. You don't get to just haughtily proclaim that something is wrong, and then when you're presented with proof that shows otherwise, ignore it and pretend you didn't see it.
Let me try explaining this as simply as I possibly can. Sick person have bad thing in body. When sick person breathe out, bad thing can go to other person and make them sick. If put thing over mouth and nose, bad thing can't get to other people.
Do you need me to draw pictures for you in crayon too?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Abstraction · 61-69, M
Science clearly supports the 'effectiveness of masks' in the sense that it defines the sliding scale of the effectiveness of masks and other protective measures. I put it into inverted commas because it isn't a yes/no question, it's understanding the issues and sliding scale:
- That doesn't mean that all masks are effective. Make, layers, materials, fit, etc.
- Masks are ineffective when worn by people who don't use them properly.
- That doesn't mean that masks are the only pathway for the pathogens.
I didn't want to wear masks, and of course science on facebook allows you to choose your own truth, but I'm not interested in defending my own opinion. If discovering I was wrong is the pathway to discovering what is correct, how does that hurt me?
- That doesn't mean that all masks are effective. Make, layers, materials, fit, etc.
- Masks are ineffective when worn by people who don't use them properly.
- That doesn't mean that masks are the only pathway for the pathogens.
I didn't want to wear masks, and of course science on facebook allows you to choose your own truth, but I'm not interested in defending my own opinion. If discovering I was wrong is the pathway to discovering what is correct, how does that hurt me?
SW-User
@Abstraction was prepared to be wrong but while the study says that it is the first evidence of the effectiveness of face masks (out of thousands of studies you've cherry picked this one). The article itself cites:
"World Health Organization and Public Health England recommend against UFMU on the grounds that there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials to support this. Some experts suggest that in a pandemic, the precautionary principle should be used"
That's a clue as to the standard of evidence required for something to be proven scientifically. A standard this study makes no pretence to meet and if the 'review' you read is relying on studies of this calibre to try and prove something it isn't worth a lot.
The results are:
The secondary attack rate in families was 23.0% (77/335). Face mask use by the primary case and family contacts before the primary case developed symptoms was 79% effective in reducing transmission (OR=0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.79) and not significantly protective after symptom development
That's a very odd finding and a red flag that something isn't adding up here.
What were they doing wearing masks inside before the person knew that they were sick?
I have a number of methodical issues with the study, namely for a retrospective study relying on retrospective interviews, I cannot see how they would be able to separate out social distancing from hand hygiene from mask use, or quantify these in a meaningful way in a household setting. Nor determine exactly when people were infected.
Any type of mask? How often was it worn and in what conditions? None of these things are answered.
In design it is more anecdotal than scientific. Also if you're relying on this study to justify mask mandates globally, in which the vast majority of people forced to wear them are perfectly healthy (hint: role in reducing COVID spread in people without COVID is ZERO), shouldn't it have an n of more than 350 people and shouldn't it be in more than one very specific context?
Another way of reading the the reported findings is that 'mask wearing' in this context is many 100s of times less effective than keeping a basic distance, which was found to be 1800% effective in reducing transmission.
But thank you for clarifying just how great the lack of scientific evidence is. Cheers!
"World Health Organization and Public Health England recommend against UFMU on the grounds that there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials to support this. Some experts suggest that in a pandemic, the precautionary principle should be used"
That's a clue as to the standard of evidence required for something to be proven scientifically. A standard this study makes no pretence to meet and if the 'review' you read is relying on studies of this calibre to try and prove something it isn't worth a lot.
The results are:
The secondary attack rate in families was 23.0% (77/335). Face mask use by the primary case and family contacts before the primary case developed symptoms was 79% effective in reducing transmission (OR=0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.79) and not significantly protective after symptom development
That's a very odd finding and a red flag that something isn't adding up here.
What were they doing wearing masks inside before the person knew that they were sick?
I have a number of methodical issues with the study, namely for a retrospective study relying on retrospective interviews, I cannot see how they would be able to separate out social distancing from hand hygiene from mask use, or quantify these in a meaningful way in a household setting. Nor determine exactly when people were infected.
Any type of mask? How often was it worn and in what conditions? None of these things are answered.
In design it is more anecdotal than scientific. Also if you're relying on this study to justify mask mandates globally, in which the vast majority of people forced to wear them are perfectly healthy (hint: role in reducing COVID spread in people without COVID is ZERO), shouldn't it have an n of more than 350 people and shouldn't it be in more than one very specific context?
Another way of reading the the reported findings is that 'mask wearing' in this context is many 100s of times less effective than keeping a basic distance, which was found to be 1800% effective in reducing transmission.
But thank you for clarifying just how great the lack of scientific evidence is. Cheers!
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@SW-User
You quote a study by WHO. Here is their retraction:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-masks-idUSL1N2LF1Y9
'Since the beginning of the pandemic, however, swathes of evidence have emerged suggesting that mask-wearing does reduce transmission of COVID-19. The WHO changed its guidance in favour of masks on June 5, 2020, stating: “We have new research findings…that if this is done properly it can provide a barrier ... for potentially infectious droplets.”
'The most up-to-date WHO advice on masks from Dec. 2020is clear that: “Masks are a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives.
“Masks should be used as part of a comprehensive‘Do it all!’approach including physical distancing, avoiding crowded, closed and close-contact settings, good ventilation, cleaning hands, covering sneezes and coughs, and more.”
The WHO advises that masks should be worn by the public in crowded settings or rooms with poor ventilation,but adds: “If you have any doubts,it’s safer to simply wear a mask.”
What I looked for was whether there is significant scientific evidence that masks are effective. I quoted one of the many studies incorporated into this document. Since you criticised the study by cherry picking an out of context statement of why there is only one such study ("Cochrane (7) and the World Health Organization (8) both point out that, for population health measures, we should not generally expect to be able to find controlled trials, due to logistical and ethical reasons") let's look at the rest of the study and its conclusions and sources:
"The science around the use of masks by the public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. In this narrative review, we develop an analytical framework to examine mask usage, synthesizing the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: population impact, transmission characteristics, source control, wearer protection, sociological considerations, and implementation considerations. A primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is via respiratory particles, and it is known to be transmissible from presymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, and asympt omatic individuals. Reducing disease spread requires two things: limiting contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and other measures and reducing the transmission probability per contact. The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. Because many respiratory particles become smaller due to evaporation, we recommend increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage: mask wearing by infectious people (“source control”) with benefits at the population level, rather than only mask wearing by susceptible people, such as health care workers, with focus on individual outcomes. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation."
Then if you were like me and viewing whatever the evidence might say instead of simply trying to prove your point, you would have looked at the 141 references that they sourced.
Do I feel completely safe in the masks? Absolutely not, I've read sufficient studies to know the limitations. I've read enough to wear them in crowded places - you consider it would make no difference. We disagree, that's fine. You seem determined to prove either there is no evidence, or at least to prove me wrong. Perhaps I offended you and I confess I was tired and my first comment in retrospect was rude. I do apologise for that.
You quote a study by WHO. Here is their retraction:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-masks-idUSL1N2LF1Y9
'Since the beginning of the pandemic, however, swathes of evidence have emerged suggesting that mask-wearing does reduce transmission of COVID-19. The WHO changed its guidance in favour of masks on June 5, 2020, stating: “We have new research findings…that if this is done properly it can provide a barrier ... for potentially infectious droplets.”
'The most up-to-date WHO advice on masks from Dec. 2020is clear that: “Masks are a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives.
“Masks should be used as part of a comprehensive‘Do it all!’approach including physical distancing, avoiding crowded, closed and close-contact settings, good ventilation, cleaning hands, covering sneezes and coughs, and more.”
The WHO advises that masks should be worn by the public in crowded settings or rooms with poor ventilation,but adds: “If you have any doubts,it’s safer to simply wear a mask.”
What I looked for was whether there is significant scientific evidence that masks are effective. I quoted one of the many studies incorporated into this document. Since you criticised the study by cherry picking an out of context statement of why there is only one such study ("Cochrane (7) and the World Health Organization (8) both point out that, for population health measures, we should not generally expect to be able to find controlled trials, due to logistical and ethical reasons") let's look at the rest of the study and its conclusions and sources:
"The science around the use of masks by the public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. In this narrative review, we develop an analytical framework to examine mask usage, synthesizing the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: population impact, transmission characteristics, source control, wearer protection, sociological considerations, and implementation considerations. A primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is via respiratory particles, and it is known to be transmissible from presymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, and asympt omatic individuals. Reducing disease spread requires two things: limiting contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and other measures and reducing the transmission probability per contact. The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. Because many respiratory particles become smaller due to evaporation, we recommend increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage: mask wearing by infectious people (“source control”) with benefits at the population level, rather than only mask wearing by susceptible people, such as health care workers, with focus on individual outcomes. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation."
Then if you were like me and viewing whatever the evidence might say instead of simply trying to prove your point, you would have looked at the 141 references that they sourced.
Do I feel completely safe in the masks? Absolutely not, I've read sufficient studies to know the limitations. I've read enough to wear them in crowded places - you consider it would make no difference. We disagree, that's fine. You seem determined to prove either there is no evidence, or at least to prove me wrong. Perhaps I offended you and I confess I was tired and my first comment in retrospect was rude. I do apologise for that.
SW-User
@Abstraction Well, that's ok because I didn't mean what you thought I meant, or say what I meant to say, which is why you thought I meant what I didn't mean
🤪 (my bad).
I had previously looked at the review study you talk about and dismissed it on the grounds that its inputs are individually flawed, and its unscientific agenda obvious, as I pointed out to you by actually looking at the methodology of the individual study you chose to highlight.
The WHO is a political organisation who if you listen to what they are actually saying, are admitting they're moving to a position whereby it is better to wear a cloth mask than not because it MIGHT make a difference. The evidence in laborotary and clinical setting can't just be applied to real world settings ... as they initially acknowledged.
I wasn't citing the WHO I was citing the study citing the WHO (the one you chose to highlight from the review article), and then showing how they systematically ignored what the WHO said would be needed to constitute scientific evidence for the effectiveness of masks on a population level. We are not talking a creative adaptation to get around the problems of obtaining real world data...
The study you chose to demonstrate a 78% protectiveness from mask wearing was a retrospective interview of 350 people, full of questionable methodology. The fact your review study included it should lead you to question their credibility and agenda. Garbage in, garbage out.
There have been 10s of thousands of studies done. 10s of thousands they could have chosen from.
You should question why they are strongly advocating government mandates, outside of the clinical and laboratory settings of the studies they looked at
If you process the section you yourself highlighted they recommend "increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage"
You don't think that's putting the cart before the horse somewhat?
They are essentially saying:
"We strongly recommend mask mandates in everyday public settings for whole populations AND that the missing evidence for this is found."
The fact the WHO later walked back their criteria for scientific evidence, isn't surprising.
These are the guys who told us not to shut our borders and that COVID wasn't infectious.
But governments are going way beyond WHO recommendations.
My issue is that they are being mandated in areas that there is clearly no evidence for, as COVID related beliefs become more and more cult-like, like wearing them outside.
When things become a matter of cult rather than science, scientific principles tend to get thrown out the window. The studies are being comissioned to find the evidence, rather than find the truth. The review study authors also acknowledge there is a significant body of research, showing the ineffectiveness of masks. And yet they strongly promote the use of cloth masks, despite the fact that studies showing masks can reduce droplets (and therefore likely spread) aren't based on cloth models, nor daily life conditions.
The precautionary principle, enough of a stretch in itself, has morphed into the "well we know it won't make a difference but it will help people remember that there is a pandemic." That's appallingly bad logic for a mandate!
Or healthy children are forced to tie dank bacteria breeding material to their faces for several hours a day despite the fact kids are more at risk from the flu.
And no, I think there is evidence medical grade masks can reduce transmission in certain settings, a crowded indoor place is probably one of them, if used correctly
Those are huge qualifications. The likelihood an untrained person using a mask correctly in daily life conditions when mandated for all situations outside a home are next to zero, especially when the use is not voluntary.
I am asking myself if the chances of someone having COVID in that setting is 0.03% and my chances of getting COVID from a passing encounter is 1 in 100, and wearing a medical grade mask correctly would cut that risk by say 20% -80% how many years am I willing to keep wearing a mask for, after say, already reducing the risk in a far more significant manner by getting vaccinated? For an endemic virus that if I experience symptoms at all, I'm unlikely to get seriously ill from?
The answer is zero, willingly. I'm already re- wearing reusable masks several times and the masks get damp within minutes.
Another real world reality check. Masks, even medical grade, dont work once damp.
I have also been in several situations where social distancing is sacrificed because people are moving closer to try and figure out WTF I'm saying under the muffling of the mask.
Similar logic can be applied for 'protecting others'
🤪 (my bad).
I had previously looked at the review study you talk about and dismissed it on the grounds that its inputs are individually flawed, and its unscientific agenda obvious, as I pointed out to you by actually looking at the methodology of the individual study you chose to highlight.
The WHO is a political organisation who if you listen to what they are actually saying, are admitting they're moving to a position whereby it is better to wear a cloth mask than not because it MIGHT make a difference. The evidence in laborotary and clinical setting can't just be applied to real world settings ... as they initially acknowledged.
I wasn't citing the WHO I was citing the study citing the WHO (the one you chose to highlight from the review article), and then showing how they systematically ignored what the WHO said would be needed to constitute scientific evidence for the effectiveness of masks on a population level. We are not talking a creative adaptation to get around the problems of obtaining real world data...
The study you chose to demonstrate a 78% protectiveness from mask wearing was a retrospective interview of 350 people, full of questionable methodology. The fact your review study included it should lead you to question their credibility and agenda. Garbage in, garbage out.
There have been 10s of thousands of studies done. 10s of thousands they could have chosen from.
You should question why they are strongly advocating government mandates, outside of the clinical and laboratory settings of the studies they looked at
If you process the section you yourself highlighted they recommend "increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage"
You don't think that's putting the cart before the horse somewhat?
They are essentially saying:
"We strongly recommend mask mandates in everyday public settings for whole populations AND that the missing evidence for this is found."
The fact the WHO later walked back their criteria for scientific evidence, isn't surprising.
These are the guys who told us not to shut our borders and that COVID wasn't infectious.
But governments are going way beyond WHO recommendations.
My issue is that they are being mandated in areas that there is clearly no evidence for, as COVID related beliefs become more and more cult-like, like wearing them outside.
When things become a matter of cult rather than science, scientific principles tend to get thrown out the window. The studies are being comissioned to find the evidence, rather than find the truth. The review study authors also acknowledge there is a significant body of research, showing the ineffectiveness of masks. And yet they strongly promote the use of cloth masks, despite the fact that studies showing masks can reduce droplets (and therefore likely spread) aren't based on cloth models, nor daily life conditions.
The precautionary principle, enough of a stretch in itself, has morphed into the "well we know it won't make a difference but it will help people remember that there is a pandemic." That's appallingly bad logic for a mandate!
Or healthy children are forced to tie dank bacteria breeding material to their faces for several hours a day despite the fact kids are more at risk from the flu.
And no, I think there is evidence medical grade masks can reduce transmission in certain settings, a crowded indoor place is probably one of them, if used correctly
Those are huge qualifications. The likelihood an untrained person using a mask correctly in daily life conditions when mandated for all situations outside a home are next to zero, especially when the use is not voluntary.
I am asking myself if the chances of someone having COVID in that setting is 0.03% and my chances of getting COVID from a passing encounter is 1 in 100, and wearing a medical grade mask correctly would cut that risk by say 20% -80% how many years am I willing to keep wearing a mask for, after say, already reducing the risk in a far more significant manner by getting vaccinated? For an endemic virus that if I experience symptoms at all, I'm unlikely to get seriously ill from?
The answer is zero, willingly. I'm already re- wearing reusable masks several times and the masks get damp within minutes.
Another real world reality check. Masks, even medical grade, dont work once damp.
I have also been in several situations where social distancing is sacrificed because people are moving closer to try and figure out WTF I'm saying under the muffling of the mask.
Similar logic can be applied for 'protecting others'
This message was deleted by its author.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
@HannahSky you might find you're the ignorant one if you think all doctors will say the same thing
SW-User
Anti. Yes there isn't evidence for cloth masks
In fact they may cause irrerable harm to children's social development
We also don't know enough the potential negative health impacts
I think it is ironic to teach kids about consent only to force them to wear something over their mouths that can restrict their ability to breath, concentrate, communicate, understand the teacher and socialise for several hours a day
Even though children are more likely to die from flu than COVID
It is disgusting
In fact they may cause irrerable harm to children's social development
We also don't know enough the potential negative health impacts
I think it is ironic to teach kids about consent only to force them to wear something over their mouths that can restrict their ability to breath, concentrate, communicate, understand the teacher and socialise for several hours a day
Even though children are more likely to die from flu than COVID
It is disgusting
Elessar · 26-30, M
@SW-User The one who cannot read is you. Read the sentence as a whole, not just the part you've cherry picked (and that still doesn't say anything in support of your point), with the part which follows, and with the real-world study I've supplied:
Once you figured it out, let us know.
And why block, too coward to debate?
This retrospective study showed that the efficient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from school-age children and adolescents to household members led to the hospitalization of adults with secondary cases of Covid-19. In households in which transmission occurred, half the household contacts were infected. The secondary attack rates in this study were probably underestimates because test results were reported by the patients themselves and testing was voluntary. In addition, a third of the index patients returned home from camp after the onset of symptoms, when they were presumably not as infectious as they were before and during the onset of symptoms,5 and two thirds adopted physical distancing because of a known exposure at camp; both of these factors probably reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the household. When feasible, children and adolescents with a known exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or a diagnosis of Covid-19 should remain at home and maintain physical distance from household members.
Once you figured it out, let us know.
And why block, too coward to debate?
SW-User
@Elessar All the insults directed at me are equally applicable to HARVARD
You misprepresented your own cherry picked study to argue that "children are practically as likely to spread coronovirus as adults." Your study does not find that. I would break it down for you but you have a clear inability to process information so it would be time wasted.
Dude when it comes to COVID you can't just cherry pick one study with a low n and extrapolate from the actual result as evidence for an outrageous claim.
Here is another study referenced in the guardian that found even with Delta transmissabilty in kids is low:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/08/the-delta-covid-variant-and-children-transmission-in-kids-is-low-and-only-2-hospitalised-report-finds
Unlike you, I specifically went looking for information to prove I'm wrong, not right. I didn't include government statements saying the number of cases where kids transmitted COVID to adults in a particular country can actually be counted on one hand, they're so low in number
And I didnt bother pointing out the bleeding obvious that if you're less likely to get COVID you're less likely to transmit it (part of the rationale for the vaccines anyone?)
But even affording you that, I couldn't find anything that supported your claim that children "are practically as likely as adults to spread COVID"
Including your own study. If you'd said, with Delta there is more probability of kids spreading COVID, I would have agreed with you
But that wasn't your claim.
Simply put you're a rabid fanatic incapable of intelligent debate. I also made that clear as my reason for blocking You
But sure, think I am a 'coward' if it makes you feel better
You misprepresented your own cherry picked study to argue that "children are practically as likely to spread coronovirus as adults." Your study does not find that. I would break it down for you but you have a clear inability to process information so it would be time wasted.
Dude when it comes to COVID you can't just cherry pick one study with a low n and extrapolate from the actual result as evidence for an outrageous claim.
Here is another study referenced in the guardian that found even with Delta transmissabilty in kids is low:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/08/the-delta-covid-variant-and-children-transmission-in-kids-is-low-and-only-2-hospitalised-report-finds
Unlike you, I specifically went looking for information to prove I'm wrong, not right. I didn't include government statements saying the number of cases where kids transmitted COVID to adults in a particular country can actually be counted on one hand, they're so low in number
And I didnt bother pointing out the bleeding obvious that if you're less likely to get COVID you're less likely to transmit it (part of the rationale for the vaccines anyone?)
But even affording you that, I couldn't find anything that supported your claim that children "are practically as likely as adults to spread COVID"
Including your own study. If you'd said, with Delta there is more probability of kids spreading COVID, I would have agreed with you
But that wasn't your claim.
Simply put you're a rabid fanatic incapable of intelligent debate. I also made that clear as my reason for blocking You
But sure, think I am a 'coward' if it makes you feel better
Elessar · 26-30, M
@SW-User The study I've reference actually points out exactly that. If you can understand plain English at least:
The N here isn't that low, and anyway a real-world study with "low" N is still much better than a mere guess (N=0), above all when said guess isn't even about the specific point being discussed.
No, you went looking for studies that had absolutely nothing to do with what you're asserting, even because there's literally no peer-reviewed study that would confirm what you're saying (i.e. that we shouldn't mask children).
As I said, you don't understand the topic we're speaking of.
I'm debating by supplying you evidence, to which you're responding emotionally and with threats of blocking, go figure who's the fanatic incapable of intelligent debate. 🙄 Psychological projection is truly strong with you, not surprisingly.
This retrospective study showed that the efficient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from school-age children and adolescents to household members led to the hospitalization of adults with secondary cases of Covid-19.
The N here isn't that low, and anyway a real-world study with "low" N is still much better than a mere guess (N=0), above all when said guess isn't even about the specific point being discussed.
No, you went looking for studies that had absolutely nothing to do with what you're asserting, even because there's literally no peer-reviewed study that would confirm what you're saying (i.e. that we shouldn't mask children).
As I said, you don't understand the topic we're speaking of.
I'm debating by supplying you evidence, to which you're responding emotionally and with threats of blocking, go figure who's the fanatic incapable of intelligent debate. 🙄 Psychological projection is truly strong with you, not surprisingly.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Keepitsimple · 51-55, F
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
SW-User
@wildbill83 Exactly right!
SW-User
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout why are all your images deleted?
JesseInTX · 51-55, M
@plaguewatcher that’s a cute analogy. Untrue, but cute.
plaguewatcher · M
@JesseInTX elaborate? i realty DO like civil discourse,
Ill re state.
I support anyone's right to do what they will, so long as they do not involve others against their consent.
to shoot towards anther's house, even if without ill intent still involves them without prior consent. as would say, a tire fire, or an out of control party
i am sure you would feel offense at digging bullets out of your poach.
case one, the virus IS real And it IS dangerous.
on that premise, i suggest
The data is in, wearing makes you safer, so why not? also not wearing makes others Less Safe
in addition, those of us that are vaccinated, may have the virus, and not be aware of it so, a vaxxed persons MUST wear a mask in public so as not to pass it to the more vulnerable
Case two The Virus is not real, or waaay less than the danger suggested
on that premise i suggest
wear one in public, as there is something going on it it is better to
seem compliant
carry your vax card, it might keep you out of a lockup
Ill re state.
I support anyone's right to do what they will, so long as they do not involve others against their consent.
to shoot towards anther's house, even if without ill intent still involves them without prior consent. as would say, a tire fire, or an out of control party
i am sure you would feel offense at digging bullets out of your poach.
case one, the virus IS real And it IS dangerous.
on that premise, i suggest
The data is in, wearing makes you safer, so why not? also not wearing makes others Less Safe
in addition, those of us that are vaccinated, may have the virus, and not be aware of it so, a vaxxed persons MUST wear a mask in public so as not to pass it to the more vulnerable
Case two The Virus is not real, or waaay less than the danger suggested
on that premise i suggest
wear one in public, as there is something going on it it is better to
seem compliant
carry your vax card, it might keep you out of a lockup
JesseInTX · 51-55, M
@plaguewatcher this will be my only response so do not expect me to reply to yours.
I have been tested 6 times do to “symptoms”. These symptoms were no more than the typical allergy attacks I get but because I had a cough, sneezing, a sore throat and a slightly above average fever my employer required it. All 6 were NEGATIVE.
I have been tested 2 additional times due to exposure to a confirmed positive case. Each time NEGATIVE. Additionally I am fully vaccinated, although I didn’t want to get the vaccine my parents talked me into it. After my second dose of Pfizer I experienced 5 days of fever, over 100.5, body aches and chills. That was followed by 4 days of fatigue so bad it was a struggle to get out of my bed to take a restroom break.
Is covid real? Yes. Is covid as dire as the media and so called scientists like yourself make it out to be? Unequivocally NO. People like you are rooting fear and misrepresentation. You should be ashamed. And judging by your username you are probably a plant here to spread misinformation.
The symptoms mimic a common cold, the flu and allergies. With your gun analogy the vast many who cough or sneeze are shooting blanks or have been shooting the same ammunition since the beginning of time. Feel free to block me, feel free to reply, but don’t expect to hear from me again. In Texas we are doing just fine without mandates or vaccine assports.
I have been tested 6 times do to “symptoms”. These symptoms were no more than the typical allergy attacks I get but because I had a cough, sneezing, a sore throat and a slightly above average fever my employer required it. All 6 were NEGATIVE.
I have been tested 2 additional times due to exposure to a confirmed positive case. Each time NEGATIVE. Additionally I am fully vaccinated, although I didn’t want to get the vaccine my parents talked me into it. After my second dose of Pfizer I experienced 5 days of fever, over 100.5, body aches and chills. That was followed by 4 days of fatigue so bad it was a struggle to get out of my bed to take a restroom break.
Is covid real? Yes. Is covid as dire as the media and so called scientists like yourself make it out to be? Unequivocally NO. People like you are rooting fear and misrepresentation. You should be ashamed. And judging by your username you are probably a plant here to spread misinformation.
The symptoms mimic a common cold, the flu and allergies. With your gun analogy the vast many who cough or sneeze are shooting blanks or have been shooting the same ammunition since the beginning of time. Feel free to block me, feel free to reply, but don’t expect to hear from me again. In Texas we are doing just fine without mandates or vaccine assports.
Carissimi · F
Yes it does. If it didn’t, no medical staff would ever wear them. It cuts the risk of infection. Nothing is foolproof except biohazard gear, but you take all precautions to decrease your risk of infection and transmission to others. I bet colds and flu won’t be so prevalent this winter, if most people wear masks. Not 100% effective, but better than no mask, especially if you stay 6-20 feet away too.
ElwoodBlues · M
@BalladOfADeadSoulja I suggest you bestir yourself and prove me wrong!
@ElwoodBlues if you can lift a toilet seat by yourself before you have a piss, that means you are grown up enough to be curious and research yourself. Aren’t you too old to be spoon fed?
ElwoodBlues · M
@BalladOfADeadSoulja I like the way you lead by example, LOL!!!
SatyrService · M
Paliglass · 41-45, F
@canusernamebemyusername good point
goliathtree · 56-60, M
I am certified in asbestos abatement as well as hazmat response. I was responsible for respirator training at numerous facilities. Unless worn properly, they are not as effective as the television would have you believe. OSHA requires baseline chest xrays, fit testing and training for wearing any respirator (including the N95's) and the cloth masks vary so much you really can't even be sure they are stopping spit.
All that being said, wear one. It will control some of the droplets that supposedly the virus likes to ride in and more importantly, it will make those around you more comfortable.
All that being said, wear one. It will control some of the droplets that supposedly the virus likes to ride in and more importantly, it will make those around you more comfortable.
@goliathtree My hubby wore the N95 when he was a fabricator, and still breathed in particles of steel, which has impaired his lungs. If they sneak through them, our flimsy ones won't defend us against the tiniest of germs. However I'm not discouraging anyone, people are passionate about the mask deal.
goliathtree · 56-60, M
@MoonlightLullaby When dealing with ammonia leaks in a refrigerated facility before even putting on scba or hazmat suits you grabbed the big tub of vaseline and wiped your armpits, crotch and yes your mouth and nose because ammonia always finds a way in and the nitric acid it becomes when it bonds with water cause burns. If ammonia can get in a SCBA, virus' can get past masks.
CheshireAzur · 36-40, F
@CheshireAzur I have noticed people that don't understand science believes it works by magic. Like the whole microchips in vaccines idea. They can never get it together how it is an unpowered nanite scale cpu capable of mind control.
CheshireAzur · 36-40, F
@canusernamebemyusername Or that science can't change, or new things can't be discover. People still have that mentality of before science era, where science is bad, and people who are for it, must be burned at the steak.
deadgerbil · 26-30, M
1-50 of 138