@CuriousCuckold that’s not nice 😠

@CuriousCuckold 😆 ...says the guy who calls himself a "cuck"....😂

@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.

@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.

@Happymedium see? You're the smart one.😷

@SW-User except this is really not, because the general consensus is that COVID is now endemic

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Just wear a face cloth to remove asbestos

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout not a good analogy at all. there certainly is a big difference between live viral particles and aerosols, droplets, etc.

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout great scene like this in the movie
The Andromeda Strain
very cool and scary movie

@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.

@dakotaviper and how many times have they been caught without one when they thought no one would know😂

@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:

[quote]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.[/quote]

Once you figured it out, let us know.

And why block, too coward to debate?

@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

@SW-User The study I've reference actually points out exactly that. If you can understand plain English at least:
[quote]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. [/quote]

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.

@SW-User or you can do the same math, making the masks say 2% not 50, and ti still betters your odds.

@plaguewatcher True

@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?

@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?

@BlueMetalChick yes we need pictures

Answer me this : what percentage of infected die

@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) [b]and not significantly protective after symptom development[/b]

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!

@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, [b]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[/b]. [u]A primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is via respiratory particles[/u], and it is known to be transmissible from presymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, and asympt omatic individuals. [u]Reducing disease spread requires two things[/u]:[u] limiting contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and other measures and reducing the transmission probability per contact. [/u][u][b][i]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. [/i][/b][/u]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, [b][i]you would have looked at the 141 references that they sourced. [/i][/b]

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.

@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 [i]likely[/i] 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'

@SW-User That's the thing. We aren't arguing about this out of opinion. You can't have an opinion about whether or not something is factually true. It either is or it is not.

People argue about masks because although we live in a free country, one person's freedoms don't extent to doing things which are dangerous to others. You don't have the freedom to drive your car while drunk, for example, or the freedom to smoke in a place of business.

@Wayward73 why is there no dangerous disposal of medical waste bins over flowing with COVID saturated masks?
Should they burn the used ones at least 🤷‍♂️

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout I hear ya.

@Thevy29 "Did you know that DNA stands for National Dyslexic Association?"

@BlueMetalChick That's good, I'll have to remmber that one

@BlueMetalChick @Thevy29
Slysdexics of the world UNTIE~

@Coppercoil it didn't need to be polarizing. The science was a little slow, initially, as far as how the virus is spread. Once that was clarified, the role of masks was clearly evident, scientifically. It was the need to find something to fight over that then led to the polarization by a political party.

@samueltyler2 *eyeroll*

@plaguewatcher that’s a cute analogy. Untrue, but cute.

@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 [i]against their consent.[/i]
to shoot towards anther's house, even if without ill intent still involves them without [i]prior consent[/i]. 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, [i]may have the virus, and not be aware of it [/i] so, a v[c=359E00]axxed persons MUST wear a mask in public so as not to pass it to the more vulnerable[/c]


Case two The Virus is not real, or waaay less than the danger suggested

on that premise i suggest
wear one in public, as [i]there is something going[/i] on it it is [i]better to
seem compliant[/i]
carry your vax card, it might keep you out of a lockup

@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.

@AwakeningConfession221122 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?

@AwakeningConfession221122 I like the way you lead by example, [b]LOL!!![/b]

@Emosaur Why? Because you trust the government to tell you when you are allowed to breathe?

Nor are you @Emosaur

@Straylight and the flash...and...oh hell the list goes on and on!

the point is - you're a genius!!!

@Pretzel I wonder if comic books have ever explained how Superman never gets tagged as Clark Kent on social media with face recognition.

@Straylight or how stupid you gotta be not to recognize him with/without glasses???

I wonder how he changes now that they've done away with phone booths in the U.S.

@hippyjoe1955 The funny part is that your glasses steaming up is evidence that masks work. Even cheap shit like a bandana or scarf makes your glasses fog. You know why? It's the heat and moisture from your breath being directed upward and back into your own face, rather than out toward other people. And the moisture from your breath is one of the biggest ways to give COVID to someone else.

So congratulations, Hippy, you just provided us with a fantastic example of why you're wrong. Thanks for doing my work for me.

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Politics have the outcome they've had since time immemorial. The top dogs stay at the top, the rest of us stay on the bottom. Think about it, if the promises and policies made by democrats or republicans actually worked for the benefit of the people they are elected to serve, the world would be far less screwed up. Instead they just cause division in front of the cameras. Behind the scenes they are all friends and are laughing at us and getting rich at our expense.....and everyone here is arguing in defense of politicians who either don't know they exist or don't care that they exist. Its a grift....and a waste of time fighting with each other about.

@SW-User You are correct, and the reminder is a good one. That said, we are only human 🙂

@SW-User That's a worthy point to make.

My response to that, isn't that I believe I am going to change anyone's mind, rather I like to test my beliefs against others to challenge myself and see if they stand up when attacked by people who don't share my beliefs. If they don't, maybe I need to do some more research, and perhaps change my opinion on the matter. It's happened before.

I harbor no delusions that I am changing anyone's mind. In fact, I am quite aware it only galvanizes others opinions.

@Snowvixen um to keep fluids and blood from slashing into the doctors orfices 😂

@Snowvixen If you can't understand different contexts then how can you understand 'science'?

@Snowvixen thats to keep them from drooling/slobbering on you when they talk, and to keep your blood out of their face.

and they discard them after ONE use... not wearing the same one day in and day out...

@DownTheStreet so who DO you trust? What months, since the pandemic didn't really hit badly until the second quarter of 2020, are you comparing deaths from covid to?

@samueltyler2 let me put it this way, Covid is still impacting across the board. I am vaccinated, I wear a mask around a lot of people and follow the rules. But I don’t think anyone really understands Covid, and Fauci being such a polarizing figure should have the humility to step down and be replaced by someone who can bring people together. Meanwhile Biden bumbles along and is irrelevant in the conversation.

@DownTheStreet well, your original statement didn't help spread the truth about the pandemic. The vaccine has had a significant effect on both numbers of infection and symptomatic cases and, of course, death. We need more vaccine in arms, and acceptance that masking in crowds will be necessary for a while yet.

@SubstantialKick Just noticed the timestamp, lol. Yeah, kinda sad.

@Elessar Masks are worn by tons of medical professionals to reduce the spread of a bunch of things, yet when it comes to covid, people invent reasons as to why masks are suddenly ineffective.

Imagine open surgeries, etc being done by surgeons and nurses who aren't wearing masks.

@faithfulhusband the wee earned a downvote 😬

@CestManan ou have the right to fire your pistol in your home firing range..
this I support

you do not have the right to fire your pistol in the direction of your neighbor's houses. no one supports that

so when you sneeze or breath in your won home? cool! fine with that
but if you do so out in the world?
you are shooting that pistol in random directions

@Nudistsue26 So you'd rather have no protection than flimsy protection?

@KiwiBird have they ever been wrong or mislead us?
The air at ground zero was safe !!!!!!

@pdockal [quote]The air at ground zero was safe[/quote] Wasn't it Rudy Giuliani who said that? I hope during all these years you haven't been thinking Giuliani was a scientist, have you?

BTW, I like the way your logic works - if 1 scientist was ever wrong about 1 thing, you can immediately dismiss everything every scientist ever said. Sensational!!

@ElwoodBlues Try this experiment sometime...cook up a batch of sauerkraut, put on your mask, breath....smell anything?

@sunsporter1649 What is the size difference between a droplet containing Covid viruses and a molecule of "sauerkraut flavor"? What? You don't know?? Then your little "experiment" is meaningless.

We all know you're allergic to facts, but Duke University studied one million school children in thousands of classrooms including mostly masked, partially masked, mostly unmasked. They found masks to be pretty effective:
https://today.duke.edu/2021/06/research-finds-masks-can-prevent-covid-19-transmission-schools

@Coltron the dont wear one, but know if you give this virus to someone?
then you may as well stab them

@plaguewatcher 😂, sorry for a moment there I thought you were credible. My mistake

@Coltron Then don't wear one. I need to be able to spot the enemy at a glance anyway.

@Elizabeth28 another fucking hysteric clutching their cloth talisman