Pro mask or anti mask?
I'm not sure the science supports the effectiveness of the masks.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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
1-25 of 26
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@Emosaur You wear a helmet in the shower?
SW-User
@SW-User if you think your talisman does that, then by all means wear one
SW-User
@SW-User it is nice to 'trust the science', but first make sure you know what science is and isn't, and what the science into masks actually says
SW-User
@SW-User the confusion is your ignorance and your belief a scientific consensus exists. In reality tens of thousands of studies have been conducted and none have proven that cloth masks are effective
What we do know scientifically is that they negatively impact children's development
What we do know scientifically is that they negatively impact children's development
SW-User
@SW-User think about what you've just said.
Yes there has been research into both issues.
Yes there has been research into both issues.
SW-User
@Elessar WOW your ability to create emotive logical fallicies is very advanced.
Don't the scientific evidence that children don't tend to be tranmitters of COVID or the scientific evidence that masks do in fact harm children's development - get in the your way of being a self righteous peddler of a panic narrative
Sure, if kids don't wear masks their grand parents and parents will die. I really hope nobody ever lets you anywhere near children.
Don't the scientific evidence that children don't tend to be tranmitters of COVID or the scientific evidence that masks do in fact harm children's development - get in the your way of being a self righteous peddler of a panic narrative
Sure, if kids don't wear masks their grand parents and parents will die. I really hope nobody ever lets you anywhere near children.
Elessar · 26-30, M
@SW-User Nowhere as advanced as your inability to distinguish between disease severity (that is lower in children) and transmissibility (that is not, especially post-delta).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2031915
In words that may be more comprehensible to you, adults are practically as likely to contract COVID-19 from their asymptomatic kids as they are from symptomatic adults.
In words that may be even more simpler to you, it makes no sense to elevate the risk for kids to remain orphan in name of your reluctance to acknowledge (and understand) reality, or making up adverse effects for a measure that you find inconvenient. Do kids wear scarfs where you live? I've never heard of scarfs impacting anyone's sociability or development, if you have any evidence to prove the contrary please link it.
Maybe leave topics that are evidently beyond your comprehension to people who have dedicated their lives to studying them, rather than acting edgy on the internet.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2031915
In words that may be more comprehensible to you, adults are practically as likely to contract COVID-19 from their asymptomatic kids as they are from symptomatic adults.
In words that may be even more simpler to you, it makes no sense to elevate the risk for kids to remain orphan in name of your reluctance to acknowledge (and understand) reality, or making up adverse effects for a measure that you find inconvenient. Do kids wear scarfs where you live? I've never heard of scarfs impacting anyone's sociability or development, if you have any evidence to prove the contrary please link it.
Maybe leave topics that are evidently beyond your comprehension to people who have dedicated their lives to studying them, rather than acting edgy on the internet.
Elessar · 26-30, M
@SW-User
I really hope nobody ever lets you anywhere near children.
Oh, and the feeling is absolutely reciprocal for the record.
SW-User
@Elessar You should really tell Harvard. Im sure they'd be enlighted by your scientific knowlege that children are "practically" as likely to pass it on
For earlier strains that isn't even a question. The science is settled. So you're either ignorant or being disengenous.
As far as Delta goes Harvard have this to say
"Are kids any more or less likely than adults to spread coronavirus?
Most children who become infected with the COVID-19 virus have no symptoms, or they have milder symptoms such as low-grade fever, fatigue, and cough. Early studies suggested that children do not contribute much to the spread of coronavirus. But more recent studies raise concerns that children could be capable of spreading the infection.
Though the recent studies varied in their methods, their findings were similar: infected children had as much, or more, coronavirus in their upper respiratory tracts as infected adults.
The amount of virus found in children — their viral load — was not correlated with the severity of their symptoms. In other words, more virus did not mean more severe symptoms.
Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does notprovethat children are infectious. However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others."
To spell it out in very very simple words
There is not, according to Harvard, any evidence for this yet, let alone your penetrating scientific insight that children are 'practically' as infectious as adults
You really have surpassed in the art of dissapearing up your own arsehole. Might have led to oxygen deprivation
For earlier strains that isn't even a question. The science is settled. So you're either ignorant or being disengenous.
As far as Delta goes Harvard have this to say
"Are kids any more or less likely than adults to spread coronavirus?
Most children who become infected with the COVID-19 virus have no symptoms, or they have milder symptoms such as low-grade fever, fatigue, and cough. Early studies suggested that children do not contribute much to the spread of coronavirus. But more recent studies raise concerns that children could be capable of spreading the infection.
Though the recent studies varied in their methods, their findings were similar: infected children had as much, or more, coronavirus in their upper respiratory tracts as infected adults.
The amount of virus found in children — their viral load — was not correlated with the severity of their symptoms. In other words, more virus did not mean more severe symptoms.
Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does notprovethat children are infectious. However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others."
To spell it out in very very simple words
There is not, according to Harvard, any evidence for this yet, let alone your penetrating scientific insight that children are 'practically' as infectious as adults
You really have surpassed in the art of dissapearing up your own arsehole. Might have led to oxygen deprivation
Elessar · 26-30, M
@SW-User And once again, you should first understand the things that you talk about, then comment about them.
Especially when you present here a study that:
1) confirms what I'm saying, i.e.
2) you still haven't figured out the difference between "disease severity" and "transmissibility", in fact you bring up this:
3) even the conclusion pretty much aligns with what I'm saying:
Congratulations for proving yourself wrong with your own source.
Now go back to your hole.
Especially when you present here a study that:
1) confirms what I'm saying, i.e.
infected children had as much, or more, coronavirus in their upper respiratory tracts as infected adults.
2) you still haven't figured out the difference between "disease severity" and "transmissibility", in fact you bring up this:
The amount of virus found in children — their viral load — was not correlated with the severity of their symptoms.
Which is completely irrelevant here. What's the part of "asymptomatic kids can spread COVID to their parents, and potentially remain orphan because of it" that you haven't understood?3) even the conclusion pretty much aligns with what I'm saying:
However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others.
And in fact I referenced you with the real-world data that indeed confirms this.Congratulations for proving yourself wrong with your own source.
Now go back to your hole.
SW-User
@Elessar oh my GOD you can't read:
Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does notprovethat children are infectious."
I'm not "bringing it up" I'm citing Harvard's full statement."
I'm really really sorry for you but you're not intelligent enough to have a decent conversation with
After giving you a chance to read this, I'm blocking You
Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does notprovethat children are infectious."
I'm not "bringing it up" I'm citing Harvard's full statement."
I'm really really sorry for you but you're not intelligent enough to have a decent conversation with
After giving you a chance to read this, I'm blocking You
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
1-25 of 26