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
@hippyjoe1955 what's YOUR degree in ? how many peer reviewed publications have printed your research results?
we have a saying "your not even wrong" for those who's "opinion" is not even on subject you know like saying "I think its the dog." when others are diagnosing a car motor. not relevant, of no use
If you want i can SWAMP you with 100's of studies that have shown repeatedly, the effectiveness of masks, Why do you thin EVERY emergency room and EVERY surgical Theater uses them? is that I Liberal Plot too?
Even your use of the word incubation time is astonishingly ignorant, and the "data" you offer is inaccurate. You do not know what the word means.. so don't use it you have no business even having an opinion. yo do not know enough about the subject to take part.
@plaguewatcher I used to do research. Yes I used to use stats all the time. I haven't practiced in the field for many years but I simply look at the numbers in all the major cities near where I live. Calgary was first to bring in the mask mandate. 2 weeks later their rate of infection jumped and was much higher than other cities around them. Edmonton brought in the same mandate. Two weeks later the case count jumped and became the same as Calgary. The same happened in each city as each city brought in their mandates. Now one could assume that 2 such cases does not a pattern make but when every city that acted independent of their provincial governments in multiple provinces all had the same experience. Yeah I don't need to use those rusty stats skills to see an undeniable pattern. However my engineering and mask training did come in handy in explaining why. Yes the mask would catch a large droplet - but the large droplet becomes smaller droplets as breath passes over it. The smaller particles easily pass through or around the mask and because they are smaller they remain in the air longer thus infecting more people over a longer period of time. Silly people don't understand that. BTW did you know that using a kids microscope under 4X magnification you can see through the masks filtration element? It would not be allowed on a site where asbestos is being removed because the holes are too big. But you are sure it will stop a virus or droplet containing viruses. Too Funny. BTW ever wear a mask and safety glasses in a cold room? You won't for very long. Either the mask or the glasses will have to go since the moisture from your breath is all over your glasses. Guess what could be in that moisture? VIRUSES!!! The masks simply don't seal or provide an adequate barrier to a virus. Sad to say. Nice graphics you had though. Too bad they are pretty much nonsense.
SW-User
@plaguewatcher your video logic is : we will assume masks are effective to prove masks are effective
@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?
