Droplets were a Fauci thing to try and put some junk science behind the face diapers. They do nothing to stop the aerosols.

That's why the narrative took a hard left turn from "you wearing a mask keeps you safe" to "other people wearing masks keep you safe."

Then it took a sharper left turn to "if you have the vaccination, you don't have to wear a mask."

We all know how those nuggets of "science" were debunked.

Sixth Texas Dem tests positive for COVID
after fleeing state to block GOP voting bill

It wasn’t immediately clear if the sixth member to test positive is fully vaccinated,
but the first five to be infected have said they are.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/20/sixth-texas-dem-tests-positive-for-covid-after-fleeing-state-to-block-gop-voting-bill/

Droplets were a Fauci thing to try and put some junk science behind the face diapers. They do nothing to stop the aerosols.

You’re correct.  Masks do little or nothing to stop aerosols, which is one way to spread COVID.  They DO stop some droplets, which is another way to stop COVID.

“It’s not 100% effective, so therefore it’s useless.”

Did the method of transport change?  Last I checked a while ago, it was via droplets from exhaling. I mean if you swap spit with someone, that too. But commonly inhaling the droplets.

Wearing a mask to stop covid transmission is just as effective as  wearing underwear so no one smells your farts. 
#RockyGetsBannedForPostingMisinformatonAboutCovid.

You’re correct.  Masks do little or nothing to stop aerosols, which is one way to spread COVID.  They DO stop some droplets, which is another way to stop COVID.

“It’s not 100% effective, so therefore it’s useless.”

It's not about achieving 100% effectiveness.  it's about being honest with the science and doing real studies to determine the justification for mask mandates.

A new study shows no SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the participants who wore masks in public and those who went without. 

This study saw a 98.2% effectiveness rate with masks, but they also saw a 97.9% non-infection rate among maskless participants.

So, tell us.  Given other studies have detailed the negative effects of wearing masks -- especially for those already suffering from respiratory issues -- how does a negligible increase of 0.03% in possibly preventing COVID justify the mandates, negative impacts and cost of all those mandates like employee terminations, people being kicked off airliners, etc?

https://fee.org/articles/new-danish-study-finds-masks-don-t-protect-wearers-from-covid-infection/

It's not about achieving 100% effectiveness.  it's about being honest with the science and doing real studies to determine the justification for mask mandates.

A new study shows no SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the participants who wore masks in public and those who went without. 

This study saw a 98.2% effectiveness rate with masks, but they also saw a 97.9% non-infection rate among maskless participants.

So, tell us.  Given other studies have detailed the negative effects of wearing masks -- especially for those already suffering from respiratory issues -- how does a negligible increase of 0.03% in possibly preventing COVID justify the mandates, negative impacts and cost of all those mandates like employee terminations, people being kicked off airliners, etc?

https://fee.org/articles/new-danish-study-finds-masks-don-t-protect-wearers-from-covid-infection/

A “new study”… from 2020?

I never claimed masks had a significant protective effect for the wearer.  I believe they do have a significant effect in catching respiratory droplets, so that an infected person wearing a mask is less likely to spread the virus than someone who is unmasked.

A “new study”… from 2020?

I never claimed masks had a significant protective effect for the wearer.  I believe they do have a significant effect in catching respiratory droplets, so that an infected person wearing a mask is less likely to spread the virus than someone who is unmasked.

A fraction of a percentage more effective? Isn’t that just a sciency-sounding way of saying totally useless?

A fraction of a percentage more effective? Isn’t that just a sciency-sounding way of saying totally useless?

No, that’s a way to say that masks aren’t particularly effective at protecting the wearer… but that’s not the point. 

The point of the mask is to reduce the amount of respiratory droplets that infected people put out into the air for others to inhale.

Like I already said.

A “new study”… from 2020?

I never claimed masks had a significant protective effect for the wearer.  I believe they do have a significant effect in catching respiratory droplets, so that an infected person wearing a mask is less likely to spread the virus than someone who is unmasked.

First of all, the adjective "NEW" was in the headline. Pardon me for using the verbiage that was part of the article.

Secondly, the fact that the study was published in 2020 shows just how much science the people making the rules actually incorporated into their decisions.

They convinced you that other people wearing masks protected you, but then they told you the vaccine protected you.  Now we are told masks are just going to be a part of your everyday life because the vaccine doesn't stop COVID from being transmitted.

What you believe or don't believe is not science.  So, whether or not you can support your beliefs with actual data and results of clinical trials, you're 100% free to follow your beliefs.  But someone in government who believes as you do is the problem, pushing policies based on nonscientific beliefs.

No, that’s a way to say that masks aren’t particularly effective at protecting the wearer… but that’s not the point. 

The point of the mask is to reduce the amount of respiratory droplets that infected people put out into the air for others to inhale.

Like I already said.

Reduce droplets, aka doesn’t stop aerosols. Like I said they are totally useless.

Let me take that back.

They are good for identifying people who don’t understand how science or propaganda works.

They are good for identifying people who don’t understand how science or propaganda works.

And those that worship the leftist narrative/regime.

They are an excellent liberal identifier.

Reduce droplets, aka doesn’t stop aerosols. Like I said they are totally useless.

Let me take that back.

They are good for identifying people who don’t understand how science or propaganda works.

More like: shut up and do what we tell you to do!



Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Reduce droplets, aka doesn’t stop aerosols. Like I said they are totally useless.

Let me take that back.

They are good for identifying people who don’t understand how science or propaganda works.

You can say it as many times as you want, it won’t make it true.  COVID spreads via respiratory droplets, aerosols, and probably some other ways.  Properly worn masks help mitigate one method of spreading the virus, so “totally useless” is objectively incorrect.  You seem to be unwilling to consider ideas other than the ones you already hold, so who fell victim to propaganda…?

First of all, the adjective "NEW" was in the headline. Pardon me for using the verbiage that was part of the article.

Secondly, the fact that the study was published in 2020 shows just how much science the people making the rules actually incorporated into their decisions.

They convinced you that other people wearing masks protected you, but then they told you the vaccine protected you.  Now we are told masks are just going to be a part of your everyday life because the vaccine doesn't stop COVID from being transmitted.

What you believe or don't believe is not science.  So, whether or not you can support your beliefs with actual data and results of clinical trials, you're 100% free to follow your beliefs.  But someone in government who believes as you do is the problem, pushing policies based on nonscientific beliefs.

Yes, I saw the word “new” in the headline, but since you didn’t put it in quotes, it appeared to me that YOU were saying it was a new study.

Yes, wearing a mask helps protect others.  Yes, the vaccine protects you.  Neither is 100% effective, but in my mind, that doesn’t justify completely rejecting either or both.

I haven’t taken any position on mask policies, because reasons.  I’m saying that the outright rejection of masks and/or vaccines does not appear to me to be supported by available data.  I agree that people who wear masks when they’re nowhere near another human being don’t understand the science, and may have fallen victim to an information campaign and/or are virtue-signaling.  I also believe that people who categorically refuse to wear masks also don’t understand the science, and have fallen victim to an information campaign, and/or are just virtue signaling to their like-minded tribe.

Properly worn…

It looks like the inevitable retreat from another one of your ridiculous assertions has already begun. It’s cool. We’re all used to it by now.

It looks like the inevitable retreat from another one of your ridiculous assertions has already begun. It’s cool. We’re all used to it by now.

Please explain how I’m retreating?  I guess I took it as obvious that if you wear it on your chin and don’t cover your nose and mouth, it loses effectiveness.  Sorry for not making that disclaimer clear in my original post; I’ll do it explicitly now:

“If you want a mask to be optimally effective at mitigating the spread of viruses, you should wear it in such a fashion as to have it cover your nose and mouth and fit snugly.  If you have it down around your chin, hanging from your neck, or on any part of your body where it doesn’t snugly cover your nose and mouth, it will lose some, if not all, effectiveness at decreasing viral spread.  Also, since apparently I now have to state really obvious stuff, don’t drink bleach or stare into the sun.”

Yes, I saw the word “new” in the headline, but since you didn’t put it in quotes, it appeared to me that YOU were saying it was a new study.

Yes, wearing a mask helps protect others.  Yes, the vaccine protects you.  Neither is 100% effective, but in my mind, that doesn’t justify completely rejecting either or both.

I haven’t taken any position on mask policies, because reasons.  I’m saying that the outright rejection of masks and/or vaccines does not appear to me to be supported by available data.  I agree that people who wear masks when they’re nowhere near another human being don’t understand the science, and may have fallen victim to an information campaign and/or are virtue-signaling.  I also believe that people who categorically refuse to wear masks also don’t understand the science, and have fallen victim to an information campaign, and/or are just virtue signaling to their like-minded tribe.

Nobody here is saying to "reject' masks.  We are simply advocating for individual choice and liberty without the stigma, attacks and consequences of choosing to follow our own reason and logic.

The people choosing masks and vaccinations are free to do the same.

There can be no debate that the issues have been politicized, and people on the 'wrong side" of the discussion have been harmed because of the "one size fits all" mandates.

i still wear a mask in public primarily because i know it might help others if I ever contract covid, and because I know for sure it can protect ME against other diseases like seasonal flu.

I noticed at COSTCO many customers still wear them -- i'd say less than half.  It appears the employees mostly wear them, but I saw at Customer Service Wednesday two people helping customers had their masks hanging off their ears down around their chins.  The two on the RETURNS side weren't wearing any masks.

Instead of arguing over droplets and aerosols, wouldn't it be more productive to let everyone decide for themselves?  That is, unless you think people not wearing masks are trying to kill you with COVID.   

Nobody here is saying to "reject' masks.  We are simply advocating for individual choice and liberty without the stigma, attacks and consequences of choosing to follow our own reason and logic.

The people choosing masks and vaccinations are free to do the same.

There can be no debate that the issues have been politicized, and people on the 'wrong side" of the discussion have been harmed because of the "one size fits all" mandates.

i still wear a mask in public primarily because i know it might help others if I ever contract covid, and because I know for sure it can protect ME against other diseases like seasonal flu.

I noticed at COSTCO many customers still wear them -- i'd say less than half.  It appears the employees mostly wear them, but I saw at Customer Service Wednesday two people helping customers had their masks hanging off their ears down around their chins.  The two on the RETURNS side weren't wearing any masks.

Instead of arguing over droplets and aerosols, wouldn't it be more productive to let everyone decide for themselves?  That is, unless you think people not wearing masks are trying to kill you with COVID.   

While it’s true that I haven’t seen anyone here explicitly advocate rejecting masks, I certainly have seen quite a bit of information that doesn’t follow logic and physics (“…totally useless…”).  Also, there are certainly people with loud voices in the public space that appear to be advocating complete rejection.

“Individual choice” and “choosing to follow our own reason and logic” does not equal freedom from consequences, stigma, and attacks (although hopefully not physical attacks; physical attacks are not justified for not wearing a mask).  You are free to choose not to wear a mask, but must then be prepared to face the consequences of that choice.  There are lots of cases where people “follow [their] own logic and reason” and it ends up injuring other people; that’s where laws come in.  Once again, I’m taking no stance on whether mask mandates are good policy or bad policy, just pointing out some of the misinformation that regularly gets spread about them.

“There can be no debate…”  There can ALWAYS be debate; this is the internet, after all. LOL. But I agree, the subject has unfortunately become wildly politicized… which rarely helps.

I would also add in "properly worn effective mask". Aka not cloth mask or worn dick nose, etc...

I cant smell fried chicken in my car with my mask on = g2g.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I was not really referring to the spread of the virus(C19) but more to the spread of the totally 100% safe and effective totally not experimental MRNA not vaccine people have been injected with.  I know the virus can spread through aerosolized means, not so much droplets.  The vax is what is being spread through fluid transfer(B milk, blood, saliva etc).  I know there was talk about shedding post injection, not too sure if the means of transmission is restricted to fluids or is air born.

I’m in favor of masking mandates only for the recently vaccinated so that you guys are less likely to shed your dirty little spike proteins all over me.

https://thecovidblog.com/2021/06/08/editorial-my-story-of-potential-exposure-to-spike-protein-via-shedding-from-vaccinated-people-and-the-potential-suramin-shikimic-acid-pine-needle-tea-cure-and-prophylaxis/

Wear it like the cone of shame so that everyone knows that you make bad decisions and we won’t accidentally give you too much responsibility.