Literally no. This is exactly what im talking about. No matter how many times youve heard it. You still cannot understand masks are to keep your germs closer to you. Nothing else. Yet you seem to think physics doesnt exist when it comes to masks.
Is the mask wet on the inside ? Oh my yes it is. Does the virus come out of the mouth tied up with mosture ? If we swabbed the inside would we find the virus ? Yes. Yes we would. Are you telling me with a straight face masks do not work because no virus ever in 20 months has gotten caught in a mask ? Are you seriously and with a straight face telling me no mask used in the last 20 months hasn’t slowed a persons breath down ? Hasnt slowed their out going viruses going out n spreading farther from their body ?
You and your ilk … usually the dumbest in the crowd … think you know better. You just know you don’t want to do it so it’s a mad scramble to justify an emotional decision with 37 different reasons at the ready. But mostly it all comes down to the #1 excuse. The greatest strawman of them all.
Masks don’t work because you can still catch covid with a mask on.
So. Imma ask again. Why … exactly … can you not “understand” ?
Is it because deep down you know logically it’s true but if you admit how masks are used in this battle. You’d have to acknowledge that do work as intended.
Or is it just a tempertantrum because you don’t like to be told what to do ? The emotional part of the decision. Thus can only grab a strawman about masks don’t work so ppl don’t see the real reason. That you just didn’t get red rider by gun for Christmas.
Is it just denial … upset about our very brief time on earth ?
Over n over … even in this thread. It’s been stated masks do nothing more than keep your germs near you. So … so why the strawman ? That’s what I’m trying to understand.
“conflict remains as divisive as possible”
me ? I’m doing that ? Oh no. No no no. Go reread some of YOUR own posts. Talking about theater.
This right hear makes it clear that you and your ilk are the dumbest in the crowd. Learn how to read before you respond. Literally the only thing your comments are doing is validating the answer I gave you to begin with. The only tempertantrum here is yours.
If it still isnt clear to you, absolutely no one has ever tried to claim that no mask used in the last 20 months has done anything.
But continue mindlessly trying to belittle and insult those who are disagreeing with you, because obviously that is far more productive than actually listening to why they disagree. You dont care about research, logic, context, reason - you only care about hating anyone who doesnt blindly agree with your arrogance. I dont blame you, because that is how you’ve been taught to react, but again that’s just illustrating the reasons why there is such conflict over the matter.
How about you stop trolling and go back to read what was actually written before replying any more? And maybe do a little research into types of masks, because you seem to believe that all masks are created equal. They are not.
The first large randomized community-level study, published last month in Science, found that while generic surgical masks provided a modest (about 10%) reduction in the risk of infection from Delta, cloth masks didn’t significantly reduce risk. Masks may be even less protective against an extremely contagious variant like Omicron.
A recent Southern California study looked at more than 50,000 patients infected with the new variant. Not one required mechanical ventilation and only one died, compared with 14 deaths and 11 ventilations out of some 17,000 infected by the Delta variant during the same period. Consistent with evidence from other countries, hospitalizations were considerably lower and average hospital stays much shorter among Omicron than Delta patients.
Although reported numbers of “Covid hospitalizations” are up nationally, these figures include patients admitted for other reasons who incidentally test positive. Based on data from several states and the U.K., it appears that roughly half these admissions likely aren’t caused mainly by the virus. Health and Human Services Department data indicate the total number of patients in U.S hospitals has hardly budged over the past six months.
We deliver the early treatment protocols to them as early as we can, and we have a 99.99 percent survival rate. So, I believe myfreedoctor.com,the free volunteered doctors have settled the science on this—early treatment works, period!”
People can visit the website myfreedoctor.com, create an account, and fill out a patient intake form if the doctors are accepting new patients for that day. One of the doctors will then reach out in less than 24 hours. With a huge demand for their services, the physicians say they can only “accept a certain number of patients each day.”
Marble says that he and his small team of volunteer doctors prescribe [Dr. Peter] McCullough’s treatment protocol, which consists of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, prednisone, and other low-cost generic drugs. They also prescribe vitamins D and C, and zinc.
One thing’s for sure - the Pharma companies aren’t making anything off this approach (except the monoclonals I guess, although ones that work vs O are very limited currently).
The even funnier thing is. Again you deniers set a level of x,y,z on masks (aka strawman) just so you can knock it down n claim look. Masks don’t work.
Then you … in order to show that masks don’t work with omnicron you actually admit masks do work with delta. Let me say that slowly for you using your own words.
" The first large randomized community-level study , published last month in Science, found that while generic surgical masks provided a modest (about 10%) reduction in the risk of infection from Delta"
You admit that masks work. Just to crow even Lowder that they don’t. Deniers must build strawman to knock them down without even the self realization they shoot themselves in the foot at the very same time. Yet claim they are right.
Ok. So you admit you were wrong about delta but you are really really sure you are right about omnicron. Why … exactly … with your track record should we believe you now ?
Firstly. I’m not sure teleheath is the way to go for actual “diagnosis” I mean if you never have a covid positive test a negative test 5 days later could actually be confirming you never had it at all. Tho you being a denier won’t see how foolish this is.
Take cancer for example. If I telehealth 100 ppl n diagnose them all with cancer. Tho none had it to start with. My success rate is even better at cancer than this guy is with COVID.
You still won’t be able to see that will you ? It’s OK. It’s not your fault it’s pathological. My question is why tho ?
Why cant you ?
Secondly. As long as it’s not taking away meds from those that actually need it … which in some cases it actually is … there really isn’t a downside to this protocol.
This is what I’d do n it’s at my Dr’s suggestion.
"in villages where no interventions took place but increased to 42.3% in villages where in-person interventions were introduced. "
Maybe I’m not reading it right. But this is another strawman right ? Mask wearing got up to a staggering height of almost 50% … which of course means MORE than half didn’t. Are you claiming that less than 50% adoption means something doesn’t work at all ?
Yet at the same that less than 50% using masks doesn’t it show an actual reduction in covid infection anyways ??
I have a question for you. How often over he last 20 months have you complained about people ignoring the science and instead following their own baseless beliefs?
Because that is exactly what you are doing here. Just because the research doesnt support what you think doesnt make it “a strawman”.
Again, all masks are not created equally, despite your insistance on referring to them all the same. You conveniently didnt quote the very next sentance, that bluntly states that cloth masks are of no statistically significant benefit. All this requires is a little basic reading comprehension. Blindly dismissing arguments as being strawmen is in fact a strawman of your own making.
How much did it reduce covid? A little bit. From 8.6% to 7.6%, a small reduction but statistically significant. That’s the middle chart above.
Here was their conclusion.
We find clear evidence that surgical masks lead to a relative reduction in symptomatic seroprevalence of 11.1% (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.89 [0.78, 1.00]; control prevalence = 0.81%; treatment prevalence = 0.72%). Although the point estimates for cloth masks suggests that they reduce risk, the confidence limits include both an effect size similar to surgical masks and no effect at all (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.94 [0.78, 1.10]; control = 0.67%; treatment = 0.61%).
Surgical masks reduced risk by about 10%, a statistically significant finding. Cloth masks reduced risk by 5%, but that was not statistically significant (the p value wasn’t good enough to support the claim at a 95% confidence). Cloth masks could still help a little, but even if that finding were accurate, we’re only talking about a 5% reduction.
That’s a very small reduction. Even surgical masks are only 10%. You know what reduces risk by around 65% with very high statistical significance for preventing covid?
So if you were going to do something, you should probably be taking ivermectin instead of, or maybe in addition to, wearing these non-N95 masks that only help a small amount.
