Face Diapers Don't Do Anything

[Tethler]

Jesus christ, I'm so tired of these idiot threads and the idiots that keep posting them.

It. Does. Not. Matter. That. The. Virus. Is. Smaller. Than. The. Mask.

The virus doesn't fly through the air independently, you fucking mongoloid. It travels in small water droplets that are caught by the mask at a high rate. (Yes, it doesn't catch them all). I'm pretty sure I can get a local chiropractor to sign off of something if that helps, since you like to lean on arguments from people who aren't virologists.

Dipshits like you are the reason that the virus is still going strong.

In case you were wondering, i peppered in a good amount of Ad Hominem because: fuck you

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't care about The Koch Brothers

They are irrelevant as is Rolling Stone



I'm not claiming all medicine has become political. There is no political gain to politicize something like treating Dementia. That wouldn't require a nation wide lock down with draconian government policies and mask mandates. Nobody can see a virus, so it's easy to manipulate public fear through propaganda and convince people to throw away their civil rights in the interest of "safety"

You can literally replace Covid with "Global Warming" and force the same draconian government policy on everyone. The crisis empowers governments and the elite while weakening individual rights. Corrupt bureaucrats have been given a gift nicely wrapped to skirt around constitutional norms and it needs to stop

And stop trying to derail the conversation with idiotic questions - stick to the topic. It only shows the weakness of your own position.




Everything The Left touches becomes political. Sports, Medicine, Our Judicial System (Hi Maxine Waters) shopping at Walmart, ect. ect. ect.

The Left IS political in everything it does because it cannot exist without being a revolutionary political movement

Masks don't do anything. There is a long history of large random clinical trials that all show 99.999999999% of the masks people are wearing are totally useless to stop the spread of influenza infections. There is not a large body of research data in relation to random clinical trials that prove masks stop the spread of Covid. There are however, studies that show they don't which are being censored or people on the left are trying to discredit them for obvious reasons



Just a stupid response

Raev was wrong about you

IIRC Raev made the error of equating weather with climate change in a thread a few years back and everyone made sure he never forgot it, myself included. I cannot for the life of me find that thread now, and it may have been another regular on the forums but that's doubtful as Raev has consistently denied that climate change is occurring.

Regardless, you still have not provided names for those scientists mentioned earlier. Also, there are no links for all of the trials you just referred to, which would allow everyone to verify that what you're saying is factual.

If the one surviving Koch brother is irrelevant, with all of his money and influence in Witchita, than you are even less relevant. By all accounts, the dead brother is also more relevant in comparison, unless you somehow happen to have more funds to work with than his estate, in which case you ought to be donating it to p99 so that everyone can experience custom content. If money is irrelevant in a capitalistic society than what is relevant? The Koch brothers are money. They essentially own a college and half of Wichita. They funded a senator's campaign, who then became governor and nearly bankrupted the state of Kansas. Even those who consider their views to be backwards would not claim that they are irrelevant. But you have, so either it is a case of trolling or willful ignorance.

To quote myself quoting smarter people from two years ago...

09-05-2019, 11:35 PM
"Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"We must make a clear distinction between belief and faith, because, in general practice, belief has come to mean a state of mind which is almost opposite of faith. Belief, as I use the word here, is the insistence that the truth is what one would "lief" or wish it to be. The believer will open his mind to the truth on the condition that it fits in with his preconceived ideas and wishes. Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be." ... "In this sense of the word, faith is the essential virtue of science, and likewise of any religion that is not self-deception." Alan Watts

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just a reminder that your article compared masks to N95s, not masks vs none. It's hard to see this as relevant when virtually no one is wearing an N95 mask.

Likely because of hospital policy or because no patient would consent to their doctor forgoing the use of any mask. That one was shown to be more effective than the other implies that either would have been favorable over none at all. That isn't irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science clearly states that masks do not work. You can read the Danish study or a review by the British government here. TLDR: 8 randomized trials, 6 negative, 1 irrelevant (the one Ennewi found), and 1 that did find an effect in combination with hand sanitizer. The sad reality is that peer review and the scientific method are no match for billions of dollars in funding, and thus we have to read garbage like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32329337/:

The conclusion is obviously completely unwarranted by the actual results.

If we can we agree not to use the word science as though we were quoting it directly, that would be a good start. At best, one might be referring to the scientific community or consensus among experts, which ought to be mentioned by name instead.

I am still reading through the Denmark link, but here's another link to serve as a counterargument which I am also still reading through...

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

There are no studies that have directly measured the filtration of smaller or lateral particles in this setting, although, using Schlieren imaging, it has been shown that all kinds of masks greatly limit the spread of the emission cloud (79), consistent with a fluid dynamic simulation that estimated this filtration level at 90% (80). Another study used a manikin and visible smoke to simulate coughing, and found that a stitched cloth mask was the most effective of the tested designs at source control, reducing the jet distance in all directions from 8 feet (with no mask) to 2.5 inches (81).

One possible benefit of masks for source control is that they can reduce surface transmission, by avoiding droplets settling on surfaces that may be touched by a susceptible person. However, contact through surfaces is not believed to be the main way SARS-CoV-2 spreads (82), and the risk of transmission through surfaces may be small (83).

In summary, there is laboratory-based evidence that household masks have filtration capacity in the relevant particle size range, as well as efficacy in blocking aerosols and droplets from the wearer (67). That is, these masks help people keep their emissions to themselves. A consideration is that face masks with valves do not capture respiratory particles as efficiently, bypassing the filtration mechanism, and therefore offer less source control (84).

Conclusion
Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.

Footnotes
↵1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: jphoward@usfca.edu.
Author contributions: J.H., Z.L., H.-M.v.d.W., L.-H.T., V.T., R.S., and F.Q. designed research; J.H., A.H., Z.L., Z.T., H.-M.v.d.W., L.-H.T., V.T., R.S., and F.Q. performed research; J.H., A.H., Z.L., L.-H.T., V.T., F.Q., and C.M.R. analyzed data; and J.H., A.H., Z.L., Z.T., V.Z., H.-M.v.d.W., A.v.D., A.P., L.F., L.-H.T., V.T., G.L.W., C.E.B., R.S., F.Q., D.H., L.F.C., C.M.R., and A.W.R. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no competing interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procee...tes_of_America

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (often abbreviated PNAS or PNAS USA) is a peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journal. It is the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences, published since 1915, and publishes original research, scientific reviews, commentaries, and letters. According to Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2019 impact factor of 9.412.[1] PNAS is the second most cited scientific journal, with more than 1.9 million cumulative citations from 2008 to 2018.[2] In the mass media, PNAS has been described variously as "prestigious",[3][4] "sedate",[5] "renowned",[6] and "high impact".[7]
PNAS is a delayed open access journal, with an embargo period of 6 months that can be bypassed for an author fee (hybrid open access). Since September 2017, open access articles are published under a Creative Commons license. Since January 2019, PNAS is online-only, although print issues are available on-demand.

Editors
The following people have been editors-in-chief of the journal:

1914–1918: Arthur A. Noyes
1918–1940: Raymond Pearl
1940–1949: Robert A. Millikan
1950–1955: Linus Pauling
1955–1960: Wendell M. Stanley
1960–1968: Saunders Mac Lane
1968–1972: John T. Edsall
1972–1980: Robert Louis Sinsheimer[23]
1980–1984: Daniel E. Koshland, Jr.
1985–1988: Maxine Singer
1988–1991: Igor B. Dawid
1991–1995: Lawrence Bogorad
1995–2006: Nicholas R. Cozzarelli
2006–2011: Randy Schekman
2011–2017: Inder Verma[24]
2018–2019: Natasha Raikhel
2019–present: May Berenbaum
The first managing editor of the journal was mathematician Edwin Bidwell Wilson.

[nostalgiaquest]

Originally Posted by Tethler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Jesus christ, I'm so tired of these idiot threads and the idiots that keep posting them.

It. Does. Not. Matter. That. The. Virus. Is. Smaller. Than. The. Mask.

The virus doesn't fly through the air independently, you fucking mongoloid. It travels in small water droplets that are caught by the mask at a high rate. (Yes, it doesn't catch them all). I'm pretty sure I can get a local chiropractor to sign off of something if that helps, since you like to lean on arguments from people who aren't virologists.

Dipshits like you are the reason that the virus is still going strong.

In case you were wondering, i peppered in a good amount of Ad Hominem because: fuck you

BuT tHeNs hOwS cOmE Is CaN sMeLlS mY fArTs ThRoUgHs mY pAnTs!?

[HalflingSpergand]

I've noticed obese people wear masks

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

IIRC Raev made the error of equating weather with climate change in a thread a few years back and everyone made sure he never forgot it, myself included.

Probably you mean this. I'm not particularly proud of that little zinger at the end in hindsight, but I don't think the actual post is wrong. In any case, I hope we can confine our discussions to masks today!

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That one was shown to be more effective than the other implies that either would have been favorable over none at all.

This is clearly wrong: in some cases there is a minimum requirement for any action to be beneficial. For example, just because a cloth bag can hold a bowling ball but a plastic bag breaks does not mean that using the plastic bag is better than carrying the bowling ball with your bare hands.

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am still reading through the Denmark link

Cool; I hope you enjoy it! And I hope I am not being too greedy when I ask you to consider reading the link I posted earlier about the doctors in surgery. It's short. However, I thought I'd take a look at https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 and quite frankly . . . this is a classic example of politicized science. Let's take a look at some of the quotes:

Therefore, we should not be surprised to find that there is no RCT for the impact of masks on community transmission of any respiratory infection in a pandemic.

I have to confess this sentence made my blood boil. This, right here, is political science. 'Hey, all previous work on masks not working on viral transmission? That doesn't matter! We are in a pandemic. Why are we in a pandemic? We say so!' and then, 'Oh by the way, without an RCT we cannot rule out millions of potential causes that might bias our results. No problem! We're in a pandemic! It's SCIENCE because we say it is!' If there is one thing I hope we can agree on it is that this paper is written by twits.

It found that “in an adjusted analysis of compliant subjects, masks as a group had protective efficacy in excess of 80% against clinical influenza-like illness.” However, the authors noted that they “found compliance to be low, but compliance is affected by perception of risk. In a pandemic, we would expect compliance to improve.” In compliant users, masks were highly effective at reducing transmission.

Again, this is simply dishonest because they are attempting to make it seem that compliance causes protection, when most likely the causality runs in the OTHER direction: people stopped using the masks because they got sick!

That review concluded that “there was insufficient evidence to provide a recommendation on the use of facial barriers without other measures.”

Just throwing this out there; 1/3 of the review papers they quote disagrees with them. No effort is made to refute this opinion.

Overall, direct evidence of the efficacy of mask use is supportive, but inconclusive. Since there are no RCTs, only one observational trial, and unclear evidence from other respiratory illnesses, we will need to look at a wider body of evidence.

So even the authors admit that their cherry picked studies are not conclusive.

Consider, for instance, the impact of source control: Its effect occurs to other individuals in the population, not the individual who implements the intervention by wearing a mask.

This, by the way, is the main potential flaw in the Danish study. This past year has been the first time that government succeeded in convincing entire communities to wear masks.

We need to consider first principles—transmission properties of the disease, controlled biophysical characterizations—alongside observational data, partially informative RCTs (primarily with respect to PPE), natural experiments (26), and policy implementation considerations—a discursive synthesis of interdisciplinary lines of evidence which are disparate by necessity

Translation: we are about to crank the bullshit level up to 11, but hey, we're SCIENCE. I can only repeat that all of these after the fact observational studies are garbage. There are a million different reasons why COVID deaths can be lower in a particular nation. The biggest one, by the way, is simply fraud. Unless you seriously believe the Chinese numbers . . .

We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.

And boom, the money shot. Totally unwarranted by the actual body of the paper, but everyone involved is now sure to get their next $ million grant form NIH.

I hate writing these choppy usenix style point by point refutation posts. Anyway, I hope you can see why I claim that this is an opinion piece, not science.

[Toxigen]

Gee who would have guessed when the Feds opened the free money spigot we'd have fraudulent numbers?

If you believe "the numbers", wear a mask, and/or got the vaccine....you're beyond helping.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Tethler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It travels in small water droplets that are caught by the mask at a high rate. (Yes, it doesn't catch them all).

Isn't the whole danger of a viral infection that even one COVID virion can enter your cells and cause a chain reaction? If so, what is the benefit of a device that only catches some of the particles?

Originally Posted by Tethler

In case you were wondering, i peppered in a good amount of Ad Hominem because: fuck you

I stopped insulting people online when I realized it only made me even more angry (occasionally I relapse; old habits die hard). Now I just kind of watch sadly as we all doublethink ourselves into Mad Max.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Isn't the whole danger of a viral infection that even one COVID virion can enter your cells and cause a chain reaction? If so, what is the benefit of a device that only catches some of the particles?

Yes, but also no.

Viral load, how much of it you are exposed to, will affect the chance of becoming infected.

Think of it as a bunch of level 9 SKs casting disease cloud on a dragon. Unlikely that a single one will land the spell, but if you have enough of them spam casting you can close enough guarantee one cast would eventually get through.

[Fammaden]

So you're saying that masks are resist gear?