Face Diapers Don't Do Anything

[starkind]

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

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

that was a good film or w/e i think i remember seeing something like this and it was actually a pretty fun watch

[BlackBellamy]

That boy needs a better t-shirt:


[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[-TK-]

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

Dude, you missed the point but...

No, I did not miss the point. The poster I responded to literally said 'You made it political, even though no government money is spent on it' after referencing the vaccine. I responded to show an easily 'researched' instance of where taxpayer dollars were spent on something he said they were not. Don't try to move the goalpost because your buddy made an ignorant claim. You're obviously more informed than he is, but he's got to ride his own rap of ignorance. The vaccine was the easiest one to discredit so I picked it for the sake of timeliness.

As far as those making it political; the article states, 'The Department of Health and Human Services and Moderna both told Axios the two parties agree to what is in news releases when it comes to federal government funding and other support provided to advance the vaccine.' This shows that the government has influence over the information released about the vaccine because they tossed in the money. This, in turn, opens up something that would otherwise be more dictated by scientific norms to government influence. It also goes on to say.. 'To say that the vaccine is fully funded by the federal government discounts a small but very real private donation to Vanderbilt University Medical Center.' This leads the reader to believe that while, yes, the money was to develop and buy, the majority financial stakeholder in the effort to create the vaccine is the US government. Money begets influence, no? So it's reasonable to be wary of political slant behind news and press releases around the vaccine. It's not like we can't find previous examples of governments using financial influence for partisan or illicit gains through private corporations or universities. The scale of the money spent would definitely result in additional government oversight of the project considering the possible ramifications of the results, and I know that from experience because the larger the government project I get, the more bureaucrats I have to deal with to get it done and get paid.

I'm not arguing for or against the vaccine, and the dollar amount that went into research vs. buying doses doesn't really matter. I'm acknowledging the US taxpayer's stake in the development, and that there is some justification for healthy skepticism of what we're told about it.

[Raev]

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

My contention is that, if there are unknowns still than the best course of action is to take certain precautions and implement preventative measures, just in case.

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

Apologies if this has already been addressed ... To be generous, I'll call his conclusions "a big stretch."

That is why I find the OP's paper so interesting. He is saying that mask usage likely has substantial long-term negative consequences including immune weakness due to chronically low blood oxygen. Do either of you have any opinion on this part of the paper? Because if the author is correct, the efficacy of masks versus covid virions is simply irrelevant.

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

I already provided a link earlier which demonstrated the effectiveness of mask use long before the topic became so contentious, though I have not had the opportunity to doublecheck all of the evidence associated with it.

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.

Originally Posted by Byue

Also, masks are apolitical. Science says they help.

Science states that masks do not work with a reasonable level of confidence. 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/:

Although the filtration efficiencies for various fabrics when a single layer was used ranged from 5 to 80% and 5 to 95% for particle sizes of <300 nm and >300 nm, respectively ...... Overall, we find that combinations of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of aerosol particles.

The conclusion is obviously completely unwarranted by the actual results.

[Raev]

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

I'm not arguing for or against the vaccine, and the dollar amount that went into research vs. buying doses doesn't really matter. I'm acknowledging the US taxpayer's stake in the development, and that there is some justification for healthy skepticism of what we're told about it.

Great post. Modern scientism has gotten as bad as Medieval Catholicism. Real science works by well designed experiments and good statistics, not using repeatedly stating word SCIENCE, wearing lab coats, or even the process of peer review.

[Horza]

I appreciate your attempt to sound intelligent but anyone who thinks wearing a mask causes low blood oxygen and chronic immune weakness is a gullible idiot.

[FatherSioux]

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

I appreciate your attempt to sound intelligent but anyone who thinks wearing a mask causes low blood oxygen and chronic immune weakness is a gullible idiot.

AKA: I refuse to believe anything counter to what I originally thought. Actually a mentality that is quite prevalent in the “science” community.

[Horza]

You can't argue masks are too porous to reduce the spread of Covid but also oxygen-depriving death traps and expect people to take you seriously.

[HalflingSpergand]

We want it so bad were going to prove it with science!
Science is broken, it didn't even exist

[Raev]

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

You can't argue masks are too porous to reduce the spread of Covid but also oxygen-depriving death traps and expect people to take you seriously.

Why is this inconsistent at all? Masks reduce the quantity of air you can move around your face but, because they are porous relative to aerosol droplets, barely change the quality.

Fortunately, SCIENCE is here to answer these questions. Surgeons wearing masks over 4 hours saw their blood oxygenation drop from 97% to 96% and their pulse rates rise 5 bpm. Obviously no one is going to drop dead just because they put a mask on, but it's entirely reasonable to think this will cause chronic stress.