Coronavirus

[fastpakr]

Actually, a bunch of people have died from the supposed "vaccine".

A bunch, eh?

 

[adsm08]

I'm sorry but anyone who says masks, vaccinations, social distancing etc don't work are helping spread a problem of misinformation that is in fact dangerous.

So it's dangerous to cite the CDC's position of over 70 years that masks do nothing to prevent the transmission of respiratory diseases? It's dangerous to cite the numerous medical and statistical studies done over the last year that show masks actually don't make a difference to transmission rates? I thought we were pro-science here, or is it just pro-science that supports the views you like?

 

[Uncle Gump]

If you think that statement is one of a rational adult I'm baffled. You delete my silly posts about pickles, but allow these flat out dangerous posts to continue. There is no discussion here, no adult conversation anymore, these posts are dangerous and spreading lies, false information, and are harmful.

I didn't see anything he said that was violent towards anyone... he didn't call anyone names... and he certainly didn't make a threat.

Your post hit all those notes. So it got deleted.

Not my rules... forum rules.

 

[Zmans]

So it's dangerous to cite the CDC's position of over 70 years that masks do nothing to prevent the transmission of respiratory diseases? It's dangerous to cite the numerous medical and statistical studies done over the last year that show masks actually don't make a difference to transmission rates? I thought we were pro-science here, or is it just pro-science that supports the views you like?

Multi-layer cloth masks block release of exhaled respiratory particles into the environment, along with the microorganisms these particles carry. Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger) but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns ,which increase in number with the volume of speech and specific types of phonation. Multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured.Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments that have measured blocking of all respiratory droplets, with cloth masks in some studies performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control.
Research supports that mask wearing has no significant adverse health effects for wearers. Studies of healthy hospital workers, older adults, and adults with COPD reported no change in oxygen or carbon dioxide levels while wearing a cloth or surgical mask either during rest or physical activity. Among 12 healthy non-smoking adults, there was minimal impact on respiration when wearing a mask compared with not wearing a mask; however, the authors noted that while some respiratory discomfort may have been present, mask use was safe even during exercise. The safety of mask use during exercise has been confirmed in other studies of healthy adults. Additionally, no oxygen desaturation or respiratory distress was observed among children less than 2 years of age when masked during normal play. While some studies have found an increase in reports of dyspnea (difficulty breathing) when wearing face masks, no physiologic differences were identified between periods of rest or exercise while masked or non-masked.
Since we want to cite the CDC that’s directly from them. If you all want to read the hard facts you can find the information at the cdc.gov site with all the controls used in them. information you just read is factual data.

 

[8thTon]

Multi-layer cloth masks block release of exhaled respiratory particles into the environment, along with the microorganisms these particles carry. Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger) but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns ,which increase in number with the volume of speech and specific types of phonation. Multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured.Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments that have measured blocking of all respiratory droplets, with cloth masks in some studies performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control.
Research supports that mask wearing has no significant adverse health effects for wearers. Studies of healthy hospital workers, older adults, and adults with COPD reported no change in oxygen or carbon dioxide levels while wearing a cloth or surgical mask either during rest or physical activity. Among 12 healthy non-smoking adults, there was minimal impact on respiration when wearing a mask compared with not wearing a mask; however, the authors noted that while some respiratory discomfort may have been present, mask use was safe even during exercise. The safety of mask use during exercise has been confirmed in other studies of healthy adults. Additionally, no oxygen desaturation or respiratory distress was observed among children less than 2 years of age when masked during normal play. While some studies have found an increase in reports of dyspnea (difficulty breathing) when wearing face masks, no physiologic differences were identified between periods of rest or exercise while masked or non-masked.
Since we want to cite the CDC that’s directly from them. If you all want to read the hard facts you can find the information at the cdc.gov site with all the controls used in them. information you just read is factual data.

Here is a link to the document you quote: https://www.hill.af.mil/Portals/58/documents/Corona Virus/ClothMasks.pdf

It also contains the statement: "Data regarding the “real-world” effectiveness of community masking are limited to observational and epidemiological studies." This is because these kinds of masks were not designed for, nor are they capable of blocking particles of the size of viruses, or even small droplets with many thousands of viruses, and every attempt to tests the physical function of them shows they cannot work. Surgical masks were intended to keep spittle and flem from getting in the wound, and N95 and similar masks were intended to keep the wearer from breathing IN particles, where the interior of the mask is at reduced pressure which helps to seal them to your face. When exhaling the air just blows around them - try it with a cigarette. Some of them even have valves to prevent your exhalation from blowing into your glasses, etc.

So they avoided that issue by including that qualification, which essentially says "it looks like they worked anyway", but that hardly accounts for a multitude of other factors. It's not something that could ever pass peer review, and the document a blatant attempt at an appeal to authority - they're trying to look authoritative when the conclusion is not at all proven.

 

[Zmans]

Here is a link to the document you quote: https://www.hill.af.mil/Portals/58/documents/Corona Virus/ClothMasks.pdf

It also contains the statement: "Data regarding the “real-world” effectiveness of community masking are limited to observational and epidemiological studies." This is because these kinds of masks were not designed for, nor are they capable of blocking particles of the size of viruses, or even small droplets with many thousands of viruses, and every attempt to tests the physical function of them shows they cannot work. Surgical masks were intended to keep spittle and flem from getting in the wound, and N95 and similar masks were intended to keep the wearer from breathing IN particles, where the interior of the mask is at reduced pressure which helps to seal them to your face. When exhaling the air just blows around them - try it with a cigarette. Some of them even have valves to prevent your exhalation from blowing into your glasses, etc.

So they avoided that issue by including that qualification, which essentially says "it looks like they worked anyway", but that hardly accounts for a multitude of other factors. It's not something that could ever pass peer review, and the document a blatant attempt at an appeal to authority - they're trying to look authoritative when the conclusion is not at all proven.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

That’s the cdc link.
The “real world” efficacy I would presume reflects most of our interactions if not in a less concentrated environment . I’m having a hard time following how you didn’t correlate. What peer review is needed? This is from the CDC that is comprised of what body of qualified figures? I think a response to the CDC directly with your views could garner some attention with your qualifications. Waiting patiently for your response from them….

 

[Uncle Gump]

for me... it doesn't take science to tell me a face covering prevents expelling or inhaling particulates at least to some degree. They aren't a cure. We're back to the numbers game again.

I have a rough time with masks... so I bought a Mission neck gator... love it. It's easy and I look better with it on.

I wear it when they say I should... I even have a big bottle of hand sanitizer in my truck.

The best thing I do to help preventing the spread... and it's all about helping in many ways to lower the numbers in the game... is keep my distance from all you creepy icky people.

 

[ericbphoto]

This is because these kinds of masks were not designed for, nor are they capable of blocking particles of the size of viruses, or even small droplets with many thousands of viruses

The virus is often attached to droplets of water/spit. That's pretty big.

Here's some science. Try spitting through a mask and tell us the mask doesn't catch a major portion of it.

 

[Uncle Gump]

The virus is often attached to droplets of water/spit. That's pretty big.

Here's some science. Try spitting through a mask and tell us the mask doesn't catch a major portion of it.

Because.... SCIENCE!

you all are even ickier then I had guessed.

 

[Uncle Gump]

In fact... if anyone wants to discuss the effectiveness of masks... just message the other user and have at it. This thread isn't about masks.

At this point everyone has their opinions of masks... but some feel it needs further debate... it doesn't.

There is so much information to be found... go find it... form your opinion... live with your decision.

 

[Uncle Gump]

I wasn't kidding...

I can delete posts all day.

Mask discussions can be private discussions.

 

[8thTon]

I wasn't kidding...

I can delete posts all day.

Mask discussions can be private discussions.

The post you deleted was not really discussing masks, in accordance to your previous request. Rather it explained why they used the term “real-world” effectiveness rather than relying on the referenced studies, which is a general tool you'll find in all sorts of "sciencey" propaganda.

My suggestion would be to simply lock this thread, because someone objects to virtually any aspect related to the thread title.

 

[fastpakr]

The post you deleted was not really discussing masks, in accordance to your previous request. Rather it explained why they used the term “real-world” effectiveness rather than relying on the referenced studies, which is a general tool you'll find in all sorts of "sciencey" propaganda.

My suggestion would be to simply lock this thread, because someone objects to virtually any aspect related to the thread title.

The thread stays.
Conversations about masks are over.

 

[Uncle Gump]

@8thTon the mask issue has been beaten to death. Understand that you can discuss masks with whomever you choose privately... and the same goes for anyone else. Just please don't include me in those discussions.

After 14 months of covid restrictions... blah blah blah. Surely there are other import issues that deserve discussion.

How about the financial impacts of this...

How about trying to staff a 20 store pizza chain and most would rather collect government subsidized unemployment and make more money doing nothing then earning a wage.

What about just getting kids back in school so they stand a better chance at getting an education

What about states making new taxes on working from home

What about ...

 

[snoranger]

The post you deleted was not really discussing masks, in accordance to your previous request. Rather it explained why they used the term “real-world” effectiveness rather than relying on the referenced studies, which is a general tool you'll find in all sorts of "sciencey" propaganda.

My suggestion would be to simply lock this thread, because someone objects to virtually any aspect related to the thread title.

If you’d like to discuss a deleted post, it can be done in private.