New CDC Mask Study Finds "No Significant Reduction In Transmission" When Wearing A Mask

submitted by Tom_Bombadil from (youtu.be)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]rdh2121 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

There is no peer reviewed evidence that the masks reduce transmission. They should prove it works before forcing people to use them.

Peer reviewed research takes months to years. As someone who works in a field revolving around peer-reviewed research, trust me, I know. I'm still waiting on a paper of mine from 2 years ago to be published.

In short, there's no time to wait 2 years for peer reviewed research during a global epidemic, and masks are, yet again, a completely reasonable precaution in the absence of better data.

before they test for transmission with various masks they would first need to: A) Prove this is a new virus

Lol, absolutely not. Whether it's a new virus or not has literally zero effect on whether or not a mask would be useful.

Citizens should follow the recommendations of the CDC, including any of their recommendations for social distancing and mask wearing. Should masks be required by law? Probably not. Does going outside without a mask make you a giant asshole? Absolutely!

This face mask psyop is a hoax on a hoax on a hoax.

Conspiracy theories should go in /s/conspiracy.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Peer reviewed research takes months to years. As someone who works in a field revolving around peer-reviewed research, trust me, I know. I'm still waiting on a paper of mine from 2 years ago to be published.

Supposedly, the corona virus was identified in the 50's. It's extremely small, so i'm not sure how they found it. Either way, that's the claim. 70 years is plenty of time to investigate the effectiveness of masks, and the verdict is in.

Medical grade masks are effective for bacteria; particularly tuberculosis, which can be airborne. Beyond that they're essentially useless.
If they were effective then doctors would have used them for decades during routine exams of the flu, etc. But they don't, because they are useless, and can actually do harm by accumulating bacteria and restricting oxygen flow, etc.

Conspiracy Evidence theories should go in /s/conspiracycoronavirus.

The actual evidence is everywhere if you know where to look. The media censors facts/evidence and labels it "conspiracy", because it is an effective mind-control trigger-word, which is used to shut down peoples critical thinking.

[–]rdh2121 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

restricting oxygen flow

You do realize that O2 is a molecule composed of two atoms, right? And that two oxygen atoms are, again, orders of magnitude smaller than a virus.

So which is it, O purveyor of conspiracy theories? Do masks allow viruses to get through, yet block much smaller oxygen molecules from getting through, or is literally everything you say regurgitated fearmongering from The Corbett Report?

People of /s/Coronavirus, we're better than this. Trust doctors, trust the CDC, follow their recommendations, and ignore conspiracy theorists like /u/Tom_Bombadil that do nothing but sow discord and misinformation to worsen our current global pandemic.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Relax simp. No need to speculate.

OSHA has done the scientific work for us. They're even have standardized oxygen testing equipment.

The masks fail OSHA O2 standards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPJ3nhCDVns

This is a layup.

[–]rdh2121 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Layup my ass. It's quite telling that your only only source is a conspiracy youtube channel citing one rando and ZERO instances of the peer-reviewed research you supposedly hold so dear.

People of /s/Coronavirus, once again, be skeptical of the bullshit they're filling this sub with, especially when they try to hold you to standards of proof they don't hold themselves to.

We're better than this, /u/Tom_Bombadil. Be better.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Layup my ass. It's quite telling that your only only source is a conspiracy youtube channel citing one rando and ZERO instances of the peer-reviewed research you supposedly hold so dear.

You provide zero counter evidence. The premise of you're argument is ad hominem "conspiracy".

Turn off CNN and examine the evidence.

Layup.

[–]rdh2121 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You provide zero counter evidence.

I don't have to. You made an assertion with zero evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

I also don't know that I've ever watched CNN, actually.

Slam dunk.