you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (30 children)

That's the whole point.

You can be spreading the virus before you are showing symptoms.

The mask is to keep YOU from making OTHERS sick, not to protect YOU.

THEIR mask is to protect YOU.

How hard is this? If everyone wore a mask, we'd have been done with this a long time ago.

[–]Velocity 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (29 children)

If everyone wore a mask, we'd have been done with this a long time ago.

Prove your opinion, Karen.

"Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask." He continued, "When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is." -Fauci

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (28 children)

OK let's take a look at what happened and why.

The upper echelon was caught with its pants down and did not have adequate emergency supplies on hand for a pandemic.

They were extremely concerned about people going out and buying every mask available, hoarding them, and then medical personnel and other essential front line workers would not have enough.

So they deliberately told people a little white lie, a misstatement: "Masks don't help, don't go buy them."

Dr. Fauci later rescinded this statement and explained why they did it, and apologized. He also stated the exact opposite: "Masks work to protect others, and we should all be wearing them."

BTW, what they predicted came to pass exactly: everyone went out and bought up all the supplies, and the hospitals ran short.

So either you are not keeping up with current events, or you are deliberately presenting misinformation as fact.

Now, let's look at what your quote from Dr. Fauci says about the effectiveness of masks. No mask is 100% effective. It's not supposed to be. The R0 rate of infection spread needs to be reduced to below 1. That's all. Then the disease will die out. No one has ever said that masks are 100% effective. They just need to knock it down. Epedemiologists have known this for over 100 years. We have literally over a century of empirical evidence that masks work.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Would you support the forceful removal and/or jailing of all anti-maskers from your country?

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

They should be first given a chance to wear a mask or stay home. The ADA says that you must make "reasonable accommodation" for people with physical disabilities. That does not give them a right to come into your store and spread a potentially fatal disease. "Reasonable accommodation" in this instance could mean curbside delivery or pickup. Contactless transactions are very useful in this case. If they don't want to wear a mask, fine. Don't come in the store, we will bring your groceries to your car in the parking lot. (I used to do OSHA and ADA compliance at my job.)

Then the steps. If people will not comply with the above, they should receive a punishment that would be proportional to the offense. Since this is a public health hazard, the level would vary somewhere between a small fine such as a jaywalking ticket to a felony drunk driving charge. And yes, eventually some people are going to have to go to jail, since they represent a public health threat and they refuse to alter their behavior.

Other countries NAILED this. New Zealand, South Korea, many others. The USA flubbed it so bad it almost looks like they tried.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

I will not argue with a sheep. There are doctors in those countries who give different, logical, reasons for why their numbers are the way they are. You parrot the same shit the news parrots. Do you like the kool-aid? Is it cum-flavored? You are following totalitarians into hell.

I like how you only focused on my comments on the masks, and not the super-sensitive tests they use to justify the numbers and lockdowns. In the end, you won't be convinced because your God of the Established GovCorp decrees that you are on the moral high-ground. My grandfather died because of these lies. We didn't get to see him in time because of these lies. He died alone, surrounded by masked-strangers, because of these lies. More people have been hurt by the lockdowns than they realize, and that's because you only hear from their paid "experts" on the TV. Science is full of debate. That is how we know what the opposing experts think. You don't hear the other side, so you think there is some sort of consensus on this issue.

Drink the kool-aid. It isn't cum, I promise.

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Your grandfather died of coronavirus? And you are still anti-mask?

Let's talk about not only the flu pandemic of 1918, but also the entire century that has happened since. We have literally decades and decades of empirical evidence that masks work. Why do doctors and nurses wear masks when going into surgery if they don't work? Why do mine workers and asbestos removal crews and construction workers wear masks if they don't work? Can you IMAGINE the millions of malpractice lawsuits and OSHA claims if they didn't? I can. I used to do OSHA compliance.

This is just like the anti-mask crowd in mid 2020. "Masks build up CO2." "Masks block your oxygen supply." (But somehow they don't block the virus... which one is bigger, the virus, or an O2 molecule?) I literally had an argument about "Mask Mouth" with an idiot on Voat that went on for like a week. They just made shit up without any evidence. So the doctors showed that you can wear one, two, three, maybe 10 masks, and hook yourself up to a pulse oximeter. They did this on camera and their blood oxygen saturation didn't go down at all. One doctor did it and ran a marathon with a mask on! I actually own one and I offered to loan it to some of these people to prove that their oxygen level does go down. What do you know, no one took me up on it. Because they don't want to go against empirical evidence that you can reproduce yourself, at home. It would break their worldview and the delusion they have invested in.

If you are gonna make stuff up, have evidence that backs it up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you believe that masks don't work, you are going against a century of empirical evidence, laboratory research, science and engineering, and real world experience. The burden of proof is on you to prove it wrong with your own empirical evidence. You can't just wave your arms and yell "Fake news!".

BTW regarding your views of what happened in other countries. They had strict lockdowns, good medical procedures, mandatory masks, and contact tracing. The US hasn't done any of that shit.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

I didn't say anything about masks cutting down on oxygen supply. Nice strawman. Masks don't work unless you do exactly what doctors do when they wear them in the hospital. People don't do that, they don't even wear gloves! Not even in the countries you are so dickhard about.

The burden of proof is on those who are imposing their will upon others. I do not harm anybody when I leave my home without a mask, just like those who don't wear gloves but do wear a mask aren't harming anybody. You live in la-la-land.

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Incorrect. I already have the proof on my side. You are claiming that it is incorrect, even though there is a century of empirical evidence that it is not. YOU have the burden of proof to prove otherwise. That's the way science works.

Edit: I put in the oxygen / CO2 / Mask Mouth argument to let you know this isn't my first rodeo. I've spent months on Voat arguing with people who seem to be hell bent on their own destruction. I seem to be doing the same here. So unless you produce evidence that I am wrong - empirical, repeatable evidence, then GTFO.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

DUDE, people do not use the masks how doctors use them. Why is that so hard for you to fucking understand? When doctors go in for surgery, they wash their hands, put on fresh gloves and a fresh mask, do their business, then DISPOSE of the gloves and mask and wash their hands again.

Are you really trying to argue that every Kiwi and S. Korean is doing this as well? Fuck you. I never once said masks are harming people. I said the lockdowns are. They harmed me and my family. Fuck you.

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

How about the fraction of people who should avoid getting the flu stay home instead.

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I totally agree! I have had enough of people who refuse to wear masks because of a so-called medical exemption. Citing things like COPD and other lung issues. All of those people should definitely stay home. They are not well enough to be in public during the pandemic.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You've got a pretty good troll going.

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Okay Snopes bot. Spare us the run of the mill apologist script for why he said that. You fell for it and now you're parroting this flimsy excuse.

They studied masks for several decades and came to the conclusion that non 95 masks don't work. Then all-of-a-sudden, 50 years of mask studies are turned on its head in 1 month, with a couple of words and a rushed unreviewed study.

This tiresome topic has been proven to be circumspect to suspicion to the point of ad nauseum. I can't believe you are being so daft as to fall for this obvious manipulation of public consensus. Please by all means, dig up the dozens of pre existing med pub abstracts that clearly outline that non 95 masks are worthless. Then ask yourself how they all came up with the "wrong" conclusion.

Or just keep believing carefully crafted lies that have been shoved into your brain. Literally a litmus test for how gullible people are.

Do it. Research pre Covid mask studies and ask yourself how is it possible they conveniently changed the narrative. Fauci knows non 95 masks are ineffective after being exposed to decades of mask studies. That's why he said they don't work, not because of their clearly imaginative and deceptive excuses to explain away his previous statement.

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The burden of proof is on you. I have a century worth of empirical, repeatable evidence on my side of the argument. If you think otherwise, you have to prove that you are right. That's the way that science works. So it is not my job to do your homework. I will expend 8 hours of research post a clearly worded statement, and you will respond with "Fake news!".

Also, to counter your narrative: No mask is 100% effective. See my statement above yours and read it twice. All we have to do is knock the R0 spread rate to <1.0. We don't have to be perfect. That's how epedemiology works.

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

If you even believe the bullshit you're spouting, all you have is the beliefs they programmed into you.

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I enjoy making quick work of squishy masktards. We're noticing an emerging pattern of an uptick in un-reviewed studies in 2020 that are suddenly promoting the false narrative that non N-95 masks provide anything more than a statistically insignificant and negligible benefit. More information has been suggesting that constant mask use leads to health problems greater than your juvenile fear of a flu-like virus. Yeah, yeah you're protecting others. *pats you gently on the head....why didn't you already do that EVERY FKING FLU SEASON, Mother Theresa? Guess what? Those others you are "martyring" yourself over need to be quarantined at home if they are susceptible to infection. NOT THE 99.7% WHO ARE NOT. Would you like a hammer for that cross you're nailing yourself to?

Also big LOL at you for being so scared, and guzzling propaganda like a cult devotee gladly chugging cyanide Kool-Aid handed to you by Jim Jones himself.

You have got to do better than this! The sanctimonious virtue signaling doesn't look good on you. You're not going to make it with your mind being so impressionable and weak. Strengthen yourself physically, mentally and emotionally. It's ok to let go of what you previously thought you held and clenched onto dearly as being true. Real truth, my friend, at times can be an elusive thing. Turn over every stone in the stream of life relentlessly.

Review of the Medical Literature.....aka Why Fauci said masks DO NOT work:

Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in Healthcare work was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either Healthcare work or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

“A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

THE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, after many studies, have come to this conclusion: Wearing masks will not reduce SARS-CoV-2.

https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/

Coronavirus can enter through the eyes.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/health-news/11593666/coronavirus-enter-through-eyes-scientists-warn/

"We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility." https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Cities with mask mandates are also the ones with the highest death counts.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/07/new-york-times-attempt-promote-face-masks-backfires-shows-widespread-china-coronavirus-cases-wherever-masks-worn/

Ritter et al in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1157412/

Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.” https://europepmc.org/article/med/7379387

Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ccd.1810170306

In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736

continued.............

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

............

A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.” https://app.cyberimpact.com/click-tracking?ct=ddlxOXTWWl90EryEqcEKoaL2h-gzSc6NGMnZYisIeb1prfLYB2BA0WFJB1WtM2OHdYEwquDuQxpj6iPyIA-mu_9ONer7__h5aFc1_BuYu0w~ PDF!

Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.” https://europepmc.org/article/med/11760479

Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn. http://www.advancesinpd.com/adv01/21Figueiredo.htm

Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.” https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Does-evidence-based-medicine-support-the-of-in-in-Bahli/751acd427c20c8dc7d1fbc1b45eead104286f481?p2df

Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden. https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/113/6/1447/9572/Is-Routine-Use-of-a-Face-Mask-Necessary-in-the

Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.05200.x

Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub2/full

Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.” https://europepmc.org/article/med/25294675

Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.” https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Abstract/2014/09030/Surgical_Attire_and_the_Operating_Room__Role_in.11.aspx

Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” https://app.cyberimpact.com/click-tracking?ct=8XxKbw1a2tlsGS7OVvC-myVx50CQeX6oobkGLYONaABvQQiClT0d3LXoNrvXbfQhxo4nwt3Q8Et_YSEkxFx275oiqB-rFYJbNJL6Yiv8To4~ PDF!

n Epidemics 2017, a meta-analysis concluded that masks had a non-significant protective effect. In the Annuals of Internal Medicine, April 2020, “neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by affected people.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436516300858

According to a University of New South Wales, the widespread use of masks by healthcare workers may put them at increased risk of respiratory illness and viral infections, and their global use should be discouraged.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-04-masksdangerous-health.html

In the British Medical Journal 2015, “Over three times, the risk of contracting influenza-like illness if a cloth mask is used versus no mask at all.” Contaminated masks and masks holding moisture and pathogen retention can increase the risk of infection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

A 2016 study in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology found 97% of particles penetrated cloth masks, and 44% of particles penetrated medical masks. They reported that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles less than 2.5 micrometers.

https://www.nature.com/articles/jes201642

As referenced in the New England Journal of Medicine, the size of Coronavirus particles varied between 0.06 micrometers and 0.14 micrometers.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

Cloth and surgical masks do not have a fit test. When worn, gaps around the edges allow small particles to enter the respiratory system. Also, according to the May 2010 edition of PLoS One, lack of eye protection was a primary risk factor of SARS-CoV transmission.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32310553/

Wearing a mask for seven hours straight may not be safe. Carbon dioxide (CO2) rebreathing has been recognized as a concern in the Ergonomics Journal.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23514282/

In the Head and Neck Pain Journal, most healthcare workers develop de novo PPE‐associated headaches or exacerbation of their pre‐existing headache disorders.

https://headachejournal.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/head.13811

The Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control Journal demonstrated, “Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers. The benefits of using an N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage.

https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13756-015-0086-z

Masks also hamper oxygen intake; the body and the immune system require optimal levels of oxygen to feed cells and fight off illness, including Covid19. When studied, surgeons who wore surgical masks had a decrease in blood O2 saturation and an increase in pulse rates of the surgeons after the operations due to surgical mask usage.

http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf

According to the Journal of Biomedicines, our oxygen concentration is closely associated with cell survival and immune functioning, making one more susceptible to illness.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027519/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/

Continued................

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

....................

Cloth Mask Study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

Other Mask Studies

https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1

https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

https://nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

https://cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

https://jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736

https://journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf

https://cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

https://nap.edu/catalog/25776/rapid-expert-consultation-on-the-effectiveness-of-fabric-masks-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-april-8-2020

https://nap.edu/read/25776/chapter/1#6

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6599448/

https://acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

There is zero scientific evidence that wearing a mask, especially for more extended periods, protects us. However, several studies found significant problems with wearing one. Side-effects range from headaches to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, hypoxia, to more severe complications.

A mask is a petri dish for airborne pathogens. If you are not changing masks at maximum every 90 minutes you are creating a nice warm moist habitat for germs an inch from your face. Moreover, without proper glove use, eye protection, and an actual seal around nose and mouth the mask is entirely superficial and ineffective in preventing the spread of pathogens. Not to mention the evidence indicating overexposure to exhaust gasses and concentrations of Co2 with some masks that can be damaging to the immune system.

https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29140516/

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

http://stateofthenation.co/?p=13832

Oh....and about the ubiquitous moisture droplets that makes Covidiots say..."but, but, but I 'm protecting you from me". More research is pointing out that these viruses are primarily infectious via dry Bio-Aerosols! Yep, and much smaller than your pathetic mask, so you're pretty much spreading it ALL THE TIME.

Teller's 2009 article "Aerosol transmission of influenza A virus: a review of new studies" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843947/). Teller addresses this directly in the closing discussion.

Increasing evidences point towards a role for aerosol transmission in the spread of influenza (and other similar viruses), at least over short distance where exposure to both aerosol and large droplets occurs. [...] This distinction of ‘short-range aerosol transmission’ is not merely academic; aerosolized particles would readily penetrate or circumvent ordinary surgical masks, and penetration of aerosolized influenza viruses into the LRT where they can initiate infection would account well for the association of aerosol transmission and severe disease.

.....As an additional consideration, it may well be that aerosol transmission is responsible for the most severe cases of disease involving viral infection of the LRT.

Et cetera, Et Cetera, Et Cetera........................

This could go on and on. Please own your thoughts, don't let people put THEIR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS into your head (propaganda)....and then strut around like you own them yourself. You don't own a thought until you have "Proved" it to whatever degree it is mostly true or false.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you. I was going to send him a link to those two ex-OSHA ladies who talk about the dangers of wearing a mask for too long.

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So they deliberately told people a little white lie, a misstatement:

Imagine trusting the people who you admit lied to you to save their own ass.

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

Imagine that he was told to do so by the Trump administration officials who were caught with their pants down.

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Imagine imagining within an imagine.

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

So just think about it for a minute. We had a couple of medium-small pandemics during the Obama years. FEMA stockpiles were depleted. As always, that was at the bottom of the list and they have been shortchanged in the budget department over and over. (Blame on Obama, Congress, Trump, whatever.) Trump takes office and continues the same path, along with dismantling the Pandemic Response Team and throwing out the pandemic plan that was started by W and revised by Obama. In the meantime, we're still low on supplies. Then we got hit with a real bad one, low on supplies and no plan. So they downplayed it until it got so bad no one could ignore it. Fin.

This really happened. Facts are facts. Those aren't my opinions. Look it up - this is verifiable.