all 6 comments

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

I preferred the quote: "Wearing a mask after 3 months into the epidemic, is like wearing a condom at the baby-shower"

But then it assumes that masks actually reduce the spread, which based on evidence, it doesn't.
Do Mask Mandates Work? New Analysis Suggests They Don't.

The reported explanation is that masks makes the particles smaller. And these smaller particles spread more easily.
My explanation: People are also touching their faces more often with masks, so spreading via surfaces becomes a factor. This virus can survive for 16 days on surfaces under certain circumstances.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

LOL.

The difference being the condom would actually have worked with correct timing and application.

The bad science of masks is like doing it doggy style and not expecting to have puppies.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Indeed. Instead of a condom it is a sock.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The sock (u\socks) is funnier, but not effective any time.

My point was condoms at least can work.

Masks simply don't work (unless they're clean and M95) for virus protection.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

So sock it is.

M95 may still not work due to making the particles smaller.
This makes them stay longer in the air and easier to breath deep into the lungs.

A good virus filter is so restricting that it is hard to breath through.
I would go for ultra-violet light instead (like the sun).

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