If you are wearing masks, to be clear; you are a stupid liberal piece of shit.

submitted by [deleted] from (self.whatever)

https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses

What did we find?

We identified 78 relevant studies. They took place in low-, middle-, and high-income countries worldwide: in hospitals, schools, homes, offices, childcare centres, and communities during non-epidemic influenza periods, the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016, and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified five ongoing, unpublished studies; two of them evaluate masks in COVID-19. Five trials were funded by government and pharmaceutical companies, and nine trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

“We look at all the studies”

We assessed the effects of:

· medical or surgical masks;

· N95/P2 respirators (close-fitting masks that filter the air breathed in, more commonly used by healthcare workers than the general public); and

hand hygiene (hand-washing and using hand sanitiser).

“We looked at all the masks”

We obtained the following results:

Medical or surgical masks

Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.

“Masks don’t do shit”

N95/P2 respirators

Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well-reported; discomfort was mentioned.

“Masks don’t do shit”

Hand hygiene

Following a hand hygiene programme may reduce the number of people who catch a respiratory or flu-like illness, or have confirmed flu, compared with people not following such a programme (19 studies; 71,210 people), although this effect was not confirmed as statistically significant reduction when ILI and laboratory-confirmed ILI were analysed separately. Few studies measured unwanted effects; skin irritation in people using hand sanitiser was mentioned.

“Hand washing may work”

all 46 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]SoCo 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Welp, only option is to get the jab, then right?.....pfsss.... the only options we have are mask and hand washing......or random injections. Since the injection has doomed me to only another year or two of life, I think anyone suggesting, like this, that random untested injections are the way to move forward are perpetuation mass murder.

Wash your hands and wear a mask and stop being a cry-baby bitch. The only alternative is random injections from psychopath ran for-profit corporations who have openly planned mass culling of the human herd for decades.

[–]zyxzevn🐈‍⬛ 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The depopulation injections were always the plan,
and they did everything to get it into as many people as possible.

[–]Site_rly_sux 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

This is a terminology gap. You're using the wrong words.

A mask is supposed to slow down the aerosolisation of particles from your mouth and nose. It blocks particles which are OUTBOUND.

A respirator is supposed to block airborne particles from coming INBOUND to enter your mouth and nose.

Here's a page from the CDC which helps explain the difference between a mask (outbound) and respirator (inbound).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/types-of-masks.html

The studies which you found show that masks are not great respirators.

That's fine. They're not supposed to be. Respirators are expensive and can't let anything bad through. Masks can be a cheap bit of cloth and still work to keep the air around you clean.

The purpose of masks is to keep the R0 number down and the science confirms the intuitive logic that they work

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11934-x

So when you say - "If you are wearing masks, to be clear; you are a stupid liberal piece of shit."

What you should say is - "you are either a stupid liberal, or someone who is under the weather and sensibly wants to move around in public without causing greater risks to everyone else"

And, when we are experiencing a pandemic which has many, many non-symptomatic case, any person who doesn't even feel under the weather might sensibly wear a mask to reduce risk. For example if you are near the elderly, infirm, children, immunocompromised, etc, then even if you don't feel sick but there's a pandemic on - it can still be risk-reducing and sensible to wear a mask.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

No, what I mean is that masks don’t do shit. These studies are bull shit. And you are being lied to, and or are the liar.

Wearing masks increases transmission.

Any kind of pseudo intelligent conversation you are pretending to have, is you being a disingenuous asshole.

[–]Site_rly_sux 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Okay sorry. I thought (incorrectly) that you believed in science and reality.

I see now that you can only engage with studies which validate the conclusions you already held .

You are into the kind of science, where you decide that masks don't work, and then set out to find proof of the conclusion.

I thought you engaged with the shared reality of discovery and logical positivism, but clearly your head is up your ass, and only studies which prove your pre-existing fake notions can exist in your world, so whatever, my mistake

[–]Megatron95 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Your mistake is thinking you have enough credibility to sway the opinions of the established users. Whether you're right or wrong, no one cares. Your smelly, gaslighting rhetoric can be picked up from miles away. It's funny how our so-called health ''experts'' were discouraging mask-wearing at the beginning and then did a complete 180 after a few months. Same for the ever-changing MSM narrative modelled to fit the agenda of the day. Thankfully, people are paying attention and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to assess that people's trust in corporate and state media is at an all time low. BTW, your less than objective stance reveals a propensity for confirmation bias as well.

[–]Site_rly_sux 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

sway the opinions of the established users

That's so funny and cringe. Do you have a neckbeard and a fedora, by any chance?

your less than objective stance reveals a propensity for confirmation bias as well.

Sure, go ahead and point out where you think I'm wrong, and I'll have a normal discussion about it with you, unlike douchebag OP.

how our so-called health ''experts'' were discouraging mask-wearing at the beginning and then did a complete 180 after a few months.

You're literally misremembering. Go and check because you're wrong about this. I understand that it's part of your extended fantasy universe but I'm not going to partake in make believe with you. That straight up didn't happen.

Here's the truth which you're lying about

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/science/face-mask-guidelines-timeline.html

[–]Megatron95 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Citing the New York Times? What a loser! Everyone knows you're a lying pro-establishment shill. I'm definitely not misremembering anything. Orwell's Ministry of Truth was a blueprint for the way current mainstream media outlets operate. I'm done here. You're a contemptible media parroting POS and a mindless consensus-creating drone. Now go wank your three inch erection and cry yourself to climax.

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol come back if you find a single thing wrong in their timeline.

It should be really easy. It should be really, really easy for you to find just a single thing wrong with it, given you're so confident

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Ratio'd

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Logically it makes no difference whether masks work by preventing outbound transmission from the asymptomatic infected, or preventing inbound reception by the uninfected. The Cochrane study doesn't distinguish between the two mechanisms. Either way if masks worked to reduce transmission there would be fewer cases -- but there aren't.

The problem is that there are dozens of studies on masks being ineffective or even harmful and yet we just threw all that actual science down the memory hole in a panicked, pointless effort to Do Something, pushed by people who knew damn well that masks didn't prevent or even slow transmission but would be a constant reminder of how We Are All Doomed If We Don't Do What We're Told.

CC u/FuckYourMom

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Logically it makes no difference whether masks work by preventing outbound transmission from the asymptomatic infected, or preventing inbound reception by the uninfected.

Of course it makes a difference. Because those are two different things - masks and respirators

Two different medical devices with two different purposes. I don't know why you said "logically it makes no difference" when there exists a huge difference in design and purpose

Either way if masks worked to reduce transmission there would be fewer cases -- but there aren't.

Smaller R0 number does mean fewer cases and nobody said that.

A smaller R0 number means slower cases, not fewer.

You're not as clever as you seem to think because you come off as an idiot on both points. I'm not even going to click the link - if you think there's something relevant to this argument then please summarise and source it properly

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

First, a technical comment: the R0 number only refers to the rate of disease replication in the absence of any attempt to stop it from replicating. R0 tells you how fast the virus will replicate in a population if the population does nothing to stop it. In other words, the R0 numbers tells you how fast the virus spreads.

As soon as people change their behaviour at all, by quarantining the ill, or getting vaccinated, or wearing masks, or praying to their gods (the attempts don't have to be effective, it is the attempt that matters) we're no longer talking about R0, but just the "R" number. The difference between the R0 number and the R number tells us how effective the change in behaviour was. If they are the same, then praying to god didn't work (you should try sacrificing virgins). If R is less than R0, congratulations, you slowed the spread of the virus. But if R goes up, then you've done something that makes the virus spread faster. Ouch.

Anyway, I know what you mean when you say R0. But it just hurts my brain to see you misusing the term.

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

only refers to the rate of disease replication in the absence of any attempt to stop it from replicating

Attempts to stop it. Attempts to stop it. Like wearing masks to reduce community reinfection from outbound particles. Which the ARTICLES WHICH YOU FOUND AND CITED back up.

You fucking idiot

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

Wow, do you have pronouns and a rainbow flag in your profile???

Let me try to explain in simple terms even a trans ally ("transwomen are women!!!1!") could understand:

  • Actual scientific studies before Covid show no evidence that masks or respirators stop transmission of respiratory diseases like the flu. Masks don't stop people getting sick, not the wearer, and not other people.
  • Actual scientific studies since Covid show no evidence that masks or respirators stop transmission of Covid either. Masks don't stop people getting sick, not the wearer, and not other people.
  • Even though there is no evidence that masks or respirators stop or reduce the spread of Covid, for the last three years many people in the media, including doctors and so-called medical experts, claimed that wearing a mask would stop transmission of Covid and prevent both the wearer of the mask and other people from getting sick.
    • They were wrong. Just because people claim that wearing masks would stop transmission doesn't make it true.
  • You denied that anyone ever said that wearing a mask would stop you from getting sick.
    • You were wrong too. I found many links of people doing what you denied anyone ever said.

Those who said that masks would stop people from getting sick were wrong, and you were wrong when you denied that they said it. They did say it, they were wrong when they said it, you were wrong when you denied they said it, and you are doubly wrong when you pretend that links showing people doing what you said they never did proves you right.

It makes no difference whether you are talking about cloth masks or disposable surgical masks or N95 masks or face shields or scarves wrapped around your head or double masking or triple masking or sticking your head in a paper bag. It makes no difference whether you talk about blocking outbound particles or inbound particles or both. There is no scientific evidence that masks protect anyone from getting sick, or reduce community infection. Just a bunch of media people and doctors and "experts" and their useful idiots making unsubstantiated claims.

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

Y u seething bro

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

Second:

Of course it makes a difference. Because those are two different things - masks and respirators

Dude, think about it. The aim is to prevent infection, right? It doesn't matter one bit if you stop infection by blocking the virus on the way out from an infected person, or blocking it on the way in to an uninfected person. Either way the virus is blocked.

You keep going on about respirators, but unless you are talking about those completely sealed environment suits with their own independent air supply, they're all just air filters. In other words masks. We can argue whether disposable surgical masks are more effective than reusable N95 masks, but as far as stopping infection, there is no good evidence that either works better than the other.

Smaller R0 number does mean fewer cases and nobody said that.

Ah jeez, of course it does! Slower spread results in fewer cases during any fixed period of time, like this week. If we report number of cases each week, and there are 100 cases this week, with R=2 the second week there will be 200 cases, the third week 400 cases, and so on. (Exponential growth.) But if R=1, then there will be 100 cases in the second week, 100 cases in the third week, and so on.

I'm not even going to click the link

Of course you're not. You might learn something. Can't be having with that.

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

Yes.

[–]Megatron95 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Masks can be a cheap bit of cloth and still work to keep the air around you clean.

Bullshit. Cloth masks cannot filter out aerosolized viruses that are between 50 and 200 microns thick. Just cough or sneeze inside your arm and wash your hands after contact with frequently touched surfaces.

[–]Site_rly_sux 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's about long term averages, and bringing down the R0 number. It's not about catching everything of a certain micron thickness or whatever. That's what a respirator does and I literally just explained the difference to your dumb ass.

You're correct that, following similar logic, it makes just as much sense going around with your hands over your mouth - but not quite as convenient as a bit of cloth with string hanging over your ears.

[–]Megatron95 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Of course. Just wear it if it makes you feel safe and enjoy your hypoxia.

[–]Site_rly_sux 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If you actually read what I said. It's not about making me feel safe. The point is that when I already have the flu or a cold or there's a asymptomatic pandemic happening - then wearing a mask reduces community reproduction and slows the infection, which in turn has a whole bunch of benefits

  1. It means public transport isn't a community death trap of superspreaders

  2. It means the health system isn't overwhelmed by a high R0 number

  3. It saves the lives of the elderly and infirm in your household or community

I don't think you could have read me explain this to you once already and really still not understand it. I think you're probably just trolling, so go away, troll

[–]Megatron95 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

None of what you're claiming has any factual basis.

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There is a factual basis to the difference between the two medical devices, a respirator and a mask. So you're lying about that.

There's a factual basis to the practice of wearing masks to protect others when you feel sick. A billion plus east asian people practice this all the time dude. You would have seen east asian people walking around with masks on before 2020 because it's a FACTUAL BASIS dipshit.

There's also a factual basis to the practice of wearing masks reducing the R0 number. I linked you to a paper showing various simulations about it because that's a FACTUAL FUCKING BASIS.

None of what you're claiming has any factual basis.

You are fully retarded. I told you three times the difference between a mask and respirator and you replied as if you hadn't read it. I provided multiple links and you replied that I had not given you any factual basis - you are fucking with me, so take your trolling elsewhere, moron

[–]Megatron95 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And I was referring to cloth masks, not N95 or other fine particle filtrating devices. I ain't trolling and I ain't going anywhere bitch so suck it.

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You are trolling because I've explained over and over that "N95 or other fine particle filtrating device" IS CALLED A FUCKING RESPIRATOR YOU MORON

Not a mask. A mask is not a respirator. I fucking told you that in the top level reply

[–]weavilsatemyface 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

A mask is supposed to slow down the aerosolisation of particles from your mouth and nose. It blocks particles which are OUTBOUND.

The gaslighting is strong in this one. Don't piss on our head and tell us its raining.

For three years it has been unrelenting messages that masks stop the wearer from getting sick as well as preventing transmission. And not just from the media, but from The Science™ as well:

Of course at the same time the ruling elite were telling the little people to wear masks, they weren't wearing them themselves when they thought nobody was watching, and sometimes even when they are.

As well as (allegedly) privately mocking those who did. And so they should have, because some of those rules were insane.

The purpose of masks is to keep the R0 number down and the science confirms the intuitive logic that they work

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11934-x

Dear lord, did you even read that paper? It's a mathematical model that assumes that masks reduce transmission and then calculates the effect on the R number, it doesn't confirm shit. Quoting the paper:

"Masks were modeled to reduce transmission via two different mechanisms: source control efficacy, whereby mask wearing by an infectious person reduces their likelihood of transmitting SARS-CoV-2; and wearer protection efficacy, whereby masks protect a susceptible person from becoming infected when exposed to an infectious person. ... A range of values of hypothetical wearer protection efficacy was assumed for each kind of mask." (Emphasis added.)

Garbage in, garbage out.

"If we assume that choking the chicken reduces transmission of Covid, then if everyone waxed the weasel five times a day, Covid's reproduction number R would be reduced by 75 percent."

I fuckin' love science.

CC u/FuckYourMom

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

O shut, turns out that study is ass. Haha.

Thank you.

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If you were correct then why wouldn't you tell the truth? Why lie if your case is so strong?

Here's what your first link says. It 100% aligns with what I've been telling you.

Although the evidence for the use of medical face masks in the community to prevent COVID-19 is limited, face masks should be considered as a non-pharmaceutical intervention in combination with other measures as part of efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yup, part of efforts to control the R0 number of pandemic. And it admits the data isn't great yet. Why did you misrepresent this? You didn't need to lie.

Here's your second link, the Irish times, which talks about the layered defense against covid.

Take masks as one example of a layer. Any mask will reduce the risk that you will unknowingly infect those around you,

OUTBOUND fucking outbound you moron.

Your third link to medium has "TOO" in the title. It opens with

Weh ave heard the same message over and over again. Wear masks to protect others. In case one is a carrier, the mask prevents too much spreading of virus particles into the air.

Fucking OUTBOUND particles you lying dipshit

Your fourth link to health dot com

Who Should Wear a Mask? To slow the spread of COVID-19, the CDC recommended early on in the pandemic that almost all healthy kids and adults wear a mask

Slow the spread = R0 number, exactly what I've been telling you. Why did you lie to everyone that this was counter to what I've been telling you?

Your fifth link to patient dot info

Face masks can help curb the spread of COVID-19 because the virus that causes the disease is primarily transmitted in the air. This means that people with the virus - especially those who may be asymptomatic and unaware that they have it - spread it through respiratory droplets that are exhaled when they cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets are then inhaled by somebody else.

OUTBOUND particles for fuck sake

I don't even know why you cited the ac.uk link because just the text you copied over makes my case for me.

"Researchers say that there is enough evidence to support vulnerable people deciding to use [masks] for short periods when in temporary higher risk situations"

Okay great, tell op that, not me. Cc u/fuckyourmom because weevils found a link he thinks you should read. Apparently the research DOES show that vulnerable people can wear masks which is contrary to your OP.

And then the paper I cited is a simulation. If you spent just 30 seconds thinking about how to perform an experiment which requires air quality measurement of an entire national population, you'll probably realise that a simulation is the way to go.

It's a mathematical model that assumes that masks reduce transmission

It doesn't assume it and it's not "garbage". The six links which you provided all back up the assumption. How can you say the study is bad for assuming a fact which you've found six links to validate? If the assumption is wrong then you were an idiot to select those six links. If the assumption is right then you're an idiot to suddenly pretend it isn't

Either way, you're a moron. Let's look at what you're actually arguing here.

Can you try, just try, and formulate a theory, on how it might be that masks DO NOT reduce outbound aerosolisation of viral particles. Like, what's your actual theory on how masks catch 0% of exhaled particles? How can that even be? It doesn't make sense to me an in this diatribe you didn't explain it, which is why I don't think you're arguing from a place of knowledge, you're just being a contrary moron for the sake of it. Idiot

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

When I fart, I still smell it in a mask.

You are an idiot.

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

That's because you talk out your ass.

Which part of what I wrote seems idiotic to you

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

I’m not wasting my time arguing with an idiot.

Masks are stupid. The response to COVID was planne destruction.

They are continuing with the plan.

Go fuck your self.

I’m not getting bogged down in a conversation with a KoolAid drinker. Go have some KoolAid, you stupid piece of shit.

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

Wow, in the time it took you to say that, it ought to have been really simple to instead just point at one thing which you think I got wrong.

It should have been really easy to, instead of writing your childish little note here, just say "you're wrong about XYZ".

It should have been really easy, so why are you finding it so difficult?

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

Build back better!

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

My gawd. This is why we are doomed.

You: "Nobody every said that masks protect the wearer!!! It never happened!!!"

Me: "Here are a bunch of links that prove that people did say that masks protect the wearer."

You: "See, that's exactly what I said! Masks protect the wearer! Why are you lying???"

🙄

Can you try, just try, and formulate a theory, on how it might be that masks DO NOT reduce outbound aerosolisation of viral particles. Like, what's your actual theory on how masks catch 0% of exhaled particles?

Nobody said that masks "catch 0% of exhaled particles". They say they are ineffective at preventing infection. They are not the same thing.

When scientists test the effectiveness of masks in the lab, they put the mask over a sensor and glue down the edges to give it a tight fit, then they test if for maybe five, or twenty, minutes. When you do that, sure, you find that the masks are really effective. For five minutes, on a machine, with the edges glued down.

When people wear masks they unaccountably don't glue the fucking things to their face, can you imagine that? There are many things which they can do "wrong" that make the mask less effective, because people in real life aren't machines.

  • The mask might not fit really tight, and when you inhale or exhale, you get some air flowing in around the sides, where it is unfiltered.
  • You might fiddle with the mask to keep it in place, transferring viruses from the mask to your hands, or visa versa, and from your hands or mask to your nose or mouth or eyes.
  • You might take it off to eat or drink, because people need to eat and drink.
  • You might wear the mask for hours at a time. Because the masks use an electrostatic layer inside to capture virus particles, if you wear the mask too long, the static charge dissipates and the viruses (which are much, much smaller than the holes in the mask) can freely pass through.
  • Human breath contains water vapour. (Well duh.) That water vapour can get absorbed by the mask fibres, allowing the virus particles to be transported by capillary action.
  • People reuse masks even though they're told not to. So now you're breathing in air containing the viruses the mask captured an hour ago, or yesterday.

What we care about is not how well masks work in a perfect world where people are machines who wear the masks perfectly for five minutes a day and are completely isolated the other 23 hours and 55 minutes. We care about how masks work in the real world, where people are not going to use them perfectly. Do we still get a benefit in the real world? No.

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

My gawd. This is why we are doomed.

Weevil are you really going to allow yourself to totally reimagine reality, when it's written on this page before you??

I get "treating yourself" and self-soothing behaviors are nice but, the reality is written right there. So why lie?

I told you the difference between how masks work (OUTBOUND) and respirators (INBOUND).

(Do you remember that part of our conversation. Has your recollection of reality diverged from mine yet?)

Because you quoted me in your reply and told me I was gaslighting you about how masks work. And then you found a bunch of links which agreed 100% with what I was telling you.

(What about at this stage of the narrative - are you experiencing a different reality to what I just laid out? Would it help to scroll up the page and re-read?)

Me: "Here are a bunch of links that prove that people did say that masks protect the wearer."

You: "See, that's exactly what I said! Masks protect the wearer! Why are you lying???"

Remember how I looked at your links and found they were in total alignment with the inbound/outbound distinction.

(Do you remember that part, or are you treating yourself to a different reality about this bit of our convo?)

We care about how masks work in the real world, where people are not going to use them perfectly. Do we still get a benefit in the real world? No.

You just described how a mask is not a respirator.

I swear to god there is no getting through to you.

You don't just remember the written history of this discussion differently to how it happened - you actually REFUSE to acknowledge the difference I have explained eight times now. I don't know what to say to you. I think you need to get in a car crash or get hit over the head with something so that your brain realigns to the normal shape. You cannot read and you cannot formulate history in the same was as normal people. So maybe we're at an impasse

Edit and you totally forgot to explain how, in your theory, masks catch exactly 0% of virus particles. You just said they aren't glued down and they aren't respirators

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

you found a bunch of links which agreed 100% with what I was telling you.

What you said was that nobody ever said that masks will stop the wearer from catching Covid. You were wrong: many people said that masks stop transmission and prevent infection, and I showed you links where they said it.

They were wrong when they said masks stop transmission, you were wrong when you denied that they said it, and you're now doubly wrong to pretend that those links showing people doing what you said they never did proves you were right all along.

You: "See all these links from people saying wearing disposable surgical masks will protect you from catching Covid? They prove that nobody ever said that wearing masks will protect you from catching Covid!"

you totally forgot to explain how, in your theory, masks catch exactly 0% of virus particles

Jesus H Christ on a fucking crutch. Pronouns, rainbow flags and the Ukraine flag. You probably think Jan 6 was an insurrection, Epstein killed himself, and the balloon the US shot down was aliens from Uranus.

You: "If masks catch even 0.1% of virus particles, that means that they will stop community transmission from the other 99.9% of particles!"

[–]Canbot 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

I think you triggered the propagandists. 🤣

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I agree.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I’m just saying you are a stupid liberal piece of shit.

    Blow me.

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

    I think that's a very bad take. You saw what happened during the peak of covid hysteria - the us vs. them mentality, being treated like a pariah if you refused to mask, not being able to go into any businesses. It's a slippery slope and the continued mask wearers are promoting tyranny.

    [–]MularkeyMan 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    If you don't wear masks, you make it easier for the Surveillance State to identify you. And masks don't do anything when you have a plague spreader coughing and sneezing on everything. It doesn't stop you from getting it, it stops you from spreading it. Just to be clear I don't give a shit if you aren't sick and don't want to wear a mask nor do I believe in forced vaccines, but if you are sick then fuck you for giving your sickness to everyone else.

    [–]Megatron95 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    No malarkey!!!

    [–]zyxzevn🐈‍⬛ 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    The covid-measures were all fake science.
    Actual scientists all knew it from the start.

    The things that really work were not even implemented.
    But the disease was so weak, that it never needed any measures to begin with.
    The Hydroxochloroquine and Ivermectin could have saved the few people that were victim,
    but instead they were murdered with Ventilators and bad medicine.

    I think anyone promoting masks, social distancing, vaccines is a promoter of fake science.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Yep.

    [–]soyboy77 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    No argument there...