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

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Site_rly_sux 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 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.