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 →

[–]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!"