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 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.