Anti-mask wearers are smarter than mask wearers, concludes MIT study.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

Most people only had access to the cheapest possible mask. Is that false. I work in industry, and couldn’t even buy N-95 masks for about 6 months for my plant.

Now

medical-grade procedure mask with ear loops (38.5%),

Would you go into a biological hotspot, like a pandemic, with only a mask over 60 percent ineffective?

The mask mandates were just used as an illusion to facilitate the government was doing something.

I think it's considerably better than 0% and when used on addition to other measures, such as social distancing and increased cleaning, reduces substantially the level of transmission.

Really? It’s still ineffective at protecting anyway you look at it.

Like I posted in this thread. From respiratory training, if you respiratory doesn’t seal against your face, it not going to protect you. And cheap procedure grade masks do not seal. Period.

If you freighted by Covid-19, stay home. That is about the only sure protection. Total absence from social contact. If your PPE (Person protect equipment, not social protective equipment) protects you, wear your mask. And stop worrying what other people do.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ArMaP

I have. Quite a few actually.

With mask, face shield and gloves? Crazy Americans...

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

Most people only had access to the cheapest possible mask. Is that false. I work in industry, and couldn’t even buy N-95 masks for about 6 months for my plant.

Now

medical-grade procedure mask with ear loops (38.5%),

Would you go into a biological hotspot, like a pandemic, with only a mask over 60 percent ineffective?

The mask mandates were just used as an illusion to facilitate the government was doing something.

I think it's considerably better than 0% and when used on addition to other measures, such as social distancing and increased cleaning, reduces substantially the level of transmission.

Really? It’s still ineffective at protecting anyway you look at it.

Like I posted in this thread. From respiratory training, if you respiratory doesn’t seal against your face, it not going to protect you. And cheap procedure grade masks do not seal. Period.

If you freighted by Covid-19, stay home. That is about the only sure protection. Total absence from social contact. If your PPE (Person protect equipment, not social protective equipment) protects you, wear your mask. And stop worrying what other people do.

The primary purpose of mask wearing is to reduce transmission, Not personal protection.

Given how often this has been explained I am not sure why you would pretend not to know that?

a reply to: ScepticScot

They can "explain" to their heart's content. "Explaining" by endless repetition of falsehoods is really no explanation at all.

Maybe NF knows that?

a reply to: IndieA

Your title, which may be the headline i am not sure, is not at all accurate to what the article says.

I really dislike these studies. Partially because studying humans only results in humans being manipulated. But also because it always gets spun into some BS headline that is used as a political hammer.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

Most people only had access to the cheapest possible mask. Is that false. I work in industry, and couldn’t even buy N-95 masks for about 6 months for my plant.

Now

medical-grade procedure mask with ear loops (38.5%),

Would you go into a biological hotspot, like a pandemic, with only a mask over 60 percent ineffective?

The mask mandates were just used as an illusion to facilitate the government was doing something.

I think it's considerably better than 0% and when used on addition to other measures, such as social distancing and increased cleaning, reduces substantially the level of transmission.

Really? It’s still ineffective at protecting anyway you look at it.

Like I posted in this thread. From respiratory training, if you respiratory doesn’t seal against your face, it not going to protect you. And cheap procedure grade masks do not seal. Period.

If you freighted by Covid-19, stay home. That is about the only sure protection. Total absence from social contact. If your PPE (Person protect equipment, not social protective equipment) protects you, wear your mask. And stop worrying what other people do.

The primary purpose of mask wearing is to reduce transmission, Not personal protection.

Given how often this has been explained I am not sure why you would pretend not to know that?

Then why would I ware a mask? Would you, or your partner use a condom effective at stopping only 39% of sperm ejaculated.

Why would I bother wearing a mask that stops only 39 percent of whatever I breathe. Your still breathing in 60 percent of what’s floating around. That is not protection.

And then what is the purpose of a mask? That restricts breathing?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Then cite a mask mandate that can show outside error of analysis had an impact on infection rates. A notable change of slope on a graph.

a reply to: IndieA

um . . . this paper is just making the point that the anti-mask folks are using the same rhetoric and angling the same data points as the pro-mask folks, but making the data support their argument. It isn't making the claim that you're making; that anti-maskers are smarter than maskers.

You just don't understand what this examination is focusing on.

In fact, what's being suggested here is that the anti-mask effort isn't based on ignorance of the science, but on a deliberate misrepresentation of the science. Basically, it's pointing out how fundamentally . . . well . . . evil [for lack of a term that is less loaded, while being - at the same time - as accurate a description] the anti-mask effort is and has been.

What these folks are saying is:

"Don't assume that these people trying so hard to convince you to not protect yourself and your loved ones from this virus are ignorant of the threat, because they know exactly what the threat is."

To my own understanding of this, it seems a lot more damning than the assumption that the hyper-aggressive anti-mask effort is based on simple, and much less malevolent, ignorance of the science behind viral infection avoidance.

What I can't wrap my head around is why would anyone work so hard to convince anyone else to purposely allow a virus that's already killed well over a half million Americans into their own life and into the lives of their loved ones. Where's the value for the person making the case against protecting against this virus? I could see if - let's say - a person was working for a larger entity seeking to promote havoc and societal instability within a specific population [like how Russia traditionally works to knock the US off its stable center], but why anyone who cares about the welfare of their own society would work so hard to upend that society is a disturbing mystery.

It's like what this paper suggests; the anti-mask effort isn't being waged by people that are ignorant of the inherent threat that the CVID virus poses to people who become infected. And, it's obvious that it's not that this anti-mask effort is being waged by people that don't care. They care - a lot. Trouble is that what matters so much to them is that they convince as many people as they can that it's okay - perhaps even preferable - that they and their loved ones be available for whatever impact this virus might have for them.

That's pretty disturbing if you really think about it.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

Most people only had access to the cheapest possible mask. Is that false. I work in industry, and couldn’t even buy N-95 masks for about 6 months for my plant.

Now

medical-grade procedure mask with ear loops (38.5%),

Would you go into a biological hotspot, like a pandemic, with only a mask over 60 percent ineffective?

The mask mandates were just used as an illusion to facilitate the government was doing something.

I think it's considerably better than 0% and when used on addition to other measures, such as social distancing and increased cleaning, reduces substantially the level of transmission.

Really? It’s still ineffective at protecting anyway you look at it.

Like I posted in this thread. From respiratory training, if you respiratory doesn’t seal against your face, it not going to protect you. And cheap procedure grade masks do not seal. Period.

If you freighted by Covid-19, stay home. That is about the only sure protection. Total absence from social contact. If your PPE (Person protect equipment, not social protective equipment) protects you, wear your mask. And stop worrying what other people do.

The primary purpose of mask wearing is to reduce transmission, Not personal protection.

Given how often this has been explained I am not sure why you would pretend not to know that?

Then why would I ware a mask? Would you, or your partner use a condom effective at stopping only 39% of sperm ejaculated.

Why would I bother wearing a mask that stops only 39 percent of whatever I breathe. Your still breathing in 60 percent of what’s floating around. That is not protection.

And then what is the purpose of a mask? That restricts breathing?

To reduce transmission as already explained. It reduces what you spread around.

a reply to: NorEaster

I think there is a divide in basic understanding between masker and antimasker.

I am not a fan of the mask. Not due to science or anything else. I understand the basic science, i get it. My argument is based on personal freedom and individual responsibility. If i enter an area with people waving knives around wildly while slam dancing to punk rock, i likely will not remain in that area. They are free to act like fools...i will remove myself from their presence.

That same can be said of masks. If you enter an area where someone is not wearing a mask and you feel uncomfortable about it, then leave that area. That is your choice, and it does not require anyone else to change what they are doing. That is kinda how the nation was founded. And i guess its still that argument that America has had regarding libertarianism.

That said, i wore a mask. Its social lubrication. But i think folks are trying to insert motives, etc, that are not entirely accurate.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You

To reduce transmission as already explained. It reduces what you spread around.

Sorry to be crass. Say a condom had the same “efficiency” as one of those cheap “ medical-grade procedure mask” of 40 percent. Blocked 40 percent of sperm. Allowed 60 percent of sperm to pass. Do you think there would be an appreciable drop in pregnancies outside error of analysis?

Just because a mask is 40 percent “efficient” at blocking foreign mater doesn’t mean there is a 40 percent reduction in infections. The two rates are related, but not directly proportional to each other. They are separate rates.

I am saying the cheap “medical-grade procedure masks” most people had access to were not efficient enough to cause a measurable difference in infection rates in the real world. Can you prove otherwise.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

You

To reduce transmission as already explained. It reduces what you spread around.

Sorry to be crass. Say a condom had the same “efficiency” as one of those cheap “ medical-grade procedure mask” of 40 percent. Blocked 40 percent of sperm. Allowed 60 percent of sperm to pass. Do you think there would be an appreciable drop in pregnancies outside error of analysis?

Just because a mask is 40 percent “efficient” at blocking foreign mater doesn’t mean there is a 40 percent reduction in infections. The two rates are related, but not directly proportional to each other. They are separate rates.

I am saying the cheap “medical-grade procedure masks” most people had access to were not efficient enough to cause a measurable difference in infection rates in the real world. Can you prove otherwise.

Summary including references here.

jamanetwork.com...

a reply to: ScepticScot

CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION

I am saying the cheap “medical-grade procedure masks” most people had access to were not efficient enough to cause a measurable difference in infection rates in the real world. Can you prove otherwise.

I am guessing not. If your playing the innuendo game.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION

I am saying the cheap “medical-grade procedure masks” most people had access to were not efficient enough to cause a measurable difference in infection rates in the real world. Can you prove otherwise.

I am guessing not. If your playing the innuendo game.

LINK ALREADY PROVIDED

Up to if you read it or not.

originally posted by: Salander

The covid infection has a very high survival rate.

Your response sounds like language from a pharmaceutical advertising brochure.

So you are over 60 and/or have preexisting conditions, do you take the vaccine or roll the dice? So what I have seen is either a person gets pretty much nothing or they are in the hospital for weeks. It seems laying on your belly helps a lot, keeps one off a ventilator which has been like 90%+ death. A friend of mine in his 50s and pretty healthy was in the hospital for 3 weeks on his belly. He told me a couple of times he didn't think he would make it. Now if taking the vaccine moved him from that scenario to one where he had few symptoms for a few days wouldn't the vaccine be worth it?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION

I am saying the cheap “medical-grade procedure masks” most people had access to were not efficient enough to cause a measurable difference in infection rates in the real world. Can you prove otherwise.

I am guessing not. If your playing the innuendo game.

LINK ALREADY PROVIDED

Up to if you read it or not.

Then you cannot actually answer my question. Got it.

Nor the original question.

Then cite a mask mandate that can show outside error of analysis had an impact on infection rates. A notable change of slope on a graph.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION

I am saying the cheap “medical-grade procedure masks” most people had access to were not efficient enough to cause a measurable difference in infection rates in the real world. Can you prove otherwise.

I am guessing not. If your playing the innuendo game.

LINK ALREADY PROVIDED

Up to if you read it or not.

Then you cannot actually answer my question. Got it.

Nor the original question.

Then cite a mask mandate that can show outside error of analysis had an impact on infection rates. A notable change of slope on a graph.

That is in the link provided. You choosing not read it isn't the same as me not providing it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION

I am saying the cheap “medical-grade procedure masks” most people had access to were not efficient enough to cause a measurable difference in infection rates in the real world. Can you prove otherwise.

I am guessing not. If your playing the innuendo game.

LINK ALREADY PROVIDED

Up to if you read it or not.

Then you cannot actually answer my question. Got it.

Nor the original question.

Then cite a mask mandate that can show outside error of analysis had an impact on infection rates. A notable change of slope on a graph.

That is in the link provided. You choosing not read it isn't the same as me not providing it.

Shrugs. I guess by playing the innuendo you can save face? Or do you have actual facts that relate to my actual question.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Or the question is answered, but it is not very clear and not to your satisfaction in the linked to source.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION

I am saying the cheap “medical-grade procedure masks” most people had access to were not efficient enough to cause a measurable difference in infection rates in the real world. Can you prove otherwise.

I am guessing not. If your playing the innuendo game.

LINK ALREADY PROVIDED

Up to if you read it or not.

Then you cannot actually answer my question. Got it.

Nor the original question.

Then cite a mask mandate that can show outside error of analysis had an impact on infection rates. A notable change of slope on a graph.

That is in the link provided. You choosing not read it isn't the same as me not providing it.

Shrugs. I guess by playing the innuendo you can save face? Or do you have actual facts that relate to my actual question.

Not sure how I can make this any easier for you to understand.

The link I provided refences 3 studies about mask mandates. The question you asked.

I am also not sure you understand what innuendo means.