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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

You could have actually quoted and cited the material, but you want to play this game. You have time to post? But can’t take the ten seconds to copy and paste the answer to my question as a quote? From a source you already read?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

You could have actually quoted and cited the material, but you want to play this game. You have time to post? But can’t take the ten seconds to copy and paste the answer to my question as a quote? From a source you already read?

Here is a direct link to one of the studies.

www.cdc.gov...

Again entirely up to you if you read it or not.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

You could have actually quoted and cited the material, but you want to play this game. You have time to post? But can’t take the ten seconds to copy and paste the answer to my question as a quote? From a source you already read?

Here is a direct link to one of the studies.

www.cdc.gov...

Again entirely up to you if you read it or not.

So you cannot answer my questions. Got it.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

You could have actually quoted and cited the material, but you want to play this game. You have time to post? But can’t take the ten seconds to copy and paste the answer to my question as a quote? From a source you already read?

Here is a direct link to one of the studies.

www.cdc.gov...

Again entirely up to you if you read it or not.

So you cannot answer my questions. Got it.

Had been answered repeatedly Your unwillingness to read or inability to understand doesn't change that.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

You could have actually quoted and cited the material, but you want to play this game. You have time to post? But can’t take the ten seconds to copy and paste the answer to my question as a quote? From a source you already read?

Here is a direct link to one of the studies.

www.cdc.gov...

Again entirely up to you if you read it or not.

So you cannot answer my questions. Got it.

Had been answered repeatedly Your unwillingness to read or inability to understand doesn't change that.

I am asking you to cite actual facts. Not here’s a link, and imply it some how answers my question with no effect by you. Then hide behind that. While you put in the effort to repeatedly post? Strange.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

You could have actually quoted and cited the material, but you want to play this game. You have time to post? But can’t take the ten seconds to copy and paste the answer to my question as a quote? From a source you already read?

Here is a direct link to one of the studies.

www.cdc.gov...

Again entirely up to you if you read it or not.

So you cannot answer my questions. Got it.

Had been answered repeatedly Your unwillingness to read or inability to understand doesn't change that.

I am asking you to cite actual facts. Not here’s a link, and imply it some how answers my question with no effect by you. Then hide behind that. While you put in the effort to repeatedly post? Strange.

Facts like actual study on the impact of mask mandates?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Is that you Fauci. Create some scenario with implied innuendo? And not have to get into a debate of actual facts. Facts get so messy...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

Is that you Fauci. Create some scenario with implied innuendo? And not have to get into a debate of actual facts. Facts get so messy...

Again I am not sure you know what innuendo means.

I have provided actual studies on the effectiveness of masks . Your question has been answered.

If you want to discuss the facts about you think the evidence I gave provided is wrong then happy to discuss. You might even convince me if you can provide better evidence yourself rather than just make weird analogies about condoms.

However I see little point in continuing if you are going to continue to post obvious lies.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You

However I see little point in continuing if you are going to continue to make obvious lies.

Sigh.

Quote my post where I lied.

Can you quote where you made the effort to post actual cited facts to answer my questions.

The only thing you have done is implied a link answers my questions in some unspecified way.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

You

However I see little point in continuing if you are going to continue to make obvious lies.

Sigh.

Quote my post where I lied.

Can you quote where you made the effort to post actual cited facts to answer my questions.

The only thing you have done is implied a link answers my questions in some unspecified way.

Every sngle post claiming I hadn't answered your question.

If you aren't willing to accept links to studies showing effectiveness of masks what would you consider an answer?

The Maskers could be dealing with some KNOWN psychological issues as seen in this thread

a reply to: ScepticScot

You

Every sngle post claiming I hadn't answered your question.

Where did you post actual facts to answer my questions?

Any how..

Mask mandates had no impact on COVID case growth
(KDHE data)


sentinelksmo.org...

Last October, the Sentinel found similar results comparing counties with and without mask mandates. Between July 6 and October 5, the counties with mask mandates added 1,757 cases per 100,000 of population; that was 18% more than the 1,492 cases added in counties without mandates.

To be clear, this analysis is not about the efficacy of wearing masks; rather, it shows that mask mandates had no real impact on COVID case growth.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

You

Every sngle post claiming I hadn't answered your question.

Where did you post actual facts to answer my questions?

Any how..

Mask mandates had no impact on COVID case growth
(KDHE data)


sentinelksmo.org...

Last October, the Sentinel found similar results comparing counties with and without mask mandates. Between July 6 and October 5, the counties with mask mandates added 1,757 cases per 100,000 of population; that was 18% more than the 1,492 cases added in counties without mandates.

To be clear, this analysis is not about the efficacy of wearing masks; rather, it shows that mask mandates had no real impact on COVID case growth.

I provided links to studies that show effectiveness of wearing masks. As I said if you want to discuss these studies let me know.

Personally I find that more convincing than an opinion piece in news letter for a right wing think tank.

a reply to: ScepticScot
To be fair, both can be correct.

Proper mask use can help reduce transmission of covid and mask mandates don't insure proper mask use so, here we are.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ScepticScot
To be fair, both can be correct.

Proper mask use can help reduce transmission of covid and mask mandates don't insure proper mask use so, here we are.

If there better way to get widespread usage of masks than a mandate then I would be all in favour.

I haven't yet seen anything that suggests there is.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

You

Every sngle post claiming I hadn't answered your question.

Where did you post actual facts to answer my questions?

Any how..

Mask mandates had no impact on COVID case growth
(KDHE data)


sentinelksmo.org...

Last October, the Sentinel found similar results comparing counties with and without mask mandates. Between July 6 and October 5, the counties with mask mandates added 1,757 cases per 100,000 of population; that was 18% more than the 1,492 cases added in counties without mandates.

To be clear, this analysis is not about the efficacy of wearing masks; rather, it shows that mask mandates had no real impact on COVID case growth.

I provided links to studies that show effectiveness of wearing masks. As I said if you want to discuss these studies let me know.

Personally I find that more convincing than an opinion piece in news letter for a right wing think tank.

Shrugs.

Vs a government populated by Faucis that cannot come clean of being involved with a Chinese lab conducting gain of function testing?

Here’s the data. Knock yourself out...

of March 22, KDHE data shows the counties without a mandate added 5,441 cases per 100,000 of population since November 23. The counties that had a mandate in effect since July added 5,439 cases; that difference of just two cases over 17 weeks in 43 counties is virtually unnoticeable.

Seven of the 38 counties that adopted Kelly’s November mandate dropped them in late December and January according to the Kansas Association of Counties. Those counties added 5,425 cases per 100,000 of population through March 22. The 31 counties that still have the mandate in effect added 5,341 cases per 100,000 of population.

Those 31 counties had just a 100-case difference over 17 weeks; that’s about six fewer cases per week or only .019 cases per week for each of those 31 counties.

Again, that’s a distinction without a difference.

The chart below tracks the cumulative change over time. Ironically, the counties that adopted a mask mandate in November but later rescinded them (the green line) had the greatest COVID case increase through mid-February. The red line represents the counties that had mask mandates in effect since July.

Counties that adopted mandates in November and still have them in effect as of March 22 are represented by the blue line. Case growth in those 31 counties mirrored the growth in counties without a mandate (the yellow line) until early February; case growth was a little slower for about a month but then grew faster than the no-mandate counties over the last two weeks.

sentinelksmo.org...

a reply to: ScepticScot
True, but when you have people wiping their upper lip/nose of sweat and then going about their business in public places, then they may as well not have a mask on. This is what gives the type of data in the article posted by neutronflux.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ScepticScot
True, but when you have people wiping their upper lip/nose of sweat and then going about their business in public places, then they may as well not have a mask on. This is what gives the type of data in the article posted by neutronflux.

I posted a link to an actual study on the data from Kansas that shows a positive effect from the mask mandates.

It's obviously an individual choice what interpreting of the data anyone choises to believe. Personally I consider a research paper that describes methodology more convincing than an opinion piece in a news letter.

a reply to: ScepticScot
And I pointed out that proper use of masks, while effective, isn't guaranteed simply by enacting a mask mandate and that is why there is contradicting data.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ScepticScot
And I pointed out that proper use of masks, while effective, isn't guaranteed simply by enacting a mask mandate and that is why there is contradicting data.

It isn't but the issue isn't individual usage.

If enough people wear masks that are even partially effective that will have a positive effect in reducing cases.

As I said if there is a better way to get that than mandates I would be all for it.