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

a reply to: NorEaster

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.

It's not about convincing anyone else. It's about others not forcing us to do things that damage our health. It's about being denied access to societal norms and needed services over a disability. It's about freedom to make a decision for ourselves.

If you want to wear a mask, go for it. Wear 2... 3... wear 50 at once if that's what you want! Hell, get yourself a Hazmat suit and wear that! I don't care! The most I will do is look at you kinda funny, shake my head, and go on about my day. If someone gets in your face about it, I will probably defend you.

But, by all that is holy, do NOT start demanding that I do something to damage my health because you think it's the right thing to do based on a load of propaganda! I have a disability that makes it medically dangerous for my breathing to be restricted. Get in my face about wearing a mask, and you might as well be demanding I take cyanide. And don't go telling me I'm making this crap up unless you have a medical degree to show me, because my doctor accepts my disability based on my medical condition. He has a degree and he has run tests to verify. You have not.

Go, wear a mask... lock yourself in a plastic bubble... I'm not going to do one damn thing to stop you. But you, and every other mask Nazi out there, understand this: I will... I DO... demand the same for me.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If enough people where masks that are even partially effective that will have a positive effect in reducing cases.

But they are not even partially effective if the whole protocol isn't followed.

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

My point isn't about there being a better way. All I did was point out a reason why the conflicting data probably exists and that there is merit to both arguments because they are focusing on different aspects of the situation.

The majority of people seem to understand the basic concept of how to wear a mask. It doesn't need to be a hospital standard process to be effective.

Again...

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.

Again...

Not about protecting you.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The majority of people seem to understand the basic concept of how to wear a mask. It doesn't need to be a hospital standard process to be effective.

And yet there is data showing that in some places with mandated masks the rate of infection hasn't been statistically better.

That can only lead one to believe that in those places the majority of people didn't understand the basic concept. How else would you justify the data in those places?

While I don't think the data is 100% conclusive the majority of have seen strongly suggests there a positive impact on transmission rates from widespread mask usage.

There is a lot if variables that matter so just saying places with marsk mandates have higher/lowet rates doesn't really give a clear answer.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
There is a lot if variables that matter so just saying places with marsk mandates have higher/lowet rates doesn't really give a clear answer.

But, I never said that. I said that in places where mask mandates didn't seem to make a difference, it could be because proper mask use was not being carried out.

That means that both stances can be correct. Proper mask use can lower spread but also mask mandates does not insure proper mask use by the general population which is seen in places where the mandated masks did not have a positive effect. That is all I'm saying.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The simple fact is there is no clear convincing data. That is the actual issue.

I, for example, am convinced that continuous wearing of a face mask for extended periods may provide some protection from contracting the virus, but it also substantially increases the likelihood that infected mask wearers will experience more severe symptoms. An old report from the CDC (which I don't have time to look up right now; maybe someone else can assist?) stated that 85% of hospitalizations and/or deaths were from people who reported either wearing a face mask "all or "most" of the time.

Under that hypothesis, and considering the fact that around 50% of the cases are asymptomaitc, and considering that people typically tend to not go to a doctor over minor symptoms, it is completely reasonable to expect the case numbers to remain consistent even though transmission may be lessened but symptoms increased by face mask use.

But that then raises the question: what is the purpose of lessening the transmission rate? I maintain that the purpose is not simply to prevent transmission; the purpose would be to prevent death or even to prevent serious cases that require medical treatment. Germophobia aside, the concept of extreme measures to prevent a virus that does no appreciable harm could be considered obsessive and therefore a mental defect.

My point is that every attempt to prevent viral spread can be considered an experiment in itself. Different countries have undertaken different levels of both requested and mandated methods in order to avoid transmission. So far, I have seen no correlation between these methods used and the resulting viral spread. A correlation would be country X instituted x policies whereas country Y implemented different y policies, and either country X or country Y had results that were substantially better than the other. No such data has come to light; all data that claims to support face mask use, including but not limited to those you linked, is based on what was expected without the methods used. That conclusion may be intriguing and suggestive, but it is far, far from conclusive. Therefore, all the experiments have been a failure.

If you want someone to blame, blame the unscientific approaches led by politicians and leaders worldwide. They have almost all implemented quite similar policies, placing belief ahead of experimental results. That is inherently unscientific; continual repetition of methodology with the expectation of differing results is the literal definition of insanity. Now, approaching a year and a half after the virus appeared, we have no more understanding of the various dynamics involved with transmission/severity of this disease than we did at the beginning.

And you continue to want to do the same thing, expecting different results?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
There is a lot if variables that matter so just saying places with marsk mandates have higher/lowet rates doesn't really give a clear answer.

But, I never said that. I said that in places where mask mandates didn't seem to make a difference, it could be because proper mask use was not being carried out.

That means that both stances can be correct. Proper mask use can lower spread but also mask mandates does not insure proper mask use by the general population which is seen in places where the mandated masks did not have a positive effect. That is all I'm saying.

I didn't mean that you did, just that the data can misinterpreted just looking at overall case rates between individual areas.

The evidence suggests that widespread mask usage does reduce infections. They aren't a solution by themselves but along with other measures they can help.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If enough people where masks that are even partially effective that will have a positive effect in reducing cases.

But they are not even partially effective if the whole protocol isn't followed.

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

My point isn't about there being a better way. All I did was point out a reason why the conflicting data probably exists and that there is merit to both arguments because they are focusing on different aspects of the situation.

The majority of people seem to understand the basic concept of how to wear a mask. It doesn't need to be a hospital standard process to be effective.

Again...

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.

Again...

Not about protecting you.

And again.

How do improperly fitting masks, that don’t seal, that a majority of people wear providing negligible protection protect “society” if it’s ineffective protecting person to person.

For masks to “curb” the infection rate, they have to be effective person by person.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If enough people where masks that are even partially effective that will have a positive effect in reducing cases.

But they are not even partially effective if the whole protocol isn't followed.

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

My point isn't about there being a better way. All I did was point out a reason why the conflicting data probably exists and that there is merit to both arguments because they are focusing on different aspects of the situation.

The majority of people seem to understand the basic concept of how to wear a mask. It doesn't need to be a hospital standard process to be effective.

Again...

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.

Again...

Not about protecting you.

And again.

How do improperly fitting masks, that don’t seal, that a majority of people wear providing negligible protection protect “society” if it’s ineffective protecting person to person.

For masks to “curb” the infection rate, they have to be effective person by person.

They have to be effective at reducing the spread.
That is different from protecting individuals.

It's about how easy individuals carrying the virus can transmit to others. The person carrying the infection reduces the chance of transmitting if wearing a mask.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You

They have to be effective at reducing the spread.

Ok? What law states that? When a majority of masks are only 40 percent effective? By masks that don’t seal? With people who are mandated to wear masks usually having them relaxed in some fashion. Like pulled away from their nose? Or pulled down to talk on a cellphone in a store?

You

That is different from protecting individuals.

If masks are not effective at protecting person to person for whatever reason, there is no curbing infection rates.

You

It's about how easy individuals carrying the virus can transmit to others.

Ok. Just one more reason to wear a properly sealing mask. If it isn’t sealed, then junk being breathed out is not being filtered.

You

The person carrying the infection reduces the chance of transmitting if wearing a mask.

And if a mask is only 40 percent effective, then 60 percent of what is being breathed is escaping.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

You

They have to be effective at reducing the spread.

Ok? What law states that? When a majority of masks are only 40 percent effective? By masks that don’t seal? With people who are mandated to wear masks usually having them relaxed in some fashion. Like pulled away from their nose? Or pulled down to talk on a cellphone in a store?

You

That is different from protecting individuals.

If masks are not effective at protecting person to person for whatever reason, there is no curbing infection rates.

You

It's about how easy individuals carrying the virus can transmit to others.

Ok. Just one more reason to wear a properly sealing mask. If it isn’t sealed, then junk being breathed out is not being filtered.

You

The person carrying the infection reduces the chance of transmitting if wearing a mask.

And if a mask is only 40 percent effective, then 60 percent of what is being breathed is escaping.

Any reduction in the spread reduces the chance of infecting others. I have already provided links that support the effectiveness of wearing them at helping to reduce infections.

The more people who wear masks correctly more often the more effective it would be.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Does it?

Why are people not to use N-95 masks that have an exhalation valve? Not much different than a mask that doesn’t seal.

It’s back to this...

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.

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.

sentinelksmo.org...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
I didn't mean that you did, just that the data can misinterpreted just looking at overall case rates between individual areas.

And I'm saying it might not be a misinterpretation, in some places people might not be able using them properly.

The evidence suggests that widespread mask usage does reduce infections. They aren't a solution by themselves but along with other measures they can help.

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that there is a reason for the existence of data that contradicts that for certain places.

My point all along has been that the data you and neutronflux have posted could both be correct. They are not mutually exclusive because mask mandates does not equal proper mask usage.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If enough people where masks that are even partially effective that will have a positive effect in reducing cases.

But they are not even partially effective if the whole protocol isn't followed.

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

My point isn't about there being a better way. All I did was point out a reason why the conflicting data probably exists and that there is merit to both arguments because they are focusing on different aspects of the situation.

The majority of people seem to understand the basic concept of how to wear a mask. It doesn't need to be a hospital standard process to be effective.

Again...

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.

Again...

Not about protecting you.

Spoken like a good narcissist. Of course, you don't care about the person wearing the mask. They can go jump in a hole ... so long as they wear the mask and make *you* feel safer and better about things. It's all about what makes *you* feel better which is why you always say that wearing the mask isn't about protecting yourself but about protecting others.

You really mean that it's about getting those filthy maskless cretins to protect *you*.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If enough people where masks that are even partially effective that will have a positive effect in reducing cases.

But they are not even partially effective if the whole protocol isn't followed.

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

My point isn't about there being a better way. All I did was point out a reason why the conflicting data probably exists and that there is merit to both arguments because they are focusing on different aspects of the situation.

The majority of people seem to understand the basic concept of how to wear a mask. It doesn't need to be a hospital standard process to be effective.

Again...

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.

Again...

Not about protecting you.

Spoken like a good narcissist. Of course, you don't care about the person wearing the mask. They can go jump in a hole ... so long as they wear the mask and make *you* feel safer and better about things. It's all about what makes *you* feel better which is why you always say that wearing the mask isn't about protecting yourself but about protecting others.

You really mean that it's about getting those filthy maskless cretins to protect *you*.

It takes fairly spectacular mental gymnastics to say its the ones wearing masks to protect others are the narcissists.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If enough people where masks that are even partially effective that will have a positive effect in reducing cases.

But they are not even partially effective if the whole protocol isn't followed.

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

My point isn't about there being a better way. All I did was point out a reason why the conflicting data probably exists and that there is merit to both arguments because they are focusing on different aspects of the situation.

The majority of people seem to understand the basic concept of how to wear a mask. It doesn't need to be a hospital standard process to be effective.

Again...

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.

Again...

Not about protecting you.

Spoken like a good narcissist. Of course, you don't care about the person wearing the mask. They can go jump in a hole ... so long as they wear the mask and make *you* feel safer and better about things. It's all about what makes *you* feel better which is why you always say that wearing the mask isn't about protecting yourself but about protecting others.

You really mean that it's about getting those filthy maskless cretins to protect *you*.

It takes fairly spectacular mental gymnastics to say its the ones wearing masks to protect others are the narcissists.

Again. How is something designed to literally be “personal” protective equipment going to reliably protect someone other than your own person?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
I didn't mean that you did, just that the data can misinterpreted just looking at overall case rates between individual areas.

And I'm saying it might not be a misinterpretation, in some places people might not be able using them properly.

The evidence suggests that widespread mask usage does reduce infections. They aren't a solution by themselves but along with other measures they can help.

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that there is a reason for the existence of data that contradicts that for certain places.

My point all along has been that the data you and neutronflux have posted could both be correct. They are not mutually exclusive because mask mandates does not equal proper mask usage.

Some areas might well have, for whatever reason, more people using the masks correctly. That would have an impact on what areas benefit most from mask mandates.

However the point Neutron seem to be attempting to make uis that the mask mandates don't work . The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
I didn't mean that you did, just that the data can misinterpreted just looking at overall case rates between individual areas.

And I'm saying it might not be a misinterpretation, in some places people might not be able using them properly.

The evidence suggests that widespread mask usage does reduce infections. They aren't a solution by themselves but along with other measures they can help.

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that there is a reason for the existence of data that contradicts that for certain places.

My point all along has been that the data you and neutronflux have posted could both be correct. They are not mutually exclusive because mask mandates does not equal proper mask usage.

Some areas might well have, for whatever reason, more people using the masks correctly. That would have an impact on what areas benefit most from mask mandates.

However the point Neutron seem to be attempting to make uis that the mask mandates don't work . The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

Ok?

CDC: Mask Mandates Made No Statistical Difference
“Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period.”
By
Robert Montoya
March 13, 2021

texasscorecard.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If enough people where masks that are even partially effective that will have a positive effect in reducing cases.

But they are not even partially effective if the whole protocol isn't followed.

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

My point isn't about there being a better way. All I did was point out a reason why the conflicting data probably exists and that there is merit to both arguments because they are focusing on different aspects of the situation.

The majority of people seem to understand the basic concept of how to wear a mask. It doesn't need to be a hospital standard process to be effective.

Again...

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.

Again...

Not about protecting you.

Spoken like a good narcissist. Of course, you don't care about the person wearing the mask. They can go jump in a hole ... so long as they wear the mask and make *you* feel safer and better about things. It's all about what makes *you* feel better which is why you always say that wearing the mask isn't about protecting yourself but about protecting others.

You really mean that it's about getting those filthy maskless cretins to protect *you*.

It takes fairly spectacular mental gymnastics to say its the ones wearing masks to protect others are the narcissists.

Again. How is something designed to literally be “personal” protective equipment going to reliably protect someone other than your own person?

Wearing a mask reduces the amount of virus you expel by catching respiratory droplets and so reduces the likelhood of infecting others. It's not mainly about protecting the individual wearing the mask.

If you want to discuss then happy to do so if you keep repeating the same pointless questions I can only conclude you have no interest in an honest conversation.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
I didn't mean that you did, just that the data can misinterpreted just looking at overall case rates between individual areas.

And I'm saying it might not be a misinterpretation, in some places people might not be able using them properly.

The evidence suggests that widespread mask usage does reduce infections. They aren't a solution by themselves but along with other measures they can help.

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that there is a reason for the existence of data that contradicts that for certain places.

My point all along has been that the data you and neutronflux have posted could both be correct. They are not mutually exclusive because mask mandates does not equal proper mask usage.

Some areas might well have, for whatever reason, more people using the masks correctly. That would have an impact on what areas benefit most from mask mandates.

However the point Neutron seem to be attempting to make uis that the mask mandates don't work . The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

Do you actually read this thread?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ArMaP

Article I posted answered all you questions...

Now. Just for you


I do agree the N-95 masks are effective. So. Why wasn’t there a push by the government to ensure a supply of N-95’s if policy makers think masks worn by the general population makes a difference? I guess N-95 masks can have a filter efficiency up to 98 percent.

Food for though... in a lab...

In a laboratory atmosphere, with all tests performed on a single individual for consistency, Clapp et al2 found variable fitted filtration efficiencies against the test aerosol among the face masks that ranged from approximately 25% to 80%. Comparatively, a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health–approved N95 respirator had a filtration efficiency of approximately 98%. Notably, the filtration efficiency of some of the consumer-grade masks, such as a washed 2-layer nylon mask with ear loops and an aluminum nose bridge (79.0%), exceeded that of a medical-grade procedure mask with ear loops (38.5%), and a surgical mask with ties (71.5%).

jamanetwork.com...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If enough people where masks that are even partially effective that will have a positive effect in reducing cases.

But they are not even partially effective if the whole protocol isn't followed.

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

My point isn't about there being a better way. All I did was point out a reason why the conflicting data probably exists and that there is merit to both arguments because they are focusing on different aspects of the situation.

The majority of people seem to understand the basic concept of how to wear a mask. It doesn't need to be a hospital standard process to be effective.

Again...

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.

Again...

Not about protecting you.

Spoken like a good narcissist. Of course, you don't care about the person wearing the mask. They can go jump in a hole ... so long as they wear the mask and make *you* feel safer and better about things. It's all about what makes *you* feel better which is why you always say that wearing the mask isn't about protecting yourself but about protecting others.

You really mean that it's about getting those filthy maskless cretins to protect *you*.

It takes fairly spectacular mental gymnastics to say its the ones wearing masks to protect others are the narcissists.

Not really.

You have at least one person here who has a verifiable medical reason not to wear them, and people still get incensed because *they* might get ill ... nevermind what may happen to that person for wearing the mask.

To be perfectly plain, I don't care what you do with yourself. Wear one if it makes you feel better - don't wear it, and I still don't care, but don't expect me to when it's not required of me by outside legality. I personally prefer not hyperventilating all the time.