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

a reply to: Chadwickus

Complete derp.
There's this thing called the epidermis (your skin if you didn't know) that keeps all the yucky germs away of your sensitive body parts. So when that barrier is broken (like during surgery), of course steps should be taken to prevent these yucky germs from attacking these sensitive components.
Your hyperbolic, SJW declaration is ignorant and weak.

Derp

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Quadrivium

I tried to underline it, but the operative word was "wearer".

I am an anti-mask person, but I am not an anti-mask "wearer".

Perhaps this part wasn't clear.

We are saying the same thing.....kinda.
You emphasised "wearer", I was emphasising the "Anti".
They used "anti" for the automatic negative connotation to paint non-mask wearers in a negative light.
They could have simply said NON-mask wearer but that does not have the same effect. It sounds stupid to you and I but they know stupid people will only focus on the negative connotation, not the words.

a reply to: Chadwickus

It appears asking for more than one single person to read and comprehend is asking a bit too much. Even the person it was addressed to refuses to do so.

Enjoy your ignorance. I tried.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ArMaP

A well fitted mask doesn't need to be repositioned.

That depends on what the user is doing and for how long. It is not uncommon for even a surgeon to need their mask changed/adjusted.

The Redneck

originally posted by: Quadrivium
You emphasised "wearer", I was emphasising the "Anti".
They used "anti" for the automatic negative connotation to paint non-mask wearers in a negative light.
They could have simply said NON-mask wearer but that does not have the same effect. It sounds stupid to you and I but they know stupid people will only focus on the negative connotation, not the words.

It's interesting to note that the study never uses the "anti-mask wearer" expression, as they are talking about people that are anti-mask.
Only this thread uses the "anti-mask wearers" expression.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Unless they are jumping up and down or head-bagging there's no need to "constantly adjust" (or even frequently adjust) a well fitted mask.

I have walked many kilometres with a mask, I have moved furniture, I have remade part of a network wiring (with the wires and sockets close to the ground), I have repaired computers, etc., and I never needed to constantly (or frequently) adjust my mask.

PS: I always use surgical masks, as I find them easier to adjust to my face.

a reply to: ArMaP

You never said "frequently."

TheRedneck

a reply to: ArMaP

How do you “seal” a surgical mask. It doesn’t have a sealing / gasket like surface as seen in a half face respiratory.

The N-95 masks have a more rigid surface to make a better “seal” than a surgical mask.

I haven’t worn a cloth/surgical mask that hasn’t fogged up my safety glasses with leak by since the masks literally have no sealing surface.

Evidently you don’t walk fast enough to sweat, or move around doing actual labor.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ArMaP

How do you “seal” a surgical mask. It doesn’t have a sealing / gasket like surface as seen in a half face respiratory.

The N-95 masks have a more rigid surface to make a better “seal” than a surgical mask.

I haven’t worn a cloth/surgical mask that hasn’t fogged up my safety glasses with leak by since the masks literally have no sealing surface.

Evidently you don’t walk fast enough to sweat, or move around doing actual labor.

I do, wear the damn mask all day(n95), sweat our asses off sometimes, very little fiddling around ..what now?

The main annoyance would be, probably have to blow my nose once or twice in the day.

a reply to: vonclod

Quote were I posted N-95 masks need constant adjustments.

That's not what the study concludes. The study concludes that anti maskers aren't pulling these ideas out of thin air they are actually studying, analyzing and taking it seriously. The study is non-bias.

Link

a reply to: mc_squared

It's funny that only the left see it as "anti mask", meaning comply or there will be some form of consequence. Conservatives view it as "pro choice", meaning wear one if you desire - doesn't have anything to do with me. Which view is more in line with the Constitution and American values?

Some of you guys crack me up.

The bottom line is, people have a right to breath freely and unrestricted.

Fresh air is at the very top of the requirements for life, and should not be #ed with.

The psychological control aspect is another thing, but that goes over so many people's heads, I won't get into it.

a reply to: IndieA

The term " masktards" didn't come from nowhere. Neither did ' vaxxtards", sadly.

originally posted by: AcerM

By your description no. 3 are not wearing masks

No. 3 wears them when they are mandated and/or smart to do, other than that no they don't. No. 3 doesn't get upset either way... Need to go to the doctors, places of business that want you to etc you wear it. Maybe visiting old relatives etc., but other than that they don't. Same with the vaccine...you older and/or high risk get the damn thing...lol, if you are young who cares, kids shouldn't get it or use a mask...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AcerM

By your description no. 3 are not wearing masks

Same with the vaccine...you older and/or high risk get the damn thing...lol, if you are young who cares, kids shouldn't get it or use a mask...

Too bad the vaccines were never tested on the old, weak, or people with preexisting conditions.
Nobody can be sure of the long term side effects either.

Maybe you shouldn't be giving medical advice about things that can't be known for sure.

originally posted by: IndieA

Too bad the vaccines were never tested on the old, weak, or people with preexisting conditions.
Nobody can be sure of the long term side effects either.

Maybe you shouldn't be giving medical advice about things that can't be known for sure.

If you are old who cares about long term side effects, if any... if any... I 'll say it again.

Do you know that all drugs run 3 human trials?

First trial is a like a dozen of people
Second one is like 100

After the second trial they deem it is safe for humans then the third trial is the double blind placebo test to determine if it cures as they intend. After that third trial it is just paperwork to get FDA approved, so saying this...

What are you looking for in testing that they have not done already? They have actually been testing and working with mRNA for two decades now, so what can they do to satisfy you? Vaccinate everyone in Africa and lets see in 50 years?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Here is some current news about what you discuss.

www.lewrockwell.com...

It seems Pfizer did a wee bit o' cheating in bringing their products to market. No surprise, as Pfizer plead guilty in 2009 to fraudulent marketing.

Common sense is not a flower that grows in every ones garden
a reply to: Vector99

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ArMaP

You never said "frequently."

My post was an answer to another post, you just had to read it.