COVID-19 will likely be with us forever. Here's how we'll live with it. (itchy, headache)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact that some people are wiling to accept "masks forever" over a virus with a 0.2% overall fatality rate and a 0.01% fatality rate in people under 45 is truly astonishing. You have one genius who publishes a 20 page paper about the ways to handle the virus and how best to make it mostly go away and have some return to some pathetic version of normal. Here's my solution and it's not even a paragraph: Stop panicking over a nothing burger and embrace the data and science. That's it. That's all there is to it. As long as I'm the minority voice, there will always be a pandemic, because people will put pressure on politicians to impose ridiculous and scientifically unjustified mandates, closures, and rules over their own fear. The second people start demanding freedom, and in large numbers, they'll get it back. And not a minute before then.
The only folks whining about masks forever are the anti-maskers.
Quote:
The lockdowns have been proven scientifically to do nothing, that's a fact now. We know that based on extensive research.
Source?
Quote:
We have 40 years of research across numerous virus outbreaks that masks don't do anything to slow the spread of airborne respiratory viruses. That's dozens of studies across dozens of countries.
"Among 139 clients exposed to two symptomatic hair stylists with confirmed COVID-19 while both the stylists and the clients wore face masks, no symptomatic secondary cases were reported; among 67 clients tested for SARS-CoV-2, all test results were negative. Adherence to the community’s and company’s face-covering policy likely mitigated spread of SARS-CoV-2."
A SARS-CoV-2 infected traveler rode on two buses. On the first he did not wear a mask because he did not have one. Five of 39 passengers became infected. On the second bus he had purchased and wore a mask. No other passengers were infected.
Quote:
The truly amazing part is that the sheep in this country watched as mask mandates went into effect everywhere in June and case counts skyrocketed. In fact, we didn't have a single day below the case count on the day of the mask mandate in my state until a few days ago. So cases go from 30,000 nationally to 60,000 to 100,000 to 300,000, and these people sit there, "MASKS WORK! Wear your mask!" Yes, you're right, a cloth face diaper stops a 0.13 micron virus. Even the best mask, an N95 mask, has 0.3 micron holes, and no, it isn't just spread through droplets, that's completely untrue. Even if that were true, no mask is airtight around the edges, so you're still spreading the virus. If masks worked, you'd see it in the data. If masks worked, you'd see it in the 40 years of research. Yet several countries correctly didn't follow the politicians -- like Holland for instance -- and their own health boards concluded there was zero evidence of any benefit whatsoever. So, no, we shouldn't be wearing masks forever, we shouldn't have ever worn a mask. And before someone stupidly says anything, surgeons don't wear masks to protect anyone against viruses. They wear masks because bacteria particles are 5-15x larger than a virus, thus can't spread through a mask at all most of the time, and they don't want to infect an open wound in a patient, nor do they want viscera from the patient coming into contact with their faces. Masks work against bacteria, they don't against viruses. It's a sad state of affairs that Americans don't even know bacteria are HUGE compared to viruses. We're talking the size of a medium dog versus a human being here, "DUR the fence blocks humans, why wouldn't it block dogs?" You figure it out, genius. Size matters.
No one claims that masks stop 100% of the virus. Most particles are contained in droplets, and a properly fitted and worn mask can trap those droplets.
As far as Coronavirus, the best path would have been to do absolutely nothing besides protect 1) The elderly, and 2) Those with weak immune systems. They need the vaccines, and they should have been protected as best as possible or stayed home. For anyone else, the Coronavirus by and large is no substantial threat. I had it and it was far less severe than ANY flu I've ever had. It was like a very bad cold, maybe one of the worst colds ever even, but certainly not on the level of the 2009 swine flu or the 2018 flu that I got. Those were terrible. If you are young and healthy and want to get an experimental vaccine against a virus that kills 1 in 10,000 people under 45, go for it, that's completely your decision and I support it. I just don't support ridicule or pressure for me to get it when I don't need it, both because I've had the virus and because it was never a threat to begin with.
You had mild disease. Good for you. Others you gave it to before you knew you were sick may not have been as lucky as you were.
Quote:
The Spanish Flu killed 3% of the world's population. Not those infected, *of the entire world population*. That would be 240 million people today. This virus even if you accept their data that a guy who died of a gunshot wound and had Coronavirus died "of Coronavirus," even with their terrible counting methodology where 100-year-olds died "of Coronavirus," has killed just 2 million people. That's how many people are born in 6 days. So it's 100x less deadly than the Spanish Flu, yet has been hyped to be basically modern day ebola. I'm sorry if that sucks, that you've read the headlines for a year, that you never once read the data, the studies, or examined for yourself what the facts say, and I get that. You are pot committed. If you just sat home for a year for nothing, you feel cheated. Get over that. Clinging to incorrect ideas and fear isn't going to help anything by this point. The fear-based phrasing of "deadly virus" is quite honestly a joke. The flu kills tens of thousands every year, so do you say "the deadly flu"? 20,000 people under age 45 die every year in vehicular accidents, do you call cars a death trap? You should, because they are. In fact, 800 people worldwide die from TOASTERS every year, is that a deadly appliance? It's just fear-mongering to call Coronavirus "a deadly virus" when 94% of the people who die WITH it (not FROM it) have an average of 2.6 underlying medical conditions, so in other words the virus is almost completely incapable of killing anyone who isn't already ill.
Cities that took mitigation measures against the 1918 flu, including use of masks, fared better.
Not all of those with pre-existing conditions are ill. For many they are well controlled.
You are misinterpreting the CDC data. All of the people included died from COVID-19, including the ones with underlying conditions. There were deaths that were misclassified. Those were called out and fixed. To date almost half a million in the US have died from COVID-19.
Quote:
The madness stops when you want it to stop, remember that. It doesn't stop a day before then. So if you want your "new normal" to be a pathetic reality for the next 20 years, that's what you're going to get. If you want to use your head for something other than a hat rack and dig into the peer reviewed research, look at the data, and use your brain, you can still end up on the correct side of the science. In Scotland, the average age of death for men is 77, women 81, yet the average age of Coronavirus death is 81 for men and 84 for women, HIGHER than the average life expectancy. So let's knock it off with "omg so many people dead before their time." Maybe by 6 months, a year? Maybe even 2 years. But we aren't talking about a virus that's killing off people at random here, we're talking about a virus that's nailing the low hanging fruit of the very elderly who were on death's doorstep. I'm sorry if the facts are insensitive or inconvenient, but they remain the facts all the same.
Why did you choose Scotland?
You are using the wrong metric. You are using the numbers for life expectancy at birth. What you need is life expectancy at age 81 for men (about 8 years in the US) and life expectancy at age 84 for women (about 7.5 years). That means 7 to 8 years lost, on average. They were not on "death's doorstep".
BUZZ, no, wrong, guess again. To say that 400,000 people died FROM Coronavirus is an absolute joke and you know it. That is NEVER how death counts are determined. EVER. You don't say someone died from 1 thing when they died of 4. Anyone who has ever even done a basic amount of research understands that. I as well as most people know someone personally who had lost someone of another cause and it was counted as Coronavirus. It's a fact that hospitals get more money when they code something as COVID. My aunt's dad died in hospice, he was losing his vision, he had numerous organ failures, and they called it Coronavirus. He never even had it, he never tested positive. Then you're talking about 90-year-olds you're saying they died FROM Coronavirus?! How dense can you get? You can't take this nonsense seriously you're writing because it's absolutely wrong and provably so.
You're completely wrong about masks and it's actually really scary and a testament to how thorough a job the mainstream media and big tech have done in suppressing actual scientific papers and data so that someone can literally be this clueless. How could it be a YEAR later and you seriously think this?! You haven't read anything.
-A study on the CDC Website that reviewed 10 different randomized clinical trials, worldwide, that included highly infectious respiratory viruses found “no significant reduction” in “transmission with the use of face masks.” Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling (Volume 26, Number 5, May of 2020).
-World Health Organization states there “is no evidence wearing a mask by a healthy person in a community setting can prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19” and further* concludes “universal community masking” is ineffective at preventing “infection from respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.” The WHO recommended against wearing medical masks as they “may create a false sense of security” against COVID-19, while it further went out of its way to reiterate that there is “no evidence available on a [mask’s] usefulness to protect non-sick persons.”* https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/...1&isAllowed=y* Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19 – Guidance, World Health Organization (April 6, 2020)
-British Medical Journal notes that cloth face masks may INCREASE spread of virus: “This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”* https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577 A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
-When the N95 respirator was tested in use in 2010, the “dead-space oxygen and carbon dioxide levels did not meet the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s ambient workplace standards.”
-In a study conducted by the National Taiwan University Hospital fifteen years ago, it was found that the use of N-95 masks in healthcare workers caused them to experience hypoxemia, a low level of oxygen in the blood, and hypercapnia, an elevation in the blood’s carbon dioxide levels. Not only did the mask create dangerously low levels of oxygen and an equally dangerous spike in carbon dioxide in the human body, the study found that “medical staff are at increased risk of getting ‘Severe acute respiratory syndrome’ (SARS) [from] wearing N95 masks….”* Lastly, the study’s authors further found that “dizziness, headache, and short[ness] of breath are commonly experienced by the medical staff wearing N95 masks” and that the “ability to make correct decisions” was also likely impaired.* The Physiological Impact of N95 Masks on Medical Staff, National Taiwan University Hospital (June 2005).
-“Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filter SARS COV-2.” The study found that masks were “not at all effective” in stopping the transmission of Coronavirus. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-nsn040620.php
-The New England Journal of Medicine on May 21, 2020 stated, “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” It further concludes that “masks serve symbolic roles” and are “talismans that may increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals” but offer no substantial protection.
-Between 2004 and 2016, at least a dozen research or review articles have been published on the inadequacies of face masks. All agree that the poor facial fit and limited filtration characteristics of face masks make them unable to prevent the wearer inhaling airborne particles. In their well referenced 2011 article on respiratory protection for healthcare workers, Drs. Harrimann and Brosseau conclude that “facemasks will not protect against inhalation of aerosols.” Following their 2015 literature review, Dr. Zhou and colleagues stated that “There is a lack of substantiated evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infections contamination.” In the same year, Dr. R. MacIntyre noted that randomized controlled trials of facemasks “failed to prove their efficacy.”
-The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety said, “The filter material of surgical masks does not retain or filter out sub micron particles” and that “surgical masks are not designed to eliminate air leakage around the edges,” further mentioning that “surgical masks do not protect the wearer from inhaling small particles that can remain airborne for long periods of time,” which we know from further research that SARS-Covid-2 does in fact do. Studies have indicated airborne particles remain for several hours in the air, especially where lack of humidity leads to gravity not binding water molecules to the virus, which would make it fall to the ground.
-In 2015, Dr. Leonie Walker, principal researcher of the New Zealand Nurses Organization, succinctly described — within a historical context — the inadequacies of wearing a facemask: “Health care workers have long relied heavily on surgical masks to provide protection against influenza and other infections. Yet there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection. The masks we use are not designed for such purposes.”
But really, do I need to cite all of these studies? I can cite one very simple thing because the data is inarguable -- since mask mandates went into effect, case counts have SKYROCKETED. Why did South Dakota never have a mask mandate and do better than California per capita that had the strictest mandates and lockdowns in the US? Why did every state that had a mask mandate see their cases massively increase? You can't explain that. You have to fall back to some pseudoscience unprovable nonsense like, ”Well, people just didn't wear them correctly.” We aren't talking about whether anyone wore them correctly because that's endemic to the argument itself -- MASK MANDATES -- and that mandates don't work because masks provide NO personal protection. Zero. That fact isn't in dispute even today, they don't protect you. They are supposed to protect other people, and they don't do that, either. But if a mask mandate relies on everyone wearing masks correctly -- and it would be N95 masks you mental midget, not cloth masks -- then that's not going to happen realistically, ergo mask mandates don't work. ALL of the data supports that conclusion, NO data disagrees with that. Just because some idiot somewhere takes statistics out of context and shapes a turd out of it doesn't make it accurate. You don't get to pick 12 cities where ”cases were pretty good” while there were 50 cities that it made no difference. It has to work EVERYWHERE or it doesn't work at all. That's literally how science works. You don't say gravity exists, but it only exists in Los Angeles and New York. Either there is gravity or there isn't. Either masks are very effective at stopping the spread or they're not. We can clearly see from the pandemic's course that masks are ineffective. Now if you want to sit here and argue with me that they could have made a 2% difference in case counts, hey, maybe?! You never know, maybe you're right and they provided the tiniest statistically insignificant difference, but since again it's statistically immeasurable then it's really a moot point. If they worked, you'd have seen cases decreasing as mask mandates went into effect. You didn't see that.
In fact, in separate studies the CDC has said you can't get Coronavirus in under 10 minutes, so you don't need a mask for shopping for instance, and the WHO has said masks aren't effective when spending more than 20 minutes in close contact with someone. So you're telling me they're effective between exactly 10 and 20 minutes? Of course not. There were entire gatherings where everyone wore a mask the whole time like a funeral and still nearly everyone got it. If masks worked, that wouldn't happen. They DO NOT WORK. That is a fact. It is not in scientific dispute at the high level of peer reviewed research. There hasn't been a single study that meets the qualifications of high level scientific research showing otherwise, and there never will be, because it would have to be fabricating data that doesn't exist.
If you're VERY lazy and want to see it very clearly laid out with no way to dispute the findings, this is the best source: https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
^Especially see North Dakota vs. South Dakota -- virtually the same graph despite one state having masks and business restrictions and the other having no mask requirements and no business restrictions. NONE of these nonsense political decisions made ANY DIFFERENCE in the pandemic whatsoever. I'm sorry, you suffered for nothing. We all did.^
OR of course you're free to believe fairy tales and pseudoscience. You should really educate yourself, though. I did. I spent hundreds of hours pouring over the research data, I didn't go read CNN like a dumb sheep and find a 300 word article with a few catchphrases from morons like Fauci -- who isn't an immunologist or a virologist, those aren't his areas of expertise -- and then conclude, ”DURR the politicians told me to, they must be right!” Well, 40 years of research and data told me face masks don't work, and I always trust the science.
PS: To another point you were wrong about, no, masks didn't do anything in 1918 either and that was well documented. See the above link: "During the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic, the use of cloth face masks among the general population was widespread and in some places mandatory, but they made no difference."
Why are you blubbering on and on about things like surgical masks and cotton masks, which anyone who has been paying attention knows are not as effective? And why are you posting old links to old WHO documents and other OLD out of date documents, when they say right in the document that they have since been updated? Your summary links to Swiss Policy Research, a covid-conspiracy theory site. Suzy adequately debunked you once already, and I applaud her patience in going through point by point. I don't have that kind of patience or that much time to waste on bunk. You probably believe the US election was stolen too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanLB
BUZZ, no, wrong, guess again. To say that 400,000 people died FROM Coronavirus is an absolute joke and you know it. That is NEVER how death counts are determined. EVER. You don't say someone died from 1 thing when they died of 4. Anyone who has ever even done a basic amount of research understands that. I as well as most people know someone personally who had lost someone of another cause and it was counted as Coronavirus. It's a fact that hospitals get more money when they code something as COVID. My aunt's dad died in hospice, he was losing his vision, he had numerous organ failures, and they called it Coronavirus. He never even had it, he never tested positive. Then you're talking about 90-year-olds you're saying they died FROM Coronavirus?! How dense can you get? You can't take this nonsense seriously you're writing because it's absolutely wrong and provably so.
You're completely wrong about masks and it's actually really scary and a testament to how thorough a job the mainstream media and big tech have done in suppressing actual scientific papers and data so that someone can literally be this clueless. How could it be a YEAR later and you seriously think this?! You haven't read anything.
-A study on the CDC Website that reviewed 10 different randomized clinical trials, worldwide, that included highly infectious respiratory viruses found “no significant reduction” in “transmission with the use of face masks.” Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling (Volume 26, Number 5, May of 2020).
-World Health Organization states there “is no evidence wearing a mask by a healthy person in a community setting can prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19” and further* concludes “universal community masking” is ineffective at preventing “infection from respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.” The WHO recommended against wearing medical masks as they “may create a false sense of security” against COVID-19, while it further went out of its way to reiterate that there is “no evidence available on a [mask’s] usefulness to protect non-sick persons.”* https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/...1&isAllowed=y* Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19 – Guidance, World Health Organization (April 6, 2020)
-British Medical Journal notes that cloth face masks may INCREASE spread of virus: “This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”* https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577 A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
-When the N95 respirator was tested in use in 2010, the “dead-space oxygen and carbon dioxide levels did not meet the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s ambient workplace standards.”
-In a study conducted by the National Taiwan University Hospital fifteen years ago, it was found that the use of N-95 masks in healthcare workers caused them to experience hypoxemia, a low level of oxygen in the blood, and hypercapnia, an elevation in the blood’s carbon dioxide levels. Not only did the mask create dangerously low levels of oxygen and an equally dangerous spike in carbon dioxide in the human body, the study found that “medical staff are at increased risk of getting ‘Severe acute respiratory syndrome’ (SARS) [from] wearing N95 masks….”* Lastly, the study’s authors further found that “dizziness, headache, and short[ness] of breath are commonly experienced by the medical staff wearing N95 masks” and that the “ability to make correct decisions” was also likely impaired.* The Physiological Impact of N95 Masks on Medical Staff, National Taiwan University Hospital (June 2005).
-“Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filter SARS COV-2.” The study found that masks were “not at all effective” in stopping the transmission of Coronavirus. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-nsn040620.php
-The New England Journal of Medicine on May 21, 2020 stated, “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” It further concludes that “masks serve symbolic roles” and are “talismans that may increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals” but offer no substantial protection.
-Between 2004 and 2016, at least a dozen research or review articles have been published on the inadequacies of face masks. All agree that the poor facial fit and limited filtration characteristics of face masks make them unable to prevent the wearer inhaling airborne particles. In their well referenced 2011 article on respiratory protection for healthcare workers, Drs. Harrimann and Brosseau conclude that “facemasks will not protect against inhalation of aerosols.” Following their 2015 literature review, Dr. Zhou and colleagues stated that “There is a lack of substantiated evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infections contamination.” In the same year, Dr. R. MacIntyre noted that randomized controlled trials of facemasks “failed to prove their efficacy.”
-The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety said, “The filter material of surgical masks does not retain or filter out sub micron particles” and that “surgical masks are not designed to eliminate air leakage around the edges,” further mentioning that “surgical masks do not protect the wearer from inhaling small particles that can remain airborne for long periods of time,” which we know from further research that SARS-Covid-2 does in fact do. Studies have indicated airborne particles remain for several hours in the air, especially where lack of humidity leads to gravity not binding water molecules to the virus, which would make it fall to the ground.
-In 2015, Dr. Leonie Walker, principal researcher of the New Zealand Nurses Organization, succinctly described — within a historical context — the inadequacies of wearing a facemask: “Health care workers have long relied heavily on surgical masks to provide protection against influenza and other infections. Yet there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection. The masks we use are not designed for such purposes.”
But really, do I need to cite all of these studies? I can cite one very simple thing because the data is inarguable -- since mask mandates went into effect, case counts have SKYROCKETED. Why did South Dakota never have a mask mandate and do better than California per capita that had the strictest mandates and lockdowns in the US? Why did every state that had a mask mandate see their cases massively increase? You can't explain that. You have to fall back to some pseudoscience unprovable nonsense like, ”Well, people just didn't wear them correctly.” We aren't talking about whether anyone wore them correctly because that's endemic to the argument itself -- MASK MANDATES -- and that mandates don't work because masks provide NO personal protection. Zero. That fact isn't in dispute even today, they don't protect you. They are supposed to protect other people, and they don't do that, either. But if a mask mandate relies on everyone wearing masks correctly -- and it would be N95 masks you mental midget, not cloth masks -- then that's not going to happen realistically, ergo mask mandates don't work. ALL of the data supports that conclusion, NO data disagrees with that. Just because some idiot somewhere takes statistics out of context and shapes a turd out of it doesn't make it accurate. You don't get to pick 12 cities where ”cases were pretty good” while there were 50 cities that it made no difference. It has to work EVERYWHERE or it doesn't work at all. That's literally how science works. You don't say gravity exists, but it only exists in Los Angeles and New York. Either there is gravity or there isn't. Either masks are very effective at stopping the spread or they're not. We can clearly see from the pandemic's course that masks are ineffective. Now if you want to sit here and argue with me that they could have made a 2% difference in case counts, hey, maybe?! You never know, maybe you're right and they provided the tiniest statistically insignificant difference, but since again it's statistically immeasurable then it's really a moot point. If they worked, you'd have seen cases decreasing as mask mandates went into effect. You didn't see that.
In fact, in separate studies the CDC has said you can't get Coronavirus in under 10 minutes, so you don't need a mask for shopping for instance, and the WHO has said masks aren't effective when spending more than 20 minutes in close contact with someone. So you're telling me they're effective between exactly 10 and 20 minutes? Of course not. There were entire gatherings where everyone wore a mask the whole time like a funeral and still nearly everyone got it. If masks worked, that wouldn't happen. They DO NOT WORK. That is a fact. It is not in scientific dispute at the high level of peer reviewed research. There hasn't been a single study that meets the qualifications of high level scientific research showing otherwise, and there never will be, because it would have to be fabricating data that doesn't exist.
If you're VERY lazy and want to see it very clearly laid out with no way to dispute the findings, this is the best source: https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
^Especially see North Dakota vs. South Dakota -- virtually the same graph despite one state having masks and business restrictions and the other having no mask requirements and no business restrictions. NONE of these nonsense political decisions made ANY DIFFERENCE in the pandemic whatsoever. I'm sorry, you suffered for nothing. We all did.^
OR of course you're free to believe fairy tales and pseudoscience. You should really educate yourself, though. I did. I spent hundreds of hours pouring over the research data, I didn't go read CNN like a dumb sheep and find a 300 word article with a few catchphrases from morons like Fauci -- who isn't an immunologist or a virologist, those aren't his areas of expertise -- and then conclude, ”DURR the politicians told me to, they must be right!” Well, 40 years of research and data told me face masks don't work, and I always trust the science.
PS: To another point you were wrong about, no, masks didn't do anything in 1918 either and that was well documented. See the above link: "During the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic, the use of cloth face masks among the general population was widespread and in some places mandatory, but they made no difference."
BUZZ, no, wrong, guess again. To say that 400,000 people died FROM Coronavirus is an absolute joke and you know it. That is NEVER how death counts are determined. EVER. You don't say someone died from 1 thing when they died of 4. Anyone who has ever even done a basic amount of research understands that. I as well as most people know someone personally who had lost someone of another cause and it was counted as Coronavirus. It's a fact that hospitals get more money when they code something as COVID. My aunt's dad died in hospice, he was losing his vision, he had numerous organ failures, and they called it Coronavirus. He never even had it, he never tested positive. Then you're talking about 90-year-olds you're saying they died FROM Coronavirus?! How dense can you get? You can't take this nonsense seriously you're writing because it's absolutely wrong and provably so.
You're completely wrong about masks and it's actually really scary and a testament to how thorough a job the mainstream media and big tech have done in suppressing actual scientific papers and data so that someone can literally be this clueless. How could it be a YEAR later and you seriously think this?! You haven't read anything.
-A study on the CDC Website that reviewed 10 different randomized clinical trials, worldwide, that included highly infectious respiratory viruses found “no significant reduction” in “transmission with the use of face masks.” Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling (Volume 26, Number 5, May of 2020).
-World Health Organization states there “is no evidence wearing a mask by a healthy person in a community setting can prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19” and further* concludes “universal community masking” is ineffective at preventing “infection from respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.” The WHO recommended against wearing medical masks as they “may create a false sense of security” against COVID-19, while it further went out of its way to reiterate that there is “no evidence available on a [mask’s] usefulness to protect non-sick persons.”* https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/...1&isAllowed=y* Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19 – Guidance, World Health Organization (April 6, 2020)
-British Medical Journal notes that cloth face masks may INCREASE spread of virus: “This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”* https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577 A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
-When the N95 respirator was tested in use in 2010, the “dead-space oxygen and carbon dioxide levels did not meet the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s ambient workplace standards.”
-In a study conducted by the National Taiwan University Hospital fifteen years ago, it was found that the use of N-95 masks in healthcare workers caused them to experience hypoxemia, a low level of oxygen in the blood, and hypercapnia, an elevation in the blood’s carbon dioxide levels. Not only did the mask create dangerously low levels of oxygen and an equally dangerous spike in carbon dioxide in the human body, the study found that “medical staff are at increased risk of getting ‘Severe acute respiratory syndrome’ (SARS) [from] wearing N95 masks….”* Lastly, the study’s authors further found that “dizziness, headache, and short[ness] of breath are commonly experienced by the medical staff wearing N95 masks” and that the “ability to make correct decisions” was also likely impaired.* The Physiological Impact of N95 Masks on Medical Staff, National Taiwan University Hospital (June 2005).
-“Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filter SARS COV-2.” The study found that masks were “not at all effective” in stopping the transmission of Coronavirus. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-nsn040620.php
-The New England Journal of Medicine on May 21, 2020 stated, “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” It further concludes that “masks serve symbolic roles” and are “talismans that may increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals” but offer no substantial protection.
-Between 2004 and 2016, at least a dozen research or review articles have been published on the inadequacies of face masks. All agree that the poor facial fit and limited filtration characteristics of face masks make them unable to prevent the wearer inhaling airborne particles. In their well referenced 2011 article on respiratory protection for healthcare workers, Drs. Harrimann and Brosseau conclude that “facemasks will not protect against inhalation of aerosols.” Following their 2015 literature review, Dr. Zhou and colleagues stated that “There is a lack of substantiated evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infections contamination.” In the same year, Dr. R. MacIntyre noted that randomized controlled trials of facemasks “failed to prove their efficacy.”
-The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety said, “The filter material of surgical masks does not retain or filter out sub micron particles” and that “surgical masks are not designed to eliminate air leakage around the edges,” further mentioning that “surgical masks do not protect the wearer from inhaling small particles that can remain airborne for long periods of time,” which we know from further research that SARS-Covid-2 does in fact do. Studies have indicated airborne particles remain for several hours in the air, especially where lack of humidity leads to gravity not binding water molecules to the virus, which would make it fall to the ground.
-In 2015, Dr. Leonie Walker, principal researcher of the New Zealand Nurses Organization, succinctly described — within a historical context — the inadequacies of wearing a facemask: “Health care workers have long relied heavily on surgical masks to provide protection against influenza and other infections. Yet there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection. The masks we use are not designed for such purposes.”
But really, do I need to cite all of these studies? I can cite one very simple thing because the data is inarguable -- since mask mandates went into effect, case counts have SKYROCKETED. Why did South Dakota never have a mask mandate and do better than California per capita that had the strictest mandates and lockdowns in the US? Why did every state that had a mask mandate see their cases massively increase? You can't explain that. You have to fall back to some pseudoscience unprovable nonsense like, ”Well, people just didn't wear them correctly.” We aren't talking about whether anyone wore them correctly because that's endemic to the argument itself -- MASK MANDATES -- and that mandates don't work because masks provide NO personal protection. Zero. That fact isn't in dispute even today, they don't protect you. They are supposed to protect other people, and they don't do that, either. But if a mask mandate relies on everyone wearing masks correctly -- and it would be N95 masks you mental midget, not cloth masks -- then that's not going to happen realistically, ergo mask mandates don't work. ALL of the data supports that conclusion, NO data disagrees with that. Just because some idiot somewhere takes statistics out of context and shapes a turd out of it doesn't make it accurate. You don't get to pick 12 cities where ”cases were pretty good” while there were 50 cities that it made no difference. It has to work EVERYWHERE or it doesn't work at all. That's literally how science works. You don't say gravity exists, but it only exists in Los Angeles and New York. Either there is gravity or there isn't. Either masks are very effective at stopping the spread or they're not. We can clearly see from the pandemic's course that masks are ineffective. Now if you want to sit here and argue with me that they could have made a 2% difference in case counts, hey, maybe?! You never know, maybe you're right and they provided the tiniest statistically insignificant difference, but since again it's statistically immeasurable then it's really a moot point. If they worked, you'd have seen cases decreasing as mask mandates went into effect. You didn't see that.
In fact, in separate studies the CDC has said you can't get Coronavirus in under 10 minutes, so you don't need a mask for shopping for instance, and the WHO has said masks aren't effective when spending more than 20 minutes in close contact with someone. So you're telling me they're effective between exactly 10 and 20 minutes? Of course not. There were entire gatherings where everyone wore a mask the whole time like a funeral and still nearly everyone got it. If masks worked, that wouldn't happen. They DO NOT WORK. That is a fact. It is not in scientific dispute at the high level of peer reviewed research. There hasn't been a single study that meets the qualifications of high level scientific research showing otherwise, and there never will be, because it would have to be fabricating data that doesn't exist.
If you're VERY lazy and want to see it very clearly laid out with no way to dispute the findings, this is the best source: https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
^Especially see North Dakota vs. South Dakota -- virtually the same graph despite one state having masks and business restrictions and the other having no mask requirements and no business restrictions. NONE of these nonsense political decisions made ANY DIFFERENCE in the pandemic whatsoever. I'm sorry, you suffered for nothing. We all did.^
OR of course you're free to believe fairy tales and pseudoscience. You should really educate yourself, though. I did. I spent hundreds of hours pouring over the research data, I didn't go read CNN like a dumb sheep and find a 300 word article with a few catchphrases from morons like Fauci -- who isn't an immunologist or a virologist, those aren't his areas of expertise -- and then conclude, ”DURR the politicians told me to, they must be right!” Well, 40 years of research and data told me face masks don't work, and I always trust the science.
PS: To another point you were wrong about, no, masks didn't do anything in 1918 either and that was well documented. See the above link: "During the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic, the use of cloth face masks among the general population was widespread and in some places mandatory, but they made no difference."
Some people want to believe everything is a conspiracy and think they know more than all the world's experts. Proper use of masks, social distancing, quarantines, and vaccines are being used around the world to fight the pandemic. Many countries have done much better than the USA because they have used stricter enforcement. BTW, over 500,000 have died of Covid-19 in the USA. That fact is not being disputed by any expert. Conspiracy theorists in this country and others have resulted in needless deaths and damage to the economy. Wear a proper mask correctly and get a vaccine as soon as you can. These two items are not a big deal. I wore an N95 last night when I lifted weights. I have switched from a surgical mask to an N95 respirator because of the conspiracy theory idiots who follow the social media lies. Even after 5 sets of squats, I did not suffer from hypoxemia or hypercapnia.
Some people want to believe everything is a conspiracy and think they know more than all the world's experts. Proper use of masks, social distancing, quarantines, and vaccines are being used around the world to fight the pandemic. Many countries have done much better than the USA because they have used stricter enforcement. BTW, over 500,000 have died of Covid-19 in the USA. That fact is not being disputed by any expert. Conspiracy theorists in this country and others have resulted in needless deaths and damage to the economy. Wear a proper mask correctly and get a vaccine as soon as you can. These two items are not a big deal. I wore an N95 last night when I lifted weights. I have switched from a surgical mask to an N95 respirator because of the conspiracy theory idiots who follow the social media lies. Even after 5 sets of squats, I did not suffer from hypoxemia or hypercapnia.
When you don't understand or don't agree with something, make up your own version of the truth.
Why in the world would anyone want to force these restrictions on anyone including themselves if they weren't necessary? Oh yeah, conspiracies...its all a big plot.
Well, I have a coronavirus right now, waiting for test results to see if it's just a cold or covid-19. Only one of the four test centers were open in our town yesterday so I expected to wait in a long line. Nope, pulled right up and the employees got out of their cars and took care of me right away. The test was two swabs, swirled gently and not too far up both nostrils.
Started off a few days ago with what I thought was the worst food poisoning of my life, followed by the headache, fatigue and respiratory symptoms, then the cough, no appetite, couldn't taste or smell some things. I basically slept the last 3 days. Today I'm feeling better but my pulse oximeter is showing 91. When I was researching online, I found it interesting that 60% do not get a fever. I haven't had one either.
Well, I have a coronavirus right now, waiting for test results to see if it's just a cold or covid-19. Only one of the four test centers were open in our town yesterday so I expected to wait in a long line. Nope, pulled right up and the employees got out of their cars and took care of me right away. The test was two swabs, swirled gently and not too far up both nostrils.
Started off a few days ago with what I thought was the worst food poisoning of my life, followed by the headache, fatigue and respiratory symptoms, then the cough, no appetite, couldn't taste or smell some things. I basically slept the last 3 days. Today I'm feeling better but my pulse oximeter is showing 91. When I was researching online, I found it interesting that 60% do not get a fever. I haven't had one either.
I know when I had Covid the chills were probably what was hardest for me. I didn't really feel like I had much of a fever but I did. The doctor confirmed I was running a low grade one. Chills and fever go together. I would wake up in a cold sweat, and be shaking from the chills. The doctor said my body wasn't able to regulate its temperature due to the Covid. I had a terrible headache and completely exhausted. Just wanting to stay in bed to try and stay warm. I went on for about 3 weeks with this problem, even as the other symptoms started fading away. One problem I had that I hope you don't develop is a terrible itchy rash all over my torso. All I know is eventually the majority of us get better. I still feel somewhat foggy at times but everything else has subsided. The taste and smell problem ended as fast as it began.
Covid does seem to raise the pulse and blood pressure for a number of people. So your 91 which is abit high when a person is at rest,is most likely due to your illness. The taste and smell symptom is one of the leading indicators of Covid. So I would say there is probably a high chance you have Covid. I tested negative when I was very sick and then tested positive as the symptoms started to ease up. That swab test isn't always completely accurate as far as I'm concerned.
Best of Luck to you. I hope you don't have Covid and its just a cold. Since you are feeling better you are probably coming to the end of your ordeal with being sick.
The only folks whining about masks forever are the anti-maskers.
Umm, no, not really. I wear one where it makes logical sense to but I have no intention of making it permanent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
