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.
Clickbait. The post doesn't demonstrate anything about effectiveness of masks in controlling the spread of disease. There is already a medical advisory for little children and masks. There is nothing new. What a waste of time most of these posts are.
So, a randomized clinical trial published in a peer-reviewed medical journal is "clickbait" that we should ignore, but your fear-mongering propaganda is something else?
Are you one of the people who should be held civilly liable for driving mass hysteria with no scientific or medical basis for the past 15 months?
Makes you wonder how the Chinese came to dominate the west in educational achievement and economically while wearing those masks - even before the pandemic. Communism must be much better if it overcame CO2 brain damage.
OK, what data did you have in March 2020 that showed mask mandates and lockdowns would work? There is decades of research that shows the exact opposite. Explain to us the data that motivated you and the left to throw out all the prior research and embrace mask mandates and lockdowns. Thanks in advance.
Post it... go on. The last time you threw some meat out there, I chewed it up and spit it back at you. And you still claimed it proved your point. Yet those very studies blew your argument apart. They actually PROVED that masks work. You want to go for round two? Post it up... I'm tired of your lies.
Let me forewarn you: I am not on the Left. I hate progressives as much as I hate the New Right. I am just a middle-ground guy that is tired of people posting studies and lying about what they say so their team can score a point. And you are among the most obstinate of liars.
Now to address what you posted:
The OSHA PPM for CO2 is 5000ppm or .5% You are referencing a German study that uses the German office standard (2000ppm or .2%). Now we have conflicting requirements.
If you look at the pretest results, the mean percent of the children was .268% (higher than the German standard.) They couldn't even meet the German standard without a mask on. Perhaps they need to reconsider how they are measuring.
Masks are designed for adult exhalation pressure. In order for the air in the mask to be exchanged appropriately, it requires a certain amount of flow and pressure. Children's lung capacity does not meet that pressure level. If you look at the regression line, you can see that as the age approaches adulthood, the percentage gets closer to OSHA approved percentages.
No, children should not be masked. If we are going to require that, we need to design masks for children. An exhalation valve would go a long way to reducing the CO2 levels. However, those are not designed to reduce spread.
So, are you child with child-like lung capacity?
And... this study has nothing to do with whether or not masks work against the spread of contagion.
Post it... go on. The last time you threw some meat out there, I chewed it up and spit it back at you. And you still claimed it proved your point. Yet those very studies blew your argument apart. They actually PROVED that masks work. You want to go for round two? Post it up... I'm tired of your lies.
Let me forewarn you: I am not on the Left. I hate progressives as much as I hate the New Right. I am just a middle-ground guy that is tired of people posting studies and lying about what they say so their team can score a point. And you are among the most obstinate of liars.
Now to address what you posted:
The OSHA PPM for CO2 is 5000ppm or .5% You are referencing a German study that uses the German office standard (2000ppm or .2%). Now we have conflicting requirements.
If you look at the pretest results, the mean percent of the children was .268% (higher than the German standard.) They couldn't even meet the German standard without a mask on. Perhaps they need to reconsider how they are measuring.
Masks are designed for adult exhalation pressure. In order for the air in the mask to be exchanged appropriately, it requires a certain amount of flow and pressure. Children's lung capacity does not meet that pressure level. If you look at the regression line, you can see that as the age approaches adulthood, the percentage gets closer to OSHA approved percentages.
No, children should not be masked. If we are going to require that, we need to design masks for children. An exhalation valve would go a long way to reducing the CO2 levels. However, those are not designed to reduce spread.
So, are you child with child-like lung capacity?
And... this study has nothing to do with whether or not masks work against the spread of contagion.
I dispatched your fear mongering and panic pushing at least once already. You were unable to provide a single RCT showing masks work. You still can’t.
Instead you nitpick all of the studies and RCTs done over the years that prove they don’t work. In fact, you actually lie and claim the studies say something different than what the authors say in the studies themselves. Until you cough up some actual scientific data that proves masks work I’m not sure there’s a point in engaging you any longer.
Seems like the truth to me. I run in mostly left circles. It was a combination of "this is an opportunity for big government to solve a problem, and we should all do our part" and "Trump doesn't want us to do it, so we should it." I saw virtually no honest engagement with data or scientific evidence whatsoever from these people.
A clarification: I'm not saying that most people were dishonest with data or scientific evidence; I'm just saying that the twin concepts of: 1) looking to big government to keep us safe, and 2) going against Trump were enough to get these folks on board, so they simply didn't engage with the data/evidence at all.
By all means, though, "wait for more data" before you're convinced that putting fabric over your mouth and nose causes you to breathe your own carbon dioxide back in.
He didn't say "Dems" or "the Left" or "liberals", though. He said me, specifically, and he's 100% wrong on that front.
However, let's get this straight - you're saying a mask can't keep the SARS-CoV-2 virus out, but it can keep a CO2 molecule in. Right?
You're going to need to show your math on that one, because:
The SARS-CoV-2 virus particle is 100nm (nanometers) in diameter.
A CO2 molecule is 0.33nm diameter.
I dispatched your fear mongering and panic pushing at least once already. You were unable to provide a single RCT showing masks work. You still can’t.
Instead you nitpick all of the studies and RCTs done over the years that prove they don’t work. In fact, you actually lie and claim the studies say something different than what the authors say in the studies themselves. Until you cough up some actual scientific data that proves masks work I’m not sure there’s a point in engaging you any longer.
You have dispatched nothing of mine. All you have done is posture and promise, but you have provided nothing of substance.
Here is the abstract:
Abstract
We assessed the in vivo efficacy of surgical and N95 (respirator) masks to filter reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-detectable virus when worn correctly by patients with laboratory-confirmed acute influenza. Of 26 patients with a clinical diagnosis of influenza, 19 had the diagnosis confirmed by RT-PCR, and 9 went on to complete the study. Surgical and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the spread of PCR-detectable influenza.
Here is their evidence.
"Surgical and N95 masks appeared to be equally effective in filtering influenza, given that no influenza could be detected by RT-PCR of the ISP viral transport medium in any of the 9 participants for either mask (table 1)."
Society will be paying for the fallout of covid reaction hysteria for decades to come. Todays children are going to be tomorrows psych patient
Sadly many children won't have to wait until tomorrow. As there are many that are today's psych patients because of the last 18 months. Masks were probably the least of their worries.
Kids were taken out of school for months. When they go back, they get to sit in "bubbles" without any interaction between other kids. Being told to sit at the lunch tables 6 feet apart. Being able to see a playground that they can't play on.
Not being able to see their friends, having to wear a mask everywhere they go being told that if they don't they could catch COVID and their parents or grandparents could die. Yes, I actually heard someone in a store tell their kid saying to keep their mask on or you might kill someone.
Basically, stealing over a year of their life.
There was no science that said that masks would do any good, but enough science that cast doubts as it being more beneficial than harmful.
If these mask mandates for children were really science-based can anyone explain why the "science" used by California said that anyone aged 2 and older needed to wear a mask, but if you were in Nevada you didn't need a mask until you were at least 10. Perhaps Oregon had better "science" as they said that you don't need one until you are at least 5. Colorado's "science" said the magic age was 11 years old.....
We (or at least, I know I do) look back on certain things society and humanity has done in the past, roll my eyes, and think, "How could they have been so stupid?"
After having lived through the past year and a half, I suppose I am to the point that I won't be so hard on those people from the past who thought bloodletting was a good thing, or arsenic was medicine, or heroin and cigarettes are good for you, methedrine is great for losing weight, tapeworms, lobotomies, Malariotherapy, radium, mercury, trepanation, crocodile dung, plombage, tobacco smoke enemas, so on, were all legitimately helpful treatments.
I won't be so hard on them because in a hundred years, people will be looking back on us and giving the same eye roll when they read of our cloth mask fetish and shutting down the entire world over a sub-one-percent-mortality-rate disease.
Years ago women also douched with Lysol to clean themselves. Lysol was originally marketed for that purpose.
So, a randomized clinical trial published in a peer-reviewed medical journal is "clickbait" that we should ignore, but your fear-mongering propaganda is something else?
Are you one of the people who should be held civilly liable for driving mass hysteria with no scientific or medical basis for the past 15 months?
We’re supposed to ignore rct on masks and instead consider memes and models apparently. #science.
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.
