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.
Can we just agree that if you are pro-mask you are never going to become anti-mask and vice versa? This way we don't have to have a zillion threads all on the same tired s*** every blasted day. Besides, some of you are going to get carpal tunnel from cutting and pasting the links to all those extremely questionable 'sources'.
Can we all agree that there's a third position on this issue - leave it up to people to choose - a concept that apparently pro-maskers are incapable of grasping? I'm neither pro nor anti. I only see one side of this argument trying to force their choice, yes, CHOICE, on others against their will.
The science and physics are clear, a mask which only filters out .3 micron and larger particles, cannot filter out a 0.06 micron virus.
These cloth and paper masks aren't effective. The NIH has said so, the W.H.O. has said so, the great Dr. Fauci has said so numerous times. They all truthfully said this before the virus was politicized.
Now, when the virus has been politicized, the government desperately wants to create a mask placebo, so the hypochondriacs will not hide in their apartments, and refuse to go out in public. They want people thinking the useless mask protects them, so they lie, mislead, and post misleading studies to suggest the opposite of what we know is true, masks are ineffective..
Can we all agree that there's a third position on this issue - leave it up to people to choose - a concept that apparently pro-maskers are incapable of grasping? I'm neither pro nor anti. I only see one side of this argument trying to force their choice, yes, CHOICE, on others against their will.
Aaaand around the mulberry bush we go again lol - apparently this is a fun sport to some people, so have at it.
Can we all agree that there's a third position on this issue - leave it up to people to choose - a concept that apparently pro-maskers are incapable of grasping? I'm neither pro nor anti. I only see one side of this argument trying to force their choice, yes, CHOICE, on others against their will.
That's because, if masking were to work, it really only works with everyone participating. As others have said ad nauseum, the mask aren't really effective to the wearer.
Everything can be argued here down to the nth degree and I won't change anyone's mind. I do believe masks have some efficacy, but only if deployed by 100% of the public within an indoor area. The minute that mask comes of of one person, efficacy drops way down. You can have all the "mandates" in the world, but if compliance is haphazard they mean very little.
In a pandemic situation, having a choice in a contagion mitagtation strategy just doesn't seem practical. You have a choice and opting out directly impacts the health of everyone around you trying to reduce their exposure. It would be completely different if your choice didn't impact others, such as seatbelt wearing. You only endanger yourself if you decided not to use that safety measure. You don't impact the drive of another car.
I feel like anti-maskers have been incapable or willfully ignoring that one piece of the puzzle.
That's because, if masking were to work, it really only works with everyone participating. As others have said ad nauseum, the mask aren't really effective to the wearer.
Everything can be argued here down to the nth degree and I won't change anyone's mind. I do believe masks have some efficacy, but only if deployed by 100% of the public within an indoor area. The minute that mask comes of of one person, efficacy drops way down. You can have all the "mandates" in the world, but if compliance is haphazard they mean very little.
In a pandemic situation, having a choice in a contagion mitagtation strategy just doesn't seem practical. You have a choice and opting out directly impacts the health of everyone around you trying to reduce their exposure. It would be completely different if your choice didn't impact others, such as seatbelt wearing. You only endanger yourself if you decided not to use that safety measure. You don't impact the drive of another car.
I feel like anti-maskers have been incapable or willfully ignoring that one piece of the puzzle.
So do you advocate that people acquire getting their immunity to COVID-19 by going everywhere indoors, especially where crowded, without a mask on so they can become sick from it? If you're also against vaccines, due to them being too dangerous, how else are you going to get immunity?
Once again: MASKS DO NOTHING.
Indoors, outdoors, underwater, wherever.
If you think masks protect you, you will probably spread more because you'll go places thinking you have immunity.
The bottom line is that unless you are very old or very unhealthy, you have pretty much nothing to worry about.
Also: You're going to get it no matter what. Whether you're vaxed, masked, unmasked, unvaxed, whatever. It doesn't matter.
So doctors and nurses working in covid wards also will NEEEEEEEEEVER admit they won't work? I don't give a damn about the politics of it.
None of them would ever claim cloth masks protect against viral transmission. Many doctors wear them in hospital situations to block blood, spit, vomit, etc. Things cloth masks were actually designed to stop.
Can we all agree that there's a third position on this issue - leave it up to people to choose - a concept that apparently pro-maskers are incapable of grasping? I'm neither pro nor anti. I only see one side of this argument trying to force their choice, yes, CHOICE, on others against their will.
Sure, as long as they are informed with the facts, and not with misleading propaganda.
Government's propaganda leads most people to believe masks are effective in protecting us from the virus, and the have us convinced we are all in the high risk 80 year old with three comorbidity category.
For healthy people 30 and under, COVID is akin to a severe flu season. For healthy children 15 and under, COVID is less dangerous than the seasonal flu.
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.
Besides, some of you are going to get carpal tunnel from cutting and pasting the links to all those extremely questionable 'sources'.
I'm neither pro nor anti. I only see one side of this argument trying to force their choice, yes, CHOICE, on others against their will.
