The Coronavirus thread

[oneforthebus]

Yep, and on the other side I don't understand people that get upset at those that choose to get a vaccine. You make the decision that's right for you, and I respect that.

For me, I'm waiting and because of the many of the reasons I cited in the prior post, but also because I'm currently going through injury from a medical device that was approved by the FDA and supposedly the best thing ever!!! Yep, except now I will have to get surgery I didn't want to remove this thing along with quite a bit of my reproductive organs going bye bye. Thanks Bayer!!!

Hope all goes well.

 

[Sarge]

CNN's Brian Stelter delivers widely mocked rant on vaccine selfies to smallest audience of year

CNN’s "Reliable Sources" with Brian Stelter had its worst viewership of the year on Sunday, as only 923,000 total viewers tuned in to hear the liberal host complain about selfies.

www.foxnews.com

Not a fan of Gutfeld, but this is hilarious.

 

[Steeltime]

I nominate Brian Stelter for the kid picked on more in school than any other. He is also the lifetime achievement winner for the "Homer Simpson Award," celebrating the human who most closely resembles the fat, bald, bumbling cartoon imbecile.

 

[Troglodyte]

If I was 65 or older, I'd likely go get a vaccine.

since I'm not that old, i'm being more cautious and curious about what these vaccines actually do and will do.
plus - as an extra, added bonus - if i get the KungFlu, there's a vaccine now. So ...

6 people out of 6.8 million had clotting with J&J. Regardless of how young and healthy you are, your odds of dying from Covid are a hell of a lot more likely than 1 in 1.13 million.

And if you get Covid, it’s too late for the vaccine. It’s a vaccine, not a cure.

 

[Troglodyte]

I encourage everyone to listen to Bill Burr’s Monday Morning Podcast from 4/12/21. He sums up anti-maskers perfectly... and hysterically.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

6 people out of 6.8 million had clotting with J&J. Regardless of how young and healthy you are, your odds of dying from Covid are a hell of a lot more likely than 1 in 1.13 million.

And if you get Covid, it’s too late for the vaccine. It’s a vaccine, not a cure.

Good Lord, more deep thoughts from Mad Dr. Hypoflog.

And before you come back with "So you're saying..." or "What you really mean is..." or some other typical Hypoflog weak entrapment scenario, save yourself the time.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I encourage everyone to listen to Bill Burr’s Monday Morning Podcast from 4/12/21. He sums up anti-maskers perfectly... and hysterically.

I'm curious, did Dr. Bill Burr provide scientific evidence that masking works? The real empirical data that comes out daily now continues to further subvert that theory.

 

[Troglodyte]

I'm curious, did Dr. Bill Burr provide scientific evidence that masking works? The real empirical data that comes out daily now continues to further subvert that theory.

Again, you don’t have a ******* clue as to what empirical data is.

 

[Badcat]

Again, you don’t have a ******* clue as to what empirical data is.

It's data that you can't comprehend.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Again, you don’t have a ******* clue as to what empirical data is.

Hypofloggy....tsk tsk

Definition of empirical​

1: originating in or based on observation or experience // empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory // an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment // empirical laws

What "empirical" data do we have that shows masking works regarding COVID, using the DEFINITION above.

 

[Troglodyte]

Hypofloggy....tsk tsk

Definition of empirical​

1: originating in or based on observation or experience // empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory // an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment // empirical laws

What "empirical" data do we have that shows masking works regarding COVID, using the DEFINITION above.

LOL!

YOU said there is empirical data that shows mask don’t work. Please do explain how that experiment worked and how it was verified. I’ll go get myself some popcorn!

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

LOL!

YOU said there is empirical data that shows mask don’t work. Please do explain how that experiment worked and how it was verified. I’ll go get myself some popcorn!

"Based on observation and/or experience," - we have both observed/experienced masks NOT working and studies show it.

Numerous studies have disproven (in those studies) the "experiment" which is do masks slow the spread of COVID (to the degree we've been led to believe it does.

Danish researchers found that mask-wearers were not protected from becoming infected by the novel coronavirus more than their mask-less counterparts, contradicting the mainstream consensus, including that of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial,” The New York Times reports in a piece titled, “A New Study Questions Whether Masks Protect Wearers. You Need to Wear Them Anyway.”

The former US Surgeon General:

U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams said on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday that “the data doesn't show” that wearing masks in public will help people during the coronavirus pandemic.

Rational data based on the micron sizes of the particles:

If we look at the size of a particle of wood smoke. Let’s look here: See page 3. (0.3 to 0.7 microns) Source is EPA

Now let’s look into the size of the COVID 19 virus: 0.12 microns

An N95 mask if fitted precisely will prevent 95% of particles in the 0.1 micron size. Could reduce the viral load if you were in a situation where exposure was likely.

So if you have a properly fitted N95 mask you do have some protection. Outside of a hospital I have never seen a properly fitted mask.

If you can smell wood smoke while wearing your face covering of choice, you’re probably not at all protected from COVID. However if you sneeze and you indeed have COVID, you project less of the virus into the area immediately around you. Same could be said if you sneezed into your elbow.

Our masking strategy - surgical masks, neck gaiters, cloth masks - are not effective and will not work any more than coughing into your hands.

Even more studies show that masking doesn't work....

Studies on the effectiveness of face masks

1. A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source)
2. A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. (Source)
3. A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS One, found that face masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.” (Source)
4. A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no significant evidence supporting the effectiveness of non-medical and medical face masks in the community. Furthermore, the European CDC advised against the use of FFP2/N95 respirators by the general public. (Source)
5. A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)
6. A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. (Source)
7. An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). (Source)
8. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that cloth face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. (Source)
9. A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)
10. An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. (Source)

Development of cases after mask mandates​

In many states, coronavirus infections strongly increased after mask mandates had been introduced. The following charts show the typical examples of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, the UK, California and Hawaii. Furthermore, a direct comparison between US states with and without mask mandates indicates that mask mandates have made no difference.

Charts inside the link: https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

Effectiveness of N95/FFP2 mask mandates​

In January 2021, the German state of Bavaria was one of the first places in the world to mandate N95/FFP2 masks in most public settings. A comparison with other German states, which required cloth or medical masks, indicates that N95/FFP2 masks made no difference.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

LOL!

YOU said there is empirical data that shows mask don’t work. Please do explain how that experiment worked and how it was verified. I’ll go get myself some popcorn!

[Continued]

One study showed that masking didn't work even during the 1918 pandemic.

Additional aspects​

1. There is increasing evidence that the novel coronavirus is transmitted, at least in indoor settings, not only by droplets but also by smaller aerosols. However, due to their large pore size and poor fit, cloth masks cannot filter out aerosols (see video analysis below): over 90% of aerosols penetrate or bypass the mask and fill a medium-sized room within minutes.
2. The WHO admitted to the BBC that its June 2020 mask policy update was due not to new evidence but “political lobbying”: “We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny.” (D. Cohen, BBC Medical Corresponent).
3. To date, the only randomized controlled trial (RCT) on face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting found no statistically significant benefit (see above). However, three major journals refused to publish this study, delaying its publication by several months.
4. An analysis by the US CDC found that 85% of people infected with the new coronavirus reported wearing a mask “always” (70.6%) or “often” (14.4%). Compared to the control group of uninfected people, always wearing a mask did not reduce the risk of infection.
5. Researchers from the University of Minnesota found that the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 is just 300 virions (virus particles), whereas a single minute of normal speaking may generate more than 750,000 virions, making cloth face masks unlikely to prevent an infection.
6. Japan, despite its widespread use of face masks, experienced its most recent influenza epidemic with more than 5 million people falling ill just one year ago, in January and February 2019. However, unlike SARS-CoV-2, the influenza virus is easily transmitted by children, too.
7. In the US state of Kansas, the 90 counties without mask mandates had lower coronavirus infection rates than the 15 counties with mask mandates. To hide this fact, the Kansas health department tried to manipulate the official statistics and data presentation.
8. Contrary to common belief, studies in hospitals found that the wearing of a medical mask by surgeons during operations didn’t reduce post-operative bacterial wound infections in patients.
9. 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.
10. Asian countries with low covid infection rates, most of them neighboring China, benefited not from face masks but mainly from early border closures. This is confirmed by Scandinavian countries Norway, Finland and Denmark, which didn’t introduce mask mandates but closed borders early and saw very low covid infection and death rates, too.

I dunno, do you need more EMPIRICAL data, experience, observation?



I now fully expect you will come up with some wild objection to each and every single one of those studies and say "but but but but masks DO work!"

I hope you have a LOT of popcorn. That's a lot of research you need to refute.

 

[Troglodyte]

"Based on observation and/or experience," - we have both observed/experienced masks NOT working and studies show it.

Numerous studies have disproven (in those studies) the "experiment" which is do masks slow the spread of COVID (to the degree we've been led to believe it does.



The former US Surgeon General:


Rational data based on the micron sizes of the particles:



Our masking strategy - surgical masks, neck gaiters, cloth masks - are not effective and will not work any more than coughing into your hands.

Even more studies show that masking doesn't work....

Where do any of those studies include EMPIRICAL data?

You don’t understand what empirical data is.

 

[Steeltime]

Where do any of those studies include EMPIRICAL data?

You don’t understand what empirical data is.

Jesus ******* Christ, you idiot, you moron, TSF quoted the following:

Studies on the effectiveness of face masks

1. A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source)
2. A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. (Source)
3. A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS One, found that face masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.” (Source)
4. A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no significant evidence supporting the effectiveness of non-medical and medical face masks in the community. Furthermore, the European CDC advised against the use of FFP2/N95 respirators by the general public. (Source)
5. A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)
6. A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. (Source)
7. An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). (Source)
8. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that cloth face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. (Source)
9. A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)
10. An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. (Source)

Those studies are empirical because they can be replicated, i.e., proved or disproved. The problem here is that you treat this issue like liberals do every "big" issue (global warming, racism, etc.). Opposing thoughts are not subject to debate, they are instead evil. You worship on the humanistic altar about government control of every aspect of every life in America, and when confronted with evidence that refutes your religion, react like every true believer does - by accusing the naysayer of being a heretic, a demon, of being evil.

You are a shrill, worthless, nobody dullard. If you want to wear 5 masks, go ******* ahead. Just shut the **** up and let the non-believers live their lives without the screeching panic from you.

Floggy confronts somebody NOT
WEARING A MASK!!

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Jesus ******* Christ, you idiot, you moron, TSF quoted the following:



Those studies are empirical because they can be replicated, i.e., proved or disproved. The problem here is that you treat this issue like liberals do every "big" issue (global warming, racism, etc.). Opposing thoughts are not subject to debate, they are instead evil. You worship on the humanistic altar about government control of every aspect of every life in America, and when confronted with evidence that refutes your religion, react like every true believer does - by accusing the naysayer of being a heretic, a demon, of being evil.

You are a shrill, worthless, nobody dullard. If you want to wear 5 masks, go ******* ahead. Just shut the **** up and let the non-believers live their lives without the screeching panic from you.

Floggy confronts somebody NOT
WEARING A MASK!!

This is what he is down to. The evidence mounts and overwhelmingly, study after study shows they don't work. The real life data we got from areas with lockdowns v those without them shows, masks don't work.

The vast majority of those studies were done by scientists/medical professionals, statements from Surgeon Generals. The data empirically shows they aren't working.

Yet, like the Christian about to be burned at the stake, he clings on to his religion to the last breath.

 

[Superman]

Loading…

pbs.twimg.com

 

[SteelChip]

To sum this all up...in my mind anyway.

 

[21STEELERS21]

New Study Highlights New Evidence That Masks Prevent Coronavirus Spread

Our expert weighs in on the new data

health.clevelandclinic.org

Here is a good article and study showing why masks obviously help. And if your a good American you should do what you can to help your country beat this virus.

 

[IndySteel]

If masks work then there would not have been a need to close everything down. Nothing should've been shut down anyway, masks or not. It's all bullshit.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

"the size of the COVID 19 virus: 0.12 microns"

"If you can smell wood smoke while wearing your face covering of choice, you’re probably not at all protected from COVID. However if you sneeze and you indeed have COVID, you project less of the virus into the area immediately around you. Same could be said if you sneezed into your elbow."

Not sure how these statements are confusing.

Good personal hygiene is more effective, the rest for the most part is based on emotions. How many properly fitted N95 masks have you observed at the grocery store?

Wash your damn hands!

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

New Study Highlights New Evidence That Masks Prevent Coronavirus Spread

Our expert weighs in on the new data

health.clevelandclinic.org

Here is a good article and study showing why masks obviously help. And if your a good American you should do what you can to help your country beat this virus.

OK I'm gonna tear that article apart. There's no way you read this, or you wouldn't have posted it. Wait...you would have. I'll stack all of the real studies (dozens) I posted above against this drivel horse **** posed as a real study. Learn below.

Let me break all of this down in layman's terms.

---------------
1. It begins with the title. "Evidence that Masks Prevent the Spread of Coronavirus."

The title leads one to believe "they are going to discuss masks and stopping the spread of COVID" yet they don't test masks AND COVID whatsoever. The two aren't linked in this epic work.

---------------

2. They interviewed a pulmonologist. A respiratory specialist. Not an epidemiologist. You know, the medical professionals that specialize in viruses and viral spread. Now I'm not saying he can't and shouldn't have an opinion, but if I wanted to do a real study on a virus, I'd be interviewing a doctor of viruses...duh.

---------------
3. The article then states the following, and exposes the first gaping hole in "the study."

If someone carrying the virus is wearing a cloth mask, that mask blocks most of the respiratory droplets they’re exhaling which is where the virus lives.

WRONG. Lies by exclusion. The virus lives in "droplets" AND "aerosols." Proven. The whole damned epic article omits aerosols. Totally. And only focuses on droplets - you know, the visible snot and stuff you see when someone sneezes. It's all they focus on. The word "aerosol" isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in the article.

The droplets are easier to address. It's easy to prevent them spreading and they fall to the earth rapidly. Coughing into your hands prevents droplet spread.

Aerosols are the problem. They pass right through masks and they linger in the air for minutes. NOT addressing aerosols is a major pitfall of this "so called study." I can stop droplets with a handkerchief or a neck gaiter. Yet even a properly fitted N95 will allow some % of aerosols to pass through. The cloth masks and bullshit we all wear every day are a sieve for aerosols and only stop up to 3% of aerosols.

This "article" intentionally omits aerosols...the real reason we saw cases growing after mask mandates. Eliminates the article for any consideration at all right there...full stop.

---------------

4. The pulmonologist then says: "“The spread of the virus really goes down in areas where people wear masks and it goes as down as four-to-five times reduced risk of infection when people in the community are wearing a mask than when they’re not wearing a mask,” says Dr. Dweik." Yeah, show us where. I personally have posted dozens upon dozens of images from around the globe where cases went UP after the mask mandates, often drastically.

Where Doc? Interesting that this "study" doesn't point to a single locale where this happened. Not one. Nope, instead because a pulmonologist said it, it must be true riggghhht? Where? Show me. Because every other before and after analysis of any locale around the world shows no impact or virus spread increasing drastically.

@21: I'm calling you out on this: Point me to any locale where it can be shown with data and evidence that cases dropped 4x to 5x after mask wearing. I'll wait.

---------------

5. Now to the "study." I put it in quotes because it is not a study of masks and COVID. What they "studied" is how effective different types of masks were at preventing "DROPLETS" from spreading. Again...aerosols weren't even tested.

The Duke study was focused on coming up with a cost-effective way of evaluating how effective a type of mask is, it was able to collect data on 14 different types of masks using that method.

How effective at what???

Let's find out! It's stunning....

The method worked like this: a mask-wearing tester spoke through an opening into a small, dark box that was shot through with an expanded laser beam. A cell phone camera recorded the droplets spread by the speaker that were caught by the laser and a computer algorithm counted the number of droplets.

Wow. You know what this sounds like? The kid next to me at the science fair in high school. "I bet if I put a screen up over an open window fewer bugs will come into my house. Where's my poster board and crayon?"

They even reference how "cheap" this study was (mind you this was Duke ******* university that pulled this stunt folks, plenty of money there):

The relatively cheap cost of necessary equipment and the ease of building the set-up makes it a tempting option for companies or organizations that want to perform their own tests.

Then this earth shattering science fair project ended with a recommendation of the "most effective masks and stopping the spread of droplets."

Did they put different types of masks on people, send them into controlled settings, and see over weeks who caught COVID or who didn't? Nope.
Did they look at the data, county by county, across the country where masks were mandated and others weren't? Nope.
Did they test which masks can prevent aerosol spread? Nope.

No sir, this science fair project used "cheap" equipment and measured which pieces of cloth stopped "droplets", a mere portion of the means by which COVID is spread.

Due respect 21, and you may thinking I'm joking, but I HAVE seen more "science" at a high school science fair than this pile of steaming **** they call science.

The entire thing is a farce from the title (infers it tests masks and COVID and does not), to the basis of the study (doesn't even CONSIDER aerosols) to the doctor's bogus claims (cases went down 4-5X) to the study itself (a cheap camera measuring droplet spread).

The kids featured in October Sky won a science fair using 50x more "science" than exists in this Duke study, which is anything but.

 

[Troglodyte]

Jesus ******* Christ, you idiot, you moron, TSF quoted the following:



Those studies are empirical because they can be replicated, i.e., proved or disproved. The problem here is that you treat this issue like liberals do every "big" issue (global warming, racism, etc.). Opposing thoughts are not subject to debate, they are instead evil. You worship on the humanistic altar about government control of every aspect of every life in America, and when confronted with evidence that refutes your religion, react like every true believer does - by accusing the naysayer of being a heretic, a demon, of being evil.

You are a shrill, worthless, nobody dullard. If you want to wear 5 masks, go ******* ahead. Just shut the **** up and let the non-believers live their lives without the screeching panic from you.

Floggy confronts somebody NOT
WEARING A MASK!!

No. The problem is what is supposedly being measured and how. HOW does anyone measure mask wearing, or social distancing, of a population? How is that OBSERVED and VERIFIED regardless of what conclusions are drawn?

My belief that masks work is based on the centuries old Germ Theory of Disease. I’ve never had any reason to doubt it before Covid and nothing has changed that.

 

[Steeltime]

No. The problem is what is supposedly being measured and how. HOW does anyone measure mask wearing, or social distancing, of a population? How is that OBSERVED and VERIFIED regardless of what conclusions are drawn?

My belief that masks work is based on the centuries old Germ Theory of Disease. I’ve never had any reason to doubt it before Covid and nothing has changed that.

So let's see if I have this straight. You mock TSF for posting several articles from medical journals about the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of cloth masks and the Chinese flu, but you cite yourself and think you win the argument.

Uhhh, sure, Flog. You bet.

Hey, what if TSF then cites himself? He wins, right?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

No. The problem is what is supposedly being measured and how. HOW does anyone measure mask wearing, or social distancing, of a population? How is that OBSERVED and VERIFIED regardless of what conclusions are drawn?

My belief that masks work is based on the centuries old Germ Theory of Disease. I’ve never had any reason to doubt it before Covid and nothing has changed that.

Centuries old Germ Theory of Disease!! What do you stuff in your beak to prevent the spread of COVID? Thyme? Basil? Do you bake a chicken in there while you're at it?



Centuries old Germ Theory hasn't proven that masks work for the flu even, but the blind followers of ideology believe it stops COVID. I posted a study that showed that masks had NO effect on the Flu Pandemic of 1918.

But Centuries old Germ Theory....

Read the studies. You literally have not. You are ignoring them, not reading them, then dismissing them with your bird beak theory of Germ Theory.

Anyway, you said you were gonna grab popcorn and read them. Try it this time and you'll answer your own questions - how was it measured, observed, verified. It's all in there Hypoflog.

I'll give you a few. Dissect these, you know like I did 21's 6th grade science fair project above and get back to us and tell us how what they were measuring and how they observed it and how they verified it.

Your homework:

1. The Danish Randomized study of 6,000 participants - https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
2. The February 21 review by the European CDC, specifically their findings on non-medical face masks - https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/de...ovid-19-face-masks-community-first-update.pdf
3. The July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine - https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

Just go through those 3 Floggy. A man of your worldly brilliance should be able to back up his claims.

Report back.