"the California region where masks are taboo – and cases are rising"

In an environment how much more dangerous than the general public? 100X?

Do you have a point?

Masks work to save lives, as the scientific evidence i've posted supports.
So now you're just pulling numbers straight put of your ass. LMAO.

If masks work, they don't get infected 12x more than the general public, idiot.

1. Do you deny that people who work in hospitals with those infected and or dying of covid are in an extremely high risk environment? How much higher risk is that environment compared to that of the average citizen during working hours?

2. Wrong. You think every environment is equally risky? A 100X more risky environment can easily produce 12X more infections even with masks being used always & properly. That's just common sense.
 
Last edited:

mr merlin

EOG Master
If masks work why dont we see infections rise when mandates are removed? Why dont we see infections fall when they're implemented?

Why is there no statistical evidence of any benefit whatsoever?
 
"The surgical mask blocked about 60% of .03 micron particles and over 90% of 1 micron and 2.5 micron particles."


"in one study, researchers tested particles down to .007 microns (even smaller than viruses) and found that a simple surgical mask blocked 80%."

"... it’s downright surprising that surgical masks are just as effective [as N95 masks]! Maybe virus particles are actually easy to capture because they fly on water droplets.

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/n95-mask-surgical-prevent-transmission-coronavirus/?rel=1

In other words, they didn't block enough to prevent infection.

Derp.
Wrong. In a community where masks are commonly used they will stop many infections. Which means they will stop many severe illnesses, hospitalizations, cases of long covid and deaths.

Furthermore, by blocking many virus particles, thereby reducing the number of particles able to infect others, therefore even many of those infected will not be infected with as high a load of virus particles, which means many will have a less severe illness than they would have otherwise, including many not dieing.
That explains why death counts have been highest in every single country under mask mandates. LMAO.

You want to compare apples with banana peels? How stupid is that?

I've posted several studies & examples where after masks were mandated or came into wide use in a place thereafter followed a reduction in infections.
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
You want to compare apples with banana peels? How stupid is that?

I've posted several studies & examples where after masks were mandated or came into wide use in a place thereafter followed a reduction in infections.

Uhh. LMAO. Where did these reductions take place exactly?
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
Still no answer.

Based on what evidence?

Based on every single country's empirical data showing the biggest surges coming after mask mandates were enacted and having no difference in per capita numbers between neighboring states and countries that enacted them vs. those that did not, genius.
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
1. Do you deny that people who work in hospitals with those infected and or dying of covid are in an extremely high risk environment? How much higher risk is that environment compared to that of the average citizen during working hours?

2. Wrong. You think every environment is equally risky? A 100X more risky environment can easily produce 12X more infections even with masks being used always & properly. That's just common sense.

Pulling numbers straight out of your ass.
 
If masks work why dont we see infections rise when mandates are removed?

1. We do see that in a number of places.

2. Other factors (vaccinations, natural immunity, etc) are working to offset the increase that would have occurred if removing mask mandates were the only factor at play. So you're failure is failing to consider and realize that whether infection numbers go up or down is dependent on multiple factors. This has been repeated ad nauseum, but you keep bringing it up, yet have no response to this. Why?


Why dont we see infections fall when they're implemented?

Why is there no statistical evidence of any benefit whatsoever?

1. We do as per a number of studies i've already posted to you guys in threads here.

2. See 2. above.
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
1. We do see that in a number of places.

2. Other factors (vaccinations, natural immunity, etc) are working to offset the increase that would have occurred if removing mask mandates were the only factor at play. So you're failure is failing to consider and realize that whether infection numbers go up or down is dependent on multiple factors. This has been repeated ad nauseum, but you keep bringing it up, yet have no response to this. Why?




1. We do as per a number of studies i've already posted to you guys in threads here.

2. See 2. above.

Now you're just flat out lying.
 

mr merlin

EOG Master
1. We do see that in a number of places.

2. Other factors (vaccinations, natural immunity, etc) are working to offset the increase that would have occurred if removing mask mandates were the only factor at play. So you're failure is failing to consider and realize that whether infection numbers go up or down is dependent on multiple factors. This has been repeated ad nauseum, but you keep bringing it up, yet have no response to this. Why?




1. We do as per a number of studies i've already posted to you guys in threads here.

2. See 2. above.
So lets see...if mask mandates are removed and cases dont rise you say "well, it must be the vaccines?", if you mention that they dont have a very high level of vaccinations you say "well, then it's natural immunity".

Sounds like a load of crap to me.
 
So lets see...if mask mandates are removed and cases dont rise you say "well, it must be the vaccines?", if you mention that they dont have a very high level of vaccinations you say "well, then it's natural immunity".

Sounds like a load of crap to me.

Nah, that's misrepresentation. I've given you guys like a dozen reasons why infection numbers can rise or fall. There are many more besides those.

Just because a mask mandate ends doesn't mean everyone suddenly stops wearing masks. With news of more deadly variants mask use could even increase after a mandate is dropped.

Weather is another factor. And people being outdoors more.

Number of people getting tests is another factor.

Changes in how a positive test is determined could be still another factor.

Numbers of people acting irresponsibly is constantly changing & another factor you guys ignore.

Loosening of restrictions is another factor.

A wave of infections prior to a mask mandate, and the reason a mandate was ordered in the first place, is another factor.

The fact is the scientific evidence supports masks save lives. So all this useless speculation you guys do re mandates is just whistling dixie.
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
Nah, that's misrepresentation. I've given you guys like a dozen reasons why infection numbers can rise or fall. There are many more besides those.

Just because a mask mandate ends doesn't mean everyone suddenly stops wearing masks. With news of more deadly variants mask use could even increase after a mandate is dropped.

Weather is another factor. And people being outdoors more.

Number of people getting tests is another factor.

Changes in how a positive test is determined could be still another factor.

Numbers of people acting irresponsibly is constantly changing & another factor you guys ignore.

Loosening of restrictions is another factor.

A wave of infections prior to a mask mandate, and the reason a mandate was ordered in the first place, is another factor.

The fact is the scientific evidence supports masks save lives. So all this useless speculation you guys do re mandates is just whistling dixie.

Every single country and state that had mask mandates experience their ENTIRE biggest surges under mask mandates.

And neat argument about the "dozens of facotrs". Might want to look at your thread title, dipshit.

But nice try at the lies again.
 
A little knowledge - and a lot of erroneous assumptions - plus huge amounts of ignorance - is a dangerous thing.

Thanks to health authorities recommendations re extreme safety measures - shutdowns, masks, distancing, vaccinations, etc - tens of millions of lives were saved.
 

mr merlin

EOG Master
A little knowledge - and a lot of erroneous assumptions - plus huge amounts of ignorance - is a dangerous thing.

Thanks to health authorities recommendations re extreme safety measures - shutdowns, masks, distancing, vaccinations, etc - tens of millions of lives were saved.
i doubt even 10 lives were saved in the US, more likely it cost many, many lives in collateral effects.
 
"In early march, Texas became the first state to abolish its mask mandate and lift capacity constraints for all businesses.

"... Nine weeks later, the result seems to be less than catastrophic. In fact, in a new paper, economists at Bentley University and San Diego State University found that Abbott’s order had practically no effect on COVID-19 cases.

[One] "...possibility is that Abbott’s decision didn’t matter very much because other factors—such as weather, accelerating vaccinations, and a bit of luck—mattered more at the time. The coronavirus seems to spread less efficiently in hot and humid environments, which could partly explain why states such as Texas and Florida have managed to avoid higher-than-average COVID-19 deaths, despite their governors’ famous aversion to restrictions. Add this to the pace of vaccinations in March, and it’s possible that Abbott just got lucky, by lifting restrictions at a time when cases were destined to decline, no matter what.

"Yet another explanation is that Abbott’s decision didn’t matter because nobody changed their behavior. According to the aforementioned Texas paper, Abbot’s decision had no effect on employment, movement throughout the state, or foot traffic to retailers. It had no effect in either liberal or conservative counties, nor in urban or exurban areas. The pro-maskers kept their masks on their faces. The anti-maskers kept their masks in the garbage. And many essential workers, who never felt like they had a choice to begin with, continued their pre-announcement habits.The governor might as well have shouted into a void.

"Across the country, in fact, people’s pandemic behavior appears to be disconnected from local policy, which complicates any effort to know which COVID-19 policies actually work.

"... Decrees from the federal government may not affect Americans any more than local rules do. In a recent announcement, the CDC reversed its guidance for vaccinated individuals in a manner so dramatic that it struck some as the V-E Day of the pandemic. But survey results from The Economist and YouGov show that the big pivot hasn’t dramatically changed people’s masking behaviors. The main drivers of mask wearing have been ideology, partisanship, and vaccination status—which is itself highly, if imperfectly, correlated with ideology. Most people aren’t waiting on the CDC.

" Governors don’t reopen or close economies. The CDC doesn’t put masks on or take them off citizens’ faces. A small number of elites don’t decide when everyone else feels safe enough to shop, eat inside, or get on a plane. People seem to make these decisions for themselves, based on some combination of local norms, political orientation, and personal risk tolerance that resists quick reversals, no matter what public health elites say.

 
"Dave et al. suggest several possible reasons why the Texas reopening did not have the impact that its opponents anticipated. First, increasing vaccination (a trend that Abbott's critics surely were aware of) "may have mitigated the contagion effects of interactions" between members of different households. Second, "it may be that there was limited compliance with and enforcement of mask mandates or capacity constraint requirements prior to the March 10 reopening." Third, removing occupancy limits, which were previously 75 percent of capacity for most businesses and 50 percent for bars and professional sports, may have been too minor a change to "affect net population-based social mobility and statewide spread of COVID-19."

"Finally, the authors say, "it may be that the types of individuals who were affected by the policy" were "those least likely to affect the trajectory of COVID-19 growth." Or perhaps "any increase in social mobility or COVID-19 caused by such individuals was offset by others in the community who engaged in risk avoiding behaviors in response to the reopening."

"It should have been clear when Abbott announced the reopening on March 2 that the changes he planned were unlikely to have much of a direct impact on virus transmission. While he said face masks would no longer be legally required, he urged Texans to continue wearing them in public, and businesses remained free to require them. In Dallas (which may or may not be representative of the state as a whole in this respect), I have not observed any change in business mask policies or customer compliance. And it seemed implausible that removing the 75 percent occupancy cap (the one that applied to most businesses) would have a medically significant effect even in businesses that were frequently butting up against that limit."

 
"Reason has an interesting piece on this.
I would want to dig into the original study of course.

[IMG alt="reason.com"]https://reason.com/wp-content/uploa...-Skidmore-flickr-2-cropped-1200x630.jpg[/IMG]

A New Study Confirms That Reopening Texas '100 Percent' Had No Discernible Impact on COVID-19 Cases or Deaths

Critics said Gov. Greg Abbott's decision was "extraordinarily dangerous" and reflected "Neanderthal thinking."
[IMG alt="reason.com"]https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.n...s/favicon/apple-icon-57x57_54c6d0f8.png[/IMG] reason.com

The core of the argument is that people didn't change their behavior much after the opening.

"We find no evidence that the Texas reopening led to substantial changes in social mobility, including foot traffic at a wide set of business establishments in Texas," Bentley University economist Dhaval Dave and his two co-authors report in a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper.
It should have been clear when Abbott announced the reopening on March 2 that the changes he planned were unlikely to have much of a direct impact on virus transmission. While he said face masks would no longer be legally required, he urged Texans to continue wearing them in public, and businesses remained free to require them. In Dallas (which may or may not be representative of the state as a whole in this respect), I have not observed any change in business mask policies or customer compliance. And it seemed implausible that removing the 75 percent occupancy cap (the one that applied to most businesses) would have a medically significant effect even in businesses that were frequently butting up against that limit.
 
Don't forget that the Texas Rangers have played 20 home games now. Most of those games with a 3/4 full stadium.

And yet no increase in new cases

Being outside is reportedly about 20X safer than being in indoor poorly ventilated places. Furthermore:

They opened up March 10. At that time I don't believe they were even at 20% of their population vaccinated. Everyone thought they were crazy but infections and hospitalizations continued to decline. Once again CDC and Messiah Fauci with egg on their face.

Now it's over 50%. So according to Darth Nasty math 50 - 20 = 30, so infections should have gone down 30% since the time 20% were vaccinated. LOL.

And don't forget other factors, e.g. the ever increasing numbers of Texans who've been infected, recovered & have antibody protection against the virus, making the Texas population ever less vulnerable to infections. Thereby being a factor working to reduce the numbers of infections.

So why haven't Texas' infection numbers been skyrocketing downwards? Maybe because fewer are wearing masks & restrictions have been lifted leading to more risky behaviours.
 
basketcase said:
The massive drop in rates ended when the mask mandate ended and there has only been a slow decrease since then despite a huge jump in numbers of vaccinated people. Most people would agree that likely the lack of masks has slowed the decrease in cases caused by vaccinations but thankfully we have you and your ridiculous campaign that masks are useless.

Game, set, match!
 
You need to keep in mind that, to win, my task is much easier than yours.

Your hypothesis is to prove that masks don't provide any benefit to slowing the spread of covid. We have agreed that the rate at which covid spreads is based on a wide array of factors that continually fluctuate. As such it is a very complex system and proving your point is very difficult.

I actually do not have a hypothesis that I am trying to prove. I am only trying to prove the you are wrong. And no one can deny that proving you wrong is much, much easier than trying to prove, against science, that masks are useless in preventing the spread of covid.

So, as they say in tennis, advantage shack. And my advantage has resulted in me declaring game, set and match for me. If you disagree, maybe we can have a poll to see what others think. You'll have 3 votes for sure between you, TJ and hatchet. Do you think you'd get any more votes?

..............................
 

MonkeyF0cker

EOG Dedicated
Proving the point that masks are useless is not difficult, moron.

There were many states and even some countries where masks were not mandated. Their numbers are nearly identical to neighboring states that enacted harsh lockdowns and mask mandates.

You're the side that has to show a benefit and the fact that you don't comprehend that shows how little you know about ACTUAL science.

You have failed MISERABLY.
 

mr merlin

EOG Master
Being outside is reportedly about 20X safer than being in indoor poorly ventilated places. Furthermore:



Now it's over 50%. So according to Darth Nasty math 50 - 20 = 30, so infections should have gone down 30% since the time 20% were vaccinated. LOL.

And don't forget other factors, e.g. the ever increasing numbers of Texans who've been infected, recovered & have antibody protection against the virus, making the Texas population ever less vulnerable to infections. Thereby being a factor working to reduce the numbers of infections.

So why haven't Texas' infection numbers been skyrocketing downwards? Maybe because fewer are wearing masks & restrictions have been lifted leading to more risky behaviours.
Post after post postulating why nothing changed, why disaster was averted? Vaccines, immunity, luck, behavior, etc, but the key point is missed...if nothing changed then the mandates didn't matter, they were uneccessary to begin with.

Go back and look at that South dakota chart -they never really did anything after the brief shutdowns in the spring of 2020, yet they had their surge, and it was pretty bad for awhile, but they didn't panic like almost every other state leader did when the media and experts were screaming "do something". What was the result, it passed, their hospitals are empty, their unemployment is 2%, and people still dont wear masks or get vaccinated in high numbers - in the first 3 days of this reporting week a grand total of 200 people received their first shot.

And then you have you clowns in canada, that still think banning the purchase of certain products in stores will stop the virus, . yea, if you cant buy a wrench the pandemic will come under control, LOL
 
Post after post postulating why nothing changed, why disaster was averted? Vaccines, immunity, luck, behavior, etc, but the key point is missed...if nothing changed then the mandates didn't matter, they were uneccessary to begin with.

More & more people getting vaccinated & achieving natural immunity does not equate to "nothing changed".
 
Surgical masks are useless. N95 masks is whats needed

There is no evidence of transmission from free-floating viral particles. The transmission is from respiratory droplets and aerosols, the smallest of which are in the 5 um range.

...and surgical masks filter down to 1um.

"The surgical mask blocked about 60% of .03 micron particles and over 90% of 1 micron and 2.5 micron particles."


"in one study, researchers tested particles down to .007 microns (even smaller than viruses) and found that a simple surgical mask blocked 80%."

"... it’s downright surprising that surgical masks are just as effective [as N95 masks]! Maybe virus particles are actually easy to capture because they fly on water droplets.

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/n95-mask-surgical-prevent-transmission-coronavirus/?rel=1
 
The size of the virus is irrelevant because it doesn't float around on its own but in droplets which get blocked by masks, e.g. when someone is spitting out visible liquid when they are talking to you, or sneezing or coughing. This is just common sense & is backed by scientific evidence.

"Fact check: No, N95 filters are not too large to stop COVID-19 particles":

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...too-large-stop-covid-19-particles/5343537002/

https://apnews.com/article/afs:Content:9400514524

"In a review9 of observational studies, an international research team estimates that surgical and comparable cloth masks are 67% effective in protecting the wearer."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
 

mr merlin

EOG Master
"The surgical mask blocked about 60% of .03 micron particles and over 90% of 1 micron and 2.5 micron particles."


"in one study, researchers tested particles down to .007 microns (even smaller than viruses) and found that a simple surgical mask blocked 80%."

"... it’s downright surprising that surgical masks are just as effective [as N95 masks]! Maybe virus particles are actually easy to capture because they fly on water droplets.

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/n95-mask-surgical-prevent-transmission-coronavirus/?rel=1
Several large german states required N 95 masks be worn everywhere, it made no difference, none at all.
 
Masks have been worn by many hospital staff for many years.

"Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review":

https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

"One 2013 study looked at how masks could help people with the seasonal flu limit spreading it when they exhale droplets containing the virus. Overall, researchers found masks led to a more than threefold reduction in how much virus people sprayed into the air."

https://www.healthline.com/health/cold-flu/mask#research

"Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253999/
 
Here are articles with some of the evidence in support of masks saving lives:

"Scientific Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sars-cov2.html

"An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

...We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public...
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

"Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review":

https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf
 
Top