Coronavirus outbreak

[TOMapleLaughs]

26 minutes ago, johngould21 said:

Only the anti maskers, that's the joke. My wife and I haven't had a cold, or flu in two plus years. Do you think there might be a coincidence?

Social distancing. Being scared of human contact. Etc. 

 

But omicron has spread around the world regardless now. 

 

So masking really is useless. That's why we ditched that mandate. 

 

And as cited, they weren't ever all that effective anyway. People are just pretending otherwise. 

[TOMapleLaughs]

15 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Two words

 

RISK MANAGEMENT 

 

Even N95 masks are not 100%.  

 

The fact you're still beating this dead horse shows us you don't get it or you're trolling.   And really, the latter isn't an option because you need to at least indicate that it is an option. So in reality, it is the former.   You just don't get it even though it has been demonstrated and explained numerous times since you started posting in this thread.   Sad.

Tell that to the doctor citing the proven data i guess. 

[RUPERTKBD]

23 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

The idiocy may have been in believing that masks were a solve all. 

 

Nope. Not even close

Nobody said that.

 

Mask wearing was part of an overall strategy for mitigating the risk of contracting Covid-19.  The strategy included social distancing, hand sanitizing, self-isolation when symptomatic and yes, wearing a mask in public. (among other things) None of these measures would have been effective in slowing the spread on their own.

 

Mask wearing was part of the solution. No-one said it was the solution....

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

Social distancing. Being scared of human contact. Etc. 

 

But omicron has spread around the world regardless now. 

 

So masking really is useless. That's why we ditched that mandate. 

 

And as cited, they weren't ever all that effective anyway. People are just pretending otherwise. 

Do you have sources for this connection?  Making this type of statement is what the urine drinking antivaxxers are known for.  

[Gurn]

So masking really is useless. That's why we ditched that mandate. 

 

And as cited, they weren't ever all that effective anyway

 

 

Can't keep it straight- from one sentence to the next. 

[TOMapleLaughs]

11 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Nobody said that.

 

Mask wearing was part of an overall strategy for mitigating the risk of contracting Covid-19.  The strategy included social distancing, hand sanitizing, self-isolation when symptomatic and yes, wearing a mask in public. (among other things) None of these measures would have been effective in slowing the spread on their own.

 

Mask wearing was part of the solution. No-one said it was the solution....

Uh huh.  

 

We also forgot that when literally fighting about it in public. 

[TOMapleLaughs]

6 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Do you have sources for this connection?  Making this type of statement is what the urine drinking antivaxxers are known for.  

First, Did you even read the article?

[RUPERTKBD]

5 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

Uh huh.  

 

We also forgot that when literally fighting about it in public. 

If you say so....but the only ones causing fights were the ones who refused to wear them. The rest of us got along just fine....

[TOMapleLaughs]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

If you say so....but the only ones causing fights were the ones who refused to wear them. The rest of us got along just fine....

Esp. the politicians not wearing them unless it was for a photo op.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

22 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

Tell that to the doctor citing the proven data i guess. 

You mean the doctor who linked to this article that says this in the structured abstract.   Kinda says the opposite of what you're claiming.    Ooops

 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069

CONCLUSION

A randomized-trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh during the COVID-19 pandemic shows that the intervention increased mask usage and reduced symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, demonstrating that promoting community mask-wearing can improve public health.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

Lol that masks don't work argument still happening.   When we have stuff like this  (posted earlier in this very thread).  Comparison of mask requiring school districts vs ones that didn't in Arkansas from August to October 2021.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7110e1.htm

Summary

What is already known about this topic?

Masks are an important part of a multicomponent prevention strategy to limit transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Some school jurisdictions required masks in K–12 schools for fall 2021, while others did not.

What is added by this report?

In Arkansas during August–October 2021, districts with universal mask requirements had a 23% lower incidence of COVID-19 among staff members and students compared with districts without mask requirements.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Masks remain an important part of a multicomponent approach to prevent COVID-19 in K–12 settings, especially in communities with high levels of COVID-19

 

[RUPERTKBD]

9 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

Esp. the politicians not wearing them unless it was for a photo op.

For sure. "Politicians" were the problem.....not idiot anti-vaxxers standing outside of schools, screaming that mask wearing was "child abuse"....

[TOMapleLaughs]

12 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

You mean the doctor who linked to this article that says this in the structured abstract.   Kinda says the opposite of what you're claiming.    Ooops

 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069

CONCLUSION

A randomized-trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh during the COVID-19 pandemic shows that the intervention increased mask usage and reduced symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, demonstrating that promoting community mask-wearing can improve public health.

Smh. 

 

As the article and data stated, age was the determining factor. They presented no benefit for anyone under 50.  And for those over 50, cloth masks were useless and surgical masks reduced spread by 11%

 

Ooooh.  That's worth a mandate. A mandate that yup, allowed totally useless cloth masks. 

 

But more importantly the study was conducted well before omicron spread throughout the world. 

 

It was astounding that we kept the mandates as long as we did considering the long proven data. It should have been put on individuals long ago. 

 

The doctor's conclusions are sound. 

 

Wear a mask in high risk settings or if you feel like they help. Like in the hospital. If you feel particularly sick then stay home. 

 

The nanny state apparatus that failed us anyway wasn't needed. Probably not ever considering the data. 

 

Ps. Bangladesh never installed an enforced mask use policy. Prob. because they knew it wasn't worth the bother. 

 

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

Smh. 

 

As the article and data stated, age was the determining factor. They presented no benefit for anyone under 50.  And for those over 50, cloth masks were useless and surgical masks reduced spread by 11%

 

Ooooh.  That's worth a mandate. A mandate that yup, allowed totally useless cloth masks. 

 

But more importantly the study was conducted well before omicron spread throughout the world. 

 

It was astounding that we kept the mandates as long as we did considering the long proven data. It should have been put on individuals long ago. 

 

The doctor's conclusions are sound. 

 

Wear a mask in high risk settings or if you feel like they help. Like in the hospital. If you feel particularly sick then stay home. 

 

The nanny state apparatus that failed us anyway wasn't needed. Probably not ever considering the data. 

 

Ps. Bangladesh never installed an enforced mask use policy. Prob. because they knew it wasn't worth the bother. 

 

hindsight is so neat. 

[The Lock]

1 hour ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

Reduces, yes. Still spreads regardless, also yes. 

 

The idiocy may have been in believing that masks were a solve all. 

 

Nope. Not even close 

 

And to think the public has been physically fighting over it for years. 

 

What a joke. 

The only things people have really said is to "help stop the spread of the virus but wearing a mask". Nothing in that states it'll completely stop the spread; however, it does stop the spread in many cases since spit particles are moving from body to body less.

 

Anti-maskers are the only ones saying that officials are saying it's a solve all. It's a strawman argument.

 

Go back and watch Bonny Henry's reports and how she says "reduce the spread". Go back and look at the commericals. What you are doing now is lying through your teeth about what people have said just so that you can make a point that doesn't exist. Who knows. Maybe you can find a politican or 2 out there who doesn't know the difference between reduce the spread and completely prevents the spread, but the majority of everything we've heard says "reduces the spread".

 

And look, I get bring frustrated and wanting things to go back to normal. We'll get there, but the arguments I've seen you come up with to get there.... I wouldn't be surprised if you were related to the guy who didn't know how peeing works. That's me being honest here. lol This thread is not your finest hour.(or months in this case)

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by The Lock

[TOMapleLaughs]

12 minutes ago, JM_ said:

hindsight is so neat. 

But the data is 2yrs old. 

[TOMapleLaughs]

5 minutes ago, The Lock said:

The only things people have really said is to "help stop the spread of the virus but wearing a mask". Nothing in that states it'll completely stop the spread; however, it does stop the spread in many cases since spit particles are moving from body to body less.

 

Anti-maskers are the only ones saying that officials are saying it's a solve all. It's a strawman argument.

 

Go back and watch Bonny Henry's reports and how she says "reduce the spread". Go back and look at the commericals. What you are doing now is lying through your teeth about what people have said just so that you can make a point that doesn't exist. Who knows. Maybe you can find a politican or 2 out there who doesn't know the difference between reduce the spread and completely prevents the spread, but the majority of everything we've heard says "reduces the spread".

 

And look, I get bring frustrated and wanting things to go back to normal. We'll get there, but the arguments I've seen you come up with to get there.... I wouldn't be surprised if you were related to the guy who didn't know how peeing works. That's me being honest here. lol This thread is not your finest hour.(or months in this case)

 

I think the Bangladesh case made it simple. It should have been an individual policy. For surgical masks or n95s. 

 

Instead cloth masks were pushed. But they were useless. So the public was spreading it as if they were maskless. 

 

We were being agitated about useless policy for years and then it was kept far too long even after omicron made it even more useless. So wtf?

 

At least our media is starting to out this. 

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

I think the Bangladesh case made it simple. It should have been an individual policy. For surgical masks or n95s. 

 

Instead cloth masks were pushed. But they were useless. So the public was spreading it as if they were maskless. 

 

We were being agitated about useless policy for years and then it was kept far too long even after omicron made it even more useless. So wtf?

 

At least our media is starting to out this. 

Do you have any sources I can read/watch about this?

[thedestroyerofworlds]

I'm done with this dense masks don't work bs.  

 

Show us the actual articles where they say masks are useless.   Not some opinion piece of some jagoff doctor who links to an article that says in the abstract that mask wearing can improve public health.   As in they are NOT USELESS. 

 

 

[TOMapleLaughs]

8 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Do you have any sources I can read/watch about this?

Yuh. It's what this comment chain was referring to.