The logic of masking

[Peter Denis]

6 minutes ago, Trujillo said:

“Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.”

 

-- JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association)

 

The mask of the future?

> https://twitter.com/wef/status/1379720605235175433

Posted 3 days ago on the Twitter-account of the World Economic Forum, and heralded there as a major innovation - "the smart mask that can track your breathing and let you know if you are wearing it wrong or even if you forget to wear it at all."

 

No, thank you!

[Trujillo]

 "...the smart tinfoil hat that can track your ether trail and let you know if you are wearing it wrong or even if you forget to wear it at all."

 

Bingo!!!

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, Trujillo said:

"Which alternative Thailand do you live in?"

 

I live in Chiang Mai. 

 

“Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.”

-- JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association)

 

Masking: A Careful Review of the Evidence

-- American Institute for Economic Research

 

"While the evidence may seem conflicted, the evidence (including the peer-reviewed evidence) actually does not support its use (a mask) and leans heavily toward masks having no significant impact in stopping spread of the Covid virus."

 

 

Masking Children: Tragic, Unscientific, and Damaging

-- American Institute for Economic Research

 

"Children do not readily acquire SARS-CoV-2 (very low risk), spread it to other children or teachers, or endanger parents or others at home. This is the settled science. In the rare cases where a child contracts Covid virus it is very unusual for the child to get severely ill or die. Masking can do positive harm to children – as it can to some adults. But the cost benefit analysis is entirely different for adults and children – particularly younger children. Whatever arguments there may be for consenting adults – children should not be required to wear masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19."

 

And finally, Oh Canada:

 

Health Canada ….“discovered during a preliminary risk assessment that the masks contain microscopic graphene particles that, when inhaled, could cause severe lung damage.”

 

"Radio-Canada has obtained documents showing Health Canada warned of the potential for "early pulmonary toxicity" from the SNN200642 masks which are made in China and sold and distributed by Métallifer, a Quebec-based manufacturer."

-- edit: these are the ubiquitous blue "paper" masks that people seem to think have some efficacy. 

 

-- CBC News

In order:

 

The JAMA article is from March 2020 when virus transmission was not clearly understood and N95 masks were in short supply.

 

The "American Institute for Economic Research" is a right-leaning organization, it is not a medical organization.  It seems to focus on the ineffectiveness of cheap masks that are frequently worn incorrectly.  I prefer getting pandemic information from unbiased medical organizations.

 

Your final source is about a poor quality Chinese made mask used in some Montreal schools.  If your point in referencing it was to emphasize that people should make the effort to use decent quality masks, then I agree.

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by heybruce

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/26/2020 at 3:18 AM, Trujillo said:

Oh well, at least we will be able to find out, in time, how rebreathing your own carbon dioxide will affect one's health (and the health of [small] children) by wearing masks all the time. Just breathing out we expel about 4% CO2....

Probably not much if at all, IMO. Pilots wearing oxygen masks have to have a bag attached to store CO2 in which they breath in.

 

When one googles "Does your body need carbon dioxide to trigger breathing" one gets "As part of the process, our cells marry single atoms of carbon to two atoms of oxygen to make carbon dioxide - which we breathe out of our mouths as a waste product. We absolutely have to get rid of this carbon dioxide, so carbon dioxide is the main trigger to keep us breathing."

 

NB the bolded part.

[Andrew Dwyer]

On 4/10/2021 at 1:27 PM, Peter Denis said:

 

The mask of the future?

> https://twitter.com/wef/status/1379720605235175433

Posted 3 days ago on the Twitter-account of the World Economic Forum, and heralded there as a major innovation - "the smart mask that can track your breathing and let you know if you are wearing it wrong or even if you forget to wear it at all."

 

No, thank you!

A mask and a tracking device !! Sounds just what Thailand is looking for ????

[Trujillo]

Might interest some:

 

Outdoor-transmission-accounts-for-0.1% of-state's-covid-19-cases -- Irish Times

 

"The number of cases associated with outdoor transmission was 'so small to be insignificant"....

 

So for you all wearing a mask on your motorbike, on a bicycle or walking on the sidewalk, to name a few, be aware of your virtue-signaling. 

 

 

 

 

[CharlieH]

Reported flame post removed. Also now a misleading troll post.

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.
 

[FolkGuitar]

Argue against masks and you keep us all wearing them longer. This latest spike should show you that.  No, masks do NOT keep you safe. They keep others safe from you.  Please be considerate of others. One of those others just might be your wife's mother.   We can debate this point when you come into the donation center with her no-longer needed clothes.

[heybruce]

On 4/11/2021 at 9:17 AM, Trujillo said:

Might interest some:

 

Outdoor-transmission-accounts-for-0.1% of-state's-covid-19-cases -- Irish Times

 

"The number of cases associated with outdoor transmission was 'so small to be insignificant"....

 

So for you all wearing a mask on your motorbike, on a bicycle or walking on the sidewalk, to name a few, be aware of your virtue-signaling.

Or you are protecting yourself against the notoriously bad air pollution.

[Trujillo]

Interesting article in the New York Times from April 22nd: (Are masks necessary outdoors?), ... please go to that link for hyperlinks to function. 

 

A mask outdoors?

On the issue of outdoor mask wearing, it helps to review a basic fact: There are few if any documented cases of brief outdoor interactions leading to Covid transmission. If you’re passing other people on a sidewalk or sitting near them on a park bench, the exposure of exhaled particles appears to be too small to lead to infection.

“Viral particles quickly disperse in outdoor air, and the risk of inhaling aerosolized virus from a jogger or passers-by are negligible,” my colleague Tara Parker-Pope writes, citing an interview she did with Linsey Marr of Virginia Tech. As Dr. Muge Cevik, an infectious-disease expert at the University of St. Andrews, says, outdoors is “not where the infection and transmission occurs.”

 

Still, why not try to eliminate even a minuscule potential risk and tell people to wear a mask at all times? Because that’s not an effective way to reduce overall risk. “I think the guidelines should be based on science and practicality,” Marr said. “People only have so much bandwidth to think about precautions.”

 

Further on an interesting comment, which reveals a lot, actually: 

"Vaccinated people should continue to wear a mask in many indoor situations, to help contribute to a culture of mask wearing."

 

So at least this New York Times writer admits to there being a 'mask-wearing culture.' 

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. 

 

[Dante99]

3 hours ago, Trujillo said:

Interesting article in the New York Times from April 22nd: (Are masks necessary outdoors?), ... please go to that link for hyperlinks to function. 

 

A mask outdoors?

On the issue of outdoor mask wearing, it helps to review a basic fact: There are few if any documented cases of brief outdoor interactions leading to Covid transmission. If you’re passing other people on a sidewalk or sitting near them on a park bench, the exposure of exhaled particles appears to be too small to lead to infection.

“Viral particles quickly disperse in outdoor air, and the risk of inhaling aerosolized virus from a jogger or passers-by are negligible,” my colleague Tara Parker-Pope writes, citing an interview she did with Linsey Marr of Virginia Tech. As Dr. Muge Cevik, an infectious-disease expert at the University of St. Andrews, says, outdoors is “not where the infection and transmission occurs.”

Still, why not try to eliminate even a minuscule potential risk and tell people to wear a mask at all times? Because that’s not an effective way to reduce overall risk. “I think the guidelines should be based on science and practicality,” Marr said. “People only have so much bandwidth to think about precautions.”

 

Further on an interesting comment, which reveals a lot, actually: 

"Vaccinated people should continue to wear a mask in many indoor situations, to help contribute to a culture of mask wearing."

 

So at least this New York Times writer admits to there being a 'mask-wearing culture.' 

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. 

 

And part of the article did not include in your quote and which does recommend mask wearing is as follows:

 

"There are still important precautions to take, ones that are much more based in science than universal mask wearing. Unvaccinated people should wear masks when in close conversation with people outside their family — even outdoors — and should almost always wear a mask when indoors and not at home. "

 

Why did you not include this information in your quote?  Without it you are misleading/misinforming.

[ExpatOK]

Here's what Dr. Fauci said about masks.

 

 

[heybruce]

23 hours ago, canthai55 said:

In your opinion.

But according to the Great Unwashed, all opinions which do not agree with what you "Think" are deemed false and 'Conspiracy Nonsense'

And that is not why I could not post a link ...

Not just my opinion:

 

"Social media and video platforms including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are racing to remove a slickly-produced interview with widely discredited scientist Judy Mikovits. The viral "Plandemic" video lasts more than 20 minutes and peddles numerous debunked conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic."   https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/05/08/facebook-plandemic-judy-mikovits-shares-false-coronavirus-info/3095471001/

 

"Plandemic: The Hidden Agenda Behind Covid-19 and Plandemic: Indoctornation are a 2020 conspiracy theory video and film, respectively, both of which were produced by Mikki Willis and promote misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. Both feature Judy Mikovits, a discredited former researcher who has been described as an anti-vaccine activist.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plandemic

 

Some of the conspiracy theories are fact-checked here:  https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/may/08/fact-checking-plandemic-documentary-full-false-con/?fbclid=IwAR2VIzauYNsARKWg72_2_NOO15Dl_kLj0rGvyUkNV75qRVxfeLgaUVh-cPA

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Not just my opinion:

 

"Social media and video platforms including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are racing to remove a slickly-produced interview with widely discredited scientist Judy Mikovits. The viral "Plandemic" video lasts more than 20 minutes and peddles numerous debunked conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic."   https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/05/08/facebook-plandemic-judy-mikovits-shares-false-coronavirus-info/3095471001/

 

"Plandemic: The Hidden Agenda Behind Covid-19 and Plandemic: Indoctornation are a 2020 conspiracy theory video and film, respectively, both of which were produced by Mikki Willis and promote misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. Both feature Judy Mikovits, a discredited former researcher who has been described as an anti-vaccine activist.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plandemic

 

Some of the conspiracy theories are fact-checked here:  https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/may/08/fact-checking-plandemic-documentary-full-false-con/?fbclid=IwAR2VIzauYNsARKWg72_2_NOO15Dl_kLj0rGvyUkNV75qRVxfeLgaUVh-cPA

A conspiracy theory is only theory till it's proven correct.

[canthai55]

Yup - don't adhere and you are branded a lunatic, conspiracy theorist, or just plain crazy.

Anyone in this day and age who does not keep an open mind, who believes what the media tells them, trusts politicians ... is either woefully uninformed, or ... (fill in the blanks)

From Wiki itself - Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. ... Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources

Same as my maids aunts gardeners cousins cat told me ...

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A conspiracy theory is only theory till it's proven correct.

When science says something is wrong but people still believe it, it's not a theory, it's a crackpot idea that only crackpots believe.

 

Can you give an example of a conspiracy theory that has been proven correct?

Edited April 26, 2021 by heybruce

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, canthai55 said:

Yup - don't adhere and you are branded a lunatic, conspiracy theorist, or just plain crazy.

Anyone in this day and age who does not keep an open mind, who believes what the media tells them, trusts politicians ... is either woefully uninformed, or ... (fill in the blanks)

From Wiki itself - Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. ... Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources

Same as my maids aunts gardeners cousins cat told me ...

Wikipedia entries that reference credible sources are reliable.

 

I keep an open mind to information and ideas from sources that have earned a reputation for credibility.  The people behind
"Plandemic" have no credibility.  This is explained in the credible sources I provided a link to. 

[canthai55]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Wikipedia entries that reference credible sources are reliable.

"Wikipedia generally ..."

But believe what you want.

[canthai55]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

 The people behind "Plandemic" have no credibility.  This is explained in the credible sources I provided a link to. 

So 'Your Media' is more credible than 'My Media' !!!

And here we are, back in the schoolyard.

I have a firm distrust in ALL media, and am always open to other viewpoints.

Seems I am alone in this according to many people and their 'Sources'

[heybruce]

25 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

So 'Your Media' is more credible than 'My Media' !!!

And here we are, back in the schoolyard.

I have a firm distrust in ALL media, and am always open to other viewpoints.

Seems I am alone in this according to many people and their 'Sources'

You've put yourself in a paradox:  If you distrust all media then you must distrust Plandemic. 

 

Of course if you distrust all media, which includes the written word, then you have no source of information other than what you discover on your own.  You must also have difficulty traveling; after all, maps are a form of media.  But then I assume you doubt the existence of any place you haven't been to, so perhaps you have little need to travel.

[canthai55]

As of yet there is no world wide statistical system of Covid 19 reporting.

'If you have it, and you die, then you died of Covid 19 '

They forgot to prefix this with 'Once Upon a Time' - like all fairy tales start.

Until we have credible numbers then all these "Facts" are meaningless.

 

 

[heybruce]

20 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

As of yet there is no world wide statistical system of Covid 19 reporting.

'If you have it, and you die, then you died of Covid 19 '

They forgot to prefix this with 'Once Upon a Time' - like all fairy tales start.

Until we have credible numbers then all these "Facts" are meaningless.

A number of nations have reasonably good nationwide statistics on Covid 19, and these numbers show it to be a highly contagious disease with a death rate between 1% and 2% and lingering health problems for some of the survivors.   Covid 19 is not a fairy tale.

 

Accurate numbers and analysis may not be available until years from now, but the information available is enough to tell us how to reduce transmission and that vaccinations are safe (certainly much safer than catching the disease) and effective.

Edited April 26, 2021 by heybruce

[canthai55]

15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Claiming all media is propagandized or, in the case of canthai55, that one distrusts all media, is a way of justifying believing whatever one wants to and rejecting all evidence that discredits the beliefs.  It's mental laziness.

dis·trust

/disˈtrəst/

noun

noun: distrust; plural noun: distrusts

1. the feeling that someone or something cannot be relied upon.

    

   Do you believe everything you are told ?

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, canthai55 said:

dis·trust

/disˈtrəst/

noun

noun: distrust; plural noun: distrusts

1. the feeling that someone or something cannot be relied upon.

    

   Do you believe everything you are told ?

No, but I believe what I read when it comes from credible sources.

 

Why do you believe the nonsense in the Plandemic video?

[canthai55]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

No, but I believe what I read when it comes from credible sources.

So ... you pick and choose which media is 'credible', you and the rest of the 'Great Unwashed' to paraphrase Edward Bulwer-Lytton

Must be nice to be so sure of yourself.

[CharlieH]

Off topic post/replies removed

[Fat is a type of crazy]

45 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

So ... you pick and choose which media is 'credible', you and the rest of the 'Great Unwashed' to paraphrase Edward Bulwer-Lytton

Must be nice to be so sure of yourself.

It's not black and white. The Washington Post gets some things wrong. The Plandemic people may get the odd point right. But over time we make judgement calls about who has a track record of being trustworthy and correct, who corrects errors when the make them, who backs up their claims with verifiable evidence, who's claims are way outside the average of opinions . 

I think Fox News commentators are an example where they say things, it turns out not to be true, but by that time they have gone to the next thing and spout that as fact. 

My personal opinion is that lockdowns etc were a pain and did limit our rights but it was worth it. I think the more you live in a democracy with open and free press - the more likely you are to give the government a chance to prove the strategy is correct.

Where else in the world this weekend were there 2 football games with 75000 attendees packed in to a stadium and total freedom to do what you like. It was a difficult path but the Australian government has put further trust in the bank that sometimes tough decisions are necessary. 

[canthai55]

14 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It's not black and white.

I do not believe it is. Am just getting tired, after one year, of 99% of the stuff we hear being of the "Cower under your bed" type of reporting.

This many did that, this many need to ... when it is not verifiable - therefore not true.

Do I believe everything I read - no. Do media sources outside the establishment get it right - absolutely.

In General - the established media acts like the owners and editors want it to - after all they OWN it. Fair, Unbiased reporting is not their aim - making money is their aim.

So Blood sells, Panic sells, Hysteria sells, and most of all - the Party line sells.

Fox News as you have said above are the WORST of a Bad Bunch, and I see over the years that the rest are following suit. Why - $$$

Corporatocracy rules

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, canthai55 said:

So ... you pick and choose which media is 'credible', you and the rest of the 'Great Unwashed' to paraphrase Edward Bulwer-Lytton

Must be nice to be so sure of yourself.

You may think readers don't notice, but they do:  You criticize the news sources of others but refuse to state why you think the conspiracy theory video "Plandemic" is credible. 

 

You obviously pick and choose which media you think is credible.  I do the same, but with a rational criteria--I go with print media that has a history of factual recording and acknowledging the occasional mistakes.

 

What is your criteria?  Why to you think "Plandemic" comes from a credible source?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, NotEinstein said:

youtube is a mystery to you! I guess credible source for you means mainstream media......

I see that you rely on the mainstream "fact check" narrative control mechanism.

Explains why you are narrative managed. If you had simply clicked the whatreallyhappened.com link, you would have seen that it is a host of direct quotes from the actors involved, and official documents. Nothing refutable.

youtu.be is a mystery link.  Maybe it was a typo on your part, or maybe it's a link to malware. 

 

Even if it is a link to youtube I won't click on the link.  I don't get news and information from youtube.  Nobody who is serious about being informed does that.

 

I won't waste time reading and fact-checking your fringe "information" sites.  If there is anything pertinent to this topic you can post a quote here.