3 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

LOL. The science of it all. We heard that a lot from people peddling pseudo-science. I picked up covid myself wearing a mask in a crowd. They are probably more useful on a scooter, protecting the lungs from air pollution.

 

The Thai people had the fear of God hammered into them. About 2 weeks ago, I went for an early morning walk in the local park. On top of the hill, at 7 am a Thai man was sitting on his own, wearing a mask, no other humans in sight until I got there.

The data says an infected person wearing a mask is 70% less likely to communicate COVID. An uninfected person wearing a mask is 30% less likely to acquire COVID. You still had a 70% chance of acquisition, if you were in contact with an infected person who was not wearing a mask.

The usual excuse used by anti-maskers is masks cannot possibly filter out a COVID virus measuring 125 nm in diameter. While this is correct, it ignores a problem of projection.

How far can you throw a golf ball, and how far can you throw a pea? A virus cannot travel from one person to another without a vehicle, in this case sputum from coughing and sneezing. That is what masks reduce. They are not perfect, an expectation anti-maskers share with anti-vaxxers.

I can explain the science to you, I can't understand it for you.

 

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The data says an infected person wearing a mask is 70% less likely to communicate COVID. An uninfected person wearing a mask is 30% less likely to acquire COVID. You still had a 70% chance of acquisition, if you were in contact with an infected person who was not wearing a mask.

The usual excuse used by anti-maskers is masks cannot possibly filter out a COVID virus measuring 125 nm in diameter. While this is correct, it ignores a problem of projection.

How far can you throw a golf ball, and how far can you throw a pea? A virus cannot travel from one person to another without a vehicle, in this case sputum from coughing and sneezing. That is what masks reduce. They are not perfect, an expectation anti-maskers share with anti-vaxxers.

I can explain the science to you, I can't understand it for you.

 

Seriously, you're using this thread to explain your science of mask-wearing, while having another stab at anti-vaxxers while you're at it? Enough already, it has been done to death... I apologize for replying to a comment about masks. I won't make the mistake again. 

3 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

Seriously, you're using this thread to explain your science of mask-wearing, while having another stab at anti-vaxxers while you're at it? Enough already, it has been done to death... I apologize for replying to a comment about masks. I won't make the mistake again. 

I won't be making the same mistake either, thanks for the confirmation of IQ.

On 11/30/2023 at 11:29 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

IQ is important.

 

How can we increase the average IQ in Thailand, 89, up to 107, like HK?

 

This is SUPER IMPROTANT.

Unless this has been pointed out already, with your grammatical skills you’re possibly not best placed to question others IQs.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I won't be making the same mistake either, thanks for the confirmation of IQ.

You're using it to start a conversation about face masks, AND insulting the person you're replying to. Good work! Even if your IQ is ok, there's still a screw loose somewhere. Didn't you have enough of this during the 2 years of lockdown? I'm sure you cut 'and pasted your pseudo-science at any opportunity you could find. It was really easy as anyone who disputed the "science" was given posting vacations.

22 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Or a forum member who thinks they are a lawyer in a court room delivering their final statement and 'resting their case' !!!! 

 

You make a point though... there are many different types of intelligence.

Well it is just a phrase, anyone could use it for anything.  It is not forbidden and not only for lawyers.