321–330 of 345 posts
Official sources are continuing to mess up, and causing more destruction than this book ever could. The Lancet is about as official as it gets: https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CDC and WHO both at various times recommended against the general public wearing masks. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/13/21214114/media-coronavi... This advice was wrong. It is not just sick people that benefit from wearing masks. It is not true that people are flattening that into "masks don't work". Masks don't work was repeated many, many times by these organizations. Here's an example: https://www.cidrap.…
At least two of those links had nuanced reasons that matched the parent's remarks. One even literately had a three point explanation: * There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission * Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection * We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-ris…
2. factually, several countries used masks as primary means of reducing transmission, including Czechs, Slovaks, Austrians, e.t.c. ... the sense of protection comes from seeing everybody else have mask
* clothmasks are enough, no need to stress about single-use disposable surgical masks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am always amused at how effective the There is no scientific evidence line is. That just means it has not been studied. No one has studied masks on this specific strain? It's new for crying out loud.
> No one has studied masks on this specific strain? You're misrepresenting the entire problem. The main unknown is not that protective equipment helps protect. That's a absurd strawman. The main unknown is the impact on the likelihood that someone not educated or trained or experienced in facing biological hazards would contract a virus when knowingly exposing themselves to the virus while wearing said protective equ…
Official sources are continuing to mess up, and causing more destruction than this book ever could. The Lancet is about as official as it gets: https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246
I eagerly await the retractions from the mainstream media outlets who had wall-to-wall coverage of this debunked study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I eagerly await the retractions from the mainstream media outlets who had wall-to-wall coverage of this debunked study.
A much better study came out the same day as the retraction saying pretty much the same thing, so don’t hold your breath.
That kind of viewpoint allows the media to peddle lies 24/7 and never be held accountable for them. Not that it'd stop them anyway, mainstream media is built upon lies (whether outright fabrications or lying by omission).
Studies are not facts. They are a mechanism by which decisions can be guided. That's why on all major issues there are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on either side saying opposite things.
The book is back on amazon as of now https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B089P216NP/
After a half hour long conversation with my neighbor last week of him trying to convince me that Bill Gates is behind coronavirus, please, for the love of our future, continue banning information that is blatantly put up on a bad faith basis. It's exhausting to see my mom and dad succumb to a new conspiracy every other day. I don't see how else we can curb this other than for the tech companies to start aggressively…
Wow...just wow. The only way to deal with people having bad ideas is censorship? Seriously? What about improving education, building functional (and trusted) institutions, and having more independent (non-profit driven) media? It really bothers me that there is a group of people begging for corporate overloads to control and think for the population. Its literally the opposite of everything this country stands for.
You can't educate people out of that kind of stupidity.
I don't know what the answer is, but that's not it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No one has studied masks on this specific strain? You're misrepresenting the entire problem. The main unknown is not that protective equipment helps protect. That's a absurd strawman. The main unknown is the impact on the likelihood that someone not educated or trained or experienced in facing biological hazards would contract a virus when knowingly exposing themselves to the virus while wearing said protective equ…
I'd say the condom analogy is great, and with R around 3, reduction in transmission beyond 70% means the damned infection rate grows no more.
The main point is that face masks are known to not be full proof, and badly worn ones might even be less effective than not wearing anything as they provide incentives for people to repeatedly touch their faces. More importantly facemasks create a false sense of safety and thus invite unwitting people to needlessly expose themselves to the virus.
If you want to understand the problem, think of combat helmets. You can put one on and safely walk into a war zone, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say the condom analogy is great, and with R around 3, reduction in transmission beyond 70% means the damned infection rate grows no more.
What? That makes no sense at all. Just because condoms can have low effectiveness it doesn't mean that wearing face masks makes the epidemic go magically away. What kind of twisted logic is that? The main point is that face masks are known to not be full proof, and badly worn ones might even be less effective than not wearing anything as they provide incentives for people to repeatedly touch their faces. More importa…
The mask is not protecting you. It is protecting others from you.
If you were right, and wearing masks badly would have been worse than not wearing them at all (i.e. w.r.t. touching your face and all that), then countries that opted for mandatory mask wearing would be worse off and they aren't.
Related: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it still wasn’t going to be enough.
It's not like they pulled existing stock in consumer retail outlets off the shelf, so I don't see how lying to the public about mask efficacy had any significant effect on the supply for healthcare workers