Deadpulse Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said: Do you agree with any of the information? It presents a lot of facts, however with those facts (of which they link to actual medical journals) they draw their own independent conclusions that are self serving. If you read the journals that they cite in your article, they literally debunk in their own citations the conclusions they draw. They present half the facts from those articles to fit their narrative. Basically, their own sources debunk their article. Almost comical really. Outside of that, I'd like to point out their "Final Thoughts" section: Quote Surgical masks are loose fitting. They are designed to protect the patient from the doctors’ respiratory droplets. There wearer is not protected from others’ airborne particles. People do not wear masks properly. Many people have the mask under the nose. The wearer does not have glasses on and the eyes are a portal of entry. If the virus lands on the conjunctiva, tears will wash it into the nasopharynx. Most studies cannot separate out hand hygiene. The designer masks and scarves offer minimal protection. They give a false sense of security to both the wearer and those around the wearer. **Not to mention they add a perverse lightheartedness to the situation. If you are walking alone, no need for a mask. Avoid other folks; use common sense. Remember: children under 2 years should not wear masks because of accidental suffocation and difficulty breathing in some. Even if a universal mask mandate were imposed, several studies noted that folks do not use the mask properly and over-report their wearing. Additionally, how would the mandate be enforced?? The positive studies are models that assume universality and full compliance. If wearing a mask makes people go out and get Vitamin D – go for it. In the 1918 flu pandemic people who went outside did better. Early reports are showing people with COVID-19 with low Vitamin D do worse than those with normal levels. Perhaps that is why shut-ins do so poorly. None of this states that masks arent effective. They are driving a narrative that human error makes them ineffective because masks, when worn by most correctly, are proven effective. They aren't trying to refute that, because it isn't refutable. They are arguing that people doing it wrong (using a material that isnt approved PPE, not covering your nose/mouth, pulling it down to talk, having it fit wildly, etc) make them ineffective but they offer no evidence to that claim. When masks and PPE measures (lockdowns, closures, etc) were put into place the rate of deaths and infection went down. That is clear fact. They avoid that because it doesn't support their idea here, an idea that they again do not support in all their article. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 Just now, Deadpulse said: They are arguing that people doing it wrong (using a material that isnt approved PPE, not covering your nose/mouth, pulling it down to talk, having it fit wildly, etc) make them ineffective but they offer no evidence to that claim. It’s a tremendous argument really “I’m too stupid to wear a mask so it doesn’t work” 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Deadpulse said: It presents a lot of facts, however with those facts (of which they link to actual medical journals) they draw their own independent conclusions that are self serving. If you read the journals that they cite in your article, they literally debunk in their own citations the conclusions they draw. They present half the facts from those articles to fit their narrative. Basically, their own sources debunk their article. Almost comical really. Outside of that, I'd like to point out their "Final Thoughts" section: None of this states that masks arent effective. They are driving a narrative that human error makes them ineffective because masks, when worn by most correctly, are proven effective. They aren't trying to refute that, because it isn't refutable. They are arguing that people doing it wrong (using a material that isnt approved PPE, not covering your nose/mouth, pulling it down to talk, having it fit wildly, etc) make them ineffective but they offer no evidence to that claim. When masks and PPE measures (lockdowns, closures, etc) were put into place the rate of deaths and infection went down. That is clear fact. They avoid that because it doesn't support their idea here, an idea that they again do not support in all their article. I will sum it up by saying what I said before. It is a scientific study. Make of it what you will. I've said all I'm going to say on the matter because I'm not interested in getting banned from a site I've been a member of for almost 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Uncle Buck said: I will sum it up by saying what I said before. It is a scientific study. Make of it what you will. I've said all I'm going to say on the matter because I'm not interested in getting banned from a site I've been a member of for almost 15 years. Dude. Did YOU read the study? No where does it say properly wearing masks doesn’t reduce chances of getting or spreading COVID. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 Just now, Uncle Buck said: I will sum it up by saying what I said before. It is a scientific study. Make of it what you will. I've said all I'm going to say on the matter because I'm not interested in getting banned from a site I've been a member of for almost 15 years. why would you be banned? What are you going to say that wouldn't be allowed? We are talking medicine here. It's also not a scientific study, they didn't do any of their own study, they took bits and pieces from other's scientific study and cited it in this article. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 Just now, MookieMonstah said: Dude. Did YOU read the study? No where does it say properly wearing masks doesn’t reduce chances of getting or spreading COVID. Nobody is arguing that. Your statement is very broad. Of course a mask will provide some sort of protection if someone who has the virus walks up to you and sneezes in your face. Should we wear masks to prevent us from getting the flu or a common cold then, for the very same reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Uncle Buck said: Nobody is arguing that. Your statement is very broad. Of course a mask will provide some sort of protection if someone who has the virus walks up to you and sneezes in your face. Should we wear masks to prevent us from getting the flu or a common cold then, for the very same reason? So what are you arguing?!?!? You claimed masks are ineffective and cited this study. This study doesn’t even back your claim. Personally, now that it’s socially accepted I will probably wear a mask in stores during flu season. Yes. That’s also completely irrelevant to your claims. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Uncle Buck said: Nobody is arguing that. Your statement is very broad. Of course a mask will provide some sort of protection if someone who has the virus walks up to you and sneezes in your face. Should we wear masks to prevent us from getting the flu or a common cold then, for the very same reason? The flu has never crippled our medical system. It also ISNT nearly as deadly: Quote COVID-19: There have been approximately 1,584,788 deaths reported worldwide. In the U.S, 292,195 people have died of COVID-19 between January 2020 and December 11, 2020.* Flu: The World Health Organization estimates that 290,000 to 650,000 people die of flu-related causes every year worldwide. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu I have said it before, its the sheer ease of transmission that leads to an insane number of cases that creates the issue here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 1 minute ago, MookieMonstah said: So what are you arguing?!?!? You claimed masks are ineffective and cited this study. This study doesn’t even back your claim. Personally, now that it’s socially accepted I will probably wear a mask in stores during flu season. Yes. That’s also completely irrelevant to your claims. Read the study. Make of it what you will. If you disagree with it, I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said: Nobody is arguing that. Your statement is very broad. Of course a mask will provide some sort of protection if someone who has the virus walks up to you and sneezes in your face. Should we wear masks to prevent us from getting the flu or a common cold then, for the very same reason? If we have a flu strain that’s killing hundreds of thousands and overwhelming hospitals and shutting down our economy and can be easily spread by asymptomatic or presymptomatic carriers then yes we probably should tbh 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 Just now, Deadpulse said: The flu has never crippled our medical system. It also ISNT nearly as deadly: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu I have said it before, its the sheer ease of transmission that leads to an insane number of cases that creates the issue here. I could debunk the two statements in the top line, but what's the point? You are going to believe what you believe. AND SO AM I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said: I could debunk the two statements in the top line, but what's the point? You are going to believe what you believe. AND SO AM I. Please, I think I have proven that I will consider anything presented to me. I have also asked for corroboration and haven't seen any. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 Just now, Deadpulse said: Please, I think I have proven that I will consider anything presented to me. It would require a political discussion in addition to the science on both sides. I'm not going there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 Just now, Uncle Buck said: It would require a political discussion in addition to the science on both sides. I'm not going there. Why would it be political? We aren't talking about politics. If you present political 'evidence' then it isn't scientific evidence and can't possibly prove your point. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 10 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said: Read the study. Make of it what you will. If you disagree with it, I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it. This is honestly sad. You made a claim, the study you linked didn't support your claim. Instead of saying, oh man...Maybe I'm wrong. You double down and tell me to read the study? I did read it. It doesn't support what you said. Now what? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts