Masks DO NOT work!
#41
(02-25-2021, 05:48 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 05:39 PM)AlanK82 Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 05:38 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 05:37 PM)AlanK82 Wrote: And the seasonal flu is also spread by small particles in the air from people coughing and sneezing. And guess what? Because of mask wearing, cases of the flu are way down. CDC link in following article.

https://www.today.com/health/flu-season-...ng-t207131


Cases of the flu are way down because virtually no one is testing for the flu, and RT-PCR with absurdly high cycle threshold values is misclassifying flu cases as COVID cases.

Evidence please.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-art...91/5912603

https://swprs.org/the-trouble-with-pcr-tests/

With a ct value above 35, no samples were positive in cell culture, and with a ct value above 30, only 20%.

The takeaway?  If you were affected by "COVID", unless you can check the ct value of the test that "confirmed" it, you'll never actually know what it was that you were sick with.

A high ct value indicates that you almost certainly are not infectious and may not even have COVID.


Not so fast with your personal analysis Buzz Lightyear.

From the second article you linked.

However, a negative result at a cycle threshold above 35 still does not exclude a covid infection, as a false negative result may arise if the sample is taken improperly or too early. More recently, US researchers found that single-gene tests were false-negative due to new virus mutations.

The above considerations are valid at the individual level. At the aggregate level, if the adjusted number of positive PCR tests is suddenly increasing, this certainly indicates an infection wave. 
Reply
#42
(02-25-2021, 05:14 PM)farronwolf Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 04:37 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 04:14 PM)AlanK82 Wrote: I'm wearing a mask right now. Most businesses require one. The President is going to send out millions for free. Masks work.
No, they don't.  Just because you're required to wear one doesn't mean they work.  It just means that enough people have swallowed enough Kool-Aid to make them believe they work.  If you *want* to wear one, be my guest.  Just don't mandate it for the vast majority of the population that isn't at risk.  Even those who are at greatest risk from Covid won't benefit from wearing them, if the claims made in the video are correct.

Another waste of taxpayer dollars.

Did you watch the video?  If so, and you're not convinced please provide evidence to refute the claims made therein.

Actual study released in Jan. 2021.


https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
Interesting.  Thank you for posting that.

But...have you watched the video? I don't recall seeing anywhere that you have said you did.

This, too, is quite interesting and well worth the time to read it. https://www.aier.org/article/the-year-of-disguises/   Here's just a tiny sample from it: "I could spend time on the viral transmission ineffectiveness of the variety of face coverings and fitted masks based upon the material, pore size, non-fit, etc., as well as the studies. I will say that there has been only ONE type of mask, the SURGICAL mask, which has shown any ability to reduce, not eliminate, virus transmission because it is actually rated to a 100 nanometer pore size AND it is rated for ingress and egress. But, the SURGICAL mask is not intended for use outside of a controlled, sterile hospital surgical field where its use and function can be controlled. It has limitations." 

The author has a PhD in organic chemistry.  To quote again from the article: "My Doctoral degree is in “organic” chemistry, specifically, chemistry involving carbon-based compounds. Chemistry is about working with problems at a molecular level. Guess what a virus like coronavirus is? It is a complex organic molecule. Organic chemists would call it a “macromolecule” where “macro” means large. It is only considered “large” in comparison to small molecules. I am naturally inclined to look at a virus like coronavirus as an organic molecule. 

Coronavirus (CV) and influenza (IF) are very similar at the molecular level. Both are ribonucleic acid (RNA) viruses and both are enveloped helical (meaning that they have a similar 3- dimensional structure with a protein outer part and the RNA inside). CV is a positive strand RNA and IF is a negative strand RNA. This means they have opposite structures much like you have a left hand and a right hand. Their viral class identification is different partly for that reason."

And here is an article from 2/11/2021, "Masking: A Careful Review of the Evidence"  https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a-c...-evidence/.  The author, Dr. Paul Alexander, is an epidemiologist.

I'll end by saying that there is clearly evidence both for and against mask wearing.  To make a blanket statement as I did in the title of this thread is clearly an over-generalization.  It has become clear to me that whether or not "masks work" depends very much on the type of mask, how it's fitted, how long it is worn for, the specific reason one is wearing it, and precisely what one means by "work" as in do masks "work" or not?

I still believe that the material in the original video I linked is worthwhile and probably highly accurate for the most part, especially taking into consideration the demonstrations about how particles do and do not escape from masks, and especially the reason given for the wearing of masks in surgical settings--to prevent mucus, spittle, etc. from dropping into open wounds during surgery.  *That* is how they protect the patient.  The surgeons and other medical staff derive no real protection from them in those settings.

My own probably very deficient conclusion is that some specific types of mask "work" in a very limited manner if fitted properly and worn properly for short periods of time.  This does not include the cloth face coverings that are now ubiquitous in our society.  My humble conclusion includes being very much against a mandate to wear masks for the vast majority of the population.  I certainly have no issue with the voluntary wearing of masks as I have no issue with voluntary vaccination.  It seems to me that pretty much world-wide, the virus did what it was going to do regardless of whether masks were worn or not.
“But all will be well, and all will be well, and every kind of thing will be well.” ~Julian of Norwich

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug."~Mark Knopfler (?)

"No matter who you are somebody thinks you're a heretic. Wear it like a badge of honor........... :LOL:"~Silouan
[-] The following 1 user Likes J Michael's post:
  • HailGilbert
Reply
#43
(02-26-2021, 01:18 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 05:14 PM)farronwolf Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 04:37 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 04:14 PM)AlanK82 Wrote: I'm wearing a mask right now. Most businesses require one. The President is going to send out millions for free. Masks work.
No, they don't.  Just because you're required to wear one doesn't mean they work.  It just means that enough people have swallowed enough Kool-Aid to make them believe they work.  If you *want* to wear one, be my guest.  Just don't mandate it for the vast majority of the population that isn't at risk.  Even those who are at greatest risk from Covid won't benefit from wearing them, if the claims made in the video are correct.

Another waste of taxpayer dollars.

Did you watch the video?  If so, and you're not convinced please provide evidence to refute the claims made therein.

Actual study released in Jan. 2021.


https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
Interesting.  Thank you for posting that.

But...have you watched the video?  I don't recall seeing anywhere that you have said you did.

This, too, is quite interesting and well worth the time to read it. https://www.aier.org/article/the-year-of-disguises/   Here's just a tiny sample from it: "I could spend time on the viral transmission ineffectiveness of the variety of face coverings and fitted masks based upon the material, pore size, non-fit, etc., as well as the studies. I will say that there has been only ONE type of mask, the SURGICAL mask, which has shown any ability to reduce, not eliminate, virus transmission because it is actually rated to a 100 nanometer pore size AND it is rated for ingress and egress. But, the SURGICAL mask is not intended for use outside of a controlled, sterile hospital surgical field where its use and function can be controlled. It has limitations." 

The author has a PhD in organic chemistry.  To quote again from the article: "My Doctoral degree is in “organic” chemistry, specifically, chemistry involving carbon-based compounds. Chemistry is about working with problems at a molecular level. Guess what a virus like coronavirus is? It is a complex organic molecule. Organic chemists would call it a “macromolecule” where “macro” means large. It is only considered “large” in comparison to small molecules. I am naturally inclined to look at a virus like coronavirus as an organic molecule. 

Coronavirus (CV) and influenza (IF) are very similar at the molecular level. Both are ribonucleic acid (RNA) viruses and both are enveloped helical (meaning that they have a similar 3- dimensional structure with a protein outer part and the RNA inside). CV is a positive strand RNA and IF is a negative strand RNA. This means they have opposite structures much like you have a left hand and a right hand. Their viral class identification is different partly for that reason."

And here is an article from 2/11/2021, "Masking: A Careful Review of the Evidence"  https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a-c...-evidence/.  The author, Dr. Paul Alexander, is an epidemiologist.

I'll end by saying that there is clearly evidence both for and against mask wearing.  To make a blanket statement as I did in the title of this thread is clearly an over-generalization.  It has become clear to me that whether or not "masks work" depends very much on the type of mask, how it's fitted, how long it is worn for, the specific reason one is wearing it, and precisely what one means by "work" as in do masks "work" or not?

I still believe that the material in the original video I linked is worthwhile and probably highly accurate for the most part, especially taking into consideration the demonstrations about how particles do and do not escape from masks, and especially the reason given for the wearing of masks in surgical settings--to prevent mucus, spittle, etc. from dropping into open wounds during surgery.  *That* is how they protect the patient.  The surgeons and other medical staff derive no real protection from them in those settings.

My own probably very deficient conclusion is that some specific types of mask "work" in a very limited manner if fitted properly and worn properly for short periods of time.  This does not include the cloth face coverings that are now ubiquitous in our society.  My humble conclusion includes being very much against a mandate to wear masks for the vast majority of the population.  I certainly have no issue with the voluntary wearing of masks as I have no issue with voluntary vaccination.  It seems to me that pretty much world-wide, the virus did what it was going to do regardless of whether masks were worn or not.


I have not watched the entire video, no.   I did skim through it and notice at one point the most ill fitting mask being used to demonstrate how the white powder was able to pass around it.   Well duh.   

I am not prepared to say masks are 100% effective, I don't think anyone is.    I am prepared to error on the side of caution, in that if this virus is spread by attaching itself to particles of spit, which are projected when we speak, then it stands to reason that a mask which will contain the spit would lessen the transmission of the virus.   That isn't rocket science.

The slight inconvenience of wear a mask if it can do some good is a small price to pay.   My office is still pretty much closed to my customers and we are in the heat of tax season.   Everyone is required to wear a mask when entering to sign their paperwork, my business, my rules.  If they don't have one, I have boxes of medical masks for them to use.  I let my customers know with my mailing before the season and the reasons behind my decision.   I have a 95 year old mother who I don't want to infect, it is just that simple.  So far, my customers have not had any issue with my requests.   If they choose to go somewhere else, fine, I will be ok with whatever limited loss of business I might experience.  

It also must be noted that with the vaccines rolling out, mask usage, social distancing, hand washing and other measures that have been taken, the flu which is not as easily transmitted is virtually non existent right now.   So the combination of all these things have actually saved lives and reduced people from getting the flu.   How is that a bad thing.

As a Catholic, and as a person who is pro life, how can a small inconvenience be something we all can't get behind.   If somehow wearing a mask was able to save 1000 children from being aborted, some of the people who are anti mask over Covid would be taking to the streets with boxes of masks and night sticks demanding that masks be worn 24/7.
Reply
#44
(02-26-2021, 01:57 PM)farronwolf Wrote:
(02-26-2021, 01:18 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 05:14 PM)farronwolf Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 04:37 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 04:14 PM)AlanK82 Wrote: I'm wearing a mask right now. Most businesses require one. The President is going to send out millions for free. Masks work.
No, they don't.  Just because you're required to wear one doesn't mean they work.  It just means that enough people have swallowed enough Kool-Aid to make them believe they work.  If you *want* to wear one, be my guest.  Just don't mandate it for the vast majority of the population that isn't at risk.  Even those who are at greatest risk from Covid won't benefit from wearing them, if the claims made in the video are correct.

Another waste of taxpayer dollars.

Did you watch the video?  If so, and you're not convinced please provide evidence to refute the claims made therein.

Actual study released in Jan. 2021.


https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
Interesting.  Thank you for posting that.

But...have you watched the video?  I don't recall seeing anywhere that you have said you did.

This, too, is quite interesting and well worth the time to read it. https://www.aier.org/article/the-year-of-disguises/   Here's just a tiny sample from it: "I could spend time on the viral transmission ineffectiveness of the variety of face coverings and fitted masks based upon the material, pore size, non-fit, etc., as well as the studies. I will say that there has been only ONE type of mask, the SURGICAL mask, which has shown any ability to reduce, not eliminate, virus transmission because it is actually rated to a 100 nanometer pore size AND it is rated for ingress and egress. But, the SURGICAL mask is not intended for use outside of a controlled, sterile hospital surgical field where its use and function can be controlled. It has limitations." 

The author has a PhD in organic chemistry.  To quote again from the article: "My Doctoral degree is in “organic” chemistry, specifically, chemistry involving carbon-based compounds. Chemistry is about working with problems at a molecular level. Guess what a virus like coronavirus is? It is a complex organic molecule. Organic chemists would call it a “macromolecule” where “macro” means large. It is only considered “large” in comparison to small molecules. I am naturally inclined to look at a virus like coronavirus as an organic molecule. 

Coronavirus (CV) and influenza (IF) are very similar at the molecular level. Both are ribonucleic acid (RNA) viruses and both are enveloped helical (meaning that they have a similar 3- dimensional structure with a protein outer part and the RNA inside). CV is a positive strand RNA and IF is a negative strand RNA. This means they have opposite structures much like you have a left hand and a right hand. Their viral class identification is different partly for that reason."

And here is an article from 2/11/2021, "Masking: A Careful Review of the Evidence"  https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a-c...-evidence/.  The author, Dr. Paul Alexander, is an epidemiologist.

I'll end by saying that there is clearly evidence both for and against mask wearing.  To make a blanket statement as I did in the title of this thread is clearly an over-generalization.  It has become clear to me that whether or not "masks work" depends very much on the type of mask, how it's fitted, how long it is worn for, the specific reason one is wearing it, and precisely what one means by "work" as in do masks "work" or not?

I still believe that the material in the original video I linked is worthwhile and probably highly accurate for the most part, especially taking into consideration the demonstrations about how particles do and do not escape from masks, and especially the reason given for the wearing of masks in surgical settings--to prevent mucus, spittle, etc. from dropping into open wounds during surgery.  *That* is how they protect the patient.  The surgeons and other medical staff derive no real protection from them in those settings.

My own probably very deficient conclusion is that some specific types of mask "work" in a very limited manner if fitted properly and worn properly for short periods of time.  This does not include the cloth face coverings that are now ubiquitous in our society.  My humble conclusion includes being very much against a mandate to wear masks for the vast majority of the population.  I certainly have no issue with the voluntary wearing of masks as I have no issue with voluntary vaccination.  It seems to me that pretty much world-wide, the virus did what it was going to do regardless of whether masks were worn or not.


I have not watched the entire video, no.   I did skim through it and notice at one point the most ill fitting mask being used to demonstrate how the white powder was able to pass around it.   Well duh.   

I am not prepared to say masks are 100% effective, I don't think anyone is.    I am prepared to error on the side of caution, in that if this virus is spread by attaching itself to particles of spit, which are projected when we speak, then it stands to reason that a mask which will contain the spit would lessen the transmission of the virus.   That isn't rocket science.

The slight inconvenience of wear a mask if it can do some good is a small price to pay.   My office is still pretty much closed to my customers and we are in the heat of tax season.   Everyone is required to wear a mask when entering to sign their paperwork, my business, my rules.  If they don't have one, I have boxes of medical masks for them to use.  I let my customers know with my mailing before the season and the reasons behind my decision.   I have a 95 year old mother who I don't want to infect, it is just that simple.  So far, my customers have not had any issue with my requests.   If they choose to go somewhere else, fine, I will be ok with whatever limited loss of business I might experience.  

It also must be noted that with the vaccines rolling out, mask usage, social distancing, hand washing and other measures that have been taken, the flu which is not as easily transmitted is virtually non existent right now.   So the combination of all these things have actually saved lives and reduced people from getting the flu.   How is that a bad thing.

As a Catholic, and as a person who is pro life, how can a small inconvenience be something we all can't get behind.   If somehow wearing a mask was able to save 1000 children from being aborted, some of the people who are anti mask over Covid would be taking to the streets with boxes of masks and night sticks demanding that masks be worn 24/7.
I think the reason that we cannot "all get behind" this "small inconvenience" is in large part because of the mandatory nature of it in many places, the clear lack of conclusive non-politically biased evidence that they actually do what they are purported to doing and the horrible mixed messaging emanating from both the political players and the so-called "scientific" community.  All too often when people exhort us to "follow the science" what they are really saying is "do what we tell you, don't question it, and just shut up".  Rarely, if ever, do they provide us with clear, unbiased science to follow.  And, as I concluded my last post, "It seems to me that pretty much world-wide, the virus did what it was going to do regardless of whether masks were worn or not."

I must say, that everything else being equal (which it rarely is), if I were to choose between patronizing your business or another that did not require mask-wearing, I'd choose the latter.  No offense intended.

And then there's this: https://swprs.org/covid-masks-review/
“But all will be well, and all will be well, and every kind of thing will be well.” ~Julian of Norwich

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug."~Mark Knopfler (?)

"No matter who you are somebody thinks you're a heretic. Wear it like a badge of honor........... :LOL:"~Silouan
Reply
#45
(02-26-2021, 02:17 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(02-26-2021, 01:57 PM)farronwolf Wrote:
(02-26-2021, 01:18 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 05:14 PM)farronwolf Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 04:37 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(02-25-2021, 04:14 PM)AlanK82 Wrote: I'm wearing a mask right now. Most businesses require one. The President is going to send out millions for free. Masks work.
No, they don't.  Just because you're required to wear one doesn't mean they work.  It just means that enough people have swallowed enough Kool-Aid to make them believe they work.  If you *want* to wear one, be my guest.  Just don't mandate it for the vast majority of the population that isn't at risk.  Even those who are at greatest risk from Covid won't benefit from wearing them, if the claims made in the video are correct.

Another waste of taxpayer dollars.

Did you watch the video?  If so, and you're not convinced please provide evidence to refute the claims made therein.

Actual study released in Jan. 2021.


https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
Interesting.  Thank you for posting that.

But...have you watched the video?  I don't recall seeing anywhere that you have said you did.

This, too, is quite interesting and well worth the time to read it. https://www.aier.org/article/the-year-of-disguises/   Here's just a tiny sample from it: "I could spend time on the viral transmission ineffectiveness of the variety of face coverings and fitted masks based upon the material, pore size, non-fit, etc., as well as the studies. I will say that there has been only ONE type of mask, the SURGICAL mask, which has shown any ability to reduce, not eliminate, virus transmission because it is actually rated to a 100 nanometer pore size AND it is rated for ingress and egress. But, the SURGICAL mask is not intended for use outside of a controlled, sterile hospital surgical field where its use and function can be controlled. It has limitations." 

The author has a PhD in organic chemistry.  To quote again from the article: "My Doctoral degree is in “organic” chemistry, specifically, chemistry involving carbon-based compounds. Chemistry is about working with problems at a molecular level. Guess what a virus like coronavirus is? It is a complex organic molecule. Organic chemists would call it a “macromolecule” where “macro” means large. It is only considered “large” in comparison to small molecules. I am naturally inclined to look at a virus like coronavirus as an organic molecule. 

Coronavirus (CV) and influenza (IF) are very similar at the molecular level. Both are ribonucleic acid (RNA) viruses and both are enveloped helical (meaning that they have a similar 3- dimensional structure with a protein outer part and the RNA inside). CV is a positive strand RNA and IF is a negative strand RNA. This means they have opposite structures much like you have a left hand and a right hand. Their viral class identification is different partly for that reason."

And here is an article from 2/11/2021, "Masking: A Careful Review of the Evidence"  https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a-c...-evidence/.  The author, Dr. Paul Alexander, is an epidemiologist.

I'll end by saying that there is clearly evidence both for and against mask wearing.  To make a blanket statement as I did in the title of this thread is clearly an over-generalization.  It has become clear to me that whether or not "masks work" depends very much on the type of mask, how it's fitted, how long it is worn for, the specific reason one is wearing it, and precisely what one means by "work" as in do masks "work" or not?

I still believe that the material in the original video I linked is worthwhile and probably highly accurate for the most part, especially taking into consideration the demonstrations about how particles do and do not escape from masks, and especially the reason given for the wearing of masks in surgical settings--to prevent mucus, spittle, etc. from dropping into open wounds during surgery.  *That* is how they protect the patient.  The surgeons and other medical staff derive no real protection from them in those settings.

My own probably very deficient conclusion is that some specific types of mask "work" in a very limited manner if fitted properly and worn properly for short periods of time.  This does not include the cloth face coverings that are now ubiquitous in our society.  My humble conclusion includes being very much against a mandate to wear masks for the vast majority of the population.  I certainly have no issue with the voluntary wearing of masks as I have no issue with voluntary vaccination.  It seems to me that pretty much world-wide, the virus did what it was going to do regardless of whether masks were worn or not.


I have not watched the entire video, no.   I did skim through it and notice at one point the most ill fitting mask being used to demonstrate how the white powder was able to pass around it.   Well duh.   

I am not prepared to say masks are 100% effective, I don't think anyone is.    I am prepared to error on the side of caution, in that if this virus is spread by attaching itself to particles of spit, which are projected when we speak, then it stands to reason that a mask which will contain the spit would lessen the transmission of the virus.   That isn't rocket science.

The slight inconvenience of wear a mask if it can do some good is a small price to pay.   My office is still pretty much closed to my customers and we are in the heat of tax season.   Everyone is required to wear a mask when entering to sign their paperwork, my business, my rules.  If they don't have one, I have boxes of medical masks for them to use.  I let my customers know with my mailing before the season and the reasons behind my decision.   I have a 95 year old mother who I don't want to infect, it is just that simple.  So far, my customers have not had any issue with my requests.   If they choose to go somewhere else, fine, I will be ok with whatever limited loss of business I might experience.  

It also must be noted that with the vaccines rolling out, mask usage, social distancing, hand washing and other measures that have been taken, the flu which is not as easily transmitted is virtually non existent right now.   So the combination of all these things have actually saved lives and reduced people from getting the flu.   How is that a bad thing.

As a Catholic, and as a person who is pro life, how can a small inconvenience be something we all can't get behind.   If somehow wearing a mask was able to save 1000 children from being aborted, some of the people who are anti mask over Covid would be taking to the streets with boxes of masks and night sticks demanding that masks be worn 24/7.
I think the reason that we cannot "all get behind" this "small inconvenience" is in large part because of the mandatory nature of it in many places, the clear lack of conclusive non-politically biased evidence that they actually do what they are purported to doing and the horrible mixed messaging emanating from both the political players and the so-called "scientific" community.  All too often when people exhort us to "follow the science" what they are really saying is "do what we tell you, don't question it, and just shut up".  Rarely, if ever, do they provide us with clear, unbiased science to follow.  And, as I concluded my last post, "It seems to me that pretty much world-wide, the virus did what it was going to do regardless of whether masks were worn or not."

I must say, that everything else being equal (which it rarely is), if I were to choose between patronizing your business or another that did not require mask-wearing, I'd choose the latter.  No offense intended.

Like I said, if folks don't want to use me because of the mask thing, so be it.   I have customers who I have done work for for decades.   I am doing parents and now their children who have grown taxes.   We have very little turn over every year, and most of our customers are referred by existing customers.   We are not a Block or Hewitt type business, so once a relationship is established it tends to stick for us.   

No offense taken.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)