He said that back in March of 2020 and, it just might be me, a lot has happened since that interview. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...o-be-walking-around-with-a-mask-idUSKBN26T2TR
And then he learned new information. That's how science works. I realize that is maybe a foreign concept to you and many on the right.
I think the personal risk management calculus is getting harder. In the beginning, it was pretty easy. There was a virus that was highly contagious, no one had any natural immunity, and it'd kill you 2% of the time even with access to a great hospital system. It seemed blindingly obvious to me to take whatever precautions you needed to take to avoiding getting sick. Now, we have vaccination on one hand, we have delta variant on the other, and improved hospitalizations in a third. Now I can't tell at all what my actual risk profile is. The vaccine was supposedly 94% effective against the original strain. How effective is it against delta? How long does its efficacy last? Now what exactly is your risk to be hospitalized if you get sick? What is your risk of dying? Is this just a pandemic of the unvaccinated, or are the vaccinated more vulnerable than they thought? Partly it's that we just don't have the data to answer these questions. Partly it's public health people wanting to get the citizenry to make optimal public health choices instead of optimal personal life choices by controlling information. Partly it's misinformation from people who hope to gain political or economic advantage. But it's harder now to figure out exactly how much personal risk I'm facing and therefore how much 'expense' I should tolerate to mitigate that risk.
You obviously don’t know how the scientific method works. You stick with your first observation and leave the rest to Jesus.
This kind of complaint speaks to trust in authorities like the CDC. There is suspicion that the CDC says things to manipulate behaviors instead of educating people and letting them make their own choices. He could have said, "Masks will help keep you healthy, but please don't buy up the supplies that doctors and nurses rely on." But of course there'd be a run on masks and the supplies would be gone anyway. Still, the manipulation isn't appreciated. I don't fault him, but clearly some folks do. Doing crisis communications is hard.
It wasn't just about preserving supply, though. In March 2020, we didn't understand the extent to which the virus was transmitted by people who are asymptomatic and don't realize they have it. And we didn't understand the extent to which transmission was caused through surface contact (it turns out that has very little to do with it).
yup, in theory it sounds great but considering the mass hysteria for something as trivial as toilet paper, people would not be trying to hear all that.
They didn't take a SARS like virus seriously when the rest of Asia knew what was happening and started masking up. I'm leaning more on the supply theory given how people are ransacking CVS and Walgreens for first aid supplies before any official lockdown
"New information" to see how gullible the masses are. People would start crawling if Fraudchi comes out tomorrow and says the virus only travels 3ft and above off the ground so it's recommended to crawl. The size of Covid virus is smaller than the holes in the threads on your basic "surgical" masks. Only N-95's have been proven are effective - plenty of research already done on this over last 18 months. How about pushing health and wellness instead fear and masks?
@steddinotayto https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/ Pretty sure you won't read it in fear of learning something that goes against the narrative. But that's ok. It's here if you ever wanna reference back to it. A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source) A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. (Source) A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS One, found that face masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.” (Source) A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no high-quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of non-medical and medical face masks in the community. Furthermore, the European CDC advised against the use of FFP2/N95 masks by the general public. (Source) A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source) A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. (Source) An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). (Source) An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. (Source) A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source) An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. (Source)
First off, congrats on making yourself look like wholly arrogant and possibly ignorant in assuming I'm not going to read whatever you tag me with and take everything you post at face value. From the source: "We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility (Figure 2). However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched." Basically while they could not FIND evidence back in May of 2020 that confirms its effectiveness, there's still a chance that it can help reduce transmission..which is pretty much the goal of wearing a mask. More on this study (here) " The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal Wednesday. If you read through it, you’ll find that the researchers gathered a group of people in Denmark and gave half of them disposable surgical masks to wear out, and gave no masks to the other half. At the end of the study, they tested the participants for COVID-19 antibodies and found that 1.8% of the mask-wearing group had contracted COVID-19 while 2.1% of the no-mask group contracted the disease. The researchers said that their findings run contrary to assumptions that masks could reduce your own chance of contracting COVID-19 by 50%. But the researchers also wrote within the study’s text itself, “The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.” .... " And the study’s findings don’t even entirely contradict the CDC’s claim that they may offer the wearer some protection. The press release for the study said, “While the evidence excludes a large personal protective effect of mask wearing, it weakly supports lesser degrees of protection, and cannot definitively exclude no effect.” That means that while it’s possible masks offered the wearer no personal protection, the study’s findings seem to suggest masks offer a small amount of protection to the wearer -- just not as much as 50% reduction in infection. Regardless, the researchers were not able to test the effectiveness of masks in an ideal setting. The study said, “During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings. This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks.” Even the people conducting the study could not conclusively say that a mask is ineffective. I was looking forward to this study but then I get hit with this at the beginning of the study: "Conclusion This trial was unable to provide conclusive evidence on facemask efficacy against viral respiratory infections most likely due to poor adherence to protocol." So what should I make of it? Do I go to the next article to debunk or read some more. I'll do the latter to entertain you: "The most important limitation of this RCT was that despite much effort to encourage adherence with our protocol, compliance was limited. On the other hand many pilgrims randomized to the control group used facemasks, contrary to the research protocol." "Another limitation is that participating tents varied between the study arms (intervention: control = 149: 169) because some tents, although designated as separate units, were later found to be parts of a larger tent. This was more common when several small tour groups were managed under a large tour operator and communal activities (e.g., meals, congregational prayers, sermons) were combined in one large tent. It is also possible that some of these tents were allocated to both intervention and control arms and may have further contributed to dilution of the magnitude of the effect or cluster contamination." I'm no scientist and never claimed to be one but I don't think using this study to prop up the theory that masks are ineffective is the right way to go. If you want me to continue please let me know but judging by the flaws of the first three sources cited by the link you provided, the rest of the studies/sources are probably flawed as well.
But, out of my own generosity, I'll continue: First off, the guy that tweeted out these graphics considers himself to be an entrepreneur...that's it. Nothing mentioning a background in virology, biology, internal medicine...nothing. So, in essence, his data should be questionable at best and looked at as baseless at worst. But, I'll humor you. His graphs shows when mask mandate occurred for various countries or states. He also provided a timeline of when COVID started up until around the end of last year. His proof is that, even though most of the countries saw an almost flat line of COVID cases after a mask mandate, the countries saw a huge spike at the end of the year. My questions are: 1. Did he factor in variables like countries/states lifting mask mandates prior to this spike? 2. Did he factor in variables like holiday travel in these countries/states? 3. Did he factor in the possibility that, based on just general knowledge, people are more prone to getting sick (cold, flu and now COVID) during the colder months?
Absolutely not. His "research" is at a 9th grade level. Even the link to the source was just a regurgitation of his tweets where he doesn't even bother to acknowledge the possible issues that could have impacted his findings. Again, this guy is not even a doctor and, yet, the website you're using as evidence and you are readily accepting this as gospel? Moving on though, let's go ahead and address the Theodore "Ted" Noel YouTube video found in your link. I'll do that so you can pretty much shut down any rebuttal that I only targeted poor Yinon above and not an anesthesiologist, an actual doctor who btw hasn't practiced medicine since 2014 when his license expired. The guy records himself blowing smoke/vape from inside his mask and, jiminy jillickers!, it went through the mask! Like no-f***ing-****. Did he think a mask is made of non-porous material that wouldn't allow air flow through the mask? The goal/point of wearing a mask is to reduce the possibility of large aerosol particles from coming in contact with your mouth/face because then it can travel down the airway and infect you. I bet you if he sneezed into his mask after his vape session most of his snot is going to be on the side that touches his face which, again, is the goal a mask. This has been a fun exercise because I haven't been this worked up over a post in a long time. Not even the BS I saw yesterday from the newly minted troll got me this hyped. I do have one thing to correct though; I made a mistake in assuming that you MIGHT be ignorant because you pretty much are ignorant.
What is it that Cons bleat when it comes to Libruhl hippocracy? Do what we say, but not how we really do
Just hurry up and get a case to the Supreme Court and be done with this stupidity. https://www.politico.com/states/flo...school-officials-who-disobey-desantis-1390160 TALLAHASSEE — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ fight over school mask mandates took a dramatic turn on Tuesday after the state Board of Education ruled two defiant school districts broke state law and threatened to remove local elected officials for disobeying the GOP governor. School leaders in Alachua County and Broward County, who are resisting DeSantis’ order banning mask mandates, now could face a range of possible punishments for defying the DeSantis administration, which has taken a hard line against enacting additional Covid-19 precautions despite a record-breaking surge in cases and hospitalizations brought on by the Delta variant. And yet even as these counties were hounded for opposing DeSantis, school leaders in other counties — including Miami-Dade, Florida’s largest school district — are considering their own mask mandates to battle the coronavirus, signaling that the weekslong battle over face coverings in Florida is far from finished. “We have districts who are picking and choosing what laws they want to follow,” Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran said Tuesday during a virtual education meeting. Florida, along with states like Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee, has pushed to block local mask mandates in schools just as the new in-person education year is beginning, breaking with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending face coverings indoors for children regardless of vaccination status. The ongoing conflict over face coverings has quickly become one of the most contentious fights amid the surge in Covid infections, with parents fighting with school officials and the White House trading barbs almost daily with DeSantis and Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, who tested positive for Covid on Tuesday. ...
