t's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives

[AztecAlien]

On 2/2/2023 at 1:29 PM, happycamper said:

umm

that's from your article

so... again, like i said, not great, but better than nothing

how would you compare a 5% reduction to their environmental impact lol? 

Keep wearing those ineffective masks. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-03-01/cloth-masks-dont-cut-it-for-keeping-covid-away

 

 

[Spaztecs]

On 2/2/2023 at 1:29 PM, happycamper said:

umm

that's from your article

so... again, like i said, not great, but better than nothing

how would you compare a 5% reduction to their environmental impact lol? 

So that's five people per hundred that had their lives saved.

Seems worthwhile to me.

[RSF]

On 2/2/2023 at 2:33 PM, AztecAlien said:

Keep wearing those ineffective masks. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-03-01/cloth-masks-dont-cut-it-for-keeping-covid-away

 

You really need to learn to read the whole article, not just the headline.

 

A study from the same school.  And the SAME doctor.  Because its the SAME study.

 

This is some Bob-level work by you, AA.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/859071

 

Dr Richard Sear, co-author of the study and Leader of the Soft Matter Group at the University of Surrey, said:

"While wearing a simple and relatively inexpensive cloth face mask cannot eliminate the risk of contracting COVID-19, measurements and our theoretical model suggests they are highly effective in reducing transmission. We hope that our work inspires mask designs to be optimised in the future and we hope it helps to remind people of the importance of continuing to wear masks while COVID-19 remains present in the community."

 

 

[son of a gun]

Bob and Aztec Alien seem to both have a bad case of "anti-science science", like a good number of people on wyonation have come down with. They'll post something that's on the brink, if not completely against how actual science works.

[AztecAlien]

On 2/2/2023 at 1:37 PM, RSF said:

You really need to learn to read the whole article, not just the headline.

This is what changing directions means  regarding the ineffectiveness of cloth masks that the majority were wearing. 

"Researchers found that cloth face masks do little to fend off tiny airborne particles, while concluding that specialized N95 and similar masks do a much better job."

"Masks are air filters, and woven fabrics, such as cotton, make for good jeans, shirts, and other apparel, but they are lousy air filters," said study co-author Richard Sear. "So, use woven fabric for clothing, and N95s, FFP2s or KF94s for masks," added Sear, of the University of Surrey in England." 

 

 

[Spaztecs]

Like @RSF said about Air Filters , you get the protection you pay for.

 

cloth masks, initially, were the most available mask when the pandemic hit. Sadly, private citizens lacked the Financial resources to acquire N95 masks.

Now, there are plenty.

[RSF]

On 2/2/2023 at 2:38 PM, son of a gun said:

Bob and Aztec Alien seem to both have a bad case of "anti-science science", like a good number of people on wyonation have come down with. They'll post something that's on the brink, if not completely against how actual science works.

I think they just dont like to read.

[RSF]

On 2/2/2023 at 2:41 PM, AztecAlien said:

This is what changing directions means  regarding the ineffectiveness of cloth masks that the majority were wearing. 

"Researchers found that cloth face masks do little to fend off tiny airborne particles, while concluding that specialized N95 and similar masks do a much better job."

"Masks are air filters, and woven fabrics, such as cotton, make for good jeans, shirts, and other apparel, but they are lousy air filters," said study co-author Richard Sear. "So, use woven fabric for clothing, and N95s, FFP2s or KF94s for masks," added Sear, of the University of Surrey in England." 

 

 

Like I said...you don't like to read.  Even when it's put right in front of you.

 

 

Or maybe Dr Sear is schizophrenic.

[AztecAlien]

On 2/2/2023 at 1:52 PM, RSF said:

Like I said...don't like to read.  Even when it's put right in front of you.

I read the entire two links with research showing the ineffectiveness of cloth masks. You know the ones that most were wearing. Again, the CDC changed its course regarding cloth masks. It's right in front of you. 

[AztecSU]

On 2/2/2023 at 12:56 PM, AztecAlien said:

I read the entire two links with research showing the ineffectiveness of cloth masks. You know the ones that most were wearing. 

Funny. I seem to recall everyone being told M95's were the best option, but then shortages immediately ensued as every well connected asshole on the planet tried to gauge governments selling the damn things. IOW, M95's weren't available to normal folks for a lot of the pandemic. 

[RSF]

On 2/2/2023 at 2:56 PM, AztecAlien said:

I read the entire two links with research showing the ineffectiveness of cloth masks. You know the ones that most were wearing. Again, the CDC changed its course regarding cloth masks. It's right in front of you. 

Liar.  I even posted the relevant paragraph just because it's you.  so you either aren't reading it, or willfully ignoring because it doesnt validate you.  It's the same +++++ing guy and the same +++++ing study.

[AztecAlien]

On 2/2/2023 at 1:58 PM, AztecSU said:

Funny. I seem to recall everyone being told M95's were the best option, but then shortages immediately ensued as every well connected asshole on the planet tried to gauge governments selling the damn things. IOW, M95's weren't available to normal folks for a lot of the pandemic. 

Funny hardly anyone was wearing N95 masks because people were told that disposable cloth mask were acceptable in restaurants, public transportation, most businesses and just about everywhere else. Didn't work. 

[happycamper]

On 2/2/2023 at 3:33 PM, AztecAlien said:

Keep wearing those ineffective masks. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-03-01/cloth-masks-dont-cut-it-for-keeping-covid-away

 

my man you posted two articles whose main selling point is "n95 masks are way more effective", as if that were a point anyone were arguing. in each case it was presented as not "cloth masks are ineffective" but that "cloth masks are not sufficiently effective compared to easily available alternatives".

do you even remember what your original point was?

[AztecAlien]

On 2/2/2023 at 2:01 PM, RSF said:

Liar.  I even posted the relevant paragraph just because it's you.  so you either aren't reading it, or willfully ignoring because it doesnt validate you.  It's the same +++++ing guy and the same +++++ing study.

You posted something similar to what's in one of the links. And you lie about me just reading headlines. You also weren't responding to me. Why would I repeat something you just posted on purpose? It came from the link you accused me of not reading with research showing the ineffectiveness of cloth masks. There are many other links with research showing the same thing. 

[AztecAlien]

On 2/2/2023 at 2:09 PM, happycamper said:

 

my man you posted two articles whose main selling point is "n95 masks are way more effective", as if that were a point anyone were arguing. in each case it was presented as not "cloth masks are ineffective" but that "cloth masks are not sufficiently effective compared to easily available alternatives".

do you even remember what your original point was?

How about those cloth masks I am talking about that were deemed acceptable in just about every environment for 2 + years?  

[happycamper]

On 2/2/2023 at 4:14 PM, AztecAlien said:

How about those cloth masks I am talking about that were deemed acceptable in just about every environment for 2 + years?  

oh, those cloth masks that "reduced infection by 5 percent"? remember that from your VERY OWN ARTICLE that I then snipped out to show you?

again, how would you compare "5% reduction" in anything to "amount of environmental damage"? Did an area the size of Brazil get obliterated of all life?

[Spaztecs]

On 2/2/2023 at 1:56 PM, AztecAlien said:

I read the entire two links with research showing the ineffectiveness of cloth masks. You know the ones that most were wearing. Again, the CDC changed its course regarding cloth masks. It's right in front of you. 

Yes, they did. And rightly so.

The Science and Medical Community's came to the realization that cloth wasn't as effective and they told us so.

 

Yet, the entire anti-mask/vaxx dickheads, instead of changing course with the new data decided to get pissed off at the entire Medical/Science Community.

Because, Fauci lied 

You're phucking Orange hero lies 100 times a day, yet,  in your mind he walks on water.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:22 AM, happycamper said:

he should blame democrats for a societal lack of scientific literacy? 

I mean scientists said "this is our best idea of how to reduce transmission, better ideas forthcoming" because, well, that's implicit in the definition of science 

Again, this dude is... blaming experts... for average americans not paying attention in high school 30 years ago?

Furthermore, "the science" showed a pretty significant gap between "enthusiastic social distancing and masking use" and, well "not". so what is the guy even complaining about? that scientists are to blame for people not wanting to restrict themselves and have less deaths, which we saw a measurable difference in with other nations who didn't have such a kneejerk reaction against such measures? that we should blame scientists for being such a huge country that universal lockdowns in march, when western washington and new york were getting whacked, didn't help when the virus had spread to more interior areas months later?

I mean... seems like you are saying that he should be blaming "scientists" for "the makeup of america". 

 

No, I'm saying he should be blaming scientifically illiterate politicians who falsely claimed to be speaking on behalf of the entire scientific community when they implemented policies that in no way shape or form "followed the science".  

On 2/2/2023 at 10:18 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

Why are you leaving out the republicans?  Seems a one-sided dressing down on an all-hands-on deck issue, just on science rhetoric alone.

Because they did not claim to be speaking on behalf of the ENTIRE scientific community---falsely.

 

 

As far as what actions are worse, the anti vaxxing door knob licking right wingers by orders of magnitude.  I was just speaking towards where his ire in the article would be better directed.  

 

My original point was, don't blame the scientific community for being falsely misrepresented in the media and by pols.  Not there fault.

 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 2/2/2023 at 12:20 PM, AztecSU said:

Ngl, cloth mask behavior is probably going to be the biggest positive to come out of this. Those of us that dont have rocks in our heads and masked up probably noticed not only were they less likely to get COVID, but a lot of folks didnt get a cold or a flu for much longer than normal. I've talked with many people who now look back at Asian travelers who have masked for years as having had it right the whole time. But I believe in evolution and encourage those who dont think it helps to never wear a mask. 

 

The protection offered with cloth masks is minimal.  The impact on spread is minimal.  If EVERYBODY wore one properly everytime they were outside of their home, that would be a different story.  Following the science means acknowledging human behavior.  The cloth masks did not cut it.  There were a shit ton of people in the scientific community who said from the outset that cloth masks would offer minimal protection and do little to slow the spread.  

Cloth masks were especially ineffective during the more contagious Delta and Omicron waves.

[AztecAlien]

On 2/2/2023 at 2:26 PM, happycamper said:

oh, those cloth masks that "reduced infection by 5 percent"? remember that from your VERY OWN ARTICLE that I then snipped out to show you?

again, how would you compare "5% reduction" in anything to "amount of environmental damage"? Did an area the size of Brazil get obliterated of all life?

Yet cloth masks were 95% ineffective.