To Mask or Not To Mask, that is the question

^ @rossmen . I don't "demonize". I call it as I see it. As someone who has spent much of their life in other states, where people don't just vote the party line, where often the "label" of a party is largely meaningless and you actually need to vote for a person with morals AND the ability to work across party lines, well

And, yes, the "Sweeden trope" again. Did you read my comments about that? A brutal experiment that cost thousands of lives. In the hope of "herd immunity" - with zero understanding of what that would take if it is even possible. Their numbers on the rise again. And as more advanced genetic testing of the virus is coming into play, we are beginning to see the often dismissed anecdotal reports being proven true- people being re-infected within a 3-4 month time frame. Which does not bode well for either the "herd immunity" approach or a vaccine.

But I suppose your metric is the economy vs numbers of deaths per 1,000?

I found this graphic that summarizes relative risk with/without masking in various settings.

Besides protecting others, here's another reason to wear a mask:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...y-researchers/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

·

---

It is a theoretical article espousing mask wearing . I like to wear my silk scarf every place I go. I no longer have to worry about cameras on the street lights or in the stores or on the sides of buildings. The facial recognition tech cannot see through a mask . I am guessing that at some point it will be illegal to wear a mask and that all the people who have been virtue signaling about mask wearing will be stridently telling people how dangerous it is to society for people to hide their identity from the FRS.

I just had an experience that showed me quite convincingly the efficacy that wearing a face mask provides in reducing contact with a liquid aerosol. Yesterday, I hiked out to Bumpass Hell, the largest thermal area in Lassen National Park. The place was windy and steaming, and the oder of sulfur was very strong. On impulse, I put on my face mask and, lo and behold, the sulfur odor was dramatically reduced. There was an occasional wiff of SO2 gas (molecules, not droplets), but that was pretty much it except when a steam cloud blew right over me.

The masks I use have three layers of fabric: $15.99 for 50 on Amazon. I reuse them after letting them sit for a few days. https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Masks also work as an inconsiderate fool detector. No mask in public you are one and can hopefully avoided.

mmm, masks also serve to identify gaslighted masses preferring to abide by WHO declarations over innate wisdom as well as thousands of doctors and studies.

and ever checked out the past of Tedros, head of WHO? ...might that possibly be relevant?
go on, look it up. report back. spoiler: involves genocide

the philosophical and practical requirement for people to mask is very clearly extendable in requiring people to be vaccinated for the sake of others. some have been having this discussion for eight months, some of us have looked into vaccines for far longer.

this is a line in the sand; body sovereignty is inviolable - or certainly should be.
where do you draw the line as to what the state/collective can do to you? what is too far?

in china they harvest organs from live political prisoners. think it through.


You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Goat Rock Ukulele:

·

---

On the other hand, it is easy to fool people who respect neither facts nor reason.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

·You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Finell:

On the other hand, it is easy to fool people who respect neither facts nor reason

---

and on the other other hand, if you're good, it's easy to fool people with reason too. Get them started on a logical path from subtlely bogus premises, they'll even help you.

I find the people interesting who judge and make assumptions about others they do not know based on if they have a mask on or not. I was told by a stranger in the post office with great certainty that she knew who was a republican because "republicans did not wear masks, and democrats do." People never guess that I am an RN working with doctors who use age-old, fear-mongered treatments in alignment with Nature that cannot be patented and see patients with covid and other viruses get better on a regular basis. It's hard for me to be afraid of a virus I know can be treated. Additionally, there is plenty of science on masks both for and against. The way the public uses masks leaves a lot to be desired.

To repeat what i posted awhile age, my three-layer fabric mask worked very well indeed to protect me from the smell of the sulfurous mists of Bumpass Hell in Lassen National Park. I think it will work just fine against human exhalations.

One of the things I've been seeing in COVID news is that the level of the initial infection has a strong affect on the severity of the case. Healthy mmune systems can fight off a trace of the virus, but get swamped when you are sprayed by some coughing, screaming or yelling fool.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pamelaL:

·

---

at last we can agree: the further away you stay, the happier we'll all be.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

·

---

I'm curious what treatments you're referring to that are "age-old" and "fear-mongered and that work against Covid. Clarify please. Thanks. Lilith

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pamelaL:

·

---

???

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

·

---

at last we can agree: the further away you stay, the happier we'll all be.

Regarding the fear-mongered virus, most people will not be as fascinated by the 13 pages Dr. Fauci was involved in reporting as I am, but the bottom line is >histological and bacteriologic evidence suggests that the vast majority of influenza deaths resulted from secondary bacterial pneumonia.< (this from studies of the pandemics starting with the flu of 1918) >We believe that the weight of 90 years of evidence (table 3), including the exceptional but largely forgotten work of an earlier generation of pathologists, indicates that the vast majority of pulmonary deaths from pandemic influenza viruses have resulted from poorly understood interactions between the infecting virus and secondary infections due to bacteria that colonize the upper respiratory track<. This begs the question, for me, of how do masks serve us if they can increase one's exposure to bacterial infection, especially since common bacteria were the ones that colonized the virus-irritated tissues of the respiratory track? It also explains how cheap, off-patent drugs can get a person through this virus alive, with a stronger more resilient immune system every survivor of a virus generally has.







https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...KPSUMWEKfE4W1Q

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

·

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pamelaL:

...how do masks serve us if they can increase one's exposure to bacterial infection...

---

good question, one worth answering someday.

However, this seems to be a lot of inside-baseball, because the problem seems to be incorrectly framed. We're talking about - what public policy measures can be taken to limit spread of covid, and are they worth taking? You judge that by several factors: how effective are they? how costly are they? how intrusive are they?
This unsurprisingly looks like a popular three-legged test, that people use in a lot of decision making. If they're cheap and unobtrusive, the effectiveness doesn't have to be high to still be worth it. Apparently many people are giving 'intrusiveness' a high score. That's baffling to me, but it's the only explanation I have for their reactions. It reeks of "you're not the boss of me" psychology.

You seem to be claiming their effectiveness is negative - that they cause harm. In the aggregate, which is the most important measure in a pandemic, the statistics seem to say that areas that use masking have lowered rates of infection. This is comparing apples-to-apples, comparing the same region over time. I've yet to see anyone propose an alternate explanation, though there may be one. That to me is enough reason to just wear the damn things.

I can’t believe this conversation is still going on... and spans 4 pages.

The science is not in dispute- Masks prevent the spread of Covid indeed a lot of researchers seem to think that if 70% or so of Americans wore masks covid would be stopped in its tracks.

Shall I bother asking why Sonoma County has remained in the most restrictive tier throughout all of this while other counties in California have move forward?

Re:

Quote:

---

Regarding the fear-mongered virus,

---

That statement is a strong indicator of a bias against mask requirements in public places, at least to some extent. Most so-called 'educated' opinions against mask wearing that I have seen do use facts, but rely on anecdotal reasoning. Many, if not all the times the anecdotal reasoning I have seen has been used to discredit what is already known.

Also, RE:

Quote:

---

...the bottom line is >histological and bacteriologic evidence suggests that the vast majority of influenza deaths resulted from secondary bacterial pneumonia.<

---

I get gist of that point, but one can also use similar anecdotally-based claim for many bullet wounds that have plagued both solders and civilians in times of war and civil unrest, etc... ...In other words, one can say: It is not the bullet that killed so many, rather, it was the 'secondary bacterial infections' that did.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

. ...In other words, one can say: It is not the bullet that killed so many, rather, it was the 'secondary bacterial infections' that did.

---

that doesn't make me feel better about bullets; so, we shouldn't mind getting shot since we can treat the bacterial infection well?
seems simpler to avoid getting shot in the first place.

Re:

Quote:

---

that doesn't make me feel better about bullets; so, we shouldn't mind getting shot since we can treat the bacterial infection well?

---

:hmmm::hmmm: I think your interpretation of what I meant is upside-down from the point I was trying to make... ...I was not in any way trying to say that anyone should 'feel better' about either bullets or virus... ...Were you really thinking I meant that because there are Kevlar vests and masks, that, anyone should 'feel better'?:hmmm::hmmm:... ...That, most certainly is not what I was trying to iterate.
...and,
Re:

Quote:

---

seems simpler to avoid getting shot in the first place.

---

The figurative point I was trying to make is: the 'bullets' = the virus, wearing masks, = the vest, with the caveat of the difference I mentioned regarding the wearer of vest vs. wearer of mask, and who is being protected more, the wearer, (vest) or others near the wearer, (mask). Whereas, neither one, either the vest or the mask, protects completely.

Yes, it would have been better to not have the airborne virus flying around like the figurative ricocheting bullets or other deadly kinetic objects, etc., in the first place. IOW, not getting shot at, IE the virus, in the first place. However, the "simpler" as you suggest does not apply here, it is not an option at this point, because, unfortunately, it is not the reality of the situation we are living in at this point in time.:candle:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

·

---

[QUOTE=Hotspring 44;239019]I think your interpretation of what I meant is upside-down from the point I was trying to make... ...I was not in any way trying to say that anyone should 'feel better' about either bullets or virus./QUOTE]
sorry, didn't mean to imply that. It was a comment aimed at the ideas that drew your comment..
even if true the secondary effects are the threat, we should still focus on the triggering events!

(btw: what's with the [ QUOTE ] tag failures? I think I'm using them correctly!)

podfish, To answer your last question first:
I pasted your whole reply onto a plain text notepad, and noticed that, at the end quote, (the HTML code part), the one on your posting was missing an 'element'. It was like: /QUOTE] instead of: [/QUOTE]. I think that is your issue.

RE:

Quote:

---

even if true the secondary effects are the threat, we should still focus on the triggering events!

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

·

---

Excellent Post!
Thanks!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

·

---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em6DQE-X...jpg&name=large

Thank you for sharing the statistics and data regarding the effectiveness of mask wearing. I am saddened to read other Wacco postings that deny the effectiveness of wearing a mask. Lies and denial are what make a pandemic a pandemic.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Goat Rock Ukulele:

·

---

Why Won’t Anyone Publish the Danish Mask Study?

A study of 6,000 Danes was set to reveal whether wearing a face mask actually reduces the risk of COVID-19. The only problem is leading medical journals are refusing to publish the data, and the study's lead author hinted it's because they're not "brave enough" to do it

Does a mask work? It's a question recently posed by the Danish newspaper Berlingske,[i] and one that would seem to demand an answer from scientists and public health officials alike. Yet, despite mask mandates existing in 34 U.S. states and the District of Columbia,[ii] there's shockingly little hard data about whether or not they slow the spread of infectious disease.
Researchers from Denmark wanted to change that, conducting what may be the only randomized trial[iii] to determine if masks actually protect against COVID-19,[iv] but multiple medical journals have refused to publish the findings.

Thomas Benfield, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen and one of the study's lead authors,[v] was asked when it would be published. Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson published Benfield's emailed response on Twitter, which is simply: "As soon as a journal is brave enough …"[vi]

What Does the Danish Mask Study Reveal?

Speaking to Nature in October 2020, Benfield said his team wasn't yet ready to share the study's results.[vii] In truth, three medical journals -- The Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association -- have refused to publish the study, leading to speculation that it reveals a message that goes against the status quo.
Berlingske, which is the oldest daily newspaper in Denmark, suggests this is so, stating (loosely translated), "The researchers behind a large and unique Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask even have great difficulty in getting their research results published. One of the participating professors in the study admits that the still secret research result can be perceived as 'controversial.'"[viii],[ix]

The study included 6,000 participants who were randomly assigned to wear a face mask or not for a 30-day period. Participants were confirmed to not have COVID-19 or symptoms of it at the start of the study, and they were required to spend more than three hours per day outside of the home with exposure to other people during the study period.[x]
Described as an "outstanding sample," the Berlingske article, which was written by Lars Henrik Aagaard, praised the study, noting, "The study and its size are unique in the world, and the purpose was once and for all to try to clarify the extent to which the use of masks in public space provides protection against corona infection."[xi]

While the results were originally expected to be published in August 2020, Benfield later said that his comment was taken "a bit out of context" and, "The article is being reviewed by a respected journal. We have decided not to publish data until the article has been accepted."[xii]

Study Co-Author Hints at Controversial Results

Aagaard interviewed another of the study's researchers, Christian Torp-Pedersen, a chief physician at North Zealand Hospital's research department, who similarly said, "We cannot start discussing what they (the medical journals) are dissatisfied with because, in that case, we must also explain what the study showed, and we do not want to discuss that until it is published."[xiii]
He then went on to say that he "might also have dared to go as far as Benfield," had he been asked why the results haven't been published, referring to his "brave enough" comment. Aagaard asks, "Does this mean that your research results may be perceived as controversial in the eyes of some?" to which Torp-Pedersen replies, "That's how I want to interpret it, too."

Aagaard then states, "Can one interpret a controversial research result in the sense that no significant effect of mask use is demonstrated in your study?" Torp-Pedersen says, "I think that's a very relevant question you are asking."[xiv]

Dr. Henning Bundgaard with Denmark's Rigshospitalet is another of the study's authors. In speaking with Bloomberg in July 2020 -- when he still expected the study's results to become public the next month -- he said, "All these countries recommending face masks haven't made their decisions based on new studies."[xv]

Denmark was one of the latest countries to institute a mask mandate, which took effect October 29, 2020 for all public indoor spaces.[xvi] In July, however, Bundgaard told Bloomberg he worried mask mandates may offer a "false sense of security" and make people "sloppy" when following other guidelines like handwashing, self-isolating if you're sick and social distancing.

Also revealing is Bloomberg's last paragraph:

"Bundgaard's study on masks is due to be published next month. In the meantime, he says he hopes they don't become mandatory in Denmark."[xvii]

Masks have become a contentious topic in the U.S., dividing neighbors, colleagues and families over whether or not they slow the spread of infectious disease. The controversy continues to grow, particularly since public health officials have been giving conflicting information from the start,[xviii] and solid data, such as what may be revealed via the Danish study, is sorely lacking.

---

https://geneticmemory.org/images/videos/mask.mp4
OHSA (Occupational Health and Safety) Test of mask
https://geneticmemory.org/images/videos/mask2.mp4
Anthony Fauci M.D. NIAID Director comment on wearing mask

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

·

---

For what it is worth: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/worldhealth-net/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

·

---

Here are the latest County regs re mask-wearing:

https://patch.com/california/across-...de-their-homes

Fauci's comments where driven by the shortage of masks at the time. He want them to be available for health care providers.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Adinkrahene:

·

---

I agree that is the way he wanted people to think. Now explain away the OSHA mask test.

OSHA MASK WHISTLEBLOWERS TELL ALL
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PXcSOn5SqlTF/

Lawyer Investigation COVID Crimes against Humanity

https://www.bitchute.com/video/giRCCibN3mzB/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

·

---

https://www.bing.com/th?id=AMMS_a681...cdv=1&pid=16.1

BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful material. The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube, and some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue have migrated to BitChute.
Wikipedia

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Adinkrahene:

·

---

LOL, Now you are going to use the fake news trope. Citizens in France protested for more than 360 days! And the major media told us what about it? Oh, that's right they didn't report on it at all. So who is fake news in America these days?
"The eyes" when you rearrange the letters "They see"! :wink2:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

·

---

Also you want to talk about creditably and you site "Wikipedia" This is a site where anyone with a membership can log in and change information. NO ONE who knows anything about that site would depend on it for any important information. What's next? Will you will be quoting Face-book post? I am not a believer in the left or right side of the American political system. Now if you are able to talk about this subject without depending on the words of people you don't know, and have never seen, then I'm your huckleberry! Tell me about what you think is the science? If you can't do that, then nothing you say amounts to a brass farthing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

·

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Adinkrahene:

Also you want to talk about creditably and you site "Wikipedia" This is a site where anyone with a membership can log in and change information.

---

well, that's true. That's why citing websites is often a futile exercise. Still, you can get some context. We do actually know that BitChute isn't a reputable site, it has an obvious agenda that's easy to discern. Wikipedia at least has some chance at being somewhat objective - though, as you point out, it's not the final word on anything.

Quote:

---

some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue have migrated to BitChute.

---

This is true...
That does not make it right; nor does it make them not worth hearing from or worthy to be judged and found wanting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

·

---

Quote:

---

"Wikipedia" This is a site where anyone with a membership can log in and change information. NO ONE who knows anything about that site would depend on it for any important information.

---

This is very true unfortunately; and many who have written articles or books that are 'quoted' and quoted wrongly - are not able to get corrections done on that site so they aren't misrepresented.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Adinkrahene:

·

---

If you believe that "Your living in a dream world Nano!" How are you going to validate what your saying, when anyone can broadcast on bit-chute but on Wikipedia only those selected people are allowed to post. And on Youtube they are censoring and removing people for their opinions as if only their (Youtube) opinions matter or is the truth? The reason many people are posting on alternate site is because falsehood will never be able to stand up to truth. One should be able to make their own mind, that is if one has a mind of their own. As the name of a Broadway play states "Your arms are to short to box with god" I'm not god and I'm not (necessarily) talking about your arms, I don't know you. But to say that a site is bad (in your opinion) and therefore everything on the site is also bad, just shows how limited your opinions are.

"God will bless the mind that has it's own" Use the magic in your mind...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

·

---

Just to be clear "Your arms (beliefs) are to short to box with God (The Truth)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Adinkrahene:

·

---

What is does is make them unworthy to quote! I am not quoting anyone. However, I find it strange that if doctors are giving factual information and someone post that on any alternate that the information somehow becomes bad information because someone posted it on that site. And the reason it is posted there is because YOUR main site Youtube would block it. Strange world your living in!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

·

---

Don't like wikipedia? Try the anti-defamation League:

https://www.adl.org/blog/bitchute-a-hotbed-of-hate

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Adinkrahene:

·

---

Thanks anyway, but I prefer the truth! And I'm not going to get that from either one of your suggestions.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

·

---

This is a great object lesson in the 'exactness' of scientific inquiry.

Danish Mask Study finally published - already being critiqued, with demand for more studies: published on Wednesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The fact that PCR test is admitted as criterion for diagnosis makes this entire study faulty.
Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste PCR tests cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones. What that means is that PCR tests cannot detect infection. Period.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-co...-waste/5729700

People are very frightened. This is deliberate. See a version of Biderman's Chart of Coercion: a psychological tool that describes how spirit is broken either in prisoners of war or victims of various types of domestic or other abuse.

I went to check link. It is AMAZING to witness - that in one day's time one link to Biderman's chart is now defunct: https://www.strath.ac.uk/media/1neww...ofcoercion.pdf

and a link to several images of said chart that worked yesterday, may bring up versions of the chart - or - it may instad bring up Ann Biderman and other irrelevant info. Obviously I hope it will bring up chart; or you can do an independent search for same if interested: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Biderman%E....jpg&ia=images

There seems to be some investment in public NOT seeing this chart...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

·

---

Surgical Face Masks: No Statistically Significant Benefit Against COVID-19. Danish Study in Annals of Internal Medicine

https://www.globalresearch.ca/massive-danish-study-surgical-masks-found-no-significant-benefit-against-covid-19/5729897

Quote:

---

three major journals – JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet – refused to publish the study. It appears that the study’s authors had to twist their tongues in order to get this study published by noting that “the estimates were imprecise and statistically compatible with an effect ranging from a 46% decrease to a 23% increase in infection.” They of course had to concede that their study doesn’t definitely rule out the idea that masks could be effective!

---

Critique is not objective in the best sense... yet has facts that can be gleaned readily.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

·

---

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...0_14-15-23.png

“Because the issue has become so politicized, there’s a real risk — and it’s already being used in this way — that studies like this will be sort of cherry-picked and presented as conclusive evidence that masks are completely ineffective,” Columbia University virologist Angela Rasmussen said.

....

no kidding?

I have been perusing this thread and am disheartened by the seeming importance of people posting just to prove they are right and others are wrong. Although I am sure someone posted something claiming that masks are harmful somehow (despite the fact that doctors and nurses have been wearing them forever), why not wear one if there is a chance that you could lessen the possibility of infection? Don't we have to take everything into account based on the available science? The contact tracing seems pretty clear that the factors are air volume (thereby having the most ventilation is prudent), whether the person is shedding the virus (which we have to assume given the lack of symptoms in some people), and potentially distance (although you can still get it in closed air spaces or even outside of talking into each others faces). If we value life, why not buy and wear as effective a mask as possible (N95 if you can), avoid indoor spaces especially those with lack of ventilation, keep distance and avoid being near crowds or gatherings especially indoors? Erring on the side of caution seems prudent. If we are wrong and are too cautious, well I guess we made a mistake in the right direction. The alternative does not seem intelligent to me.

I have to wonder... how many people have died. How many will suffer life long consequnces... because of this thread?

study resulting of graphs and use of masks

https://rationalground.com/post-than...at-masks-work/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Goat Rock Ukulele:

·

---

There is a strong statistical correlation between the number of teachers in a county and the quantity of alcoholic beverages consumed in that county. Obviously, teachers are drunkards.

It is also the case that the highest rated hospitals experience the highest mortality rates. Clearly, a patient is safest in the worst hospitals.

These are classic spurious correlations. The number of teachers and alcohol consumption closely correlate with population. The best teaching hospitals tend to treat the most gravely ill patients.

So, which communities have mask mandates? They are the communities with the worst outbreaks of COVID-19 before the mandates are issued. Furthermore, mask mandates other precautions are widely ignored by idiots. Lots of these idiots spread lots of disease.

Statistics can be misused to "prove" many false propositions.

Historically, the greatest advance in successful surgical outcomes was the adoption of measures to reduce infection. Use of surgical masks, scrubbing, and sterilization of instruments were key strategies for reducing infection in surgery. (The spread of infectious disease in hospitals is still a serious problem, by the way. The problem is not the adoption of antiseptic precautions. The problem is insufficiently rigorous use of known antiseptic precautions.)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pamelaL:

·

---

Study: Mask Mandates Increase Rates of COVID
Compared to States with No Mask Mandates

Mask Mandates Seem to Make CCP Virus Infection Rates Climb, Study Says


By Matthew Vadum
The Epoch Times <sup>[1]

December 23, 2020</sup>

Excerpts:

Protective-mask mandates aimed at combating the spread of the CCP virus ^[2] that causes the disease COVID-19 ^[3] appear to promote its spread, according to a report from RationalGround.com, a clearinghouse of COVID-19 data trends that’s run by a grassroots group of data analysts, computer scientists, and actuaries.

Researchers examined cases covering a 229-day period running from May 1 through Dec. 15 and compared the days in which state governments had imposed mask mandates and the days when they hadn’t.

In states with a mandate in effect, there were 9,605,256 confirmed COVID-19 cases, which works out to an average of 27 cases per 100,000 people per day. When states didn’t have a statewide order—including states that never had mandates, coupled with the period of time masking states didn’t have the mandate in place—there were 5,781,716 cases, averaging 17 cases per 100,000 people per day.

In other words, protective-mask mandates have a poor track record so far in fighting the coronavirus. States with mandates in place produced an average of 10 more reported infections per 100,000 people per day than states without mandates.

“The reverse correlation between periods of masking and non-masking is remarkable,” RationalGround.com co-founder Justin Hart tweeted ^[4] on Dec. 20.

The 15 states that went without a statewide mask mandate for the duration of the analysis were Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming, Daniel Horowitz notes in an explainer at Conservative Review ^[5].

The analysts allowed the mandate states a 14-day grace period from the time of implementation in order to begin counting cases against mask efficacy in order to arrive at accurate results.

Supporters of the protective-mask mandates might say that the mandates were often imposed once cases already spread quickly, so there’s a negative bias of increased cases in those areas (or times) that had mandates in place, but there was “no evidence of any reduction in cases or even better outcomes many weeks later,” Horowitz writes.
RationalGround.com researcher Ian Miller discovered that three counties in Florida—Manatee, Martin, and Nassau—that let their mandates expire, had fewer cases per capita than those counties that kept the mandate.


Miller tweeted ^[6] sarcastically on Dec. 20 that it was “extremely confusing how this could happen, considering” the pro-mandate side’s claim that protective masks ^[7] “are the single most important public health tool we have” and that masks “provide protection for the wearer, too.”

“The mask religion will have a number of inaccurate excuses ready to go, but of course, they’re obscuring and ignoring that this should not be possible, no matter what the mitigating circumstances, if masks were as effective or important as we were told,” Miller wrote.

Nor, according to Miller, has the protective-mask mandate worked in states such as California, where it was imposed long before the surge in cases began.

“The simple reality is that there is no legitimate data showing the mandates worked,” Horowitz concludes.

There are those who might question the findings, arguing that population density skews the results. The study looked at Florida using county data and found no correlation between mask mandates and fewer cases, even adjusting for population density, Horowitz notes.

While Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, was attacked vigorously by the mainstream media for refusing to impose a statewide protective-mask mandate, counties in the state that avoided mandates performed well in the study.

Of the state’s 67 counties, 22 imposed an executive mandate at some point during the period examined.
When counties did enforce a mandate, there were 667,239 cases, for an average of 23 cases per 100,000 people per day. When counties didn’t have a mandate, there were 438,687 cases, for an average of 22 cases per 100,000 people per day.

“When you isolate only the top 12 most populous counties in the state … eight of them had effective mask orders implemented at some point during the study period, and four never had a countywide order (Brevard, Lee, Polk, and Volusia),” Horowitz writes.

Read the full article at The Epoch Times

Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Finell:

Obviously, teachers are drunkards.

---

My wife's a teacher, my mother-in-law was a teacher, my daughter is a teacher. Many of their friends are teachers. In this case, correlation does mean causation. Your statement is true.

(:wink:)

:troll:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

·

---

I take it that one point you're making is that telling people to wear masks does not guarantee that they will comply. To my mind that still leaves it an open question whether the various mandates are worthwhile or not.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Finell:

·

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phredo:

I take it that one point you're making is that telling people to wear masks does not guarantee that they will comply. To my mind that still leaves it an open question whether the various mandates are worthwhile or not.

---

I agree, it does. But I think the simple answer is sure, they are. The other binary choice, don't mandate, seems worse.

The real problem is that our culture - and maybe most cultures - don't shape our behavior in ways that prevent spreading communicable diseases. It also doesn't really give us tools to deal with climate change. There are lots of problems that in abstract could be addressed rather easily if there weren't a bunch of us monkeys charged with identifying and implementing solutions. Some are unhelpfully nitpicking the details of whether it really exists, not particularly interested in pragmatic ways of limiting its impact; others use their intuitive rather than analytic math skills to make risk vs. reward judgments. Apparently this isn't all that different than the other pandemics in history - people fall into their groove.

"The other binary choice, don't mandate, seems worse."

Well, I mostly agree. But there is another factor to add, which is that many of the effects of the mandates are indirect, such as jobs lost, economy decimated, and in general a whole slew of economic and social costs that would be much less severe if the mandates were never dictated or followed.

One of my favorite sites for seeing how Covid is effecting us is at https://covid19.healthdata.org, from the Univ. of Washington. Let me call attention to one of their graphs in particular, https://covid19.healthdata.org/unite...hs&tab=compare , where you can compare deaths per thousand, past and projected for California vs other states. Pulling your mouse over a line on the graph identifies the state name, although it's hard to find a particular state that might interest you. But if you mouse into the box that says "compare California to", you can first "x" out all the other states and then individually select the ones you are interested in (or, in fact, anywhere else in the world). I did that, adding back North Dakota , New York, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Sweden. I found that California still has fewer total deaths per 100,000 than all of the others, but projecting into April, that California will surpass (based on the U of W projections) Texas and Florida, and none of them will ever be as great as New York.

So, I don't really have a solid opinion about all that, but I think it is possible to have pro and con views about masks et. al. that have validity, when one looks at the total effect. Even at North Dakota's projected high of about 270 deaths per 100,000, equivalent to 0.27% of their population, Covid is not quite up to Black Death proportions, and perhaps we should not be reacting as if it were, given the other costs to society.

I'm not really questioning so much whether masks "work" or not, more whether the mandates are a good idea.

There is a huge disconnect , folks don't know or care or both and it's killing people. Talk about Russian roulette .
will you be the one who dies or will you kill people because you're spreading the virus?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phredo:

·

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phredo:

I'm not really questioning so much whether masks "work" or not, more whether the mandates are a good idea.

---

yeah, I riffed a little bit off that - not directly responding to the mandate idea itself, but to the fact that there's almost no idea that will work, at least here. I don't think avoiding a mandate will encourage more people to act with a responsible level of precaution. Sure, people sometimes resent an order and will accept a request. I don't think that applies here.
now this is true of mask mandates. The shutdown-type orders are harder, you're right. I think there I take a little different view. There, we probably would do better with some more targeted constraints. It's a hard line, though, because too broad constraints hit too hard but narrow ones bring out the barracks lawyer instincts and people just work around them.

Here is one article looking at that very thing...
Comprehensive analysis of 50 states shows greater spread with mask mandates

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phredo:

·

---

Some info about The Blaze:

The Blaze - Media Bias Fact Check

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

·

---

so, Politifact's review of The Blaze is:

• Overall, we rate The Blaze strongly Right Biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed fact checks and loaded emotional headlines."

designation of right/left is of lesser import to me and others less concerned with surface dichotomies than substance.

as far as "a few failed fact checks", i thought to check the Politifact New York Times review:

Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that moderately favors the left, but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks that occurred were on Op-Ed’s and not straight news reporting. (5/18/2016) Update (M. Huitsing 07/15/2020)

BUT - in contrast - here's wikipedia on the NYT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times
not impeccable by any means.

finding/knowing truth does require time and thinking, on going openness and willingness to change.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

·

---

Here is a new paper on non-pharmaceutical interventions NPI's), from the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

In this study, social distancing comes up as best, but masks also reduce exposure, by, on average, 15%. Recommendation is to do both if you wish to contain COVID-19.

Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 transmission in 190 countries from 23 January to 13 April 2020 https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01971220322700

Methods
This study included 1,908,197 confirmed COVID-19 cases from 190 countries between 23 January and 13 April 2020. The implemented NPIs were categorised into four types: mandatory face mask in public, isolation or quarantine, social distancing and traffic restriction (referred to as mandatory mask, quarantine, distancing and traffic hereafter, respectively).

Results
The implementations of mandatory mask, quarantine, distancing and traffic were associated with changes (95% confidence interval, CI) of −15.14% (from −21.79% to −7.93%), −11.40% (from −13.66% to −9.07%), −42.94% (from −44.24% to −41.60%) and −9.26% (from −11.46% to −7.01%) in the Rt of COVID-19 when compared with those without the implementation of the corresponding measures. Distancing and the simultaneous implementation of two or more types of NPIs seemed to be associated with a greater decrease in the Rt of COVID-19.


Conclusion
Our study indicates that NPIs can significantly contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Distancing and the simultaneous implementation of two or more NPIs should be the strategic priorities for containing COVID-19.

I suspect that all types of masks are grouped together in this study, and that better quality masks will increase your odds from 15%. KN95 masks are available at Ace Hardware. I used one when I saw my chiropractor.

A good mask can lower the dose level and the duration if you do get infected, which apparently will reduce the severity of the disease.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

·

---

Results
The implementations of mandatory mask, quarantine, distancing and traffic were associated with changes (95% confidence interval, CI) of −15.14% (from −21.79% to −7.93%), −11.40% (from −13.66% to −9.07%), −42.94% (from −44.24% to −41.60%) and −9.26% (from −11.46% to −7.01%) in the Rt of COVID-19 when compared with those without the implementation of the corresponding measures. Distancing and the simultaneous implementation of two or more types of NPIs seemed to be associated with a greater decrease in the Rt of COVID-19.

Zeno, that was an elaborate study done by the Chinese that seems to validate social distancing and face covering. Personally, I cannot look at this without thinking about the communist goals for social control.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

·

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pamelaL:

·

---

Can your thinking be improved? You say “The Chinese” and that you cannot "look at this without thinking … communist goals for social control.”


Thinking in broad generalities, and an impulsive reaction you can’t control.


Just as happiness, conscious thinking I believe depends on paying attention to more details.


The editor-in-chief of the journal this study was published in, The International Journal of Infectious Diseases, is a citizen of Denmark. The members of the editorial board come from Nigeria, Ivory Coast, the Republic of South Africa, Hong Kong, and, di meliora!, Texas. The publishing house is Dutch.


The peer reviewers are anonymous (!!!) The data used in this meta-study "was extracted from a data repository sourced from Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering and the Wind Financial database, which archive data from the official websites of health ministries worldwide.”


Next time think: the Danes, the Nigerians, the Ivory Coasters, the South Africans, the Texans, the Dutch, the Americans, the capitalist, the Portuguese, the Icelanders,… A true exercise in world geography.


And think, the Nordic Socialists, the Republicans, the 1%, the QAnons, the Democrats, the Africans, the Normans, the people that are associated with Christopher Columbus, …


Or not, and try to pause, and consider more and different details, and be aware of our limited understanding of the strange and beautiful world.

This conversation and back and forth is actually more complicated than it seems in knowing what the truth is. Zeno is trying to bring some nuance defending this China study but it is true that the Chinese (like the Americans who may be paid by God-knows-who for studies and are known for bias as well) may be questionable if their interest is somehow related to a totalitarian position. There may be no bias or not but I agree that just because it comes from China one should not discount it.

The reason this subject is complicated is that there are so many factors in trying to understand what is going on and what to do. If you watch right-wing propaganda you will not see it as propaganda but as "the truth." If you watch MSNBC or CNN, there are alot of not too bright journalists who have no science background. One example in another country is in Sweden and what they did (and did not do) in the pandemic. Even today, many do not wear masks but fortunately (although belatedly) they are starting to see reality with their hospitals filling up. I am hoping that they have enough humility to admit that their unwise past actions were based on a false belief in a supposed scientist named Anders Tegnell (the health minister) who was basically winging it and experimenting on the population and trying to spread it (sound familiar?). Swedes felt special not having to take precautions and seemed unconcerned about the several thousand older people who were given palliative care and let die versus trying to save them. Swedes are supposedly smart, rational people but were essentially looney tunes when it came to the science of this pandemic. And there was no propaganda to speak of there but just a cultural inability to question authority and an underlying feeling of being better than others.

It is easy to see people as stupid when things seem so clear to us. It is harder to put ourselves in their position when we just cannot do so as hard as we try. I see this as a main factor in the animosity that always seems to seep into these discussions.

Questioning someone's motives, like calling it a "China study," in publishing an analysis or study is a no-no in science, It's comitting the ad hominem fallacy.

And it's irrelevant. In this meta-analysis all the data are availiable to other researchers and the reasoning is very detailed and explicit, to someone who learned the field of study.

In theoretical work the details of the reasoning speak for themselves. In the publication of experimental results, methods are described so the experiment can be replicated; lab notes are readily made available,

The gradual development of these norms of scientific communication goes back a long time, at least to Francis Bacon in England and Marin Mersenne in France.

If you can't understand the details of a new publication I think its best to wait and sit back to see how the experts work it out in robust discussions. Second guessing motives is descending in a never ending pit of snakes

Zeno,

You could be right and the experts probably are to be trusted. You mention that second guessing motives is not a good idea. Are you saying that we should never question motives?

If so, I just wanted to clarify. If not, please let me know who we should trust and who not to trust. This is a serious and difficult question which I think is very important and relevant.

Do you have parameters for the more trustworthy sources and less trustworthy ones? If we are not as well-versed in a particular area, where would we go to know who to trust?

The reason I find this important is that this discussion is much of what this forum is about. Someone puts a link of an article from, for instance, The Blaze and others shoot it down as being a right-wing shill. Another puts one from the New York Times and the same thing. Don't we have to have a way of determining trustworthy people and sources in order to be talking about the same facts?

My personal experience in looking at scientific studies is that there are many variables and it is easy to come to different conclusions especially since, as a rule, studies are not replicated. There is little incentive in fact to do so.

This has nothing to do with the particular study you are referencing. I have no opinion on this study and my rule is to just take the proper precautions (proper mask, distancing, no shared air, etc) so I am all in on this.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

·

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

·

---

your post describes perfectly the nature of the posts that draw my opposition. I often agree with the underlying skepticism about convention that they express. It's the centrality of the role of motive in their conclusions, and the speed that they get there, that I find off-putting. It seems like several people on this site and elsewhere, especially on the right-wing political sites, find these pyramiding towers of inference really compelling.

A long time ago there was a quite interesting show called 'Connections', where some PBS brit, I forget which one, showed how this discovery and that development led to these cultural changes. Really compelling and fascinating, but as I learned more about the history of tech and science I saw how arbitrary those chains were, and how alternative explanations were perfectly possible. As someone said, we're rationalizing, not rational animals, really good at weaving ideas together into cohesive but perfectly fictitious stories.

The so called 'experts' - those given a voice in mainstream media and not suppressed - are representing a model that is quite antithetical to caring for humans, 'doing no harm' etc.
Neil Ferguson: China's totalitarian lockdown 'changed what was possible' in the West

March 8th, Expert Fauci Says No Masks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LScH...ture=emb_title

'Expert' Fauci - under 1-1/2 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-O-...ature=youtu.be

Mission creep; another step towards Reset: Sacrificing freedom for the environment? German MP suggests restrictions 'similar' to Covid-19 lockdowns to fight climate change

Opinions we have plenty of. What we rarely find now - other facets of complex issues, informed discussions:
1976 journalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFg3...ture=emb_title

2009 journalism: https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-...ildren/5711540

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

·

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RaphaelA:

You could be right and the experts probably are to be trusted. You mention that second guessing motives is not a good idea. Are you saying that we should never question motives?

If so, I just wanted to clarify. If not, please let me know who we should trust and who not to trust. This is a serious and difficult question which I think is very important and relevant.

---

I think you misread his words, and missed his point. I don't see him claiming the experts are to be trusted. He explicitly says motives are not particularly relevant, given that the data itself is available. When you see critics honing in on motive, it's a sign of unseriousness.

There's got to be some aphorism for this, but I don't know it. some more pithy way to express this: -- Like "what is the meaning of life?", there are phrases that take the form of questions but aren't, really, in the sense that it's not a statement that comes with an answer. "Who should we trust" ??? well, no-one, in the way you seem to be asking it. People offer information and interpretation, of varying credibility and levels of confidence. None are dropping incontrovertible pearls of knowledge, though it's true, some are dropping completely untrustworthy lumps of merde. Some experts are more likely than others to be worth listening to, but that's as far as it's safe to categorize.

Hi!

I was looking at M/M's post and noticed that a number of the sources were related to conspiracy theories.

Is this OK? If so, what is the point of this forum and why are we posting?

My understanding is that we are looking to understand the science which would seem to preclude posting from sketchy sites.

Is there any parameter or rules for the sources we can post and is anyone actually reviewing their sources (doing a web search) to find out more about their source?

If I can just throw anything out there, what is the point?

Unfortunately Wacco has really gone wacko with all kinds of conspiracy theory postings over the last several months. Fear creates irrational behavior and beliefs. It's good to know that there are some of us who are checking the sources of these postings.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RaphaelA:

·

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RaphaelA:

If I can just throw anything out there, what is the point?

---

point? it's whatever you want it to be. Welcome to the interwebs. Come on in, the water's fine.

Denigrating widely recognized experts, all of whom have education and experience in their field, by calling them "so called experts," is merely your opinion. Unlike those you denigrate, however, you have no education or experience that qualifies you to have an opinion about their expertise. Furthermore, you choose to accept and promote the opinions of POV-pushers that lack professional qualifications, who are promoting their own goods and services, and who spew patent nonsense like, for example, colloidal silver to prevent or cure disease.

Likewise, you assert that anyone with genuine qualifications is "representing a model that is quite antithetical to caring for humans, 'doing no harm' etc." Again, the is merely your opinion.

Looking at the broader history, from the discovery of microorganisms through the present, the success of medicine and public health measures (along with the biological sciences that underlie modern medicine) in preventing and curing disease and in prolonging active life is astonishing. We have the eradication of polio, smallpox, tuberculosis, syphilis, and measles (what remains of these killers afflicts those in poverty and without access to modern medicine) and treatment of AIDS. Cancers that previously were death sentences are now cured or controlled. The death of mothers and infants during or soon after childbirth has plummeted. In the United States, life expectancy at birth has increased from 42 in 1900 to a bit over 78 since 2010. And the rate of improvement is accelerating—which is how science usually advances.

Your promotion of contra-factual crackpot sources and crazy ideas is a page out of the playbook of Trump and his ultra-right-wing white supremacist supporters. They are the ones that are "antithetical to caring for humans".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

The so called 'experts' - those given a voice in mainstream media and not suppressed - are representing a model that is quite antithetical to caring for humans, 'doing no harm' etc.
·

---

We have a handful of participants who believe that recognized authorities persistently lie, that the truth must be the opposite of whatever experts say. These same individuals accept any nonsense by any crackpot that speaks against authorities. If these participants evaluated all sources of information by the same standard, they would either believe nothing or they might come to a more rational understanding of the facts.

Reasonable skepticism toward authorities, of course, good. That kind of skepticism is the heart of the scientific method. It is why science works. But skepticism carried to irrational extremes is just noise.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RaphaelA:

Unfortunately Wacco has really gone wacko with all kinds of conspiracy theory postings over the last several months.·

---

You assume or presume that I am not qualified, am not a professional (for over 40 years), am anti-vaccine. All are erroneous.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Finell:

·

---

Originally and not too long ago, Barry created 2 categories/threads: "Coronavirus" for more generally accepted info, and "Corona virus conspiracy theories" or words to that effect. The separation worked well for a while but then the conspiracy theorists began submitting their posts to the Coronavirus thread. For whatever reasons, Barry did not block the flow. That has brought us right back to where we began, with people seeking more "mainstream" virus info being drawn into back-and-forth with the conspiracy folks.
Frankly, I preferred the separation. I wasted less time slogging through posts that really held very little interest for me.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RaphaelA:

·

---

Please list your post-high school degrees, professional certifications, and any other qualifications that you believe constitute the education and experience to evaluate Dr. Fauci's ability to analyze and advise concerning the COVID-19 pandemic, or that qualify you to assess the state of medical practice in the United States.

By the way, Dr. Fauci's statements, early in the pandemic, that the general public should not be wearing masks was to preserve the limited supply of masks for the medical personnel that needed them. If masks were useless reducing the spread of infectious disease—which is the subject of this thread,

• Why would Dr. Fauci want to keep masks available for medical personnel treating COVID-19 patients?
• Why do physicians and other support personnel wear them in surgery?
• Why are physicians and other medical personnel wearing masks during the pandemic?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

You assume or presume that I am not qualified, am not a professional (for over 40 years), am anti-vaccine. All are erroneous.·

---

I've grown weary of reading this stuff close enough to determine what should be separated. :balance: The distinction, originally, was for content that implied some nefarious intent/conspiracy behind various coronavirus memes, not so much about generally accepted vs "alternative facts" :wink:.

In the case of this thread, please let's stick to the question of masks. It's the generally accepted best policy to wear masks, but for this thread, I welcome alternative points of view/data.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

Originally and not too long ago, Barry created 2 categories/threads: "Coronavirus" for more generally accepted info, and "Corona virus conspiracy theories" or words to that effect. The separation worked well for a while but then the conspiracy theorists began submitting their posts to the Coronavirus thread. For whatever reasons, Barry did not block the flow. ...

---

Quote:

---

By the way, Dr. Fauci's statements, early in the pandemic, that the general public should not be wearing masks was to preserve the limited supply of masks for the medical personnel that needed them.

Why do physicians and other support personnel wear them in surgery?
Why are physicians and other medical personnel wearing masks during the pandemic?

---

I went to look at link I provided where Dr. Fauci back in March stated healthy people did not need to wear masks. I was surprised to find it had been scrubbed from 'net. At any rate, in looking at other versions, Fauci clearly stated healthy people didn't need masks. However on questioning from media people he said, 'if people wanted to - he wasn't against it, like you see people in other countries doing... also because not needed by those who are healthy, it is good to save masks for medical personnel.

I have no issue w/masks in surgery of course or when health care personnel are working w/many who are infected.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Finell:

·

---

It would be helpful if you linked to your sources for Fauci's comments re masks. If they were made early on in the pandemic (last Spring-Summer), then it's likely they are outdated now because we continue to learn more about covid-19 and because the current surge greatly exceeds expectations. It's pretty clear to me that the overriding concern early on was making sure medical personnel, etc. had appropriate masks. There was a shocking shortage of them for a couple of months in the beginning.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

·

---

We may have heard: 'figures don't lie, but liars can figure'.... some articles for open and curious minds:

Masks Are Neither Effective Nor Safe: A Summary Of The Science

Study: Mask Mandates Seen To Make COVID-19 Rates Climb
Mask Syndrome: How Does COVID-19 Get Into The Brain?

Many studies looking at this; whereas other studies link masks w/secondary bacterial lung infections.

Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

·

---

I want a mask with a yellow star on it......

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

·

---

Are you alluding to the yellow star that Nazis forced Jews to wear?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pamelaL:

I want a mask with a yellow star on it

---

Mara, are you going to reveal your academic degrees and professional experience?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

·

---

I just read recently that the same mask or not mask issues were around during the 1918(?) flu pandemic. Interesting. Lilith

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

·

---

We know a lot more now than we did then.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Lilith Rogers:

the same mask or not mask issues were around during the 1918(?) flu pandemic

---

Yes. My family wears masks to keep well while my spouse awaits a ❤ transplant. We toss used masks, replace filters often as well as washing the cloth ones regularly. No, masks are not causing harm unless they are used improperly and unkept. Just like our minds. At this point in the pandemic, it is what we make of it and if we want it to bring chaos to our lives, then that is an individual decision. At this point I am sick of the idle arguments that basically just tell me that people won't educate themselves enough on a simple matter to care about eachother and help eachother through this. The only conspiracies I see are the ones created in the minds of xy and z. Not that I don't have thoughts of my own, it's just not pertinent to the mask conversion.

Bravo! Very well said.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tamilw75:

At this point I am sick of the idle arguments that basically just tell me that people won't educate themselves enough on a simple matter to care about each other and help each other through this.

---

Oh, thanks for your cogent thoughts about masks and sending love and healing to your spouse. Aloha, Lilith

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tamilw75:

·

---

two cents @ the end of time...

My two cents : I have chosen not to post on this thread since its inception. -Not because I do not appreciate the efforts of my old friend Judith Iam, but for the reason that I do not believe the real Question is "To Mask or Not To Mask".

In my opinion, the Real Question - which was a vital issue at the very beginning of the Coronavirus Controversy back in March and April of 2020 - still remains "Was SARS-CoV-2 Cooked up in a BSL-4 Lab - Or Not?"

I for one believe that it was, and that it was a product of a collaboration between the Feds @ Fort Detrick, MD, Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, and Dr. Peter mengele Daszak working in tandem with "some of the best scientists in the world" at the BSL-4 Lab in Wuhan, China. In short, the creation of Covid-19 was a genuine International team effort.

This was essentially the position that Dr. Judy Mikovitz took in the documentary, "PLANDEMIC". But of course, some will insist, she has already been "debunked" by the so-called "fact-checkers". -Along with Dr. Luc Montagnier -and- Dr. Joseph Mercola -and- Professor Francis Boyle -and- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. -and- Dr. Stella Emmanuel, & many, many Others...

Question:

"Why is it that Everyone who came up with information -or a thesis- that ran counter to the narrative being promoted by the mainstream media from the beginning of this pandemic in the year 2020, was "debunked" and discredited ?"

-For, it may be said -without controversy- that the Mainstream Media & the Medical-Industrial Complex have worked overtime at damage control & "debunking" dissenters ever since the Coronavirus Controversy began.

The Answer to that Question lies in the nature of "Who owns the Main Stream Media ?" =AND= the fact {not a "conspiracy theory"} that the Pharmaceutical-Industrial Complex & the Mainstream Media have interlocking Boards of Directors. -All of Whom just happen to be members of the Bilderberg Group.

:Yinyangv::wink2::Yinyangv:

Think** About **It...

I get it - because I have been watching the profiteers take over my precious choice of a career since the Regan administration and even before. New practitioners, generally healthy people too, do not know anything different than a profiteering system, one that has, in my opinion, become self-serving and monstrous - not that they don't do excellent things for us as well, mind you; but not with infectious disease nor especially chronic disease which has exponentially increased under the decades of Fauci. Not understanding the science is a part of the big problem, not critically thinking is a bigger part, and censorship the biggest. People who praise science do not seem to even read our own governments studies plus think critically about masks vs no masks - for instance - this study below - just read the conclusion on the first page - I don't know why malaria drugs work so well in treatments of covid, but this explains the zithromax part - then again, in some parts of the world plain ol' cholecolciferol is used to treat covid - but there I go digressing again! Dang I'm gonna miss Wacco - the one uncensored site I know - or, sorta uncensored (wink wink)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...KPSUMWEKfE4W1Q

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mayacaman:

·

---

yeah, you darling med nerd, where are we gonna share this stuff, like from your link below(!) THANKS.
uhhh, did fauci just forget bout this...?
Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness
David M. Morens, Jeffery K. Taubenberger, and Anthony S. Fauci

Conclusions

The majority of deaths in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory–tract bacteria. Less substantial data from the subsequent 1957 and 1968 pandemics are consistent with these findings. If severe pandemic influenza is largely a problem of viral-bacterial copathogenesis, pandemic planning needs to go beyond addressing the viral cause alone (e.g., influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs). Prevention, diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of secondary bacterial pneumonia, as well as stockpiling of antibiotics and bacterial vaccines, should also be high priorities for pandemic planning.

and gotta love their quote:

“If grippe condemns, the secondary infections execute” [1, p. 448].

——Louis Cruveilhier, 1919

coincidentally, just got this, not yet watched, good to have professional colleagues input on his background though -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=de...ature=youtu.be

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pamelaL:

·

---

I think most people quit reading this stuff a while ago, have made up their minds and so that old saying of Moshe's applies: "The sure effect of belief and certainty is to stop thinking." I'm wasting my time posting anything here anymore I think.....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

·

---

I won't take the time to reply to all your points, but whether or not the virus was ... what I could call "altered," my short answer is, I think it was. I think this because within the first two weeks of research and stay at home orders (at which time I was going to work as usual and otherwise immersed in research) I got to see the slide progressions from our source inside Wuhan that showed the splice of 12 peptides into a regular corona virus in the same sequencing location the materialistic scientists are always experimenting with, only it was a different peptide than had ever been used before. The group went on to theorize about the probable outcomes, and speculate. Mind you, this is on a professional forum of international Integrative practitioners, scientists, virologists and epidemiologists. The two speculations I remember the most were "they evolved this virus 800 years into the future" and the other was "eh - it's a hybrid; what does a hybrid seed do when set into the wild? It mutates quite rapidly, if not immediately back to it's original form." oh, and one other comment was "it's a corona virus, our bodies know this virus; every flu, 1/3 of all the colds we have had and so on." Now, as far as nefarious intentions etc. - It does not interest me to speculate. I want to trust in the innocence, curiosity, and well, stupidity of the human condition, but I do think the profiteers took advantage of this situation to fear-monger and manipulate us towards a technocracy, and I have a jaded eye to our main stream media because it is owned by very few profiteers who may even sit on each others boards.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mayacaman:

·

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pamelaL:

·

---

Pamela, You say,

" ...I want to trust in the innocence, curiosity, and well, stupidity of the human condition, but I do think the profiteers took advantage of this situation to fear-monger and manipulate us towards a technocracy, and I have a jaded eye to our main stream media because it is owned by very few profiteers who may even sit on each others boards...."

However, consider these facts: The World Economic Forum bunch of Globalists / Plutocrats had already created a website that was over two hundred {200} layers deep and unveiled it just over a year ago, on January 15, 2020, in time for their annual get-together in Davos, Switzerland, before most of the rest of us had even heard of Covid-19. To create such an elaborate website doesn't just happen overnight. And the thought and planning that went into that particular website (See Link, Below) has been in the pipeline for decades. Decades.

Once Again, I would advise everyone in this forum to examine the recorded videos of the "Event 201https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/youtube.png" Symposium that took place in New York City in late 2019. Watch the talking head in the Naval Intelligence uniform specifically deal with the issue of how to deal with alternative medical 'cures' and 'disinformation'. Those are the rules of Media Censorship in what I have termed the "Event 201 Playbook". See this clip - starting @ 48:00https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/youtube.png.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attac...2&d=1590529873

Behold, ^ the Mother Lode ^ of Covidity


SARS-CoV-2 is a "designer" virus; one that arrived complete
with a website of its own that is two hundred (yes, 200) layers deep.
- A virus with a mission - a “Crown Virus" that arrived on the World scene
in order to hasten "Global Governance."

Study Up:

World Economic Forum: Strategic Intelligence Covid-19:

https://www.weforum.org/platforms/covid-action-platform

Before you click on the link ^above^ -Just a little explanation :

New World Order Explained ~ Covid Action Plan ~ Fema Whistleblower

Study up. This is what the Billionaires has been planning for us field-negroes...

Population level study in The Lancet shows that mask wearing reduces the spread of the corona virus.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30293-4/fulltext

Mask-wearing and control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the USA: a cross-sectional study

Although evidence suggests that masks help to curb the spread of the disease, there is little empirical research at the population level

378,207 individuals responded to the survey between June 3 and July 27, 2020,

We found that communities with high reported mask-wearing and physical distancing had the highest predicted probability of transmission control.

The Fog of COVID War — Locking Down the Healthy

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
January 27, 2021

Story at-a-glance

• You’re living in a fog of war right now — a fog of COVID war — according to Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)
• This description is typically reserved for the disorientation, chaos and confusion of battle but now applies disturbingly well to the fog surrounding COVID-19 disease mitigation
• It’s often unclear who is making decisions related to COVID-19 health policy, and why, and the rationale behind such decisions is elusive or entirely absent
• One example is the timeline from January 2020, when mask use was discouraged for the general public, to December 2020, when masks have become mandatory in many areas
• Science suggests asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is rare, and masks are ineffective at stopping transmission, but healthy people continue to be locked down and told to wear masks

The “fog of war” is a term used to describe the uncertainty, chaos and confusion that can occur during battle. What you thought was true entering into the battle may be turned upside down, clouding your judgment as you try to make decisions in a sort of suspended reality.

You’re living in a fog of war right now — a fog of COVID war — according to Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER): “It is often unclear who is making decisions and why, and what the relationships are between the strategies and the goals. Even the rationale can become elusive as frustration and disorientation displace clarity and rationality.”¹

This description is typically reserved for the disorientation of battle but now applies disturbingly well to the fog surrounding COVID-19 disease mitigation. If you’d like a concrete example, watch the video timeline above, which takes you from January 2020, when mask use was discouraged, to December 2020, when masks have become mandatory in many areas.²

March: Face Masks Cannot Protect Against the New Coronavirus

In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at the World Health Organization headquarters, was featured in a video, holding up a disposable face mask. She said, “Medical masks like this one cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone … WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases.”³

Those specific cases include if you have a cough, fever or difficulty breathing. In other words, if you’re actively sick and showing symptoms. “If you do not have these symptoms, you do not have to wear masks because there is no evidence that they protect people who are not sick,” she continued.

In March 2020, the U.S. Surgeon General publicly agreed, tweeting a message stating, “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” and going on to say that they are not effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus.⁴ As of March 31, 2020, WHO was still advising against the use of face masks for people without symptoms, stating that there is “no evidence” that such mask usage prevents COVID-19 transmission.⁵

June: Public Should Wear a Face Mask

By June 6, 2020, the rhetoric had changed. Citing “evolving evidence,” WHO reversed their recommendation, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO’s director general, advising governments to encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult.⁶

This encouragement turned into mandates in many areas, with threats of fines for those who did not comply. In Humboldt County, California, for instance, anyone who violated the order to wear face coverings in public could be fined $50 to $1,000 and/or face 90 days in jail for each day the offense occurred.⁷

In Salem, Massachusetts, you could also be fined for not wearing a mask in public, including the common areas inside an apartment building.⁸ What’s the evolving evidence WHO referred to that made them reverse their position on masks for the healthy general public over a period of just two months? This remains unclear, but an interesting development did occur.

WHO: Asymptomatic Transmission ‘Very Rare’

During a June 8, 2020, press briefing — just two days after Ghebreyesus advised healthy people to start wearing masks — Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO’s technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that people who have COVID-19 without any symptoms "rarely” transmit the disease to others.⁹

WHO’s interim guidance from June 5, 2020, supports Kerkhove’s statement, noting, “Comprehensive studies on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms.”¹⁰

If this is the case, though, the recommendation that healthy, asymptomatic people wear face masks or be locked down in their homes makes no sense, highlighting just one instance of the ongoing “COVID fog.”
Not to be called out on their blatant contradictions, on June 9, 2020, Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO’s emergencies program, quickly backpedaled Van Kerkhove’s statement, saying the remarks were “misinterpreted or maybe we didn’t use the most elegant words to explain that.”¹¹ Van Kerkhove also stated that the data she mentioned only came from a “small subset of studies,” and added:¹²

“I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that. I was just trying to articulate what we know. And in that, I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare.”

10 Million People, Not One Case of Asymptomatic Transmission

After WHO’s asymptomatic spread debacle, talk of this topic died down considerably.¹³ But, quietly, a landmark study involving 9,899,828 million residents of Wuhan, China, was published in Nature Communications.¹⁴ The participants were tested for COVID-19 between May 14, 2020, and June 1, 2020.
No new symptomatic cases, and 300 asymptomatic cases, were identified. Among the 300 asymptomatic cases, 1,174 close contacts were identified, and not one of them tested positive for COVID-19.

Additionally, of the 34,424 participants with a history of COVID-19, 107 individuals (0.31%) tested positive again, but, importantly, none were symptomatic. As noted by the authors, "Virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and repositive cases, indicating no 'viable virus' in positive cases detected in this study.”¹⁵ Tucker explained:¹⁶

“The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but does not drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.”

A meta-analysis of 21,708 at-risk people, of which 663 were COVID-19 positive and 111 were asymptomatic, also found that asymptomatic transmission rates may actually be “lower than those of many highly-publicized studies.”¹⁷ They suggested the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases is 1 in 6, and found the relative risk of asymptomatic transmission was 42% lower than the risk of symptomatic transmission.

In a preprint version of their study, the researchers noted, “Our estimates of the proportion of asymptomatic cases and their transmission rates suggest that asymptomatic spread is unlikely to be a major driver of clusters or community transmission of infection …”¹⁸ As Tucker noted:¹⁹

“We keep hearing about how we should follow the science. The claim is tired by now. We know what’s really happening.

The lockdown lobby ignores whatever contradicts their narrative, preferring unverified anecdotes over an actual scientific study of 10 million residents in what was the world’s first major hotspot for the disease we are trying to manage. You would expect this study to be massive international news. So far as I can tell, it is being ignored.”

If Asymptomatic Spread Is Rare, Why Masks and Lockdowns?

Widespread asymptomatic spreading is the only reason that lockdowns and mask usage among the healthy make sense. For months, health officials have been perpetuating the myth of asymptomatic spreading to escalate fear.

Now, as people are increasingly eager to return to some sense of normalcy, a mutated SARS-CoV-2 strain, which is supposedly more virulent, is said to have emerged and resulted in new, more severe lockdown restrictions in the U.K.²⁰

This perpetuation of fear has extended far beyond the initial purpose of the lockdowns, which was to flatten the curve and avoid overstressing hospitals. As Tucker pointed out, however, this has gradually changed such that now we’re facing lockdowns indefinitel^y.21

“The initial round of lockdowns was not about suppressing the virus but slowing it for one reason: to preserve hospital capacity. Whether and to what extent the ‘curve’ was actually flattened will probably be debated for years but back then there was no question of extinguishing the virus. The volume of the curves, tall and quick or short and long, was the same either way. People were going to get the bug until the bug burns out (herd immunity).

Gradually, and sometimes almost imperceptibly, the rationale for the lockdowns changed. Curve flattening became an end in itself, apart from hospital capacity. Perhaps this was because the hospital crowding issue was extremely localized in two New York boroughs while hospitals around the country emptied out for patients who didn’t show up: 350 hospitals furloughed workers.”

Science is what should be used to dictate policy, but this isn’t what’s occurring. Ongoing testing of asymptomatic people is adding to the problem, as positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests are also being used as justification for keeping large portions of the world locked down.

The problem is a positive PCR test does not mean that an active infection is present. The PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, the genetic snippets are so small they must be amplified in order to become discernible.

What this does is amplify any, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA that might be present to the point that the test reads "positive," even if the viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive. These “positive” cases are keeping the pandemic narrative going.

Case in point, between March 22 and April 4, 2020, 215 pregnant women admitted to a hospital in New York City were screened on admission for symptoms of COVID-19 and tested for the virus. Only 1.9% of the women had fever or other COVID-19 symptoms, and all of those women tested positive.

Of the remaining women who were tested even though they had no symptoms, 13.7% were positive. This means that, overall, 87.9% of the women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had no symptoms,²² and the overwhelming research suggests they likely wouldn’t have transmitted the virus to others, either.

Masks Are Ineffective

What does the science say about masks for preventing COVID-19 infection? The first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.

The “Danmask-19 Trial,” published November 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine,²³ found that among mask wearers 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.

Rational Ground also looked at COVID-19 cases from May 1, 2020 to December 15, 2020, in all 50 U.S. states, with and without mask mandates. Among states with no mask mandates, 17 cases per 100,000 people per day were counted, compared to 27 cases per 100,000 people per day in states with mask mandates²⁴ — COVID-19 cases were higher in areas with mask mandates than without.

The findings further call into question the effectiveness of mandated masks for preventing COVID-19, as does a case-control investigation of people with COVID-19 who visited 11 U.S. health care facilities. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report revealed factors associated with getting the disease,²⁵ including the use of cloth face coverings or masks in the 14 days before becoming ill.

The majority of them — 70.6% — reported that they “always” wore a mask, but they still got sick. Among the interview respondents who became ill, 108, or 70.6%, said they always wore a mask, compared to six, or 3.9%, who said they “never” did, and six more, or 3.9%, who said they “rarely” did.

Taken together, this shows that, of the symptomatic adults with COVID-19, 70.6% always wore a mask and still got sick, compared to 7.8% for those who rarely or never did.²⁶

Seeing Through the Fog

An abundance of evidence suggests that locking down the healthy and mandating mask usage for those without symptoms is irrational, at best, and dangerous, at worst, considering both masks and lockdowns are associated with ill effects of their own.²⁷ According to Tucker:²⁸

“With solid evidence that asymptomatic spread is nonsense, we have to ask: who is making decisions and why? Again, this brings me back to the metaphor of fog. We are all experiencing confusion and uncertainty over the precise relationship between the strategies and the goals of panoply of regulations and stringencies all around us.

Even the rationale has become elusive – even refuted – as frustration and disorientation have displaced what we vaguely recall as clarity and rationality of daily life.”

Living in such a fog can be intimidating, but the purpose of this article is not to spread more fear but, rather, to empower you with information. The fog of war, after all, is not always an impediment. It can also be used to gain advantage,²⁹ and seeing through the fog is the first step to winning the war.

• Sources and References :

• ^{1, 13, 16, 19, 21, 28} American Institute for Economic Research December 21, 2020
• ^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6} BitChute January 1, 2021
• ⁷ Times-Standard April 22, 2020
• ⁸ MassLive April 14, 2020
• ⁹ Twitter, Ivor Cummins June 9, 2020
• ¹⁰ WHO June 5, 2020
• ^{11, 12} Yahoo June 9, 2020
• ^{14, 15} Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 5917 (2020)
• ¹⁷ Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada, December 2020, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp. 223-234
• ¹⁸ medRxiv June 4, 2020
• ²⁰ The New York Times December 21, 2020
• ²² The New England Journal of Medicine April 13, 2020
• ²³ Annals of Internal Medicine November 18, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-6817
• ²⁴ The Blaze December 21, 2020
• ^{25, 26} MMWR Weekly September 11, 2020 / 69(36);1258–1264
• ²⁷ Meehan MD November 20, 2020
• ²⁹ Strategy By Design, The Fog of War