To Mask or Not To Mask, that is the question

[podfish]

this is a no-win discussion: when i present the ample basis for my views, you don't care to examine it ("...wander into that morass") but repeatedly insist that i say what i believe and why.
when i do, you write that others "as educated and more educated" have different views, though you don't offer the studies, articles, etc.

once again, i will say: it is clear to me that vaccinations are extremely problematic; that censorship is rampant and strategic. ....

If you substituted 'potentially' for 'extremely' in the last sentence I clipped, I'd have no argument. I understand if you don't feel like bothering with yet more links; I certainly am not promising to read them. But.. I really find the information density of video to be way low, it's a great medium for advocacy but poor for information. The only link I saw that was to print was one that took me to an article:
"How Bill Gates Controls Global Messaging and Censorship"
which kind of gives away its slant - it comes down to attempting to show these people aren't trustworthy. It would be nice to have a list of a few print sites that are a bit more focused on the details of the research itself, ideally with a little bit of an attempt to address what level of confidence its conclusions deserve. Possibly this isn't worth your while, but figured I'd ask anyway.

[Jude Iam]

i myself like seeing and hearing the people in videos - full range of doctors, scientists, parents, children, teachers, etc. and the documentaries are very powerful. But some like reading; since you're clearly literate and capable of searching for yourself, if you're sincerely inquiring i do wonder why you haven't bothered, but here's the first link that i've found searching for you:
http://www.chiropractic.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/1200-studies-The-Truth-Will-Prevail-3.pdf
here are links to 1200 hundred studies.
also: https://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Whist.../dp/1634509951
and more to be found with a little effort, if deemed necessary.
i find continuing this thread emotionally exhausting but worth it if you actually read at least some of this.
it is simply not possible to dismiss the amassed work.
looking forward to your assessment.

If you substituted 'potentially' for 'extremely' in the last sentence I clipped, I'd have no argument. I understand if you don't feel like bothering with yet more links; I certainly am not promising to read them. But.. I really find the information density of video to be way low, it's a great medium for advocacy but poor for information. The only link I saw that was to print was one that took me to an article:
"How Bill Gates Controls Global Messaging and Censorship"
which kind of gives away its slant - it comes down to attempting to show these people aren't trustworthy. It would be nice to have a list of a few print sites that are a bit more focused on the details of the research itself, ideally with a little bit of an attempt to address what level of confidence its conclusions deserve. Possibly this isn't worth your while, but figured I'd ask anyway.

[podfish]

i myself like seeing and hearing the people in videos - full range of doctors, scientists, parents, children, teachers, etc. and the documentaries are very powerful. But some like reading; since you're clearly literate and capable of searching for yourself, if you're sincerely inquiring i do wonder why you haven't bothered, but here's the first link that i've found searching for you:
http://www.chiropractic.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/1200-studies-The-Truth-Will-Prevail-3.pdf
there are links to hundreds of studies.
looking forward to your assessment.

ok, since you ask for an assessment:
I will follow some of these links over the next few days, but.. i was immediately dismayed by the title "Truth will prevail" and the cover photo of a white baby. This is clearly advocacy, but the author is clearly passionate about his perspective and it looks like there's a nicely dense argument being made. So thanks. As for videos, I agree they're often powerful, but they aren't typically informative -- unless the person watching is a bit of a blank slate. So for example, the BLM videos coming out work pretty well to make white people aware of things they may have been ignoring, but if you've been at all engaged in your culture, or have any sense of history, there's no new information there. Video's there more to motivate than inform.

[occihoff]

By "ample basis" do you mean your lengthy list of experts who agree with you?

What's the point of offering you "the studies, articles, etc"? You know as well as I do that your anti-vax view is in the minority; you even said that yourself in a previous post. For every expert you present, there will be another expert who disagrees.

What's wrong with repeatedly asking you to succinctly say what you believe and why? I'm offering you a chance to explain your views about vaccination. I'm truly curious, Judith! Instead of flooding me with expert references and taking an adversarial attitude as if we're trying to win a debate, why don't you just give me a brief overview of the harm you believe has been caused by vaccinations?

You did not reply to my statement that I and many other people had already had many vaccinations as children right on up to yearly flu vaccinations as adults, mostly with no apparent ill effects. And thank god we did not contract the horrible diseases for which we were protected! What's wrong with that?

this is a no-win discussion: when i present the ample basis for my views, you don't care to examine it ("...wander into that morass") but repeatedly insist that i say what i believe and why.
when i do, you write that others "as educated and more educated" have different views, though you don't offer the studies, articles, etc.

once again, i will say: it is clear to me that vaccinations are extremely problematic; that censorship is rampant and strategic. since you will not do your own exploration, there is no point in further discussion.

[occihoff]

Judith, I'm re-sending this post because I feel that it deserves a response!

By "ample basis" do you mean your lengthy list of experts who agree with you?

What's the point of offering you "the studies, articles, etc"? You know as well as I do that your anti-vax view is in the minority; you even said that yourself in a previous post. For every expert you present, there will be another expert who disagrees.

What's wrong with repeatedly asking you to succinctly say what you believe and why? I'm offering you a chance to explain your views about vaccination. I'm truly curious, Judith! Instead of flooding me with expert references and taking an adversarial attitude as if we're trying to win a debate, why don't you just give me a brief overview of the harm you believe has been caused by vaccinations?

You did not reply to my statement that I and many other people had already had many vaccinations as children right on up to yearly flu vaccinations as adults, mostly with no apparent ill effects. And thank god we did not contract the horrible diseases for which we were protected! What's wrong with that?

[podfish]

Judith, I'm re-sending this post because I feel that it deserves a response!

I'm not sure I agree it deserves a response. Is there any doubt about what those of us post here believe, or why? And it's not obvious that there is a succinct way to explain 'why'. Like Richard Feynman said when asked if he could give a simple explanation of magnetism, the answer is likely to be "sorry, a simple one doesn't exist".
Personally, I think I understand why from her posts. I'm sort of interested in seeing if I can find one of them that convinces me, someday.

[geomancer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...c-coronavirus/

Masks work. Now we need to pay attention to when and where, and which kind.

It’s not whether to wear face coverings we should be considering. It’s the specifics about use and type.

--------------------------

Mask mandates work. In South Carolina, locales with mask mandates had a 46 percent greater decrease in covid-19 cases than locales without mask mandates. In Kansas, counties that adopted mask mandates had a striking reduction in cases.

--------------

The profusion of homemade face masks, although they may encourage use and engage volunteers and communities in production, obscures important differences in effectiveness. If an N95 or surgical mask isn’t being used, a tightfitting mask with three layers consisting of cotton or cotton-synthetic material is next best.

[socoexpat]

Ok... let's put all the experts in the field as well as those that somehow "earned" a PHD aside for a moment and look at the facts logically.

We know that Covid is mostly spread by aerosolized droplets.

We know that people- when they talk, yell, sing, sneeze, cough, etc spread these droplets to one degree or another.

We know, that a face covering (and increasingly those of specific types) , will indeed help stop the spread of these droplets to others.

So...wtf was the question of the original post?

And, let's let look at the first two posts from the person that started this thread, shall we?

Despite the claims - Karen, oh excuse me... I think her name was Peggy... I'm sorry but the OC Public Health Official Nichole Quick did not resign because your claims were "right"... she resigned- as many public health officials have. around this country during the pandemic, because they were tired of the death threats, of having to be given a protective detail by the Sheriffs, tired of "protests" outside their houses, tired of themselves and their family being harassed and threatened.

I'll admit- I applaud these health officials around our nation that have resigned. When your job is to protect the people in your area- and these people prove themselves to be unworthy of protection... yes, walk away.


As to the 2nd post by the "OP" (I believe it's the 4th post? ... the study in Vietnam about masks has no relevance (no surprise it was posted as if it did). That study was about protecting the wearer of the mask- not about protecting others.

I find it pretty deeply disturbing that the vast majority of the anti-maskers come from "the (far) right", with the remainder tending to come from the very far left. On many, many issues- it seems the far right and the far left often have more common then than the traditional left/right dichotomy.

[rossmen]

Time will tell wether masks work. Past real studies show they have efficacy in surgical settings but less real knowledge in public spheres. In now required masking seems to have real impact in slowing spread of inevitable exposure to covid. But is this more an aspect of economic privilege? Is it better to ask questions, or pontificate without naming credentials? I have none besides curiousity.

[rossmen]

And why do you demonize questioners as far left or right? Reads like you don't like questions. What about sweden? No masks, death by million stalled at less then 600, and still doing better than their oil rich offspring norway economically. Reads like you have a polical economic personal agenda. I can name mine, can you?

[socoexpat]

^ @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?

[geomancer]

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

[wisewomn]

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

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

[Chauncey Gardner]

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.

[geomancer]

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

[Goat Rock Ukulele]

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

[Jude Iam]

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

[Finell]

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

·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.

[podfish]

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.

[pamelaL]

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.

[geomancer]

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.

[Jude Iam]

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

[Lilith Rogers]

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

[geomancer]

???

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

[pamelaL]

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

[podfish]

...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.

[socoexpat]

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?

[Hotspring 44]

Re:

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:

...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.

[podfish]

. ...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.

[Hotspring 44]

Re:

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

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'?... ...That, most certainly is not what I was trying to iterate.
...and,
Re:

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.