Yes, I agree with you, you are right. But you will still be infected only the dose received will be less. Masks, distancing don't solve the problem.
The fact that masks help is undisputable ....... BUT ........ its quite obvious that the masks arent stopping the spread fully . We have a emphasis on masks ........ but ...... not on other sources of infection ........ like cash and hand grips on supermarket trolleys wich are being totaly ignored . Its also obvious from looking at poorer countrys that its being blown out of proportion ........ where are the piles of bodys ? Another point is that when we have a serious outbreak of a serious disease there are standard methods of dealing with it ........ wich are not being applyed . Normaly in a serious situation there are strickt measures introduced for everyone ........ and not as now a shambolic mix of aktionism by poly-trickers and the press bombarding us with sensation and bleading hearts crap . Next point is ........ WTF !!! why are old people being prioritised ?= people from a generation that sentanced the planet to death with climate killing . Normaly in a serious situation the realy indispensable workers are first ......... that means for example hospital staff ......... people who work in nuclear power stations .......... and ....... children ? = An inocent generation ........ our future .
where are the piles of bodys ? WHAT ARE U RETARDED!!!! look at brazil theis tons of piles of bodies their.
No one ever said the goal was prevention. Because it can not be entirely prevented. What the approach was all about was lessening the curve of infection rate, because at a certain stage you get to a tipping point of medical system overwhelm, which is when hospitals get full or relevant resources (including most notably human resources) get depleted. So mask wearing, social distancing, sanitizing, etc., it is all to bend down the curve of infection rate. If you don't do that (like many people didn't do in the US around Thanksgiving holiday), you get another wave and it pushes hospitals to breaking point and then people get turned away and die. So if you want to prevent death panels, you need to keep the curve down. That you think any of this was about prevention shows you don't understand. So if the goal is (which it is!) lessening the curve, masks are actually very effective at that. But you take my words absolutely, and reply "masks can't prevent the virus from traveling through entirely." Just the ability to apply this nuance to decision making is what sets the professionals apart from the disgruntled uneducated. It's fine to be uneducated, it's not a judgment. It is merely to say, you should not have a place at the table where decisions are made from a healthcare perspective. I do understand, and I still don't have a place around that table. But I understand why and am 100% fine with that. That's why I don't restriction-rage. Sure, one can argue about efficacy of measures employed by various governments. But I see much more wrong on the internet conspiratorial side than on the government side.
^ yes I totally agree because here in my country it is the same thing, true obsession with the use of masks can be effective in a way, but in a city like São Paulo with 12 million inhabitants, buses crowded all day, metro is not even mentioned , the trains also in my view are just a kind of false sense of security this is obvious in my view although he is a layman on the subject somehow gives the false sense of security against the covid 19
That's true, super crowded places you will get a relatively high particulate load in the air, despite of masks. But one also cannot expect no one in crowded areas to cough or sneeze or talk, so it still works to a degree. At this stage, I can't understand the attitude that some adopt, that is basically: "Masks don't work 100% -- so I won't wear them. Yes, they work to a degree. But since they are not perfect, I will refuse to wear them." I mean, it's that crazy!
For the most stubborn - I think this should dispel your doubts ______________________________________________ A May 2020 cross-country study by the University of East Anglia (preprint) found that requiring a mask is not beneficial and may even increase the risk of infection. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260v1.full.pdf A review conducted in April 2020 by two American professors of respiratory and infectious diseases at the University of Illinois concluded that face masks do not function in everyday life either in self-defense or to protect third parties (so-called source control). https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...ntary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data An article in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2020 concluded that sheet face masks provide little or no protection in daily life. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372 An April 2020 Cochrane review (preprint) found that face masks did not reduce the incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) in either the general population or healthcare providers. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2 A 2015 study in the British medical journal BMJ Open found that 97% of particles had penetrated fabric masks, which could increase the risk of infection through moisture retention or reuse. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577 A review by a German professor of virology, epidemiology and hygiene in August 2020 found that there is no evidence of the effectiveness of cloth face masks and that inappropriate daily use of masks by the population can actually lead to an increase in infections. https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/a-1174-6591 WHO admitted to the BBC that its June 2020 mask policy update was driven not by new evidence, but by "political lobbying" https://twitter.com/deb_cohen/status/1282244773030633473 A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577 It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/9/2311/5867798 A CDC analysis found that 85% of people infected with the coronavirus reported wearing a mask “always” (70.6%) or “often” (14.4%). Constant wearing of a mask does not reduce the risk of infection compared to a control group of uninfected people. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf#page=4 Researchers at the University of Minnesota found that the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 is only 300 virions (viral particles), whereas over 750,000 virions can form in one minute of normal conversation, making face masks unlikely to prevent infection. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2030886 Austrian scientists found that the introduction, withdrawal and re-introduction of the mandate for the use of face masks in Austria did not affect the rate of infection with the coronavirus. https://corona-transition.org/maskenpflicht-brachte-in-osterreich-keinerlei-messbaren-nutzen __________________________________________ If you want to kill yourself, then wear masks. Masks are a direct step into the grave. Do you have your own opinion? It's good! Listen to the opinion of people who did tests on masks from Australia, more than 6,000 thousand doctors conducted an experiment that showed that masks are useless and harm people. You are illiterate people who are influenced by the media. You do not know how to delve into and analyze the situation from different angles. Wear masks like rams. It is funny for us to watch wretched people kill themselves with their ignorance and pride!
Yes. Only positive pressure personnel suits (PPPS) or hazmat suits can protect. Besides they harm your respiratory system. Masks does not protect your other entrances such as ears or eyes. Masks are just a psychological instrument to keep people submissive. Oh and for the joy of dictators makers of this plandemic who must be laughing watching all the stupid world revolving like frightened sheep around.
Mr X - you should be so lucky... Here are the alternatives... Facts: Follow the interests: 33 min - 55 min, Dr Wolff
I think you're right about one thing, namely people laughing. It's fast becoming too late to say you're in on the joke
No need these to convince me. Next one convinced me. I'm thrilled amazed by the words this future teller has spoken. Words of wisdom and relief/sarcasm "Can't believe how many rules money can bend", someone wise said around there.
UEA hosting what is in the paper called a "quasi-experimental study" is one thing (it houses many others) -- what is actually on the UEA website hosted under News is this: https://www.uea.ac.uk/news/-/article/face-masks-could-protect-vulnerable-people-against-coronavirus --- As to the CIDRAP article, they themselves note: "Wearing a cloth mask or face covering could be better than doing nothing, but we simply don’t know at this point." Note that they make the assertion as a counter-assertion to the CDC guideline to wear masks. Also note, they are here talking about cloth masks, not surgical or n-95. Again, they themselves assert: "As noted in a previous commentary, the limited data we have for COVID-19 strongly support the possibility that SARS-CoV-2—the virus that causes COVID-19—is transmitted by inhalation of both droplets and aerosols near the source." Good luck getting droplets through any mask, whether cloth or surgical. There is to my knowledge not anyone of repute claiming that cloth masks are on par with surgical or n-95 masks. Hence, I wear these. Also note one of the reasons they can't even recommend respirators to the public (hint, it's not because they don't work, they do): they can't guarantee a proper fit being achieved by the public since they are not trained in fitting these. So in short: cloth masks have limited efficacy; surgical masks have greater efficacy; respirators are the best -- but it all depends on how people fit them. If you think that equals "Masks don't work" you have understood nothing, yet again. How did "don't have a false sense of security" get translated as "don't wear a mask"? One last thing you should understand about this article. They are not recommending against masks -- in fact, they assert masks supply a measure of protection (more so from you than for you, as per the article). This article is not a recommendation against masks. It is a recommendation to stay away from people, and that wearing a mask shouldn't make you go out and mingle any more than you absolutely have to. That is the point of the article. It is not an attack on masks to be taken out of context by internet warriors. It is so obvious when people don't have scientific or medical training, they can't understand process and nuance. I have training in respiratory field. --- The New England Journal article itself states: "The extent of marginal benefit of universal masking over and above these foundational measures is debatable. It depends on the prevalence of health care workers with asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic infections as well as the relative contribution of this population to the spread of infection. It is informative, in this regard, that the prevalence of Covid-19 among asymptomatic evacuees from Wuhan during the height of the epidemic there was only 1 to 3%. Modelers assessing the spread of infection in Wuhan have noted the importance of undiagnosed infections in fueling the spread of Covid-19 while also acknowledging that the transmission risk from this population is likely to be lower than the risk of spread from symptomatic patients." Translation for those who can't read: They are saying that the very data they used to discuss the efficacy of masks was based on asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic cases *of people tested as having the virus* -- but they have to acknowledge that the spread in Wuhan is likely due to undiagnosed infections (meaning from people who didn't know they had it and weren't tested as positive). But since they can't gauge that, they don't include it in their review of mask efficacy (which is itself misleading to people who can't read). Again, if you can read you would understand what they base their assertion on, AND that they indicate why it may be a flawed or at least very incomplete discussion if based on those data points. --- People on this thread say, "but transmission can take place through eyes also" -- so wear glasses. Many people here do. If you yourself assert it is not safe not to wear glasses, but then take that to mean you shouldn't wear masks OR glasses... What is wrong with you? This is starting to indicate psychopathology; it sure has nothing to do with reason. Masks are not recommended to prevent all COVID transmission. They are recommended to be worn when in public spaces, but only after the recommendation to avoid public places. So in other words, if one has to interact this way, then wear a mask. It has always been isolation first, whether self-imposed or state-imposed. This is, in part, why New Zealand's approach has been so successful. Do note that at least into September, masks were part of the mandate in New Zealand, only relaxed after NZ hit pre-outbreak numbers. Also note that the New England Journal of Medicine (you linked to an article about universal masking in healthcare setting, which included many recommendations for masks by the way) notes New Zealand's near-elimination of COVID without once mentioning masks even though masks were for many months part of the mandate there. So again, perspective and nuance paints a much different picture than can a soundbite brain. So partial efficacy of masks is a good thing (better than no efficacy). Only a person with an ulterior motive would translate that as "don't wear a mask." A lot of anti-maskers are also anti-restriction, so they mingle openly with people and don't wear masks. It is not a reasoned approach. At best it's restriction-rebellion but probably sign of a deeper psychopathology. --- As to your medrxiv article, the article itself states the shortcomings of the trials it used: "Most included trials had poor design, reporting and sparse events."Since you have a team that reviews data they know to be flowing from poorly designed trials, it reflects upon them to do so. It is because you don't know why there is a plethora of scientific papers and articles nor how to prioritize them, that you take everything out of context / lose perspective. This falls into the category, "Having a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." --- As to the 2015 study of cloth masks, it must be noted that there are other trials that seem to indicate the exact opposite: namely that breathing for an extended period inside a cloth mask may actually increase the effectiveness of said mask. So this is not conclusive. --- Almost all articles refer to cloth masks, which is not what I would recommend. However, they do have a measure of efficacy. To state in blanket fashion that they do not would be misleading. But some of these writers think preemptively (ie: thinking for you) because their assertion is that cloth masks give a misleading sense of security. So if wearing said mask makes you go out more than you would without said mask, it can defeat the very purpose of the mask, which is to prevent spread. That, overall, is the point they are making. So the recommendation is to wear masks, the best ones you can get (and any can protect again droplets). But to go out as little as possible. Don't go out more because you have a mask. This is the exact opposite of people not wanting to wear masks AND going out any time they please. And some of these articles were written with soundbite headlines, for public consumption. When they tell the indiscriminate public that they can't recommend masks, they are actually saying to that audience: don't go out, because your mask won't protect you, then. The message they're actually trying to get across is: don't go out. But because of the whole "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" reality, now you have people not wearing masks AND going out This is why it's so hard to a public health official in the internet age of unreason. -- In conclusion I am less worried about pandemics going into the future. I am much more worried about humanity's lack of ability to reason.
I just got off the phone with a new friend of mine and decided to post the following information. She's a natural therapist practicing since 2010 or so, and she's confirmed what another acquaintance I have, a medical doctor from Monterrey NL (not my city) has been telling me since two months ago but I did not want to post here until I could be much more sure: this COVID-19 caused by Sars-Cov-2 is really deadly. At least here in Mexico don't know for Germany or other countries. If the illness strikes you hard and your immune system is weak or depressed then you will most likely die, she says. And I do believe her cause she got nothing to win or lose by lying to me. She's a middle class people working hard as many of us. I still don't believe anything mainstream media says for known reasons I've stated before. She has been curing a lot people down here in my urban zone gravelly ill from corona. I asked if she can notice the difference between before March 2020 and after. She says yes, before she had many patients deeply sick from pneumonia and saturation wasn't so low unlike COVID-19 and most of them could recover using allopathic medicine and protocols, as usual. And of course using natural protocols which shes a professional. She says the only way to get sick people out of covid19 is using CDS (chlorine dioxide solution) and those who are immune competent get out by themselves. Yet even using Kalckers protocols (standard C protocol) sometimes does not work, patients need much more dosage of CDS, depending on how they well respond. She says how covid-19 attacks and does a lot of harm to multiple organs but again, differently to each patient. So it's time to say here @gorski and others are right regarding dangerousness of COVID-19, at least right in their own countries or communities and mine of course. Hey I'm not agreeing with any other statements said in here around this craziness. Moreover, I feel much more suspicion about this illness, I don't think it is caused by force of nature.
There is discussion about likelihood of virus coming into existince in very unnatural conditions created artificially by man regarding intensive breeding in unsanitary conditions. What, indeed, is natural about that? Again, people focused on whether a mask has any level of efficacy, but not asking the question why it is allowed that intensive animal breeding is lawful anywhere, especially given the fact that antibiotics are broadly used in animal farming, which will destroy the efficacy of antibiotics for humans in the future. Not once it is mentioned in this entire thread. Because people act on what they feel, what they want to be true, how they are conditioned culturally. It is not data-driven. Start talking about sexes, or one's diet, people get irate and defensive. Holy houses, you can't touch it or you get a person's wrath. So it remains not discussed. So intensive farming being linked to both 1/4 of climate change and the generation of pandemic viruses, and it cannot even be a topic of discussion. But "reason" right? But then this is what the data has showed. But you were telling people not to use Google and use DuckDuckGo instead. You must ask yourself how you could be so conspiratorial in your thinking you had to ignore the majority of studies and sources and were attacking people who showed you the wrongness of your ways. I applaud you for admitting it, but it tainted this entire thread and the fodder is still there for those who wish to believe the same. This is exactly how disinformation gets spread. Merry Christmas, right? Tell that to those celebrating this year without their loved ones.