“To our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial (4) has been conducted to examine the efficacy of cloth masks in healthcare settings, and the results do not favor use of cloth masks.”
This is a quote from the study the CDC is referencing
"This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection."
1
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
This is a quote from the CDC
“To our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial (4) has been conducted to examine the efficacy of cloth masks in healthcare settings, and the results do not favor use of cloth masks.”
This is a quote from the study the CDC is referencing
"This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection."
Cloth masks work in that in New York you have to wear 1 to go into a bar,casino,convience store or Walmart so they work to keep some 17 year old associate or a Fukking Nancy from harrassing me. They are the price of admission.
0
Cloth masks work in that in New York you have to wear 1 to go into a bar,casino,convience store or Walmart so they work to keep some 17 year old associate or a Fukking Nancy from harrassing me. They are the price of admission.
Cloth masks work in that in New York you have to wear 1 to go into a bar,casino,convience store or Walmart so they work to keep some 17 year old associate or a Fukking Nancy from harrassing me. They are the price of admission.
Detox, A cloth mask provides some measure of protection if kept clean and dry, but who is honestly washing their go to face covering every day? Back when the corona cold started they wanted us all in M95 masks but they were unavailable to the general public for months. 2 years from now we'll be asking "What the hell were we so afraid of?" People are dumb, scared, and panicky and that's why they're dangerous.
1
@666LES
Quote Originally Posted by 666LES:
Cloth masks work in that in New York you have to wear 1 to go into a bar,casino,convience store or Walmart so they work to keep some 17 year old associate or a Fukking Nancy from harrassing me. They are the price of admission.
Detox, A cloth mask provides some measure of protection if kept clean and dry, but who is honestly washing their go to face covering every day? Back when the corona cold started they wanted us all in M95 masks but they were unavailable to the general public for months. 2 years from now we'll be asking "What the hell were we so afraid of?" People are dumb, scared, and panicky and that's why they're dangerous.
They do not, by and large. I posted some of the studies we reviewed in another thread. Some are older studies and some are current from China Flu-era. There is even some evidence about them doing more harm than good because of the lack of snug-fitting, breathing bad air, teeth decay, skin reaction, lack of exposure to needed things to maintain and build immunity, etc.
If you ever get really interested I can re-post some of them here. N-95 type are most effective, but not nearly enough or close to what is pushed by CDC and media, etc.
So, mostly not worth the trouble in this particular situation. But the media has the folks scared to death and in a frenzy. So, to avoid offending folks, it is easier to just wear one. Hopefully, this will be seen as unnecessary after the election is over. People are really frustrated now that they see this has not been effective and they see another lockdown looming.
It is interesting some of the charts to look at where they put mask mandates in place -- the cases shot right up. Some of these places were very strict about the lockdowns, social distancing, and mask mandates -- but they did not slow the virus down at all. The rates were similar to places that did not enforce some of these measures. These take into a lot of factors including lagging effect, etc.
0
They do not, by and large. I posted some of the studies we reviewed in another thread. Some are older studies and some are current from China Flu-era. There is even some evidence about them doing more harm than good because of the lack of snug-fitting, breathing bad air, teeth decay, skin reaction, lack of exposure to needed things to maintain and build immunity, etc.
If you ever get really interested I can re-post some of them here. N-95 type are most effective, but not nearly enough or close to what is pushed by CDC and media, etc.
So, mostly not worth the trouble in this particular situation. But the media has the folks scared to death and in a frenzy. So, to avoid offending folks, it is easier to just wear one. Hopefully, this will be seen as unnecessary after the election is over. People are really frustrated now that they see this has not been effective and they see another lockdown looming.
It is interesting some of the charts to look at where they put mask mandates in place -- the cases shot right up. Some of these places were very strict about the lockdowns, social distancing, and mask mandates -- but they did not slow the virus down at all. The rates were similar to places that did not enforce some of these measures. These take into a lot of factors including lagging effect, etc.
Wear masks in public settings when around people not living in your household and particularly where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain, such as grocery stores, pharmacies, and gas stations. Masks may slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.
COVID-19 can be spread by people who do not have symptoms and do not know that they are infected. That’s why it’s important for everyone to practice social distancing (staying at least 6 feet away from other people) and wear masks in public settings. Masks provide an extra layer to help prevent the respiratory droplets from traveling in the air and onto other people. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#:~:text=Wear%20cloth%20face%20coverings%20in,and%20onto%20other%20people.
0
Wear masks in public settings when around people not living in your household and particularly where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain, such as grocery stores, pharmacies, and gas stations. Masks may slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.
COVID-19 can be spread by people who do not have symptoms and do not know that they are infected. That’s why it’s important for everyone to practice social distancing (staying at least 6 feet away from other people) and wear masks in public settings. Masks provide an extra layer to help prevent the respiratory droplets from traveling in the air and onto other people. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#:~:text=Wear%20cloth%20face%20coverings%20in,and%20onto%20other%20people.
7out is right. US center for disease control still recommends mask wearing in public to prevent virus spread. Nothing in CDC study suggests mask wearing increases the risk for infection. Incorrect interpretation of study by Trump to claim that masks are ineffective. His claim has been debunked by fact checkers politifact, snopes, reuters, cnn and USAtoday.
0
7out is right. US center for disease control still recommends mask wearing in public to prevent virus spread. Nothing in CDC study suggests mask wearing increases the risk for infection. Incorrect interpretation of study by Trump to claim that masks are ineffective. His claim has been debunked by fact checkers politifact, snopes, reuters, cnn and USAtoday.
Withdrawal The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because there are increased rates of SARS- CoV-2 cases in the areas that we originally analyzed in this study. New analyses in the context of the third surge in the United States are therefore needed and will be undertaken directly in conjunction with the creators of the publicly-available databases on cases, hospitalizations, testing rates. Etc. We will be performing this in conjunction with machine learning experts at UCSF. Therefore, the authors do not wish this work to be cited as reference for the project. We hope to have an updated analysis using data from the 2and now 3 wave of SARS-CoV-2 in this country soon. If you have any questions, please contact the corresponding author.
Withdrawal The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because there are increased rates of SARS- CoV-2 cases in the areas that we originally analyzed in this study. New analyses in the context of the third surge in the United States are therefore needed and will be undertaken directly in conjunction with the creators of the publicly-available databases on cases, hospitalizations, testing rates. Etc. We will be performing this in conjunction with machine learning experts at UCSF. Therefore, the authors do not wish this work to be cited as reference for the project. We hope to have an updated analysis using data from the 2and now 3 wave of SARS-CoV-2 in this country soon. If you have any questions, please contact the corresponding author.
Face masks are recommended to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. One of the primary benefits of face masks and other coverings is as source control devices to reduce the expulsion of respiratory aerosols during coughing, breathing, and speaking. Face shields and neck gaiters have been proposed as an alternative to face masks, but information about face shields and neck gaiters as source control devices is limited. We used a cough aerosol simulator with a pliable skin headform to propel small aerosol particles (0 to 7 µm) into different face coverings. An N95 respirator blocked 99% of the cough aerosol, a medical grade procedure mask blocked 59%, a 3-ply cotton cloth face mask blocked 51%, and a polyester neck gaiter blocked 47% as a single layer and 60% when folded into a double layer. In contrast, the face shield blocked 2% of the cough aerosol. Our results suggest that face masks and neck gaiters are preferable to face shields as source control devices for cough aerosols
0
Face masks are recommended to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. One of the primary benefits of face masks and other coverings is as source control devices to reduce the expulsion of respiratory aerosols during coughing, breathing, and speaking. Face shields and neck gaiters have been proposed as an alternative to face masks, but information about face shields and neck gaiters as source control devices is limited. We used a cough aerosol simulator with a pliable skin headform to propel small aerosol particles (0 to 7 µm) into different face coverings. An N95 respirator blocked 99% of the cough aerosol, a medical grade procedure mask blocked 59%, a 3-ply cotton cloth face mask blocked 51%, and a polyester neck gaiter blocked 47% as a single layer and 60% when folded into a double layer. In contrast, the face shield blocked 2% of the cough aerosol. Our results suggest that face masks and neck gaiters are preferable to face shields as source control devices for cough aerosols
Meanwhile, America masks-up like it’s 1918, pretending ill-fitting, moist, bacteria and virus-laden cloth muzzles are somehow going to abate the spread of a virus that’s harmless or super-mild to the vast majority of those who contract it.
Therefore, since they’re basically useless, potentially harmful, and presumably “guard” against something that isn’t worth stopping anywayeven if they worked, I avoid themwherever possible. But even more importantly, I hate the deception they represent and the tyranny they foreshadow. The deception, because this pandemic really ended in May, yet society is continuing like nothing ever changed, and the tyranny because mask mandates represent the camel’s hump in the proverbial tent. If they can force us to do something this stupid, useless, and constricting (remember, some states require masks OUTSIDE in any public area and punish those who disobey with fines) in the name of “public health,” what CAN’T they make us do? What happens if Democrats win and decide to declare “climate change” a “public health emergency”?
0
And a quote:
Meanwhile, America masks-up like it’s 1918, pretending ill-fitting, moist, bacteria and virus-laden cloth muzzles are somehow going to abate the spread of a virus that’s harmless or super-mild to the vast majority of those who contract it.
Therefore, since they’re basically useless, potentially harmful, and presumably “guard” against something that isn’t worth stopping anywayeven if they worked, I avoid themwherever possible. But even more importantly, I hate the deception they represent and the tyranny they foreshadow. The deception, because this pandemic really ended in May, yet society is continuing like nothing ever changed, and the tyranny because mask mandates represent the camel’s hump in the proverbial tent. If they can force us to do something this stupid, useless, and constricting (remember, some states require masks OUTSIDE in any public area and punish those who disobey with fines) in the name of “public health,” what CAN’T they make us do? What happens if Democrats win and decide to declare “climate change” a “public health emergency”?
Good article. Kind of long. But copied the whole article:
The “big lie” propaganda technique, a phrase coined by Adolf Hitler, purports to tell a lie so "colossal" that people simply wouldn’t believe the teller "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." You’ve doubtless seen the most famous adaptation of this, which may or may not have been said by former Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. It goes as follows:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Now today, we thankfully don’t have an all-powerful “State,” not yet anyway, but we do have what I’ll call the ‘System,’ a toxic mishmash of do-gooder Big Tech overlords, power-hungry ‘public servants,’ liberty-hating ‘health officials,’ and frightened corporations bullied into both submitting and forcing others to submit to this nonsense. And that ‘System,’ as it were, is most certainly busy repressing dissent in order to bolster its very own, albeit new, “Big Lie,” that “face masks work to stop the spread of COVID-19.”
Not a soul could have possibly predicted this eight months ago when established science laughed at the idea that a piece of cloth over people’s faces would somehow abate the spread of a highly contagious respiratory virus. Everyone is aware of the extreme course-reversal our overlords took on forced public masking almost overnight. We’re supposed to believe they simply told us a "noble lie" to preserve masks for healthcare workers, but the problem for them is that back then they gave us solid reasons backed up by decades of science to make their case.
“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask when you’re in the middle of an outbreak,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said back in March. “Wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often, there are unintended consequences; people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”
0
Good article. Kind of long. But copied the whole article:
The “big lie” propaganda technique, a phrase coined by Adolf Hitler, purports to tell a lie so "colossal" that people simply wouldn’t believe the teller "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." You’ve doubtless seen the most famous adaptation of this, which may or may not have been said by former Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. It goes as follows:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Now today, we thankfully don’t have an all-powerful “State,” not yet anyway, but we do have what I’ll call the ‘System,’ a toxic mishmash of do-gooder Big Tech overlords, power-hungry ‘public servants,’ liberty-hating ‘health officials,’ and frightened corporations bullied into both submitting and forcing others to submit to this nonsense. And that ‘System,’ as it were, is most certainly busy repressing dissent in order to bolster its very own, albeit new, “Big Lie,” that “face masks work to stop the spread of COVID-19.”
Not a soul could have possibly predicted this eight months ago when established science laughed at the idea that a piece of cloth over people’s faces would somehow abate the spread of a highly contagious respiratory virus. Everyone is aware of the extreme course-reversal our overlords took on forced public masking almost overnight. We’re supposed to believe they simply told us a "noble lie" to preserve masks for healthcare workers, but the problem for them is that back then they gave us solid reasons backed up by decades of science to make their case.
“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask when you’re in the middle of an outbreak,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said back in March. “Wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often, there are unintended consequences; people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”
Obviously, the good doctor eventually took an about-face on that advice, attributing it, apparently, to a national shortage of fabric capable of being turned into face coverings, or something. But what part of his initial rationale was incorrect? Did scientists not know about “droplets” in March? Apparently they did, considering Fauci addressed the issue in his statement. Did the “unintended consequences” he listed suddenly disappear as soon as mask use to “stop the spread” became a literal religious cult? Did people stop fiddling with their masks and touching their faces? Of course not. Given the amount of almost nonstop “fiddling” I see just in my own observations, it’s hard to imagine any real gain in the reduction of droplet transmission not being more than made up for by bacterial and viral surface spread.
With so many high-mask-compliance places now going into lockdown, does it not strike anyone as odd that the bold statements made by our overlords months ago - that 80+% mask compliance would end the pandemic, or at least severely curb it - are now being memory-holed? Remember when CDC Director Robert Redfield told us in July (and God knows how many other times), that mask-wearing would end this pandemic. I believe he may have even said that masks were a “vaccine,” although the memory-holing is fogging my own memory a bit.
0
Obviously, the good doctor eventually took an about-face on that advice, attributing it, apparently, to a national shortage of fabric capable of being turned into face coverings, or something. But what part of his initial rationale was incorrect? Did scientists not know about “droplets” in March? Apparently they did, considering Fauci addressed the issue in his statement. Did the “unintended consequences” he listed suddenly disappear as soon as mask use to “stop the spread” became a literal religious cult? Did people stop fiddling with their masks and touching their faces? Of course not. Given the amount of almost nonstop “fiddling” I see just in my own observations, it’s hard to imagine any real gain in the reduction of droplet transmission not being more than made up for by bacterial and viral surface spread.
With so many high-mask-compliance places now going into lockdown, does it not strike anyone as odd that the bold statements made by our overlords months ago - that 80+% mask compliance would end the pandemic, or at least severely curb it - are now being memory-holed? Remember when CDC Director Robert Redfield told us in July (and God knows how many other times), that mask-wearing would end this pandemic. I believe he may have even said that masks were a “vaccine,” although the memory-holing is fogging my own memory a bit.
Remember when Variety wrote in May about a “compelling new study” they claimed provided “fresh evidence for a simple solution to help us emerge from this nightmarish lockdown.” Their ‘solution’? “If 80% of Americans wore masks, COVID-19 infections would plummet.” Well, mask compliance is well, well above 80%. In fact, in the states that fine businesses for people not wearing masks in their facilities, boots on the ground tell me it’s pretty close to 100%. Yet, other than a few New England states where the virus just hasn’t hit yet, high mask compliance states aren’t really doing any better than low mask compliance ones, and are in many cases doing quite worse.
From Italy to France to Czechia to the United Kingdom to lockdown and mask-loving U.S. states like Illinois, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, and California, the virus is spreading like wildfire regardless of humans turning themselves and their societies into pretzels trying to avoid it. The data is right before the eyes of anyone who bothers to look, as the Mises Institute’s Tom Woods points out in this powerful video that YouTube felt obligated to suppress (you know, to protect the Big Lie). Mask mandates, no matter how strictly imposed and adhered to, are almost always eventually followed by tremendous spikes in the virus. And yet, the response from the powers-that-be is always, always, ALWAYS to MASK HARRDERRR!!! California, which has mandated masks statewide for months, decided to deal with a November spike in cases by extending their outdoor mask mandate, despite the fact that zero science says the virus spreads outdoors to any significant extent. Oh, and they’re also locking down, albeit without admitting that the masking has completely failed to curb the virus. Otherwise, why would they need to lock down? Yep, it’s just another one of those difficult-to-answer questions that only a Big Lie could even begin to answer.
0
Remember when Variety wrote in May about a “compelling new study” they claimed provided “fresh evidence for a simple solution to help us emerge from this nightmarish lockdown.” Their ‘solution’? “If 80% of Americans wore masks, COVID-19 infections would plummet.” Well, mask compliance is well, well above 80%. In fact, in the states that fine businesses for people not wearing masks in their facilities, boots on the ground tell me it’s pretty close to 100%. Yet, other than a few New England states where the virus just hasn’t hit yet, high mask compliance states aren’t really doing any better than low mask compliance ones, and are in many cases doing quite worse.
From Italy to France to Czechia to the United Kingdom to lockdown and mask-loving U.S. states like Illinois, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, and California, the virus is spreading like wildfire regardless of humans turning themselves and their societies into pretzels trying to avoid it. The data is right before the eyes of anyone who bothers to look, as the Mises Institute’s Tom Woods points out in this powerful video that YouTube felt obligated to suppress (you know, to protect the Big Lie). Mask mandates, no matter how strictly imposed and adhered to, are almost always eventually followed by tremendous spikes in the virus. And yet, the response from the powers-that-be is always, always, ALWAYS to MASK HARRDERRR!!! California, which has mandated masks statewide for months, decided to deal with a November spike in cases by extending their outdoor mask mandate, despite the fact that zero science says the virus spreads outdoors to any significant extent. Oh, and they’re also locking down, albeit without admitting that the masking has completely failed to curb the virus. Otherwise, why would they need to lock down? Yep, it’s just another one of those difficult-to-answer questions that only a Big Lie could even begin to answer.
Of course, when infection rates do come down, and they will, they will come down regardless of how high or low mask “compliance” is in an area, because that’s also what viruses do when a certain seroprevalence is reached (yes, there are problems with PCR tests, but the herd immunity threshold admittedly seems higher than what many of us initially thought). Except, the masks will then be given the “credit” in the high compliance areas, while the low compliance areas that also decrease will be ignored.
Whether they mean well or they just want to turn us all into faceless sheeple capable of obeying even the most absurd and destructive commands, the truth is, it takes a lie the size of Mount Everest to continually prop nonsense like this up and to keep people believing it despite what we all see in front of our eyes. It takes a "Big Lie."
0
Of course, when infection rates do come down, and they will, they will come down regardless of how high or low mask “compliance” is in an area, because that’s also what viruses do when a certain seroprevalence is reached (yes, there are problems with PCR tests, but the herd immunity threshold admittedly seems higher than what many of us initially thought). Except, the masks will then be given the “credit” in the high compliance areas, while the low compliance areas that also decrease will be ignored.
Whether they mean well or they just want to turn us all into faceless sheeple capable of obeying even the most absurd and destructive commands, the truth is, it takes a lie the size of Mount Everest to continually prop nonsense like this up and to keep people believing it despite what we all see in front of our eyes. It takes a "Big Lie."
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
