Page 387 of 438
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:46 pm
by Broccers
Delphi wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:37 pm
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:21 pm
useless shit like masks which are proven to not work.
Go on then, I'll bite. Show me the peer-reviewed scientific evidence which states wearing masks has no effect on virus transmissability.
This is quite simple. When you go to your dentist and they are in a suit with air pumped in - why do you think that is? Its because the droplets are so tiny that they pass through nappy type masks. Search the internet for the proof yourself
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:55 pm
by Delphi
You still haven't produced any evidence and told me to do my own research. Classic.
Ok, I did - here you go.
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#sec-22
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7883189/
Again, show me the peer reviewed scientific evidence that wearing masks doesn't work.
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:55 pm
by V8Granite
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:46 pm
Delphi wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:37 pm
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:21 pm
useless shit like masks which are proven to not work.
Go on then, I'll bite. Show me the peer-reviewed scientific evidence which states wearing masks has no effect on virus transmissability.
This is quite simple. When you go to your dentist and they are in a suit with air pumped in - why do you think that is? Its because the droplets are so tiny that they pass through nappy type masks. Search the internet for the proof yourself
Unless you get your dentistry done at the infectious disease clinic then mine just wear a mask.
Dave!
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:58 pm
by Broccers
How strange you didnt find links which backed up anything other than what you are claiming
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:59 pm
by Broccers
V8Granite wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:55 pm
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:46 pm
Delphi wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:37 pm
Go on then, I'll bite. Show me the peer-reviewed scientific evidence which states wearing masks has no effect on virus transmissability.
This is quite simple. When you go to your dentist and they are in a suit with air pumped in - why do you think that is? Its because the droplets are so tiny that they pass through nappy type masks. Search the internet for the proof yourself
Unless you get your dentistry done at the infectious disease clinic then mine just wear a mask.
Dave!
LOL
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:10 pm
by DeskJockey
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:58 pm
How strange you didnt find links which backed up anything other than what you are claiming
How strange, you don't seem to grasp how an argument works. Maybe you should do your own research?
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:19 pm
by Rich B
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:22 pm
by Broccers
There will be one day in time when most people question why they have been absolutely lied to and controlled for 2 plus years and going on. A few posts on here wont be dragged up.
The facts about droplets are out there. Look for yourselves.
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:24 pm
by Rich B
Regardless of the topic, you literally complained that someone posted evidence that backed up their view rather than yours in an argument!
That's like complaining that a boxer is only punching their opponent and not themselves in a fight!
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:28 pm
by Broccers
Rich B wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:24 pm
Regardless of the topic, you literally complained that someone posted evidence that backed up their view rather than yours in an argument!
That's like complaining that a boxer is only punching their opponent and not themselves in a fight!
Irony lost you? Honestly
Anyway you all obv have N95 masks not a used thing you grab out of the centre console of your car when popping to the shops
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:45 pm
by drcarlos
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:58 pm
How strange you didnt find links which backed up anything other than what you are claiming
Well if you delve into the second link and bearing in mind this was only a 10 minute scan you find this:
https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201
One of the first studies cited for efficacy shows that unless it's an N95 mask they are not effective, note the submission date: 2013, pre-covid so no agenda.
Another study cited in 2010:
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article ... login=true
Again marginal if any benefit from non-N95 cloth masks.
positive impact study cited:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /jmv.25805
March 2020, Miraculously they are now fucking brilliant. This study comes from where? China, just where they are making and selling all this PPE. Also having lied about the Virus from day 1 in pretty every aspect.
So if you skip reading that actual studies contained in the article and just read the conclusion where it says masks are wonderful you'd believe that they were, but I wonder how many of the people who reviewed it looked into the studies cited and just ignored the ones I found in a few minutes and just signed it off?
This CDC study is comical too:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html
They cite this study as part of their evidence:
'An investigation of a high-exposure event in the U.S., in which 2 symptomatically ill hair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139 clients during an 8-day period, found that none of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection. The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as required by local ordinance and company policy at the time.44'
However reading this actual study:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm
They tested less than 50% of the 139 clients which make the study invalid and shouldn't form part of the CDC recommendations. The response rate was so pitiful. We could have found that the 72 people who refused to be tested were all Covid positive.
This Danish study was widely anticipated and was supposed to be published by Boston Medical Journal among others however with the results show negligible difference between wearers and non-wearers it was relegated to here:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:53 pm
by Broccers
drcarlos wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:45 pm
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:58 pm
How strange you didnt find links which backed up anything other than what you are claiming
Well if you delve into the second link and bearing in mind this was only a 10 minute scan you find this:
https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201
One of the first studies cited for efficacy shows that unless it's an N95 mask they are not effective, note the submission date: 2013, pre-covid so no agenda.
Another study cited in 2010:
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article ... login=true
Again marginal if any benefit from non-N95 cloth masks.
positive impact study cited:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /jmv.25805
March 2020, Miraculously they are now fucking brilliant. This study comes from where? China, just where they are making and selling all this PPE. Also having lied about the Virus from day 1 in pretty every aspect.
So if you skip reading that actual studies contained in the article and just read the conclusion where it says masks are wonderful you'd believe that they were, but I wonder how many of the people who reviewed it looked into the studies cited and just ignored the ones I found in a few minutes and just signed it off?
This CDC study is comical too:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html
They cite this study as part of their evidence:
'An investigation of a high-exposure event in the U.S., in which 2 symptomatically ill hair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139 clients during an 8-day period, found that none of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection. The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as required by local ordinance and company policy at the time.44'
However reading this actual study:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm
They tested less than 50% of the 139 clients which make the study invalid and shouldn't form part of the CDC recommendations. The response rate was so pitiful. We could have found that the 72 people who refused to be tested were all Covid positive.
This Danish study was widely anticipated and was supposed to be published by Boston Medical Journal among others however with the results show negligible difference between wearers and non-wearers it was relegated to here:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817
Fuck me, Andy didnt read his own links hahaah (Just like RichBShorts).
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:08 pm
by Swervin_Mervin
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:52 pm
by Broccers
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:53 pm
drcarlos wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:45 pm
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:58 pm
How strange you didnt find links which backed up anything other than what you are claiming
Well if you delve into the second link and bearing in mind this was only a 10 minute scan you find this:
https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201
One of the first studies cited for efficacy shows that unless it's an N95 mask they are not effective, note the submission date: 2013, pre-covid so no agenda.
Another study cited in 2010:
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article ... login=true
Again marginal if any benefit from non-N95 cloth masks.
positive impact study cited:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /jmv.25805
March 2020, Miraculously they are now fucking brilliant. This study comes from where? China, just where they are making and selling all this PPE. Also having lied about the Virus from day 1 in pretty every aspect.
So if you skip reading that actual studies contained in the article and just read the conclusion where it says masks are wonderful you'd believe that they were, but I wonder how many of the people who reviewed it looked into the studies cited and just ignored the ones I found in a few minutes and just signed it off?
This CDC study is comical too:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html
They cite this study as part of their evidence:
'An investigation of a high-exposure event in the U.S., in which 2 symptomatically ill hair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139 clients during an 8-day period, found that none of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection. The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as required by local ordinance and company policy at the time.44'
However reading this actual study:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm
They tested less than 50% of the 139 clients which make the study invalid and shouldn't form part of the CDC recommendations. The response rate was so pitiful. We could have found that the 72 people who refused to be tested were all Covid positive.
This Danish study was widely anticipated and was supposed to be published by Boston Medical Journal among others however with the results show negligible difference between wearers and non-wearers it was relegated to here:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817
Fuck me, Andy didnt read his own links hahaah (Just like RichBShorts).
They seem to have moved away to a secret bunker? Lets see.
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:12 pm
by Rich B
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:52 pm
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:53 pm
drcarlos wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:45 pm
Well if you delve into the second link and bearing in mind this was only a 10 minute scan you find this:
https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201
One of the first studies cited for efficacy shows that unless it's an N95 mask they are not effective, note the submission date: 2013, pre-covid so no agenda.
Another study cited in 2010:
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article ... login=true
Again marginal if any benefit from non-N95 cloth masks.
positive impact study cited:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /jmv.25805
March 2020, Miraculously they are now fucking brilliant. This study comes from where? China, just where they are making and selling all this PPE. Also having lied about the Virus from day 1 in pretty every aspect.
So if you skip reading that actual studies contained in the article and just read the conclusion where it says masks are wonderful you'd believe that they were, but I wonder how many of the people who reviewed it looked into the studies cited and just ignored the ones I found in a few minutes and just signed it off?
This CDC study is comical too:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html
They cite this study as part of their evidence:
'An investigation of a high-exposure event in the U.S., in which 2 symptomatically ill hair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139 clients during an 8-day period, found that none of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection. The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as required by local ordinance and company policy at the time.44'
However reading this actual study:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm
They tested less than 50% of the 139 clients which make the study invalid and shouldn't form part of the CDC recommendations. The response rate was so pitiful. We could have found that the 72 people who refused to be tested were all Covid positive.
This Danish study was widely anticipated and was supposed to be published by Boston Medical Journal among others however with the results show negligible difference between wearers and non-wearers it was relegated to here:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817
Fuck me, Andy didnt read his own links hahaah (Just like RichBShorts).
They seem to have moved away to a secret bunker? Lets see.
what, me? Read my post - I'm not arguing the topic, just your hilarious approach to arguing!
(Made funnier by the fact drcarlos actually read the response and pointed out it's content to you!)
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:20 pm
by Nefarious
Do people really still need it explained that a basic cloth mask isn't there to protect the wearer, they're there to protect everyone else *from* the wearer?
Lab studies showing that cloth masks are less effective at particle filtration than military grade respirators are both unsurprising and spectacularly miss the point.
Is it a) outright stupidity b) willful ignorance c) attitudes so single-mindedly led by total selfishness that the concept of societal benefit is alien?
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:22 pm
by Broccers
Rich B wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:12 pm
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:52 pm
Broccers wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:53 pm
Fuck me, Andy didnt read his own links hahaah (Just like RichBShorts).
They seem to have moved away to a secret bunker? Lets see.
what, me? Read my post - I'm not arguing the topic, just your hilarious approach to arguing!
(Made funnier by the fact drcarlos actually read the response and pointed out it's content to you!)
Youve lost the plot. Probs an arrogant london thing.
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:24 pm
by Broccers
Nefarious wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:20 pm
Do people really still need it explained that a basic cloth mask isn't there to protect the wearer, they're there to protect everyone else *from* the wearer?
Lab studies showing that cloth masks are less effective at particle filtration than military grade respirators are both unsurprising and spectacularly miss the point.
Brainwashed.
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:31 pm
by Rich B
I'm no mask fan, but if you had to sit in a room (maybe one about the size of a train carriage) with 20 other people and maybe one of them had C19, would you prefer if:
1. Everyone had a mask on.
2. You had a mask on and no one else.
3. Everyone else had a mask on except you.
4. No one had a mask on.
Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:41 pm
by Jobbo
Jobbo wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:35 am
__CA__ wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 10:29 pm
Wow can someone précis the previous 385 pages please?
Broccers is a vaccine and lockdown sceptic, everyone else seems to respect the science.
HTH
Don't know if Clive saw this the first time but it seems worth repeating
