Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » Welp. Its official. Masks are useless.
  1. Results 31 to 60 of 111
  2. Page 2 of 4
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  8. 4
  10. Last

Thread: Welp. Its official. Masks are useless.

post 1623079451 11-19-2020, 08:28 AM
-
#31
  1. frutistafreeze
  2. Registered User
  1. frutistafreeze
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Feb 2011
  4. Posts: 15,574
  5. Rep Power: 33457
Originally Posted By Supaduck0⏩
lol
Actually plays perfectly into all of this. Tell people that masks work, when in reality they don't and are more likely to get sick because of them. The infection rates will continue to rise even with the mask mandates, people will panic and be open to even stricter regulations.
post 1623079681 11-19-2020, 08:31 AM
-
#32
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 19,738
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 249353
Originally Posted By Ninshark⏩
read my comment. plus you should already know that masks don't prevent contraction. they're "supposed" to prevent spread, which this study did NOT test.
People who wore masks actually were actually at slightly higher risk of contracting it than non mask users.

Why would that be? One would assume the people in both tests were physically around the same number of people also wearing masks.

Why would the contraction rate be higher when wearing masks? If they did nothing to prevent catching COVID, and only worked to prevent others from catching it, why did mask weares catch it more frequently?

Also, when mask wearing was implemented why are transmission rates going up?

We as a world are missing something.
See BrianDaMans sig.

Rep SoapKing on sight crew.
Semi tradie crew
lol@tradies crew
Certified HTC
post 1623079831 11-19-2020, 08:33 AM
-
#33
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  3. Join Date: Feb 2015
  4. Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. Posts: 43,319
  6. Rep Power: 219409
I have my doubts about how effective masks are, especially the non-medical ones. Basically cases were dropping to fairly low levels before the mask mandate here.


But that study was looking infection rates for the user that wears the mask versus somebody that isn't wearing the mask. The argument for masks is that you wear it to protect other people not yourself. It also states that it didn't test source control for the infection.

I think possibly those who wore masks probably thought they were more effective in preventing the spread of the virus so they probably engaged in more "risky" behaviour such as large gatherings which could explain higher infection rates. I think we all know that maintaining distance is way more effective than a mask, you're probably not going to catch a virus from some dude a few metres away from you and that being in close contact with a person regardless of having a mask or not puts you at a much higher risk.

Would be interesting to see if a RCT study could be designed around tracking the rate of spread and infection rates between communities that wear masks vs communities that don't wear masks, rather than simply an individual that wears/not wears a mask and try to control the other variables at play there.

you can't conclude on this study that masks are useless. at the same token, there really isn't any compelling evidence that cloth masks significantly reduce the infection rates and spread in a community to the point where a mask mandate is justified.
positivity brah crew
dont take my posts too srs crew srs
JFL @ everything crew
lol @ tradies srs crew
BIG LOL @ sky tradies srs crew (RealAesthetic)
indian crew
living in clown world crew so screw it crew
anti-degen crew
post 1623079961 11-19-2020, 08:35 AM
-
#34
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 19,738
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 249353
To add to my point, I have less and less confidence that anyone is in charge and anyone has even the foggiest idea of what to actually do.

I will continue to wear a mask where required, but feel bad for citycells.

Lives being fukked over because no one really knows what the fuk to do.
See BrianDaMans sig.

Rep SoapKing on sight crew.
Semi tradie crew
lol@tradies crew
Certified HTC
post 1623080011 11-19-2020, 08:36 AM
-
#35
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 28,218
  6. Rep Power: 130149
Originally Posted By sooby⏩
But that study was looking infection rates for the user that wears the mask versus somebody that isn't wearing the mask. The argument for masks is that you wear it to protect other people not yourself. It also states that it didn't test source control for the infection.
Seems to me it's an untestable, or at least untested, hypothesis. Designing policy based on such a hypothesis while claiming to be scientific is what governments are doing.
post 1623080021 11-19-2020, 08:36 AM
-
#36
  1. Ninshark
  2. Registered User
  1. Ninshark
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2015
  4. Age: 35
  5. Posts: 1,753
  6. Rep Power: 3459
Originally Posted By PenorBrahNoHomo⏩
A study like that is simply impossible. And besides, there is no reason to think that if masks don't work in one direction that they would work in the other. Sorry maskcels, you are just plain wrong.
there isn't anything plain wrong besides the article in question. I already know such a study would pretty much be impossible, but I'm just telling you how science should be done. If it's not done to those standards, we cannot draw any useful conclusions about it. and regarding directionality, I see what you're saying, but you're looking at it in a very narrow way. You're only looking at it as the virus particles traveling through the mask material, but you should also consider imperfect fit and the direction of air flow. If the droplets are already in the air, then they'll go through the holes due to imperfect fit and the mask-wearer probably would still catch the virus. So a study should look at the concentration of droplets in the air. If the mask-wearer is sick, we may hypothesize that the droplets are caught by the mask material and a few slip out backwards through the holes of improper fit. This study should look at whether mask-wearing reduces the amt of total droplets that end up airborne to test that claim. Instead though, the study just said something we already knew, but it adds more negativity toward masks. It's really quite lame, just like if some kid's pants fly is open in class and everyone laughs at him for 5 minutes, and then stop, then another kid makes the intelligent comment, hey your fly is open. It's really kind of a useless comment.
Goals:

-stop being fat

01/01/2022
209 - 206 - 199

in gradschool
single and hating it
post 1623080111 11-19-2020, 08:37 AM
-
#37
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 19,738
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 249353
Originally Posted By sooby⏩
I have my doubts about how effective masks are, especially the non-medical ones. Basically cases were dropping to fairly low levels before the mask mandate here.


But that study was looking infection rates for the user that wears the mask versus somebody that isn't wearing the mask. The argument for masks is that you wear it to protect other people not yourself. It also states that it didn't test source control for the infection.

I think possibly those who wore masks probably thought they were more effective in preventing the spread of the virus so they probably engaged in more "risky" behaviour such as large gatherings which could explain higher infection rates. I think we all know that maintaining distance is way more effective than a mask, you're probably not going to catch a virus from some dude a few metres away from you.

Would be interesting to see if a RCT study could be designed around tracking the rate of spread and infection rates between communities that wear masks vs communities that don't wear masks, rather than simply an individual that wears/not wears a mask and try to control the other variables at play there.

you can't conclude on this study that masks are useless. at the same token, there really isn't any compelling evidence that cloth masks significantly reduce the infection rates and spread in a community to the point where a mask mandate is justified.
No one has any fukkin idea.

I'm just trying to avoid people. lol
See BrianDaMans sig.

Rep SoapKing on sight crew.
Semi tradie crew
lol@tradies crew
Certified HTC
post 1623080181 11-19-2020, 08:39 AM
-
#38
  1. elterrible987
  2. Banned
  1. elterrible987
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Posts: 51,859
  5. Rep Power: 0
but muh dropplets

but south korea


inb4 panicels argue with this medical study claiming they know better science than the experts because this was disproves the other BS we have been fed
post 1623080191 11-19-2020, 08:39 AM
-
#39
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 51
  6. Posts: 14,623
  7. Rep Power: 106507
Originally Posted By Titansfan08⏩
Saw a chick wearing 2 masks yesterday also one wearing goggles and a mask, lmao peak clown world
I saw a guy with an illuminated helmet driving.

Its like a competition to prove you how pro mask you are.
Eat in a deficit to lose weight.
Hit your protein and fat minimums to stay healthy and keep your gainz.
Lift heavy and do HIIT to look and feel awesome.
Use the internet to learn why you should do these things and how to do these things.
post 1623080231 11-19-2020, 08:39 AM
-
#40
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 27,464
  5. Rep Power: 171374
Originally Posted By Hutrapper⏩
Canadian gubbment says we should wear masks while fukking.

Real quick, how does one perform oral sex with a mask on? Or is it like eating in a restaurant, mask while walking to table only? Masks during foreplay, but you can remove it for other actions?

Just tryin to stay legal brah. In 4 answers..
In the UK they banned sex with someone you don't live with weeks ago.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
post 1623080251 11-19-2020, 08:39 AM
-
#41
  1. Jatt24
  2. Registered User
  1. Jatt24
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2020
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 1,051
  6. Rep Power: 2006
Well they told me that if I voted for joe Biden, I can’t get the virus.

So jakes on you OP
Been here since 2010. Lost my old account.
post 1623080311 11-19-2020, 08:40 AM
-
#42
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 28,218
  6. Rep Power: 130149
Originally Posted By Ninshark⏩
there isn't anything plain wrong besides the article in question. I already know such a study would pretty much be impossible, but I'm just telling you how science should be done. If it's not done to those standards, we cannot draw any useful conclusions about it. and regarding directionality, I see what you're saying, but you're looking at it in a very narrow way. You're only looking at it as the virus particles traveling through the mask material, but you should also consider imperfect fit and the direction of air flow. If the droplets are already in the air, then they'll go through the holes due to imperfect fit and the mask-wearer probably would still catch the virus. So a study should look at the concentration of droplets in the air. If the mask-wearer is sick, we may hypothesize that the droplets are caught by the mask material and a few slip out backwards through the holes of improper fit. This study should look at whether mask-wearing reduces the amt of total droplets that end up airborne to test that claim. Instead though, the study just said something we already knew, but it adds more negativity toward masks. It's really quite lame, just like if some kid's pants fly is open in class and everyone laughs at him for 5 minutes, and then stop, then another kid makes the intelligent comment, hey your fly is open. It's really kind of a useless comment.
Maskcels are wrong, because they assume masks prevent spread, with no good evidence, and also claim to be following the science but ignore science which goes against their assumption.


My government said this earlier in the year, and then proceeded to enforce mask mandates. Why would they do that?



post 1623080321 11-19-2020, 08:40 AM
-
#43
  1. BloodFireDeath
  2. Registered User
  1. BloodFireDeath
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Posts: 5,096
  5. Rep Power: 20639
What type of masks are they talking about? Incel variety cloth, simple surgical masks or n95s?
post 1623080331 11-19-2020, 08:40 AM
-
#44
  1. elterrible987
  2. Banned
  1. elterrible987
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Posts: 51,859
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Ninshark⏩
there isn't anything plain wrong besides the article in question. I already know such a study would pretty much be impossible, but I'm just telling you how science should be done. If it's not done to those standards, we cannot draw any useful conclusions about it. and regarding directionality, I see what you're saying, but you're looking at it in a very narrow way. You're only looking at it as the virus particles traveling through the mask material, but you should also consider imperfect fit and the direction of air flow. If the droplets are already in the air, then they'll go through the holes due to imperfect fit and the mask-wearer probably would still catch the virus. So a study should look at the concentration of droplets in the air. If the mask-wearer is sick, we may hypothesize that the droplets are caught by the mask material and a few slip out backwards through the holes of improper fit. This study should look at whether mask-wearing reduces the amt of total droplets that end up airborne to test that claim. Instead though, the study just said something we already knew, but it adds more negativity toward masks. It's really quite lame, just like if some kid's pants fly is open in class and everyone laughs at him for 5 minutes, and then stop, then another kid makes the intelligent comment, hey your fly is open. It's really kind of a useless comment.
they got laws and executive orders saying we must wear masks of arbitrary and unknown filtration ability from whatever material of our choosing. A lot of the laws allow for a face shield in lieu of a mask. These mask and face shields are not required to meet any spec or certification.

its a fuking joke

muh science
post 1623080421 11-19-2020, 08:41 AM
-
#45
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 19,738
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 249353
Originally Posted By Ninshark⏩
there isn't anything plain wrong besides the article in question. I already know such a study would pretty much be impossible, but I'm just telling you how science should be done. If it's not done to those standards, we cannot draw any useful conclusions about it. and regarding directionality, I see what you're saying, but you're looking at it in a very narrow way. You're only looking at it as the virus particles traveling through the mask material, but you should also consider imperfect fit and the direction of air flow. If the droplets are already in the air, then they'll go through the holes due to imperfect fit and the mask-wearer probably would still catch the virus. So a study should look at the concentration of droplets in the air. If the mask-wearer is sick, we may hypothesize that the droplets are caught by the mask material and a few slip out backwards through the holes of improper fit. This study should look at whether mask-wearing reduces the amt of total droplets that end up airborne to test that claim. Instead though, the study just said something we already knew, but it adds more negativity toward masks. It's really quite lame, just like if some kid's pants fly is open in class and everyone laughs at him for 5 minutes, and then stop, then another kid makes the intelligent comment, hey your fly is open. It's really kind of a useless comment.
although its a very weak correlation, based on this study it could be argued that for the individual wearer, wearing a mask could increase your individual chances of catching it.
See BrianDaMans sig.

Rep SoapKing on sight crew.
Semi tradie crew
lol@tradies crew
Certified HTC
post 1623080451 11-19-2020, 08:42 AM
-
#46
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 19,738
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 249353
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
In the UK they banned sex with someone you don't live with weeks ago.
da fuk
See BrianDaMans sig.

Rep SoapKing on sight crew.
Semi tradie crew
lol@tradies crew
Certified HTC
post 1623080461 11-19-2020, 08:42 AM
-
#47
  1. ImpressiveGainz
  2. Registered Troll, PhD
  1. ImpressiveGainz
  2. Registered Troll, PhD
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: New Braunfels, TX
  5. Posts: 16,745
  6. Rep Power: 183851



Wear your mask, pleb! The important people have things to do!
Best thread: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=168274783
***Black Crew*** (emeritus)
post 1623080501 11-19-2020, 08:43 AM
-
#48
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 27,464
  5. Rep Power: 171374
Originally Posted By nosirrahx⏩
I saw a guy with an illuminated helmet driving.

Its like a competition to prove you how pro mask you are.
I know people that are posting selfies of driving with a mask on. By themselves of course. On election day, that "I voted" sticker had to be seen too. Gonna break their backs if they try virtue signaling any harder.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
post 1623080681 11-19-2020, 08:45 AM
-
#49
  1. Slie
  2. Registered User
  1. Slie
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2007
  4. Location: Ontario, Canada
  5. Posts: 3,668
  6. Rep Power: 3923
Originally Posted By Hutrapper⏩
People who wore masks actually were actually at slightly higher risk of contracting it than non mask users.

Why would that be? One would assume the people in both tests were physically around the same number of people also wearing masks.

Why would the contraction rate be higher when wearing masks? If they did nothing to prevent catching COVID, and only worked to prevent others from catching it, why did mask weares catch it more frequently?

Also, when mask wearing was implemented why are transmission rates going up?

We as a world are missing something.
One situation wearing a mask can increase your chances of contracting a disease is a false sense of security while misusing the mask.

Let's be real. A lot of people wearing masks don't know how to wear masks. They are a tool only as effective as the person using that tool. How many people sanitize their hands before putting on a mask, put on a mask by the straps only and don't touch the face covering? How many people re-adjust their masks only after sanitizing their hands? How many people wear masks around their chins, over their mouth but under their nose, change their masks after they become wet from moisture? How many people reuse their masks, pull down their mask to get a breath of fresh air, pull down their masks to cough/sneeze? I've seen all these examples of how not to wear mask pretty much daily.

If someone was sneezing/coughing towards you right now. Would you rather them have a mask on or would you be fine if they had no mask?
post 1623080771 11-19-2020, 08:46 AM
-
#50
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  3. Join Date: Feb 2015
  4. Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. Posts: 43,319
  6. Rep Power: 219409
Originally Posted By PenorBrahNoHomo⏩
Seems to me it's an untestable, or at least untested, hypothesis. Designing policy based on such a hypothesis while claiming to be scientific is what governments are doing.
I don't think it's exactly impossible, there are probably some indirect and creative ways that it can be done that can test it as best as possible. There have already been some studies testing it but it was in a lab so it lacks some ecological validity, but at least there is something that could suggest it could protect others in an actual community setting. i'm not necessarily opposed to wearing a mask in general in places of business but obv govt is using this to fuel more draconian measures like full on lockdowns and mandatory vaccines which I disagree with.


I've lost alot of trust in the government and health officials as it is so I'm going to take anything that they say or recommend with a grain of salt. They've been contradictory with their recommendations and have shown they are just making stuff up as they go along.
positivity brah crew
dont take my posts too srs crew srs
JFL @ everything crew
lol @ tradies srs crew
BIG LOL @ sky tradies srs crew (RealAesthetic)
indian crew
living in clown world crew so screw it crew
anti-degen crew
post 1623080781 11-19-2020, 08:46 AM
-
#51
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 19,738
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 249353
Originally Posted By Slie⏩
One situation wearing a mask can increase your chances of contracting a disease is a false sense of security while misusing the mask.

Let's be real. A lot of people wearing masks don't know how to wear masks. They are a tool only as effective as the person using that tool. How many people sanitize their hands before putting on a mask, put on a mask by the straps only and don't touch the face covering? How many people re-adjust their masks only after sanitizing their hands? How many people wear masks around their chins, over their mouth but under their nose, change their masks after they become wet from moisture? How many people reuse their masks, pull down their mask to get a breath of fresh air, pull down their masks to cough/sneeze? I've seen all these examples of how not to wear mask pretty much daily.

If someone was sneezing/coughing towards you right now. Would you rather them have a mask on or would you be fine if they had no mask?
Like I always say, you adjust your wet ass mask, then grab a door handle.

I think contact transmission is bigger than people think.
See BrianDaMans sig.

Rep SoapKing on sight crew.
Semi tradie crew
lol@tradies crew
Certified HTC
post 1623080831 11-19-2020, 08:47 AM
-
#52
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 28,218
  6. Rep Power: 130149
Originally Posted By Slie⏩
If someone was sneezing/coughing towards you right now. Would you rather them have a mask on or would you be fine if they had no mask?
Weak logic, the answer would be the same pre-covid. You think everyone should have been muzzled 100% of the time since forever?
post 1623080901 11-19-2020, 08:49 AM
-
#53
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 19,738
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 249353
Originally Posted By PenorBrahNoHomo⏩
Weak logic, the answer would be the same pre-covid. You think everyone should have been muzzled 100% of the time since forever?
I once was on a 12 hour flight to Hong Kong four years ago with an Asian fella behind me coughing directly on the back of my head the whole flight.

That was nice.
See BrianDaMans sig.

Rep SoapKing on sight crew.
Semi tradie crew
lol@tradies crew
Certified HTC
post 1623080931 11-19-2020, 08:49 AM
-
#54
  1. Ninshark
  2. Registered User
  1. Ninshark
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2015
  4. Age: 35
  5. Posts: 1,753
  6. Rep Power: 3459
Originally Posted By Hutrapper⏩
Why would that be? One would assume the people in both tests were physically around the same number of people also wearing masks.
I seriously don't think you understand the ramifications of the quotes you mentioned. both groups were indeed around the same amount of people who wear masks, but that just means both groups are exposed to the same amount of pathogens - if that amount is high enough, then both groups are going to get it. there are holes due to improper fit of the masks so you're going to get it. the 2 groups got the virus because other people in the community were spreading it.
Originally Posted By Hutrapper⏩
Why would the contraction rate be higher when wearing masks? If they did nothing to prevent catching COVID, and only worked to prevent others from catching it, why did mask weares catch it more frequently?
I think you answered your question yourself, they did nothing to prevent catching, only worked to prevent spread, of course the mask wearer would catch it. Did we ask if the other people in the community got it?? Nope. If they work to prevent spread, then we must test for the spread. You can't test for contraction when you know they're supposed to prevent spread. Geez... think man. I'm just trying to help people understand proper science.
Originally Posted By Hutrapper⏩
Also, when mask wearing was implemented why are transmission rates going up?
.
another easy question - did we ever get to find out how high the transmission rate would go up if mask-wearing weren't implemented? It could be the case that if nobody wore masks at all since March 2020 that the transmission rate would be the same, or even higher, but we don't have those numbers. yes the transmission rate is going up, but I also know most people don't wear masks unless they're told to. So basically, we have so many other variables that are contributing to the transmission rate. You cannot draw any conclusions about wearing masks unless you are certain everyone is wearing them when they are supposed to.
Goals:

-stop being fat

01/01/2022
209 - 206 - 199

in gradschool
single and hating it
post 1623081011 11-19-2020, 08:50 AM
-
#55
  1. wangbadan
  2. son of the turtle
  1. wangbadan
  2. son of the turtle
  3. Join Date: May 2011
  4. Location: Maryland, United States
  5. Posts: 2,174
  6. Rep Power: 7961
If you actually want to talk results of the study you better know how confidence intervals and p-values work. But you probably don’t
*master of science crew*
*master of magic crew*
*rock climber crew*

btag: heygorgeous#1322
post 1623081291 11-19-2020, 08:53 AM
-
#56
  1. Ninshark
  2. Registered User
  1. Ninshark
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2015
  4. Age: 35
  5. Posts: 1,753
  6. Rep Power: 3459
Originally Posted By PenorBrahNoHomo⏩
Maskcels are wrong, because they assume masks prevent spread, with no good evidence, and also claim to be following the science but ignore science which goes against their assumption.


My government said this earlier in the year, and then proceeded to enforce mask mandates. Why would they do that?



would love to read this when I get this chance. I'm not a maskcel, that's just your bigotry because we have different opinions. You've settled on one thing and I am still open. Don't you get it though? OP made a statement about masks due to an article he brought up. Wouldn't it be better if he linked your article instead? The article he linked is bunk. and does everything wrong. I was literally trying to help you guys come up with a stronger argument, but you guys mistook my disagreement as hostility and ended up being hostile yourself.
Goals:

-stop being fat

01/01/2022
209 - 206 - 199

in gradschool
single and hating it
post 1623081351 11-19-2020, 08:55 AM
-
#57
  1. ko300zx
  2. Registered User
  1. ko300zx
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2010
  4. Location: San Diego, California, United States
  5. Posts: 15,405
  6. Rep Power: 183213
Originally Posted By Ninshark⏩
you were inb4 me, but the study did something wrong and looked at contraction rates from wearing the mask. It's already well-established that you can get the virus if you wear it. they should be looking at rate a spread FROM mask wearers, not TO, but that's going to be tough because a lot of people don't wear masks, and only wear masks when they're supposed to.

the study is just totally flawed. It tried to compare contraction rates between these two groups, but they were put into their respective communities where they experience the same spread and amt of pathogens in the air. You're going to get it regardless whether you wear the mask or not if it's already in the air, and we already know this. If you want to actually compare masks vs no masks, then you need to test what the masks claim to do, which is prevent the wearer from spreading. In that case, the mask group can ONLY ever be around other people wearing masks, and the no mask group can ONLY ever be around people not wearing masks. There's no way to control this in a city... It seems pretty obvious why they got the results that they got, the community spread both groups were exposed to was the same, and we already know that you still get it if you wear the mask, we should be more interested in if you still give it if you wear the mask.
That would require you to find a bunch of infected individuals and send them out in the community and have them cough all over everyone, while wearing a mask, to see if they spread the disease. Something tells me that study isn't going to happen...
post 1623081421 11-19-2020, 08:56 AM
-
#58
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 28,218
  6. Rep Power: 130149
Originally Posted By Ninshark⏩
You're only looking at it as the virus particles traveling through the mask material, but you should also consider imperfect fit and the direction of air flow. If the droplets are already in the air, then they'll go through the holes due to imperfect fit and the mask-wearer probably would still catch the virus.
Air flows in and out when you breathe. If they can get in then they can get out, so the inefficacy of masks to prevent contraction obviously implies their inefficacy in preventing spread. Why are maskcels so determined to argue that masks work?
Originally Posted By Ninshark⏩
would love to read this when I get this chance. I'm not a maskcel, that's just your bigotry because we have different opinions. You've settled on one thing and I am still open. Don't you get it though? OP made a statement about masks due to an article he brought up. Wouldn't it be better if he linked your article instead? The article he linked is bunk. and does everything wrong. I was literally trying to help you guys come up with a stronger argument, but you guys mistook my disagreement as hostility and ended up being hostile yourself.
No, I am open to the possibility that masks work, if evidence can be provided. Until then my assumption is that they don't, your assumption seems to be that they do. Why?
post 1623081471 11-19-2020, 08:56 AM
-
#59
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  1. Hutrapper
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 19,738
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 249353
Originally Posted By Ninshark⏩
I seriously don't think you understand the ramifications of the quotes you mentioned. both groups were indeed around the same amount of people who wear masks, but that just means both groups are exposed to the same amount of pathogens - if that amount is high enough, then both groups are going to get it. there are holes due to improper fit of the masks so you're going to get it. the 2 groups got the virus because other people in the community were spreading it.



I think you answered your question yourself, they did nothing to prevent catching, only worked to prevent spread, of course the mask wearer would catch it. Did we ask if the other people in the community got it?? Nope. If they work to prevent spread, then we must test for the spread. You can't test for contraction when you know they're supposed to prevent spread. Geez... think man. I'm just trying to help people understand proper science.



another easy question - did we ever get to find out how high the transmission rate would go up if mask-wearing weren't implemented? It could be the case that if nobody wore masks at all since March 2020 that the transmission rate would be the same, or even higher, but we don't have those numbers. yes the transmission rate is going up, but I also know most people don't wear masks unless they're told to. So basically, we have so many other variables that are contributing to the transmission rate. You cannot draw any conclusions about wearing masks unless you are certain everyone is wearing them when they are supposed to.
so your argument is basically hinging on "people werent wearing their masks peoperly"

So in other words, just like everyone else in the world?

Also, we have to assume the variables in each group are the same. The same number of people walking around wearing them, the same number of infected people around test subjects.

So you suggesting the rate of infection in the mask group being higher is due to improper fit?

Shouldnt the maskless people get it far more if your argument is the masked people are getting it more because their masks arent fitting right?

I will concede the correlation is weak, but its there.
See BrianDaMans sig.

Rep SoapKing on sight crew.
Semi tradie crew
lol@tradies crew
Certified HTC
post 1623081551 11-19-2020, 08:57 AM
-
#60
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  3. Join Date: Feb 2015
  4. Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. Posts: 43,319
  6. Rep Power: 219409
Originally Posted By Slie⏩
If someone was sneezing/coughing towards you right now. Would you rather them have a mask on or would you be fine if they had no mask?
That doesn't really address anything. In a real life scenario nobody is coughing or sneezing at you. If people are coughing and sneezing they are probably staying at home. Mask usage pre-covid was used so that people who are sick and exhibited symptoms could go out in public and minimize spread via any coughing or sneezing that may happen, and they weren't wearing cloth masks.

But now you are mandating everybody to wear a mask, the vast majority of whom are asymptomatic or don't have the virus.
positivity brah crew
dont take my posts too srs crew srs
JFL @ everything crew
lol @ tradies srs crew
BIG LOL @ sky tradies srs crew (RealAesthetic)
indian crew
living in clown world crew so screw it crew
anti-degen crew
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts